MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Libertarian Party Rebuffs Mises Uprising

Incumbent National Chair Nick Sarwark, after picking a fight with Tom Woods, routs a Mises-backed challenger at the party’s national convention. Controversial vice chair Arvin Vohra also booted out of office.

Nicholas Sarwark ||| Matt WelchMatt WelchThe Libertarian Party on Monday afternoon re-elected in a surprising first-ballot landslide incumbent Chair Nicholas Sarwark to an unprecedented third consecutive two-year term. In doing so, the nation's third-largest political party swatted down what was supposed to be the most contentious challenge at its biennial national convention—to a leadership that was considered by various critics to be too operationally incremental, too ideologically tepid, and too (in the words of Ludwig von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods at a nearby New Orleans rally Saturday) "SJW-friendly."

Instead, Sarwark's main opponent, the Mises Caucus-endorsed Joshua Smith, stumbled badly in a defensive debate performance at the New Orleans Hyatt Regency Sunday night, and ended up Monday on the business end of a 65 percent-22 percent rout. In the vice chair race, two-term incumbent Arvin Vohra, who has become a lightning rod over the past year-plus for intentionally provocative public comments such as "Bad Idea: School Shootings. Good Idea: School Board Shootings," was resoundingly drummed out of office, never receiving more than 11 percent of the vote in three rounds of balloting that ended Tuesday with a positivity-exuding 33-year-old finance/tech/consulting guy named Alex Merced squeaking past the 50 percent finish line.

"What I think the race shows is that if you want to change the direction of the Libertarian Party, if you have new ideas about how we can grow and reach new members, the election of Merced to vice chair shows that the delegates want that kind of change," Sarwark told me Tuesday afternoon. "If your campaign is seen, or has themes of trying to kick people out, of trying to attack people like Gov. Weld, or... basically anyone—if your campaign was seen as trying to drive people out of the party, the delegates soundly rejected that. And I think that that is the biggest takeaway from the convention."

Bill Weld and 2016 Gary Johnson campaign honcho Ron Nielson ||| Matt WelchMatt WelchWeld, the controversial-within-the-party 2016 vice presidential nominee and former moderate Republican Massachusetts governor who is laying the groundwork for a possible 2020 presidential run (and was everywhere to be seen at the convention, amiably taking on all skeptical comers), played a pivotal role in the decisive debate. Candidates had the opportunity to ask their opponents one question, and when it was Smith's turn, a delegate in the audience shouted out, "What do you think about Bill Weld?!" (Weld-heckling was a sporadic feature throughout the three-day event.) Smith decided to make that his question.

"What I think about Bill Weld," Sarwark started slowly, building into a feisty crescendo, "is that he is still in the Libertarian Party, while many of his opponents are not. [He's been] raising money for and endorsing Libertarian candidates. He is fundraising for us. And the exposure of Bill Weld to the Libertarian Party has not made the Libertarian Party more like an establishment Republican, but has made Bill Weld a lot more like a Libertarian....He knows something about winning public office, and [we need to] learn how to do that from anybody who will help us, anybody who will join us. And we should not PUSH PEOPLE OUT who are willing to help!"

As New York gubernatorial candidate and popular party organizer Larry Sharpe, who had backed Smith, commented later, after that exchange it was "game over."

Smith, an energetic and rough-hewn Washington-based activist and co-founder of the libertarian news site Think Liberty, was both magnanimous and defiant after his defeat at the hands of man he had criticized during the campaign for prioritizing "virtue signaling, identity politics, and battles for infamy."

"Look, no one knew who I was eight months ago," Smith told me. "We came in here and took 22 percent of the vote...from the most popular chair that we've ever had in 46 years. I'm not mad!"

Smith won the consolation prize of an at-large national committee berth Tuesday evening. "I like Nick, I've always liked Nick," he said. But as a party, "we're not going up. We're just not, you know. He sits up there and talks a big game....We [have] a small budget, small membership base, and we've got to grow that. So I hope that me being an at-large will help us accomplish those goals, and, you know, if he wants to take credit for that, that's fine."

Sarwark's resounding victory—he received more votes than he did in a far smoother race in 2016—was hailed by the L.P.'s more prominent elected officials, whose approach toward voter outreach tends to dovetail more with the Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus than, say, the Misesites or the in-your-face Audacious Caucus.

"This gives us a chance as a party to have some consistency and get to the next level," said Calimesa, California, Mayor Jeff Hewitt, an L.P. star and successful policy reformer who is neck-and-neck in a two-man race to get on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in November. "We've got the right guy in as chair, and it's really going to make us grow."

The contest between Sarwark, a careful and smooth-talking 38-year-old lawyer/car dealer who is also running for mayor of Phoenix, and the 35-year-old Navy veteran Smith was so nasty and upsetting for some delegates that vendors were hawking "I survived the Libertarian National Chair campaign 2018" T-shirts. But to the extent that it was a proxy war between the party's new influx of elbow-throwing Tom Woods listeners and its older cohort of more patient coalition-builders, the pragmatists won in a rout.

As longtime L.P. hand and 2016 Gary Johnson right-hand man Tom Mahon sang to me right after the vote:

The Mises came over the mountain

The Mises came over the mountain

The Mises came over the mountain

and the Praggies kicked their ass

The Praggies kicked their ass

The Praggies kicked their ass

The Mises came over the moun-tain…..

and the Praggies kicked their ass

The respective leaderships of the Libertarian National Committee and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) have been hurling insults at each other since the Unite the Right rally and subsequent riots in Charlottesville, Virginia last Aug. 11-12. Two days after protester Heather Heyer was rammed and dragged to death by an automobile driven by reported neo-Nazi James Alex Fields, Jr., Sarwark dinged Mises Institute President Jeff Deist for blaming the conflict on politicization without uttering the name "Donald Trump." Then Sarwark took a swing at Woods for defending Murray Rothbard's controversial "paleolibertarian" push toward the reactionary right in the late-1980s and early '90s.

Woods responded by calling Sarwark a "pansy" with "a very low IQ"; Sarwark accused the LvMI of being "the preferred choice of actual Nazis," and then Vohra issued a stinging denunciation of a pro-nationalism speech Deist had given two weeks before Charlottesville that had concluded with the line, "blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance." Retorted Vohra: "'Blood and soil' is a central Nazi and nationalist idea....[A]t the current time, Mises Institute has been turned into a sales funnel for the White Nationalist branch of the Alt Right."

Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict made the distancing exercise complete with an August 15 press release stating, "There is no room for racists and bigots in the Libertarian Party. If there are white nationalists who—inappropriately—are members of the Libertarian Party, I ask them to submit their resignations today. We don't want them to associate with the Libertarian Party, and we don't want their money. I'm not expecting many resignations, because our membership already knows this well."

Then something interesting happened: People didn't leave. In fact, they kept coming in. The Mises Caucus has continued to be one of the fastest-growing blocs within the party, even as the war of words between the L.P. and the LvMI (and Mises allies, such as the libertarian comic Dave Smith) raged on. Joshua Smith announced his candidacy for chair in September, winning an early endorsement from the caucus, and included in his critique of Sarwark "the fights with Tom Woods" and "telling people that maybe you're not the kind of people we want in the Libertarian Party," statements Smith characterized as "a huge ball-drop."

Woods, not previously noted for his party-related activities, organized* (see correction below) the day before the convention a raucous Take Human Action Bash a few blocks away, featuring a lively mix of speakers such as anti-war author Scott Horton and a piped-in Ron Paul. Unusually for both Woods and Paul, their speeches each made first-person plural references to capital-L Libertarians, and were basically pleas to make the party more like, well, Ron Paul.

"Most people change or adopt ideologies, not because they're gently led by some stuffed shirt, but because they're jolted by an articulate true believer," said Woods, who spent a good deal of time eviscerating the philosophical and policy errors of Bill Weld, to an audience that occasionally broke out in "Tom Woods for president!" chants. "I mean, is the idea that we should be trying to trick people into voting Libertarian?"

Paul, too, urged the 200 or so people in the room—who he called "the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party"—to focus on the basics of property rights, volunteerism, and being anti-war and anti-Federal Reserve. "Congratulations for being in the Mises Caucus, keep up the good work, and keep everybody honest," he concluded.

Woods, a gifted and funny speaker with a loyal flock, painted a picture of a modern L.P. too far adrift from the non-aggression principle, too wracked by "fear of seeming unfashionable in elite circles."

"When it comes to pot smoking and gay marriage, everybody has accepted those by now. What is the point? That horse is dead," he said at one point. At another: "Now, I've heard it said that the Libertarian Party ought to avoid certain issues, because it will make it more difficult to make the party appeal to the LGBT community, [that] the party should be pro-LGBT. But, my answer to that is that Libertarians are not pro-LGBT. Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party are pro-humanity, period."

She won. ||| Matt WelchMatt WelchMeanwhile, at the convention over the subsequent days, the party adopted new platform language defending sex workers, and removed old platform language that had supporting "control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property" (a change that Sarwark in particular finds significant in the current political climate). The party retained its usual support for "free market banking" and condemnation of the "use of force."

Heading into the convention, there were two main chunks of dissatisfaction with Sarwark that translated into a widespread belief that Smith had at least a puncher's chance to knock him out: The Mises/Charlottesville fracas, and an impatience about growing the party faster. But by the time Sarwark filleted Smith on the debate stage—and not incidentally, wielded an expert gavel during the cat-herding that passes for parliamentary procedure debates among Libertarians—the Mises Caucus just didn't have enough bodies.

"The people who were mad about the Charlottesville and near-Charlottesville comments, that was the core of the support that on the ballot ended up voting for my competitor," the chair said. "The people who wanted more growth, I believe that after the debate performance, and after hearing the actual numbers about how we've been doing, realized that we're actually on that good trajectory for growth, and decided to stick with Nick."

What does that trajectory look like? The 2018 L.P. convention was by far the largest of any of the party's midterm gatherings, doubling the size of 2014. Fundraising at the convention gala possibly eclipsed even 2016—"I think we might have raised over $100,000 last night at a whack, which is amazing," Sarwark said. There has been a post-2016 downturn in active dues-paying membership at the national level, but the party has been winning more and more local elections, getting a record number of state legislators to switch parties, and is already attracting national interest in its presidential deliberations for 2020. Most of the long-term metrics look good.

"There aren't really words to describe how well we are doing," Sarwark said. "The excitement we've had in the midterms with the number of candidates we have running and the number of Libertarians who are elected to office who are running for re-election, it has generated an energy and a buzz that I've never seen."

Factionalism and bitter fights are just as prevalent in the Libertarian Party as they are in the broader lower-case-l libertarian movement, if a tad more colorfully dressed. But unlike the latter grouping, the former has a single banner under which they all manage to cooperate, with a charming and idiosyncratic affection for their occasionally vast differences. For now, the direction seems to be people coming in the tent to fight for their beliefs, rather than taking their balls and going home.

"I'm not going to leave these values, I love these values," Hewitt said. "And no matter what person come in, I love even the crazy people in there. That won't even become a problem once we get some wins. They'll be whimsical then, or whatever else. People come to see that we'll be winning, and we are that sexy party, we are that fun party. We've just got to start having confidence in ourselves, and taking a bit more of a patient approach to get a load of global offices."

* Tom Woods tweets that he did not organize the event, but that the Mises Caucus organized. My apologies to both parties.

Photo Credit: Matt Welch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    So the Libertarian Party has now been officially SJW converged. Color me surprised. NOT.

    Now, somebody explain what their reason for existing is.

  • Aloysious||

    Neither of these are good reasons (drink!), silly 'bots.

  • lulz farmer||

    So they can use $10 words and bafflegab concepts that only really work in the world of the ivory tower. They exist so they can be the SJW equivalent of that.

  • Agammamon||

    We're libertarians - we're already using $10 words and bafflegab concepts that only really work in the world of the ivory tower. We didn't need to buy the SJW's out to get that capability.

  • BruceMajors||

    That used to be true. But when someone asks you why the right of a Honduran, who has already escaped violence in his country by going to Mexico, to cross the Mexico-U.S. border illegally, outweighs my right not to be saddled with $10,000-$20,000 in new property taxes annually for every child he warehouses in government subsidized day care in the public school so he can make minimum wage plucking chickens, since the "Libertarians" have no cogent answer, either for me, or especially for the majority of American voters, it helps if they can just fall back on decrying any who asks such a question as a racist.

  • Agammamon||

    We have no cogent answer?

    How about 'end the welfare state'? Hows that for an answer. We're not the ones saddling you with the bill. Those Hondurans aren't saddling you with the bill. The Republicans and Democrats are saddling you with that bill.

    So why not try to direct some of that anger at them?

  • Nardz||

    Cool.
    Do that, THEN open borders

  • Agammamon||

    Cool, do that and then you don't need to *spend even more money* to close the borders on top of the money you're already spending that 'lures' people here.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They who worship government.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Cool, do that and then you don't need to *spend even more money* to close the borders on top of the money you're already spending that 'lures' people here.

    You're basically admitting that the US has the best welfare state in the western hemisphere.

    There are plenty of countries in Central and South America that are far more amenable to these immigrants from a cultural/language standpoint, or supposedly have more generous welfare gibs (Canada). Yet this is the country of choice for millions of immigrants and "asylum-seekers." That doesn't happen unless it's easier to settle and get the gibs here than in other countries.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    End the drug war first. I don't want a bunch of well funded cartel thugs running around my country.

  • ||

    How about 'end the welfare state'? Hows that for an answer. We're not the ones saddling you with the bill. Those Hondurans aren't saddling you with the bill. The Republicans and Democrats are saddling you with that bill.

    So why not try to direct some of that anger at them?

    Because that ship sailed so long ago that the ship the four fastest ships LP party sent out to look for it haven't been heard from in months.

    Remember when the Republican Party was, auspiciously, the party of welfare reform and smaller government? No? Well, don't worry, now you can forget when the Republican Party *and* the Libertarian Party were auspiciously the party of smaller government and welfare reform.

  • vek||

    The correct answer is end the welfare state first.

    Sometimes the ORDER which you do things in is VERY important. This is one of those things. Our society is bearing far too many burdens put on us by socialized costs thanks to 10s of millions of low skill immigrants that don't make enough money to support the government services they use. The native born poor are the same problem, but we can't exactly ship them abroad... However we can limit the number of people coming in that are guaranteed to be a burden.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    See my other comment. End the drug war first. I don't want a whole slew of well funded drug cartel thugs running around my country looking for new "businesses" to get into.

  • vek||

    Of course we should end the drug war... But the welfare state is a far larger problem in the grand scheme of things. The drug war costs billions, and screws up millions of lives... The welfare state costs trillions and screws up hundreds of millions of lives.

    I'm still not for open borders even with no welfare state or drug war personally. ESPECIALLY not if they can vote, or their kids get birthright citizenship. America is (sadly) the most libertarian/conservative country on earth, therefore without an explicit political views test for moving here we can only make ourselves LESS libertarian by importing immigrants. Hence I think we should keep numbers lowish and only very highly skilled, and then just hope that we'll convert them to thinking correctly in a couple generations... But never enough to flood the electorate and push it left, which is what has happened the last few decades in the USA.

    One need look no further than voting patterns and opinion polling by race and whether or not somebody was born in the country to see immigrants have NOT been good for the political situation in the USA.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Of course we should end the drug war... But the welfare state is a far larger problem in the grand scheme of things.

    Where libertarians have NO alternative. None.
    "Git gummint out" is NOT a solution.

    And the REAL first question is what can we sell voters on NOW. Kinda tough when the libertarian establishment has NOTHING to offer.

  • vek||

    Get government out IS a solution. Private charities will take time to get geared up, but they will step in, just as they did in the past.

    And there are 1000 small policy changes we can and should do now. We got screwed up by the death of 1000 cuts, we can fix it by the healing of 1000 bandages... Or we could in theory. It's not like it will actually happen because most people are too dumb/don't care.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm calling BS on the claim that you're property taxes go up by $10,000 per year, per child in daycare

  • MJBinAL||

    Depends on what state you are in.

    And I am calling BS on your entire comment. It does not matter if it is $2000, $5000, $10,000 or any other amount. It is a rhetorical number, not important as a value, a place holder for an actual value that varies by location and over time.

    And "daycare" was a disparaging (and largly accurate) reference to the public school system.

    Are you too stupid to understand, or just disnhonest?

  • LynchPin1477||

    It does not depend on what state you are in. The idea that the addition of one child to the system would cause one person's property taxes to increase by $10,000 per year is absurd. The guy who made the comment linked to his Facebook page. He lives in DC where property taxes are 85 cents per $100. The DC public school system enrolls about 48,000 students, give or take. For each student to cost him $10,000 would imply that his property is valued at over $50 billion (with a b). When you're exaggerating by that much it stops becoming a rhetorical point and is just plain hyperbole for the sake of generating outrage.

    Besides, there are pretty better, more libertarian ways of dealing with social costs incurred by immigrants and their children than not letting them into the country.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm calling BS on the claim that you're property taxes go up by $10,000 per year, per child in daycare

    Depends on what state you are in.

    Even a 12-year-old would ridicule your total incompetence in elementary school arithmetic.

    Are you too stupid to understand, or just disnhonest?

    (smirk)

  • TW||

    "Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States in 2013–14 amounted to $634 billion, or $12,509 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2015–16 dollars). Total expenditures included $11,222 per student in current expenditures, which includes salaries, employee benefits, purchased services, and supplies. Total expenditures also included $939 per student in capital outlay (expenditures for property and for buildings and alterations completed by school district staff or contractors) and $348 for interest on school debt."

    https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

  • LynchPin1477||

    But he didn't say that each student cost the whole system and extra $10,000. He said each student cost *him* $10,000 in extra property taxes, annually. See above for why that is patently absurd.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You said it before I could!

    Goobers excel at bellowing and rage and wacky claims.

  • Ricardo Vacilon||

    Agree with both sides to the argument, but I think that the best strategy would be to 1) trade open borders for stricter citizenship requirements, while at the same time 2) putting all of the energy that's put into anti-immigration into getting lower taxes. Then let the chips fall where they may.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Trade with who? VOTERS the sole decision-makers.

  • BrianMiller||

    Oh Bruce, it's so good to see some things don't change, and that so many years later, you're still flexible in your ability to support the GOP platform-du-jour, no matter how often it flip flops.

    Unfortunately, pretending this is about tax bills is rather easily disproven. GOP activists aren't calling for other restrictions on welfare for kids born of US citizens, and are in fact elated over the possibility of a judicial nominee who could overturn federal rulings keeping abortion legal in the entire country. Both result in lots of tax bills for you and your fellow Republicans; curiously only the Scary Brown People With Funny Accents seem to be the targets of your "concern," however. Funny, dat.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    And then call themselves "pragmatists".

    Pragmatically losing every election they run in.

  • BruceMajors||

    I wrote something similar myself here http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....ish-trump/

    Amazingly a bunch of life-long minor libertarian activists think it is hostile and blasphemous coverage.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Even major activists know that you're a conservatard.
    Especially major activists.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the voices in his head are "major activists".

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck denies the very existence of major activists ... in his eagerness for personal aggression as a stalker for over a year ... , he REPEATEDLY fucks up.

    And he'll now punish me more for calling out his fuckup!

  • MJBinAL||

    What they are, just as Reason is becoming, is Progressive Light. Progressives with a dusting of anarchism. Proud of their principles and pushing for a path that leads not toward libertarian society, but the anarchy and societal collapse that historically leads to fascist takeovers.

    In short, stupid.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The stupid is you. (snort)
    Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for only a half century now.
    And you conservatards have been lying about us for the same length of time.

    Left - Right = zero

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This goes to show that Libertarians are having a moment to go up against the GOP as the dying Democratic Party leaves the realm.

    Of course, SJWs have and will continue to infiltrate the LP and make it swing left. The lefties just love taking something good and wrecking it (term Liberal as in classic liberal).

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    the dying Democratic Party

    Where are all of the uneducated, backward, intolerant, nationalistic, rural goobers who are going to overrun the Democratic Party going to come from? Our left-behind backwoods communities are already half-empty, the Republican Party has been branded as stale-thinking yahoos for a generation, and America's electorate is improving against right-wing interests every day of every week.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    "Where are all of the uneducated, backward, intolerant, nationalistic, rural goobers who are going to overrun the Democratic Party going to come from?"

    All over the world.

    Islam is very popular you know.

  • lap83||

    Nice

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I have quite a few muslim friends, and I bet every single one of them is more educated, and more tolerant, than you.

  • Nardz||

    Virtue signalled

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What about the ones that are not more tolerant?

  • Michael Hihn||

    They're like you. And since those Musiims are fundamentalists,they're also like Christian fundamentalists. Theocracy slugs.

  • vek||

    What about the Muslims that literally kill gay people just for being gay? Or murder their daughters for sleeping with a guy outside of wedlock? That kind of stuff is PRETTY DAMN RARE amongst even hardcore Christians nowadays... Yet Muslims do it as a matter of course all over the world, including in countries they have immigrated to.

    Face it. You don't have to play the "ALL XYZ group are great people!" card when it is clearly not true. All groups have their shit people. Some groups just have more shit people as a percentage. That doesn't mean they're all shit people. But it does mean SOME of them are shit people. There is more to reality than black and white, there is a HELL of a lot of grey.

  • Michael Hihn||

    vek is too ignorant to know how long it took us to stomp out the moral atrocities of Christianity. and WHY the Founders insisted on separation.

    Islam is where Christianity was before the Reformation and Enlightenment. The only difference is it's easier for Muslims to just leave and go to a free country. Christians had to stand and fight the church where we were,

    It's not coincidence that Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists are both theocratic fascists. The Christian ones live in a society that has already developed the rule of law and individual liberty ... else they'd be killing gays too (and abortion doctors still), instead of Ron Paul "merely" denying their fundamental rights,.

  • BrianMiller||

    "That kind of stuff is PRETTY DAMN RARE amongst even hardcore Christians nowadays"

    Spend much time in Africa? Christian groups there regularly kill gay people.

    In the western hemisphere, being identified as gay in Jamaica, Cuba and a number of other Christian majority countries will also dramatically shorten your life.

  • MJBinAL||

    You realize the problem with your point , right? I too know muslims who are educated and tolerant. The fact that they travel in your social and professional circles means that they are a self selecting sample. It does not make them representative of Islam's followers in general.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That does not justify your raging bigotry and ignorance.
    And it's a VERY false premise.

  • vek||

    So the question is, do we want to let in hordes of people from countries that are running the better part of a millennia behind us in social norms??? I'm all for selecting exceptional ones to be allowed in... But if we took in 50 million Muslims, we'd be getting a ton of the backwards ass ones too. I don't wanna deal with that shit.

  • BrianMiller||

    "do we want to let in hordes of people... that are running the better part of a millennia behind us in social norms"

    Oh come on. Excluding all registered Republicans from free travel is going too far.

  • BrianMiller||

    "Oh my GOD! THE LP is now letting blacks, wimminfolk and queers join! We've been taken over by the SJW's!"

  • Rock Lobster||

    Maybe to accidentally push the Democrats even further left on the spectrum of SJW insanity?

    Hell, I don't know. That's all I've got.

  • BruceMajors||

    They need a push?

  • Michael Hihn||

    No miore a push than the right-wing fascists and bigots.

  • MJBinAL||

    A push off into deep water with a cement block tied to both legs.

    Sorry, just frustration talking!

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's called thuggery, and is seen only on the right.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Libertarian Party has successfully maneuvered the repeal of the remaining Comstock Law provisions added in 1873 when Democratic vote in several states were excluded by federal troops. Our 1972 overpopulation plank was recycled into Roe v. Wade once the votes were tallied. Our votes in opposition to the initiation of deadly force to ban plant leaves, generated a 21st Amendment wave of repeal after the latest Bush Crash. Our refusal to encourage christianofascist police forces to beat, bully, fine, jail and shoot non-heterosexuals resulted in mass repeal of that appendage of Comstockism in time for us to gain a 328% increase in spoiler vote tallies. These are examples of why voting the honest libertarian platform is better than abetting the cowardly sanction of the victims. Ask any Canadian!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Napolean Bonafart reveals his ignorance that libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for "only" 50 years now!

    Now, somebody explain what their reason for existing is.

    Considering your public self-humiliation, what's yours?

  • CE||

    As an alternative to two big government parties?

  • Eddy||

    "the party adopted new platform language defending sex workers, and removed old platform language that had supporting "control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property""

    Was this also done with the support of the pragmatist wing of the party?

  • SIV||

    It's very pragmatic to support an unfettered right of entry for terrorists, violent criminals and thieves. Even better if they're infected with a communicable diseases.

    Did the old LP platform not defend whores' rights? Or is the new one calling for "taxed and regulated" prostitution?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You are just mad that your amendment to recognize non-human sex workers was rejected again.

  • Robert||

    STEVE SMITH WORK HARD AT SEX EVERY DAY, NEED NO RECOGNITION!

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's very pragmatic to support an unfettered right of entry for terrorists, violent criminals and thieves. Even better if they're infected with a communicable diseases.

    Which nobody does. There you go again. Like all statists, generating hysteria,

  • vek||

    Well if that's NOT what they just did by altering the platform, then the phrasing in the article was very misleading... Because that's kind of the take away from the way it was written.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's my takeaway. That the LP has officially rejected the idea of refusing admittance to plague carriers and terrorists. Sounds like a sensible position which will win us many new voters. [/sarc]

  • MJBinAL||

    YEP! And both of those new LP voters will get to the polls as soon as they complete treatment. They are going to need lifts from the group home to get to the polls though.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How can you type, wearing that straitjacket?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Repeat for goobers: Nobody supports an unfettered right of entry for terrorists. violent criminals and thieves , especially ones with communicable diseases.

    Thanks for proving me correct on manufactured hysteria.
    And Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • JoeBlow123||

    Priorities!

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    All platform changes require at least 2/3 of the delegates in convention to approve them.

  • Eddy||

    Sex worker rights! Repeal border-security language!

    So, anyway, we were discussing the need for outreach and the rejection of purity tests.

  • BrianMiller||

    I daresay that both positions have more mainstream support than all the Mises goldbug stuff.

  • DajjaI||

    Thank you LP, Sarwark and Weld. Slow and steady wins the race.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    For Democrats.

    This anarcho-capitialism is bad for the LP too.

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    You're welcome.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What a cool dude.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Stop talking to yourself.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Yeah, Sarawak is slow and Weld is Hillary's steady.

  • BruceMajors||

    Weld at his dinner speech said he had learned his lesson, that he was not endorsing Hillary and did not realize the media would interpret his positive comments about her as an endorsement.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    See, weld just got called on his lefty endorsement of the tyrant that is Hillary. He is not saying that HE was wrong and is not really a libertrarian. He is saying its the medias fault for not understnading it was a comment not a political endorsement that sold out the LP brand.

    Fuck Bill Weld and his LINO ass.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fuck you and your shameful entitlement mentality.... .the Moral Hypocrisy of the Authoritarian Right..
    ============

    loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

    My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.
    I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

    Alt-Right TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. ONLY if it lines HIS pocket!
    loveconstitution (sic) Insults HIS OWN FATHER, "selfish as shit" ... but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG) .... claims that a multi-trillion debt increase (tax cut) is "giving my own money back " ...FROM WHERE, GOOBER?

    What kind of "fiscal conservative" DENIES federal debt is stealing from our future ... from his own children?

    HE WOULD CUT HIS FATHER'S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS ... TO ENRICH HIMSELF, BECAUSE HE'S ......... "ENTITLED." ....... AND SELF-RIGHTEOUS!

    Libtards borrow trillions for free stuff
    Conservatards borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
    Both claiming entitlement. Both marching America toward Hell ... goose-stepping, arm-in-arm

    Left - Right = Zero

  • MJBinAL||

    Michael, you are a vile idiot. Mean to the core.

    Weld is a Libertarian only if Progressive Democrat means Libertarian. This is not even an insult, just a facts based assessment.

    Your latest rant, has nothing at all to do with the assessment of Weld, It is your usual crap. again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Michael, you are a vile idiot. Mean to the core.Ads you fucking lie about what I said, babble like any other rightwing chimpanzee ... and defend sucking at the government teat.

    You're also too fucking stupid to know that .... THE ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY IS LEFTIST.
    whoooooooooooooosh

    And that libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for .... fifty fucking years.

    So that makes you ignorant of what a libertarian is, and what a lefty is!
    But thanks for sharing youyr feeeeeeelings.
  • loveconstitution1789||

    Cut all social security, medicare, and medicaid.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do they compete with your teat-sucking entitlement?

    Your fucking alt-right again shits on free market outcomes.
    What libertarians do, chump, is transition all those back to the private sector. Not your bellowing. Your bullshit promotes Bernie and Elizabeth!

    Since Americans promote those outcomes ... and have always been willing to pay for them ... because they did pay for them, doofus ... you want the left to be the ONLY ones promising what people want done and are willing to pay for ... on top of your entitlement mentality and teat sucking. Why not admit you're a plant for the Socialist Party?

    You're actually proud of being so ignorant of free market outcomes.
    Typical of your ilk.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    So, Weld took the "I'm sorry if my words offended anyone" approach instead of taking responsibility for what he said?

  • Michael Hihn||

    So you're full of shit?
    Will YOU take responsibility for your eagerness to be manipulated and brainwashed by the Authoritarian Right?

  • NashTiger||

    Anyone that would "vouch" for Hillary, the most vile and corrupt creature the swamp has ever produced, is unfit for any office.

    Every single person who has ever been in business with her wound up in jail (amd/or dead), save her equally vile and corrupt husband. Her commpoities trader, her law partners, her real estate partners, ....

  • Michael Hihn||

    You need psychiatric help.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And we should not PUSH PEOPLE OUT who are willing to help!

    And you want this person to chair the Libertarian Party???

  • Eddy||

    When the Republicans nominated Wendell Willkie (a "me too" type and ex-Democrat), a skeptical Republican noted, "...It's all right if the town whore joins the church, but they don't let her lead the choir the first night."

    Let the town whore (I mean Bill Weld) spend some time in the pews proving herself, before she tries again for choir director.

  • BruceMajors||

    Like 4 years of fundraising and endorsing local candidates?

  • MJBinAL||

    How about giving up his progessive positions?

    Weld isn't just like the town whore joining the church .... he wants to turn tricks in the santuary.

  • MJBinAL||

    sanctuary, not santuary, sorry.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How about giving up his progressive positions?

    Libertarians are not rightwing goobers like you. Never have been. Never will be.

    We've been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for a fucking half-century,

    Fiscally and socially conservative is ... conservative! And shamefully statist
    This is NOT rocket science.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    More like 4 years of cogently and accurately explaining the PRINCIPLES of the Libertarian Party, the party of principle.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    What I mean is that I'd rather have him cogently and accurately explaining the PRINCIPLES of the Libertarian Party, the party of principle than "fundraising and endorsing local candidates." I mean really, how difficult is it to endorse someone, and who really cares about his endorsement, anyhow?

  • vek||

    LOL

    That's a great line!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Von Mises was the boring little guy with the Hitler mustache and German accent. The Gee-Oh-Pee certainly prefers that to Ayn Rand, and it deserves to get what it prefers.

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    Apparently most of the members of the Libertarian Party do.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Miseans are useless shits, whatever party.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    And what have you been you mendacious little shitbag? Goddamn, if the LP is going to suck up to mouth-breathing Gun-grabber SJW-types then its all over.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Chill. Dude. Your hysteria is humiliating you.
    TRY to stay on topic, Chicken Little.

  • H. Farnham||

    Congrats on the win, BUCS. Looks like your open borders strategy to secure the illegal delegates' vote paid off.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Once again I must question the usefulness of a libertarian third party. We currently have a system with two major parties, in which one of those two is objectively better than the other in every important way. The Democrats are already "the libertarian party" on the issues we care most about — immigration, reproductive rights, transgender bathroom access. Just look at how Democrats are #Resisting Drumpf's attempted takeover of the Supreme Court, and how many of them are calling to #AbolishICE. What's the point of running spoiler candidates when a major party will give us practically everything we want?

    #LibertariansForGillibrand

  • perlchpr||

    OBL, you're amazing. I mean, I know you're a parody account, and yet, this still made my skin crawl. Strong work, my man. :D

  • creech||

    Maybe the best strategy for libertarians is to join the Dems, and run false-flag full-out commie campaigns in the primary to try to swing the Dems back to common sense? Though, I'd guess that in many districts the full-out commies would win.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It will work out for Libertarians in the end even with actions like this.

    The Democratic Party will be the party of Communists, socialists, and SJWs.

    The GOP will move toward being the religious party.

    The LP will have those that dont fit into those two other parties fighting to make the LP Centrist like we are supposed to be. People like Gillespie and Sarwack will get nudged out of power by non-Libertarian Centrists and Libertarians.

  • CptNerd||

    Sentence is syntactically correct but should have been worded "Libertarians and non-Libertarian Centrists" to convey the semantics better.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Faxsibnatibng, Sorry you cant read. Must be a result of bad Nanny-State schooling.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Not enough religious people left to dominate a party.

    The Dem brand (victimhood and socialism) works because everyone's a redistributionist when they're the ones getting redistributed to. Whereas the GOP doesn't really have a workable brand right now, they're just against the Dems. (I'm under no illusions that either the Dem or GOP leadership is concerned with anything beyond money and power.)

  • DenverJ||

    The LP isn't supposed to be centrist. What a stupid idea. That whole Purple Party that's "economically conservative but socially liberal" spiel is bullshit. The LP isn't supposed to be a fusion of the two looter parties, it's supposed to be the exact opposite.
    When even people who call themselves libertarians don't know what libertarianism is, we have a problem.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Right is conservative where monarchies and oligarchies reign supreme.
    Left is communism, socialism, and progressivism.
    In the middle where there is a mix of conservatism and liberalism where the authoritarian extremes of left and right are farthest from libertarianism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The center is the opposite of two extremes. The right extreme is authoritarian conservative views. The left is the extreme authoritarian communist political views.

  • MJBinAL||

    So, your constitutional wisdomness, kindly explain the difference between Stalin and the Politburo as a monarchy with an oligarchy vs Stalin as communisim and socialism.

    Progressivism is not a separate thing. It is the conversion to socialism over time (progressively) as compared to Marxism where a revolution is required.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Spoken like a true looter. But this is exactly the way Europeans view politics. Every policy there (and in The DemoGOP) is carefully crafted to fit nicely in between Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's International Socialism by cherrypicking the best of both of those dictatorships.

  • BruceMajors||

    If you promise you are not gender fluid I'd love to make out at the next convention.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Well, objectively less awful, anyway. "Better" is a stretch.

    The key point here is that the two major parties have already gotten together on slamming the door for third parties, did it a couple decades ago. All the LP is useful for now is modeling principled libertarianism, and running spoiler campaigns.

    And they've apparently given up on the former to concentrate on the latter.

  • Shirley Knott||

    And the orgy for chastity powers on.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Great. Sarwack and Bill Weld vs anarcho-capitalists.

    Are there any Libertarians even in the LP?

  • Eddy||

    True libertarians know the answer is "no."

  • Agammamon||

    True libertarians know the answer is 'there never were'.

    We're all Thursday.

  • sparkstable||

    Greatest book ever!

  • PrestigeWorldwide||

    Here we go with the new true scotsman fallacy

  • PrestigeWorldwide||

    *no

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one's position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

    Bill Weld is NOT a Libertarian.

    Anarcho-capitalists are NOT Libertarians.

    Those are not counter-examples of Libertarians that I dont think are Libertarian enough or something. They are NOT Libertarians.

    My position is that the two groups fighting over the LP, are Sarwackians which include Bill Weld and anarcho-capitalists under the Mises faction, are not Libertarians.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    WTF? Ancaps are definitely libertarians.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    LC hates anarchists. I can't speak entirely for them, but he seems to view Libertarianism as a sort of strict extension of early American political ideals.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarianism is classic liberalism. All the terms are tweeked because lefties hijacked the term 'liberal' since socialist became a bad name.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ancaps are nothing like libertarians. If they think that there should be no government, which is the definition of anarchism, then they are nothing like the Founding fathers who wanted small limited govenrment.

  • Texasmotiv||

    The founding fathers were not libertarians. Liberalism leads into libertarianism but they are not 1 to 1. I think you are working on a different set of definitions than the rest of the world.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would agree that they were not 1:1

    Its close enough for modern politics and how skewed the USA is.

    The LP is not libertarianism.

  • sparkstable||

    I am LP pragmatically and politically. I am ancap philosophically. The two can go-exist for functional goals. Given the current context... I support LP. It won't be until Libertopia that the difference that matters comes to a head. That is so long as the LP remains committed to universal human rights rather than getting mixed up in rights for this group, rights for that group.

    Example: Sex workers, by nature of being sex workers, do not have rights. They have rights only for the same reasons I have rights, meaning our rights are identical and there is nothing to be gained except division by treating us as different.

    If they stray from that they begin to make the same arguments as liberals. Gay marriage is a great example. A libertarian should not support the "right to gay marriage" in the same way the left did. They wanted the right to have the government sanction the marriage. Libertarians want (or should) people to be allowed to get married with no reference or reverence to the government at all, gay or straight. The outcome LOOKS similar... but there is a HUGE fundamental difference. Many woketarians don't seem to get that. They think because the outcomes is similar, it's safe. That is SO far removed from reason, logic, and human rights philosophy it's scary and dangerous.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    AnCaps most certainly DO NOT believe in "no government", we believe in POLY-CENTRIC government, i.e., no monopolies.

  • Rockabilly||

    Yikes - SJWs?

    Get me some bug spray - yuck!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Sounds like the faux libertarians -- authoritarian conservatives and Republicans masquerading in silly drag, the kind of "libertarians" who favor bigoted and restrictive immigration policies, government gay-bashing, torture, and state micromanagement of wombs and clinics -- took another beating.

    After more than a half-century of American progress, they should be accustomed to it.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Uh.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Reread the text of the Comstock Laws signed by President Grant. That is the edifice of deadly oppression the Republican and Prohibition parties fastened upon American jurisprudence via voter suppression, only to see it collapse a century later when challenged by the Liberal Party in 1931 and the Libertarian Party Platform. This came a full century after they institutionalized book-burning and banned ALL birth control inside These States.

  • BJT||

    wew lad

  • JoeBlow123||

    Hey how is the anime watching going? Still pretending your name is from Al Pacino?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I never thought to ask before but is there any particular backstory to BUCS pretending to be Nick Sarwark?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Look, it's all wacko conspiracy by our resident wacky boy, Just Say'n. He seems to think that JUST because I'm from Arizona, same as the right honorable Mr. Nicholas Sarwark. And that Nicholas Sarwark (a cool dude with a rad 'tude) is literally a used car salesman (and we all know one of the best ever) and that my name is Nicholas. And that I once fist fought Lew Rockwell too.

    All of that and somehow Just Say'n got in his mind that I must be that sexy motherfucker Nicholas Sarwark. When I'm from Tucson Arizona, which is over an hour away from where where our righteous leader, both kind and sharp, Nicholas Sarwark lives in Phoenix.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Also, sorry I haven't been posting those week, I've been really busy with... Something.

  • vek||

    If you were actually Sarwark I think my opinion of him would improve. You're pretty sane in your posting on here much of the time... But this Sarwark guy has always sounded like quite the tool from what little I know.

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    Given the volume and frequency of my public statements, your ignorance of my positions seems like a conscious choice.

  • vek||

    I fully admitted I don't know a ton about you in the post. I don't follow LP internal politics actively at all. I also avoid Facebook and all other social media like the plague, so wouldn't have seen any direct posts by you either. I read Reason and other libertarian leaning sites a lot, but none of them focus massively in internal LP party politics either.

    Maybe I'm just judging you wrong from the few things that stick in my head. But those few things make me think you're not my kind of libertarian.

    I am a right-libertarian who is sick and tired of the endless social posturing and virtue signalling coming from many of the "big names" in libertarianism. So are TONS of other libertarians. I know you post on here sometimes, so I'm sure you see the endless posts bitching about how Reason writers are unwilling to compromise one iota on saaay open borders, but perfectly willing to have "reasonable" compromises on other issues (guns, economics, etc) that are every bit as central to an ultra purist reading of libertarianism.

    When somebody is willing to give on some things easily, and fight to the death on other things, it usually betrays their leanings... And I don't like the leanings of Cosmotarians. From what I know, you seem to be in that camp.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I am a right-libertarian

    You're also ignorant of what THAT means.
    Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 50 years.
    Right- and left-libertarians means they came in from either the right or the left, and those issues are still their passion issues, by they still support the entire formula of fiscally conservative and socially liberal,

    An ACTUAL right-libertarian typically comes in from the right, remains passionate on fiscal issues, and PASSIVELY supports social tolerance ... as the price they pay for a fee society. Liberty is not free,

    That's how individual liberty works, which explodes the "brains" of the barbarians on both the left and right. (Maybe 15% of libertarians are balanced, passionate on both fiscal and personal issues, which is what may have confused you so totally)

    You're a conservatard, by your own words and actions, a disgrace to Reagan/Goldwater/Buckley/Kemp conservatives,

    Not to deny your right to BELEEB what you do, But of you try to impose your perverted values by government force ... you are at war with over 60% of all Americans.

    Your time has expired. Decades agio. And no amount of bellowing can change reality.
    You're even crazier on the "compromises" you lie about. Just another hopelessly brainwashed puppet.

    (Only conservatards use words "Cosmotarian" and "virtue signalling" -- and we'll ridicule you for ANOTHER half-century/ Then another. And another. And ... forever)

  • vek||

    LOL

    You're such an idiot Hihn.

    I am fine with 99% of the social stuff, WHEN IT'S NOT BEING FORCED BY GOVERNMENT.

    I have no issue with gay marriage. All drugs being legal. Abortion. What else am I supposed to support??? Those aren't even things I accept begrudgingly, I genuinely am in favor of those.

    But I don't like the way the left tries to socially engineer a bunch of bullshit, that is contrary to fact. Stuff like the pay gap that disappears into nothingness when you properly control for variables. So yeah I don't like virtue signalling. And I'm also not for open borders and a few other purist libertarian stances. Boo-hoo-hoo. I'm libertarian as fuck on 95% of things, but I have a few carve outs where I don't think libertarianism properly addresses real world concerns, and on those I tend to lean right.

    Fuck off.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    I like Nick. He's a good guy and look forward to casting a vote for him to be mayor of Phoenix. That said, I refuse to vote for another Republican on the LP presidential ticket. If our party nominates Weld in '20 then my vote will be write-in.

    What's the point of supporting a guy that loathes the Second Amendment, supports eminent domain and The Patriot Act?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Translation: I am an inept masked Republican infiltrator, frightened silly by the way the growing LP vote totals fit the Fisher-Pry replacement curve.

  • Agammamon||

    So, what's the point of supporting a party the loathes the 2nd, supports ED and the Patriot act, and wants to tell bakers that they must bake cakes for everyone?

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Yep. Weld was an awful choice for VP, all things considered. He's basically a rehash of the debacle around Bob Barr and his shitty treatment of Mary Ruwart. If Weld is the party's nominee for 2020, I too will write in (likely Ron Paul just to piss off people like Nick Sarwark).

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Mary Ruwart would be an excellent choice.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Mary Ruawartwith her 1500 point checklist of what a libertarian society would be?
    Some of us prefer a free society to a libertarian society,
    As did Ayn Rand, who ridiculed the crackpot notion.
    A cult is not a society,

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Hihn, seriously, go play in traffic or something. Fuck with a pygmy rattler. Touch your dick to an electric fence. Just do something other than pollute the comments section with your moronic drivel. Which Progtard sock puppet are you anyway? Its so hard to keep up nowadays.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck reveals his/her total ignorance of libertarianism and Ayn Rand -- another brainwashed goober too fucking stupid to know the difference between a free society and a libertarian society ... even TALKS like the thuggery they worship.

    Pay attention, chump.

    In a libertarian society, we'd all live in gated communities with private police forces and competing court systems. A John Galt statue stands in every town square. Honoring, if course, the entirety of Mary Ruwart's 1200 point checklist.

    In a free society, Galt's Gulch exists right next to a Marxist commune … lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies …. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community would be voluntarily populated. And that statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

    Liberty is a mutual benefit society.
    Not a members only Country Club

    A free society CANNOT be for libertarians only. That would be a cult. Like the Moonies, Davidians and Jim Jones' People's Temple.

    Anything else?

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    My concern for your voting habits is vastly overestimated.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Oooh, Nick, that cuts deep.

  • vek||

    Maybe you should care more fine sir.

    You seem to be under the impression that most libertarian leaners are "fashionable" Cosmotarians who support SJW causes, virtue signal endlessly, and ARE IN FAVOR OF progressive social policies, when really libertarians can have whatever PERSONAL opinion they want on MANY things, so long as they don't want the government to force their views on others.

    Thing is most libertarians I have met in real life, and frankly most online too are very much either right-libertarians, or centrist-libertarians... NOT left-libertarians. Let me put it another way, ideological/policy overlap with different groups is about like so IMO:

    Left leaners: 10-20%
    Right leaners: 60-70%
    Centrists: 70-80%

    So PERHAPS spending all your energy appealing to the people that have the LEAST alignment with libertarian values isn't exactly the best PRAGMATIC idea? When most self identified libertarians, or those who might identify as such, are clearly centrist or right leaning it just doesn't make sense. Yet the L establishment has been pushing this for many years now.

    I'm all for converting leftists if we can, but not by adopting their flawed premises, but rather by educating them and correcting their errors.

  • Qsl||

    Small, little, niggling problem.

    That means for libertarians to make any headway, they have to become a powerful voting block if not an outright majority. Given past performance, I'm sure that will happen any day now. I imagine there is a horde of Ancaps trapped beneath the Arctic circle, waiting for release and voting rights. If they could only get past ICE.

    The other problem is, you might have noticed, there are multitudes of other people, who, much to the collective astonishment of libertarians everywhere, have different perspectives and ldeas. And while re-education camps are one approach, it just doesn't look good with the libertarian aesthetic.

    So rather than slide even further into irrelevancy, libertarians have to pick and choose their battles, and maybe, at times, support unlibertarian positions if it can be traded for greater liberty overall.

    Any ideology that requires people to think like you is doomed to failure. And overall, there are probably more people who fit the description of left-libertarian (including a certain David Nolan) than the recent heresies from the right.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A big Libertarian problem is bashing politicians that move toward the goal.

    A goal being free markets. A politician who substantially moves the USA toward that goal should be given a bit of credit for being Libertarian-ish.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (snort) Why do you repeatedly SHIT on free markets? And BRAG of your entitlement mentality and teat-sucking? You're a plant for Bernie and Elizabeth.

  • vek||

    QSL, I agree that being purists is stupid. I think any law that moves things in the right direction, even if only a little is something that should be pushed for. Legalizing, and taxing the crap out of, marijuana as an example. It's better than throwing people in jail for it, right?

    I think may libertarian POLICIES could in fact be pushed, because many people are libertarian leaning, but don't identify as such.

    "And overall, there are probably more people who fit the description of left-libertarian (including a certain David Nolan) than the recent heresies from the right."

    I don't see it man. Rank and file voters, not politicians, leftists I have known simply don't mesh with most libertarian ideas. Gay marriage, pot, etc sure. But not a lot else. Whereas I've met tons of cons and centrists who agree with a very wide range of L ideas.

    If you made a checklist of libertarian positions and asked all to check what they agree with, I think centrists followed by right leaners would check off FAR more libertarian positions as things they believe in. This is what I have seen in my life.

    ALSO I've found right leaners to be far easier to convert to the libertarian position on things where they didn't agree originally. I've converted SoCons I know to thinking CRACK should be legalized after explaining it. I've rarely bet a leftists who could be convinced big government welfare, regulation, etc should be rolled back.

  • Qsl||

    That's the thing though. Most people support entitlements like Social Security, believe the government should be looking out for the less fortunate, protecting the environment, etc. if for no other reason than there aren't other institutions in place to fulfill those roles

    I mean how do you think we got into our current predicament?

    The assumption is that right libertarianism is the only game in town, and that just isn't so. Most people are centrists, which precludes more government than most libertarians are comfortable with.

  • Qsl||

    Err, includes.

  • vek||

    Qsl, sure I agree that a lot of people believe in various big government ideas... But a lot of people don't.

    My point is that the ones THAT DON'T are a lot more open to libertarianism in general... They are centrists and right leaners. The left leaners are the ones who would NEVER consider getting rid of social security... If a proper phase out plan was offered, a lot of people on the right would.

    Do you see which group is more libertarian friendly?

    You don't have to convert all the leftists to our views to win elections, and win policy changes.

    Also, it's not like laws need to go 100% hardcore anyway... If we merely trimmed back the EPA to sane levels of control, would that not be a step in the right direction? There are many improvements that could be made to social security without abolishing it too. Stuff like that is fine in my book because it's better than the status quo.

  • Michael Hihn||

    mean how do you think we got into our current predicament?

    How we STAY in it is a TOTAL lack of policy solutions. When you hear somebody saying elections are for promoting libertarian ideas -- when 60% of the voters ALREADY hold libertarian values -- you hear TREASON toward liberty.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I think may libertarian POLICIES could in fact be pushed, because many people are libertarian leaning, but don't identify as such.

    There are no such policies, in anything. And 60% of the people are libertarian. Combine those two and see a MASSIVE failure.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    I'm in Arizona (but thankfully, not in Phoenix). Sarwark has been AWOL so far in the mayoral race - the Phoenix City Council is in meltdown but Sarwark is nowhere to be found - when he should be on the ground taking advantage of the mess. Meanwhile, the AZ LP crashed and burned, and has no statewide candidates this year due to using some two-bit petition-gathering firm for its candidates, and putting forward Repub-Lites like Kevin McRepublican for Governor, who advocated new taxes for funding government schools! Arizona already has a Republican running the state who's advocating new funding for the schools, so there's no reason to replace Empty Suit Ducey with Empty Suit Kevin. What did the state LP do in response to the legislature's raising the petition signature requirement? Outsourced the petition-gathering to a firm that didn't understand the law and got thousands of invalid signatures!

    Yep, Sarwark and his ilk in Arizona are going gangbusters. Meanwhile, I re-registered as a Republican so I'd have *somebody* to vote for next month.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    You're very misinformed about Sarwark and the AZLP. Sarwark has a campaign HQ, is circulating nomination petitions, campaigns a local events.

    The AZLP has attempted multiple times to address the signature issue. One judge actually acknowledged the GOP rigs the ballot but threw the case out anyway. Candidates tried a paid petitioner because no one wants to help collect signatures. Libertarians weren't the only ones affected by the fraudulent petioners.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    If "no one wants to help collect signatures", it's because the AZLP is running the WRONG CANDIDATES. Kevin McRepublican would have been a disaster for the LP brand as a candidate for Governor, and I'm grateful he was kicked off the ballot because of his and the AZLP's own stupidity. A tax-&-spend Libertarian? Where does Arizona find these candidates?

    As for Sarwark - I've read dozens upon dozens of articles about the meltdown that is the PHX city council, and Sarwark is nowhere to be found. Mainstream media, alt-media, what have you. He's a non-entity, and that's what he'll be in the Mayoral election as well.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    I've been around the AZLP for nearly a decade. Never has a candidate had much support from other people. Luckily, in the past, ballot access was not rigged by the GOP. As for the candidates you don't like, they are the ones that run. The AZLP has no control over who runs. Anyone can run as a Libertarian. McCormack was not desirable to most but he was willing to run. Would I vote for him? Nope but that's me. I don't have control over who runs.

    Sure you've read articles. Anyone can read articles. What Nick can't do is force the media, that always ignores the LP, to cover his campaign. The only candidates that get media coverage in local and state media is the best known Democrat and Republican in the race. The other candidates, including Nick, will be ignored.

  • ZanderfromNOLA||

    Nick speaks very highly of the public school system in Phoenix and I think he sends his kids there.

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    My three school-aged children do attend Phoenix public schools, not that the Mayor's office or the city has any control over how they are funded or run.

    Our school is great, some other ones are terrible, like public schools in most big cities.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What's the point of supporting a guy that loathes the Second Amendment, supports eminent domain and The Patriot Act?

    What's the point of being a liar?. Or a brainwashed puppet?

  • wef||

    How the Libertarian party became a mainstream intellectually-vacant party with an unusual point of view.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    But it's a place for the Sarwarks and Richard Burkes of the world to feel warm and fuzzy. Big fish/Small pond syndrome.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Hydra has infiltrated all political entities with any influence.

  • Agammamon||

    So the LP is still clean then.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    This is why I don't buy the "classical liberal" bullshit. All forms of liberalism end up in the same place. That libertarians would eventually end up all but indistinguishable from progs was inevitable. That's the end game of liberalism every single time. The libertarians would be better served by just supporting the Democrats. They'd at least win an election once and a while.

  • PrestigeWorldwide||

    do you even know what classic liberal means?

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Yes. Now, show me any country that was ever "classically liberal" that hasn't ended up an SJW dominated hellhole. It's as inevitable as a maggot becoming a fly.

  • Mark22||

    Yes. Now, show me any country that was ever "classically liberal" that hasn't ended up an SJW dominated hellhole.

    The US, for one. For all its faults and problems, the SJWs don't run the country yet.

    Furthermore, much as I think neo-Marxists and socialists hold deplorable beliefs, nevertheless, they represent a large number of people that one needs to listen to, if not for any other reason than for self-preservation: these people have a history of mass violence, and they believe (erroneously, but that doesn't matter) that they have little to lose and lots to gain.

  • Michael Hihn||

    these people have a history of mass violence

    The Oneidans! The Israeli Kibbutz! Even Ayn Rand ridiculed your wackiness.

  • Calidissident||

    What is your example of a country that wasn't ever "classically liberal" and isn't a hellhole?

  • JFree||

    show me any country that was ever "classically liberal" that hasn't ended up an SJW dominated hellhole.

    Switzerland

  • ||

    Switzerland

    The Swiss are a bunch of crafty buggers; they manage to get all SJWy and libertarianish at the same time. See follow-up comment:

  • ||

    From the Swiss Constiution:

    Chapter 3 Social Objectives
    Art. 41
    1 The Confederation and the Cantons shall, as a complement to personal responsibility and private initiative, endeavour to ensure that:

    a. every person has access to social security;
    b. every person has access to the health care that they require;
    c. families are protected and encouraged as communities of adults and children;
    d. every person who is fit to work can earn their living by working under fair conditions;
    e. any person seeking accommodation for themselves and their family can find suitable accommodation on reasonable terms;
    f. children and young people as well as persons of employable age can obtain an education and undergo basic and advanced training in accordance with their abilities;
    g. children and young people are encouraged to develop into independent and socially responsible people and are supported in their social, cultural and political integration.

    2 The Confederation and Cantons shall endeavour to ensure that every person is protected against the economic consequences of old-age, invalidity, illness, accident, unemployment, maternity, being orphaned and being widowed.

    3 They shall endeavour to achieve these social objectives within the scope of their constitutional powers and the resources available to them.

    4 No direct right to state benefits may be established on the basis of these social objectives.
  • JFree||

    Those are pretty carefully worded objectives - even in translation. My guess is that that:
    a)defuses a lot of the SJW grievance shtick and/because
    b)it creates specific accountability for govt

    It's almost a Rawlsian original-position social contract.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's almost a Rawlsian original-position social contract.

    you're drooling agan. Or still. See point 4 -- in boldface! (smirk)

  • Michael Hihn||

    The part you placed in boldface proves you full of shit.
    And what's your point? That the Swiss people have no right to form a government?
    Even Ayn Rand ridiculed your authoritarianism!!!

  • JoeBlow123||

    I think it is because of their super hard federalism personally. Very light central government enforcement relative to other countries.

  • MJBinAL||

    And maybe the fact that they are tiny .... I think we have counties, not just states, but counties, larger than they are.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    It sounds like you are opposed to the very idea of liberty, hombre. A dictatorship is more to your liking, like you namesake.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Spoken like a true socialist amigo.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Says the guy who DEMANDS entitlenents, suckuing on the gummnint teat.

  • Michael Hihn||

    do you even know what classic liberal means?

    Yes

    Then why do you make a total ass of yourself in the same paragraph????

    It's as inevitable as a maggot becoming a fly.

    So you say you'll become a fly!

    Pay attention. All of Bonafart's BULLSHIT ignores that classical liberals are also FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE. Conservatard's cannot cope with fiscally conservative AND socially liberal, which means both, Sluggo, and is over 60% of Americans.

    Instead your hate-spewing bogity explodes your brain at the word "liberal."
    Do the math. Over 60% of Americans would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
    What's that leave for the two primitive tribes COMBINED? (left and right COMBINED are a shrinking minority)

    But keep beating your chest, bellowing and shaking your fist at the sky, Bonafart.

  • BruceMajors||

    Fins and bad gas mileage?

  • LynchPin1477||

    That libertarians would eventually end up all but indistinguishable from progs

    Care to elaborate?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Probably an extreme social conservative fascist. Or a Paulite (same thing)

  • Hank Phillips||

    The idea is to repeal shitty laws by clubbing the Kleptocracy with spoiler votes. To a Republican, only the transformation of a candidate into a parasite cashing government paychecks makes any sense. But to accomplish that, they must survive the gauntlet of Libertarian spoiler votes. Sarwark can explain how this works. So far it has repealed christianofascist Comstock and Lebensborn laws, legalized plant leaves and enforced individual rights of non-heterosexuals.

  • Agammamon||

    What's the point of voting for a spoiler when he's campaigning on the same planks as the GOP and DP?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Nobody does that, (lol)

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is why I don't buy the "classical liberal" bullshit.

    Becasuse you're so fuckimg ignorant!

    All forms of liberalism end up in the same place.

    Even if they're fiscally conservative?
    (snort)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Republicans, desperate for a way to brand the LP an underground railroad for funneling lepers, berserker jihadists, ebola vectors and other menaces to security, property and health into These States have worked hard. They have been temporarily successful in rounding up enough dupes to gut the wrong part of the migration plank, turning it into an Angela Merkel or Hillary prayer. The migration plank now serves only to alienate potential voters and make it easier to dismiss the Libertarian Party as whackos, God's Own Prohibitionists gloat over a major accomplishment best countered by deleting the remaining stump of the plank before the presidential election.

  • ZanderfromNOLA||

    Agreed!

  • macsnafu||

    Geez, I haven't been active in the LP for many years. While I kind of miss it, this kind of in-fighting I definitely do not miss. In any case, I'm still convinced that political activity isn't going to win people over, but rather social and cultural activity is. Political wins by libertarian candidates will be one of the last signs that we're succeeding, not the first.

  • sparkstable||

    A point missed by many.

  • MotörSteve||

    Totally agree. Electoral politics is always a lagging indicator.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Wait, are you arguing that a lack of political wins means we're winning socially and culturally?

    I agree that political wins would not be the first good sign, but reality is we're not seeing any good signs on the social or cultural front either.

  • DenverJ||

    How many states have legalized pot now? Isn't the federal government getting ready to go with a right to try policy for medical procedures/drugs?

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's already happened. Cato reports that (now) over 60% of Americans would define themselves with libertarian values, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label (and what it stands for)

    So libertarianISM -- the ideology -- is WAY behind libertarians, 50,000-75,000 in elected publicoffice, perhaps a million activists, all actively engaged in their communities. the REAL people expanding the acceptance of libertarian values.

    The MOVEMENT went off the rails decades ago, by becoming anti-gummint goobers instead of pro-liberty achievers, caused mostly by the statist and phony constitutionalist, Ron Paul. Even Reason now sucks up to the alt-right, with MAYBE 15% libertarian content.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "A leadership that [is] considered by various critics to be too operationally incremental, too ideologically tepid, and too . . . "SJW-friendly."

    Your party's best chance to make a showing is as a protest vote. If you're with the SJWs, what are you a protest against? If you make your party about SJW issues, rather than free trade, free markets, and capitalism, what are you a protest against?

    Anything?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I guess this may be outdated now, but here is the 2016 LP platform. Lots and lots of stuff about free markets, free trade, and capitalism. Those things are absolutely compatible with being anti-Trump and anti-alt right, and neither of those last two things necessarily imply being pro-SJW.

    I don't follow LP internal politics and don't really care to do so. I get that Gary Johnson supported some anti-discrimination laws and it seems like Sarwark picked a fight with right-leaning/paleo elements of the LP. Virtue signalling after Charlottesville? Maybe. Maybe its a sincere belief that the Mises Institute camp is will to get too close for comfort to nationalist elements of the alt-right. But do you have any other evidence of the LP embracing SJW values?

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    Don't confuse the Reason commentariat with the actual Libertarian Party positions.

    They much prefer to work with their manufactured talking points.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Reason commentariat should not be confused with libertarians at all.
    Nor should Nick Gillespie.

  • vek||

    I don't know what the official planks are or anything, but I get the impression they're pretty in alignment with the Cosmotarian writers around here. In other words they push as specifically being in favor of lots of issues SJWs are in favor of, including sometimes through the government mandating things via laws. Think tranny bathroom issue.

    I don't mind trannies myself, but I support peoples right to NOT allow a man into a womens bathroom if they don't want to. Certainly on private property.

    And sometimes it's not just the actual positions, but the way they push for some things, and against other things. It shows where their true feeling are at. They tend to not be in "anything goes, total freedom of association!" direction as is the proper libertarian position.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I did a Google search for Reason articles on bathroom laws. They all were in opposition to the North Carolina law on the basis that the government doesn't need to concern itself with who is using what bathroom...which seems pretty consistent with libertarian principles. Here is one by Nick specifically saying "Don't let the government discriminate, and let businesses set their own policies".

    Not everything to the side (I don't know which side) of "anything goes, total freedom of association!" is evidence of a SJW agenda. Which writers do you see as aligned with SJWs? Robby, who's best known for pushing back against Title IX sexual assault rules? ENB, who's focus is on things like reproductive and sex workers' rights, and who got dis-invited from a college campus debate because of agitation by SJWs? I'll grant that Dalmia takes an extreme and sensationalist position on immigration but being radically pro-immigration is not in and of itself a social just position. OK, maybe you could find from stuff from Chapman, but he stands out from the rest of the Reason writers.

    I absolutely agree that the Reason writers are on the urban side of the urban vs rural divide (I can't think of another concise way of summing it up, but I hope you know what I mean by that). But that doesn't make them progressives or SJWs.

  • vek||

    LynchPin1477, like I said with a lot of it it is how they come off as much as what they're directly saying.

    There'll be a whole article spinning something a certain way, like how only a horrible person would believe this, and obviously this is the righteous and virtuous thing to support, and then maybe a single line almost as an after thought where they say "Oh yeah, I guess private businesses should be able to do whatevs or something... But they clearly SHOULD do this because it's the right thing."

    You know what I mean? That kind of is the urban/rural divide thing there. They just always come off, because of 1,000 small things, as being smug and pushing the side they CLEARLY think is the only right way to decide something. Then maybe throw a bone to freedom of choice or whatever. And they nearly always seem to come out on the urbanist/SJW/proggie side.

    They basically don't have a single regular writer on here who pushes the "alternate" (usually right-libertarian) way of thinking some libertarian positions through... Because many are not clear cut on divisive issues. After the 10,000th article that shows a clear leaning, one simply assumes they must lean that direction on certain issues.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I guess I just see more daylight between "cosmotarians" (which, although I dislike the term, I will agree applies to the bulk of the Reason staff) and progressives or social justice warriors. There may be a good bit of overlap in cultural tastes but that's probably also true of urbanite Republicans. I don't see much political overlap, especially when you drill down past superficial similarities (e.g. progressive and libertarian attitudes towards criminal justice reform).

  • vek||

    I'm not saying there are no big differences. There are. Especially on some subjects, like economics where Cosmotarians are actually sane. But there is a LOT of overlap too. As I said a lot of it is how they come off. It's how they push a single viewpoint as THE GOSPEL, when there are many acceptable libertarian viewpoints on a subject.

    Abortion being an example. I personally am fine with it. However all the writers, sans the one piece they had an anti abortion writer write awhile back, are very clearly "ZOMG Abortion is the greatest thing ever! It's awesome to kill babies! There shouldn't be a single restriction on it at all, and anybody who thinks there should be is LITERALLY HITLER!"

    That's their angle that they always push... Yet the libertarian position can also very much be that life begins at some point before birth, and depending on where that point is the baby then has rights that cannot be violated... AKA no aggression (killing it) is acceptable.

    But you never would hear that around here too much... They do that on EVERY single social issue, always siding with the urbanist/proggie side.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    LP 2016 platform

    Most stuff is on par with Libertarianism. Open borders is not and any absolute position that chips away at the Constitutiondoes not really work since Libertarians in the USA are also pro-Constitution.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Libertarians in the USA are also pro-Constitution.

    Not since Ron Paul fucked it up with his .KKK-style states rights and faux federalism. So most are now like you and the rest of the alt-right.

  • Michael Hihn||

  • Qsl||

    I could put the same to you: inasmuch as the rhetoric from the GOP is for capitalism and free markets, why would anyone vote LP when you could get most of it voting Republican?

    I'll freely grant that the LP has some questionable planks and the focus on the fringes is at best marginal, but if you want economic freedom without a heaping spoonful of moral indignation shoved down your throat, where do you go?

    Like it or not, social issues do concern people, and at least having the debate of where these things lead is worth having.

    And as the LP isn't advocating for preferred personal pronouns as a party plank, may you are over-reacting?

  • Nardz||

    "if you want economic freedom without a heaping spoonful of moral indignation shoved down your throat, where do you go?"

    Not the LP. Plenty of moral indignation to be found there these days

  • Michael Hihn||

    I could put the same to you: inasmuch as the rhetoric from the GOP is for capitalism and free markets, why would anyone vote LP when you could get most of it voting Republican?

    You confuse rhetoric with reality. A perfect Republican!

  • Jerryskids||

    I for one applaud the idea of letting in all comers that know how to win, regardless of their adherence to strict libertarian philosophy. Maybe in 2020 we can get that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gal to run on the LP ticket, she's a proven winner!

  • prolefeed||

    * slow clap *

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lets not and say we didnt.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why should you care. He's talking about libertarians, which precludes your entitlement mentality, and paleo conservatism.

  • MJBinAL||

    "Yawn"

  • Michael Hihn||

    You've seen the proof, and been humiliated yourself.
    I provide undeniable proof. You yawn. Typical conservatard.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lets not and instead say go Libertarianism!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fucking fraud. You're like a Fifth Columnist., TALKING liberty, while slurping at the gummint teat ...the Moral Hypocrisy of the Authoritarian Right..
    ============

    loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

    My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.
    I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

    Alt-Right TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. ONLY if it lines HIS pocket!
    loveconstitution (sic) Insults HIS OWN FATHER, "selfish as shit" ... but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG) .... claims that a multi-trillion debt increase (tax cut) is "giving my own money back " ...FROM WHERE, GOOBER?

    What kind of "fiscal conservative" DENIES federal debt is stealing from our future ... from his own children?

    HE WOULD CUT HIS FATHER'S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS ... TO ENRICH HIMSELF, BECAUSE HE'S ......... "ENTITLED." ....... AND SELF-RIGHTEOUS!

    Libtards borrow trillions for free stuff
    Conservatards borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
    Both with entitlement mentalities. Both goose-stepping America toward Hell ... arm-in-arm

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If your campaign is seen, or has themes of trying to kick people out, of trying to attack people like Gov. Weld, or... basically anyone—if your campaign was seen as trying to drive people out of the party, the delegates soundly rejected that."

    If that's what the delegates really think, then the delegates don't really represent libertarian voters. Over the last week or so, as they've included planks for getting behind prostitution and now as they're lining up behind Bill Weld, it seems to me that they're the ones trying to drive people out of the party.

    This is more embarrassing than Badnarik ever was. I got friends and family to vote for both him and Gary Johnson the first time (2012). I'm not about to stump for the LP if this is what they're about.

    In the past, they created a pro-abortion plank where there wasn't any plank at all (why create division where there needn't be any?). Now, they get behind a weird issue like prostitution that most people don't care about, line up behind Bill Weld, and then want us to believe they're not about kicking people out of the party? Seems to me they're doing everything they can to chase people out of the party.

    Only the Libertarian Party would embrace social justice just as the rest of America is scraping it out of their shoes like dog shit.

  • perlchpr||

    Only the Libertarian Party would embrace social justice just as the rest of America is scraping it out of their shoes like dog shit.

    I think this is an unwarrantedly optimistic statement. I see no evidence that the people who have embraced social justice in the past are now rejecting it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, the SJWs are a tiny minority.

    The Sheeple consist of a greater majority and they latch on to causes and political parties.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It isn't about the people who have embraced it in the past; it's about the swing voters. If you don't think swing voters made Donald Trump the winner in the primaries or that the swing voters in swing states didn't put Trump in the White House--specifically because he was so thoroughly denounced for his lack of social justice credentials--then you haven't been paying attention.

    P.S. An overwhelming majority of Christians supported gay marriage as of several years ago. How many do you think thought that meant the government forcing individual bakers to cater gay weddings against their will?

  • Michael Hihn||

    How many do you think thought that meant the government forcing individual bakers to cater gay weddings against their will?

    How many support special rights for Christians, in defiance of the Separation they support?

  • PrestigeWorldwide||

    If you want to win a debate then you run a philosopher against someone like Sarwark. SMH. He's used to questioning and being questioned as a former attorney. The infighting is ridiculous. I don't agree with everything he's done and said, but I see the big picture. Alot of these so-called libertarians want to be stuck in a coffeeshop corner arguing who is more libertarian than the other. If you want a party to succeed you have to show you're legitimate. Difficult to corral cattle when libertarianism is so broad.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Alot of these so-called libertarians want to be stuck in a coffeeshop corner arguing who is more libertarian than the other."

    I think those are yesterday's wars.

    If the LP differentiates itself on any issues from the two major parties, it should be on things like fiscal conservatism, free trade, etc.

    Those issues aren't about libertarians arguing about who's the purest among themselves.

    The LP doesn't even appear to be trying to differentiate itself. Looks to me like they're trying to be social justice just like their progressive friends inside the bubble. That is not making the tent bigger to include more people. That's making the tent smaller--to exclude everybody who isn't in the bubble.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarianism is actually not that broad. Quite a few of the public figures of the LP are not libertarians.

    Free markets, maximum freedom under rule of law, the Constitution, property rights, gun rights, privacy rights, small and limited government. And your barking up the right tree.

    Picking non-americans to rule over americans is not going to get you libertarian supporters in the usa.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Free markets, maximum freedom under rule of law, the Constitution, property rights, gun rights, privacy rights, small and limited government. And your barking up the right tree.

    You betray libertarianism again. Even more than your teat sucking entitlement mentality.

    Gun rights are not absolute, except to goobers and yahoos, because no rights are absolute.
    Learn what unalienable means, when you're not pimping for the alt-right.

  • vek||

    We'll see what 300 million firearms have to say about those rights not being absolute if you ever try to take them away Hihn...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck rejects unalienable rights.

  • MJBinAL||

    "Yawn"

  • Michael Hihn||

    Conservatard YAWNS at the concept of unalienable rights.

  • NashTiger||

    The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, you blathering imbecilic fuck

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, you blathering imbecilic fuck

    The Ninth Amendment incorporates "unalienable rights" into the Constitution .. and EXPANDS THEM .... you babbling conservatard moron/. I'll TRY dumbing it down to your level.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    PAY ATTENTION

    There are rights. beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, that NO level of government may deny or disparage.

    STILL CONFUSED, Sluggo?

    Why are they not named?

    Asshole conservatards babble and shriek that 10A reserves ALL unenumerated powers to the states ,... which is BAT-SHIT CRAZY

    PAY ATTENTION

    Ours is a government of DELEGATED powers,

    That means ... wait for it ... INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE SUPERIOR TO GOVERNMENT POWERS, you fucking fascist.

    And STATES CANNOT HAVE POWERS NEVER DELEGATED!

    Anything else? (sneer)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The natural rights to say what I want and have Arms is absolute. Its so absolute its protected by the Constitution.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're full of shit ,... learn what unalienable means , goober.

    Even Scalia ruled you full of shit.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You're so dumb you think that an appeal to Scalia's opinion is an appeal to authority.

    And unalienable isn't the same as absolute. Nice straw man.

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're so dumb you think that an appeal to Scalia's opinion is an appeal to authority.

    (smirk) You said the opposite of what you SEEM to mean. And you fucked up.
    Scalia's opinion CONFIRMS the definition of unalienable, which is the argument.

    And unalienable isn't the same as absolute.

    You're full of shit AGAIN

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    And a liar. THIS is what it says:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    In Heller, Scalia reaffirmed that the militia clause LIMITS the protection to the modern equivalents of those weapons in common use at ratification, that people brought from home to militia service --- originally flintlocks and muskets ... today pistols and SINGLE-SHOT rilles ... which has been the law of the land since 1939 (United States v Miller)

    Scaliai stated EXPLICITLY that modern weapons had made that obsolete but ORIGINALISM could not justify changing the interpretation. Technically, the entire amendment is obsolete. We no longer defend America with a militia!!! (gasp),

    That's why the NRA was POWERLESS against the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (what it was called) for ten long years ... until it expired ... or do you deny THAT too?

    NEVER use political slogans against an educated mind.

  • Mark22||

    The Libertarian Party is about libertarianism roughly in the same way that Democrats are about democracy, communists are about community, and progressives are about progress.

    So... why should any libertarian care who these people elect?

  • Ken Shultz||

    There are a couple of reasons.

    1) It didn't used to be this way.

    2) The LP is supposed to be an outreach tool.

    The LP is supposed to take advantage of the opportunities to discuss libertarian ideas and libertarian solutions at a time when average Americans are thinking about politics. If instead of doing that, it makes people think libertarians are something other than what we are, then that's infuriating to people who care.

    It's sort of like watching Robby attack free speech in the name of libertarianism. It makes real libertarians feel nauseated to think that someone might come to believe that anti-free speech crap is truly representative of libertarianism--because the true purpose of libertarianism has always been to take over the world through persuasion. Isn't that the way it needs to be? We have to convince people to choose a libertarian world for themselves because every other way would necessarily involve coercion?

    If the LP is going to undermine the cause of libertarian persuasion, make it harder for me to persuade my friends and family to choose libertarian solutions, then pull the plug. It's hard enough as it is without the LP out there making us look like retards.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The LP forces communist and fascist politicians to repeal communist and fascist laws--or be beaten. The DemoGOP looter that is furthest from the LP platform loses via the brain drain of Libertarian spoiler votes. The math is simple, and shows how getting rid of creepy parties and their Sharia laws improves the body politic. Ask any Whig or Federalist. Integrity brings home the bacon!

  • Mark22||

    The LP forces communist and fascist politicians to repeal communist and fascist laws--or be beaten.

    The LP doesn't "force" anybody to do anything, and it is no harder to account for in political messaging and electoral math than any other group of voters.

    The math is simple, and shows how getting rid of creepy parties and their Sharia laws improves the body politic.

    Well, and collective improvement of the body politic is what libertarianism is all about!

    (Careful there, too much spittle may shorten out your keyboard.)

  • Mark22||

    If the LP is going to undermine the cause of libertarian persuasion, make it harder for me to persuade my friends and family to choose libertarian solutions,

    Perhaps you'd be more effective persuading them if you didn't try to put a label on it at all and just talked with them about policies on a case by case basis.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You might be missing the point about how these friends family actually voted for Johnson in 2012 and Badnarik.

    The question isn't whether I can be persuasive.

    The question is why I'd want to persuade them to vote for the LP.

    If their emphasis is all about being me too on social justice, why bother?

  • MJBinAL||

    We have to, because simply saying we are libertarian gets us dismissed as mentally damaged.

    The LP does that for us. GayJay looking completely unprepared on TV does that for us. Currently the LP is making selling Libertarian ideas HARDER not easier.

  • Michael Hihn||

    We have to, because simply saying we are libertarian gets us dismissed as mentally damaged.

    By 91% odf LIBERTARIANS! (per Cato, and with good reason)

    Currently the LP is making selling Libertarian ideas HARDER not easier.

    You can't blame the party, and Gary even less. It's the libertarian establishment which TOTALLY fails ITS job (Cato, Mercatus, Reason.com) ... NO policy solutions to ANYTHING ... not a single one ,... not taxes, not healthcare, not replacing entitlements, not restructuring government, NOTHING.

    Salesmanship 101 says show people a better way to do what they already want. They already want over 90% of what government provides .... and even Ayn Rand said the people have every right to provide that through government (consent of the governed) ... IF THAT'S THEIR ONLY OPTION.

    The establishment, not your Purity Posse. And YOU.

  • Eddy||

    I always knew Sarwark was eloquent and persuasive, and now I know why - I mean, an attorney *and* a car dealer!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Translation: Sarwark is too competent to be suckered by DemoGOP gospels of fear and hatred.

  • Eddy||

    Competent at *speaking.*

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    An attorney and a car dealer - two of the least-respected professions in America.

  • ZanderfromNOLA||

    add political party chairman and you hit the trifecta!

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Giving him way too much credit. He's apparently not good enough at either occupation to do it more than part time.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    I wonder what he's doing with the rest of his time because he's certainly not using any of it campaigning for Mayor of Phoenix. He's a non-entity in the race!

  • Nardz||

    He spends the bulk of his time commenting on Reason articles

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Nuh uh.

  • Nardz||

    Apologies.
    He spends *a lot* of time commenting on Reason articles.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Nor as much as you.
    And not as badly as you.
    Infantile one

  • Michael Hihn||

    Ummm (laughing hysterically) he can support himself doing it only part-time! Could you?

  • John Titor||

    That feeling you get when the Canadian Libertarian Party is better than the American one.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    A tingle up the leg?

  • vek||

    I don't even want to Google to see if that's true... I have a feeling it probably is, and it makes me a sadz. :(

  • BJT||

    Speaking as a member of the LPMC, we think the convention was quite successful for our cause. The toxic Arvin Vorha and Daniel Hayes have been removed, Josh Smith has an at-large position, Alex Merced is now vice chair, Caryn Ann Harlos at Secretary, the socialist-adjacent resolutions were all defeated.

    I for one am ready to bury the hatchet if the Sarwark/Weld faction will do the same.

  • ||

    Arvin was DOA at this convention, and Daniel Hayes was already disliked and unlikely to win. As for the candidates, Merced is already hard at work conforming to his surroundings and defending the LNC from LPMC detractors, Smith was bored and looked at his phone the entire time, and Harlos is too busy taking minutes to get a word in edgewise. If those are "victories", then you're easily satisfied.

  • BJT||

    I can accept that. Given that 2/3 of LPMC's ambitions aligned with what the delegates were apparently going to do anyway, maybe it's not appropriate to view the group as some kind of enemy. Anyone inside LPMC who thought the rank and file were mostly lost causes needs to rethink their preconceptions.

    Like I said, I'm personally willing to forgive and forget after all the dirty pool and ugly drama. I respect what the Pragmatists are thinking and I believe cooperation is our best way forward.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You wanna know what makes a successsful libertarian brand?

    Pick a political posititon and stick with it. If libertarianism represents free market, which it does, always push for free markets. If a candidate is going for free markets, that is +1 for Libertarianism. If the candidate is lying about wanting free markets, call him/her on it. It does not have to 100% free markets policy that the candidate works out because one person cannot always get political allies to make that happen.

    Keeping priciples over pricipals means always working toward the libertarian goal in a meaningful way. Endorsing libertarians to vote Hillary in the hopes that that the LP might make it someday is not principles over principals.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Carrot Top, Terri Schiavo, and Nikki Minaj could take over the LP and it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference. It's been a waste of everyone's time and money for decades.

  • Caryn Ann||

    ===Harlos is too busy taking minutes====

    ??? I wasn't taking minutes this convention. I wasn't secretary.

  • BruceMajors||

    I thought Daniel Hayes actually organized and managed the convention? I don't know much about him, what was the nature of his toxicity?

  • Caryn Ann||

    Daniel should have been elected. He works harder than 99.99 percent of people.

  • livefree||

    The LP are a bunch of charlatans, and Bill Weld is a leftist in disguise.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly. Trump won mostly because he was not like establishment Republicans.

    Hillary lost partly because she was an establishment Democrat.

    The LP has LINOs, leftists, SJWs, and anarchist hiding among us. Most regular Libertarians are too stand-offish to do politics and that is exactly what the LP needs to be successful as a Party of Libertarians. Instead we get the scumbags like Bill Weld hanging around to collect those pennies that fall on the carpet.

  • Michael Hihn||

    How are they any worse than your teat-sucking entitlement mentality?

    Most regular Libertarians are too stand-offish to do politics and that is exactly what the LP needs to be successful as a Party of Libertarians

    To be a successful political party, never elect anyone. A free society will arise spontaneously.
    Someday. (snort)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I have been assigned a bot.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The bot is you . By your own words! As you PROUDLY screw your own father, children and grandchildren, so YOU, loveconstitution1789 (sic) can slurp at the gummint teat ...the Moral Hypocrisy of the Authoritarian Right..

    loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

    My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.
    I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

    Alt-Right TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. ONLY if it lines HIS pocket!
    loveconstitution (sic) Insults HIS OWN FATHER, "selfish as shit" ... but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG) .... claims that a multi-trillion debt increase (tax cut) is "giving my own money back " ...FROM WHERE, GOOBER?

    What kind of "fiscal conservative" DENIES federal debt is stealing from our future ... from his own children?

    HE WOULD CUT HIS FATHER'S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS ... TO ENRICH HIMSELF, BECAUSE HE'S ......... "ENTITLED." ....... AND SELF-RIGHTEOUS!

    Libtards borrow trillions for free stuff
    Conservatards borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
    Both with entitlement mentalities. Both goose-stepping America toward Hell ... arm-in-arm

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    In disguise?

  • MJBinAL||

    Pfft, Weld needs a better disguise.

  • ||

    Why is there a picture of Harlos in the middle of this piece? I understand she was at convention and got elected, but she's mentioned nowhere and has little to do with the topic (she was running long before the LPMC endorsed her). I would recommend replacing it with something more relevant to the purpose of this article.

  • DenverJ||

    She's the best looking and only libertarian woman? Bill Weld thinks taking his picture will steal his soul? Sarawak thinks being "mysterious" is the way to win?

  • Matt Welch||

    Because I like the picture, and have a tradition of including pictures of her in my posts from Libertarian conventions.

  • Caryn Ann||

    Matt - :)

  • BJT||

    If I had to design an outcome for the LPMC that engendered success, without making the older groups feel alienated and beaten up on, it would be the outcome that actually happened. The worst actors were dealt with without causing total upheaval in leadership.

    From an LPMC point of view the convention was a success. We've helped promote a Libertarian party that still knows who it is, and has a chance at unity going forward.

  • shane_c||

    Why would Larry Sharpe support the alt-right candidate? That's a surprise. It almost seems like that has to be a mistake.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To decode that nonsense, remember that lefties call Nazis right wing rather than the socialists that Nazis are.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Nazie are rightwing .... and only other rightwing fascists say otherwise.
    If and when you are ever educated, you'll learn -- if you try REAL hard -- that fascism can be rightwing (Hitler) or leftwing (Mussolini) Elementary.

  • NashTiger||

    If you ever shut your pie hole and learn anything, you'll learn that right-wing and left-wing are meaningless anachronisms.

    As they evolved, right wing means more concerned with nationalism, and left wing with Class. But Stalin was a racist Left Wing Nationalist, so the definitions remain imprecise and, again, meaningless.

    There are Statists, and there are Classical Liberals. There are Nationalists, and there are Internationalists. Both are spectrums. And there are no handy categories to place people in

  • loveconstitution1789||

    National Socialist German Workers Party.

    Key word "Socialist".

  • MJBinAL||

    It's hopeless dude, you can't educate Michael. So many have tried.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fucking stupid ... fascists are socialists. Hitler was on the right. Mussolini was on the left.
    Complex ideas are beyond you. Your own "entitlement socialism" is right-wing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fucking stupid ... fascists are socialists. Hitler was on the right. Mussolini was on the left.
    Complex ideas are beyond you. Your own "entitlement socialism" is right-wing.

  • Matt Welch||

    I wouldn't categorize Josh Smith as "alt-right" (for starters, it is not a descriptor he agrees with). As mentioned though perhaps not emphasized enough in the piece, there was more than one reason for supporting Smith or opposing Sarwark. Sharpe's stated reasons were about growing the party smarter and faster; also, he didn't like Sarwark's deciding vote to not boot Vohra from the vice-chair job back in the spring.

  • sparkstable||

    I joined the LP recently, wife too. We were excited to finally vote FOR someone. Tom Woods is a HUGE reason I'm LP. LvMI does focus a bit too much on religion in some of its articles, but at its core is economic freedom for everyone. That isibertarianism... it is a universalist idea that should never expressly state a particular group it supports because it supports all individuals equally as individuals. Their profession is six work or hair dressing doesn't matter and by pointing it out we muddy the waters of our foundational ideals.

    We should not support "sex workers"... instead we should support all people who seek to engage in non-violent, non-fraudulent economic endeavors. This is the "big tent" position.

    We should be trying to get to a point where people don't have to ask about our position on a topic because it is self evident. Dems and GOP are constantly contradicting themselves because they get too focused and narrowed in on a desired outcome or favored group of a scenario whereas we are supposed to be dispassionate about that and care that the process is just regardless the outcome.

    Weld was a let down and I wish my vote hadn't granted him an air of authority in the LP. Johnson is way better tha Trump or Clinton, but he, too, was a let down.

  • BruceMajors||

    I think your feelings are shared by many if not most LP members.

  • SIV||

    That was really good up until the last sentence where you praise GayJay.

  • sparkstable||

    It was praise RELATIVE to Trump and Clinton.

  • MJBinAL||

    I understand, and in general I agree with your post. I also will say, that on balance we have gotten more libertarian policy from Trump than we would have gotten from Johnson. In no way perfect, but on balance.

    Johnson proved himself "not ready for prime time". First in selecting Weld, then over and over during the campaign. The clay feet moment was the one where he didn't know where Syria was. He could have asked to have the question refined and gotten them to tell HIM what he could not remember, but instead he displayed his unreadness on one of the few occasions he had good media coverage.

    Not a bad guy, just one who was not ready for prime time.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The REAL problem with Johnson/Weld was ... the movement and party .. which has NO policy solutions ... for ANYTHING ... just babbling about bullshit notions like a flat tax, medicare vouchers, social security privatization, etc, which sound cool to the ant-gummint goobers, but are fucking stupid

    Johnson/Weld are being blamed for the OPPOSITE faction's failures.

  • MJBinAL||

    LOL!

    Johnson and Weld are blamed for their own failures. Were they going to win? No, but they were on track to do better until they started talking.

    The first thing a candidate has to demonstrate is to they can be trusted, that they are "serious". If you are the candidate of the major parties, you largely get a pass on that. Unfair for sure, but it is what it is. Gary could not demonstrate that, and Weld told everybody to vote for Hillary. Not a recipe for success.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Goobers be goobery

    The REAL problem with Johnson/Weld was ... the movement and party .. which has NO policy solutions ... for ANYTHING ... just babbling about bullshit notions like a flat tax, medicare vouchers, social security privatization, etc, which sound cool to the ant-gummint goobers, but are fucking stupid

    LOL!

    SNEER
    Proves my point!

    FAILS to name even ONE policy solution! (OMG)
    Full of shit on Weld.
    Both were elected governors. And you don't even know what a policy is!!!

  • BrianMiller||

    Johnson and Weld did better than any prior LP candidate by a large margin.

    Their ticket in 2016 got more votes than every Ron Paul presidential run -- LP and GOP -- combined.

    The Mises people aren't in the best position to lecture anyone on "success" -- certainly not the ticket that so radically outperformed them.

  • vek||

    You're totally correct spark. That is the problem with Reason writers, and apparently the leadership of the LP nowadays. They're trying to virtue signal and prove their Wokeness to leftists, because the MSM makes them THINK that is what most people want/approve of or whatever... When they should just be in favor of total freedom for all people in all situations, unless one is doing harm to someone else. One is an actual libertarian position that can't really be argued against... The other is arbitrarily picking things one thinks happen to be popular at the time, even though many of them aren't actually popular at all outside of the coastal bubbles.

    This is what pisses so many libertarians off about the current crop of Cosmotarians that have seemingly taken over almost all libertarian "institutions" in recent years.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. Regular Libertarians are principled and dont need affirmation from the media or lefties about what Libertarianism is.

    LINOs want jobs at lefty media outlets and to get in good with Hillary's type of shitbirds.

    Libertarians really need to get involved in making the LP a Libertarian Party or we will probably lose it forever. I would never give a political group money but I should start donating my time to make the LP effective.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yup. Regular Libertarians are principled and dont need affirmation from the media or lefties about what Libertarianism is.

    REAL libertarians bash both the lefties and the righties. THAT is principle, goober. And we don't demand government entitlements like you do! That TOO is principle.

    You're an alt-right troll.

  • BrianMiller||

    And yet the vote tally of the urban libertarian ticket of Johnson/Weld totally swamped the vote tally of redneck "ban the queers and give me a tax cut" ticket.

    I suspect the LP will do perfectly well without the Mises folk. Go start your Paultard Party and finish fading away.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Who cares what the Libertarian Party does? Everyone with anything on the ball wised up and left a long time ago. All that's left is the clown show, although that might account for their recently improved vote totals. There are a lot more clowns than libertarians. Perhaps they've finally found their audience?

  • Michael Hihn||

    You forgot the clowns and goobers in today's GOP.
    Amd we all know why.

  • creech||

    Are you telling us that the LP platform now invites all the people of the world to come to the U.S. to live, with no caveat about "no welfare" and no examination to see who is diseased, a criminal, or has terrorist aspirations? Libertopia is not an option when 99% of the people of the world are still in favor of grabbing things for free. Maybe there is a thin line between radical and practical but it's like the LP isn't even trying.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    The only libertarianish movements that have actually moved the needle against statism in the past 30 years have been Ron Paul Revolution and the Tea Party, neither of which the LP had anything to do with and both of which the LP has declared as enemies with this platform.

  • BruceMajors||

    Ron Paul was their 1988 presidential candidate

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The LP is swamped with disenfranchised lefties who seemed determined to destroy the LP like they did classical liberalism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Unlike your entitlement mentality, proudly sucking the gummint teat?
    Thank God you're not a libertarian.

  • vek||

    Is it any surprise when the mainstream libertarian movement has been specifically courting leftists for so long? And specifically doing as much as possible to turn off more conservative people, even though they're the ones that have more overlap in terms of principles...

    If you go fishing for fish (leftists) with a fishing pole, instead of hunting deer (conservatives) with a rifle, you probably won't bag many deer. They've been fishing almost exclusively, and yelling and screeching for the evil deer to go away... I think they've finally got what they want.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly. Lefties just have nothing in common with Libertarians. Lefties want to boss me to the trains to force me into the gulags.

    Conservatives can at least be fiscal conservatives and limited government conservatives.

  • sparkstable||

    It's like I said in a reply to someone above... there are issues in which the outcome libertarians and liberals want appear to be the same. Gay marriage is the perfect example.

    The reality: Liberals want to have government sanction of gay marriage. That proposition imposes on those who oppose by making them support a government that endorses and recognizes something they would not. Libertarians want people, regardless of sexual orientation, to be able to get married absent any involvement by the state. This allows gays to be married, and those who oppose such a union to do so (as long as they remain peaceful).

    In both scenarios gays are allowed to get married. But the fundamental reality and reasoning behind the two are antithetical and when woketarians and cosmotarians get in bed with the left because the OUTCOME looks nice they are actually undermining their entire position. We should have NEVER stood with the Dems on gay marriage. We should have stood with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS absent the government in gay marriage. We should have opposed the left's proposals and countered with abolishing ALL government involvement in marriage, gay or straight.

  • vek||

    Precisely. The few spots where there is overlap with the left, we arrive at similar conclusions based on completely different lines of thinking.

    On many issues I think we should take the principled stand so to speak... On other things I think even a less than perfect law is acceptable. Like weed being legalized and taxed to death. It's better than throwing people in jail.

    But as far as any long term alliance or anything with the left... Not the left that exists nowadays. Maybe 40 years ago when there were more classical liberals around still that considered themselves left wing, but they just aren't around much anymore.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yes, but they disowned pretty quickly after that. And Ron quickly realized he could make more progress on his own than he could with the LP.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Ron Paul's the biggest fucking statist in America.
    Who else is asshole enough to brag of sponsoring a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS from even hearing any appeals to DOMA ... homiosexuals would heave been the first grouo denied any defense of fundamental rights since slavery ... His bullshit about the Constitution makes him an enabler for every alt-right bigot iin America,

    The ORIGINAL Tea Party REFUSED to delk with social issues ... but eventually got sucked up by Ron Paul and the Christian Taliban.

    And ONLY a States Rights bigot would say "rogue judges" overturned DOMA!! Goobers on parade.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > Ron Paul's the biggest fucking statist in America.

    Keep it up, dipshit!! Yep, Dr No is a bigger statist than Obummer, Killery, McHate! You're so-o-o-o-o-o-o persuasive!

  • BrianMiller||

    LOL! The Ron Paul movement was a nothing burger. Johnson-Weld 2016 attracted more votes than every LP and GOP presidential run of Ron Paul combined.

    The "Tea Party" is an even bigger joke.

    The hard-right social conservative legacy libertarians have held the LP back for numerous years. Once we shook free of that GOP nonsense, our popularity rocketed upwards.

    The LP delegates simply recognized that fact.

  • Nardz||

    Congratulations Reason Magazine, Sarwick, Weld, and others - you've convinced me to never vote LP again.
    Well done!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Good riddance, You're even crazier than they are!

  • Nardz||

    What's up, fake Hihn?
    Have you figured out how to do a working link to your enemies list yet?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Proving my point on your craziness ... as PROVEN on my list of attacking bullies (smirk)
    Why would you be proud to be on a list of crazed cyber-bullies??????
    (Says the real Hihn, who kicked your sorry ass AGAIN!!)

  • Nardz||

    WTF fake Hihn??
    You're a liar.
    I'm not on that list, and I'm a bit offended

  • JoeBlow123||

    You are not invited to join the club.

  • Michael Hihn||

    No attackers have been invited. DUH.
    Not even you. (listed only once)

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're a liar.

    The link PROVES you full of shit ... on top of being a proven psycho

    I'm not on that list, and I'm a bit offended

    Pull your head out of your ass, Your bullshit is listed four times.

  • vek||

    I feel almost insulted that I don't even get a mention on that page... I've insulted you tons of times Hihn, and argued in good faith even more times than that! What a scam!

  • MJBinAL||

    I sometimes slip up and do that too. (argue in good faith with Michael) Have to keep reminding myself that it is a waste of time. Insulting him takes less time and produces pretty much the same result.

  • Michael Hihn||

    and produces pretty much the same result.

    You get your ass kicked,
    Four times on this page alone.
    So far.

  • vek||

    Funny thing is, once or twice he's actually tried to have a coherent conversation. When he does it's not ALL bad. He is totally wrong about a lot of stuff, but he's not bad on everything. He's just a little crazy. LOL

  • Michael Hihn||

    I feel almost insulted that I don't even get a mention on that page.

    Then you never read it, and you're grabdstanding for goobers again,

    I've insulted you tons of times Hihn, and argued in good faith even more times than that! What a scam!

    You're a fucking liar. Ma href="http://libertyissues.com/reason2.htm">and this link PROVES it!

    You're quite a goober. ut the page lists the absolute craziest assholes here. Those who say
    1) I'm not libertarian, which is jammed up their ass.
    2) That I'm not the real Mike Hihn
    3) That I'm Mary Stack (the REAL psychos)

    And all three of those are proven at the link.
    Thank you for playing. Please select a lovely parting gift.

  • vek||

    But you're not a libertarian Hihn. You believe in a couple libertarian positions, but probably even fewer than I do, and I don't consider myself a purist libertarian by any standards.

    As for you being the REAL Michael Hihn... Who's to say? It's the internet. That website, all of it could just be a lie. The real Michael Hihn might have been murdered by you back in 2005 for all anybody knows, and you just took over his life. I don't know. Anything is possible!

    I don't even know who Mary Stack is... But you could be her. I can't tell if you have a rack from posts on here.

  • DenverJ||

    "You're even crazier than they are!"
    Wow. I mean wow. That's not even the pot calling the kettle black, that's like the pot is a fucking lunatic wearing a tinfoil hat while holding a sign saying "the end is near because you're all so cray cray"

  • Michael Hihn||

    (sneer) I proved him crazy.
    How did you miss the link to absolute proof, as you drooled?

  • Mock-star||

    Im not sure what you think that link proves. To me, keeping an enemies list proves one thing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Im not sure what you think that link proves. To me, keeping an enemies list proves one thing.

    Its not an enemies list, so this link PROVES you full of shit!!!
    Again.

    (They travel in a pack like wild dogs)

  • BrianMiller||

    Bye, Felicia!

  • SIV||

    There has been a post-2016 downturn in active dues-paying membership at the national level

    Now that's how you grow a political party!

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Did the LP go into decline because it got taken over by SJWs, or did SJWs take it over because it was in decline?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would say butt sexers and dope smokers flocked to the LP when the Democratic Party was still against homosexuality and drugs and never left.

    Matt welch is one of these people.

    You can single these peoeple out easily because they hate the constitution and rule of law under the limits of the constitution.

  • SIV||

    The Democrat Party is still anti-drug. Even the Republicans are better on drug policy. See "right to try" and Trump's promises on marijuana federalism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Federalism is not legalization. And Trump's on both sides of everything -- until he gets slapped down by his wacko base.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Hahaha maybe he is a butt sexer and dope smoker at the same time?

    I pictured you writing this in your underwear on your porch with a shotgun and a 40 while you scream at the kids to get THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN!!

    But yes, I agree Matt Welsh is garbage.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Close. I was writing this clothed on my couch with fireworks going off above my house. This after my 2 hour fireworks display out blasted the lame fireworks in the area.

    Let freedom ring!

  • JoeBlow123||

    Murica!

  • Modus Pwnens||

    But to the extent that it was a proxy war between the party's new influx of elbow-throwing Tom Woods listeners and its older cohort of more patient coalition-builders, the pragmatists won in a rout.

    Pragmatists? Pragmatists? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is why the Party has been totally useless, and the Mises assholes are even worse. What could possibly be more useless?

    When even Cato reports that (by now) over 60% of Americans hold libertarian values, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, they should be talking about GOVERNING, instead of purifying the cult. This is why the libertarian label is REJECTED by 91% of LIBERTARIANS ... and Reason sold its soul to the wackiest right wing fascism of Ron/Rand Paul.

    Nolan libertarians are are 75,000-100,000 in elected office, just on the law of averages, with another million or so active supporters. So who's expanding the acceptance of libertarian values in America, up to a million libertarians actively engaged in their communities? Or Reasonoids and Party faithful in a cult of bellowing losers, feverishly masturbating in an ivory tower.? Do the math.

    "Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers."
    -Eric Hoffer, "The True Believers" (1951)

    When hatred of government drowns out the love of liberty, we get Donald Trump, Nick Gillespie and Michael Tanner ... when we NEED a thousand Bob Pooles ... NOT another useless cult of losers.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    "What I think about Bill Weld," Sarwark started slowly, building into a feisty crescendo, "is that he is still in the Libertarian Party, while many of his opponents are not. [He's been] raising money for and endorsing Libertarian candidates. He is fundraising for us. And the exposure of Bill Weld to the Libertarian Party has not made the Libertarian Party more like an establishment Republican, but has made Bill Weld a lot more like a Libertarian....He knows something about winning public office, and [we need to] learn how to do that from anybody who will help us, anybody who will join us. And we should not PUSH PEOPLE OUT who are willing to help!"

    Notice that at no point does he mention Weld's positions on issues, and the closest he comes to calling him libertarian is to say that he is "a lot more like a Libertarian" than he was before. LOL. For a party that has nothing to offer other than ideological purity, its head has strikingly little concern for ideological purity.

    I wonder, if Hillary Clinton walked into the LP convention and announced she was joining, would Sarawak speak in similarly glowing terms about her? Not a rhetorical question. Every bit of praise in that quote would apply to Hillary in that circumstance.
  • Michael Hihn||

    What pisses off you Goobers.

    For a party that has nothing to offer other than ideological purity, its head has strikingly little concern for ideological purity.

    Or your premise is full of shit, you being the wacky purist.

    I wonder, if Hillary Clinton walked into the LP convention

    Your bullshit about Hillary is what marks you as both a goober and a purist.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well said.

  • BrianMiller||

    Oh please, this false purity schtick is hilarious.

    How many of you left the LP to register to vote for Ron Paul in the 2007 primaries? Border-closing, gay-marriage-banning, uterus-federalizing, family regulating Ron Paul?

    Almost everyone whining about Weld, I suspect. All this sudden rediscovery of "purity" is funny; funnier still is the predictable outrage when a generally-oriented-towards-liberty moderate LP presidential ticket totally outperforms a generally-oriented-towards-liberty hard-right-wing ticket?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    "What I think about Bill Weld," Sarwark started slowly, building into a feisty crescendo, "is that he is still in the Libertarian Party, while many of his opponents are not. [He's been] raising money for and endorsing Libertarian candidates. He is fundraising for us. And the exposure of Bill Weld to the Libertarian Party has not made the Libertarian Party more like an establishment Republican, but has made Bill Weld a lot more like a Libertarian....He knows something about winning public office, and [we need to] learn how to do that from anybody who will help us, anybody who will join us. And we should not PUSH PEOPLE OUT who are willing to help!"

    Notice that at no point does he mention Weld's positions on issues, and the closest he comes to calling him libertarian is to say that he is "a lot more like a Libertarian" than he was before. LOL. For a party that has nothing to offer other than ideological purity, its head has strikingly little concern for ideological purity.

    I wonder, if Hillary Clinton walked into the LP convention and announced she was joining, would Sarawak speak in similarly glowing terms about her? Not a rhetorical question. Every bit of praise in that quote would apply to Hillary in that circumstance.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Great point.

  • vek||

    Right??? Or Bernie. I mean everybody has to have SOME lines that can't be crossed.

    Personally I think GayJay and Weld are juuuuuust barely over the line for what should be acceptable as a crappy, moderate libertarian. BARELY.

    But I don't think they're worthy of being banner carriers, or trying to spread THEIR message either. They should be able to be in the party if they want, and perhaps help out, but they're just a little too impure to be trying to sell libertarianism to others.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    GayJay would have been more acceptable if he left Bill Weld off the ticket. The forcing bakers to bake cakes was unacceptable though.

    Bill Weld is just a saboteur of Libertarianism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    GayJay would have been more acceptable if he left Bill Weld off the ticket. The forcing bakers to bake cakes was unacceptable though.

    Another pathetic fucking lie.
    He opposed special exemptions based only on religion, That makes YOU the one defending public accomodations for everyone else.

    Why do you rightwing goobers lie about Johnson and Weld so shamelessly?
    While YOU defend your own sucking the gummint teat, as your entitlement?
    You're as psycho a liar as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Paul.
    Shame on you.

  • vek||

    I mean in all truth, either of them would probably be a better president based purely on policy positions, than we have had in a long time... But I don't think either of them have what it takes to really run the show IRL anyway.

    Weld is the worse of the two because I think he's more crafty and duplicitous about things. I bet he's worse on a lot of things than he publicly admits. Whatever, he ain't gonna get elected to anything anyway.


    And Hihn, are you not the one that babbles about separation of church and state? Religious freedom is in the constitution, so like it or not it has a special legal carve out. I'm all for giving anybody the right to refuse service to any reason, including them being gay, black, white, a communist, or even a Trumpster... But legally religion is special in US law.

    I'm pretty sure GayJays leanings would somehow find him NOT wanting to force a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake though somehow, even if it was an atheist Jew...

  • BrianMiller||

    Hey everyone, let's not have a convention with presidential candidates debating to earn the nomination of Libertarian delegates in a free and fair vote.

    Let's instead appoint vek to decide who is worthy.

  • Homple||

    To repurpose a Henry Kissinger gag about college faculty fights, Libertarian internecine politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    WTF. Sarwark has cajones to talk about "not pushing people out" after makes catty guilt by association attacks on his opponent based on "not blaming Trump" for the Charlottesville incident that had nothing to do with Trump, and using three words that happen to also have been used by Nazis. He's adopting leftist tactics and therefore will receive exactly as many dollars and votes from me as leftists do. I'll leave it to the reader to guess what that figure is.

    He is never going to live this down, I'll make sure of it.

  • sparkstable||

    That struck me as odd, to.

    "Hey LvMI idiots. You're not welcome here! Now vote for me because I want to welcome everyone here."

    And the LvMI crime? Saying that we SHOULDN'T put people into identity groups and treat every person as an equal individual with a commitment to defend each individuals rights and freedom at all times. SHAME ON THEM!!!

  • vek||

    It's ridiculous.

    What he means is exactly the same as the left always means:

    You can have any opinion you want... As long as it's the opinion I have. You can have all the freedom of speech you want... As long as it's speech I approve of. Etc etc etc.

    He want's EVERYBODY to join the party... As long as it's only the people he approves of, and none of the icky people he doesn't like.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're FULL OF SHIT on Trump and Charlottesville. He LIED and DEFENDED the attackers

    And here's the proof, jammed up your ass.

    Now Trump's totally psychopathic lie about Charlottesvile, sucking up to white supremacists. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. He is one sick fuck. UNDENIABLE proof

    The initial assault, Charlottesvile-- Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
    "Alt-Left" standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
    Alt-Right Facsists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
    Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence

    Shame on Trump and the party who defends him
    Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is ... treason

    These are Nazis, Racists and Jew-Haters. Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
    Trump threw his own daughter under a bus, playing to the very worst in his base SHAMEFUL.

    And you justify this shame?

  • vek||

    If you watched the unedited video, hours and hours of it like I did, you would see that Antifa assholes WERE instigating the violence much of the time. If I got attacked by Antifa I would defend myself too!

    There were tons of peaceful people on both sides... And shit stirrers on both sides. Trump said nothing more and nothing less than that, which is totally factual. At events other than Charlottesville Antifa starts the violence in 99% of cases, so why would you be surprised they started shit there too???

  • BrianMiller||

    >using three words that happen to also have been used by Nazis

    How DARE Sarwark criticize Nazis?!?

    Next he will criticize someone calling for a "dictatorship of the proletariat," just because he used four words that happen to have also been used by Marx!

  • Harvard||

    Trump draws more people to a rally in an airplane hanger fer chrissake.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yeah, but they're as wacky as you.

  • Sevo||

    Michael Hihn|7.4.18 @ 9:41PM|#
    "Yeah, but they're as wacky as you."

    The hope is they are not as stupid as you, you fucking ignoramus.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You just proved me correct! As a strategist, you rank with General Custer and Donald Trump!

  • MJBinAL||

    No Michael, and you have just proved you are the nastiest person here. Congratulations, you will never persuade anyone, never get along with anyone, and never accomplish anything.

    How many times has someone here agreed with you? How many fruitful conversations have you been in where both parties came away with more understanding?

    You must enjoy being universally distained, knowing that all around you mostly wish you would just go away.

    Carry on Michael, your only redeeming use is to serve as a bad example. Well Done.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I don;t seek to please assholes and goobers. Why should I, you self-righteous aggressor?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano crows about political strategy despite never winning an election.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I won three. What have you ever done?

  • BrianMiller||

    That's nothing. Hitler filled entire stadiums!

  • CaseyBowman||

    I find it remarkable that, in all this discussion about Tom Woods and Charlottesville, no one brings up the fact that, according to online newsletters stored in the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, Tom Woods was a key founder, along with Murray Rothbard, of one of the prominent groups that marched at Charlottesville, the one which had for its logo and its flag a black diagonal cross on a white background.

    Woods has waved off his co-founding as an innocent mistake (along with his writings then presumably), but it is clear for example that that organization celebrated the debilitating caning of Senator Charles Sumner, who dared call the institution of slavery a "harlot". The organization's president then, Michael Hill, is its president now and writes clearly in terms of "kith and kin" trumping the equal natural rights of the Declaration of Independence. Hill writes, "The League of the South... is not wedded to a universal proposition: equality, democracy, or the rights of man, but to a real historical order based on place and kin." Elsewhere, Hill writes, "Slavery (and not 'man stealing') was successfully defended from a Biblical standpoint through the War for Southern Independence and beyond, but after the South's defeat and subsequent 'reconstruction' the institution's legitimacy was systematically undermined in the name of 'equality' and misappropriated 'Christian ethics.'" I am assuming the Wayback Machine newsletters are as they were.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Let's put that up against Sarwark's support for Bill Weld, who far more recently praised statist socialist FOIA evader Hillary Clinton. What's good for the goose....

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're full of shot on what he said about Hillary.

    What he did was refuse to be suckered into insulting her, which you would have done, which would have marked him as an asshiole to most voters, like you. But ... you and Joe McCarthy and your Purity Pledges .,...

  • DenverJ||

    Yet the guy who insulted her constantly, and even talked about locking her up, was elected president...

  • Michael Hihn||

    WHOOOOOOOOOOSH

  • BrianMiller||

    So unapologetically cofounding a group that happily carried tiki torches in a Nazi march is no worse than saying something professionally vacuously polite about one's political opponent in public?

    Oh darn, please don't leave the LP! Whatever would we do without you?!?

  • SIV||

    The Southern League/League of the South?

    I almost joined when they went by the first name before they were forced to change it by the baseball org.

    I recall they got a decent amount of neutral to sort-of-positive press back then. They were defending Southern cultural identity. A culture and identity that is historically very diverse in the way that progressives pretend to measure such things

  • vek||

    Well, I'll tell you one thing... It is entirely possible for an organization to change direction from what it once was in the past.

    If they were more mellow back when Woods was associated, he could be totally in the clear. Like 30 years ago if I were a billionaire, I might have funded the hell out of Reason. But Reason has changed a lot since then... NOW I would be ashamed to say I supported this mag in a large way. Could be that kind of thing.

    Or maybe he just believes in supporting the right of the south to hold onto some of their cultural heritage? I'm not from the south and I am very pro many of the same things some of those organizations are in favor of. You don't have to take it all 100% to associate with a group.

  • MJBinAL||

    I too, remember subscribing to Reason and joining the LP. I stopped that and have no expectation of doing it again.

    Still not a Republican and certainly not a Democrat. There is currently no party I can say I really support. But Reason, and the LP, have been turning down the SJW path for quite some time now. Good luck with that.

  • vek||

    Yup.

    I've long said that the LP party is just a non starter. It's always been too purist to go anywhere, and now it's going too SJW to go anywhere.

    Somebody needs to start a "moderate" libertarian party. One that has the libertarian leaning position on everything, but is willing to settle for only move the ball 10 yards down the field, instead of demanding a touchdown in one play.

    Let's cut government spending by 15% over 4 years, not straight to abolishing every department and selling off the roads... We shouldn't be isolationists, but we really should stop invading countries. Etc etc etc. Ya know?

    Such a party would do very well, but our system is too rigged for it to get going in any reasonable period of time.

  • CE||

    Here I thought the old-timers were the anarchists and the newbies were the flood of socially liberal Republicans....

  • Michael Hihn||

    You admit your stupidity, publicly?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Ah, now I see what the Pragmatists are pragmatic about. French union workers would be envious of the LNC's time off policies. This is in addition to the 10 holidays and early dismissal on various eves of holidays.

    LNC SICK TIME/VACATION TIME POLICY FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES

    SICK LEAVE
    64.00 HOURS PER YEAR
    128.00 MAXIMUM HOURS ALLOWED
    2.46 HOURS ACCRUED PER BI-WEEKLY PAYCHECK

    VACATION

    FIRST YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT
    80.00 HOURS PER YEAR
    120.00 MAXIMUM HOURS ALLOWED
    3.08 HOURS ACCRUED PER BI-WEEKLY PAYCHECK

    VACATION –SECOND YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT
    120.00 HOURS PER YEAR
    180.00 MAXIMUM HOURS ALLOWED
    4.62 HOURS ACCRUED PER BI-WEEKLY PAYCHECK

    VACATION –THIRD YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT
    160.00 HOURS PER YEAR
    240.00 MAXIMUM HOURS ALLOWED
    6.15 HOURS ACCRUED PER BI-WEEKLY PAYCHECK
  • JoeBlow123||

    You think that is bad then you better never look at what the military gets! How does 30 days a year vacation time sound?

  • vek||

    Damn, maybe I should get involved in LP party politics... I could practically run my business during my vacation/sick time alone!

  • MJBinAL||

    WOW!
    Are the rest of the benefits as generous as that?

  • BrianMiller||

    Two weeks of paid vacation after three years of employment is "generous?"

  • jm15xy||

    The Libertarian Party has the wrong strategy. Liberals/Leftists are now on jumping on the democratic socialism bandwagon. The only voters who would vote to the Libertarians are anti-Trump CONSERVATIVES. What they are in fact doing is bending over backwards to attract liberal voters that are not interested in them, if not hate them.

  • creech||

    Anti-Trump conservatives are whom mostly cast those votes for Johnson/Weld. Most had never read the LP Platform.
    Should the opposition pols and media ever dig into the Platform, vote totals will fall back to 1% at best. If vote totals are the LP's goal, then practical positions are imperative. If "getting the word out" about radical positions is imperative, then the kind of sloganeering most of our candidates do is weak sauce indeed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are you one of those wackos who confuses conservatives with libertarians? That would explain your ignorance that libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for "only" 50 years now.

    But thanks for sharing your feeeeeelings!

  • Nardz||

    Anyone here count fake Hihn as libertarian?
    Because if so, I'm out. Way, way out.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    bacalum and hihn are NOT libertarians. They seek to destroy the libertarian brand.

    Libertaraianism of free markets, small and limited government, the constitution, property righTs, and maximum freedoms under rule of law csares the living shit out of lefties and republicans. This kind of real libertarianims puts an end to the gop and democratic party shenanigans amd would strip much of thei big paydays.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Dude, you are self-admittedly not a libertarian, so it's sort of funny to hear you pronounce judgment on who is a proper libertarian.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Oh baculum, find anywhere on reason that I ever said that I was not a libertarian. You wont becaus eI am a libertarian.

    Its always funny when non-libertarians like you get upset when your fake libertarian cover is blown. You say the nonlibertarian things that you say and people see that you are not a libertarian.

  • Michael Hihn||

    loveconstituion (sic) claims to be a libertarian. (sneer), but here's PROOF that he's a PROUD sucker of the gummint teat ... in his own words! The Self-Righteous Hypocrisy of the Authoritarian Right..
    ============

    loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

    My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.
    I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

    Alt-Right TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. ONLY if it lines HIS pocket!
    loveconstitution (sic) Insults HIS OWN FATHER, "selfish as shit" ... but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG) .... claims that a multi-trillion debt increase (tax cut) is "giving my own money back " ...FROM WHERE, GOOBER?

    What kind of "fiscal conservative" DENIES federal debt is stealing from our future ... from his own children?

    HE WOULD CUT HIS FATHER'S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS ... TO ENRICH HIMSELF, BECAUSE HE'S ......... "ENTITLED." ....... AND SELF-RIGHTEOUS!

    Libtards borrow trillions for free stuff
    Conservatards borrow trillions for free tax cuts.
    Marching America toward Hell ... arm-in-arm

    Left - Right = Zero

    (puke)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is how you upset lefty bots people.

  • MJBinAL||

    Nicely done

  • Michael Hihn||

    I PROVE you suck the gummint teat ... in your own words ... so you go CRAZIER ... and call ME a lefty!!

    Bend over.

    1) http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm The web archive of my published political writing. Pick any link especially Taxes, Healthcare or Governing. (smirk)

    2) This Wikipedia entry cites me as a source on the history of the movement. I was Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of WA. Mine was one of the most cited source on anarchists vs minarchists, when it was still a topical issue. An excerpt from that source was published by the Center for a Stateless Society

    cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    3) Media review as LIBERTARIAN candidate for WA State Insurance Commissioner.

    Theme: Freedom works!
    Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated - but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

    There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but you don't have to elect him to get it

    Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

    (part of an effort which achieved Major Party Status that year)

    Translation: I've ACHIEVED a lot more than a babbling cyber-bully.

    xoxoxoxo
    The leftty who just humiliated your sorry ass, again.
    (and walks away laughing hysterically)

  • Michael Hihn||

    AGAIN jamming it up loveconstitution's ass!

    bacalum and hihn are NOT libertarians. They seek to destroy the libertarian brand.

    Here's PROOF that you're full of shit .. with links to original sources..

    And just below, PROOF that YOU are DEMAND suckimng ther gummint teat, because you're .... ENTITLED.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MORE PROOF hateconstitution is PSYCHO

    They seek to destroy the libertarian brand.

    Like THIS, dumbfuck?

    Media review as LIBERTARIAN candidate for WA State Insurance Commissioner.

    Theme: Freedom works!


    Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated - but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

    There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but you don't have to elect him to get it

    Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage.

    (part of an effort which ACHIEVED MAJOR PARTY STATUS)

    Your turn, CHUMP. How have YOU advanced liberty ... BRAGGING that you suck the gummint teat (which I ALSO proved!) .,.. and a cyber-bully COWARD with a bullshit alias.

    (sneer)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is how you upset lefty bots people.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another keyboard stroke.

  • Sevo||

    Nardz|7.4.18 @ 10:00PM|#
    "Anyone here count fake Hihn as libertarian?
    Because if so, I'm out. Way, way out."

    I have no idea if the RAGING FUCKING IDIOT posting here is actually named Hihn or not, and it really makes no difference.
    And I don't know if I am a libertarian.
    1) I understand that those initiating force cause a need for a government in that defending our property means we need a government to do so, or we all waste the time and energy to make us prosperous to do so individually.
    2) That government should do so with the least involvement and cost to my life; I have no need of someone to preach to me of their moral values, even if THEY think they are *REALLY IMPORTANT*.
    3) Beyond that, I support equal government treatment and protection (above) of all those who have caused no physical harm to other humans.
    And given all that, it looks to me like Trump is doing far better than the last 5 POTUS put together. Maybe I'm not a libertarian. Maybe he isn't either.
    Maybe I don't give a shit if he's selling what I'm buying and I'll take it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Looks libertarian so far

  • Sevo||

    Not according to some.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sevo|7.4.18 @ 11:58PM|#

    Not according to some.

    He's as big a phony as you are.
    BOTH too stupid to know that Trump has already increased federal debt -- in his first year -- more than Obama did in his entire first term! .... when Trump campaigned on PAYING OFF THE DEBT IN EIGHT YEARS ... WHILE ALSO CUTTING TAXES, INCREASING SPENDING AND PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO ALL AMERICANS.

    You're bigger SUCKERS than Bernie's cult!! OMG

  • Michael Hihn||

    loveconstitution1789|7.4.18 @ 11:49PM|#

    Looks libertarian so far

    Says the fucking phony with an Entitlement Mentality, PROUD of suckimg the gummint teat ... as PROVEN on this very page.

    (sneer)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is how you upset lefty bots, people.

  • Michael Hihn||

    He sucks the gummint teat ... PROVEN ... and I'm a lefty!!!!

  • Sevo||

    Inherent in this:
    "...or we all waste the time and energy to make us prosperous to do so individually."
    Me as a seller and my customers and me as a buyer and my suppliers are going to arrive at the best long-term solution to ANY problem facing mankind, simply because mistakes are corrected almost immediately through price signals.
    Government 'solutions' hang round our necks like Albatrosses forever; see Drug War, Ethanol Mandates and others you can all cite.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You swallow THAT bullshit too!

  • JoeBlow123||

    Better be careful, you gonna make the list again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I have no idea if the RAGING FUCKING IDIOT posting here is actually named Hihn or not, and it really makes no difference.

    I PROVED it HERE, dumbfuck ,... fully documented.

    You're an aggressor ,... a bully like Trump.

  • Eddy||

    Hihn is a silly person and the proof is here.

    snicker

    giggle

  • Michael Hihn||

    My proof is not so fucking childish. giggler.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Once again, dumbfuck Nardz, here's the documented proof. (smirk)

    Also again, what have YOU achieved?

  • jm15xy||

    I'm just sayin, if there is a constituency that could be persuaded to vote libertarian, it's them. Remember: "not to keep anybody out".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You have a lot easier time convincing a non-religious conservative to go libertarian that a lefty. Lefties are okay with socialism so That is incompatible with libertarianism.

  • DenverJ||

    There's also a lot of religious conservatives who would gladly embrace an ideology that endorses the concept of leaving other people alone to practice what the believe.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    True but they still tend to have a hangup on many civil liberties.

    Social conservatives tend to be against repealing all drug laws. They dont tend to think people should be allowed to ingest whatever they want.

    Same with zero sex restriction laws. They dont think people committing sodomy should be unregulated.

    Even the mormons tried regulating their religious vices like smoking, drinking, etc statewide.

  • Sevo||

    "There's also a lot of religious conservatives who would gladly embrace an ideology that endorses the concept of leaving other people alone to practice what the believe."

    Pretty sure some gay folks would disagree.

  • sparkstable||

    I know lots of gay folds would disagree. But they would be wrong. There really are a LOT of conservative religious folk who are brought up in a tradition of having enough respect for others to, while being vocally against the practice, would not necissarily promote locking them up.

    Drugs is a harder sell because intoxication can/does lead to unnatural behavior which could be dangerous. It's much harder to parse out that violent actions that may result of drug use are identical whether the actor was high or not and therefore it's THAT action, not the drug use, that is a crime and should still be considered wrong and illegal.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Goobers believe that the religious right are social conservatives, crazy theocrats like Ron Paul, but that's only about 1/4 of them Moist support separation because they know their history, and how their own denomination was persecuted. But goobers are goobers.

  • ||

    crazy theocrats like Ron Paul

    WTHF? It doesn't much matter now because Paul isn't going to get elected, but seriously, WTF? You have to take conspiracy and rumor as absolute fact in order for this to be true and, even if you accept that, you have to ignore the counterfactual evidence espoused by Paul, his supporters, his detractors, as well as out-and-out theocrats who disfavor Ron Paul.

    To call Ron Paul a crazy theocrat means you have to call people like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich crazy theocrats as well. The guy said he wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz because Cruz puts too much emphasis on religion for chrissakes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    crazy theocrats like Ron Paul

    but seriously, WTF?

    (sneer)

    To call Ron Paul a crazy theocrat means you have to call people like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich crazy theocrats as well.

    Fuck off, slaver.
    None of them tried to deny homosexuals the defense of constitutional rights.
    None of them promote the agenda of the Christian Taliban.

    The guy said he wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz because Cruz puts too much emphasis on religion for chrissakes.

    You're a pathetic, piece of shit liar, like his entire cult.

    "They think he's for the free market, and he's owned by Goldman Sachs," Paul said. "He and Hillary have more in common than we have with Trump or anyone else."

    Cruz had frequently praised Ron Paul -- a Texas constituent. But in an interview earlier this week, Paul told The Washington Post that Cruz was a "fake libertarian" who did not deserve support from voters worried that Rand Paul was slipping.

    "He's associated with the groups we talk against all the time, the neoconservatives," Paul said. "We believe they're the ones associated with so much of the killing in our foreign policy."

    Since then, some Rand Paul supporters have received calls from an entity they could not name but suspected was a super PAC supporting Cruz.

    (vomit)
    He was defending Rand's fucked up Presidential campaign.

  • BrianMiller||

    >would not necissarily promote locking them up.

    That's what they tell you anyway. In the voting booth, they voted to do just that. In fact, in a majority of the USA up until the Lawrence v Texas ruling, state laws mandated criminal charges and jail time for gay people.

    That was due to referenda as well as politicians elected by religious right voters who implemented those laws, including notables like TX governor (and later president) George W. Bush.

  • Texasmotiv||

    I think you are on to something. I would consider myself personally a "religious conservative" but understand that my morality extends only to myself and those who voluntarily choose that lifestyle. I came to libertarianism from the "religious right" because I couldn't stand the idea of forcing my religious beliefs and moral code on people unwilling to receive it. In the same way, I would not want libertine leftists pushing their lifestyles on me.

    I do know as well there are several prominent libertarians who are similar to that (Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Russ Roberts to name a few.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Most Christian conservatives are like you. I'm an atheist and a very activist libertarian. My strongest supporters, both time and money, have ALWAYS been the religious right. They know I'm an atheist -- they always ask if I've found Jesus! --- but don't give a damn. They also see I'm NON-religious, not anti-religious. BIG difference. I'm no threat, and I support ALL their secular goals. It's called individual liberty.

    If we define "values voters" properly. they include both Christians and libertarians. And even most liberals (who are also not as their leaders).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn, is not so much Libertarian as he is a Libertarian stalker.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hihn, is not so much Libertarian as he is a Libertarian stalker.

    You get nasty when I link to YOUR OWN WORDS, defending your entitlement mentality, sucking the he gummint teat!

    And, here AGAIN, fully documented PROOF of what I've achieved as a libertarian .. while you were slurping the gummint teat.

    Proof trumps .bullshit AGAIN

  • MJBinAL||

    It's so cute! Hiln thinks he has supporters! *smile*

    Can't you just imagine him thinking people her like and respect him! *grin*

    Oh, and he probably thinks he has friends! LOL

  • ||

    You can almost see that at ~2:46 he took his meds and by 2:50 or 3:00 they're kicking in nicely.

    It's almost like he could be a living, breathing over-the-internet diagnostic case study.

  • vek||

    "control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property""

    JESUS CHRIST. You have GOT to be kidding me... It'd be one thing to see them be in favor of the "normal" open borders policy Reason writers have... But even the guys here don't openly support INTENTIONALLY letting in criminals for fucks sake! THAT is considered pragmatic???

    How can anybody be so insanely retarded. They REALLY think virtue signalling that we should allow in KNOWN criminals or terrorists is going to win over voters??????????????????? A pragmatic approach would be continuing to stop known criminals, but arguing for more guest worker visas or something. That could at least be sanely argued with a normal person.

    The Libertarian Party really must just be completely over with. It has been taken over by insane left-libertarians, or outright progressives in disguise. I'm not entirely sure. But there doesn't seem to be a shred of sanity left.

  • Harvard||

    I hereby sentence thee to twelve months internment, during which you are to read every article Shecky Dullmia ever authored on the subject of immigration. Bedsheets to be provided should you choose to end your horror early.

  • vek||

    Nooooooooooo! I've already read most of them before, I can prove it with the time stamped posts from my account calling here insane! But I barely survived, I can't do 12 months straight without even a Stossel article to soothe my jangled nerves!!!

  • FlameCCT||

    The Libertarian Party has followed the same path as the Democratic Party; they've are now controlled by Progressives.

  • ZanderfromNOLA||

    Spot on Vek

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I wish to God all these right-wing Republicans could find their own website.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I wish to God all these anarchists and lefties could find their own website.

    Libertarians could possible persuade a Republican to respect Libertarianism. Probably never going to be able to persuade Lefties, who wants to murder dissenters, to accept Libertarian dissent.

    Anarchists keep changing their names to hide and the USA is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, so their desire to have no democratic government is not going to happen.

  • FlameCCT||

    The Libertarian Party establishment has been taken over by Progressives just like the Democratic Party and Republican establishment.

    Progressivism is just Communism with better propaganda!

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Why should we AnCaps leave? You came here after us, not the other way around.

  • ||

    I'm not certain, but there's a difficult/fine distinction between anarcho-capitalists and (peoples') revolutionary anarchists. I believe he means the latter.

  • sparkstable||

    This is something I struggle with all the time. When I tell someone I'm an anarchist they think bomb thrower of the early 1900s who is part of the socialist revolution or something. Emma Goldman or whatever her name was. Gavrilo Princep. That type of group. That is a VERY different strand of anarchy from what I support.

    They wanted anarchy meaning chaos. Out of that chaos and upheaval of the status quo, they want to obtain political power for their own ends.

    I want anarchy in what the Greek etymology (or entomology? I get those confused... the word one, not the bug one) would imply, nothing else. Just no government. Not others over me, and not me over others. I want people to form their own relationships and their own codes of conduct in according with natural law/rights. Life, liberty, property.

    The first "anarchist" is not an anarchist as an end goal, but as a means to a different state. Not compatible with libertarianism (in so far as historically these types have been of a statist bent, although technically that may not be a necessity of this type of anarchist).

    The second is taking the argument against large government and holding it to be true in all cases and thereby taking it to its logical conclusion. To get there you must first go through libertarianism. As such... an ancap and a libertarian are on a trip to two different destinations, but 99% of the trip is on the same path for the same reasons. We ancaps just go one stop farther down the road.

  • Citizen X||

    I just came to congratulate BUCS, but my goodness, a bunch of y'all sure didn't get invited to any cookouts yesterday apparently.

  • EWM||

    The problem with pragmatists is that they are willing to compromise their principles. Dishonesty or any other form of "the ends justify the means" is acceptable to them if they think it has a chance of getting them what they want. People like that are too easy to turn your back and walk away from.

  • FlameCCT||

    Is pragmatist the new euphemism for Progressive?

  • Brandybuck||

    Your next congressmen will be a Democrat or a Republican, because Libertarians refuse to run anyone who has a chance of getting elected.

  • MJBinAL||

    This is true, BUT it seems to be pretty pointless to run winning candidates if the policies they advocate and pursue are the same ones the Democrats run on.

    To be worth the effort, you need to win on libertarian policies.

  • vek||

    Libertarian-ish policies!

    Lower taxes, charter schools, shit canning pointless programs where you can, etc AND ACTUALLY MEANING IT, unlike many Republicans, could win.

    Privatizing all the roads, abolishing all public schooling of any sort, etc will not win.

    People can win with ideas that move the ball in the right direction, but not all the way to the extremes many of us might like.

  • BrianMiller||

    >they are willing to compromise their principles

    The Ron Paul supporters did that a decade ago. Now they're outraged that libertarians who aren't on the hard-right, socially, are doing it -- to much greater electoral success.

  • PolicyGirl||

    It would be quite wrong to characterize the Mises Caucus as white nationists, but yet here we were. I'm not a direct member of the Caucus but I am a "friend"of theirs, and I am a trans woman. I ran the security for their event. The fact that 2 trans women in this party who worked with those guys to get Joshua elected to the LNC are not Nazis, white supremacists or anything of the sort. We're just people who were fed up with Nick's actions. Including when he had the power to do so, removing Arvin Vohra from the LNC with cause.

    Arvin Vohra WAS someone who verbally attacked transpeople, veterans, and teachers publicly in order to create shck throughout the party making people feel unwelcome. Nick did nothing to stop that, and that action continued to foster a culture of abuse within our party.

    Joshua is a hard worker, he's not perfect, but most of us felt that he would at least help make the National Party more friendly to candidates, more friendly to those disaffected by the Arvin "event", and to characterize a coalition of disparate groups all of whom felt disaffected by our National Vice Chair as white nationalists and Nazis, when they have actually probably been the MOST accepting of my differences in this party is just smears, and I thought better of you Matt.

  • vek||

    Sadly that's just how things seem to be going nowadays... Anybody who doesn't tow the line on whatever pet issues somebody has, or who has an opinion that is a little more right leaning, automatically becomes a Nazi now!

  • BrianMiller||

    >not a direct member

    And if you were to try, you'd be met with a polite set of roadblocks (followed by snickers and slurs after you left the room).

  • Brandybuck||

    Best news I've heard since Trump got into office! Fuck those LvMI idiots and their attempts to Trumpize the LP. We want a libertarian party not a contrarian populist party. Fuck Tom Woods who has never been able to string together a cohesive argument without descending into ad hominems and name calling.

    I'm as a pure and radical as anyone when it comes to liberty, but I've been waiting around for forty years for the perfect libertarian candidate, the one without a stain or blemish, and I'm fucking tired of waiting. Let's get some imperfect libertarians into office. Let's stop crucifying everyone who wants to move the party forward.

  • Wrath0fKahn||

    Not to impressed. The libertarian party isn't going to win over liberals just by accepting a handful of dubious Hegelian and critical theory narratives, and it weakens the party's position as being concerned with facts and principles over expedience (although again, I don't think it's expedient to start buying into oppression narratives).

    This seems more like a ploy to win the media over as being the new GOP that isn't racist in their eyes, but that doesn't actually mean much to the electorate at this point (Trump being the obvious example). This seems like it's a sad attempt at some platitudes from certain classes of people who matter less and less due to how partisan, unethical, and smug they are. It just won't go anywhere. A CNN anchor may have a harder time pretending Libertarians are white nationalists after this, but the CNN anchor is still going to champion a Democrat over a Libertarian any day of the week.

  • gormadoc||

    This thread has everything.

  • Desarae Lindsey||

    For the record, many members of the Audacious Caucus enthusiastically supported Nick Sarwark's reelection.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "SJW-friendly"

    Even the Libertarian Party is not too small for the SJWs to takeover

  • Michael Hihn||

    Even the Libertarian Party is not too small for the SJWs to takeover

    A takeover by the Christian Taliban is far more likely (via Ron/Rand Paul), which Goldwater predicted (correctly) would destroy the GOP.

    The biggest threat to the LP is anti-gummi9nt goobers, versus pro-liberty doers.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Disaffected, bigoted, downscale right-wingers muttering bitterly and whimpering inconsequentially are among my favorite faux libertarians.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • ZanderfromNOLA||

    I find it hard to say they were rebuffed when they won Vice Chair, Secretary, and got an at large seat. The guy who organized the last two conventions, which were very successful, was not reelected. That makes no sense since the guy lives, eats, and breathes LP. He also donates most of his income to the party. I guess the delegates decided that is not the kind of person they want on the LNC.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Nothing you mentioned has anything at all to do with the nature of the positions

  • BrianMiller||

    LOL at the Mises weirdos complaining about "SJWs." They ARE the SJWs of the LP: loud, censurious, intolerant, demanding an unthinking purity to a rigid ideology, and constantly threatening to take their ball and go home when the greater organization deviates from a rigid agenda.

    Being a party open to gay people, black people, and others who have traditionally been targeted by the Mises crowd is not "SJW," it's simple common sense. It's a major reason why the 2016 LP presidential candidacy, despite being imperfect, won more votes than all the Ron Paul LP and GOP presidential election combined.

    The Mises guys are just annoyed that they can't toss around N-bombs and fag jokes in polite company anymore.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online