MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Controversialist Arvin Vohra Announces 2020 Libertarian Presidential Run

After being resoundingly voted out of the party's vice-chairmanship over his comments about veterans, school shootings, and age-of-consent laws, the activist/entrepreneur throws his hat in the ring against Adam Kokesh and a presumed Bill Weld.

Arvin Vohra ||| Libertarian PartyLibertarian PartyThere will be no shortage of radical anti-statists challenging Bill Weld* or any other former or current major-party elected official thinking about chasing the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination and likely 50-state ballot access in 2020.

Arvin Vohra, a 39-year-old educational entrepreneur notorious for questioning age-of-consent laws for 14-year-olds, for arguing that joining the military to pay for college is "morally unacceptable," and for joking about shooting up school boards, announced at the tail end of the Libertarian Party's biennial national convention that he is running for president. Vohra joins longtime libertarian activist and serial arrestee Adam Kokesh, a 36-year-old Iraq War veteran who is running on a platform to dissolve the federal government, as the two biggest L.P. presidential candidates to officially announce.

"On the first day of my presidency," Vohra tweeted Thursday, "I will pardon those in prison who have neither harmed anyone nor stolen anything. I will start with @Snowden and @RossUlbricht." Next comes "all nonviolent drug users, all nonviolent drug traffickers, all nonviolent drug kingpins...anyone that's in jail for crypto-currency crime [and] gun possession where they didn't actually hurt anybody."

"My number one goal," the candidate tells me, "is to end the welfare state and abolish the income tax. I'm going to be using my campaign to spread that message on the policy level, but also to help people realize there are so many ways to reduce government without changing policy, including opting out of government schools, including using cryptocurrency, including using the power of jury nullification."

Vohra, who served two terms as national vice chair, has been the Libertarian Party's single most controversial figure the past year and a half. In February, he survived attempted suspension and censure motions from the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) over his age-of-consent and military remarks; in April, a second effort to suspend after the school-shooting joke came one vote short. Vohra's self-conscious controversialism—what movement graybeards call the "libertarian macho flash"—was a recurrent, negative theme throughout the three-day national convention.

Third-round vote totals for Libertarian National Committee vice chair ||| @SSL_Con@SSL_Con"When I hear talk about 'edgy approaches,' I feel like saying, 'Been there, done that, already gave the shirt to Goodwill,'" said four-decade L.P. activist Joe Hauptmann during the LNC vice-chair debate, which I moderated. "You're at a cocktail party, and the little old lady comes up to you and says, 'What's a Libertarian? What do you believe?' And you look at her and you say, 'Fuck the state!' You're right, you're right; you've said it concisely, you've said it simply, you feel morally superior. And you have guaranteed there's at least one person who will never cast a vote for a Libertarian!...The only way we get power is with the vote, and there aren't enough of us."

Hauptmann finished in second place to eventual winner (and cheerleader for party unity) Alex Merced in all three rounds of voting. (The ballot after the first round lops off all candidates below 5 percent plus the lowest candidate above that threshold, then euthanizes the low vote-getter in each subsequent round until someone wins a majority.) Merced's percentages progressed from 35 to 44 to 51, Hauptmann's from 25 to 28 to 29, Steve Goldstein's from 16 to 14 to 9; Vohra's limped along at 9–8–10. Party delegates had ample opportunity to weigh in on the incumbent's provocative rhetorical strategy, and the conclusion was unmistakable: two thumbs way down.

Vohra sounds cheerful about seeking his party's presidential nomination after such a snub. "I'm going to be trying to bring a lot of new people into the party," he explains. Also, "a presidential campaign to me is just different from being a vice chair. A vice chair is about kind of half externally focused, half internally focused, and realistically most people objected to my internally focused messaging....A presidential campaign...is 99 percent externally focused, and so the type of messaging that goes into it is just different." In other words, he says he'll tone it down at least a little.

What about Bill Weld, who was bouncing around all over the convention two weeks after receiving a nationally syndicated valentine from George Will? Weld, who in his Republican days served six years as governor of Massachusetts, was the party's vice-presidential pick in 2016.

"I just don't see, based on what he's done in the past, that he's the right choice," Vohra said. "From what I understand, Bill Weld does not support the total abolishment of the welfare state. And that for me is a basic prerequisite for libertarianism. Libertarianism is not something that co-exists with support for the welfare state. Libertarianism means the absolute opposition to all parts of the nanny state and all parts of the welfare state."

Adam Kokesh before his March for Dead Veterans event in front of the New Orleans V.A. Medical Center ||| Matt WelchMatt WelchWeld has admittedly moved more libertarian since his 2016 vice presidential run, particularly on the issues of guns, drugs, and war. But in a somewhat tepid VIP speech Sunday (the audience Q&A was much feistier) he still sounded like a somewhat more bold version of a 1990s moderate Republican governor, talking about deficit reduction, flat taxes, privatization, and sentencing reform. Though he did have some kind words for Kokesh, who earlier in the year had been bumrushing Weld on the state-convention circuit.

"Adam is a very smart young man," the former governor said. "I'm halfway through his book and it's a work of substantial intelligence." (Vohra is also a Kokesh fan: "Adam and I have a lot of similarities, and I have a huge amount of respect for him. Honestly, if I wasn't running, I'd probably support him, and honestly I do support him. I think he has a lot of great positions. I think he does a lot of good work.")

Kokesh, who during the convention put on a "March for Dead Veterans" past the local V.A. hospital (you can watch some of my footage here), returned the favor, with the caveat that Vohra's provocative comments about military service were "unnecessarily abrasive and pushed away some of the people most likely to join" the party.

"I really admire Arvin's passion for the cause of freedom, I respect the work he has put in, and I think overall he is a great asset to the movement," he told me. "My only major disagreement with him that I know of stems from his strategy based on the idea—if I understand it correctly—of pushing people away who he thinks are not ready to hear the message. Every human being on earth is ready to hear the message of freedom."

* After this post was initially published, Weld sent along a statement: "With two years to go before the presidential election, any number of candidates will likely emerge, and as usual, there will be a robust competition for the nomination. That is as it should be."

Will longtime Libertarian Party–builders have the stomach to watch a candidate lead every conversation with legalizing cocaine and automatic weapons and abolishing the welfare-warfare state? "I imagine that things that I've said have driven away some people," Vohra acknowledges. But he thinks "they've also attracted some people." At the vice-chair debate, much of which centered around Vohra's antics of the past 18 months, he maintained that "if you are being deliberately controversial, with the right mindset, you can create a huge amount of free media....You can start to actually change, not just pander to, hearts and minds. And you actually put forth the ideas of the libertarian movement."

Vohra's more successful competitors had a different view: "For 40 years we've been saying 'It's all or nothing!' And we've got exactly what we've demanded: nothing," Hauptmann said. "We've lived in our own echo chamber for 40 years. We have people out there who when you say 'Taxation is theft,' their eyes glaze over. You cannot take a person who has spent their entire life chained to a hospital bed, and say 'Yes, you can run a marathon! Let's go!'...Government is too damn big. But the other problem is, we're too damn small."

Nick Gillespie interviewed Vohra back before the 2014 midterms:

Photo Credit: Libertarian Party of Maryland

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.

  • Eddy||

    What about McCrazy? Is he going to seek the nomination?

  • BruceMajors||

    He was not at this convention. It was shorter on parties, though bigger on transgender/non-binary people, than 2016.

  • MSimon||

    "The only way we get power is with the vote,"

    I heard of some libertarians once who beat an Empire to gain power. Where is that spirit these days.?

    Sufferable.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Great. Another candidate that would do more harm to the party than good if he were allowed to represent it. Is there any capable politician out there to challenge Bill Weld?

  • Eddy||

    Jeff Flake probably will be free by 2020.

  • nicmart||

    Flake being Weld Lite.

  • CE||

    More like Weld Right.

  • John||

    Flake and Corker in 2020.

  • SIV||

    The LP should draft Hillary Clinton. She'd draw more votes than all their previous presidential candidates combined (pragmatism !)and her libertarian cred is unassailable. She was endorsed by libertarians-of-note P.J. O' Rourke and Matt Welch in 2016.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Nice.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Most of the dbags who write for Reason voted for her.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Seems legit.

  • BruceMajors||

    Weld-Flake sounds like a metallurgical condition.

  • MSimon||

    +23

  • FlameCCT||

    Or a heavy metal band!

  • tlapp||

    Great Weld and Flake to phony libertarians and these 2 challengers who are more nutcase than libertarian.
    Pathetic in a world with democrat and republican dysfunction we can't find another Harry Browne nor Barry Goldwater.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I dunno, he sounds good to me. Definitely better than Weld.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I feel bad, because while I agree that many of his views come off as radical and off-putting to many, I always find his argumentation reasonable. He seems to largely have strict volunteerism views and argues from there.

    At least, what I've read from him.

  • JFree||

    IMO - the best candidate is going to be the person who can best gather together - in public - during the primary season for the D's/R's:

    a)the libertarian storytellers, public speakers, celebs, etc - who go L
    b)the libertarian managers, executives, organizers - who go L
    c)the libertarian candidates for lower-level office - who go L
    d)the libertarian wonks and policy folks - who go L

    I have no idea who that candidate might be - but I definitely know that the timing is going to have to occur DURING the D/R primaries - and the most anti-libertarian option is trying to assess an individual candidate riding in on a white horse of true scottish breeding.

    Because the only way to be an alternative is to be an alternative when those who pay attention to that choice are paying attention to that choice.

    By the time election year summer comes round - and from there until election day, it's a completely different audience. Like it or not, that later audience only pays attention to which bandwagon looks more enjoyable and which is throwing the best party.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Rand Paul

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Oh well, Bill Weld it is.

    I wasn't too happy with him in 2016, but compared to anti-market Trump & his band of authoritarians and whatever Democratic Socialist shows up from the other side, Weld is going to look awesome by comparison. Just hope they don't put a crackpot in the VP slot.

  • John||

    Nothing says freedom like forcing people to bake gay wedding cakes and writing the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution. Ken Schultz said it perfectly the other day, Libertarianism is more of a lifestyle ethos than a set of principles these days.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, it's still about principles to me.

    It's just think that's the direction Reason has gone--it's more of a libertarian lifestyle site nowadays. They're covering stories like they're Esquire or Woman's Day.

  • Careless||

    The man endorsed an opposing candidate while he was his party's VP nominee. I'm not sure how anyone could ever trust him in something like that again

  • BruceMajors||

    He says he did not do that, that his positive remarks about HRC as a person were misconstrued by the press. And that he has learned now to be more careful with a dishonest media.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    Yeah, nah.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, he needed to learn to be more careful with the dishonest media after spending a lifetime in politics - but they were suddenly dishonest *that one year*.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I didn't vote for Gary Johnson because of his stance on gay wedding cakes. I certainly can't vote for Bill Weld. Guess I am just not voting again for president in 2020.

  • MarkLastname||

    Nob'dy has won thievery presidential election in my lifetime yet they never let him in the White House. Democracy my ass.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If the nominee is Bill Weld, I won't be voting. I mean, I won't be voting for Bill Weld ever.

    The Constitution Party is like a protest vote against the Libertarian Party, isn't that right?

  • John||

    The Constitution Party is like a protest vote against the Libertarian Party, isn't that right?

    It is like the Judean People's Front.

  • Ken Shultz||

    As opposed to the People's Front of Judea?

    As mirrors go, it looks like The Constitution Party is on the other side of the marijuana and butt sex divide.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm reading elsewhere that the Constitution Party's immigration policy would reject people on the basis of financial dependence, which doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. I think the UK does that, where they reject people at the border if they look like they intend to stay for a long time, but they don't have any obvious means to support themselves.

    I'm not sure how I feel about that, really. I'm all for killing welfare for everybody--making eligibility a function of citizenship reeks of communism to me. Because you're a U.S. citizen, you get free rent, free food, free public schooling, etc., etc.? That's not my idea of a capitalist society. Socialism is about to each according to their need. I'm not sure the problem with this country is people coming with nothing but a desire to work hard in construction or something is what's wrong with our country either.

    Still, as long as they're on board with implementing this plan by constitutional means, they're head and shoulders above so called libertarians who want the elitists to inflict freedom on us from above without the input of the governed, much less their consent.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The Constitution Party's position on immigration is basically Trumpism on steroids.

  • John||

    So what? As Ken explains, their position is not unreasonable. But you used a scary clever word like Trumpism. So who needs facts or logic. You have feels.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That's pretty much Jeff in a nutsack.

  • JoeBlow123||

    chemjeff specializes in feels.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And nutsacks.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you mean something specific by that, or are you just trying to smear it by association with Trump?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, try this for starters:

    "The Constitution Party demands that the Federal Government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States. We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other tax payer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal parents while in this country. We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens and call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion."

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/tag/immigration/

    Not even Trump has said he opposes all amnesty, or to station the US Army at the border.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I believe Trump has talked about putting troops on the border.

    I'm not sure I understand why using troops to defend our borders is such a terrible idea. It seems to me that from a purist, libertarian interpretation, that may be their only legitimate use. If the troops aren't there to protect our borders, what are they for?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Protect our borders FROM WHAT? There is no military invasion. I agree that if the Mexican Army were to invade, then the US Army should repel the invasion.

    And I certainly don't want the US Army deputizing themselves to enforce domestic laws.

  • Careless||

    Illegal entry. Why ask a dumb question like that?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Illegal entry.

    Even if you don't support open borders, the government already has domestic law enforcement agencies for that.

    Sending in the US Army for domestic law enforcement duties is a really bad and dangerous idea.

  • ||

    Sending in the US Army for domestic law enforcement duties is a really bad and dangerous idea.

    And specifically illegal.

    About every 5-7 years some pol comes around and explains how this is an outdated, vestigial law that really should be expunged in the name of "cleaning up the books." You know how they're all about having clean books free of outdated, irrelevant laws!

  • Pat_||

    About every 5-7 years some pol comes around and explains how this is an outdated, vestigial law that really should be expunged in the name of "cleaning up the books." You know how they're all about having clean books free of outdated, irrelevant laws!

    5 to 7 years? It is hard to find a pol, especially on the left, that does not support it.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The military has no civilian arrest powers. This is ny design. They could however, be used to monitor the border, and detain any interlopers until they can be turned over to ICE. That much is legal.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "I agree that if the Mexican Army were to invade, then the US Army should repel the invasion."

    No you don't. If the Mexican Army came here, thats just freedom of movement, right? Who are we to infringe upon their constitutional right to come here?

    That's pretty much your argument about everyone who comes here illegally, isn't it? Who are you to make any distinction between individuals or the Mexican Army?

  • LamarPye||

    What if Mexico and Canada declared war on each other, would the armies of each be allowed entry?

  • The Last American Hero||

    If troops are defending our borders from unlawful entry, who's gonna be providing air support for ISIS in Syria as they try to fight Assad? Who's going to drone strike Yemeni wedding parties? Who's gonna prop up the German Welfare State with their military bases?

  • Agammamon||

    Who's going to get to spend 3-5 years in Germany or Italy or Japan on the public dime?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence"

    I'd also like to point out that including the "morals" clause in there is a huge truck-size loophole to allow the government to abuse its power in all sorts of ways.

  • Calidissident||

    It was included in your quote, but I'll also highlight removing birthright citizenship, which would inevitably result in deporting people who were born in and spent their entire lives here based on who there parents were and what they did. Yes, I know other countries don't have it and Ron and Rand Paul want to change it, but I'm glad this is something that would require a constitutional amendment. Government shouldn't have the power to say that only certain kinds of people born and raised here get citizenship and throw those on the wrong side of their line out of the country to one they've probably never even been to (and in some cases there might not even be a country to send them to depending on how citizenship works in their parents' country).

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, that's problematic.

    So is the libertarian case for using the coercive power of the state to force people to bake cakes for gay weddings--in violation of their religious convictions.

    How does Bill Weld feel about that? Isn't Weld on the record abut that?

    What does Bill Weld have to say about assault weapons?

  • ||

    So is the libertarian case for using the coercive power of the state to force people to bake cakes for gay weddings--in violation of their religious convictions

    Which do you suppose causes the greater harm, in the actual world?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Bakers should never be forced to bake gay cakes. But conservative bakers should team up to bake gay pies. Then have conservative activists pelt the aforementioned homosexual pies at progressive activists.

    When t"e prog activists complain about how horrible it was to be pelted with pies, loudly scream "homophobe!" at the prog activists, for their bigotry towards those gay pies.

  • Pat_||

    It was included in your quote, but I'll also highlight removing birthright citizenship, which would inevitably result in deporting people who were born in and spent their entire lives here based on who there parents were and what they did.

    Birthright citizenship was uniquely needed in a different time, and is no longer needed. We had over 1/2 of the population in some states who had been enslaved or were native Americans where states had not given citizenship.

    And you have who is screwed backwards. it is specifically unfairness to people who spent their entire lives in the US who are screwed by "birthright citizenship"/.

    A kid who was born elsewhere brought here not of their own adult choice or volition, as an infant, who gets nothing from birthright citizenship. While it gives full automatic citizenship to a kid whose parents came here to give birth, left, and that kid comes at any time -- or the kids of that kid come as citizens

  • Agammamon||

    Outside of the 'morals' part, even I find that a pretty decent immigration stance.

  • MarkLastname||

    If they said, "and anyone not disqualified from entry for any of these reasons should be let in," it would indeed be a decent policy, and marginally more permissive that current US immigration law.

  • Pat_||

    Yeah. Open borders immigration is insane, and something pushed by people who have never been outside of the US or Europe. US standards of living, social programs and "safety net" mean we would have half a billion people come in five or ten years. If it did not destroy the country outright, we'd have half a billion more after as well, just more and more until we were below the average of the third world standards.

    We'd have to pave the entire country and if you know anything about the likely places they would come from, those people would be a big government voting block the likes of which we have never seen.

    Have any of the open immigration nuts here seen the polling on attitudes of third world immigrants on any political issue? They are literally the polar opposite of libertarians' and Reason's own supposed positions.

    The entire core thesis of open immigration advocates is that we need newer populations to pay for government commitments that require population growth. What does that mean each generation, other than we will then need to bring in an exponential additional number each 20 years so we can keep growing government.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    The Constitution Party is for fiscally conservative socons. Like our very own Lovecon89.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm seeing "libertarians" cave on freedom of speech and freedom of association, and it looks like The Constitution Party is pretty good about that.

    Doesn't seem very socially conservative that way. By social conservatives, do you mean "pro-life" or something?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, they refer to gays and transgendered as "sexual deviants" for starters.

    Also:

    "No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted."

    http://www.constitutionparty.c.....es/family/

    Note that they don't say "get government out of marriage". They want government enforcing the Biblical view of marriage.

  • Calidissident||

    Wikipedia also has this to say:

    "The party opposes euthanasia, suicide, and abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.[83]

    The party supports the ability of states to administer a death penalty ...

    The party opposes same-sex marriage, and believes state and local governments have the right to criminalize "offensive sexual behavior."[85] The party also opposes pornography, believing it to be "a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities," and distinguishable from the US citizen's "cherished First Amendment right to free speech." While expressing its belief in the individual responsibility of citizens and corporations, the party maintains that government plays a "vital role" in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in America's community standards.[86] The party opposes all government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling.[87] Citing Article 1 Section 8 and Amendment 10, the party opposes federal anti-drug laws, while conceding that the federal government may have a role in limiting the import of drugs.[88]"

    In fairness, I wasn't able to find reference to some of this stuff on the current version of their website, I'm not sure if that's due to any actual change in their beliefs or just updates to the website and/or what's emphasized.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They have these positions. Are they advocating them within a constitutional framework?

    Do you see socially conservative views on pornography as substantively different from social justice views on hate speech for some reason?

    What does Bill Weld say about hate speech?

  • Calidissident||

    The sentence about pornography being distinguishable from the the First Amendment right to free speech suggests they do not believe it is protected, much as the social justice left would view hate speech.

    I also don't know where I said anything about the social justice left and I have no clue what Bill Weld thinks about it either.

  • SIV||

    Some pornography is excepted from 1st Amendment legal protection. This is a matter of fact.

  • Pat_||

    The sentence about pornography being distinguishable from the the First Amendment right to free speech suggests they do not believe it is protected, much as the social justice left would view hate speech.

    Virtually everyone and certainly most originalist and libertarian court appointees do say some pornography is distinguishable from Free Speech. Child pornography for example. Live public sex on a public beach for example.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The First Amendment doesn't protect using speech to violate someone's rights just like the Second Amendment doesn't protect indiscriminately shooting people.

    Child pr0n isn't free speech because it necessarily involves violating someone's rights. Shooting a cashier for the money isn't "gun rights' either.

    The distinguishing characteristic--consistently--is violating someone's rights. Your rights are the right to make choices for yourself. You do not have the right to violate other people's rights--making choices for someone else.

    There isn't anything arbitrary about the distinction between free speech pornography and the crime of child pornography. It's as clear as day to anyone who understand what our rights are and why child pornography is a legitimate crime. Our rights are the obligation of other people to respect our agency, and child pornography is a crime because it necessarily ignores the agency of people who are in no position to consent.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Viewing porn and making porn are different actions.

    Government can regulate making porn but cannot regulate viewing porn.

    Child porn is horrible but the principle is the same. Adding to the problem is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has the largest amount of child porn in the World and its a non-profit. How can a private charity have child porn and the government allows it but they prosecute people for it?

  • perlchpr||

    Child pr0n isn't free speech because it necessarily involves violating someone's rights.

    Well, unless the producer is the "victim", too. I mean, even if we are capable of recognizing that "self-produced" child porn is still illegal, presumably no libertarian would claim that the child had violated their own rights.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We are seeing the effects of complex statutes relating to the difference between hurting kids and viewing naked bodies. The constitution protects looking at porn but does not protect hurting kids. The constitution protects kids taking nude photos of themselves and showing other people.

    The teen sexting and naked picture on phone thing is a prime example of how messed up how trying to control what people look at has become. These kids are criminals and victims because the laws are so messed up.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The whole thing with innocent parental pictures of their own children in a bathtub being criminally charged is horrible too.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I mean bigots.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I think the best way to describe the Constitution Party is the unholy love child of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson.

  • SIV||

    More like Ron Paul if he went to church 3 days a week.

    The Constitution Party's last two presidential candidates, Chuck Baldwin and Mike Castle were each more libertarian than Bob Barr or Gary Johnson.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That's a joke, right?

  • Pat_||

    Because having government force persons to bake a cake with a gay theme is libertarian?
    Or having government decide which are official oppressed groups and which are not, say gays vs polygamists, is somehow enlightened or a good idea

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its not Libertarian to force bakers to bake cakes. People who support that are LINOs. We have a lot of anarchists here trying to undermine Libertarianism and lefties trying to stem the Libertarian tide.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Right, but not to the HIV sockpuppet.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Baculum doesn't like Libertarians like me fighting his kind of narrative that Libertarians are anarchists or lefties.

    Libertarianism is great for me. Rule of Law under the Constitution, Free markets, Small and limited government, Property rights, secure borders, etc.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Tea and Consta2shun fakers are attempts to strip pregnant women of individual rights, nothing more.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And you work round the clock to murder a many babies as possible. Individual rights for all except infants, right buddy?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So perhaps this is a place where we can list our absolute non-negotiables when it comes to a presidential candidate. Obviously we'd want Libertarian Purist on the ballot, but that person doesn't exist.

    So what are your three (and only three) positions that a LP candidate *must* have in order to win your vote, while everything else is more or less negotiable?

  • DesigNate||

    Ending the Wars, all of them (most importantly the Drug War).
    Complete support for the First.
    Complete support for the Second.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Free Trade
    Private Property
    Gun Rights
    Returning Constitutional Authority to the right branch of government
    Regulatory Reform
    Freedom of Association

    Yes, that's more than 3 "must haves". Who are you to tell me that I can only have 3?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Antiwar
    Respect for every single part of the Bill of Rights
    Cut spending, including military
    End Drug War

  • JFree||

    Was the 30 Years War justified?

    How much experience do you have in running bake sales?

    Is eating meat a violation of NAP? How about lettuce?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    30 years was about right. 31 years would have been pushing it.

  • MarkLastname||

    Justified on whose side?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Absolute freedom of association and speech (I fear this is almost cheating in how much ground it covers)
    Dismantling the regulatory state
    Cut spending

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think I have more than three, honestly. Anti war is probably higher than most.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You appear to have the market cornered on that, whoever you really are.

  • H. Farnham||

    Deficit elimination/debt reduction (I have children, so this is most important to me)

    Regulatory rollbacks.

    Bill of Rights originalist.

  • LamarPye||

    Guns and drugs

  • harpac||

    Free trade
    Private Property
    Freedom of Association

  • JoeBlow123||

    I find it interesting that in none of these lists are...

    OPEN BORDERS.

    So why do you guys throw such a hissy fit whenever an illegal alien is deported. You perhaps would be able to reach a wider audience (amazing idea) by not pushing such radical shit in peoples face 24/7, especially when it virtually mirrors the propaganda spewing from Democratic mouthpieces in the media.

  • albo||

    Oh, good.

    Libertarians: We're Just Like You, But Maybe Just a Bit Crazier!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    "From what I understand, Bill Weld does not support the total abolishment of the welfare state. And that for me is a basic prerequisite for libertarianism. Libertarianism is not something that co-exists with support for the welfare state. Libertarianism means the absolute opposition to all parts of the nanny state and all parts of the welfare state."

    If we're doing purity tests, we should always begin with the fundamental concern of Reason / Koch libertarianism: abolishing border control and the deportation regime. Abolishing the welfare state should come much, much later, if at all.

    Regardless, anybody considering voting LP in 2020 must not be grasping the true extent of Drumpf's evil. The goal of the 2020 election for any libertarian — indeed, for any decent, humane voter — must be to prevent another Republican victory. And in a two-party system, it's always the Democrat who has the best chance of beating the Republican. The LP should either not run a presidential candidate next time, or run somebody who basically endorses the Democrat like Weld sort of did in 2016.

    #LibertariansForGillibrand

  • Plopper||

    I know I'm responding to what is basically a joke persona/troll. But, ending the income tax and the welfare state entirely overnight is a politically impossibility.

    I'm sure I'll get hated on for saying this, but I think a negative income tax (a bit different than a basic UBI as it would be means tested), would be a good incremental solution away from the welfare state. That is, assuming it is in trade for all other welfare programs/agencies being abolished.

    Milton Friedman was totally right about this, it would save us huge amounts of money if implemented properly. Like 80% of the current expenditures could be cut and the actual welfare recipients would still be getting more money (assuming they actually qualified).

    Also, if you pitch it to the public like "free stuff", and you get to "be in control of getting your free stuff", it might just be politically feasible with the voters. Just not so much with congress and the people working for said trashed agencies.

    It would still be cheaper just to give them early retirement than to let them keep doing what they're doing though.

    Would they really be so against getting to retire immediately and still get paid?

    libertarians are missing out by seeing this is a good incremental approach away from the welfare state. It also gives the welfare state a single neck of adjustment, as well as a single neck to cut.

    Those who immediately lash out at this idea are being short-sighted.

  • Plopper||

    s/politically/political/

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Nerd

  • CE||

    The income tax can ONLY be ended overnight. If you try to chip it down bit by bit, the gains to everyone are very small and the special interests who will lose out are very vocal. If you get rid of it overnight, every taxpayer gets a big net gain.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The way I see it, the current status quo with regards to the welfare state, is terrible. I'm open to literally any welfare state reform idea that would make the situation better. Negative income taxes, UBIs, all those things can be experimented with. What has to happen first of all, though, is for Congress to allow states to experiment with these things.

  • Plopper||

    You have to remember it is at least technically constitutional for them to levy an income tax, thanks to a certain amendment. Joke or not, it was properly ratified.

    So if you're going to reform things federally you would be better off staying within the confines of the IRS system, and just end the other obviously unconstitutional agencies.

    Ending the IRS can come later when it would actually be feasible to do so.

  • BruceMajors||

    We already have the a negative income tax in the earned income tax credit.

    It's on top of welfare.

    And illegal aliens with an EIN get it.

  • Plopper||

    Yeah, but it is a joke and it didn't eliminate any other welfare programs.

    I'm very much familiar with EITC. I don't think it really changed the federal budget much either way.

  • Plopper||

    Also, I should add... that it would be easier to crack down on fraud if all welfare comes from a single source. The same source that tracks people's income, especially.

  • Qsl||

    Yeah, I thought libertarians could cut off a nice chunk of progressivism at the knees by advocating for UBI and the land value tax. I mean pick your poison, sure, but it would be a vast improvement over the current hodge-podge and makes the uber revolutionaries seem tame by comparison.

    At the end of the day there is most likely to be some type of welfare. At least for a while. Libertarians would be wise to start thinking about what form that should take with an eye towards ending it completely.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians prefer private methods of welfare which would be charity.

  • Qsl||

    You don't say? And exactly how well has libertarianism been doing on this front? There must be myriads of libertarian charities nearly making all forms of government aid superfluous.

    And exactly what is the libertarian plan to reduce welfare and simplify the tax code, and how has that been working for you?

  • Pat_||

    If we're doing purity tests, we should always begin with the fundamental concern of Reason / Koch libertarianism: abolishing border control and the deportation regime. Abolishing the welfare state should come much, much later, if at all.

    abolish border control and stopping deportation of border jumpers here criminally without sharp reductions in welfare state will result in the US going from 350 million people to a billion people in a decade.

    so you have it backwards.,

    As far as the goal of any libertarian, since Trump aligns with liberty much more in virtually every metric compared to the anti-libertarian Democrats. The good news is about 80% of libertarians have the GOP as their second choice and only about 8% the Dems as their second choice.

    So as long as we prevent a Democrat victory, and we do, all's well that ends well.

  • Killitithkisses||

    80% of virtually nothing.

  • Shirley Knott||

    There's something very perverse about libertarians seeking power.

    Change the culture, the politics will follow. Starting with politics is going to be corrupting.

  • JFree||

    Problem is politics is part of culture. And a political party should be entirely about politics.

    But I agree that every candidate should understand how power is corrupting - to them. And they should be able to explain how they've already got a remedy in place for when it happens - to them.

  • Plopper||

    I like this guy. He's totally right about all of the above controversial views. But I guess that's "bad" for libertarians, and Weld isn't?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, when your opening line is "I want to legalize private ownership of nukes", I think most sane people will take that as evidence of crackpottery or a not-well-thought-out position.

    I do agree that there is a thin line to be walked between appearing too timid, and therefore just Republican Lite or Democrat Lite, and being too outrageous, thereby turning off potentially winnable voters.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I agree, but where do you think the line is on private ownership of weaponry? Should I be allowed to own a tank, for example?

  • Plopper||

    I think the legal test should be this. Can you use the weapon without actually harming others and/or their property?

    A nuke could be banned with this doctrine, but not a tank.

    Of course if you drove a tank down a city street you should be responsible for all damage you cause, criminally and civil.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What if I just want to launch the nuke into the sun?

  • Plopper||

    There's still the risk of a faulty launch and/or detonation.

  • perlchpr||

    Or, ha ha only totally serious, use it for asteroid mining?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The 2nd amendment gives no restrictions and in fact prohibits any restrictions.

    Good luck any American building a nuke as it requires huge amounts of manpower, cash, technology, and resources.

    By the time any one person builds a nuke, a better technology will be available to counter nukes or make them obsolete tech. For example, an EMP device would make your nuclear armed neighbor unable to get his/her nuke electronics to operate correctly.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As a matter of pure principle, yes, you should be able to own a tank, or a nuke, or any other piece of inanimate matter. Whatever liability arises from your ownership and use of these objects is a matter between you and your insurance agent. (I'd like to see the price tag on a policy for a home with a nuke silo in the backyard!)

    As a matter of practice, I think the right to own more and more sophisticated weaponry should grow only as the state shrinks.

    But as a sales pitch, "right to own nukes" is IMO likely to turn off more people than to get them excited about the 'edgy' Libertarians.

  • Plopper||

    You can own and even use the weaponry on a tank on your own farm/property and not molest anyone else.

    So why shouldn't one be able to own a tank?

    A nuke on the other hand, if used, is going to cause issues for anyone owning neighboring property.

  • JoeBlow123||

    What happens when Google owns more tanks than the federal government? I will tell you.

    Google just became the government. Welcome to corporatism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, all Americans can own tanks and have a larger tank force than Google.

  • BruceMajors||

    Should you be allowed to own a weapon who use would necessarily (or even very probably) destroy the person and property of your neighbors?

  • Plopper||

    You must have read past the entire discussion right above your here comment. ;-)

  • Blargrifth||

    Assuming that a line needs to be drawn, it should not be the presidential candidate's job to draw it. The presidential candidate's job should be making the party look attractive enough for electoral viability, not making the party look like a bunch of rabid satanists.

  • 68W58||

    Private individuals own tanks, some even make a business out of it (selling joyrides to others for instance) Buying rounds for the main gun on the other hand...

  • Pat_||

    I agree, but where do you think the line is on private ownership of weaponry? Should I be allowed to own a tank, for example?

    uhm people DO own tanks. What exactly would be wrong with say a private person or entity having a tank on a large farm where it can be used not harming anyone?

    Do you think a person should be allowed to own a megaphone? Or a device capable of disseminating child pornography, like an ipad?

    The intelligent dividing line is: does its use necessarily mean harm to other people or their property?

    Otherwise you are down the road to banning everything

  • Calidissident||

    I honestly don't follow LP politics outside of the presidential nomination and what Reason reports on it, but just a glance at a few quotes tells me that Vohra is more than a bit "out there."

    Among other things, he went on Christopher Cantwell's show recently and in defending himself said that he was preferable to people who supported public schools. Regardless of how low your opinion of public schools are, I think sane people should agree that they're not as bad as Nazism and genocide.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    "Public" schools *are* genocide. Slow-motion genocide, but genocide nonetheless.

  • Calidissident||

    Yes, literally no difference between that and exterminating people by the millions.

  • Nardz||

    Well, as our education system is explicitly founded upon the Prussian model, there are similar roots

  • creech||

    There's probably a 10% niche out there that is fed up with Trump for not being free market enough and fed up with the SJW nonsense enveloping the Democrat party, that would be susceptible to practical libertarian measures.
    But the LP finding someone who won't turn off 90% of that niche and still be acceptable to most of the delegates to the 2020 convention will be extremely difficult. John Stossel or Judge Napolitana might qualify but are either likely to seek or accept the nomination?

  • ||

    Kurt Russell.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He is America's most beloved public figure.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jack Burton, that's me!

  • Hank Phillips||

    SECONDED!

  • Pat_||

    Indeed the polling shows second choice for libertarians is about 85% GOP and about 7% to 8% Democorat

  • The Last American Hero||

    What happened to the guy that was humping the podium last time around?

  • BruceMajors||

    He was there this time.

    But it was 100 Fahrenheit in New Orleans so the Hyatt turned the AC down low.

    A bunch of female SJW LP members then complained about voter suppression because they were being forced to put on a sweater or leave the convention hall to warm up.

    James Weeks didn't strip because it was too chilly.

    Starchild did wear a miniskirt tho.

  • CE||

    Will longtime Libertarian Party–builders have the stomach to watch a candidate lead every conversation with legalizing cocaine and automatic weapons and abolishing the welfare-warfare state?

    If they're libertarians they will.

  • BruceMajors||

    Some candidates I spoke to off the record don't seem to think those are good campaign issues http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....ish-trump/

  • JFree||

    Maybe he should fund his campaign like an organ grinders monkey.

    Boring shuffledance about a controversial topic - $10,000
    Watch the monkey do backflips and projectile vomit while opining about privatized nukes - $100,000
    Candidate and monkey will be completely quiet and go away to bug others - $1,000,000

  • creech||

    Is there even a Practical Caucus in the LP? From the few local races I' ve seen, no LP candidate dares to run on the Platform if they want to be taken even semi-seriously. LPers circulate petitions for such candidates, and donate money, even while the delegates in conventions appear to be from the Libertarian Fundamentalist faction and support the most radical platform planks imaginable.

  • Pat_||

    I was the first-ever PAID director of a state LP (WA)

    No wonder why the LP has problems.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If there is ever a Reason convention, it will be interesting to see if you attend, and continue this fiction that you are Hihn.

    It will also be interesting to see if you have the guts to talk to people as you do here. Perhaps being slapped around will provide an object lesson to you to prostrate yourself before your betters.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Learn to obey, fake Hihn.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    libertarian label rejected by 91% of libertarians!

    So, who identified them as "libertarians" if they rejected the label "libertarian"?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I've seen those numbers before associated with people who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Those people are presumably libertarianish.

  • Pat_||

    Those people are presumably libertarianish.

    Exactly.

    And socially liberal is not the blanket box Michael incorrectly claims it is. Opposition to gun control, indeed reduction of gun control laws is one of the strongest held libertarian views and scocial liberals support bans. Libertarians also believe in reproductive choice but not in government funding of it. that socially liberal people support. Libertarians dot support trillion dollar carbon tax scheme to create the biggest bureaucracy ever erected on the globe, social liberals do.
  • Pat_||

    You are not kidding anyone You create you own false definitions and then hammer into a square hole.

    Social liberals is well understood to mean a huge basket that large majority of libertarians reject. Take growth of the social state, gun control, tax funding of abortions, trillion dollar carbon tax schemes, quotas, preferences and affirmative action and half dozen other major issues. those are all explicit rejected by most rejected by libertarians and yet core values of social liberals.

    Libertarians tend to disagree with social liberals more often than not.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

    "What is stats pulled out of the ass of some dude who's off his meds?, Alex."

    -jcr

  • Pat_||

    You did NOT link to any proof whatsoever. You misrepresented or did not read your own citation.

    Social liberals is well understood to mean a huge basket that large majority of libertarians reject. Take growth of the social state, gun control, tax funding of abortions, trillion dollar carbon tax schemes, quotas, preferences and affirmative action and half dozen other major issues. those are all explicit rejected by most rejected by libertarians and yet core values of social liberals.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Yet, people still ask me why Cato found the libertarian label rejected by 91% of libertarians!"

    Which people? And do you mean they ask Michael Hihn this question, or they ask YOU? Whoever you are.

  • Pat_||

    In fact you did NOT link to any proof whatsoever. You misrepresented or did not read your own citation.

    Social liberals is well understood to mean a huge basket that large majority of libertarians reject. Take growth of the social state, gun control, tax funding of abortions, trillion dollar carbon tax schemes, quotas, preferences and affirmative action and half dozen other major issues. those are all explicit rejected by most rejected by libertarians and yet core values of social liberals.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And now diversion when your claims are shattered. How sad and pathetic. Just bow down to all of us and admit you know nothing.

    Just learn to obey.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Part of the problem is letting Anthony Comstock, Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon supporters redefine "liberal" in a way incomprehensible to the rest of the literate world.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    This is not the kind of diversity we're looking for.

  • Cumbubbulus||

    Too brown. Next!

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    Arvin Vohra is a thousand times better than William Weld. I will wholeheartedly support his candidacy.

  • GILMORE™||


    Arvin Vohra, a 39-year-old ...notorious for questioning age-of-consent laws for 14-year-olds, for arguing that joining the military to pay for college is "morally unacceptable," and for joking about shooting up school boards ....throws his hat in the ring against Adam Kokesh (serial arrestee) and a presumed (icon of libertarianism) Bill Weld.

    real Clash of The Titans you got yourself there, LP

  • John C. Randolph||

    My number one goal," the candidate tells me, "is to end the welfare state and abolish the income tax.

    That's two goals.

    -jcr

  • sharmota4zeb||

    he maintained that "if you are being deliberately controversial, with the right mindset, you can create a huge amount of free media....You can start to actually change, not just pander to, hearts and minds. And you actually put forth the ideas of the libertarian movement."

    Yeah, look how well that strategy worked for Trump.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    There is a reason Trump ran against Hillary instead of Cruz running against Hillary. All the criticism from publications that Republicans dislike worked as endorsements that helped him win the primary.

  • Pat_||

    But he had this HUGE inauguration crowd. (lol)


    DC is about 95% Democrats. NoVa and Maryland on the public transport lines are about 80%. Trump did have a huge crowd comparatively given the relative numbers of GOP vs Democrats within walking distance.

    DC public schools organized class trips to the Obama inaugurals and did not for thee Trump inaugural

    DC also has a 48% black population and the inner metro area has a 41% black population compared to national black population of 13.7%.

    My wife is of Greek descent and if Dukakis had won you'd have a million Greek descent American, including the more than half that are Republicans there at a Dakakis inauguration simply out of pride.

    The entire thing on inaugural crowd size was about one thing: prima facia evidence that on any topic, the huge majority of the press was going to attack Trump without reason.

    Your repeating of it doesn't say a thing about Trump, but about your own willingness to throw any mud possible

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We call it TDS around here.

    Some people make arguments solely based on hating trump.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Cool story bro.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Your ravings do not constitute facts.

    Your claim to be Hihn is a fiction.

  • Pat_||

    with the help of the Russians, Comey and Wikileaks.

    LMAO, you think that is even 1% of the effect of the US media, who are virtually all highly partisan Democrats all obviously and desperately in the box for Hillary.? What you think it does to GOP voter turnout when the press announced day after day it is a Hillary shoe-in?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "CNN and MSNBC both have Republican and/or conservative hosts and panelists. Fox has NONE"

    Most of Fox News' hosts and panelists are conservative. You are deeply confused.

    Don't worry, you are surrounded by your betters. We will correct you.

    As that is what correcting is for.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    You cannot take a person who has spent their entire life chained to a hospital bed, and say 'Yes, you can run a marathon! Let's go!'...Government is too damn big. But the other problem is, we're too damn small."

    The NJ Libertarian Party came close to running a candidate for governor who was once chained to a hospital bed.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I think the best possible candidate the LP could nominate is Andrew Napolitano. Bob Murphy and Tom Woods would be my next choices.

    -jcr

  • Blargrifth||

    If we really have to resort to libertarian celebrities lets go with Nick Gillespie and David Boaz. At least they understand how to communicate with a non-libertarian audience.

  • H. Farnham||

    If I had to pick a Reason contributor to run, I'd go with that Walsh character what wrote this blog post.

    Matt's always well dressed and very articulate. He's got a good grasp on policy and issues and manages to always keep a level head/poker face while debating opposing viewpoints. So I think he'd be best able to overcome the wacko stigma that any libertarian candidate will inevitably face.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Matt Welch is not a Libertarian.

  • H. Farnham||

    If there's one thing I've learned from the Reason comments section, it's that there are no libertarians... except for some Scottish dude.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    There are some libertarians on here and some nonlibertarians with libertarian-ish positions.

    Not you, nor Hihn, nor Tony, not butthole, nor sarcasmic.

  • Pat_||

    Citation? or more BS pulled out of nowhere Michael?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How does a website fraudulently claiming to be run by Hihn, constitute proof of anything? Other than your mental issues? Whoever you are.

    You should come to us hat in hand, and on bended knee, reveal your true identity and beg forgiveness.

    Mercy will be pissed upon you. It's so much better than you deserve.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're on Hihn's list now.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So confused..........

    You use the word proof. You clearly do not understand it's definition.

    You should just learn to obey.

  • perlchpr||

    Penn Jillette.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Didnt he advocate voting for hillary?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    More aggression and raving, when your only shot at competence is through blind obedience.

  • perlchpr||

    I find it hilarious how people are accusing Vohra of the "Libertarian Macho Flash" right around the same time the LP platform was explicitly altered to: "WE SUPPORT WHORES!"

    Not that I have anything against prostitution, and of course, think it should be legal, but we're not exactly talking about a commonly held position there either.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Supporting sex-workers became popular this year, because Republicans passed a bill to hold websites accountable for sex trafficking.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Silly Pantomime Hihn. The Taliban are Islamic fundamentalists.

    Just learn to obey.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Thanks to this year's controversy, Vohra's natural constituency is voters who took x-rated selfies before turning 18. If the panic in the mainstream press contains reliable numbers, they are millions of voters.

  • jonnysage||

    No one cares about LP candidates. Win some local elections first.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The LP wins elections all the time--sometimes even gets candidates elected. But the serious wins occur where our platform repeals bad legislation. Roe v. Wade is an example of a libertarian plank becoming a Supreme court defense of individual rights with 4000 votes. We've lately earned 4 million votes!

  • Mock-star||

    Hey look everyone! Its Michael, doing his best to get 91% of libertarians to reject him! You've done a great job and have really seemed to have pumped those numbers up, Mikey!

  • Mock-star||

    Michael, Michael, Michael. Youre never going to pump those numbers up talking to me. Youve already got me to reject your ideas. I understand simple concepts like liberalism (you most assuredly are NOT socially liberal) and conflicting rights (Man, I really jammed that up your ass last time), so I dont think its even possible for me to embrace your lunatic ideas. But by all means, keep plugging away. There has got to be someone on here who hasnt found you to be utterly repugnant yet. Coffee is for closers, so get to it!

  • Mock-star||

    Everyone but Michael is psycho. Thats a good tack to take. You'll get that 91% up in no time! Get to it!

  • Mock-star||

    hahaha you think Im conservative. Again, Ive already rejected you. Along with everyone else here. Maybe you should branch out. Otherwise youre going to be stuck at 91%. I know that getting 91% (per CATO) to reject you is your crowning achievement, but I think you can do better.

    I believe in you, Michael. You can do it!

  • Mock-star||

    Michael, seriously its like you arent even trying. Youre never going to get above 91% this way. Dont stall out on your quest to get 97%, 98%, dare I say, 99% of all people to reject your lunatic ramblings and psychotic, self important, generally repugnant personality! I still believe in you, Michael. Sure, corpse fucking a dead thread is a good tactic, but you need to ruin new threads too! You can do it!

  • Mock-star||

    PROOF of Michael's accomplishments here IN HIS OWN WORDS

    i know Michael. You have held a paid political position as libertarian. You have managed, through a combined tactical approach of idiotic ramblings, mental retardation, internet links to nothing, and a charming and witty personality, to have 91% of the population reject you. Yet you persist, knowing that you can increase that percentage, and I celebrate your tenacity.

  • Mock-star||

    PS. name me one conservative position that I hold. Just one. feel free to link to it.

    (Protip, just to help you out) holding a view that anything is permissible if it doesnt interfere with anyone else's rights is not conservative. Its very very liberal. Another thing to consider. Letting people keep and spend their own money as they see fit (as long as that spending doesnt interfere with anyone else's rights, like hiring a hitman) is also not conservative. It is highly liberal.

  • Mock-star||

    So nothing huh? This is a new tactic, I like it. Baseless assertions. You are so gonna break that 91% barrier!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Wasn't Vohra the spearhead behind the "legalize pederasty" planks that sullied the LP platform in the late 1980s and early 1990s? That plus infiltration by antichoice candidates cost the LP at least a decade of voting share stagnation.

  • Mac61||

    If Flake or Weld or any Republican defector who was once a senator or governor were to head the LP ticket in 2020, tthe party might get 1.9% of the vote.

    If anyone else heads the ticket, a pure Liberatarian, the net result will be about 1.3% of the vote.

    The Libertatran Party is a non-starter and a waste of time, but the movement against the authoritarianism of both the left and the right is extremely important. The only point of the LP is to nominate someone who can argue for libertarian prtinciples and make the case against the socialist/corporatist/militarist authoritarianism of the two bloated parties. Johson failed miserably to make any case for libertarianism in 2012 and 2016. The LP nomination should be a bully pulpit for someone who has the persuasive skills and bulldog-like commitment to tear down politics as it is. Respectability is beside the point.

  • JMatt||

    The man either has a brain tumor or an ego that won't let him see few give a damn about what he has to say now.

  • Diversionary Maenad||

    LOL Kokesh criticizing anyone for being "unnecessarily abrasive".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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