Libertarians Are More Politically Homeless Than Ever
The two major parties despise each other, but they hate the thought of leaving us alone even more.

For libertarians, modern American politics makes for a lonely place. Lonelier than usual, that is. Democrats are doubling down on their longtime taste for government control of the economy while replacing vestigial civil liberties concerns with a mania for policing political discourse. Republicans want to close the doors of the land of opportunity so they can dole out jobs to supporters in the not-very free economy they plan to manipulate for their own purposes. The major parties strongly agree on one point: State power should be enhanced and wielded for their own ends.
That leaves little room for free minds and free markets.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Free Market, No More
That the GOP has drifted from support for free enterprise under Donald Trump is no revelation. As far back as 2016, 57 percent of Republicans surveyed by The Economist/YouGov agreed with then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence's take that "the free market has been sorting it out, and America's been losing." (Among Democrats, the figure was 33 percent, with 38 percent among independents.)
"On the right, support for free markets and free trade are more and more often derided as relics of a bygone century, while quasi-theocratic ideas are gathering support," Reason's Stephanie Slade wrote two years ago in a piece discussing the convergence of the illiberal right and left.
Sure enough, the 2024 Republican platform promises "a robust plan to protect American Workers, Farmers, and Industries from unfair Foreign Competition." That means Trump's proposed tariffs. It likely also means "consequences" he has favored for companies that move jobs and manufacturing off-shore.
That activist impulse isn't confined to trade. While much ink has been spilled over vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance's 2021 musings about firing "every civil servant in the administrative state" to "replace them with our people," less has been said about his rationale for that scheme.
New Fans of the Regulatory State
"We should just seize the administrative state for our own purposes," he urged. Seize the administrative state to reduce its role in our lives, perhaps? Well, no. It's about political payback.
"Why don't we seize the assets of the Ford Foundation, tax their assets, and give it to the people who've had their lives destroyed by the radical open borders agenda?" Vance asked of Tucker Carlson.
The party platform does call to "cut costly and burdensome regulations," and that's encouraging. But with talk of "seizing" and "consequences," those cuts will likely benefit only those on the party's good side, not those making choices it doesn't like.
Among those making choices the GOP doesn't like are those advocating what Vance and friends call "open borders"—or maybe just easier immigration. For those who entered the country illegally, the party platform promises the "largest deportation program in American history." A large government program will undoubtedly require lots of bureaucrats, funding, and power. That program will also, the platform promises, "deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again."
The Speech Police
Such an ambitious and intrusive government plan is worthy of President Joe Biden's Democrats who, just a few years ago, were using federal agencies to torment non-profit organizations whose ideas they didn't like.
"The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention," the tax inspector general found in 2013, when Biden was vice president.
Since then, the Biden administration has taken to labeling opinions and ideas it doesn't care for as somehow illegitimate and leaning on private platforms to suppress such expression.
"I make a special appeal to social media companies and media outlets: Please deal with the misinformation and disinformation that's on your shows," Biden huffed in 2022. "It has to stop."
"The United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth,'" U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty warned of government arm-twisting to suppress disfavored speech (the Supreme Court recently dismissed a legal challenge to the practice.)
Ever-Bigger Government
When it comes to economics, surveys find that Democrats now view socialism more positively than capitalism. Hey, if you try it enough times, maybe just once it won't result in poverty and misery.
Those shifting sentiments offer cover for even bigger-government schemes than Democrats usually favor.
Just this week, the White House proposed national rent control, asking Congress to "cap rent increases on existing units at 5%." The scheme, which probably won't make it by lawmakers, has the same sort of purchase-popularity vibe as the administration's repeated attempts at student loan forgiveness.
That economic genius is on top of hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies the Biden administration handed out to favored corporations in the EV industry, broadband firms, tech companies, and more.
And when it comes to protectionism, the Democrats and Republicans are now both such committed protectionists that the Tax Foundation analyzes their policies as a joint exercise in idiocy.
"We estimate the Trump-Biden tariffs will reduce long-run GDP by 0.2 percent, the capital stock by 0.1 percent, and employment by 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs," according to a June analysis by the organization.
That's not to say there are no grains of wheat in the chaff. Republicans strongly endorse school choice and have at least a bit of awareness of the destructive power of the regulatory state, even if they kind of like it. They're also more open to shifting authority from the federal government to states. Democrats, for their part, are committed to reproductive rights and reject the GOP's tendency towards theocracy (though social justice ideology plays that role for some). Given Biden's deteriorated state, they're unlikely to emulate Republicans in embracing a cult of personality; the guy just isn't up to it.
But the two major parties are, overall, farther from libertarians than they've been in a long time.
Normally, I would drop in a mention here that at least we can park our votes with the Libertarian Party. But that column of smoke you see in the distance is the dumpster fire it has become after an influx of populist trolls. Oh, well, it was nice-ish, and often amusing, while it lasted.
This is probably a good time to get outside, touch grass, and think about living free lives that don't require the cooperation of what has become of America's political parties.
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
Bowf sidessss!
Fuck you. The right has been moving in a more libertarian direction on most issues (unilateral open borders is not a libertarian cause.) Meanwhile the left is aggressively authoritarian and should properly be described as fascist. Maybe if "libertarians" like Reason tried playing nice with Republicans rather than democrats and stepped off the one-sided demonization they could get more concessions. There's a reason the most libertarian politicians have been Republicans and the freedom caucus members come from the same party.
Reasons form of open borders into a welfare state aligns more closely with marxist ideology than libertarian. And advocating of tens of millions having money taken from them to pay others, at the behest of government. Reason will never recognize the violations of the NAP for their open border views. 150B a year is the current costs.
Hoppe describes it well in his essay.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/
Would that be Frankfurt-educated, self-declared Marxist Hans-Hermann Hoppe? That Hoppe there?
Glad to see you here, and active at the convention.
JesseAz is angry that his money is being taken and given to others. One solution is stop taking the money, the other is to eliminate the others. He demands the second solution every single time, because he’s a “national libertarian”, which seems to be the new euphemism for being simply – and only – anti-immigrant.
That mooted nazi sockpuppet? National Libertarian is a collectivist misnomer for National Socialist to gull suckers. They copy NSDAP planks 7 and 8 as Scripture . The Ladies' Home Journal in 1933 observed that "all" Germans are socialist; indeed Comrade Goebbels wept when Hitler agreed to disparage the "nationalize trusts" plank Bayer and Krupp disliked. Before Reagan decided that enslaving girls and murdering South Americans was God's cure for the Menace of Free Trade, nobody but Wallace Birchers and the Klan were dumb enough to parrot that stuff. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/trump-and-national-socialism/
Bowf sidessss!
It's getting to be like a bad sitcom.
Scene: Borderline racist, absentee father, Mises Caucus, comes in after laboring in the dirt and being kicked out of the LP Household to sleep on the couch. Moody teen daughter, Reason comes down stairs and discovers him on the couch.
Reason: Oh great! Now *I'm* homeless!
[cue laugh track]
This might almost be as good as your Boomers/Gen-x/millennials/zoomers chat replay on Meta.
"The right has been moving in a more libertarian direction on most issues."
Sure....like taxing us to promote a trade war, giving the teamsters a platform at their convention, e.g. If the fundamental tenets of libertarianism are free trade and the non-aggression principle, then bowf sidesss really do suck and neither are moving in a more libertarian direction. But I will agree with you that the left has moved much farther away than the right.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, and fuck off.
You're still alive?! Sevo is a great example of the NAP in action. He's the mostest libratarian commenter here. A real treasure.
Coulda fooled me. They sound like a rude, ignorant troll.
Gee, I expected more of you. TDS is a serious issue; seek treatment.
"Right" is what they imagine as Jesus, Hitler and racial eugenics breeding to produce morally instinctual altruists and eliminate darker collectives. Like other mystical glossolalia, it sacrifices meaning to attract dumber suckers. If the media didn't help put it across to please The Kleptocracy, it'd prolly lose oomph the way "Fuhrer" and "New Germany" did in 1945.
The U.S. government interfering with people's freedom of movement at U.S. borders is aggressive State authoritarianism regardless of what policies other governments pursue.
If the leaders of one violent cartel that exists as a consequence of the drug war were to say "why should we unilaterally stop killing people when our rivals are still committing murder?", you wouldn't defend this ethically bankrupt objection or make excuses for them, would you?
From protectionism, to budget-busting spending, to Trump's call to EXECUTE anyone caught selling drugs, the Republicans have been moving further away from freedom, not towards it. If libertarians reward this bad behavior with our votes, it will only continue.
We need to build an independent alternative, a strong Libertarian Party and freedom movement built on adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle, and stop putting our hopes in the false promises and morally/fiscally bankrupt policies of left-wing OR right-wing politicians who have no respect for freedom.
Before the China Boycott of 1905 demanding the USA use the Hague as a prohibition puppet (and approve genocidal extermination of Filipinos resisting invasion), there were no such laws. Border ports charged import tariffs, then were commandeered as Comstockist book burners and to block Chinamen and anarchist assassins. The communist income tax was offered to replace the tariff and didn't. The sensible position today is to repeal the communist income tax, THEN protection rates, then look for a way to get rid of for-revenue import tariffs. Communist anarchists posing as libertarians want the U.S. to surrender, defund and disarm first, before any totalitarian socialist dictatorship. Hacking the platform to press these priorities is what wrecked the LP, hence invited the anarco-fascist Jesus Caucus invasion.
"We need to build an independent alternative, a strong Libertarian Party and freedom movement built on adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle, and stop putting our hopes in the false promises and morally/fiscally bankrupt policies of left-wing OR right-wing politicians who have no respect for freedom."
And ponies! We want ponies!
This sort of fantasy-driven bullshit is the reason the L party stopped getting anything at all from me years ago.
In order to get any of our desires met, the first thing we need to do is get someone who supports any libertarian policies ELECTED and with enough support to get them enacted.
Other than that, you might just as well go the L convention every 4 years in a funny costume and whine about "purity".
Considering that fruitcake Libertarians nominated to run for President I know I'm without a political home. I'll probably vote for Trump, at least he is coherent and talks about solving problems not just what a Nazi his opponent is like Biden and the Dems but from what I'm reading today Biden is dropping out this weekend leaving Kamala as the nominee in waiting. Hehe, hehehe, hehehehehehehehe..Cackle Cackle Cackle.
When will Reason start charging the $9 for EACH of the moocher email accounts these schaisstpesters hide behind?
That the GOP has drifted from support for free enterprise under Donald Trump is no revelation. As far back as 2016, 57 percent of Republicans surveyed by The Economist/YouGov agreed with then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence's take that "the free market has been sorting it out, and America's been losing." (Among Democrats, the figure was 33 percent, with 38 percent among independents.)
Going to keep hammering this. Define your supposed free market. These surveys do not.
Global trade has never been a free market. Ignoring anti market acts doesn't make a market free. Supporting advantaged trade is not supporting a free market.
The real question is do you want to make the market more free. And sometimes this does take tit for tat strategies. This has been proven out in trade theory gaming competitions where a form of tit for tat always leads to the most optimal returns.
This has been true for decades at this point.
Arguing what an ideal system optimizes at doesn't work in an ideal world. Building an airplane assuming ideal environmental conditions will make the plane fail as soon as it encounters turbulence or stormy weather. This was the entire purpose of introducing game theory into economics. And we have evidence it applies to economic systems.
All reason does is scream free markets without thought to attack both sides as equal. This is theblazy sophomoric analysis of Middle schoolers. Foreign actors are not operating as a free market. Disadvantaging trade vs those other markets doesn't mean the market is free, it just means you're naive and disadvantaging yourself.
Most importantly, the United States doesn't operate free markets either: minimum wage laws, excessive workplace regulation, subsidies for favored industries, tariffs for their competitors abroad, tax breaks for the politically connected, etc. No one has yet been able to explain to me the free market reason were using corn to sweeten our food and fuel our cars.
To the extent some of these things are necessary to police bad actors, when other countries don't follow those rules, the sensible thing to do is to place a tariff to offset the bad actions. Otherwise our country is flooded with goods made from what is essentially slave labor. And no that's not "great for us" as some have argued.
To the extent the above government interventions are unnecessary, obviously they should be eliminated.
The glucose trust was an economic reaction to submarines and blockades. By adding prohibition laws it morphed into the source of over 95% of all ethanol consumed in Prohibitionist America. Its suppression was in large part what wrecked the U.S. economy as of May 1927. Huge busts involving thousands of wealthy distillers and corporations took years to prosecute. Meanwhile the Harrison Act prong put huge foreign-American drug plants and banked fortunes in danger of asset-forfeiture & tax seizure. All of this is in "Prohibition and The Crash" on Amazon Kindle for the cost of a craft beer. "The Forbidden Game" by Brian Inglis provides added context to understand if Trade then Wealth, else Crash, Depression, War.
The fact that global trade is not a perfect free market is no reason to make it even LESS free, by having government impose higher prices and fewer choices on consumers in the form of tariffs.
.... *Taps the sign*
"The real question is do you want to make the market more free. And sometimes this does take tit for tat strategies. This has been proven out in trade theory gaming competitions where a form of tit for tat always leads to the most optimal returns."
Do you think we missed JesseAz’s bait-and-switch from “more free” for everyone to “optimal returns” to whichever player is more willing to use the law to gain advantage?
I didn't. He was careful to say optimal returns - for someone - rather than more free. He chose his words carefully, freedom is never his objective. He views freedom strictly as a tool to some other end.
Reluctantly and strategically vote D folks
Because Republicans want to “dole out” jobs to…Americans?
The ideology Reason subscribes to holds that immigrants are inherently superior widgets for the economic machine than the native born, and that is all that matters.
That the country's sheer capacity to absorb new people is being severely strained by the numbers attempting to get in by hook or by crook is an annoying and minor detail by these lights.
That's not what Reason says. They recognize that human beings are people, with their own lives, hopes, dreams, etc., not just economic widgets or statistics to be subjected to social engineering by politicians in Washington D.C., and that this is true regardless of where they were born, what language(s) they speak, who their parents are, etc.
If they focus on the positive economic contributions of immigrants, that's to counteract all the racist and xenophobic stereotypes and misinformation being peddled about people from other countries whose only crime is seeking a better, freer life for themselves and their families.
Pick your battles or lose them all; "free" immigration is not going to win anyone over.
Stardchild, like Brandy shit will forever remain a (cap L) Loser.
"Imagine there's no countries....it's easy if you try...."
I never knew that was a libertarian philosophy. Thanks for the education.
When you put it that way they sound evil. And we know there is no way they could be evil, right?!
Because Republicans want to “dole out” jobs to…Americans?
Yeah – we have minimum wage floor set at $20/hr and UBI & welfare for Americans. The rest is for the uber-oligarchs.
Americans dont need no stinkin' jobz!
Maybe the LP shouldn’t have selected an Obama supporter that bent the knee for covid then virtue signaled that. Mix in identity politics with that one. Twink edgelords don’t represent libertarians.
Chase Oliver hasn't been an Obama supporter for years, and he has repeatedly spoken out against Covid mask and vaccine mandates.
Check out his website (https://www.VoteChaseOliver.com) if you don't believe me. Lots of disinformation going around about this stuff from right-wing "culture warrior" types, I know.
Chase is openly gay, but he doesn't make a major issue of his sexual orientation. Some Libertarians claim they weren't even aware of it before he was nominated.
Contrast this with the behavior of people who are obsessed with the idea of American "greatness" or national power. Basing your identity on nationalism is no less a form of "identity politics" than basing your identity on your gender, ethnicity, or sexuality.
Contrast this cherry-picking bullshit to those who hope to accomplish something.
So the problem with the Ls is populist trolls? Isn't Chase the anti populist troll?
No, he isn't a troll at all. From talking with him extensively, and watching how he campaigns and conducts himself in interviews, debates, etc., I can say Chase Oliver is a sincere and committed activist who believes in the ideas of liberty, as well as treating people with respect.
By coincidence, before the Trumpanzees were accidentally empowered by side effects of LP shifting 127 electoral votes, it was easy for ex-pats to send money to LP candidates. Suddenly a wall of "anti-laundering," tax "compliance," and thinly masked terror barriers popped up to balk any effort to get money to the New Mexico LP and LP candidates in general. Chase Bank now acts as if its recent $350 million fine was assessed for "letting donations get through to Libertarians."
And he stands zero chance of winning.
Libertarians Are More Politically Homeless Than Ever
Political homes are just, like, an abstract social construct and in a world without borders, we're all politically homeless, man.
They're also more literally homeless.
This is why people don’t understand libertarianism. Supposed libertarians don’t even understand their own principles.
You can’t have open borders with a welfare state. Fix the welfare state and open borders become a possibility. Duh.
Whining about how the other parties don’t align with principles that don’t even align with libertarianism is just stupid. And if you keep saying stupid things like this I and others will likely start ignoring you.
To me it’s a simple hierarchy. Dems are a non-starter as they are almost diametrically opposed to libertarian principles. Republicans are better aligned. If you are looking for perfect alignment quit whining, get yourself ideologically pure, recruit intelligent candidates and educate people on libertarianism. Start with the children. That’s what Democrats have done to great success.
You can’t have open borders with a welfare state.
Forget welfare state. You can't have "borders are just an abstract social construct" and a home, especially a diverse, blended family, political home.
Even when people actually did draw lines in the sand. They didn't draw lines for lack of lines. They drew lines to solve problems and address issues. Maybe the problems are otherwise solved and the issues no longer exists and you can erase some lines. But to act like all lines have no meaning and should be erased is dirt-stupid nihilistic idiocy along the lines of all speech and writing is an abstract social construct and, in order to prevent governments from issuing any further speech or proclamations, we should all stop reading, writing, and speaking.
And yet, Reason complains, in writing, about how they don't have a political home. You made the public street corner that can be occupied by anyone Reason, you can now sleep on it.
Well said.
Apropos... tangential, a corollary, in line with, this puts me in mind of some philosophical roads I've been going down lately.
The meta question I'm exploring is: I have a set of values... are they universal? And the conclusion I'm coming to is "No, they're not even close to universal."
Libertarian values are NOT universal. So no America, no social construct, no libertarianism.
You seem to be conflating open borders and just abolishing borders.
Currently in the USA, there is open borders and free trade between states. That includes free trade of labor, if you live in one state you are allowed to commute to work in another state. That doesn't mean that the state borders have ceased to exist. If you cross state borders you are in the jurisdiction of a different government with different laws, taxes, etc.
Proponents of open borders generally don't want to get rid of national borders, they just want them to be more like state borders. They are often even less radical than that, many are fine with allowing tons of people to come here as guest workers, but think that they should still have to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops to become full citizens.
Exactly. Most of the United States has open borders. You can travel from state to state, county to county, and city to city, without encountering border walls, fences, or customs officials, and the system works so well that we rarely hear or think about it.
Only the most closed, militarized government border in the country, the one with Mexico, seems to be constantly plagued by problems, and that's not a coincidence. Mr. Biden, tear down that wall!
Much of that is laws the Southern Command imposed by invading weaker countries to ram Hoover-Biden-Reagan-Bush²-prohibitionism with extradition laws through foreign Kleptocracy assemblies. The U.S. bullied Nicaragua into betraying its people to please China in 1905, followed by Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Czechoslovakia. France caved in 1929 and Germany was dragged into signing an extradition treaty in 1930--a year and a day before giving in to the "narcotics" treaty that prompted German Pharma to fund Hitler. A similar usurpation was forced on Colombia 40 years later. Resulting economic refugees hate "our" Kleptocracy, rather than American voters frog-marched into connivance in the strangulation of infant economies. (See below...)
There are issues other than open borders, but starchild is really focused on a losing issue. Hence, starchild can be ignored. Unless you really prefer (cap L) Losers.
I agree. It is the simple expected value theorem.
80% agreement at 2%
50% agreement at 49%
0% agreement at 49%
Rational choice is to choose the middle one.
And the modern LPe plank of bumper stickers and fire wood (making wrlfare state worse with open borders before reform) actually puts them at under 80%, probably nearing 50% due to Chase wanting to favor specific communities. Likewise the LPe doesn't actually have any plans, just bumper stickers. And I don't buy bumper stickers.
Individual rights are inherent and inalienable.
That's what it means for something to be a *right*.
You can't make a right, such as freedom of movement, conditional on something else happening, like government welfare programs ending.
That's like saying we can't let people own guns until school shootings stop, or we can't allow free speech until people stop spreading disinformation.
Trying to restrict freedom of movement because some people might move somewhere and get on welfare – a misguided concern when native-born people receive MORE government subsidies than foreign-born migrants on average – is stereotyping people as members of groups rather than treating them as individuals.
Each individual is responsible for their own actions, good or bad. Denying someone's right to move to the United States because some other migrants have accepted welfare money is like denying your right to vote as a citizen because some other people make poor choices at the voting booth, or denying your right to start a business because other people made poor financial decisions, or denying your right to practice your religion because some church officials have engaged in child abuse.
Again, that unerring anarco-ability to get things wrong starts with a mystical assertion rather than a logical derivation made clear by a definition. Compare: "A right is a moral claim to freedom of action." That's a serious definition worked out by a large number of professional philosophers since 1946 and distilled into clarity by Dr Tara Smith without sloppy analogy or equivocation. The title is "Moral Rights and Political Freedom," a relationship entirely independent of the passing humors of Devils, Dervishes, Demons or dementia, mindful instead of values and life.
The number of terrified girl-bullying mystics huddled behind anonymity to glint gums at libertarian readers is proof the original Libertarian Party platform--its vote tally increased 3 orders of magnitude from 4k to 4M--offers the freedom they fear and hate. Simple mathematical observation of past Kleptocracy reactions to vote changes prove the LP is on the right track--the one that WON the Bill of Rights, added the 13th-15th Amendments (with some unequal yet apposite reprisal added), enforced suffrage, demonstrated how coercion collapses economies then repealed Prohibition despite the lies and violence the GOP resort to daily to reinstate it. Their fear is pure hatred of life and joy, their tears the elixir of happiness.
Just follow the benjamins... er .. the anchor babies...
BTW "touch grass" is a hilarious way for UCE's (Urban Coastal Elites) to pretend to connect with nature. Grass is an artificial, expensive, labor intensive, show of wealth. 17th Century feudal lords would be proud.
Real feudalism has never been tried!
If a person got all their information from Reason, they would likely believe the Democrats are the less authoritarian party. And I'm sick of hearing that the only reason people oppose abortion is religiosity. I'm a little 'a' atheist but I still know killing babies in the womb is just as morally reprehensible as doing it after they're born.
If abortion is "morally reprehensible" to you, then don't have one - but don't inflict YOUR "morals" on the rest of us, and don't use your government to inflict your "morals" on us either.
You must be reading Reason very selectively, if at all. The magazine’s writers criticize Democrats and their policies on a regular basis!
I’ve been a Reason subscriber for years, and read every single issue cover to cover. I've found them to be quite even-handed in going after Democrats and Republicans, even if they sometimes fail to talk enough about the Libertarian alternative or give the LP enough credit when they do mention it, as in this piece by J.D. Tuccille.
"I’ve found them to be quite even-handed in going after Democrats and Republicans..."
That's the entire point. Reason pretends the LP is equally incompatible with both parties, when in fact the Venn diagram overlaps quite a bit with team R, while team D is printed on different ream if paper.
Another (or same as yesterday) faceless, masked mystic orders us to stop reading. Mystical brainwashers convinced it as a child that doubting Televangelist interpretations of King James, Mormon, Jew-hating Lutheran or Mohammedan Dark Ages scripture would get devils to torture it forever and ever. Furthermore, any effort toward reversing or correcting the terror-brainwashing would double the eternal tortures the same way integers outnumber even numbers, though both are infinite sets. Mystics regard this as sane and true, hence forcing it on others as an act of kindness. This is Jim Jones ethics plain and simple, with the outcome same as always.
The basic political problem with Libertarianism is that you can't buy votes with smaller government.
Many parties obtained repeal with spoiler votes. The Republican Party was a communist manifesto glee club dedicated to undoing Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. Other communists got an income tax Amendment with 2% average. Prohibitionists equivocated booze with opium and demanded prohibition with 1% of the vote in 16 elections. They brought the Crash, Depression and War. The LP is making history by the spoiler vote method of defeating the worst looters while the ones that squeaked past us watch, learn, and change their planks. Trumpanzees did exactly that just now thanks to pro-choice Gary's 4M shifting 127 electoral votes in 13 states and other recent exercises of the 19th Amendment.
agreed with then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence's take that "the free market has been sorting it out, and America's been losing." (Among Democrats, the figure was 33 percent, with 38 percent among independents.)
Huh, never heard of this quip from Mike Pence. I disagree with him, vehemently. I would argue that "Silcon Valley has been sorting it out and the Free Market and America's been losing".
To paraphrase Voltaire, "The perfect is the natural enemy of the optimum."
Libertarians insist on an unobtainable vision of perfection and don't seem to want to come down to earth and work with us mere mortals to devise imperfect solutions that, nevertheless, make the world a better place.
Libertarians are, thus, pretty worthless.
"Libertarians are, thus, pretty worthless."
This is our superpower.
Real libertarianism has never been tried.
Evidently, neither has "Real Communism/Socialism."
It did pretty well in the elections of 1972 and 1976, before anarco-looters and mystics got onto the platform committee. (https://bit.ly/3zrqHYT)
If no one stands up for core principles, those principles are brushed aside and forgotten.
Libertarians are so rigid in their stand for "core principles" that they have made themselves largely irrelevant in the day-to-day bargaining that is a reality in American politics.
In other words, their rigidity has made them irrelevant.
"In other words, their rigidity has made them irrelevant."
We were never relevant.
Why are you here, did you get lost during the HuffPo exodus?
Exactly. We can see how the "realpolitik" of the establishment parties has just enabled the continual growth and expansion of State power.
Libertarians need to play the long game. Don't worry about whether ignorant people take you seriously or not. We're on the right side of history, and truth will eventually win out.
Already libertarianism has succeeded to the degree that the lonely advocates of freedom in the mid 20th century could have scarcely imagined. The Libertarian Party is the leading alternative party in the United States, and there are now dozens of libertarian parties in other countries around the world. Not to mention the world's first libertarian-identified head of state in Argentina, Javier Milei.
And there are a growing number of other voices, people speaking out and fighting back against authoritarianism, from Girchi More Freedom in Georgia, to Gloria Alvarez in Guatemala.
"...We can see how the “realpolitik” of the establishment parties has just enabled the continual growth and expansion of State power..."
I see you were stoned the entire time from 2016 to 2020. Or so addled by TDS to have ignored the entire span.
The problem is not that Republicans aren't perfect libertarians, but that they are now consciously anti-libertarian.
Most republicans are reflexively better libertarians than Chase Oliver.
Not true at all in my experience.
Most Republicans these days seem to be fans of Donald Trump, who understands free market economics so poorly that he supports raising tariffs, has so little respect for civil liberties that he wants to execute people for selling drugs, and seems to rarely encounter an overseas dictator he doesn't admire or want to emulate.
Placing tariffs on foreign entities is indeed bad. Placing them on domestic entities, as Oliver supported during COVID, is of course far worse. What else are technocratic regulations, mandates and "recommendations" (which of course are just mandates enforced through civil liability) other than tariffs placed on domestic entities to get them to behave in the way the government wants.
As best as I can tell, Oliver is a former enthusiastic Obama supporter who became disillusioned that the Democratic party wasn't progressive enough. As such he found a home within a wing of a party that believes anything should go, unless those "anythings" would make you look like those icky Republicans. Ick.
God's Own Prohibitionists have been anti-libertarian and anti-choice since Ayn Rand spoke in opposition to mystical Dark Ages coercive theocracies in 1981. They now ignore her as pointedly as they pretend to never have heard of Herbert Clark Hoover or the FDR's repeal of the 18th Amendment. Before 1980 the Young Americans for "Freedom" Hitlerjugend newsletter denounced all libertarians for declining to cheer the forcible enslavement of pregnant women for involuntary labor. Now that we wield 4 million votes, all the GOP have left are superstition, hatred, Alzheimer's and amnesia.
It's been years since I posted here. I liked the phrase, "Less room for free mind and free markets." Tuccille could have said, "No room at all" and not been far off. America politics is a duopoly where both teams want an authoritarian regime. Red or blue... I don't think the color of the strap on we're getting screwed with really matters.
SO Nixon's tax-funded looter election laws had no effect? https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/nixons-anti-libertarian-law/
Even before that, when the Prohibition party was also pushing female suffrage, Looter Kleptocracy statehouse goons passed a mess of government-ballot laws. This became frenzied after Comstockist dry dodos infiltrating the GOP and People's Party communists so alienated voters as to elect a Democrat in 1892. Ballot laws were cheaper than federal troop "recount" putsches.
Well if they're both driving us off the cliff at high speed, and neither side wants to leave us alone, the reluctant and strategic way to vote would be to pick the party that wants to steal less money from you so you can enjoy life more for a few years before the inevitable economic collapse.
I'm skeptical that libertarianism itself isn't essentially dead. Trumpism killed it, just not in the way so many of the writers here want to pretend. Libertarianism was always really a marriage of convenience between paleo-libertarians, whose outlook always tended to favor the thinking of the Old Right, and neo-libertarians, whose affinity for the managerial technocracy more closely aligned them with corporatist progressives. But that marriage of convenience never happened in a vacuum. The marriage was in the context of the post-WWII American political landscape. And both had enough in common with one another to ally against Buckleyan conservatism and welfare state progressivism. But, the end of the Cold War really should have shattered the left and right alliances against which libertarianism defined itself. Pat Buchanan tried and failed to do that in the 1990s. But the triumphalism of managerial-technocratic progressivism in the wake of the failure of neoconservatism and the subsequent rise of Trumpism on the right redefined those spheres. In that context, the neo-libertarians and the paleo-libertarians find themselves having increasingly less in common with one another than they do with the evolving political alliances on the left and right.
Note to foreign readers: God's Own Prohibitionists hijacked the U.S. Government from 1920 through 1932. During that time they banned trade and production--even of gin and cigarettes--wherever possible. But the second time they declared everything enjoyable a narcotic and allied with China for a global command economy, all that collapsed starting with the League of Nations Assembly resolution of 24SEP1929 putting live ammo into the Geneva Convention of 1924. "(1) Regards the principle of the limitation of the drugs mentioned... as now accepted." Money flight, Crash, Depression, War, then brainwash, memory-hole, ignore, dissimulate, rinse and repeat. No republican recalls any of this any more than Biden knows his own name.
Lew Rockwell wrote some good things, but he also convinced a lot of very dumbass conservatives that they are libertarians.
Lew never met Will Rogers or read the original LP Platform. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/05/25/original-libertarian-platform-votes/
This is not "boaf-sidesness", this is "1930's Redux".
The top-down government controlled economy was the sine qua non of politics in the 1930's. Fascism was the accepted way for governments to run, at least all those that had not been overrun by communism. Mussolini was the model for Progressives, now, it's Putin and Victor Orban as the future for America, at least according to Tucker Carlson.
We're told we need a "strong leader"! Il Duce and Der Fuehrer both translate into English as "The Leader".
“I’ve heard people say that the trouble with the world is that we haven’t enough great leaders. I think we haven’t enough great followers. I have stood side by side with great thinkers – surgeons, engineers, economists; people who deserve a great following – and have heard the crowd cheer me instead.”
This was said by Babe Ruth, someone I never thought of as a philosopher.
Great post OE!
At the risk of sounding like a "stay off my lawn" geezer, America is like third or fourth generation children of wealthy forebears. They have money, but no idea how it was made. They think it will last forever, but it won't. They think they are smarter than they are, but they're really just lucky. It hasn't been a country of adults for decades.
Every power grab that we are watching today, was made by Roosevelt in the 1930's. Roosevelt used the IRS to go after Andrew Mellon and other opponents of New Deal fascism. Radio stations lost their licenses, the bureaucracies were sent to recruit more Democrats and actively campaign for Roosevelt. FDR was America's Mussolini.
Seems our grandparents weren't "adults" either.
Nor were our great-grandparents who supported Woodrow Wilson, America's first full duty dictator. 3000 political prisoners, the cartelization of all industry, the creation of the Deep State and a stupid, useless war used to justify his tyranny.
The 19th century Nationalist Clubs made today's conservative nationalists look like the Founding Fathers.
Every generation has their tyrant wannabees, and every successive generation has to undo the damage done.
Oh look.... Squeaky Fromme and Stammering Zack found an audience for their "Bring Back Prohibition" campaign punishing FDR for legalizing beer! Next up is their glowing review of "The Holy Book of Adolf Hitler" by James L Battersby --previously unmentionable by anyone other than George Orwell. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2023/07/28/the-cross-and-the-swastika/
Chase Oliver knocked a populist sports has-been out of the Georgia Senate race not long ago. The key to the conjuring trick is, as always, to pretend that the entire universe of discourse is divided into Christian National Socialism and Soviet International Socialism, each accusing the other of "not really" being altruistic enough in its initiation of force. Once the Libertarian Party has been safely ignored or at least mischaracterized from our original platform, the trick is done and exit stage RightAndLeft.
Mussolini met with the Pope iv Rome and in May 1929 decreed mandatory tax-funded Catholic Catechization in tax-funded, truancy-stuffed government schools. The Calgary Herald reported this news: https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/vichy-amerika-collaborators/
Solving the homeless population is easy.
HUD should build apartments for these less fortunate people in places like Martha's Vineyard, Beverly Hills, Malibu, and other enclaves of the liberal rich and shameless.
I'm sure Soros, Obama, Rob Reiner, Babs Streisand and all the limousine liberals will welcome these poor unfortunates with open arms, wallets and minds like they tell all us peasants to do.
It would cost a lot more to do it there.
But, you gotta put ideology over reason, don't you?
Newsom can’t even account for $20 billion lost in the homeless bureaucracy. You mean more expensive than that?
Oh, NOW you’re worried about how much things cost? Lol. Ok.
To Hell with NOT sending Southern Command goons, DEA and CIA jerks South of Brownsville to instigate the exact same murder, extortion, confiscation and Prohibition State that caused the Great Depression! South America could be sending Care packages to blighted areas in Alabama, California, Minnesota and Texas if every local economy hadn't been deliberately crippled by U.S.-backed caudillos. Eager to import Marlboros and gin while banning local agricultural products or hog-tying them into U.S. banana cartels, these Quislings turned an entire continent into refugee-generating Hoovervilles.
If you somehow alienate friends and foes alike, then being politically homeless is the natural result.
Reason libertarians have no home anywhere. Not even in the Javier Milei admin. Is Javier Milei better than Trump in terms of policy? Yep. Is he an open borders guy? Nope. Sorry, not one of us - that's what Reason would say if he was a republican. Milei is part of Trump wave. He's an open ally to Trump and Israel. He would win GOP primaries, not dem primaries. It was comedic to see Reason try to claim him as one of their own.
Politics is not a academic discourse at a salon. In that format, libertarians would win, because most of their policy ideas are sound. In politics, you need to form alliance and find commonalities. President Lincoln did not save the country by declaring an all out war against slavery. He coddled pro slave union states and freed slaves only in confederate states. Great leaders understand the overall picture, what's at stake.
Again, when a government can't muster enough competence to protect a former president against a 20 year old incel who they spotted an hour before the rally, the overriding concern isn't free trade and endless immigration.
What if instead of compensating the people whose lives have metaphorically been destroyed by the "radical open borders agenda," we instead seize the assets of anti-immigration lobbyists and use them to compensate the families of people whose lives were literally destroyed by the radical closed borders agenda? There's tons of refugees who died because they had no place to flee to after America shut its borders. Some of them still have surviving family members that might appreciate compensation.
America needs to get back to its roots. The Founding Fathers had a great immigration system: anyone could come. Some state governments took the reasonable step of requiring new immigrants to prove they would be able to support themselves and not be a burden on society, but the federal government didn't try to control immigration at all. That worked fine, the only reason it was abandoned was because people in the late 19th and early 20th century were racist morons.
Imagine how much richer and freer America would be today if it had conserved the Founding Father's intention, instead of giving into stupidity. Open borders is actually the originalist, conservative policy.
Well said. Not only did America not have anti-immigrant controls during the time of the founders, but the Constitution they set up does not even allow for them.
With the exception of allowing Congress to regulate the importation of slaves after 1808, the document does not delegate to the Feds any authority to regulate *immigration* (who can migrate to one of the states), only *naturalization* (the process of becoming a U.S. citizen).
Racism was at least as ugly and prevalent in the early 1800s as the early 1900s, so its presence is a less compelling explanation for what changed, than the simple fact that at the beginning of the 19th century, the limits of the Constitution were generally respected, while by the beginning of the 20th century, an expansive, statist view of government power had taken hold.
Today, politicians have long quietly embraced the presumption that the lack of statutory authority isn’t a real obstacle to their ambitions to control our freedom of movement and engage in social engineering via restrictions on who can peacefully migrate to this country. Just as they don't consider it an obstacle to their telling you what you can put in your own body, despite any statutory authorization for the "War on Drugs".
In 1919, there was still enough residual respect for the limits established at the founding for advocates of restricting the sale of alcohol to pass a constitutional amendment to that purpose, the 18th Amendment that ushered in Prohibition (which was of course later repealed by the 21st Amendment that ended the misguided social engineering crusade in 1933).
But by that time, statism had gained enough steam that when legislators started passing statutes criminalizing marijuana (perhaps in part to ensure work for federal law enforcers whose jobs were jeopardized by the end of alcohol prohibition), they were not told, as they should have been, "Come back with a constitutional amendment!"
A similar failure to hold politicians to their oaths of office has led to the existence, today, of a whole morass of unconstitutional anti-immigrant "laws" and policies on the books whose legality is rarely questioned. So indoctrinated has the public become to this statist way of thinking of the Constitution as just a "goddamn piece of paper" (as George W. Bush put it), that it is undocumented migrants, not the criminal oath-breaking politicians, who are described as "illegals", by those who don't know any better or are too bigoted or xenophobic to care.
Starkiddie is to this day unable to splice two sentences with a comma without making a contradiction or lie. The Constitution states: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,..." Hence came 13A preventing the enslavement of men or women, 14A making individual born infants persons male and female, 15A enforcing their right to vote until the Comstockist Court denied it, and 19A which changed the current GOP plank from "Burn Them Bitches For Jesus" to "Not So Fast"--thanks to four thousand Libertarian votes cast in 1972.
Historical secrecy has erected a facts dam memory-holing the way the League of Opium-Exporting Nations struggled to throw the tea-like coca shrub under the bus of American prohibitionism. By WW1 Americans had declared beer a "narcotic" in many States. After that Opium War, Europeans were in July 1931 again pressed by Bert Hoover and China to create a global command economy regulating every ounce of poppy goo produced anywhere. Germany. England and France heatedly pointed to marijuana as the REAL culprit while arming for the next war. Harry Anslinger welcomed their help, as did Hitler. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2023/07/13/exporting-drug-prohibition-1931/
Keep your focus on a losing issue Loser!
Lol. No, you fucking idiot. “The only reason it was abandoned” is because there’s now 8 billion people on the planet, and we no longer have half a continent unexplored and under developed where people could make their own way with some hard work and risk taking.
Now we have overcrowded big city shitholes with major homelessness, crime and affordability problems, so let’s bring more poor people in! That’s the ticket.
Fucking progs. Always living in the past.
Well said.
Trump reached out to the Libertarian Party and they spat in his face. If Libertarians(TM) are homeless its their own damn fault.
"Trump reached out to the Libertarian Party and they spat in his face."
It was a shining moment.
True, but it highlighted the self-deception Christian National Socialists rely on to shore up reality control. The Ku-Klux Tee Party failed to sucker voters into thinking freedom meant enslaving pregnant girls and subsidizing gin and cigarettes. So Obama won again after Bush prohibitionism had wrecked the economy. Nationalsocialists bounced back with actual nazi gold chiseled from Jewish teeth funding the Alabama Austrians as the Second Coming of Jesus Caucus dedicated to slavery, superstition and socialism. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/fiscal-conservative/
"Reached out"?
Showed up to demand support without doing any listening.
"they spat in his face"
Wish I'd been there to participate in person.
TDS-addled shit heard from; thanks for proving it.
You'll get plenty of practice crying over the next several years and assholes like you deserve nothing other.
We Libertarians are *triply* politically homeless, not doubly. You see, the Libertarian Party structure has abandoned Libertarians in its headlong rush to embrace statists.
Even this socktoy coats condescension with cyanide by parroting anarcho-communist tropes. Tuccille has unwittingly pointed to the natural economic consequence of Nixon's Anti-Libertarian Law passed the day our Founders created the LP. Spoiler votes promptly helped voters topple the worst alternatives as the Red and Blue hordes converged on Purple People psychosis. They erode more smoothly identical so that LP spoiler votes can find less purchase with which to confute their Return-On-Corruption investment math as the basis for Jobs For OUR Boys.
“Influx of populist trolls” notwithstanding, the Libertarian Party remains broadly committed to the same live-and-let-live, “free minds and free markets” values as Reason magazine.
In the United States, the LP is the leading alternative party, and the only major party that can credibly claim to offer policies that people on both the left and the right can get behind. When it comes to standing for your freedoms, it is light years ahead of the establishment 2-party-cartel, and deserves your support.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time – or in this case, go outside and touch grass on the way to that Libertarian Party meeting, event, or your local polling place to cast a vote this November for candidates from Chase Oliver for president (https://www.VoteChaseOliver.com), to hundreds of people running for office at the local level, including maybe in your community – down-ticket candidates Chase's campaign is committed to supporting.
the Libertarian Party remains broadly committed to the same live-and-let-live, “free minds and free markets”
To the point that they're casually waving a gun called "tolerance" around and are telling everyone to vote for a LGBT pedo twink.
Don't you ever wonder why people call you Losertarians? It's like the LP is competing to be more self-loathing and self-destructive than the marxist Left.
Judging by the volume of redolent retch, I'd say like ATF got some extra Bund funding From the DEA, ATF and Jesus Caucus along with a Trump Bauble and brand new copy of Mein Kampf--The Nazarene be Praised!
Squirrels sure do love their nuts.
Much as it pains me to have anyone from the Starkiddie lobby defend an idea I cherish, honesty requires that I at least admit that Minerva must've made the Trumpanzee-Klan-Jesus Caucus to make us think better of flies and the earlier Surrender+Child-Molester+Anarco-commie brand of anti-libertarian infiltrators. Ayn Rand's attacks on candidate John Hospers yoked to her currish fawning over Nixon and Ford did NOT help matters. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/romanian-comstock-laws/
Great vintage Tuccille! Improving it would require realizing that JD cites trashcan polls--YouGov, Gallup, Gallup, PeeYew--as if they meant anything, then disses the millions of leveraged, law-changing LP spoiler votes that for 50+ years have ousted looters and mooted and repealed their murdering enactments. Only by copying anarco-communist cross-dressing infiltration techniques have Jesus looters crippled the LP. But those votes for our admittedly weakened planks are--unlike poll-puke--NOT parked but permanent and active repealers of bad laws. Check them premises, son.
The Libertarian Party is doomed to failure as long as the USA uses some form of plurality voting (regular single vote or various forms of runoff voting) to choose candidates. Plurality voting always produces two party systems in self-governing systems that have single-seat representatives because the Nash Equilibrium Strategy over time favors voting for the candidate most likely to win who is acceptable to a voter rather than, say, a perfect candidate for a voter who has no chance to win. I quit the Libertarian Party in Indiana back in 2002 precisely because the State Party would not make changing the voting system an issue. The current Libertarian Party nationally has still not learned this, though some Libertarians have latched onto the terrible Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) system, which is simply an iterative plurality system that throws votes away. I don't understand why libertarian-oriented folks, who I tend to think are more rational than most, have this mathematical blind spot when it comes to voting science (technically, "Social Choice Theory"). Read up on Condorcet Voting. Get educated!