How Third Parties Die
This is what it looks like when a political party's branches start to go their own way.

The Libertarian Party has always been fractious, but its infighting has intensified since the Mises Caucus, a faction opposed to "wokeism," took control of the organization. Many of the party's more socially liberal members have exited since the takeover—and in some cases, they're trying to take the party's state affiliates with them. In New Mexico, two rival groups, one of them attached to the national organization, claim to be the real Libertarian Party. A similar conflict is playing out in Massachusetts. And in Virginia, the dissidents announced that they were dissolving the party entirely. At press time, the national Libertarian Party was working on assembling a new Virginia affiliate.
We don't know who will ultimately control these institutions. But we do know what it looks like when a political party's branches start to go their own way.
***
Take the Reform Party, whose roots go back to Ross Perot's 1992 presidential campaign. The Texas businessman ran as an independent that year, but several of his supporters formed parties at the state level. By the time Perot launched the national Reform Party in 1995, some of these mini-parties were already contesting regional races. Minnesota's Independence Party got its first municipal official elected in 1993, for example, and by 1999 it had produced a governor.
Perot made another run for the White House in 1996, and the party started to fall apart almost immediately after that. In 1997, a dissident faction formed the American Reform Party, which promptly faded into obscurity. When I covered the Reform Party's national convention in 2000, I was actually covering two conventions: As the main event was nominating the paleoconservative pundit Pat Buchanan, a rump down the street was coronating a transcendental meditation enthusiast named John Hagelin. The two tickets' lawyers then battled each other for the right to the Reform Party's ballot lines (and to millions in matching funds). Meanwhile, Perot endorsed the Republican.
The husk of the national Reform Party survives, but the real action has been in the states, where many affiliates (including that Minnesota crew) separated from the national organization. Some of these groups took on their own distinctive identities. In New York City, the Independence Party fell into the hands of Fred Newman, a Marxist psychotherapist whose following was often called a cult. The party gave Michael Bloomberg its ballot line in 2001, a boost that arguably propelled him into the mayor's office. Bloomberg repaid the favor with a $230,000 city grant to one of Newman's groups.
After New York's Independence Party broke with the Reform Party, loyalists responded by setting up the Reform Party of New York. After a while, a group led by Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa took that one over, and it seceded from the national party too. There wasn't a coherent movement here anymore, but there were ballot lines. And ballot access is a valuable property—valuable enough for fragments of the old Perot coalition to persist as zombies long after the original crusade had died.
***
When George Wallace built the American Independent Party (AIP) as a vehicle for his 1968 presidential campaign, the Alabama segregationist had no interest in starting a permanent third party. Wallace didn't even let the AIP establish itself in his home state. (Instead he appeared as the Democratic nominee, and the Democrats' national candidate had to run on a third-party ticket.) Yet some AIP affiliates put up candidates for other offices, and those affiliates persisted after Election Day. In 1972 they backed a new presidential ticket, which received a respectable vote total of 1,100,896—far less than Wallace, but still much more than the average third-party offering.
The coalition soon broke in two: The American Party was in the John Birch Society's orbit, while the American Independent Party was more likely to nominate notorious segregationists. It was rare for both groups to have a presence in the same state; most affiliates just moved into one camp or another. Some branches started striking out on their own, as when the Kansas wing of the American Party ignored 1980's national nominee and gave its ballot line to a local gadfly.
As new national right-wing parties formed, state parties alternately affiliated and disaffiliated with them. In the early '90s, for example, a bunch of state groups—some of them remnants of the Wallace diaspora—came together to form the outfit today known as the Constitution Party. The California AIP, having recently ended a dalliance with the Populist Party, attached itself to the new national coalition for several cycles. But a 2008 fight over whether to support the Iraq War led it to federate instead with a group called America's Independent Party. In 2016, the California party endorsed Donald Trump. And in 2020, its standard-bearer was also the nominee of…the Reform Party.
***
The American Independent Party and the Reform Party were both founded to serve a celebrity candidate's ambitions, which probably guaranteed instability when that candidate left. The Libertarian Party does not have that problem. So let's end with a group that was built around an ideology, not a personality—and that found its own way to fall apart.
After contesting almost every presidential election from 1904 through 1956 (and winning many local races too), the Socialist Party started endorsing Democratic candidates instead. Having hitched their star to organized labor at a time when some of the biggest unions were run by cold warriors, many party leaders wound up supporting the Vietnam War. A more militant faction—called the Debs Caucus, after early party leader Eugene Debs—didn't like that. But it wasn't in charge.
The conflict came to a head in 1972, when the organization adopted a new name: Social Democrats USA (SDUSA). The disgusted Debs Caucus exited and formed the Socialist Party USA, which was soon nominating presidential candidates again; it claimed that it was the legitimate successor to the old Socialist Party. A second breakaway group, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, aimed to keep working within the Democratic Party without moving as far to the right as the SDUSA.
The SDUSA eventually became so hawkish that some members got jobs in the Reagan administration. The organization finally dried up in the early 21st century, to the point where just one tiny local affiliate in Pennsylvania seemed to be left—and it wasn't entirely clear whether this was a genuine surviving branch or just claimed to be. Either way, it eventually split into two factions, each declaring itself the legitimate heir to Debs' throne.
The Socialist Party USA is bigger than that, but it's still pretty small: Its 2016 presidential candidate got only 2,705 votes. But the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee evolved into the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and it's been booming. In the wake of Bernie Sanders' unexpectedly popular socialist campaign for the Democrats' 2016 presidential nomination, the DSA's membership leapt from less than 10,000 to nearly 100,000. The group grew more radical too. Three decades ago, the most prominent DSA member to hold elected office was New York Mayor David Dinkins, who rarely touted his socialist connections. Today, by contrast, DSA candidates often speak forthrightly of public ownership.
Years after the Socialist Party first sold out to the Democrats and then splintered into pieces, the organization's old ideals turned out to still have some juice in them. If you're a Libertarian worried about the future of your party, that might reassure you.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "The Life Cycle of a Third Party."
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 New Hampshire LP has used the porcupine in a Gadsden-esque logo.
What is the difference between the DNC headquarters and a porcupine?
A porcupine has the pricks on the outside.
And making love to both of them is done very carefully!...So I'm led to understand! 😉
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
"The Libertarian Party has always been fractious, but its infighting has intensified since the Mises Caucus, a faction opposed to "wokeism," took control of the organization. Many of the party's more socially liberal members have exited since the takeover—and in some cases, they're trying to take the party's state affiliates with them."
In other words, the social liberals lost control, fair and square, and the decided to go home. They cannot compromise, they demand that more socially conservative wing sit down and shut up and support the Party. "Woke" is more important to them than liberty.
I was thinking this more seemed to imply that the woke wing intends to be absorbed into the Democrat party, and the more radically libertarian mises caucus will still be kicking twenty years from now. Influencing politics in their direction.
My last month's online earning was $17930 just by doing an easy job obout 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $12k+ easily without any special online experience. Easiest home based online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 2 to 3 hrs a day. I have joined this job aEverybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website........
.
See this article for more information————————>>>OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
Thanks for making it so easy to know who to place on Mute by using the dog-whistle terms "woke" and "Democrat" (sic) Party.
Whenever you see someone use the term “dog whistle” you know you’re dealing with a woke retard.
There's also their need to tell people they are going to block/mute them. It's like watching pre-school children fight.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
And the one who hears a dog-whistle is a dog. 🙂
The people most upset with the use of Democrat instead of Democratic party are democrats. Their party is not democratic.
Fun fact, if you can hear the dog-whistle it's cause you are the dog. Now, roll over.
Yes, the people who were afraid to be unabashedly libertarian were voted out, and they quit only after trying to steal whatever they could, of course -- name, assets, etc.
It should be pointed out here that the use of "socially liberal" as referred to here means accepting of marxist post modernism as a truth. It is literally the adoption of non truths for political and social reasons. A movement that demands obsequious behaviors. It is not libertarian. They can dress as they want, they can't demand I accept their mental illness.
See, if you dropped the "marxist" from your screed you would perfectly describe cultural conservatives. The Mises Caucus is just paleoconservatism dressed in libertarian clothes. Scratch the surface and you can easily see the unabashed authoritarianism of cultural conservatives.
Libertarianism, with its principle of individual liberty, is the opposite of cultural conservatism. Cultural conservatives can never accept libertarian principles because people (and culture) are always moving forward, which is away from traditionalist norms.
Since that is unacceptable to them, they have embraced government coercion as the means to prevent people from being able to live their own lives by their own morals and ethics. They aren't hurting anyone else, but that doesn't matter to people like you, Jesse. You can't let people just live their lives by principles you don't share. You can't just leave people alone.
Jesse wouldn’t leave Brittney alone.
Before or after her conservatorship? 😉
I would disagree. What I see is the opposite of leaving people alone when I see a culture of shaming used to force people into compelled speech of identifying as he/her/they/them/fae just to start a conversation.
Compelled speech is a harm.
So, you're expecting Jesse to be part of the charade if he disagrees with it.
"culture of shaming used to force people"
Cultural changes aren't governmental force. While I find cancel culture loathsome, it's non-governmental behavior. It is the left's version of religious morality, which makes them as tiresome and idiotic as cultural conservatives. As long as it isn't legislated, it's just smug self-righteousness, not government coercion.
"compelled speech of identifying as he/her/they/them/fae"
Again, that is a social convention. Most people think that someone who refuses to address a person the way they ask is being an asshole. You aren't compelled by the government to call someone by their preferred pronoun, but you have to accept the consequences if people judge you for it.
You seem to be incapable of differentiating between government coercion (abortion bans and gay marriage bans, for example) and social and cultural conventions that you don't like. You are free to be an asshole, you just have to accept the consequences.
Note that social and cultural pressure was considered "good" by conservatives in past decades when it kept "undesirable" ideas in check, but is suddenly a bad thing when conservatives are on the shitty end of the stick. The sudden concern with cutural shaming is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
"you’re expecting Jesse to be part of the charade"
Nope. Jesse can say anything she wants. She has firmly established herself as a paleoconservative with deeply conservative cultural beliefs. She is 100% in favor of coercive government action if it enforces a cultural conservatism on everyone. She can't just let people do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone else. And no, making her mad and uncomfortable doesn't count as "hurting". People largely don't share her beliefs. Grow up and deal with it.
Libertarianism is foremost a legal philosophy. At its thinnest, it’s agnostic on questions of culture and even political organization. Progressively thick libertarians believe legal liberalism should be mirrored in civil society by cultural liberalism. Conservatively thick libertarians believe legal liberalism must be balanced and guided by a culture that values traditional institutions and moral discipline. There is no single libertarian cultural orientation, which the party historically has seen as a strength—flexibility for broader appeal—but this lack of a unified vision may be the party’s fated downfall. Cultural criticism is peripheral to philosophical libertarianism, but it isn’t peripheral to the actually held worldviews of libertarians, on either side of the culture spectrum.
While your take may be accurate or, as I see it, an oversimplification, can you agree that the use of legislation to curtail behavior that doesn't impact others (like anti-gay, anti-abortion, or medical decisions) is inherently anti-libertarian?
Of course it's an oversimplification. No, I do not believe in "anti-gay legislation" if by that you mean sodomy laws, but I suspect your definition might be a lot broader than mine. As for abortion, that it "impacts others" is undeniable, but it requires more than negative externalized impact to justify legal restrictions. The central question is whether abortion infringes on the rights of another. Like my fist and your nose, a mother's right to bodily autonomy ends where her child's right not to be violently assaulted or killed begins.
“if by that you mean sodomy laws, but I suspect your definition might be a lot broader than mine”
Probably. The sodomy battle was lost by cultural conservatives years ago, although there seems to be an appetite to revisit the issue. Right now the autboritarian instinct in cultural conservatives is aimed at reestablishing a two-tier set of rights regarding marriage. Although drag queens seem to be the new flavor of the day in terms of manufactured outrage. They are in the on-deck circle for authoritarian legislation.
"child’s right not to be violently assaulted or killed begins"
If and when anti-abortionists manage to establish their premise that a pre-viable fetus is a person with rights (something they have never tried to do), then a discussion of conflicting rights would be relevant. Until then the only person who has to be guided by that premise is the person taking it on faith. No one else.
The belief that a person is killed in an abortion is merely a personal belief. It has no objective proof behind it.
Well said!
Same thing happened with the Republicans. Once the neocons lost control of the nominating process, they all dropped out and joined the Democrats.
Showing that they did not believe a word they uttered for decades. Just as Libertarians have not meant it, either.
Actual libertarians would not have held Weld as a VP nominee.
Jesse Walker is upset, as usual, that leftist totalitarianism might be opposed.
Jesse Walker is a fine writer and knows how to say what he means. He said nothing of the sort. He is a historian of bureaucracies and boondoggles. His two books have more individualist content than any of your rants.
Libertarians have always been socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Look at any Nolan Chart. It's not about Woke, it's about it's none of the government's business. The problem with drag story hour in public libraries is not the drag queens but the public libraries.
Libertarians ARE NOT conservatives. Never have been. Libertarians want government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms. Nor are they Woke. They are against forcing cultural issues and identities upon people because libertarians are against force.
Get a fucking dictionary and look up the word. Libertarian is not a synonym for alt-right.
Again, a false interpretation of liberally social that ignores the actual culture wars from the left.
Consider what the elements of the culture war are. They are mostly conservative efforts to stop people from doing things that hurt no one or preserve special treatment and status for conservatives.
The culture war is being waged by conservatives against anyone who doesn't accept their worldview (which, depending on the issue, runs the gamut from a majority to the vast majority). If they would just accept that gay people, trans people, drag queens, abortion, recreational drugs, etc. are all perfectly acceptable choices, the culture war would vanish in an instant.
Letting people do what they want even if you don't like it is the central ideal of libertarianism. Ypu should try it some time.
Forcing women to accept men in their bathrooms and sex-specific sports, and vice-versa, isn't "leaving people alone".
This is an issue with government force. Privatize the schools and colleges, eliminate truancy laws, and fully legalize home schooling. Libertarians will always affirm the right of parents to choose the education for their non-adult children. Don't confuse Wokeism with libertarianism. The former is about controlling people, the later is about letting them make their own choices.
At the same time, forcing parents to send their children to culturally conservative schools is every bit as bad as forcing them to attend progressive identitarian schools.
"If they would just accept that gay people, trans people, drag queens, abortion, recreational drugs, etc. are all perfectly acceptable choices, the culture war would vanish in an instant."
I doubt that. Those goalposts would just keep moving as they have for years. Most people long ago "accepted" gays, but now we're told we have to accept 57 "genders" and orientations. People who fought for trans-rights are now burned at the stake because they are actual lesbians who will not date chicks-with-dicks. People who support abortion rights but not 5-minutes-before-birth abortions are called fascists.
“now we’re told we have to accept 57 “genders” and orientations”
No, you aren’t. You don’t have to accept anything. But you do have to accept the consequences if you act like an asshole.
I don’t know how many genders supposedly exist, nor do I care. If someone tells me they prefer it/its pronouns and identify as a left handed hamster I just roll my eyes (in my head) and ask it what sort of pellets it would prefer for lunch. Because it literally doesn’t make the slightest difference in my life.
Ha- nice try, because not a single protestor about drag queens in public libraries state the problem is "public libraries".
That is 100% factually incorrect.
Really? You think the drag queens aren't what's being attacked? You think it's the misuse of public spaces that has conservatives in such a tizzy?
That’s not what Anastasia said. They said “not a single protestor about drag queens in public libraries state the problem is “public libraries”.”
People here have mentioned multiple times in multiple articles to get rid of public libraries.
Yes, the cause of the protests is the existence of public libraries. The fact that the protests just happen to occur at drag queen story hours and the Proud Boys and/or other protesters never mention their opposition to public libraries is what? Coincidence?
The drag queens aren’t being “attacked” because they’re drag queens. Nobody is flipping out all of the sudden that drag queens exist and do their gay burlesque shows. They, the people who invite them, and “open-minded” parents are being “attacked” for seeking to expose young children to iconoclastic and deviant, inherently sexualized, sordid performance art. The term groomer wasn’t pulled out of thin air.
There are zero good reasons for this bizarre, repulsive urge of contemporary progressives to have kids cozy up to sexually flamboyant, crossdressing men who perform stripteases in gay bars. It isn’t cute. It isn’t brave. It isn’t LGBTQIA+ affirming (unless queer activists have determined the “MAP” identity is ready for primetime). It’s sick. And anyone with a morally sane bone in their body is grossed out by this trend.
So you disapprove of how other people parent their kids? Who cares. Your opinion on other people's parenting is worthless. It isn't your family and it isn't hurting anyone else. A libertarian would understand that.
Your bias and unfounded distaste for drag queens interacting with children isn't rationally based. You take the most extreme examples and pretend they are the norm. No one is sticking dollar bills in a g-string at a drag queen story hour. No one is putting on a sexualized performance at drag queen story hour.
The average interaction between kids and drag queens is completely devoid of sexual content. And where that line lies isn't up to you (or me) to decide. It's the parents who get to make that determination for their family.
I think that anyone who lets their kids interact with a Catholic priest is playing a dangerous game. And by "playing a dangerous game" I mean "helping groom their children to get raped". But my opinion is irrelevant to anyone else. You can't seem to grasp that concept.
Like most cultural conservatives, you are a hypocrite. You believe that parents should have control of what their children are exposed to ... unless you don't like it.
Unless a law is broken, your opinion is as relevant as your malleable and inconsistent principles.
And, for the record, if a law is broken the perpetrator should be found, arrested, and face prosecution. Even if they are Catholic priests, assuming they haven't been whisked out of the jurisdiction (or the country) by the sovereign nation of apologists, protectors, and enablers in Vatican City.
In brief, laws that deny parents the freedom to, say, homeschool their children are one thing. Laws that criminalize child sexual abuse by their parents are another. It is not "hypocritical" for advocates of parental rights to oppose the former and embrace the latter.
And yet drag queen story hour isn't "child sexual abuse" by any legal definition, nor any other reasonable definition. So it isn't different, you just support one and oppose the other and don't like being called out as a hypocrite.
The Nolan chart, or the questions on it, are out of date, and/or the term "socially liberal" is out of date. These days the "liberals" and "conservatives" are fighting a social/culture war in such a way that neither side is reliably libertarian — although temporarily the "conservatives" seem to be more libertarian because they're on the defending side of so many social issues that the most they can hope for is liberty rather than the imposition of their values on others. By 25 years ago libertarians were already substituting the phrase "socially tolerant" to better express what we want.
"Fiscally conservative" never completely accurately captured contemporary usage either, since it would include the sentiment of being "fiscally prudent" by raising taxes to reduce borrowing.
“the term “socially liberal” is out of date”
Wow. It turns out that, if you redefine terms the way you want, cultural conservatism suddenly stops being coercive.
Reasonable ideas like “live and let live”, which allow people to do things (like get an abortion, take recreational drugs that aren’t called alcohol or cannabis, take their kids to drag queen story hours, be taught that gay people and trans people exist, and other personal choices) that don’t hurt anyone else then become radically liberal.
“although temporarily the “conservatives” seem to be more libertarian because they’re on the defending side of so many social issues”
You don’t seem to understand what “defending” means. Cultural conservatives are engaged in a relentless attack against anything other people do that they don’t like. Cultural conservatives created the war. They are perpetuating it. And they are expanding it. Cultural conservatism is inherently coercive because they don’t just want to have control of their choices, they want to control everyone else’s, too. And they want to use the power of government to make it happen.
“By 25 years ago libertarians were already substituting the phrase “socially tolerant” to better express what we want.”
And cultural conservatives have fought that idea tooth and nail. Which is why libertarianism isn’t just “socially liberal”, it’s antithetical to cultural conservatism.
““Fiscally conservative” never completely accurately captured contemporary usage either”
This is true. Although the central premise, that there should be no deficit spending, is conservative. Balanced budgets are the first step, not the last, because when you are standing at the bottom of a deep hole, the first step is to stop digging.
That said, modern “conservative” economic theories aren’t conservative. They are fantasy. Supply-side economics has been tried at the federal and state level over and over since Reagan took office in 1980. It has never worked. It will never work because it is a terrible, flawed theory.
But because Rs love to pass ineffective tax cuts that add massive amounts to the deficit, contemporary conservative macroeconomics isn’t libertarian, either. The only President who has balanced the budget in my lifetime was Bill Clinton. No one else has even accomplished the first step of fiscal conservatism, eliminate the deficit.
The modern conservative movement, embodied in the Republican party, is as far from libertarian as possible. Socially coercive and fiscally irresponsible, they promote everythiing libertarians oppose.
Imagine thinking that leftists believed in “live and let live”.
Mainstream liberals aren't as coercive as mainstream conservatives. That doesn't mean they aren't at all. It means they aren't as bad as conservatives.
Try accepting that there is nuance and relative good/bad. Cultural conservatives aren't all bad, they are just worse than cultural liberals from a libertarian perspective.
Leftists aren't libertarian. Nor are cultural conservatives. On the whole, mainstream liberal beliefs and actions are more aligned with libertarian ideals than mainstream conservative beliefs, especially cultural conservative beliefs.
Mainstream liberals spent the better part of two years trying to control when people worked, where they could spend money, who they could associate with, and trying to force people to get a shot.
All of this on the backdrop of their hostility to nearly the entire Bill of Rights for at least as long as I’ve been alive.
I do agree that neither group is truly libertarian (are libertarians even), but the idea that socons are MORE coercive is freaking laughable.
Mainstream liberals aren’t as coercive as mainstream conservatives.
Stupidly wrong. The left's institutional control gives them access to and power over essentially every American at some point in their life, most for large portions of it. Their desire to coerce has increased along with this ability to the extent that they claim such that they now advance laughable assertions (the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery) and hyper-partisan absurdities (a culture of improvement and planning ahead are white supremacy) and brand anyone who disagrees a racist.
In fact the woke era is the most comprehensive mind control program ever devised.
Well that's impressively vague with a couple of fringe-level idiocies from the left that you pretend is the mainstream.
Cultural conservatives have fought to retain such things as same-sex marriage bans. They want to usher in an age of abortion bans. Their culture wars all involve preventing people from doing things that they don't approve of, regardless of the fact that none of it hurts anyone else. If the central premise of libertarianism is the NAP, cultural conservatives are the antithesis of libertarianism.
Why do conservatives believe that culture should be shaped by legislation? Why do they believe that their moral disapproval deserves to be enshrined into law and forced upon everyone else? Why do they believe that some people deserve to be able to ignore laws that everyone else has to follow?
If Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility and cultural freedom they would wipe the floor with Democrats. They are more disciplined, more cohesive, and more coordinated that the shitshow of the left.
But they aren't. They have abandoned fiscal responsibility, embraced deficit spending, and doubled down on failed supply-side economic theories. They have agressively prosecuted a morality-based culture war that ignores the deep unpopularity of their moral beliefs and the desire of most people to live their lives without government micromanagement.
Until cultural conservatives allow people to make their own moral and personal decisions on subjects that don't hurt anyone else (like marriage, contraception, abortion, transgender treatment, drag queens, etc.) they will remain the more coercive between conservatives and liberals.
The social left hardly deserves to be called “liberal” anymore. Now they’re neither economically nor socially liberal.
Emboldened, they’ve gone from seeking legal toleration and freedoms to demanding cultural acceptance, moral approval, open unreserved “affirmation,” and participatory celebration of their ever-growing list of social causes, or else.
Aw. Are they flaunting their beliefs in your face? Are they celebrating things you don't like? Are they demanding that people recognize their beliefs to be equal to those espoused by cultural conservatives? How dare they?!?!
Don't they know they should just sit down and shut up? Don't they know that they should be ashamed of what they believe? Don't they know that the only valid beliefs are conservative beliefs?
What a bunch of whiny, myopic, self-impressed bitches cultural conservatives are. People don't believe the things that they used to. People today don't see things the way you do. Things have changed, as they always do, and people have changed with the times. Grow up and deal with it.
I’m sure you’d feel exactly the same way if Christian fundamentalists were flaunting their cultural dominance while claiming to be marginalized and oppressed by “secular normativity,” campaigning for blasphemy laws to mandate affirming speech and suppress criticism that offends them or challenges their worldviews.
The alphabet rights movement has become what they have always despised. Only unlike the Religous Right, they have all the institutions of power in their corner, from Hollywood to the corporate news media to academia to Big Tech to the federal government. No amount of rights or privileges will ever be enough to appease the activists for queer liberation. They will shriek about the sanctity of their sexual habits and custom gender identities as long as open dissent is tolerated and social conservatives are allowed to sleep soundly at night.
They don’t want toleration—they have it. They want to punish anyone who doesn’t stroke their egos and back their self-image. Perhaps you didn’t catch the “or else” at the end of my previous comment. Activists routinely display textbook narcissistic rage when their conception of themselves as victim-heroes is not affirmed, and this narcissism is ubiquitous among trans activists.
I fully support the rights of Christian fundementalists to whine and cry because their myopic worldview no longer dominates American culture. It's what they do these days. For people who denied they were marginalizing people when their view predominated, the scales sure fell off their eyes quickly when the shoe was on the other foot. And there isn't even repressive legislation targeting Christians the way there were (and still are) laws targeting gays, for example. Your hypothetical is basically, "we did this in the past so they will do it to us now, even though there isn't any legislation even remotely resembling what I fear on the horizon, let alone alreasy passed.".
In fact, the special treatment of religious people has expanded in the last 5-10 years, not receded. Even Antonin Scalia knew that general laws aren't religious repression. If it applies equally to everyone, but religious people get a pass, that's the opposite of repression.
"campaigning for blasphemy laws to mandate affirming speech and suppress criticism that offends them or challenges their worldviews"
Sure, that's what's happening. Can you hear .y eyes rolling?
"No amount of rights or privileges will ever be enough to appease the activists for queer liberation."
That seems to be projection on your part, since unlike religious people there isn't a body of legislation providing special legal treatment of LGBT******** (I don't even know what they call themselves theae days) people.
"They don’t want toleration—they have it."
Given the relentless efforts of cultural conservatives to deny equal treatment in marriage, just for one example, they obviously don't. The most basic definition of toleration would require equal treatment under the law. We aren't there yet.
"Activists routinely display textbook narcissistic rage when their conception of themselves as victim-heroes is not affirmed"
Yes, but religious folks and cultural conservatives have always acted that way. They apparently can't accept that they are no better or worse than everybody else. They especially can't accept that they are no better or worse than gay people. It's aberrant behavior, but historically consistent.
On the plus side, they have largely abandoned Inquisition-type behavior except for the occasional slip-up like Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena (and friends).
The only President who has balanced the budget in my lifetime was Bill Clinton.
Clinton didn't balance the budget, he fought it every step of the way. It's revealing left wingers now try to take credit for what they oppose. It shows they understand how unpopular their own policy program is.
I missed that little nugget. That’s shrike levels of ridiculous.
Yep. Presidents don't allocate/spend money. They can (and do) veto some spending, but several examples of that are also examples of Congressional overrides.
The "surpluses" of the Clinton era came about because Newt's Congress chose to spend less (or at least, to not increase spending as fast as they might have; giving revenues a chance to catch up).
Oh, he didn't sign the legislation? Because his veto couldn't have been overruled.
And, apparently, I missed that other President that signed a balanced budget into law since 1970. What was their name? President There-Isn't-Another-One-Dumbass?
Claim that it wasn't a "real" balanced budget for whatever "yeah, but" reason you can fiction up. It doesn't change reality.
There has only been one President in my lifetime who has had a balanced budget. His name was Bill Clinton. Nothing you can say will ever change that fact. Nothing you can ever say will manufacture another period of balanced budgets, even when the Rs controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.
I don't care who does it, I just want balanced budgets. I see the parry that I used to be able to count on for fiscal responsibility devolve into a different version of Deficit Spending Democrats. It is a travesty and a disappointment.
If the budget was truly balanced or even had a surplus, then the debt would not have gone up. But there was still a few hundred billion dollars of off-budget spending that ultimately kept the debt going up each and every year of Clinton's administration.
1993 $4,411 63% Omnibus Budget Act
1994 $4,693 64% Clinton budgets
1995 $4,974 64%
1996 $5,225 64% Welfare reform
1997 $5,413 63%
1998 $5,526 60% LTCM crisis and recession
1999 $5,656 58% Glass-Steagall repealed
2000 $5,674 55% Budget surplus
So he was only the best at addint to the debt? OK, I can see that. I don't really care about Clinton, my point is that the "party of fiscal responsibility" is just as bad as Democrats when it comes to the deficit. No one is being responsible. No one is even taking the first step: stop digging. The fact that Clinton seemingly added to the debt like everyone elae juat reinforces my point.
In the past I could count on Republicans to advance policies that increased fiscal freedom, but since supply-side theories took over the mainstream Republican party I can't even count on that.
The only difference these days is who the welfare is going towards, not whether the economy has fewer barriers or whether the government is picking winners and losers. Neither party is fiscally responsible or advocates for economic freedom.
"Libertarians ARE NOT conservatives. Never have been. Libertarians want government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms. Nor are they Woke. They are against forcing cultural issues and identities upon people because libertarians are against force."
Brandybuck is being coy here. A few months ago, Brandy had their knickers in a twist that the MC removed its "we condemn all bigotry" statement from its plank. That plank had nothing to do with government force. It was all just social signaling. But Brandybuck was very put out that the LP would do this- why it obviously meant they were racists.
But Brandybuck has been pretty consistent here with the inconsistent double standards. If the LP declines to emphasize (but doesn't contradict) Lefty talking points (that are also libertarian), then Brandy will wail that they are selling out libertarian values. But if the LP emphasizes more conservative talking points (that are also libertarian), Brandy has criticized them for being too dogmatic. The message is clear: Brandy doesn't like deplorables, and the idea of tolerating them is not acceptable.
Many many years ago, before I had heard the term "self-ownership", I came up with my own version, "self-control": "the right, and duty, to control self and property, regardless of harm to self or the distaste of others", and still like it better for its emphasis on the symmetry of rights and duties.
I upset a lot of people for hating public accommodation laws; I'd rather have the bigots out in the open, able to exclude blacks and Asians and Catholics and Jews, so I know where to not shop. From the practical side, public accommodation also requires ever more tinkering to handle exceptions which continually change, such as allowing separate male and female sports teams; trannies have sure made a mess out of that, and new exceptions will just provide new opportunities for more exceptions.
i am close to you on the public accommodation law with one big exception..... they must alert the public to the rules.... so, if the baker does not sell cakes to gay people, i want a sign on the wall saying so. it is hard for the free market to apply pressure when only those discriminated against know about it. (making it public information also undermines the implied public offer to contract that makes public accommodation law relevant in the first place.)
"That plank had nothing to do with government force. It was all just social signaling."
if that is the case, then why was it so important to some that it be removed? if the only thing that phrase accomplished was communicating to those outside the party that we are not and do not support bigots..... why did it have to be removed?
when describing what we believe to others, it is common to need to say that we support freedom, but are not advocating for people making bad decisions. when we say we want all drugs legalized, many people need it explained that we are not advocating for crack to get passed out at every middle school. is that virtue signalling? when we say prostitution should be legal, is it just virtue signalling to say we would not want our daughter to do it? when i say that people have the right to burn the flag, is it just virtue signalling to say that i don't like it when they do?
that is what that phrase was. it did not change our philosophy, policy proposals, general approach to governance..... getting rid of it didn't change them either, it just makes it easier for others to set those straw men up to marginalize us. when our philosophy leads a sizable number of us to defend people like a baker who refuses to sell a gay person a cake, some people need to understand we are not saying the bigot is good for refusing, just that he has the right.
so why was it important to some that it be removed? either you are actively trying to recruit bigots, or you are so focused on virtue signalling that you don't understand that removing it was just your version of virtue signalling and changes nothing for the better.
Because the party platform is not a bunch of personal feel-good wishes for humanity, it is a statement of what the party wants to do by government force.
so.... you are of the variety that is so focused on virtue signaling you don't realize that this crusade was in itself virtue signalling.... you must defeat the single word that changed absolutely nothing.... that you know changed absolutely nothing. (again, other than how easy we make it for the duopoly to distort our words to sideline us.)
second question, to see if we can get something that looks more like an honest answer and less like a lame talking point.... in what way is "we condemn bigotry" personal, feel-good, or a wish for humanity? to me, it looks like a simple statement. a single sentence in a plank that includes the free association principle that leads us to defend the bigot who won't sell a cake. (which, as explained above, has us sometimes needing to explain the difference between what a person has a right to do and what is moral.)
You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. If it was really "just" social signaling then it doesn't matter one way or another whether it is in there. It is just changing the frosting on the paint.
So why is it so important for you that it stay in? You give away the game when you complain about bigots being allowed into the party.
For the record, everyone has a right to freedom of association. And that includes men who prefer to sleep with women, Blacks who prefer to marry and work with other Blacks, and yourself who, I'm sure, has never discriminated ever in his life. And if it bothers you that "Those" people might be in the same party as you, working for a world where the government stays out of such associative choices, then you have the problem, not the LP.
"So why is it so important for you that it stay in? You give away the game when you complain about bigots being allowed into the party."
my question was why it was so important to YOU..... you give away the game when you pretend I said something i did not. I said it was valid to say we do not support bigotry even though we defend the rights of bigots. I said wanting to recruit bigots might be a motivation, but I did not assert that I knew this to be true. by asking my question, I am allowing that bigots being allowed in the party is NOT your goal.... if I am offering you the opportunity to explain your rationale without an express assumption that getting more bigots in the party is your goal, how is that "complaining?"
"For the record, everyone has a right to freedom of association."
for the record, I am not part of the group that was willing to completely delete freedom of association from our platform... you are.... as described below, you need to explain why getting rid of that one phrase was MORE IMPORTANT than our dedication to free association. you can't claim free association was the reason when you guys were willing to delete our dedication to free association to get rid of that one phrase.
"my question was why it was so important to YOU"
Oh please. Thou doth protest too much. You have now written multiple paragraphs over multiple hours suggesting that "really, its no big deal, let's just leave it in." It is more than a meaningless signal to you. Just as it was more than a meaningless signal to Brandy when he originally condemned it.
"I said it was valid to say we do not support bigotry even though we defend the rights of bigots. "
Except that is expressly not what the plank said. It said "we do not support bigotry" and was SILENT on the subject of their freedom to associate privately.
"you can’t claim free association was the reason when you guys were willing to delete our dedication to free association to get rid of that one phrase."
You need to learn how to read. The 2008 plank that was deleted was a woke social signal and had nothing to do with the freedom of association. It was silent on the subject of freedom of association.
"Except that is expressly not what the plank said. It said “we do not support bigotry” and was SILENT on the subject of their freedom to associate privately. "
in other words.... you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are talking about..... you do not even know what is in the plank YOU wanted to delete...... "Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate...."
"when describing what we believe to others, it is common to need to say that we support freedom, but are not advocating for people making bad decisions."
And yet the Libertarian Party never had to have a plank saying "We condemn all bad decisions."
"when we say we want all drugs legalized, many people need it explained that we are not advocating for crack to get passed out at every middle school."
And yet the Libertarian Party never had a plank saying that they condemn drug abuse and passing out drugs to children.
"when i say that people have the right to burn the flag, is it just virtue signalling to say that i don’t like it when they do?"
And this is possibly the most telling. Because you absolutely won't ever see a libertarian party plank condemning flag burning.
"if that is the case, then why was it so important to some that it be removed?"
Because the Libertarian Party should be defending liberty, and that includes the freedom of association. To be clear, when you repeat the mantras of people who want to interfere with the rights to free association, and don't affirm your support for free association, you have abandoned liberty.
And that is exactly what the plank did. Here is how the plank originally read in the 70s:
"Equality of the rights under law should not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or sexual preference. We shall oppose any governmental attempts to regulate purely private discrimination. However, we condemn bigotry as irrational and unjust."
Notice that the condemnation of bigotry is not the point of the plank. It is a clarification- the clarification you specifically yearn for. The plank has two policy statements: 1) Government must not discriminate and 2) Government must not police private association.
In the 90s the "bigotry" language was dropped, while maintaining a defense of free association. In 2008 this language was adopted: "We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs."
Now this is the complete departure. We still have clause (1)- The government must not discriminate. But defense of the freedom of association has been neutered to be about the rights of parents and their children.
And this wasn't an oversight, either. While this plank was being pushed, you had officers of the LP arguing that you should "just bake the damn cake" in complete contravention of the rights to free association.
So while condemning bigotry was always about social signaling, it was the fact that this joined sides with the woke left while DECLINING to support freedom of association that made this a bad plank that needed to be discarded.
"And yet the Libertarian Party never had a plank saying that they condemn drug abuse and passing out drugs to children."
well, i give you marks for trying to evade the question.... the parental rights plank says this: "....provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected.."
nobody ever had a problem with that extra couple words saying that not everything a person might choose to do is awesome. you don't need to have those words.... the point is that it is not a grave injustice that there is clarifying language in a plank. if the plank concerning drug use were amended to say we do not encourage self harm, nobody would care and you know it..... so your whole attempt to deflect is either deliberately missing the point or disingenuous. nobody cares when any of us say we do not encourage heavy drug use. but for some reason saying we don't support bigotry is a big deal..... and you are doing nothing to explain why that is different.
"Because the Libertarian Party should be defending liberty, and that includes the freedom of association. To be clear, when you repeat the mantras of people who want to interfere with the rights to free association, and don’t affirm your support for free association, you have abandoned liberty."
ok, so I will assume you were not at the convention and don't know how things went down. (if you were, you just exposed you are completely full of shit.) the original plan to get rid of that terrible "bigotry" word was to delete the entire plank. they were planning to delete the plank that describes our support of free association just to get rid of that one nasty phrase. there was some last minute negotiations to just remove the bad part, that basically held the body hostage.... delete that phrase or we will delete the plank...... let that sink in..... they wanted to get rid of that part so bad, they were willing to completely take out the part that says we support free association just because it said we won't always like what people do with that freedom. if freedom of association is the "reason" this had to be removed, then why would removing it be more important than us saying we support free association? seriously? it might have been a bold strategy, but it is not one that leaves you with the ability to even pretend freedom of association was the reason.
"And this wasn’t an oversight, either. While this plank was being pushed, you had officers of the LP arguing that you should “just bake the damn cake” in complete contravention of the rights to free association."
it is fun the way you try to give a little history lesson to imply you have some clue, and then you show that the bigotry language was there in the original plank, and then claim the plank was "neutered" when the bigotry part was taken out. and then you want to talk about people saying "bake the cake" 20yrs later.... as if that is in any way relevant to anything in your little trip into history. (a trip where the version with the language against bigotry was good, but the version without it was not.) are you trying to not make any sense?
"So while condemning bigotry was always about social signaling, it was the fact that this joined sides with the woke left while DECLINING to support freedom of association that made this a bad plank that needed to be discarded."
again.... those who wanted the bigotry part removed so bad were the ONLY ones who were willing to completely delete the section saying we support freedom of association to do it. if freedom of association is your argument, then you are not even trying to answer my question.... my question is for the people who were so bothered by the word bigotry that they were willing to delete the part that supports free association. (And your attempt to throw a little shade on it as a "bad plank," with a fatally flawed history lesson makes me think you might know this.)
"well, i give you marks for trying to evade the question…. the parental rights plank says this: “….provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected..”"
This is non responsive and I have evaded nothing.
First of all, let's be very clear. You are conflating the LP's defense of child rights with condemnation of bigotry (when bigotry is not an abuse of rights). They are not the same thing, and it is increasingly clear that you are yet another lefty troll who hasn't ever thought deeply about libertarian principles. The Libertarian Platform absolutely SHOULD clarify when there is a chance that rights will be violated. This isn't about saying "we respect this right but don't support you using it bad." It is them saying "we respect this right, but you do not have the right to violate others."
Second, you are the one evading by trying to change the subject to parental and child rights. You said: "when we say we want all drugs legalized, many people need it explained that we are not advocating for crack to get passed out at every middle school."
You were suggesting that it is acceptable and even advisable for the platform (not dialogue around the platform, but the platform itself) to support freedoms *and* condemn exercising those freedoms in a "bad" way that doesn't violate rights of others. And to support your logic, you brought up FAKE examples. Nowhere in the platform do they condemn drug abuse. Nowhere do they condemn "making bad decisions", or "flag burning"- they only condemn violations of rights via the government (as in discrimination, or capital punishment) or between individuals (such as between a parent and their child).
For your logic to be accurate, you would need to show me a plank that says something like, "We condemn people [destroying their lives with drugs/saying hurtful things to one another/burning flags], but we support [drug use/free speech/free speech]." But you won't find it. The relevant plank reads, "Once individuals are presumed to have adequate judgment to vote and serve on a jury or in the military, they should also be presumed to have sufficient judgment to decide their own purchase and use of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, cannabis, and engage in other activities currently restricted by government due to age."
Notice that they do not feel the need to say "But abusing drugs is wrong and we condemn it!". So your entire premise is invalid no matter how much you want to evade.
"nobody would care and you know it….. so your whole attempt to deflect is either deliberately missing the point or disingenuous."
Prove it. Please. Show me some proof that this wild fantasy in your mind is real. Oh you cannot? All you have is your delusions? Well, sorry then this isn't evidence either. But please, I welcome you to suggest to someone like ENB amending the clause on prostitution to include something like, "but we encourage all parents to keep their daughters from going into the sex trade."
". they were planning to delete the plank that describes our support of free association just to get rid of that one nasty phrase."
You continue to be full of shit. I JUST QUOTED the plank from 2008 that was rejected. That plank DID NOT DEFEND freedom of association. When it was added in 2008, it OMITTED the defense of freedom of association that read, "We shall oppose any governmental attempts to regulate purely private discrimination."
The only policy position in the Bigotry Plank was opposition to Government discrimination. Which is fine, but is not a defense of the freedom of two people to associate absent government interference.
"they were willing to completely take out the part that says we support free association "
If they were completely willing, then they have a pretty funny way of showing it.
For the record, while the "bigotry plank"- that did not defend freedom of association (as written in 2008)- was dropped, freedom of association remained in the platform, so everything you are saying is bullshit. I repeat: you have created a fantasy where "Freedom of Association" was dropped from the platform in spite, but anyone can go to the platform and see stances 1 (government shall not discriminate) and 2 (government shall not interfere in private association). Both those principles remain, so your story is just that, a wild-eyed fiction of someone who ALLEGEDLY, totally doesn't really care that much about the bigotry statement at all, but will make shit up, and argue for hours about it.
Again, for the record, this is in the platform:
"We uphold and defend the rights of every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts, and other free market solutions."
"are you trying to not make any sense?"
You have shown that you are really bad at reading comprehension, so let me make it easier for you:
Original Platform: Government should not discriminate, and should not interfere with freedom of association. But we condemn bigotry.
2008 Platform: We condemn bigotry and government must not discriminate.
(Gonna pause here so you can let that sink in. Notice that the 2008 plank does not say the government SHOULD NOT interfere with free association. You get that right? Does that make sense to you?)
2020 Platform: We affirm the rights of all individuals regardless of any aspect of their identity. The government should not discriminate or interfere with private association.
So if you *were* at the convention as you imply, you are either lying about what happened (because you have incorrectly implied that the freedom to associate was dropped from the platform) or you were as incapable of following the convention there as you are incapable of following a simple comment thread.
Either way, you are looking pretty fucking foolish right now.
"It is them saying “we respect this right, but you do not have the right to violate others.”"
huh? explain exactly how "we condemn bigotry but private entities can set whatever standards they want for association" in any way implies anything even remotely similar to "you do not have the right." you write this long post, and it is just full of complete BS like this. your arguments are an embarrassing combination of shit that makes no sense and shit that has no basis in reality.
"So if you *were* at the convention as you imply, you are either lying about what happened (because you have incorrectly implied that the freedom to associate was dropped from the platform) or you were as incapable of following the convention there as you are incapable of following a simple comment thread."
at least you finished this word vomit with a nice BS cherry on top. i didn't say the freedom to associate was dropped, i said they were planning to delete the entire plank that had it just to get rid of the bigotry phrase that you are utterly incapable of explaining why it is so bad. (which is why you spout long drawn out BS about past versions of the plank and avoid answering my very simple question as much as possible..... somehow missing the part of that plank you are giving the history of that addresses free association.) those, like me, who have no problem with the bigotry phrase let it go to protect the rest of the plank that included the right to free association. what i want you to explain is WHY those like you saw getting rid of that phrase as more important than that language protecting free association..... because they did. (and you can shove your lame ass attempt to call me a liar straight up your ass.)
" you write this long post, and it is just full of complete BS like this. your arguments are an embarrassing combination of shit that makes no sense and shit that has no basis in reality."
Riiiiight. You parachute into a dead thread and just declare that my post was complete BS. After spouting off a bunch of fantasies. Let us recall:
1) You are the one who INSISTED that there was nothing wrong with planks that say "we support this right, but condemn you using this right in a "bad way". To support your logic *you* (not me) offered up examples around Drug use, Prostitution, and Flag Burning. Examples that were COMPLETELY made up. None of those hedges or modifiers were in any platform, ever.
2) When I pointed this out, you abandoned these three examples without remark and then tried to suggest that another example- without conceding how wrong it was to make up the fictions you previously provided.
3) The example you picked shows you don't even know the difference between Rights and the examples you were providing. You suggested that a statement like "Parents' rights to raise their children ends when it violates the rights of the child" is nominally the same as "we support drug use but condemn the abuse of drugs". That you continue to confuse a clarification of where rights conflict with a moral statement about things you nevertheless have a right to, shows just how out on a shaky dock you have gotten yourself.
4) You are the one who insisted- without evidence, and based solely on the goblins in your head- that the people who protested the bigotry bullshit would not have cared if there were some other moral stance taken in the platform. You have no evidence, just your statements.
5) You then insist that I have implied I was at the convention, when I never did any such thing. Which should tell you something: You assume a lot of people you disagree with that isn't fucking true. And then you use this made up evidence to convict them in your mind.
6) Now having assumed and insisted things (repeatedly) that were not true, you say that the MC was willing to omit a defense of free association ENTIRELY from the platform rather than allow the anachronistic bigotry clause to remain. Your evidence, once again, is nothing but your word- the word that (as we see in 1 - 5) isn't really that good. This is especially glaring when anyone can look at the platform and see that freedom to associate exists in multiple places in the 2020 platform.
But rather than actually respond to my arguments in an ordered way, you just make shit up again. The problem, of course, is that anyone can look at what you are responding to and see that you continue to dodge, misattribute positions I have not taken, and try to obfuscate. I am comfortable that anyone reading this exchange will see just how unhinged you are. Maybe you should stop assuming, and re-read what was written and perhaps it will become clear to you as well.
"Riiiiight. You parachute into a dead thread and just declare that my post was complete BS."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! that is absolutely rich when you drop in even later......
"5) You then insist that I have implied I was at the convention, when I never did any such thing. "
and then you spit out another word vomit filled with outright lies like this. pretty much everything you said is complete BS trying to defend your deliberate avoidance of both the question and the point, but this is the most blatant and obvious...... I actually at one point explicitly said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were NOT there. i don't know why i am still surprised by the stupidity of posters like you on here, but that is pretty over the top level stupidity.
The sentence, "We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant," was in the LP platform twice over the years, and removed twice. It got in there in the early 1970s, got removed in the 1980s as irrelevant to policy, then reinstated in this century, and now removed again. That ground was covered anyway by a preliminary statement in the platform to the effect that because we want something to be legal doesn't mean we favor its practice.
It always boils down to who does a party serve: voters or donors?
Evidently the donors were socially liberal, and now they're mad that their money is useless.
Cite to back up that Libertarian donors were socially liberal?
This is also the author that supports pedos, so take what he says with a grain of salt
I'd like to see a cite for that.
I don’t think that’s Walker.
I don’t know if you really only know as much about this controversy as you have gotten from the article above, or if you are feigning ignorance.
Anyway, the main reason people are leaving the party isn’t explained in the paragraph you quoted. The main reason people are leaving is that the Mises Caucus are acting like adolescent edge lords, posting disturbing communications including anti-semitic dog whistles and Kremlin sympathetic content.
Kremlin sympathetic content.
This is how left wingers (mis)describe others' anti-war positions because it both smears those others and hides their own pro-war beliefs.
If you hear a dog-whistle, you’re the dog. Just sayin.
Anarchists of the world, UNITE!!
Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!!
Old MacDonald was dyslexic. I-O-I-O-E
Both of you are out of order!
Here come de judge!
Glad to see somebody else likes Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In!
I binge-watched all 6 seasons of that show on Tubi last year and loved every minute! It's where Right-Wing Wowserism and Left-Wing Wokeism both go to die!
🙂
You guys owe him an apology! 🙂
Popeye--All Apologies
https://youtu.be/GG_pq4RzIG4
Oops! Not all apologies! Sorry! I owe everyone an apology! 🙂
"You owe me an apology!"
https://youtu.be/M5BdBfhliwM
The controlled opposition wing of the libertarian party filled with DNC members cosplaying took their ball and went home? Goodbye.
The Reform Party's roots go back farther than the Perot 1992 campaign. Most of its support, organization, and reason for being go back to that of the Independence Party (variously titled that as well as Reform and Independent, depending on the state and sometimes the faction) from 1989. Perot supplied a rallying figure they'd lacked previously.
The LP just had its best fundraising year in 20 years. New membership is up solidly (exceeding drop-outs). And they’ve built a candidate recruitment pipeline and a broad strategy. They’ve actually decided to heed what people have been telling the LP for decades and de-emphasized national races and the holy “ballot access” in favor of developing a bench in local offices around the country. Hell, Conservatism Inc. has taken to actually attacking libertarianism again, rather than assuming they can naturally co-opt them. That doesn’t much sound like falling apart to me.
In the end, it comes down to vote totals. They claim their candidate Dave Smith can beat Gary Johnson's vote totals. I don't see how.
I do know my local party has seen some of the older members come back in an effort to fight back against the Mises Caucus. The Hoppeists might actually have invigorated their own opposition, who slept on the side lines too long.
We shall see. The tactic of recruiting from the alt-right may backfire on them.
Look at brandy freely label anyone he disagrees with as alt right, but don't dare call him a leftist.
No, in this case I think he knows what he's writing about. There is some opening to the alt.right going on there in the mix.
No offense, but please define alt right and why anyone should object. From what I can tell, the term has become so slippery as to be meaningless. I mean are we talking about real, honest-to-goodness white nationalism? Are we talking about genuine right-wing authoritarianism? Or are we talking about anyone thinking Conservatism Inc plays roughly the role of the Washington Senators? Or conservative populism or civic nationalism? I've heard the term bandied about to include just about all of them. And then immediately tied to white nationalism.
It looks slippery — I originally took it to mean "alternative `right'", and figured it could include libertarians, whom many take to be on the "right" — and then found out it was a euphemism for "racist".
Alt-right is largely white nationalists, right-wing authoritarians (even more unabashed about it than cultural conservatives) and the more aggressive and violent variety of the populist and nationalist elements on the right fringe. So Partiot Front, Boogaloo Bois, Three Percenters, Oathkeepers, and the more armed-resistance flavors of the militia movement. Not your average Trumpkin, militia member, or even right-wing figures like John Bolton or groups like Proud Boys (at least in their original, thugs-looking-for-a-fight interation).
The Mises Caucus seems to be more like the Proud Boys, looking for a fight (albiet as trolls and edgelords) and less interested in ideological consistency or depth. If they are reaching out to alt-right or other right-fringe folks it wouldn't be off-brand.
What is alt right about the MC? Besides being an easy pejorative?
Please define alt right.
Misek, Nemo Aequalis, Bio-Behavioral_View, IceTrey, and all their Swastika-covered sockpuppets.
Those are Storm Fags. What about al-right.
OK, my friend (and I do have a feeling we’d hit it off f we met, despite religious differences) let me put it this way:
Misek (Holocaust denying Nazi) vs Mises (Austrian JEWISH free market economist)
Judging from the Wiki page on the Alt-Right, while the definition has been made vague, no doubt by Leftist 'package-dealing', Stormfronters would definitely be part of the Alt-Right package and Ludwig Von Mises would definitely not:
Alt-Right--Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
Rothbard would have much closer ties to the Alt-Right via his endorsement of David Duke, and Von Mises, of course, barely escaped with his life from the Nazis and he denounced Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism, which would allow for the possibility of Totalitarian enclaves.
And, yes, I would consider us two friends as well. 🙂
Judaism and Jews do not proselytize and--with exception to Ultra-Orthodox Religious Parties in Israel--they don't try to run a whole society on superstitions. Hence, they don't raise my hackles near as much as the other two Abrahamic religions or Hindu Nationalism, Gaiaism, or "New Religions."
I don't mean to say "some of my best friends..." but it is undeniably true that many of the greatest Secular, Skeptical minds also were of Jewish heritage and came out of the Jewish religion, so there is a tie there as well.
And if nothing else, we two and Chumby all have good laughs at the expense of a crazy world. 🙂
Does "alt right" even mean anything anymore? I feel like Brandybuck may as well have written this.
In the end, it comes down to vote totals. They claim their candidate Dave Smith can beat Gary Johnson’s vote totals. I don’t see how.
It comes down to vote totals over time. I don't really know or care if Dave Smith can beat the vote total GayJay pulled when running as the "none of the above" vote against two of the most detested political figures in the last century. Because it really doesn't much matter. Whether you pull in 4% or 6.5% of the vote, you're still a loser. What I care about is whether those voters that are being pulled in will stay with libertarianism, whether libertarians can get elected to a bunch of offices other than the White House, and whether libertarian principle has a place in the national discourse. The ancien regime sure as hell wasn't delivering on that.
DS has brought more attention and excitement to the LP more than Gary Johnson ever did. That's what Brandy most hates. He is also pushing a lower level of engagement which many of us have promoted for a decade.
"In the end, it comes down to vote totals. They claim their candidate Dave Smith can beat Gary Johnson’s vote totals. I don’t see how."
This is epic concern trolling from Brandy. Where was this claim made about Dave Smith?
This has been a common refrain from people looking for anything they can to discredit the current leaders. They focus solely on Gary Johnson's run, and declare that anything less is failure.
This of course ignores the fact that the same leadership who orchestrated Gary Johnson's run in 2016 also saw the super important vote totals decrease by half in 2020. If it all comes down to vote totals, then 1) that leadership should be tarred and feathered for failing so catastrophically in 2020, and 2) if there is a baseline to be measured against, it isn't the election of 2016, but how we do from the last election in 2020.
But, of course, we all know this is a smoke screen. Brandy and anyone paying attention knows that Gary Johnson's success was largely the result of an extremely atypical election year. The leadership of the LP did not orchestrate the nomination of Trump and Hillary- two deeply garbage political prospects- but they did benefit from it. And to act as if the current leadership is a failure if lightning doesn't stroke twice is transparently dishonest.
About what you would expect from many of our more left sympathetic posters.
(I really don’t think they’re leftist per se, just that they see anything even close to the right as anathema.)
DSOC didn't just "evolve into" the DSA. It merged with the New American Movement (est. 1971, among the various and sundry picking up some pieces of SDS*), and Democratic Socialists of America was the name they agreed on.
* Others of which included Fred Newman and Lyndon LaRouche.
In fact I’d say DSA is more from NAM than from DSOC, and that its success comes more from the former. DSOC was a stodgy academic-led organization of older people who wanted to pretend they were activists, while the NAM actually was mostly young activists.
As to Fred Newman, he and Lyndon LaRouche (Lyn Marcus) formed similar (though opposed) organizations, but LaRouche must have kicked himself for not thinking up Newman's great gimmick of a pyramid-style psychology cult. Lenora Fulani became Newman's main political operative.
The "Mises Caucus" (actually a PAC, not an internal party caucus) is not a "faction" of the Libertarian Party. It is a Republican "infiltrate and neuter" operation. And it has largely, though not completely, been successful in its mission to ensure that vulnerable Republican candidates don't face meaningful Libertarian opposition on the ballot.
Oh, yeah, because the Republicans desperately needed a means to stem the tide of all those races Libertarians were winning under the old leadership.
It's quite common for Republicans to blame Libertarian "spoilers" for them losing an election. After all, those votes stolen by Libertarians belong to Republicans. They own those votes. How dare another party take them away?
Its quite common for you to push democrat narratives such as claiming facts changed all of a sudden with silicon valley. Ignoring the facts for years.
Stating a race could have been won without a 3% LP vote is not saying the LP stole votes. But what we see is publications like Reason only support LP members in races that are close. They even have articles about causing GOP losses unless they agree to LP demands in those races. So the party itself admits their intent us to add risk to GOP wins to garner consessions.
Meanwhile rags like this ignore DNC attempts at removal of other leftist parties like the Green Partybfor ballots. So their concern is not in ending a 2 party system as they ignore other small parties. Their concern is getting concessions or risking GOP losses.
This isn't even getting into the narrative pushing of their thought bubbles theblast few years adopting narratives built on lies. And only begrudgingly admitting facts do indeed exist and using a narrative of facts changing instead of admitting they were wrong.
It's a strategy that might make sense if the LP brought more votes to the table, but they don't. The issues that most motivate radical libertarians (as in LP in the USA) are mostly those where "conservatives" would stand to lose far more votes than to gain by adopting or compromising on them. It would be stupid for the Republican who lost 50-49-1 to lust after the 1% that's the Libertarian's while jeopardizing the 49% the Republican got. See http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/politic/nogain.html
I agree it is a failing strategy. Often their means of campaign is to only attack one side, the one they think they can pull voters from. This is an admittance that gop voters are more likely to have LP leanings. But their strategy is to largely attack the GOP and ignore the excess failure of the left. The caused losses and ignoring authoritarian aspects of the left causes the GOP voters to lose faith in the LP.
Instead of highlighting libertarian GOO members like Massie or Paul, they attack the entire party.
Reason, as an example, attacked the House leadership fight that had a large component of not increasing the debt limit, something libertarians should support. Instead describing it as needless posturing.
I was surprised when Victor conceded and tried to throw votes to Masters, albeit too late. But it was an admission the GOP is closer in policy.
The GOP is a deeply flawed vehicle for the advancement of libertarian principle. Unfortunately, any major national political party is going to be deeply flawed for a principled voter, since they're, of necessity, coalition entities. That's why it's good to have parties like the LP and it's good to see them actually work to build themselves up into something viable. The larger your faction and the more credibility your faction brings to the table, the more likely it is that the rest of the coalition will defer to your principles. So, yeah, I have no problem with the LP putting up a fight against a Lindsey Graham. By all means. Especially if they concede that putting up a fight against a Thomas Massie or a Rand Paul is stupid.
Any collection of people represented at 40% is going to feature a requirement of compromise. That is because 40% of people will have different views on various subjects. But many libertarians act as if we can ever achieve an ideal system, we can't. So they need to focus on smaller regions like the MC did. Influence larger systems. Go to the testbed and laboratory of democracy. Show their ideas work
Ending the GOP won't advance the LP, it will keep authoritarians in power. The LP should be working locally and influencing house and senate members. Praising the likes of Massie and Paul Ryan.
Paul Ryan?
Nah!
That said, we're mostly in agreement on broad principle here. I just think it's equally useful to have a stick as well as a carrot in the equation. Because, as much as the woketarians would insist the rest of us sit down, shut up and go along with their program, the GOP would just as happily insist we sit down, shut up, and applaud John McCain, Mitt Romney or Miss Lindsey. Well, no. Having a strong LP is a good way to tell them, "No, that isn't acceptable and we'll vote for these guys if that's what you want to foist on us."
I meant Paul Ryan.
Libertarians would do better promoting them than only promoting spoilers in elections leading to worse outcomes and libertarian minded conservatives from shunning them.
Making money online is more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I received $18376 last month. It's an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office jobs and even a little child can do this and earn money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page..... http://Www.workstar24.com
Fucking a. I need to stop reading while typing. Rand Paul.
LOL! I thought as much. I still couldn't resist giving you a little bit of guff.
The LP has existed 50 years, and that time span has seen the US government grow at unprecedented rates to greater tyranny.
How useful
All political parties are deeply flawed vehicles for the advancement of any principle. But they're useful for democratic reforms.
The trouble is, I don't think LP is enlarging the libertarian faction in America, and I don't think it can, Mises Caucus or no.
There is a fundamental misconception here that bears consideration.
The USA has an established 2 party system. Most western democracies have multiparty systems.
In the USA it is expected that the various “splinter groups” will fall into one of the major parties and that from there the major parties will adopt agendas and platforms than involve compromises between all the “splinter groups”.
In the multi-party systems the various “splinter groups” maintain their own parties generally too small to gain control of government. The various parties then negotiate with each other after they have had the election to form a coalition that can control government.
In short, we negotiate among the splinter parties before the election, they do it after. The plain fact is that the libertarian “splinter group” isn’t big enough to win much in the negotiations and is pretty much invisible in Europe as well because they win nearly zero offices from which to negotiate.
I wouldn't use the term "splinter", because it means something in the process of coming off the log, not joining it. "Splinter group", "splinter party" usually means a breakaway, not an independently formed group.
I wouldn't say they own the votes, but eventully it becomes clear that the less powerful faction isn't going to become the more powerful one, so they combine their forces under the more powerful.
See http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/politic/nogain.html
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
-Ayn Rand
And she was wrong about that too. In fact in medicine we compromise between food and poison all the time; drugs are based on that principle, as are most lifestyle change recommendations. You always need to take some bad with the good.
Ayn Rand was too dogmatic and too black/white in much of her thinking.
And she never used 10 words when 1500 would make for a bigger book. Did I mention dialog? OMG.
Poison is as much a matter of dosage as administration, so this isn't the best way Ayn could have put it.
But it is true that the point where a substance is harmless and the point where it kills is an absolute and non-negotiable.
Why combine forces? What’s the common ground? It used to be that Republicans and libertarians could agree on economic liberty, but conservatives now favor trade wars, protectionism, and the picking of economic winners and losers. As far as I can tell the only things the political right and libertarians can agree on is the 2A, lower taxes, and reigning in the federal budget (to which the GOP only gives lip service, because they love to spend when they have the power to pass legislation).
Common ground? Stopping cultural marxism.
Because the Left agrees with them on even fewer issues. Picking economic winners and losers is one of the key tenets of progressivism. Progressives do not remotely support free trade. And they want to protect certain jobs (union) above all others.
How is that different from the Republican Party?
Can you cite the examples that concern you? Please say oil subsidies.
You're the one bringing up combining forces. Libertarians have zero hope of getting their wishes borne into law. They have to hope to work with a larger party. There are two options and only one has ANYTHING in common with them.
...by themselves, and with no motivation other than libertarian ones.
Which is how, around the world as well as in the USA, we've always gotten advances in individual liberty — which we have gotten many of, if anyone cares to take stock, no matter what time period they examine. Even since LP was founded we've gotten several of the things we asked for, just not by the effort of the LP, nor even due to liberty interest alone.
Even if the Republican Party is for all the bad things, but is for them less than Democrats and independents, their success sends the message that the electorate wants less of those things. Meanwhile, judging by the spectrum of opinion among both the grass roots and leadership now, the Democrats look hopeless in terms of being influenced, while the Republicans can be influenced. The background picture looks different now than it did at the time of LP's founding.
It’s quite common for Democrats to do the same thing.
Not winning, but spoiling. And ending the spoilership process was a mutual benefit. "Rule or ruin" leads to ruin.
Wait. That doesn't make sense! The supporters of the LP ancien regime here assured me for years here that the idea that Libertarians were a spoiler was just silly GOP sour grapes, that Libertarians took away votes on both sides. Now you and sarcasmic are telling me that the LP served as a spoiler in favor of the party even more hostile to libertarian principle?! Unpossible!
Joking aside, you're absolutely right. If you're a small party with scarce resources, it makes sense to devote those resources to what's going to most favor your cause. Wasting resources fighting somewhat libertarianish Republicans so you can spoil the election in favor of an outright statist Democrat is just dumb. You aren't going to win and the person who does win is going to be even more hostile to your ideas than the guy you fought. If you're looking at a Lindsay Graham, fine, fight it out. Let the GOP know they have to offer up at least marginally attractive candidates. But, ultimately, throwing your resources on races you aren't going to win is probably a lousy strategy, anyway. For years, I've been reading that the LP needs to focus on building a bench in local races. That's how you get to the point where you've built up enough of a brand that you can actually win some of those bigger races.
If folks like sarcasmic and Thomas L. Knapp are telling me that we should instead be focused on sticking it to those icky Republicans, I have to wonder how much commitment they actually have to libertarian principle.
Oh look. Yet another person who couldn’t pass a third grade reading comprehension class. At least that’s the best explanation I can see for thinking I’ve ever said “stick it to icky Republicans.”
So which is it? Do you lack basic reading comprehension? Are you stupid? Are you a liar?
Sure, sarcasmic,
They own those votes. How dare another party take them away?
I was pointing out that the entire concept of an election spoiler rests on the belief that votes were stolen. For something to be stolen it must be owned, right? But nobody really owns votes. Which means... wait for it... sarcasmic was being sarcastic! Oh! My! God!
No you were throwing shit to attack the GOP. Something you never do against the left.
And your pleas of sarcasm when your consistent idiocy is attacked is getting old.
No the concept of an election spoiler does not require the idea that votes are owned by anyone. It requires nothing more than the idea that most people will vote for a candidate on the ballot rather than staying home and not voting.
You specifically called out Republicans!
People like sarcasmic don't understand game theory or expected value/outcomes. He'd rather support the left by adopting the narratives while trying to pretend to have a moral higher-end for worse outcomes.
Noting that the GOP considers the LP to be a “spoiler” is not the same thing as the LP actually being a “spoiler.”
In point of fact, exit polling paints LP candidates’ effects on major party results as mixed. Sometimes more of an LP candidate’s votes will come from people who would have voted Republican than Democrat absent a Libertarian option, sometimes vice versa.
But both major parties complain about it, and the Republicans are prone to trying to either thwart it (as with the Mises PAC project) or exploit it (as with GOP operations to put fake “Green” candidates on ballots in hopes of “spoiling” Democratic prospects). In a state legislative election a couple of years ago in my area, Republicans recruited -- and got caught paying off -- a local "civil rights" leader to run as an "independent" to split the Democratic vote.
Based on the data, I mostly dismiss the “spoiler” complaint as an excuse for failure, like Russiagate or Vast Right Wing Conspiracy or Convoys to Syria or whatever.
To the extent that I don’t dismiss it, my attitude is “so, you think we stole your votes. Fine. Suck it. Be better if you want those votes.”
It's not about the races the LP candidates were "winning."
It's about the races that a GOP candidate loses by 3% where a Libertarian polls 5%. Republicans have convinced themselves that those 5% would vote Republican if there wasn't a Libertarian on the ballot, or if the Libertarian was so toxic that "liberty-leaning Republicans" would vote for even the most noxious Republican rather than whatever the LP put up.
Which is why the Mises PAC put up a gubernatorial candidate in New Hampshire who claimed that Jews died in the Holocaust because they wanted to and Hitler went to heaven.
And why the Mises PAC put up a gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania whose claims to fame were 1) being convicted of exposing himself to pre-teen girls, and 2) appearing at one of Rudy Giuliani's "Stop the Steal" press conferences. And who was also running for Congress as a Republican. And who got disqualified for governor because he wasn't from, you know, Pennsylvania.
And why the Mises PAC did its damnedest to assure that where it couldn't get toxic candidates nominated, no candidate would be nominated at all.
Like Auric Goldfinger said, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. And the Mises PAC has pulled this shit far more than three times. It's the organization's raisson d'etre, not some kind of fluke.
And one of the woke cosplayers of the DNC enters the chat.
"The “Mises Caucus” (actually a PAC, not an internal party caucus) is not a “faction” of the Libertarian Party. It is a Republican “infiltrate and neuter” operation."
This has always been the most vapid of analyses- absurd on its face if you just think a second.
If republicans wanted to infiltrate and neuter the LP, they would put more woke people in charge. Because then the GOP would have the monopoly on that political plank, and would get those voters. (This of course assumes the Anti-Woke plank is the only thing the MC represents, which is untrue.)
It is completely nonsensical to suggest that the way to neuter the LP is to make it an option for people sick of marxist ideology pushed as social policy.
Whats amusing is we have sarc above claiming the gop cries of spoiler and vote stealing. Yet here the MC takes over through elections and they are infiltrates.
The MC literally did what many LP members want to do to the GOP, and get attacked for it.
The left is openly hostile to economic liberty while giving lip service to personal liberty, while the right is openly hostile to personal liberty while giving lip service to economic liberty.
Libertarians support both economic and personal liberty.
As a result the left hates libertarians for supporting economic liberty and calls them conservatives, while the right hates libertarians for supporting personal liberty and calls them progressives.
Boneheads all around.
Personal liberty… like getting people fired for not getting vaccinated or bowing down to trans self delusion? Constant attacks on the religious? Censoring viewpoints? You got those narratives down.
I guess I missed the government action that mandated most of those things (vaccine mandates being the exception).
Before you pull out your persecution coat and put it on, laws that apply to everyone aren't attacks on the religious.
Meanwhile, bans on personal choices like marriage and abortion are absolutely government imposing on the personal liberty of citizens.
"The left is openly hostile to economic liberty while giving lip service to personal liberty"
When, exactly, do they ever do that? They want to live your life for you.
You will own nothing and you will be happy is a left-wing belief system.
Right wingers still want to get involved in bedroom activities, and the GOP loves laws that lock up people for victimless crimes. Also it’s only Democrats that have given any consideration to reigning in the cops, while Republicans like to be tough on crime (and totally pro-cop).
My point was that those of us who want the government out of our personal and economic lives have nowhere to go. If libertarians are going to support one of the two major parties, they have to choose. Economic liberty or personal liberty. Can't have both.
Had to go back to the 60s for your take?
Victimless crimes? Like not violent j6 protestors?
Sure. They were just tourists. All those smashed windows and doors were there before. And trying to force their way into barricaded areas protected by armed law enforcement? They were just lost. What's the big deal, right?
If libertarians are going to support one of the two major parties, they have to choose. Economic liberty or personal liberty. Can’t have both.
Choosing Dems yields neither economic liberty nor personal liberty. This is a fantasy. Wokeism is the most comprehensive system of authoritarianism ever developed.
In reality the major party choice is between moderate personal freedom with moderate economic freedom or vastly less personal freedom with essentially no economic freedom.
I think you are confused about the difference between authoritarianism and cultural approbation. The one you are complaining about isn't authoritarianism.
Neither party is fiscally responsible. The only difference is the things they choose to waste borrowed money on.
Until cultural conservatives accept that people should be free to choose their own morals and ideals and use the power of government to impose their values on others, they will remain hostile to personal liberty.
If you trust cultural conservatives to protect your rights, you deserve the unpleasant surprise you will receive.
"Right wingers still want to get involved in bedroom activities"
The Left does not? Did you miss their sheer abandonment of any semblance of due process in their persecution of any man who a woman accused of doing anything appropriate while at a college campus?
"Also it’s only Democrats that have given any consideration to reigning in the cops, while Republicans like to be tough on crime (and totally pro-cop)"
One party has a desire to rein in the FBI. As well as many other federal law enforcement groups.
That party ain't the Democrats.
And I do not think "Well, just let the criminals work this stuff out" works out too well for average people, but YMMV. You can say "Some cops are right bastards" and still think "They are a sadly necessary evil in the world".
"My point was that those of us who want the government out of our personal and economic lives have nowhere to go. If libertarians are going to support one of the two major parties, they have to choose. Economic liberty or personal liberty. Can’t have both."
Republicans give you some. Democrats give you none. Feel free to bitch about the imperfect because it is not perfect. But do not act like the outright hostile is a less bad choice. Which you do. Regularly.
Hey Jesse. Please go away. I'm not unmuting you because you've proven yourself to be completely lacking in good faith and honesty. So all you're doing is cluttering up the screen.
Weird take as I responded to each of your posts. Almost like you dont want actual honest conversation and are projecting. Weird.
you’ve proven yourself to be completely lacking in good faith and honesty.
This is an odd comment from someone who has both admitted and proven he is only here to troll others.
And yet, he's not wrong.
"Boneheads all around."
Sure, but what does this have to do with my criticism of Knapp's theory that the MC is an infiltration operation orchestrated by the GOP? Knapp is ostensibly a Libertarian criticizing the MC...are you saying that Knapp is actually a leftist who is mistaking the Libertarian MC as conservatives?
It is a Republican “infiltrate and neuter” operation.
It's revealing the commenters who constantly rant about not us = them thinking have nothing to say about this. It seems they don't object to the principle at all, they just pretend it's wrong when they can pretend it's done by their enemies.
They are not a Republican infiltration tactic (even though many of them have Trump tattooed on their asses). Rather they come from the fever swamp of the Mises Institute, and have ties to Hans Herman Hoppe (an odious figure in his own right) and the Neo-Confederates of Auburn (libertarians are for property rights and slaves are property). Plus a heaping helping from Rockwell, Block, etc. So basically, pseudo-anarchists with ties to the alt-right.
Far more odious than merely being Republican moles.
Brandybuck,
I never knew you were interviewed by Tom Woods?
Is the sky blue in your version of reality?
And Brandy's fallacy Trifecta is complete with a fallacious appeal to guilt by association.
You seem to think it can't be both.
The money and coordination were provided by the GOP.
The Hoppeans at al. provided the useful idiots.
Perot made another run for the White House in 1996, and the party started to fall apart almost immediately after that. In 1997, a dissident faction formed the American Reform Party, which promptly faded into obscurity.
Then it elected Trump in 2016.
"The Libertarian Party has always been fractious, but its infighting has intensified since the Mises Caucus, a faction opposed to "wokeism," took control of the organization. Many of the party's more socially liberal members have exited since the takeover
No. You were the outliers. Libertarians haven't changed, they just stopped tolerating you.
Upper-middle class progressives who posed as libertarians because you liked legalized drugs and hookers and portraying yourselves as contrarians. But none of you actually cared about free speech, censorship, freedom of association or any of the important bits.
Sure you gave them lip service because you wrote for a libertarian magazine, but whenever the chips were down you'd be making excuses for the excesses of your peer group instead.
Which Libertarian faction does ENB support?
That way I know for certain that the other faction is the correct one.
Dit dit dit. Signal transmitted.
Who are you signaling for, Mike?
Shrike? Chemleft? Sarcasmic armored up and gallantly galloping in on his white charger?
Mike wants ENB to make her a sammich
The LP always had a rift between Pragmatists and Purists. The Pragmatists believed that the party should grow, with the goal of winning elections. And since most voters are NOT libertarian in the slightest, that meant less than 99.97% pure was okay. The Purists on the other hand don't want to win elections, or if they do they imagine the majority of voters are purists too. Regardless they would rather remain small and tiny rather than win an election with an impure candidate. And 99.97% is impure to them. Anything less than absolute anarchism is intolerable.
So about twenty years ago the pragmatists got the upper hand. And we got Bob Barr (ugh). But we also got Gary Johnson. Someone actually electable, not for the presidency at that time, but a former governor of a state. And he got the largest percentage and vote total of any LP presidential candidate ever. But he's not pure. He's not an anarchist. He doesn't go around talking about End the FED or Taxation is Theft or the other shibboleths. And the cake thing pissed a lot of people off.
I have to side with the Pragmatists. I would still prefer a Gary Johnson over a Romney or Ryan, or a Clinton or Trump. But some Purists actually split and sided with Trump. I don't know how many, but I do know two or three of my own local LP meetup did. Holy shit.
So now the Purists are in charge. And they're doing bizarre things that go beyond purism. Like advocating stronger border controls. Like removing the racism plank from the platform. Stuff that seems to coming from the Hoppe cult. And the purists aren't satisfied with just control of the national party, they've been flexing against the local parties who don't fall in line.
So I do see the party dissolving in the next few electoral cycles. And I see the word "libertarian" continuing to be diluted and redefined until it's as meaningless as "liberal" and "conservative".
But I guess in the end that's the fate of all ideological parties. They dissolve into Judean Peoples Front versus Peoples Front of Judea spats. The Green Party is still holding on, but after the Ralph Nader fiasco, don't bother with anything above the local level.
The fact you think Gary Johnson is a purist is stunning.
I think the stun is on the other foot: You misread hir.
I'd prefer the policies of a Gary Johnson over those of a Donald Trump. But I suspect Johnson would be less effective in enacting them.
Yes. But his claims are pragmatic vs purist. Pragmatic would be voting to get most of your wants. Purist is voting someone who has all the libertarian wants. In this case he said he would rather vote for someone else, but he is a pragmatic so he voted against the purist. Saying he would rather vote Johnson is putting Johnson into the purist camp.
No. He said
"I have to side with the Pragmatists. I would still prefer a Gary Johnson over a Romney or Ryan, or a Clinton or Trump. But some Purists actually split and sided with Trump"
He thinks the "Purists" sided with Trump. Which seems wacky to me.
I Loved Trump. He was hated by all the right people. He might have gotten more "libertarian" policies through than Johnson would have... But Johnson was *clearly* more libertarian even if he wanted to make people "Bake that cake!"
"Bake the cake." - Gary Johnson
So now the Purists are in charge.
Note the contradiction. Left wingers claim the Mises Caucus are purists which retards their growth and limits success. But in fact the Mises Caucus has focused almost exclusively on building a working alliance with Reps, so in reality they are pursuing the pragmatist policy. It is this element, pragmatic alliance with the right, which leftist critics oppose, not purity (since there is none to oppose). The purity allegation is a continuation of the longstanding political narrative that left wingers are pragmatic empiricists while anyone opposed are ideologues. This (mis)branding is effective because the left controls the media and academia and thus few people not involved actually understand the details.
All of this misinformation is because their interest is solely in gaining LBT support for the left, not in advancing LBT principles generally.
Right, this isn't a Purist vs Pragmatist thing. It is a Left-leaning vs Right-Leaning thing.
If the MC drops dogmatic opposition to abortion, well they sold out principles to attract republicans. But if they champion freedom of association, even if that means defending the rights of "bigots", then the MC is being purist.
Brandy actually just doesn't want the LP catering to right-leaning people. And Brandy will choose the appropriate complaint ("They are being too purist" or "They are selling out principles") to support that outcome.
Brandy's argument collapses when you stop to realize the meaning of "winning." The 18th Amendment was victory incarnate from a mere 1.4% vote average. Prohis elected almost nobody and the income tax commies similarly got their amendment. Coercion is winning to them; repealing bad laws is winning to us. The LP got Roe into jurisprudence by the 1973 electoral vote count. A win. Anarchist, infiltrators and political disease vectors Congress banned from entry are redirected by The Kleptocracy to infiltrate and make us LOSE. But county LPs need only reject them, as members and non-AfD donors are already doing. A reset to Platform One and we can resume winning back freedom at a faster clip. Support the New Mexico Libertarian Party: donate!
It's pretty easy to turn a country into a communist/fascist dictatorship by "repealing bad laws". And that's what "libertarians" like you do; whether deliberately or whether you're simply fools is hard to tell.
As no-one else has said this, it falls to me:
"Splitters!"
For the leftbertarian party, it’s currently more about:
“Bring out your dead!”
Looters seek paychecks and boodle, so winning is asses in seats. LP spoiler votes exploit this greed just like looter spoiler votes exploited the factions of the Mercantilist USA. They imported prohibitionist asset forfeiture and Euro-communist income tax looting into the Constitution with roughly 2% of the vote. See the spreadsheets, election results, spreads and changes in laws. The case for voting libertarian has been in print and audio for 16 years: http://www.hankphillips.com/caseforlp07.html
See why looters suddenly cry over spoiler votes?
Yes, and it's a fool's case. A truly libertarian party takes away votes mostly from the major party that leans libertarian, handing the victory to the less libertarian party.
Of course, perhaps the leftist/progressive takeover of the LP was some kind of 3D chess, trying to create an LP party that acted as a spoiler by preferentially taking away votes from Democrats.
Hank Phillips (aka "Libertariantranslator") would bare minimum have to take his meds to understand this point. However, readers without schizotypal retardation syndrome appreciate it.
Advice to the LP if you want to actually accomplish something positive for the first time in 50+ years:
Forget national elections. Find a county and work to take it over completely. Put proof to concept. And get over the rampant narcissism of libertarian posturing as above everybody else. You have no room to shit on anybody until you actually fight the clear and present leftist totalitarian threat.
Nardz, I agree = If Team L wants to effect change, they damned well better win elections and put their ideas into practice. A proof of concept (i.e. Galveston TX, and privatized pension/SSA); otherwise, they'll remain a laughingstock and keep running guys named 'Spike' and 'Vermin Supreme' for office....and achieve nothing.
How do you take over a county?
burning their corn is a good start.
Klepto counties and municipalities took one look at the LP and renamed their elections "non-partisan." Q.E.D.
Send Alec Baldwin in to make a western where all the residents participate. Then unleash a strong probate attorney to fight the next of kin for the properties.
Oh, that was gut-buster!...And he would bust guts too!
🙂
While I've been libertarian since the 1980s, I've never registered as a Libertarian Party member (especially since PA doesn't allow open primaries), but rather was a longtime Democrat until switching to the GOP in 2016 (to vote for Ron Paul).
And while I've voted for about a half dozen Libertarian Party candidates over the decades, I've never done so in a close election (and instead vote for the R or D candidate who I consider to be most libertarian on issues of pressing concern).
Although I'll never vote for a woke left wing carbon banning, gun banning, race baiting, lockdown and mask/vaccine mandating Democrat, I'll also never vote for a Republican theocrat who will ban most/all abortions and contraceptives, keep prostitution, pot, hallucinogens and other consensual activities and drugs illegal, and reinvigorate the failed War on Drugs.
You and me both Bill, but I am afraid we are now part of the minority.
I doubt it. A minority pack of Trojan Horse infiltrators showed up at the Convention that could never have sold anarco-fascism in Austin. There are 4 million libertarian voters and dollar-donators. How about a contest to see who can write the best libertarian candidate speech? I have one here... (https://bit.ly/3AunUfM)
In politics, you have to compromise. Is the ability to scrape an unwanted fetus out of your womb halfway into a pregnancy more important to you than freedom of movement? Is the ability for people to choose to legally die in the gutter of an overdose more important to you than prohibiting government from discriminating on the basis of race?
Because those are the kinds of choices you actually face in the real world.
You understand that the either/or scenarios you presented aren't actually either/or scenarios, right? You can choose all of them, none of them, or some of them. None of them are mutually exclusive.
Those actually aren't the choices you face on the real world.
They are either/or choices in our two party system.
And in the US at least you get to choose. In parliamentary systems, you don’t.
Abortion or freedom of movement is an either/or choice? How? In what way does defending bodily autonomy prevent freedom of movement?
Legalization of drugs or racial discrimination makes sense as a one-or-the-other decision? In what world does one of those prevent the other?
None of those are decisions anyone has to make in the real world. None of those options are foreshortened by supporting the other. Neither is prevented by supporting the other. You just want to pretend that things you like and things you dislike are polar opposites, even if they are completely unrelated.
Count me in too. We are Politically Homeless even among the people who took the Nolan Chart Test in Operation Politically Homeless.
Damn Libertarians, you ruined Libertarianism!
The LP needs to spend more time focusing on issues that ordinary voters care about: Big Tech’s right to suspend your social media accounts (they’re private companies), corporate America’s right to promote wokethink, the rights of illegal immigrants who just want to move to America and work for pennies on the dollar (thereby lowering wages for native-born workers), the right of public school teachers to promote troonery to your kids. You know, kitchen table issues!
I mean, the Libertarian Party can’t really take a position on healthcare. LP members consider any level of government interference in the healthcare industry to be a form of aggression on par with the Rape of Nanking. So, the best they can do is talk about privatizing the state, lose elections, and allow Democrats to enact even more totalitarian policies. God forbid that libertarians use the state to punish statists and their collaborators in the private sector.
I once debated a libertarian who said that cell phone service providers should be allowed to ban callers who use racist slurs. Just start your own telephone company. Totally the same thing as a small-town Christian baker who doesn’t want to bake cakes for trannies.
I have debated a Soviet communist posing as an American, and am surrounded by anarco-commies and anarco-fascists swimming over from the Dem and Grabber Of Pussy factions to put their gripes into the LP platform. That doesn't make any of them libertarian. The Spike and Dave anarchists NEVER READ any of the LP platforms. That's plain sloppy sabotage. Kleptocracy rejects alternately pull the LP in two wrong directions, while their sabotage planks stay and stink up the doorstep.
For fuck's sake. Libertarian in name only is a good term, and when the person you describe is clearly a progressive, should be used.
Any time someone says "in name only", you can be assured that they support an orthodox (and usually a specific, limited orthodoxy) definition of whatever word comes before that phrase.
You might as well just say "if you don't exactly agree with me you don't count" and be done with it.
So throw pregnant women under the bus, 13th Amendment be damned, support the draft, vote Republican and inform for the local vice squad kicking in doors, shooting dogs and boomers over plant leaves. THAT'll show those commie dems, by Dad!
>>two rival groups, one of them attached to the national organization, claim to be the real Libertarian Party
seems aggressive to claim rights to an apparition.
Jesse omits the Prohibition and misreports communist parties. In a dozen campaigns Prohibitionists and income tax looters each averaged way below 2 to 3% of the vote of the vote, yet amended the Constitution, wrecked the economy brought on wars. To them that was success. Wallace brought Klan policies back to the GOP. To them, success, job done! Our job is to just as gradually repeal cruel and suicidal laws and restore individual rights. We need only reset to the original platform and again get 12% annual vote growth. The Anschluss girl-bulliers are gonna have to go.
I hate the GOP too .... but when you say stuff like "brought Klan policies back to the GOP" you sound crazy.
I should ask: Do you mean gun control or government set asides based on race? The GOP has been opposing those (at least more than the Democrats) for a long time.
Politics leads people to state extremes that are untrue.
This is incorrect.
What is happening is that Libertarians have finally wrested control of their party back from the leftists who infiltrated and infested it.
Those same leftists are now fleeing and trying to destroy the LP as they go.
Sadly, Reason succumbed to the infestation long ago and only vestiges --like this comment section-- remain.
The LP was useless when it was in the hands of woke leftists, and the LP is still useless now that it’s in the hands of the Mises caucus.
It’s useless both because third parties don’t have any significant effect on politics under winner-take-all, and also because the idea of imposing libertarianism through the political process is an absurdity.
Good riddance. Libertarianism will be better off without the LP.
All it would take is a 28th amendment, "Government shall not initiate force."
Yeah, and you're naive enough to think that that will change anything.
Every form of government violence can be viewed as "meeting force with force" if people just try hard enough.
It's stupid "quick fix" thinking like yours that is the reason why libertarianism keeps failing.
See below.
I was hoping they’d include the backstory of how the Peoples Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples Front split apart.
Now before any gets started let me just say: I don’t care which was the actual SPLITTER. As a member of the Campaign For Free Galilee I simply have no horse in that race.
Always look on the bright side of life is what I say.
Look at Mister Skulls-Are-Always-Smiling here! See below.
Tell me you haven't seen "The Life of Brian" without telling me you haven't seen "The Life of Brian". LoL
I've seen the movie multiple times and laughed every time. And Brian who said "You are all individuals" wouldn't paint all the Israelite subjects of the Romans as "collaborators."
So you're throwing in the towels, both Ben-Hurs and Ben-His?
😉
I wouldn't blame you. Neither Wokesters nor the so-called Mises Caucus have it right. The Wokesters didn't read the LP Platform and I seriously doubt the Mises Caucus ever read any Von Mises.
Seems you’re using a towel that spent too long in the dryer! Carry on Clinger! (Did I get my pun across or was there static?)
The Ben-Hur and Ben-His towels came from the horse, of course, of course. 🙂
And nowadays, carrying on like Clinger won't get you a Section 8, but Four Stars. Being thought crazy is more fun and I wouldn't insist on that kind of authority. 🙂
Many of the party's more socially liberal members have exited since the takeover—and in some cases, they're trying to take the party's state affiliates with them.
It was a stupid stunt like this in New Hampshire that enabled the Mises caucus to rise to control.
Allowing street people and anarco-communists like Spikey and Boothead into the conventions made even the anarco-fascists look good by comparison. But communists and fascists already have their parties--none dumb enough to let anarchist infiltrators perform in drag on their stages. Read the original LP platform these infiltraitors of both stripes struggle to destroy: (https://bit.ly/3PPpvBW)
I can see that too. The Wokester’s coup in New Hampshire’s LP was especially rotten, which just served to bring out the rottenness from the Edgelord Shitposters.
Our system is systemically biased against third parties. There's no way an existing party will let you take a position that would make a difference by yourself. One of the parties will say "Us, too!" so that no one has any reason to vote third party.
I doubt either party would back prohibiting government from initiating force.
It is, and for good reasons. In multi-party systems, you end up with 25% conservatives, a large mix of different kinds of socialists and communists, and maybe 3-5% for a useless party that might be considered libertarian-leaning.
The GOP represents libertarians far better than such a parliamentary multiparty system.
The LP can only succeed by focusing on one issue, stopping government from initiating force. The Mises platform is a jumbled mess but you can get people to agree on one thing.
Yes, you can probably get libertarians to agree on a useless gesture.
It won't go anywhere, it won't make any difference, but... victory!
Then all is lost and why try?
There are plenty of ways of advancing libertarianism in the US. The LP is simply not one of them, and neither are political gimmicks.
While this is certainly interesting history, the problem is that third parties have zero chance in the United States of ever having any meaningful presence in official capacity until the “two party system" has been replaced by Proportional Representation. The only way that’s ever going to happen is if third parties replace the current district-based election system for Congress and state legislators with at-large ranked choice voting in almost every state. We should be putting every available resource into achieving that goal, not fighting amongst ourselves for control of a useless organization.
And that's a good thing.
If you want the country to be run by socialists, communists, and fascists, that's what you should do.
You think a political duopoly is a good thing? Why?
The US is not a political duopoly. The two parties consist of coalitions of a handful of ever changing different groups. You get to pick the coalition you prefer.
In multiparty systems, each of those groups gets its own party. But when you vote, you don’t know which coalition will ultimately be formed. Furthermore, multiparty systems encourage voting for extremist parties, mainly theocratic, socialist, communist, and fascist, and give them disproportionate power.
The last time the coalitions of the D and R parties changed is before I was born, when the GOP turned brought in the Dixiecrats and became the party opposed to racial equality. There hasn't been a significant shift since then.
You have two static, entrenched parties both beholden to their many special interests. Most people are voting for the least of two evils, but the special interests will claim that a Republican win (for example) means that most voters support abortion bans (they don't) or corporate welfare (they don't) or that a Democratic win means that voters support affirmative action (they don't) or restricted speech on campus (they don't).
Each small interest claims they have a mandate, but with a few exceptions (like abortion in the midterms), none of them move the needle much, individually.
We have a duopoly. We get to choose chocolate or vanilla. The recipes don't change, but the machines grind on.
Great idea!, IceTrey, not MWAocdoc! If only you wouldn’t victim-blame the victims of a certain Totalitarian regime that enslaved those victims to build the regime’s war machine.
By the way, according to the PlutoTV documentary World War II: Total War, the Nazis fired around 10,000 V-2 Rockets at London. Only around 2000 reached London. Around 4000 were shot down by Allied aircraft, which means the last 4000 missed their target and dropped into the sea. The latter lost V-2s are without a doubt due to sabotage resulting from using slave laborers who hate their work to produce what are supposed to be precision weapons.
Responsibility for the whole damn thing rests solely with the Nazis and that is where your ire should be if you really believe in non-initiation of force.
the story of our demise has been greatly exaggerated.
here is how everything has gone down. the pragmatics were the dominant faction for a long time, and the party had squabbles, but nothing real bad, that i saw. pretty much squabbles over differences of opinion or goals that were so far in the distance they never made much difference in the short term.
and then the pandemic..... and it would be a gross understatement to say that that faction utterly failed in our response to it. i know I've argued with some of you about whether you should wear a mask or get a vaccine, but when the government started to talk about mandates and passports... that was a line we could all get behind and stand united against. the government never has any right to force you to do anything no matter how moral you might think the forced behavior is. but the pragmatics chickened out.... i get that it can be difficult to communicate that we support people's freedom to not get a vaccine or wear a mask without looking like you are advocating for people not to do it, but they did not even try. they threw thier hands up and said "this is just a bad time to try and sell people on libertarian-ism." they were wrong. and this woke up the MC, and the MC got stronger and more motivated and more organized.
as the MC was gaining ground, the prags also screwed up in how they responded.... and the caucus officially imploded over the improper actions taken to try fight back.
i say this as someone who has never caucused, probably never will, but often thought i aligned the most with the pragmatics. they screwed up, and everything about where we are now is the result. i also think the "damage" from the MC is very frequently exaggerated.
"the government never has any right to force you to do anything"
Literally the job of government.
Okay, fascist.
So you don't think the government should force people to do things.
I'll be along to your property to steal all your stuff then. And I know what you're thinking, but I and all my friends have bigger guns.
Do you realize how ridiculous this idea is? No, the government's job is to protect its citizen's life, liberty, and property. That is about preventing other people from stealing and aggressing upon others. It isn't a directive to loot and murder. I'll grant that way too much of what government does is telling people what to do, but that is not the constitutional role of government and thinking that is the proper role solidly classifies you as an authoritarian.
"That is about preventing other people from stealing and aggressing upon others."
In other words, forcing them off your property if they're trespassing. Or forcing them into a cage if they murder you.
You don't believe the things you're saying because you don't know what you're saying. You think in ideological platitudes, not thoughts.
That isn't "forcing people to do something", it is forcing them to stop violating other people's rights.
Yes, you do, Tony.
Maybe it's my poor eyesight, but I'm struggling to see the vast difference between forcing someone to do something and forcing someone to do something as you have articulated.
The problem isn’t your eye, it’s your brain.
Read up on positive vs negative rights.
Thanks for proving, yet again, what an amoral, authoritarian, horrible person you are Tony.
The government isn’t what prevents normal people from not attacking, stealing, or killing their fellow man. The government, at best, punishes those who do so after the fact. And rightly so, unless you want to live in a dystopian world where we’re all prosecuted for future crime.
(But then you think not giving is taking, so it’s not really a surprise.)
So it's OK if the government punishes you for things, as long as it doesn't force you to do anything.
Boy do you people have an intriguing new approach to political philosophy. Make no sense and hope people are stupid enough to catch only every third word.
Correct.
If you were intelligent you'd realize that shrinking the whole of political philosophy into a single-sentence principle means you are 100% absolutely incorrect in your thinking and should try harder.
Guess what, philosophy has been going on a long time, and we haven't figured it all out yet.
I’m not shrinking an ideology to a single sentence, I’m stating the fundamental principle/idea behind an ideology.
There are large volumes explaining the actual ideology in detail. I suggest you read them.
Correct.
But the only tasks you people think the government should do are shoot and cage people.
Correct.
"Literally the job of government."
umm...... no.
It's really annoying. Too many of the Mises types are decidedly anti-market and way too sympathetic towards the anti-freedom Trump. He's a pretty good guy, but when it comes to libertarianism, Ron Paul is not enough.
On the other hand, you have people like Aaron Ross Powell, Will Wilkinson, and the squishes over at the Niskanen Center who decided that they could get more tail if they reject the libertarian label and make progressive noises.
My question, as someone not involved in the internals of the LP, is this: to what degree are the differences about positions and policies, vs. about priorities, emphasis, and tactics?
there is some overlap. positions and policies are at the root of it, but that bleeds over into tactics priorities and emphasis.
example: the old abortion plank allowed for good faith beliefs for and against abortion and just said we should keep the government out of it. the MC position is that the fetus is a person who deserves the same rights as everyone else. so, they made it a priority to delete the plank at the last convention. there are other examples, but that is the easiest to state without any bias or potential triggering of one side or the other.
Yeah, blame the people trying to fix it. Double down on what hasn't worked for the past 50 years.
The “people trying to fix it” just scheduled an anti-war rally with pro-Putin speakers.
The question is how we get the teabagging Christofascists, or whatever they're calling themselves these days, to form their own protest party and get convinced that it's an intelligent use of their time. Is there some nominal level of power we could give them that would be satisfactory that's not the most powerful nuclear arsenal on earth? How about a state? Make Arkansas the Utah of Magas.
It's very painful that the supposedly more intelligent leftists figured out later than the Bible munchers that third parties are for chumps, essentially a self-sorting mechanism for marks for foreign ops. Of course these days that describes the entire Republican party in addition to the handful of leftist tankies.
Name one leftist tankie in any left leaning party.
"Make Arkansas the Utah of Magas."
I'm sure this makes some sort of sense to you.
Libertarian party…ROTFLMAO!
I attended a libertarian party once. There were hundreds of folks there. A game they had us all play was identify the number of actual libertarians present. We all came up with the same answer: one.
LOL. As if the commentariat at Reason Magazine is made up of libertarians (or Libertarians). May as well have posted this at Breitbart.
Reason is not made up of libertarians. Open borders, abortion up to birth, sexually mutilation of kids (paid by taxpayers no less), endless wars are not libertarian.
Hahahahaha. God I love our drive by morons.
Was always a fan of austrian economics but honestly Ron Paul was the first politician who put the libertarian creed in a pithy statement: Sound money (end the Fed), limited govt, free markets, and peace. Each one of those planks is easy to expand on actions. That said my experience is there are two types of libertarians. the first like myself often have a hard science/engineering background and MBA and work in the private sector. We are mostly social conservatives in terms of marriage (it is a good thing), suspicious of "alternative" lifestyles being pushed in schools, totally against govt getting involved in voluntary transactions and quotas or any hint of "group rights." Against most govt programs. The second type of libertarian are the Reason types...liberal art majors, live in cosmo locations, support "group rights" esp trannies in schools pushing for sexually mutilating kids. Throw in abortion, open borders and climate change "market" solutions and you get Reason and the folks leaving the LP. So, in the end you get social "degenerates" who have a problem with Ron Paul and libertarianism. "Bake the cake, put on the mask, stop Putin..all praise Troytsky" Sure wokes..sure
You're freedom from government oppression, just not for people who live their lives in a way you disapprove of.
I can't speak for Bill, but I think you should be able to live your life any way you want to, provided you pay for it yourself and don't violate the NAP.
I think you should be able to abort your own fetus yourself, you should be able to take drugs, you should be able to chop off your dick.
What you shouldn't be able to do is force others to be complicit in those acts, or force them to pay for them, or force them to associate with you, or force them to pay for the consequences of such acts.
That's because you have an erroneous conception of how the human species operates. We've never been and never will be atomistic units. Each of our actions nearly immediately has consequences for someone else. Unless your project absolutely forbids the building of any polluting factory--in which case the Koch network would be very disappointed in you.
On top of that basic physics, we happen to be a social species as well, with children utterly dependent on parents and the larger community. Say, if a parent abuses her baby, whose rights trump? Is the baby under her custodianship until a certain point, her property? Or does the baby have rights? But a baby can't defend its rights or seek restitution, so what then? We can't charge anyone from the community with its well-being. That would be an infringement.
I'm trying to say you suffer from the common libertarian fallacy of needing the world to be vastly simpler than it is, presumably so you can understand it.
I don’t want the species to be atomistic units. I simply want associations and dependencies between people to be voluntary, forming a complex, rich, and thriving social web.
You want to force a simplistic set of associations and dependencies, if necessary at the barrel of a gun, based on the preferences of a tiny totalitarian elite.
Your view of the world isn’t just simplistic, it reliably fails every time it is tried.
The old guard LP had it's feeling hurt that they were displaced by the more energetic Mises Caucus. This is the root of the breakup in some states. Basically a group of people taking their ball home because they don't like competing.
The jury is still out on the Mises Caucus and if they can improve on the poor performance of the old guard LP. The one thing we know for sure is that the old guard LP was failing miserably.
I'm not convinced that the Mises Caucus is doing that much better, but at least there is a bit of life versus the stale state that the old guard LP inspired.
In truth, there probably needs to be a mixture of the two approaches, however the old guard LP needs to put on their "Big Boy Pants" and step up instead of pouting because they were so incompetent that they lost power.
I’ve earned $17,910 this month by working online from home. I work only six hours a day despite being a full-time college student. Everyone is capable of carrying out this work from their homes and learning it in spare time on a continuous basis.
To learn more, see this article———>>> http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM