Inside the Libertarian Party's Decision To Host a Trump Speech
A party in disarray squabbles over its future in the shadow of the former president.

The nation's political eyes this weekend will be affixed on a spectacle that rarely attracts significant attention: the Libertarian National Convention in Washington, D.C. But instead of coming to watch presidential candidates such as Lars Mapstead, Michael Rectenwald, Chase Oliver, and Mike ter Maat duke it out for the Libertarian Party (L.P.) nomination, journalists will be there primarily to see the presumptive nominee from the Republican Party: former President Donald Trump.
It's certainly unusual for small political parties to invite their most charismatic rivals to come try to steal their voters. (As Trump himself said in the Libertarian Party's press release announcing the speech, "If Libertarians join me and the Republican Party, where we have many Libertarian views, the election won't even be close….WE WILL WORK TOGETHER AND WIN!") The move was controversial among L.P. members and candidates alike.
"I don't think that's good for the party," Oliver says. "It makes it seem like we're the Republican J.V. team."
But the L.P. leadership faction that engineered the stunt, including National Chair Angela McArdle, counter that it has already reaped a nearly unprecedented amount of media attention, bolstering the finances of a party that for the past two years has been bleeding money and membership.
"Convention sales, and donations, have been explosive following the announcement of Trump (and others) since the beginning of this month," said Todd Hagopian, who has been L.P. treasurer since May 2022, via email. Hagopian, who opposed inviting L.P. competitors Trump, President Joe Biden, and the attending independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said that full numbers won't be available until after the convention, but: "Best period of fundraising since I've been on the board."
'An Incredible Opportunity'
Trump, scheduled to talk Saturday night from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., has a clear motivation in mind: preventing the Libertarian candidate from beating the spread between him and Joe Biden, as 2020 nominee Jo Jorgensen did in three key states that he lost (Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona). So what's in it for the L.P., besides the publicity?
"He's agreed to respond to a list of Libertarian grievances" about his presidential record, McArdle told broadcaster Austin Petersen (who made a bid for the party's 2016 presidential nomination) in early May. Such critiques could include his failures to bring U.S. troops home, reduce spending and inflation, or pardon Julian Assange, she said. (McArdle declined to comment for this article.) The party has been soliciting (along with donations) potential topics of Libertarian interest for Trump to address, with "End the Fed" and "Peace Not War" starting off in a tie for first place, with 13 percent apiece.
How, if at all, the mercurial former president chooses to interact with Libertarians remains a mystery, as does whether the famously fractious conventioneers will listen politely or take this rare opportunity to full-on heckle the once and future Most Powerful Man in the World.
Doubters think it unlikely Trump will acknowledge the unique circumstances, except perhaps for some classic insult comedy aimed at the confused losers who would even consider voting third party when Biden must be crushed. Though there will certainly be Libertarian-specific pitches made by the slate of other outside politicos giving speeches or making appearances, including RFK Jr., Vivek Ramaswamy, Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), and three-time former presidential candidate (once for the L.P., twice for the GOP) Ron Paul.
To many in the L.P. who opposed the move, the Trump booking can be seen as pure cuckery, summoning an alpha male to manhandle their own voters while they watch, impotent and enthralled. The flip side of that notion is exactly what made many thought leaders from McArdle's faction, the Mises Caucus, portray this as the most baller move possible: What real Libertarian would be so weak-willed as to be swayed by a charismatic statist like Trump?
"I can certainly understand that there are a handful of people allergic to relevance, afraid to confront their political opposition, afraid of losing control of the narrative," McArdle told The Washington Post. "But in 50-plus years, the Libertarian Party has never been on the main stage politically, and this is an incredible opportunity for us to bring someone who grabs the spotlight and put them on our stage."
Exactly how, when, and via whom the Trump-Libertarian link-up happened is unclear. Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Brian McWilliams declined to answer any direct questions about the negotiations for this article.
McArdle first made a public announcement on April 26 that she'd invited both Trump and Biden and that subsequently only Trump had said yes. But according to a memo obtained by Reason recounting a May 1 conference call between McArdle and some state party officials, the chair said it was Trump's campaign that asked her to give him a slot. McArdle additionally wrote in a May 18 tweet that "Trump & Kennedy were booked…because they asked to speak. We didn't originally plan for Trump or Kennedy to appear." So it seems even less a case of the L.P. getting something it wanted from Trump and more a case of Trump getting something he wanted from the L.P.
McArdle is wrapping up her two-year term as chair, a position she won at the Libertarian National Convention in 2022 in a Mises Caucus takeover known as the "Reno Reset." (She is also seeking reelection at the convention this weekend.) Some Mises Caucus foes point to the Trump booking as the ultimate proof that the caucus has always been right-wing and even MAGA at heart. It eliminated from the party platform in 2022 planks opposing bigotry and abortion restrictions and advocated this year in an internal strategy document to further rid references to sex work and free immigration. The Mises-dominated Colorado L.P. even promised to not run candidates against Republicans who said they'd be good for liberty.
McArdle could use a publicity and fundraising win. By many standard metrics of political-party success, such as donations, members, officeholders, and candidates, the past two years have seen a noticeable decline. According to a list on its website, the L.P. ran 100 candidates nationally in 2023, compared to 250 in 2021 before the Mises takeover, according to a party document prepared by Cara Schulz, then the L.P.'s national candidate recruiter.
When it comes to officeholders, former Executive Director Tyler Harris, whose tenure began before the Reno Reset, recalls the party having over 300—a number that still appears on the L.P.'s "elected officials" page, though accompanied by only 179 names. (It is possible that the online database is not completely up to date.)
In April 2022, the last full month before the Mises Caucus takeover, the L.P.'s end-of-month financial report listed revenues of $125,542. In April 2024, that figure was $84,710, a drop of nearly one-third. The number of sustaining members (those who have donated at least $25 in the past year) has fallen from around 16,200 in April 2022 to 12,211 in April 2024.
The party is very unlikely to repeat its ballot access success of the past two presidential cycles in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. While the 2024 efforts are not over yet, it looks as of now that New York, Illinois, and D.C. are likely to fall short. And in Massachusetts, the Libertarian ballot line is controlled by a party that is no longer affiliated with the national party, after one of several state-level rebellions against Mises Caucus leadership.
With less revenue, the party is spending less money on ballot access, even though the price of collecting petition signatures has spiked. In 2022, a year with no presidential election, the L.P.'s annual budget included $199,500 for ballot access, according to the April 2022 report; the April 2024 report showed that in the first four months of this presidential year, the party had spent just $10,350. Legal expenses over that same period, on the other hand, were at $24,807.
Bill Redpath, the party's veteran volunteer ballot access coordinator, says that the price of petition gatherers has "skyrocketed" while the ranks of volunteers willing to canvas farmers' markets and county fairs have dwindled.
Schulz asserts that the L.P. is facing member and donation challenges "because they are not acting as a political party….If you are asking for donations and people see you are spending it on suing members and affiliates and not on ballot access and not on helping candidates, they are not going to give you money."
Mark Rutherford, a former seven-year Indiana state party chair who is challenging McArdle for the national chair position, sums it up this way: "Everything should be done to make sure we're running as many Libertarians as possible."
The Presidential Hopefuls
Part of the McArdle/Mises Caucus pitch for having the Trump and RFK Jr. circuses at the convention is that the much lesser-known L.P. presidential candidates will have the kind of spotlight they never otherwise would have dreamed of. And political reporters will be witnessing a nominating race that is currently wide open.
The Mises Caucus is backing Michael Rectenwald, a former Marxist professor at New York University who became disillusioned with the politically correct "social justice creed taking over universities all across the country." Rectenwald railed against speech codes and microaggressions initially via an anonymous Twitter account, eventually suffering pushback from colleagues and the university. He retired in 2019 and embraced Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism.
Rectenwald thinks his already-established relationships with such right-leaning media stars as Tim Pool and Glenn Beck make him the candidate most likely to bring more new attention to the party. (The Mises Caucus thinks Rectenwald has what it takes to help pivot a growing L.P. audience into being the linchpin of a new media empire.) He prides himself as being the candidate most dedicated to loudly and proudly hating the state and feels qualified to throw elbows on stage with Trump, whose foreign policy he sees as essentially indistinguishable from Biden. Rectenwald has raised over $67,000 as of the start of May.
A wide range of party members and watchers from both sides of the divide think that the Mises Caucus will be coming into the convention with around 40 percent to 48 percent of the body, not a dominating majority. A Mises Caucus convention strategy memo circulating this week tells members to vote Rectenwald and for Liberty Lockdown podcaster Clint Russell for vice president. (The two votes are separate, with president going first.) Another old Mises Caucus stalwart who didn't get the group's official nod, Joshua Smith, is as of this writing coming in fifth in the donation-based straw poll that will define which five of the nine candidates listed get to debate at the convention.
Chase Oliver, another presidential hopeful, is an L.P. legend for having consigned the Republicans to a minority in the U.S. Senate in 2022, when he received over 2 percent of the vote in a Georgia Senate race, thus forcing a runoff that Republican Herschel Walker lost. He's been the only presidential hopeful to campaign in all 50 states, to "demonstrate the work ethic that I would bring to the table. So I feel great going into the convention, knowing so many delegates have gotten to see me face to face."
By doing so, Oliver believes he has beaten back the reputation his online detractors had tried to pin on him of being too lefty, too enamored of identity politics. "I came to the party as part of the antiwar movement within the Democratic Party," he admits, but now says he's a "hardcore free marketer" and a straight-line Libertarian on everything from foreign policy to taxes to guns and has no tolerance for "socialism and communism." His appeal could roughly be described as more normie political-traditional than the fire breathers he is mostly competing with. Oliver has raised over $74,000 as of the start of May.
Lars Mapstead, a tech entrepreneur who hit it big in early social media, is offering both an unusual strategic vision for L.P. impact and the ability to self-finance his campaign in the seven figures. Mapstead's strategy is to concentrate on the states of Maine and Nebraska, which divvy up their electoral college votes rather than being winner-takes-all, which could net an actual electoral vote or two and prevent either major candidate from getting a clean win. He tweeted following the Trump/L.P. convention booking that "I have the only plan to spoil this rotten election." He can tell he has gotten the Republican's attention, he says, because Trump's team has included him in internal polling where he's pulled about 1 percent. Mapstead has raised over $737,000 as of the beginning of May, around $719,000 of which came out of his own pocket.
Mike ter Maat is that rarity, a Libertarian former cop (from Florida), though he stresses he was able to avoid vice squad duty or anything else that would cause him to violate libertarian principles. "You learn that your last line of defense of the Constitution is a cop in many cases," he says. In an L.P. nominating process that goes to as many rounds as it takes for someone to win a bare majority of the delegate vote, with the lowest-vote candidate dropped each round, ter Maat thinks his ability to "take support from every element of the Libertarian Party," from the Mises Caucus to the Classical Liberal Caucus to the Christian Caucus, makes him a strong contender. His large staff and "background in policy and public service" give him a combination of policy boldness and the credibility needed in a general election, he insists, where he intends to borrow as much money as necessary to run a campaign that can "disrupt American politics." Ter Maat has raised over $233,000 as of the start of May, with $209,000 of that loaned or donated by himself.
Convention Agonistes
In the normal course of Libertarian convention events, the presidential pick wouldn't happen until after Trump's scheduled Saturday night speech. But the Mises Caucus and various candidates are planning to try to convince the convention body to change the agenda, so that the party chooses its standard bearer before Trump speaks, thus creating a golden opportunity to rebut.
Other hot floor action may arise from burgeoning attempts on the part of the Mises faction to disqualify Mises Caucus–averse state delegations. This week Oklahoma's entire alternate slate was disallowed over a difference of opinion over what the word "during" was modifying in an Oklahoma bylaw. (This result came despite the state's own judicial committee ruling the opposite way, plus a national bylaw that reads "The autonomy of the affiliate…parties shall not be abridged by the National Committee or any other committee of the Party, except as provided by these bylaws.") Libertarian National Secretary Caryn Ann Harlos led the challenge on Oklahoma, has threatened similar actions, and just this week was added as an alternate to the convention's credentials committee, a body that tries to approve or deny membership in a voting body in which she's running for reelection. (Harlos declined an invitation to comment.)
A dizzying multiyear series of conflicts and lawsuits over which body legally constitutes the Libertarian Party in Michigan came to a head of sorts this week, when the secretary of the Libertarian National Committee–recognized Michigan L.P. was ordered by Cheboygan County Circuit Court Judge Aaron J. Gauthier to promptly submit to the national credentials committee a list of 27 delegates made up of people who recognize an alternate set of party leaders, under penalty of being found in contempt of court. The credentials committee seems unwilling to seat this bloc anyway.
A floor fight may well break out over whether the body of the convention will accept the credentials committee's decision on this and other delegation denials. All these fights are couched by participants in terms of scrupulous attempts to properly follow bylaws, or questions of state party independence, though those on either side generally accuse the other of pure political jockeying in the larger "Mises Caucus leadership vs. everyone else" conflicts within the party.
Meanwhile, though only Rectenwald supports the Trump appearance, the rest of the Libertarian presidential field does not seem inclined to whine about it, though all are full of comments about where they differ from Trump, from spending to trade to foreign policy to COVID lockdowns. Trump's appearance and the resulting publicity is "something our candidate will have to overcome," Oliver says. "I want to be an extreme contrast to Biden and Trump, and send a loud and clear message that we are not the party of Trump."
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 L Party may have made this decision reluctantly and strategically.
It is unlikely the L party would ever host a speech given by the (D)ementia candidate and not just because it is difficult finding a venue without stairs and integrated adult diaper disposal facilities.
Calm down Brian...the Sawark used car woke salesman bs needed to go....the cultural marxist LP "leadership" was abysmal. Only Reason thinks libertarians must be open borders, abortion till birth, accept and cheer on sexual mutilation of mentally ill kids by groomers and pedos, and pledge fideality to the woke identify bs.
Hell they rolled over with the covid nutjobs.
The Mises caucus brought the party back from being a pawn of the bolshie cosmo degenerates...thank god.
Get over it Reason...you lost.
I am so embarrassed that I was ever associated with the LP or the libertarian movement in general. It is ironic that the most liberating thing in my life was abandoning the brainless shit show that is the libertarian ideology. Now I just find it hilarious that the libertarian movement is collapsing into the black hole of maga insanity. I am not surprised, motherfuckers.
I doubt you ever were a libertarian. On what basis did you ever favor libertarianism?
While I don't blame anyone who wants nothing to do with the Woke vs. MAGA clusterfuck that is the Libertarian Party, I hope you still hold to the NAP/NIFF, whatever you call yourself.
Otherwise, I'll have to ask: Who owns you? and/or Who do you own?
With all of the assholes who've hijacked the good name of Ludwig von Mises, they'll want a Mosque or a Sportplatz for a venue:
Libertarian cancel culture: prominent think tank dismisses scholar for supporting Israel
Jordan Schachtel
May 14,2024
https://www.dossier.today/p/libertarian-cancel-culture-prominent
A new venue. An AI generated 3D Halogram of Ludwig von Mises reading philosophy, running daily shows at the Vegas sphere. MMA fighter who shouted “If you want to save your country, read Ludwig Von Mises motherfuckers” fighting on the sphere floors.
Actually, they invited both to speak. Joey was too busy drooling into his ice cream.
Lars "I have the only plan to spoil this rotten election." Good for you, that is a great governing strategy from a shallow person.
I see no problem with Trump showing up. It will drive attention towards the LP and have people paying attention instead of ignoring it. Face it, the LP needs attention to advance it's ideas and Trump is the biggest ticket out there. If it helps bring one person around then that's a good thing. If the LP can influence Trump in any way, doubtful but not impossible, then that's money will spent over the disastrously delusional dictator we have in the WH right now.
I like Rectenwald and donated to his campaign but let's face it, he is not going to draw camera's like Trump will
I see no problem with Trump showing up. It will drive attention towards the LP and have people paying attention instead of ignoring it. Face it, the LP needs attention to advance it’s ideas and Trump is the biggest ticket out there.
IMO, the t-shirt with "Taxation Is Theft" with the once-and-potentially-future President's famous signature hairstyle above it is about the most awesome, libertarian, American thing I've seen since Teddy Roosevelt riding a T-Rex.
We need candidates who are not anarcho-idiots or anarcho-nazis to give us 2 or 3% of the vote. That's all it takes to spoil the nearly identical Kleptocracy factions and cause them to adopt our planks or lose. See "The Case for Voting Libertarian"
The Libertarian Party needs to learn to throw its weight around. The Libertarian presidential candidate and the party itself should be willing to endorse a major party candidate who is not significantly anti-libertarian or statist and who is willing to compromise statist positions and fight for libertarian ones. For example, endorse a Republican who is willing to drag feet on the drug war, avoid or minimize foreign entanglements, but resolutely defend right to keep and bear arms, and fight taxes, regulations and the Fed. Or endorse a Democrat who is pro-gun, or at least not anti-gun, not high tax, and who is willing resolutely oppose foreign intervention and police power, and oppose the drug war or favor reform.
The Party and its candidates should act as kingmakers – tip elections away from any significantly anti-libertarian and towards the most or significantly pro-libertarian candidates. We need to become a more coordinated voting bloc. Until such time as Libertarian Party candidates can win on their own, we’ll have much more influence upon the world in which we are condemned to live by being kingmakers rather than self-righteous so-called “principled” narcisists. I’d rather have the maximum freedom possible rather than less and less freedom because the libertarian vote is taken out of play by a Libertarian Party candidate who stands little chance of winning.
Maybe one day we can field candidates who can raise enough money to compete with the establishment candidates. Until such time as Libertarians can raise enough money so as to be able to inundate the voters with as much advertising and propaganda as the establishment candidates, we’d better learn to throw our weight around and tip elections as kingmakers if we’re to have any political influence at this time.
The LP has the same problem they've had since being formed. Trying to sell individual liberty to people who want to be ruled over. Some people talk a good game on one or two issues but it's rare to find someone who is really pro liberty.
I'd be happy to vote for Trump if he held more libertarian values but he's shown he just goes wherever the wind blows in his personal politics and where he can make some more money and get the chance to grift a bit more. No way am I voting for that fucking crook
My only problem with Rect is that you could put 100 of him in a room and still not know he's there.
No riz.
Trump is probably the closest thing to a libertarian president we've had for generations. As far as hosting other parties candidates to explain their own platforms and how they may align (or not) with L desires why exactly is that a problem? And of course, one of these guys will be president and none of the L folk will be. I didn't vote D or R either of the Trump elections (partly because I live in SC so Trump was going to get our electors no matter how I voted), but given the lefts irrational insistence that the meaningless popular vote is more important than the electoral vote (at least when it would benefit them) I'm voting Trump this year just to pump up the popular vote.
That kind of talk won’t get you invited to NYC or DC cocktail parties and what about mean tweets?
They're not twits any more, they're Xs. And mean ones won't get anyone invited to any parties.
Trump got invited to the Libertarian Party despite mean tweets…
Trump's only guiding principle is Trump. He is the center of his universe. So while I agree that he did some libertarian-ish things, they were all purely incidental. And if he's elected again he will continue to do what's best for Trump. That might mean accidentally doing more libertarian-ish things. It might not. Show me a candidate who will do libertarian things on purpose and I'll register to vote. Until then it's just a contest between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
And if he’s elected again he will continue to do what’s best for Trump.
Reducing his personal fortune while in office is best for him?
Depends what his goals are I guess.
When has he ever paid for anything? You little MAGAs send him all the money he needs to pay his multiple legal fees and losses. How much did you send him as soon as you received his email about Biden sending the FBI to assassinate him at Mar-a-Lago? (Please ignore the fact he wasn't even in town at the time.)
Can you explain how Biden made so much money given he worked for the government alone for 50 years?
That’s (D)ifferent.
I never give money.
Look how much anyone running a serious campaign for any federal office. They won't make that money back in salary yet they all are willing to spend the money to get the office.
If the goal us power money is just the way you keep score.
he wants to become a dictator and has said as much. He takes a dump on fair elections when they have results that he doesn't like and pushed his cultists to conduct an attempt to overthrow the government. That's a bit N O from me dawg.
So while I agree that he did some libertarian-ish things, they were all purely incidental.
So, you only support politicians if their intentions are pure of heart. But, we should lionize drug dealers, hookers and derelicts because they're the true libertarians.
No, that’s not what I said. But I’m sure you scored some points with that idiotic summary.
So you would support Trump for his incidental libertarian-ish things? or rather the explicitly anti-libertarian progressive D-party candidate? Or, what?
Or is it – you prefer the pure-blood libertarian choice or no choice at all? [which is what was stated]
Overall – his accidental libertarian deeds are more and better in their impact on society than the only other viable candidates – that includes Kennedy. They also lead to less inertial erosion [even in or maybe because of the inadvertant philosophical bent of any individual policy of his] of existing freedoms that exist now. If you vote neither you vote for inertia – the status quo – which is continuing if-not accelerating erosion of rights and freedoms.
I would support someone with principles because that would make the person somewhat predictable. Trump has no principles at all other than doing what’s best for Trump. That makes him a loose cannon, which is an unwise thing to have in the most powerful political position on the planet. Because he has no principles he could easily reverse any of the libertarian-ish things he's done if they become inconvenient.
You mean someone who shares your false principles because you don't demonstrate principles. This is just your arrived at excuse to attack him. In many of your examples you dismiss his intentionality. You always claim accidental arrival for libertarian positions without evidence.
Youre not principled. You have TDS.
Long TDS
A loose cannon is what America needs in the White House and why Trump should choose Nancy Mace (who got her start in politics working for Ron Paul) for his VP so we can have another loose cannon in the Naval Observatory
Overall – his accidental libertarian deeds are more and better in their impact on society than the only other viable candidates
I know – ‘opinion’. *cough* fact *cough* ????
If elected, and those accidental libertarian deeds become inconvenient to his personal ends, he will undo them without a thought. That's the risk you fun when you value principals over principles.
Show your proof they are all accidental. This is your excuse. Not reality. Youre broken.
I’m wracking my brain trying to think of the libertarianish things he did that really benefited him directly, besides possibly tax cuts.
Well, that's how I'd expect a theocratic fascists to see the idea of individual liberty.
What libertarian things did he do? Brutalize immigrants, drone people in the ME, let his religious bigots make laws on abortion? Honestly trying to figure that one out.
He made an effort to cut back on regulations and didn't start any new wars. Some will argue that cutting taxes is libertarian, but unless the lost revenue is offset by spending cuts doing so is irresponsible in my opinion. And it wasn't.
The "true libertarians" in the comments will tell you that free trade and immigration are leftist, so only leftists masquerading as libertarians oppose his policies on trade and immigration. But they're idiots and liars.
The “true libertarians” in the comments will tell you that free trade and immigration are leftist
No they won't.
He doesn't understand disadvantaged trade isnt free trade.
Ironically Trump is the only president who offered zero tariffs for countries that also agreed.
World socialist website on welfare state immigration in NYC 12 hours ago..
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/05/24/pgbo-m24.html
A Marxist theory since the 1960s, Cloward Piven strategy, proposes overwhelming the welfare state.
That's nice, but I highly doubt that's the intention of anyone in power.
As long as we ignore the 10s of billions spent on government spending for illegals. You know the spending you intentionally ignore.
but unless the lost revenue is offset by spending cuts doing so is irresponsible in my opinion. And it wasn’t.
Didn't tax revenue increase after the Trump tax cuts went into effect, compared with tax revenue the previous year before the tax cuts?
The deficit increased because spending increased, not because revenue decreased.
Revenue can increase and Congress will spend more (signed by the President). Revenue can decrease and Congress will spend more (signed by the President). It sounds to me like we have a huge spending problem, not a revenue problem by not taxing enough.
Don't bring facts to a discussion with sarc.
“Didn’t tax revenue increase after the Trump tax cuts went into effect,”
Yes, they did.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
Sarc is one of those libertarians for taxation it seems. Did tax revenues ever decrease sarc?
Criminal Justice Reform/the First Step Act, Tax and regulatory cuts, he did pursue peace with North Korea but unfortunately the swamp creatures he made the mistake of surrounding himself with, (e.g. John Bolton), interfered with most of his efforts on foreign policy.
Trump isn't a libertarian, but when you compare him to his opposition, or the Presidents that came before him, its not hard for libertarians to see him as the better option.
“Brutalize immigrants…”
Lol. This is why you whiny douches can’t be taken seriously. I mean cmon, man, those were Obamas cages, FFS!
Haha. Wuss.
He will never say brutalized J6 defendants. In fact even have a link of him defending their solitary confinement.
No federal laws were made in regards to abortion. And seeing as he wasn’t a dictator, there isn’t anything he could have realistically done to prevent any states from doing whatever they did.
Try again.
Why does it have to be on purpose? I’m very satisfied having people do good things for me by total accident. Like if I won a lottery, would I disparage it because it wasn’t fixed?
It's like you care more about intentions than acts.
Trump is probably the closest thing to a libertarian president we’ve had for generations.
Loud, completely ineffective, and fights with his own people? Yeah, alright. That's a fair cop.
Good one. I've been to several Libertarian state conventions and that pretty well sums it up.
“hosting other parties candidates to explain their own platforms and how they may align (or not) with L desires why exactly is that a problem?”
It’s not a bad thing at all.
My son likes to say that Trump is the best president of his lifetime. He's 23. Thus he compares Trump to Bush Jr, Obama and Joe Biden.
I suspect Pol Pot would look fucking amazing when compared to those three loosers. It doesn't take much to look better than those three absolute morons.
Saying Trump is the most Libertarian President in recent history is a similar statement. Jimmy Carter? Richard Nixon? Gerald Ford? Bush Sr? Fucking Bill Clinton? The only reasonably good president in that mess is Ronald Reagan. He brought us a ramped up drug war and no fault divorce but the Soviets blinked and Germany united. So kind of a draw.
But off all those again, yeah Trump is the "most libertarian" because the rest were absolute tyrants. It's a smartest of three stooges comparison. Until Trump, Reagan was most Libertarian. Before Reagan.... I'd say go back to Jefferson. We haven't had many, if any, small government types since Jefferson.
Anyone who didn't start a secret war, send the CIA to subvert an election or abuse their power to meddle in elections is in the running for most Libertarian just by default.
Uh, no.
One of the most fundamental axioms of economics is that voluntary trades make both parties better off, since by definiton each thinks the trade was worthwhile.
By definition, both the L.P. and Trump got something out of this trade, or at least think they did.
Econ 101, Brian. Come on, you can do better than this.
Even without Econ 101. You'd have to beat yourself retarded with a bag of hammers to think "Trump needs the Libertarian Party more than the Libertarian Party needs Trump."
Unless you really thought the purpose of the LP was specifically to put up loser libertarian-skinned POTUS/VEEP picks that don't break 5% rather than influence policy more broadly or otherwise.
Name one single Trump policy you believe the LP will persuade him to change. Kissing Trump's ass doesn't influence anything.
I don’t think Trump will pay Kenyan soldiers to occupy Haiti.
OK, I'll bite.
Are you claiming that he was going to do that, but this weekend the LP will change his mind?
And if he has a policy, such as deregulation, that has LP idea crossovers will you admit it or use the nirvana fallacy to dismiss it? Youre as bad as sarcasmic.
Seeing as he is speaking with Vivek who has a lot of LP crossover, Trump is open to those discussions. I get it. You have TDS.
Your cognitive defect here is not understanding who made the deal.
It wasn't the Trump making a deal with the LP. It was Trump making a deal with a pro-Trump faction that got control of the LP in a hostile takeover. The deal was made the deal over the strenuous objection of the rest of the party, you know, the pro-liberty faction.
"pro trump faction" seriously..the old guard was a bunch of culural marxist pussies who wanted above all attention and be invited to the DC cosmos dinner parties. Pledge you are not a bigot...what bullshit.
Bill Weld? Seriously..what a joke.
Sound money, free markets, limited govt and peace...not "abotion till birth, sexual mutilation of mental ill kids, open borders, forced economic transactions, and we love the fed".
Grow a pair...or maybe that is the problem with the "left libertarians...pussified"
They are all jokes, but no worse than you, Mussolini!
“Hostile takeover”
lol, you can’t be serious.
The "pro-liberty" faction that nominated pro-war Gary Johnson twice?
Not to mention the woke BLM/DEI white woman in 2020.
You mean the libertine pro-Marxist leftist faction that was booted out of power, nothing pro-liberty about them in reality.
Yeah, but what about people who actually care about politcal, social, and economic freedom? Where's our trickle-down from Trump and the LP hob-knobbing around?
There's a very, very good chance Donald Trump will retake the White House. Having him have to pitch his case to libertarians, including acknowledgement of their points of contention, is a plain, simple, win. And, yes, I'd say the same thing if Joke Biden wanted to come and speak. But, we all know he won't. Because he really doesn't have much in the way of answers for libertarians. I guess we'll have to rely on Chase Oliver and the staffers at Reason for the progressive take.
I’m sure Trump is going to win over the LP with his desire to round up illegals like cattle, erect more barriers to trade, subsidize politically connected businesses, ramp up the drug war, and expand police powers. He'll teach the LP the real meaning of libertarianism.
""As President Biden says, American workers and businesses can outcompete anyone—as long as they have fair competition. But for too long, China’s government has used unfair, non-market practices. China’s forced technology transfers and intellectual property theft have contributed to its control of 70, 80, and even 90 percent of global production for the critical inputs necessary for our technologies, infrastructure, energy, and health care—creating unacceptable risks to America’s supply chains and economic security. Furthermore, these same non-market policies and practices contribute to China’s growing overcapacity and export surges that threaten to significantly harm American workers, businesses, and communities.""
The tariff rate on certain steel and aluminum products under Section 301 will increase from 0–7.5% to 25% in 2024.
The tariff rate on semiconductors will increase from 25% to 50% by 2025.
The tariff rate on electric vehicles under Section 301 will increase from 25% to 100% in 2024.
The tariff rate on lithium-ion EV batteries will increase from 7.5%% to 25% in 2024, while the tariff rate on lithium-ion non-EV batteries will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2026. The tariff rate on battery parts will increase from 7.5% to 25% in 2024.
The tariff rate on solar cells (whether or not assembled into modules) will increase from 25% to 50% in 2024.
The tariff rate on ship-to-shore cranes will increase from 0% to 25% in 2024.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/
Is that the kind of barrier to trade you speak of?
Aren’t you guys all about this sort of thing now that Dear Leader has been saying CHINA BAD?
No, that would require honesty and integrity. When Trump's Deranged Supporters attacked critics of his trade policies while he was in office they were defending Trump, not the policies. This is evident by the fact that when Biden does the same thing and more they go silent.
You have yet to say which president you think never utilized a tariff.
The fact that Teumps deregulatory policy reduced or kept in check the growth of cost as compared to tariffs will never be admitted by you.
Youre so broken that you will latch into any argument you think might work while ignoring every other candidate and not criticizing them
Youre fucking broken.
Yup. That's what I'm speaking of. And if Trump is elected he'll be even worse.
""And if Trump is elected he’ll be even worse.""
Other than bias and projection, how would you know?
Maybe Trump would, maybe not. The current guy is tariff, tariff, tariff, but you want to deflect to Trump.
Notice how many of those tariffs are on things needed for green energy. They want to promote it but make it more expensive.
Other than bias and projection, how would you know?
Because he brags about his intentions to hike tariffs and protect domestic industry?
And Presidents Obama and Biden did the opposite of what they bragged as campaigners. Trump at least did what he bragged he would do.
And yet you say Trump is the evil one.
I know equate criticism of your political tribe with total allegiance to the other political tribe, including all the hatred you feel towards the other tribe which you believe to be evil in every way, but some of us have no use for that bullshit.
Maybe one of these days you will evolve past caveman and see that the tribalism itself is the evil, not the other tribe.
I doubt it though.
You get really angry lately when someone criticizes a Democrat.
You would rather have the guy that does it on the down low than the one that tells you to your face?
How come people don't know about Biden's big time increases on tariffs? Because the party's news agencies don't want people to know.
I'd rather have a guy who isn't hostile to free trade. Saying Trump is better than Biden because he's open about his protectionism is really dumb.
“…who isn’t hostile to free trade.”
There’s no such thing as free trade with unfree nations. A portion of every cent of trade with Red China is used to oppress the Chinese people and increase anti-libertarian Red Chinese military capability. Trade with Red China is anti-libertarian because it is aiding and abetting tyranny and short-circuiting pro-freedom reform. It’s trade with the West that enables the Communist Party of China (CPC) to stay in power. Trade with the west enables increasing prosperity in Red China and the CPC takes credit for it. Without trade with the West, economic conditions would be bad and the civil unrest and possible bankruptcy would likely cause the Communist government to collapse like the Soviets did.
We had strict boycots against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact, and the Soviets and Warsaw Pact collapsed. We have “free trade” with the Red Chinese, and the Communist Chinese are going strong and just as oppressive and aggressive as ever.
When the average Chinese citizen can access and comment on the reason website, subscribe to reason and have it delivered in Red China, then we can talk free trade.
If I had a dollar for every time a politician bragging about doing something that doesn't happen, I'd be rich.
""Because he brags about his intentions""
If you think he's a chronic liar, then he's lying. Right?
Funny how people who think Trump is dishonest only believe him when it's what they want to hear. Yet they will quickly call out Trump fans for the same.
Well he’s already hiked tariffs once, is a businessman who appreciates it when government protects businesses, and he’s spent the last three years talking about protecting American businesses and taxing imports.
So yes, I think he’s serious about sticking hard it to people and businesses that use imported goods, because concentrated benefits and dispersed costs are terrible economics and great politics.
Always ignore what is happening or what happened 2017 to 2020 abd just insert your preferred narrative on what might happen. The sarc method of criticism.
Free trade? Ok no subsidizes by either country, no tarifs and most importantly no pegging currency. Sounds like the old gold standard doesn't it...stops deficit spending, money printing by the central banks..that is free trade..everything else is "managed trade"...which means lots and lots of "rules" Trump at least undertands this..the idiots who scream for "free trade" don't. Stop the feds from borrowing money and this whole destruction of American industry will stop...won't need China to be our offshore vehicle for our inflation and have them buy treasuries.
JC.."free traders" on Reason are morons
Then there's nothing to fear, right?
You are actually describing Biden's agenda.
Observe that the GOP sockmuppet smears Oliver and actual libertarians as Progressives. That was Teedy Roosevelt's girl-bullying, prohibitionist, high tariff, foreigner-invading and murdering bid for a second elected term. Recall that TR's first term as President was thanks to an anarcho-communist assassin shooting McKinley. The progressive platform hissed about invisible government, unholy alliance, selfish purposes, secret [get this!] irresponsible power over the daily life of the citizen, then demanded a tariff wall against Canada! Compare it with the 1972 LP platform.
No problem with this. Just hope he gets his feet held to the fire by conventioners on his signing of the Cares Act(s) - one of the most communist, economical destructive, anti liberty bill(s) in the history of this nation.
I voted Libertarian from Harry Browne to Gary Johnson. It was pretty easy to see the uniparty as a thoroughly corrupt enterprise. That all changed 8 years ago. There's a lot to like about both Trump and RFK Jr. There's also a lot to dislike. But either one would be preferable to the radical leftist regime that is turning the nation into a banana republic. The Libertarian nominee will not be president. Period. If Trump is willing to find some common ground with libertarians I don't see a downside.
As much as Trump is all over the place when it comes to libertarian issues, I agree it's worthwhile to talk to him and try to convince him of things. It's not unprecedented for him to decide to do something pretty decent after people have presented their arguments to him without being hostile.
Ok, Zeb, name one policy change or tangible action you think the LP can extract from Trump through this moral suasion and lovingkindness you’re advocating.
I’m not snarking now, I really want to know what you think could be gained. Something that would stick, not just 5 minutes of lip service that’s walked back at his very next campaign appearance.
Regulation policy.
Spending policy.
Middle East policy.
Justice reform policy.
Tax policy
You know the areas he worked on last time he was president. But be truthful and admit you aren't actually interested.
I'm not saying I have high hopes. Just that it's worth a try.
Could he give pardons for Assange, Snowden and Ulbricht? I don't think that's outside the realm of possibility. The first two, at least, are primarily targeted by the very Deep State that targeted him.
He's called for the death penalty for dealing drugs - not just keeping drugs illegal, but imposing the death penalty for sales. He might want to walk that back or clarify that he means only cases where reckless disregard of dosages sold caused fatal overdoses. Better if he walks it back altogether,
But he wants the hard core conservative vote. Showing any willingness to walk back his "kill them drug dealers" plank will lose him the conservatives who want sin to be punished.
Then he can lose due to libertarianish types not voting for him over that fascist policy. All the drug warriors will still vote for him, even if he walks it back. Are they gonna vote for Biden? He's got nothing to lose by walking it back and everything to lose by not walking it back.
Hey, if we libertarians want to exercise whatever power we have, the Libertarian candidate should produce an ad hammering Trump over it (death penalty for drug sales). Repeatedly play and target the ad at libertarianish types, especially libertarianish moderates and libertarianish conservatives who might ordinarily vote for him. Just spoil those votes for him, and cause him to lose. That'll send a message to the right - don't push evil anti-libertarian policies or you'll lose.
Eight years ago, it was essential that Hillary Clinton not be president. The Supreme Court was up for grabs and whoever won would get to appoint 3 supremes. Not letting Hillary appoint 3 Supremes would've been worth voting for Trump especially since 2nd Amendment cases would be decided. Now, however, the Supreme Court is 6 - 3 conservative, and Trump made a lot of federal court appointments. The fear of the judiciary nullifying the 2nd Amendment is not what it was eight years ago. So, the Democrat winning the Presidency is not quite so scarey as it was eight years ago with Hillary.
If the Libertarian Party and presidential candidate was to be responsible for Trump's defeat because he pushed an anti-libertarian policy, the Republicans and conservatives would definitely take notice. It would force them to abandon policies that libertarians find odious, or lose.
Also, eight years ago, Hillary was a walking, talking nuclear war just waiting to happen. Her and Putin very negative chemistry. Fancies herself a feminist trying to dominate Putin the macho dude. Dangerous chemistry. Biden's not anywhere the danger Hillary was. So the Republican being defeated is not as bad as when Hillary was running.
Well I will say I'd have voted for an axe murderer over Hillary Clinton without batting an eye.
In 2016 Trump was the "not Hillary" candidate and that's what won him the election. My mother and Father are Democrats who could not vote for Hillary and became Trump Supporters.
I think a lot of Democrats are looking for better options than the candidates their party is offering. However I doubt the hard planks on abortion and immigration of the GOP are going to attract them.
You're preaching to the choir here.
The LP extracts repeal of bad laws by wielding enough law-repealing spoiler clout to to make whichever bastids is foithest from us LOSE! In 2016 the lying Dems promised to keep marijuana illegal and also ban electricity, while delegating the defense of women's rights to an 87-year-old judge. Four million libertarian votes shifted 127 electoral votes--the kind the Dems lost. Now that an eleventh-hour lebensborn National Socialist has taken Ginsburg's place, it's open season on pregnant women. The Libertarian LP GOT the Dems' attention. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/getting-their-attention-with-spoiler-votes/
"But in 50-plus years, the Libertarian Party has never been on the main stage politically, and this is an incredible opportunity for us to bring someone who grabs the spotlight and put them on our stage."
Really? Just take anyone as long as a camera would be pointed at them? How could the same not be said for... say, Vladimir Putin or Jimmy Chérizier? Do you really want to be associated with the things they are likely to say? Trump is so famously uncontrollable that even Republicans regularly have to distance themselves from his words. The first and only thing most people will ever hear about the Libertarian Party will be one of Trump's classic unhinged rants which will probably contain a small soundbite of awfulness that the LP will be required to spend the next six months walking back. This is going to be like "I'm here vouching for Ms. Clinton" all over again.
Lay down with dogs and wake up with fleas.
And before anyone goes "bUt JoE bIdEn!", Joe Biden's handlers know better than to let him talk to anyone. They have enough to worry about trying to keep him on topic (and standing up straight) in front of Democrats.
Allowing him and RFK, Jr. to speak at the convention is not endorsing either of them.
A lot of the comments here walk, talk, and smell like endorsements. I won't be surprised to hear a lot of similar "not endorsing but" endorsements from the hostile takeover faction at the convention.
Are you familiar with the Nirvana Fallacy? Honestly curious. Because you use perfection as a cudgel to attack people you dont like. And oddly almost exclusively against the right like sarc. Almost like you're actually a dem cosplaying as a libertarian.
Rational libertarians don't expect perfection because they are rational. The nation will not fix itself in a 4 year term. So rational and intelligent libertarians look to what gains they can make instead of using it as a cudgel to get nothing.
You'd rather have nothing then have something. And even worse you criticize that having something while not criticizing losing something.
Youre not a serious libertarian.
Frankly, I'll take another Trump term, even if he fails to deliver on most of his promises that I like. It would be a stopgap measure, at least, against the deleterious plans of the deep state and Dems for four years.
Christian National Socialists are famous for Faith, Belief and Hatred... facts not so much. The Libertarian party has since 1972 gained millions of votes, lately way more than elected Lincoln. God's Own Prohibitionists got mathematicians to show them that replacement was inevitable... UNLESS they annexed the less populous LP like it was Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium or The Netherlands. Girl-bullying anarcho-fascists have masqueraded as Dixiecrats, Paulists and Boston Tea Partiers, and now wear Klan masks.
Some people think there is no such thing as bad press. Those people are stupid.
It makes it seem like we're the Republican J.V. team."
Wait, you guys got promoted to the J.V. Team? Congratulations, guys. This is a bump up from the wave-a-gun-at-a-cop-play-grab-ass-at-the-park team of the Republican Party that you guys used to be. Hitting the gym and practicing on fellating Dear Leader has really paid off!! Good job!
It may “seem” like inviting Trump to speak makes certain libertarian leadership feel like the Republican JV.
As opposed to the majority of Reason writers as of late who actually are half-asses democrats.
Real libertarians have more in common with Democrats than with Trumplicans.
In a social sense that was true, but less true now.
Libertarians are not going to tie they panties in a knot over pronouns.
Libertarians do agree with prosecutorial reform. But not what is going on in NYC, LA, or Chi town. Remember when charge stacking was considered a bad thing? Now it's supported, just to go after one guy. If the dems are willing to abandon it for one guy, They are no longer in concert with what libertarians believe.
This is what liberaltarians say as they seek banana republic style control of government.
No, we don’t.
"Real libertarians have more in common with Democrats than with Trumplicans."
Guns? When the Democrats change on guns and no longer want the populace disarmed Brit- or Aussie-style or in prison, then talk to me about what I have in common with Democrats.
See, that's the ONLY item Libertarians and Republicans agree on. One item. Post COVID a lot of people who never owned a gun decided to buy one. Even the "Nutty Ninth" has ruled you can't deprive a non violent felon of their 2nd Amendment rights. I don't think gun control is going to bring the middle America democrat voters to the polls anymore.
I've always tried to argue that we need to go after angry Democrats and abandon the Republicans because they want everything but guns to be under government control. The party started as angry Republicans and most still think that's who we should recruit. But that has failed for 50 years. Time to try something new.
Note to foreign readers: The pro-choice, pro-energy LP won 4 million spoiler votes that reshuffled 127 electoral votes in 13 states in 2016, so Hillary's prohibitionism cost Dems the election. Remaining Dems still try to ban energy the way Republicans try to ban books, speech and natural drugs. Sfter losing Dems suddenly became stout defenders of individual rights for women, and again seek to legalize banned substances as they did in 1932.
The problem is the two major parties piss all over the idea of true individual liberty, they just direct their streams of urine toward different elements of liberty. So the moderate voters move back and forth between the two major parties which is what puts one or the other into a majority in cycles of banning things.
Reluctantly and strategically though.
TDS is the only thing putting the Libertarian party in disarray.
The previous LP establishment did this all to themselves. The disgraceful performances of its Presidential tickets in both 2016 (when it's VP nominee essentially supported Hilary Clinton before the election) and 2020 (when its nominee had more to say in support of BLM than in opposition to the authoritarian COVID regime).
Maybe the Mises Caucus is a "right-wing" takeover of the party, but it was only possible due to the suspicion that the "left-wing" had successfully infiltrated the leadership of the party. And to be entirely fair to the Mises Caucus, when the other side was in charge, they still supported the LP. That seems to not be the case now that the roles are reversed. Interesting why that might be.
Amen! Jorgensen (sp?) was a disgrace. I barely tolerated Weld as VP because Johnson as P was tolerable. Whether this Mises takeover is good or bad remains to be seen, but it's better than Weld and Jorgensen.
https://libertarianinvestments.com/2016/08/27/10-reasons-gary-johnson-is-not-a-libertarian/
Good summation.
And to be entirely fair to the Mises Caucus, when the other side was in charge, they still supported the LP. That seems to not be the case now that the roles are reversed.
That immediately reminded me of a defining trait of progressives once they lose power. Things only ratchet one way for them.
Imagine, for a moment, that from Goldwater to Nolan to Browne to Paul to Johnson... that the LP was actually a vestige or side project of an essentially majority Republican or Conservative values, while there was plenty of, even predominantly, NOTA. There was plenty of amicable back and forth with "Team Red" and, at virtually any/all points none with "Team Blue".
Then, in a mass panic between 2016-2020, all the masks slip and, just like everybody suddenly discovering Joe Biden wasn't really popular at all, it turns out nobody really wanted a left-leaning, "Civil Libertarian" party either. That Mises caucus isn't a bunch of racist, redneck deplorables running away with the LP any more than racist redneck deplorables got Trump elected as much as they are people who don't consider "The Western Hemisphere" to be synonymous with white supremacy. And rather than trying to continue playing the game with liars, fakers, and and cheats, taking their ball back and going home.
Conservatives have always opposed personal liberty and progressives have always opposed economic liberty, while libertarians have always supported both personal and economic liberty.
For a long while conservatives gave lip service to economic liberty, and based upon that a tenuous alliance with libertarians was forged.
Then between 2016 and 2020 conservatives turned their backs on economic liberty in favor of protectionism and mercantilism, and that broke that alliance.
Now conservatives see libertarians as no more than leftists because of their support for personal liberty which progressives give lip service to, and support for economic liberty that conservatives now abhor.
Libertarians didn't change or lean left in their support for liberty. Conservatives have just become more hostile to the concept as they become more and more authoritarian.
A bit oversimplified but that's pretty much it. There are some conservatives with a principled commitment to economic liberty but they've never had actual control of the Republican party, or even much of a seat at the table.
I'm fact is it not simplified nor it but an easily dismissed narrative. I get it. Narratives are easy to repeat.
This is false and quite frankly a retarded leftist talking point for low information voters. One example, the 80s rise for the drug war was implemented out of deep blue major cities. See the bills written and authored by people like Joe Biden. Kamala bragging about locking weed smokers up while admitting to smoking herself. Pro censorship. Pro political prosecutions.
Just because you are too intellectually lazy to look into origins of media narratives doesn’t make them right.
While the dems created the kkk the gop passed the CRA. Nixon opened up trade with China while FDR and other drms pushed tariffs, regulations, and other forms of control. The support for Hitler and Musollini was centered from the left for fucks sake.
Youre just fucking ignorant.
“Conservatives have always opposed personal liberty and progressives have always opposed economic liberty, while libertarians have always supported both personal and economic liberty.”
Doesn’t that kind of imply that conservatives always supported economic liberty and progressives supported personal liberty?
Owning a gun is personal liberty. Keeping more of your own money is personal liberty. Allowing local governments to establish varied local rules is personal liberty. Which party has consistently opposed all three?
Progressives paid ‘lip service’ to personal liberty but history shows it was actually the conservatives that ensured personal liberty while progressives destroyed it (via self-projecting).
Progressives did the ‘lip service’ contradiction FAR-MORE than even conservatives do today on economic liberty. Just because you think fair-taxing and tax-cuts = some BS about protectionism and mercantilism doesn’t make it so.
– Conservative freed the slaves.
– Conservatives wrote Roe v Wade establishing Pro-Choice liberty.
– Conservatives gave Women the right to vote.
– Conservatives Introduced Section 230 and carried the lead on “Yea” votes.
Usually fighting Democrats all along the way who would later dishonestly pretend to be the supporters of it. Just like they champion Abe Lincoln[R] in their own headquarters. They’re like those P’s.O.S. who claim everyone else’s work as their own at company meetings.
Don't even get me started on the lefts latest Press Dictation. Champions of personal Liberty. HUH... Only in their diluted gang-affiliated 'rules' imaginations.
I think conservatives have always been authoritarian. The left just took power in the mid 90s and tried to outdo the conservatives which made them seem less authoritarian. It's just a matter of comparison, not a matter of actual change.
Conservatives in most countries are the ones on the side of law and order and the aristocracy and monarchy, the enemies of freedom.
The USA is different because the country was founded by libertarians, and conservatives tend to honor the past and pay homage to the nation's founding documents.
Progressives oppose personal liberty to a huge extent, since they pine to be communists.
That Mises caucus isn’t a bunch of racist, redneck deplorables running away with the LP
Yes it is and it has been that since long before the 'Mises Caucus' existed. Goes right back to Rothbard creating his paleo strategy in 1992 where he explicitly hooked 'libertarian populism' up with the David Duke wing of Pat Buchanan's rebellion against the R establishment. Now maybe in his Leninist/libertarian/vanguardist mental masturbation, he thought he could turn the Duke/KKK inbreeds into a libertarian-leaning whatever. But I doubt his intentions were even that positive and, in truth, he merely turned 'paleo populism' into a white nationalist alt-right that says the quiet part out loud. Mises Caucus is a direct descendant of that. Now with the goal of turning the LP into the paleopopulist vehicle where the white nationalist alt-right can say the quiet part out loud. Fits with the longstanding tendency of the LP to welcome every attention-grabbing misfit.
IMO the reason the Trump invite fits perfectly with the strategy is - Trump WILL say the quiet part out loud. That's what he does and THAT is what the MAGAMises crowd here likes about Trump. If Trump doesn't say the quiet part out loud, then someone from Mises will try to goad him into that which shouldn't be difficult. That will get the attention Trump needs and he will then be able to walk it back more than he would at a 'normal' campaign event.
Because that alt-right part of his 'base' that doesn't want that stuff walked back will have a great option. Join the LP instead of the constipated R's who don't like you and want you out of their tent. You can still vote for Trump and you can help us turn your shit into something we can package as 'libertarian'. And Trump can say - The failed political establishment wants to keep things the same and stifle free thought, but I'm not afraid to say what others won't. We need to consider all ideas, even the really controversial libertarian ones that the losers and haters say are off-limits. We can make America think big again and it can't happen without me as President. And hey presto - LP is now alt-right and alt-right is now libertarian.
"...says the quiet part out loud."
I'm not following. What's the "quiet part" ?
And to be entirely fair to the Mises Caucus, when the other side was in charge, they still supported the LP. That seems to not be the case now that the roles are reversed. Interesting why that might be.
It's because the liberaltarians are and always have been leftists who want the LP and libertarianism destroyed.
Robert Conquests second law applies.
Fight it--RIGHT it.
Drift to the right and you're evil and abandoning party principles.
Drift to the left and you're a pragmatic centrist, willing to compromise for progress.
Note to foreign readers: the sockpuppet is a Christian National Socialist comedian-impersonator who by logical inference advocated attacking women's clinics with automatic firearms in a Reason interview anyone can listen to online. https://reason.com/video/2022/06/20/dave-smith-comedian-podcaster-presidential-candidate/
Eh, the L.P. should just get it over with and nominate this fucking rapey criminal douchebag . It’s either him or the fat guy with tassels on his nipples. When you get down to that level in the barrel I understand how desperate things can get.
I’ll bet you do. Sucks to be you.
Trump is the most libertarian President or major party presidential candidate in long long time. Now that's a very low bar, but there it is.
Tallest midget at the midget convention.
doesnt change the fact that we have to vote for tallest midget.
And as long as you keep promising to do that, their incentive is to be exactly 0.01" taller than the other midget, just like the optimum Price is Right guess is $1 above the poor slob who had to go first.
So, no. The rule is your head needs to be above that line I drew or you don't get on the roller coaster.
Then the roller coaster's empty.
Then it's fucking empty. It doesn't matter if the evil other party wins. In fact it's probably better because they drive faster toward the cliff and will make the collapse more impressive.
In the current situation the two are more like 2-3" apart in height.
Enought for one not to get the nation thrown out of the coaster seat during the inversions.
...and that can be the difference between being ignored by a pretty girl and getting an actual date.
In 2016 we could vote for libertarian principles. In 2018 it was anarcho-morons, in 2020 half- libertarian, half anarcho-moron, in 2022 anarcho-fascists (the Kleptocragy won bigly). Now it's a senile or dead geezer, a demented Nationalsocialist geezer, or a genuine libertarian--assuming Chase Oliver gets the chance to again out-leverage both Kleptocracy factions. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2022/11/12/libertarian-dollars-matter/
You can vote for whomever you choose. Your one single vote won’t affect the outcome in any case. Why waste it by voting for someone you don’t support? I always vote for the candidate I support, regardless of his or her supposed chance of winning. My vote doesn’t change that chance, but is recorded for posterity as supporting the candidate I support.
Smartest of three stooges.
It seems like a low bar only because you're looking from a libertarian world view. Try seeing things like the average person, and the bar looks fairly high. The average person wanted things just about the way they are, so that's what they got.
It is far truer to assert that Trump is the most Nazi president since Herbert Hoover. Readers should take note of how the Grabbers Of Pussy hedged their entrenchment while assigning deadweight to swamp the LP with girl-bullying Alabama rednecks: "RESOLVED, That any motion to amend the 2016 Platform or to adopt a new platform, including any motion to suspend the procedures that will allow doing so, will be ruled out of order." Libertarians should have expected no less than a Blitzkrieg Anschluss. The logistics curve math left the looters no other option but to not kill women or loot and jail hippies and brown people.
To invite Trump to be a headliner speaker is bad in itself. He's anti-libertarian in all ways. It would be like the JDL inviting Himmler to speak. (There, I Godwined this thread!)
But moreover, he's the presumptive nominee for a DIFFERENT PARTY! Inviting him to a candidates' debate is fine. But they didn't do that, they invited him to be a headliner speaker. Not quite a keynote speaker, but might as well be the same thing.
This is why the LP is dead. The point of the party is to elect party members, which presumably should be vaguely libertarian. Instead the party engages in a gross publicity stunt that isn't going to add one single LP vote some November, and will quite likely reduce is significantly. But current LP leadership is batshit insane. The party is dead.
This leadership has so thoroughly tainted the word "libertarian" that it might never recover. Fucking Leftists did the same to "liberal" a century ago to turn it around to mean "progressive socialist". Fuck the Mises Caucus. Fuck the LvMI. Fuck the Rothbard Fusionist Strategy.
Damn, I forgot to take my meds this morning. Fucking LP is going to give me another stroke.
Why not just head to vox, lefty? or slate? Where you belong.
Trump promised to put a libertarian in his cabinet and to put libertarians in senior govt posts….. not a bad advance for libertarians and the libertarian party – all achieved by just letting the guy speak at their party! Not bad at all – almost beast the giant progress achieved by ‘whats a Leppo’ not winning and not getting any libertarians into govt or govt postings.
Yup.
The most charitable motivation I could assign is that McArdle is just a star-struck teenie who thinks being on stage with the most famous man on the world would be so cool.
The least charitable is that it's some ugly deal where the leadership promised Trump to split the party and botch ballot access so that we've got a patchwork of different POTUS candidates (or missing ballot lines) in different states, in return for which they get some pathetic sordid reward.
Lol. If politics is causing you strokes you have much bigger problems than libertarian purity tests. Relax.
Doosh.
Liberaltarian purity tests*
The New Mexico LP is uncorrupted and not associated with the Austrian National Socialists from Alabama. You can donate to the most libertarian state Party in the Union at their website. Look for the gate that says Los Alamos. https://lpnm.us/
Many libertarian candidates are also running on original principles and planks--including individual rights for women! Donate directly and your cash-to-votes leverage is still about 200 times the looter leverage.
As I would say to Biden...Calm down corn pop. Sound money, free markets, limited govt and peace is much better than "take the shot, bake the cake, open borders, abortion till birth, CRT bend over and take it shit, the fed is our savior, and Trotsky...aka Zelensky must win over Putin, and of course one can actually be the other sex..it isn't a mental illness and mutilating little kids so their mom's can be the cool woke is just fine."
JC...the degeneracy of the "left libertarians" is beyond belief.
I all with you and Noob!
If only there was a Supernatural, Ludwig von Mises could come back and give the Mises Caucus and and the Lew Rock-head crowd the same treatment Lucius Clay gave to the Cable Boys in Wooley Swamp:
The Legend of Wooley Swamp
https://youtu.be/n-tEyUR5lCI?si=y3uXAtQDKtBe86Uy
Alas, though, there is no Supernatural, so the best thing we can do is bury our Mason Jars of cash and withhold our money from the monstrosity that the Libertarian Party has become over the years until it is euthanized. Do not resuscitate, compost the corpse, and let The Tree of Liberty grow anew in a better, stronger, Genetically-Modified form!
The word's been around a while. A lot of anarchists thought propertarians as in the LP tainted the word "libertarian". Catholic theologians have an entirely different understanding of it.
Anyway, if the purpose of LP were to elect libertarians, why would they not have succeeded in half a century? They seemed to have forgotten that to get that, you'd need the participation of voters. The voters just aren't there for it, and never have been. So unless they have in mind some extremely heavy cheating, like having all the ballots counted as for a LP candidate regardless of what they actually say, as in some banana republic.
“Anyway, if the purpose of LP were to elect libertarians, why would they not have succeeded in half a century?”
Because they’ve never been as well funded as the establishment party candidates. Never.
Maybe they didn't succeed because of people whould compromise and submit to the horrors of "kindly" slavery and who would sell the Natural Right of Life, Liberty, and Property for the mess of pottage called means-tested Medicare/Medicaid!
Enjoy your pottage and forget you ever heard the term "Libertarianism."
The sockpuppet does not grasp high school math: "The point of the party is to elect party members..." This is false. The point of the party is to use spoiler votes to repeal laws that violate rights. The point of the Prohibition party was to PASS such laws, and the 18th Amendment and Harrison Act triggered the Great Depression. The point of the socialist labor parties was to pass communist manifesto plank 2. The result was the Income Tax Amendment which worsened the Great Depression and attracts looters. Both were gotten with under 2% of the vote on average. Search "The Case For Voting Libertarian"
The media has done a lot to help ruin the name. Also trying to sell a product most people don't want to buy doesn't help.
>But instead of coming to watch presidential candidates such as Lars Mapstead, Michael Rectenwald, Chase Oliver, and Mike ter Maat duke it out for the Libertarian Party (L.P.) nomination,
Oh, are those the LP contenders? You wouldn't know that if you only followed Reason's coverage because they resolutely refuse to talk about anyone except Trump and Biden.
Then they have the temerity to complain that libertarians went to see Trump make a case for why we should support him.
Hey – if he’s not the only speaker I assume the event will turn into a Donald Trump Roast. He should be okay with that.
He’s already done one roast, and it was fucking hilarious.
This.
Rectenwald is the MC choice so can't mention him here.
That last name is a bit unfortunate though.
"bolstering the finances of a party that for the past two years has been bleeding money and membership."
There are two reasons the LP is "bleeding ... membership": the LP has zero chance of electing anyone to a state governorship, state legislature, Congress or to occupy the White House. And libertarians - possibly realizing that point number one is true - don't take politics seriously; while voters - also realizing that point number one is true - don't take the LP seriously.
I've said it before and I'll say it again now: the LP has almost no chance of having any significant impact on the mismanagement of government in the United States of America until the two-party, district-based, winner-takes-all system is replaced by a proportional representation, at-large, ranked choice online election system. Once each party has the number of elected representatives reflecting the party affiliation or political preferences of the voters in every state legislature and in Congress and almost one hundred percent of voters are represented by the representatives of their choice, then and only the could we influence the Presidential election in any meaningful way. But by then it would no longer matter who was President of the United States anyway! Until the LP focuses every bit of its resources on eliminating the two-party straitjacket voters find themselves in, nothing important will happen for liberty or for the party.
the LP has almost no chance of having any significant impact because people with no desire for power don't seek out positions of power.
ftfy
sarc – that is not strictly correct. Libertarians traditionally do not seek out positions of power over other people, but almost all humans seek out the power to defend ourselves and pursue our own interests and happiness. A libertarian might also seek a position of power to enforce equal rights and equal justice under the law for others without violating the non-aggression principle and to keep government within carefully specified Constitutional limits.
A libertarian might also seek a position of power to enforce equal rights and equal justice under the law for others without violating the non-aggression principle and to keep government within carefully specified Constitutional limits.
And they're not going to succeed because that requires seeking power over other people, and the kind of person who does that is not going to dismantle the power structure they just became part of. Power is not a means. It is an end unto itself. And people who attain it rarely if ever destroy what they worked so hard to achieve.
Power in politics-as in physics--is a time derivative. In politics it is ALWAYS the capacity to kill as a function of time. This is why the LP was successful using spoiler votes as the stick and carrot for 50 years instead. The higher the IQ, the smaller the population under that part of the bell curve. So leveraging 2% allowed us to lead the looters by the nose... The Anschluss fifth column sure wrecked that.
Man, I’ve been waiting to see what hank thinks about all this!
Well no, not really. Haha.
What we do is allow people with no desire to be bullied to vote that preference LOUD and clear on the permanent record.
If true, none of the communo-fascists would bother to infiltrate us. The looters KNOW the income tax and Prohibition amendments came from on average 2% of the vote, and that the original LP has been repealing cowardly aggression using that same ratio at all levels of government for 50 years. They hate nothing so much as the erosion of accumulated power to extort and gleefully infiltrate the LP like hijackers boarding airliners.
The LP is bleeding membership and donations because the GOP has improved as a competitive product for libertarian voters. Before the retard brigade shows up, I know, they still aren't a particularly attractive product. You don't have to convince me. I'm talking about marginal competitiveness. And politics, like economics, happens at margins. Today, it's not at all impossible to find Republicans who are averse to military adventurism, opposed to the administrative and national security states and the MIC, distrustful of the Fed, and skeptical of public health mandates. Do they dominate? No. But, a decade ago, you'd almost certainly wouldn't find any whose last name wasn't Paul.
This is true. The LP formed because of what turned out to be a temporary lack of separation between the major parties. It really did look like an echo, not a choice, by the late 1960s. But by the 1990s a division had reopened, and even issues that had fallen about equally between the parties (and the underlying "liberal" - "conservative" division) 30 years earlier fell decisively on the "right" side for libertarians — mostly because the "liberals" stopped caring (or pretending to care) about "personal" freedoms.
Yes... Ron Paul, the original Republican girl-bullying infiltraitor. He sure was in favor of energy though.
the LP has almost no chance of having any significant impact on the mismanagement of government in the United States of America until the two-party, district-based, winner-takes-all system is replaced by a proportional representation
So - when pigs fly? Most of the political elections in the US are ONE party not two party. And always have been. Or even lower than that - non-party. Publicly jerking off to notions of pr or alt choice or IRC or something else in a big black box is just a way of avoiding trying to deal with mismanagement of government in all those offices where those notions you advocate don't even apply.
The LP having a list of grievances is it's biggest weakness. It should focus on one issue, prohibiting government coercion. That's the fundamental flaw in the system.
But you tell most people that, they'll say they are free of government coercion. The fish don't see the sea.
If you live a completely conventional life in the USA, that's largely true. The coercion happens when you try to step out of line.
Or every two weeks when they rob you blind, ostensibly to protect you from random robbers.
G.A.L.A.
Give
America
Liberty
Again.
The companion ideal to MAGA.
""G.A.L.A.""
AOC is already shopping for a dress.
"shopping for"?
Don't you mean she will accept the free tickets and dress and not declare the contribution, thereby violating House rule and FEC rules?
Hagfish said that full numbers won't be available until after the convention, but: "Best period of fundraising since I've been on the board."
Um... izzis part of that SNL spoof where "behind closed doors" Biden is a young bull moose? The Trumpanzee caucus is baldly a takeover of the party that accidentally elected Orange Hitler by swerving 127 electoral votes in 2016. Boothead, Pinhead and no borders Baldhead promptly alienated half of our voters. Now this...
They tried that gag with Ronald Reagan. It was modestly funny then. It's no longer funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wfPlgKFh8
To quote Heinlein, that was a "funny once" joke, not a "funny always" joke.
Trump is not a serious person. He is not a serious man. He is an idiot with so many flaws he induces gutteral distain in anyone paying attention. The fact that his opponent, our current president and the democratic candidate is a demented corrupt career politician does change the fact that Trump is awful. They both are.
So Oliver is the last candidate standing? Suits me.
And yet he served as president of the US of A, demonstrably much more ably than the current office holder....
How many of our nominees have been “former Republicans”?
The LP has been the JV team since I first learned of it.
That only shows that the Dems have been taken over by zealous factions favoring a foreign takeover of These States. Anti-defense, anti-energy, anti-economics and pro-collectivism is at best another reversion to the People's Party as in 1896.
Hey, something that made sense and I agree with you on.
I will probably write in Joshua Smith. Sure, he'll never be elected, but I like his style.
I think a good amount of the decline in donations and membership is due to the well-known troubles they have had with their CivicCRM software which manages that sort of thing. As a longtime member, last year was the first time I was not sent a reminder letter or email when my membership was up. A few months late, I went online and renewed, but how many people have just lapsed without knowing it?
Trump can be the new edgelord, if only for that moment.
Considering that the Libertarian party has been downhill since the relative success of Gary Johnson in 2016, this move is understandable. What do Libertarians want? In a perfect world, about 1/3 to 1/2 of congress would be libertarian. In the real world, we'd be lucky to have one congressman be Libertarian from election (becoming one and losing re-election doesn't count). So what is doable? Convincing a winning presidential candidate to hold some Libertarian views.
You're not gonna get that with the Democrat party, not today. Love or hate Republicans, they can't do worse than the last 3.5 years, for which Dems won't even acknowledge responsibility, let alone think they've been wrong in any way, shape or form. If any part of congress remains in Democrat hands in 2025, the country is certified fucked (it may still be fucked if not, but someone deserves a spanking for the past 3.5 years - if there is no spanking, than this country is truly lost)
Libertarian party leadership, as dysfunctional as it is, realize all of this. I hope they have some success in at least getting some of our reasonable stances in favor or reinforced with Trump.
Actually, it was Trump's commitment to christiano-fascist girl-bullying and televangelist coercion agendas that got him defeated. The only thing the creep got right was to tell panhandling Eurotrash where to get off. But the mystical hayseed takeover made exporting prohibitionism (hence ruining economies and bringing refugees) and bullying women back to death in childbed JOB ONE. The LP wrote the Roe v Wade decision Jerry Falwell brainwashees enshrined. So he packed the court with nazis, got rid or it and women voters got rid of him.
I resigned my National membership when the Mises faction took over. I will not return nor will I donate a single penny until they're gone. I have my fingers crossed for Chase Oliver, who is a charismatic, well-spoken person who would attract voters, not repel them as the Mises-ites are doing.
I switched from AfD-Alabama anarchonazis to the New Mexico libertarian party, which still retains important planks of the 2016 platform. I also donate to Reason whenever the hat is passed. Many countries were--thanks in part to Herbert Hoover--taken over by Christian National Socialists beginning in 1938. But by June of 1945 the worst of that faction was dead from reprisals and suicide. When the LP reboots to the original platform a ban on plank changes will prevent a repeat of Anschluss and Blitzkreig tactics. The GOP has one in place to protect christiano-fascism.
And what if the Mises types are far more popular?
They can form their own party? Personally, I favor the name, "National Conservatives" (but mainly because I think "Nat-c" is a hilarious abbreviation).
The idea of inviting Trump and others to the convention was actually a bold, out-of-the-box thing to do. It has made the LP more relevant and well known. Unfortunately, it was probably done for the wrong reasons, but it did raise the LP's profile outside of the libertarian niche. Credit where credit is due.
So, running Weld for VP was not enough?
Demanding we eulogize an antifa retard who FAFO was not enough?
Yeah, you should be taken seriously.
Relevance matters. I'd rather see the LP bringing in the main-stream candidates if they're willing and ask them hard questions that they won't get from the main-stream. If nothing else, it's beneficial to know what you're voting against.
By mainstream the sockmuppet clearly means looter. To dislodge their laws and policies the original LP platform produced incredible vote share growth. Collapses from Reagan-Bush-Bush prohibition Crash in 1987, recession in 1990-92 and Collapse in 2008 were what woke voters up to LP repeal planks. Dems learned the hard way and now clumsily repeal violent prohibitionism and deadly girl-bullying laws--which is why they are in office. Mises MAGAts have made the rump LP a stench in the nostrils of women voters--the opposite of when our vote total leapt by 47 times, then 251 times that original vote total before obnoxious, meddlesome planks ruined all progress. Infiltrator sabotage is what defeats the LP.
The LP has always been in disarray.
At least today they are making the news.
I don’t see hosting Trump (and RFK Jr and Ramaswamy) as a betrayal of libertarian principles — it shows a willingness to embrace open debate and competing viewpoints, an openness that the major parties would benefit from practicing.
Actually nominating a Drug War warrior like Bob Barr was an example of an actual betrayal.
Nominating a squishy progressive Republican like Bill Weld for VP was a betrayal.
Running an "anti-racism" advocate for President was a betrayal.
Booing Trump was not one. Getting ANY attention that is not "What the fuck is wrong with these morons?" is a plus.
Though his "Enjoy getting your 3% every four years" line was amusing.
I thought Trump speaking at the Libertarian National Convention would be the worst thing ever for the LP, but it might be the best.
As the Mises Caucus predicted, the speech attracted more media attention to the LP than ever before, but instead of the headlines being "Libertarians Welcome Trump", those headlines are all, "Libertarians Boo Trump". And the videos of Trump being booed are flooding through social media.
So, instead of the LP being viewed as MAGA-lite, people are realizing that much of the LP is very much anti-MAGA.
To quote the LNC's slogan, Libertarians have demonstrated that they have already "Become Ungovernable."
I doubt Trump will do that again...
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-booed-for-wearing-deodorant-at-libertarian-convention
"But it gets us the best ratings ever!" - Every media outlet, explaining why they cover Trump as much as possible.