Free State Project

Is the Free State Project a Better Idea than the Libertarian Party?

The Free State Project's Jeremy Kauffmann debates the L.P.'s Angela McArdle in a Soho Forum debate.

|

Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party was created to elect libertarians to public office, including the presidency of the United States. 

Founded in 2001, the Free State Project is an effort to turn New Hampshire—the "Live Free or Die" state—into a libertarian paradise of minimal government, with the ultimate aim of electing a libertarian to the governorship.

Which is the more realistic path to creating a freer society? That was the question debated by Jeremy Kauffman, a member of the board of the Free State Project, and Angela McArdle, candidate for chair of the National Libertarian Party and current chair of the L.P. of Los Angeles County.

Kauffman defended the resolution, "The Free State Project is a more realistic path to liberty than the Libertarian Party," and McArdle took the negative.

The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein and held in front of a live audience at the Free State Project's annual Porcupine Freedom Festival (Porcfest). It was an Oxford-style debate, so the audience voted on the proposition before and after the proceedings, with the winner being the person who moved more people to his or her side.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie.

Photo: Brett Raney

NEXT: Dave Smith: Libertarians vs. Big Tech, Big Government, and...Other Libertarians

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.

  1. I recently read an article about Jason Osborne, the current Republican majority leader in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. He appears to have come to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. Having a libertarian as the Speaker of a state legislature should be a goal. If he couldn’t be the Speaker if he were a registered Libertarian, then not being a Libertarian is a good thing.

    “Last year, he gave $50,000 to Make Liberty Win, a PAC dedicated to electing libertarian-leaning lawmakers nationwide. That figure is an eye-popping sum by New Hampshire House standards.

    In New Hampshire alone, the group backed 76 candidates in state representative races. Fifty-three of them are now part of the majority Osborne leads. Greg Moore, who runs the state chapter of the conservative group Americans For Prosperity, says these lawmakers are more ideological, with less experience in traditional public service, and they are changing the state Republican Party’s center of gravity.”

    —-New Hampshire NPR

    https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2021-06-14/out-of-public-eye-jason-osborne-helps-lead-historic-push-by-gop-in-n-h-house#stream/0

    When’s the last time a registered Libertarian became Speaker in a state legislature?

    1. Because all that matters is power.

      Keep sniffing the Team Red throne, Ken, maybe they’ll promote you to piss bucket boy during the next Republican administration.

      1. Power is one component, Jeffrey. Influence is another. So is ‘diversity’, but in the way that we have a diverse set of ideas, not a bunch of people that look different but all advocate for a one size fits all solution ideology. This leads to discussion and more importantly, compromise. Maybe even, heaven forbid, the idea of a reduced government in all of the lives of the NH residences.
        All that matters is all of the factors that matter in governance, not only the power part.

        1. Did the “libertarian” chemjeff try to claim that being libertarian is all about supporting a political party again?

          Color me unsurprised. He once tried to tell us that we weren’t really libertarians if we opposed being ripped off by Social Security.

          It isn’t just that he has no idea what he’s talking about. It’s also that he doesn’t care that he has no idea what he’s talking about. He doesn’t care whether he’s right or wrong. He doesn’t care about facts or logic. He doesn’t care whether he’s rational or irrational. He doesn’t care about learning anything or informing anybody. He’s just here to troll.

          1. IOW, as you say, a troll. When a commenter seems to only want to take [time, focus, discussion, threads] and give nothing in return [like actual diversity of opinion, with at least an acceptable level of civility–not making unprovoked statements like “maybe they’ll promote you to piss bucket boy” ] I think the mute button is a wonderful gift.

            Come to think of it…

            1. HAHAHA. Half the commenters here use explicit insults, offer nothing but right-wing agitprop, some even threaten to murder their opponents daily, but I use a gauche insult and now it’s time for the fainting couch? This is too rich.

              By all means, hang out with the “civility” crowd like Jesse and Nardz instead.

              1. You’re actually one of the more polite posters here (maybe the only one).

                We used to have a very polite poster name ‘Bo Cara Esq.’ or something like that and the conservative trash ran him off with their repeated insults directed to him. He actually tried to engage them but to no avail.

                1. I remember that guy. He made Tony look smart.

                  1. The three biggest lefty trolls are all standing in line, claiming victim hood.

                    Yeap. Another day at Reason.

                    1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

                      See……………VISIT HERE

                    2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.KJH Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now… Visit Here

                  2. Wow, two Media Matters trolls and sarcasmic (who trolls for free), are pretending they’re totally not trolls but Elliott Rodger-tier Supreme Gentleman to everyone.

                    Absolutely hilarious.

                  3. You’re assuming all the IDs here are distinct individuals, and not groups of socks.

                  4. Yikes! That’s not an endorsement, is it?

                2. By the way…

                  The irony of your comment is that most openly engage with Tony’s ideas here because he isnt an open hypocrite like you 3 who lie about who you support. Tony is at least honest about his views and what he supports.

                  You 3 openly troll only the right and ignore any and all actual discussions on liberty. You blindly ignore the left protecting them when you feel they need protection.

                  It is quite humorous.

              2. Lol. Youre nothing but a troll. You opened this thread with an attack on Ken.

                Hypocrisy seems to be a forte amongst you, sarcasmic, and Mike.

          2. Did the “libertarian” chemjeff try to claim that being libertarian is all about supporting a political party again?

            No, Ken. THAT’S YOU. That has been your schtick for the past 2 years or so when you continue to insist that libertarians MUST support Team Red.

            He once tried to tell us that we weren’t really libertarians if we opposed being ripped off by Social Security.

            What are you even talking about? You’re going to have to provide more context for this supposed quotation of yours because that sounds like a gross distortion if not an outright lie.

            1. Amazing how you troll while crying about trolling.

            2. No, chemjeff. THAT’S YOU.

              chemjeff, Mike Laursen, Buttplug and DOL have been deliberately harrassing Ken.
              sarcasmic has too, but he doesn’t really understand and is just trying to fit in.

              This isn’t normal disagreement. It’s concerted harrassment and it has to stop. Whenever you see them doing it, call them out.

          3. He also seems to be a stalker. Creepy.

          4. Did the “libertarian” chemjeff try to claim that being libertarian is all about supporting a political party again?

            I like how vascillating between The Libertarian Party, The Free State Project, and “conservative” lawmakers from Trump to Osborne, representing ideologies from ‘no government’ to ‘the government should exist to protect American interests’, is blindly following the Republican party. Like the choice between Sanders, Warren, AOC, Pelosi, and Biden is a vast smorgasbord that contains something other than ‘more taxes, more government’. I mean, FFS, Sanders is the most outside the party of the bunch of them and he’s famous for consistently saying people have too many options.

      2. You get elected through persuasion, fatty. LP doesn’t have it and never will. Ron and Rand Paul are the closest anyone’s gotten and of course they ran as GOP in order to win.

        Your team Blue is a bunch of cock swilling ass jockeys who engage in the biggest Tony circle jerk of all time and pass it off as some kind of morality. Your self righteous buddies on the left are insane.

        1. It should be noted, too, that the purpose of libertarianism isn’t to seize the reigns of power and inflict libertarian policies on the unwilling using the coercive power of government. Anyone who thinks that the point of the Libertarian Party is horribly confused.

          I believe it was Doherty who once wrote something to the effect that the real purpose of libertarianism is always to create more libertarians. To the extent that the Libertarian Party helps us do that by getting the message out, they’re doing great work.

          That’s also the way things like Christianity and socialism spread from place to place and become dominant in the culture. That’s how we rid ourselves of segregation and legalized cannabis. Once we get a critical mass of Americans demanding libertarian policies, the politicians we already have will be falling all over themselves to do what we want.

          That’s a long term goal. Right now we have a one party government that is doing things like expanding entitlement spending and assaulting our free speech rights. The White House press secretary announces that they’re flagging people for deplatforming for Facebook and accuses Facebook of killing people for not censoring our speech more proactively! The libertarian push to win hearts and minds can move forward while we target the Democrats for a big fall come 2022, that’s for sure.

          1. the purpose of libertarianism isn’t to seize the reigns of power and inflict libertarian policies on the unwilling using the coercive power of government.

            Inflict? I suppose government employees and people feeding at the trough might feel that way, but other than that how do you inflict less government? That’s Tony logic. That freedom requires forcing those who use force to stop using force, which is an act of force, so freedom is tyranny. Don’t be Tony.

            1. What an ignorant analysis.

              The government is already intruding on your freedoms dummy. Yes the libertarians to be effective do indeed have to use force to undo the intrusions that already do exist. Youre ignorant to this fact. They have to actively get power to unwind current intrusions that’s exist in the executive behemoth that act independently of political office. But you dont give a shit about actual freedoms. You just want to bitch about Republicans instead.

          2. The problem is the libertarians actually DO need to take the reigns of power to undo the choices made prior in expanding government.

            It isnt enough to get into office and do nothing. They actively have to undo what has already been done. This is why Amash was so terrible.

            Simply doing nothing allows the left to continue the one way ratchet towards socialism and authoritarianism.

            1. The American people have to want it in order for it to stick anyway.

              1. The dems often pass things in contrsdiction to national surveys. See their ending the Hyde amendment this week despite vast majority support.

                1. The reason most of Obamacare ended up in the toilet is because people didn’t want it. It’ll be the same thing with carbon taxes–in addition to all the other taxes we already pay. The progressives imagine they’re doing what the people want, but most of what they do is eventually undone because people don’t want it. They can’t make people want what they don’t want, and that’s why they resort to using the coercive power of government.

                  1. You’re much more optimistic than I.

                    But even in your case you fall to the ratchet effect of the 2 party system where democrats turn the ratchet just slightly one way and the gop never undoes that turn.

                    Which is why we need acgive libertarians to take power to undo the government expansion of the last 100 years.

            2. I hope they take the reins of power.
              And then take the bridle off the horse and let it go free.

          3. And the small government conservatives used to roundly criticize the LP for emphasizing their opposition to the War on Drugs. But it’s one area where society is moving in the direction the LP has long espoused.

      3. What’s the point of the Libertarian Party, or voting for Jorgensen for that matter, if not to gain political power?

        Understanding that it will be easier to make inroads through one of the major parties vs convincing enough independents to break the stranglehold that the two party system (an almost statistical certainty in our current election setup) has is just acknowledging reality.

        Your problem is that Ken thinks the Republicans are the logical choice. Because you hold the fantasy that the Democrats aren’t openly hostile to capitalism or liberty.

        1. What’s the point of the Libertarian Party, or voting for Jorgensen for that matter, if not to gain political power?

          To have a clean conscience after leaving the ballot box, instead of feeling dirty and gross for voting for some smarmy Republican or Democrat.

          1. A clean conscious that does nothing is better than a clean one that takes actual steps towards increasing freedom and rolling back government intrusions…

            You have no principles.

          2. Or perhaps voting for someone (from any major party) who balances towards liberty because the True Libertarian is blue and wears a boot on his head.

            1. I once voted for one of the majors instead of someone with a boot on their head, and I honestly felt dirty after.

              1. There’s a lot of stuff that made me feel dirty after I did it, but I’d have regretted not doing it more.

                “It’s better to say I wish I hadn’t than I wish I had, don’t you agree?”

                1. I’ll sleep with a fat chick before I’ll vote for a major again.

                  1. That is probably the most libertarian comment here this year.

                    1. Lol. Complete retreat from the incursions currently ongoing is definitely the big L type of comment where nothing will ever change. Congrats on being weak willed.

                    2. That comment doesn’t have anything to do with liberty.

                    3. Jared from Subways posts crap.

                  2. I miss John, lol.

                  3. Oh you gonna take me home tonight
                    Oh down beside that red fire light
                    Oh you gonna let it all hang out
                    Fat-bottomed girls you make the rocking world go round

                    If you need a reference quote for that we ain’t on the same page.

          3. Yup pretty much.

            I would also add that it is also about selecting a candidate who passes a minimum standard of acceptability. Not “who is the least shitty”, but “who is affirmatively the better person and better candidate for the job”. In both 2016 and 2020 it was an easy call. Neither Team Red nor Team Blue offered candidates that were even remotely minimally acceptable.

            If you keep using “who is least bad” as a relative standard for picking candidates, then the candidates will continue to spiral down and down further into the mud and force you to choose the one who is only 80% covered in mud instead of 90% covered in mud. After all, isn’t 80% awful “less bad” than 90% awful? At some point that has to stop, and voters ought to demand candidates who refuse to even go into the mud.

            1. As Mencken said, the job of political parties is to convince voters that the other party is evil. And they’re both right.

              1. You two go on and on about being as ineffective as possible. The way you describe your lives points to that being your active way of life as well.

                Running away as your rights are being threatened is not a principle you should highlight. Lol.

            2. “I would also add that it is also about selecting a candidate who passes a minimum standard of acceptability”

              That’s fine. But that standard is highly subjective and many people will look at 80% bad vs 90% bad and say “that 10% makes a huge difference”.

              (It seems to me that the Democrats, especially since 2016, take all of the shitty things I hate about Republicans, then add their own mountain of stupid on top of it. So I’d probably adjust those percentages.)

              1. That’s fine. But that standard is highly subjective and many people will look at 80% bad vs 90% bad and say “that 10% makes a huge difference”.

                Only if you are willing to tolerate people who are “in the mud” in the first place. If voters keep choosing candidates who are “less horrible” over “more horrible”, then parties will continue to offer horrible candidates.

                1. Tell me how well this plan of yours has worked out thus far.

            3. “In both 2016 and 2020 it was an easy call. Neither Team Red nor Team Blue offered candidates that were even remotely minimally acceptable.”

              Right. So instead you vote for “Libertarian” Gary “The government should force bakers to make gay wedding cakes” Johnson and his running mate “Libertarian” Bill “I support banning guns; I support expanding government funded health care; people should vote for Hillary Clinton rather than the Libertarian party candidate” Weld.

              Yup. Definitely standing on principle there.

          4. If you do what you think is best, your conscience should be clean, or what’s the point of having a conscience at all?

            In any social process where you’re merely one in a great many, if you want to have the most influence on things, where’s the best place to get involved, to exercise your force? It’s where decisions are at equipoise. If all the weight is already on one side or the other, it doesn’t matter which side that is, your added weight isn’t going to make a difference.

            Right now (actually it’s been true for a good while) almost everywhere in the Democratic Party, the force is so much on the anti-liberty side that you can’t influence them toward freedom. But you’d have no influence towards liberty at all in the Libertarian Party either, because they’re already pro-freedom. Nobody thinks the Republican Party now is either overwhelmingly pro- or anti-freedom, but they’re about halfway, so that’s where your influence should go.

            1. With Jeff you’re assuming facts not in evidence regarding a conscience.

          5. Luckily I live in Texas so I had the luxury of voting my conscience for Johnson and Jorgensen respectively.

            But I completely understand people who decide to vote strategically or feel that a certain candidate promotes the ideas of liberty well enough (Rand Paul and Thomas Massie come to mind). Because whether we like it or not, the way that the electoral system is set up guarantees that a third party candidate will be a spoiler, at best.

          6. Also to demonstrate to the Repubs (or the Dems in some cases) that they can’t take your vote for granted, and if they want to capture more votes, they can move in the direction of greater liberty.

        2. re: “What’s the point of the Libertarian Party … if not to gain political power?”

          To deny political power to the people and parties who are more likely to abuse it.

          1. They have already abused it. It is time to unwind that abuse. Not just stop further abuses.

          2. It’s a marketing gimmick.

          3. And bragging about getting rid of Trump to usher in the totalitarian left totes does that?

      4. Ohhhh let me play too!
        Ken’s last name is sholtz, and Sgt sholtz was a Nazi pow guard depicted in hogan’s heros, there for Ken is a far right Nazi!

        I have already out reved the Rev, I can easily out Jeff the jeff

        1. Well you certainly can’t out-spell me.

          I have never called Ken a Nazi, because I don’t think he is. That wouldn’t be fair to him. I just think he’s wrong in his persistent shilling for Team Red.

          See? It is possible to disagree with someone without believing that person is the embodiment of pure evil. You should give it a try.

          1. I believe you are the embodiment of pure retardation

          2. How do you bring yourself to actively lie about others and at the same time crying when people pint out youre a leftist?

          3. chemjeff, Mike Laursen, Buttplug and DOL have been deliberately harrassing Ken.
            sarcasmic has too, but he doesn’t really understand and is just trying to fit in.

            This isn’t normal disagreement. It’s concerted harrassment and it has to stop. Whenever you see them doing it, call them out.

          4. chemjeff, Mike Laursen, Buttplug and DOL are harrassing Ken.
            sarcasmic is too, but he doesn’t really understand and is just trying to fit in.

            This isn’t normal disagreement. It’s concerted harrassment and it has to stop. Whenever you see them doing it, call them out.

        2. In all fairness, I think Sgt. Schultz was just a non-com schlub German soldier, not a Nazi Party man. He certainly wasn’t an exemplar of the much-hyped Aryan Pure Superman intellect.

          And Ken Schultz is certainly not a Nazi, just teeth-grittingly tendentious as I guess we all are to each other.

      5. Hope white Mike rushes to your defense here. Lol.

        What a stupid analysis of the statement.

      6. A reminder that chemjeff and Mike Laursen’s attacks on Ken are concerted.

        He’s a respected poster but also one of the biggest threats to the Democratic Party narrative that they’ve been tasked with advancing here. Don’t let chemjeff and Mike troll him off the board. Call them out whenever you see them begin to harrass him.

        1. You dumb shit. No one here except Tony believes in the “Democratic Party narrative”.

          We just don’t believe the lying Big Government authoritarian Republican Party either.

          1. You were repeating every dnc talking point the last few days. No biden corruption. Great economy. Biden a moderate.

            Lol.

          2. Then how come you sound like a DNC party political whenever you post? Half the time your posts are cut&pasted from the Democratic Underground forum.

            You’re not tricking anybody.

            1. Because he’s got the DNC’s cock securely holstered in his mouth?

      7. Damn, collectivistjeff is super butthurt that Ken demonstrated his thesis.

      8. Goddamn, you’re a pathetic little faggot. Your are the last one to be disparaging Ken for being a bootlicker.

      9. Hopefully, people will not for that reason neglect their basic rights. I live in an autocratic country, and I admire your freedom! Don’t lose that! mount abu escorts

    2. P.S. In regards to his FSP bona fides from the same article:

      “His involvement in New Hampshire politics dates back to the Free State Project, a movement that aimed to recruit 20,000 libertarians to move to New Hampshire to expand freedom and shrink government.

      If you browse YouTube, you can find plenty of clips of footage of Osborne from before he joined the legislature, from conversations with libertarian videographer Dave Ridley about why he was providing free beer to attendees of Porcfest, the Free State Project’s annual summer camp out from 2008, or as a recurrent guest on an education-themed podcast called the SchoolSucksProject.

      —-NPR

      https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2021-06-14/out-of-public-eye-jason-osborne-helps-lead-historic-push-by-gop-in-n-h-house#stream/0

      The Libertarian Party is like the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. They put that on so that when people are together with their families thinking about what to get each other for Christmas, hopefully they’ll think about shopping at Macy’s. The Libertarian Party shows up like that around election time. When people are thinking about politics, the Libertarian Party can be a great marketing tool for the movement.

      When their presence on the ballot becomes the means by which the most authoritarian and socialist batch of Democrats in recent memory can shit on us from a great height–with all the support of a one-party state, no less–the Libertarian Party becomes a liability. The Libertarian Party is not the means to power. It’s the means to persuasion. Never confuse the two. One of them is the means by which we change people’s hearts and minds. The other is subject to the constraints of single member districts.

      And it’s not like voting Republican can get us the actual influence and power we seek. They have an FSP guy as the majority leader in their House of Representatives–because they worked within the constraints imposed by single member districts. Splitting the opposition to the progressives with a third party, on the other hand, simply keeps the progressives in power. There have been times in the past when it didn’t matter which party was in charge, but when we’re under the boot of a one-party government is not one of those times.

      1. Butchered it again.

        “One of them is the means by which we change people’s hearts and minds. The other is [winning] subject to the constraints of single member districts.

        And it’s not like voting Republican [can’t] get us the actual influence and power we seek.”

        —-Ken Shultz

        Fixed!

        1. In the current GOP, no one is getting anywhere on the national level without swearing an oath of fealty to fmr. pres. Donald J. Trump. Republican partisans are now comfortable attacking ‘legal’ immigration and free trade advocacy, so I don’t see any breathing room for libertarians in that party.

          1. Wait, being opposed to immigration makes you a not-libertarian? How about those of us who have long felt that libertarianism as a philosophy only works when you have a limited polity in which the people generally agree on those principles. If people want to come to the polity they have to understand and generally agree with those principles. They also need time to assimilate and become a part of that polity.

            I would argue that we have so many immigrants (legal and illegal) right now who don’t agree with the general founding principles of the country that it is time to shut off the spigot and work on assimilation and integration. I can’t think of a single libertarian (small l) principle that requires that the borders be opened and that the libertarian project (ie the country) be flooded with anyone who wants to come in.

            That is even without recognizing that the massive welfare state distorts the issue completely.

          2. I’m a writer, editor, food and wine fanatic, and traveler. On my very first trip abu road I learned that solo travel was for me. mount abu escorts

    3. Anything would be better than what we’ve got – which is essentially zero besides amash. You want to see change in your lifetime favorable to libertarian ideals? Do anything but what you’re currently doing.

      1. If not for the Justin Amashes and Larry Sharpes of the Libertarian Party, I’d have zero faith in it as a vehicle for anything apart from self-righteous, autistic clowns.

      2. Anything would be better than what we’ve got – which is essentially zero besides amash.

        So, zero.

        Justin Amash is an irrelevant boob who beclowns the party just slightly less than Bill Weld.

    4. And NPR ran the story as a warning.

  2. They aren’t in opposition. You can choose both, work for both. How can you have a debate over whether to eat an apple or buy an orange car?

    1. With unlimited resources, you could certainly choose both. In a world of limited resources (whether the limit is money or time), you can sometimes reasonably choose to prioritize one over the other. So, yes, you can have a debate over whether to eat an apple or drive an orange car.

      Now, you could argue in your hypothetical that the car decision is so much bigger that the apple is just rounding error so of course you could do both. Maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t. But it’s a lot less likely to be true when the two proposals are roughly equal in consumption of resources – which is the case in the actual debate above.

      1. No, I’m arguing that one can join the LP and one can move to the Free State, and those are not in opposition. The effort required to move there consists in finding a job there, but once moved, elections there are no more effort than elections elsewhere. Joining the LP might involve writing some checks, it might involve some volunteering, but very few people are full time politicians.

        This is not like choosing to fund the LP vs the IJ vs the PLF vs ….

        1. I think you missed the point of the debate. If you move to the Free State, you have the potential to influence local politics and opinions to a greater degree but lesser geographic reach. Your neighbors will already understand and largely agree with you.

          Joining the LP while living somewhere else, on the other hand, will give you less influence but more diverse geographical coverage. You might be able to influence the neighbors who you would otherwise leave behind.

          Moving to the Free State and also joining the LP is, in this model, redundant.

          The resource in this case is personal time and energy – and that’s a very scarce resource.

    2. How can you have a debate over whether to eat an apple or buy an orange car?

      I keep a pretty low carb diet. The orange is out.

      1. Sorry, the apple is out. If I were interested in

  3. A hurdle is that NH is adjacent to Mass. And folks that work in Mass don’t want to pay Mass taxes, so they moved to NH. But they are still Massholes with Masshole political leanings.

    1. If you work in Mass you pay Mass state income tax, regardless of where you live.

      1. Looking into it. It looks like NH has much lower sales tax, higher property tax, and more or less the same income tax. So, unless you’re living in a multi million dollar home, you’d probably pay less total taxes.

        Make of that what you will.

        1. The property tax rate may be higher but the assessment likely lower. People are gregarious and many want to live where there are more people.

  4. I could see it happen in NH. Maybe even WY. But getting statewide office seems to be a stretch even. At some point the two major parties outraise you and their candidates have better name recognition and persuasion techniques.

    Forget national office. You will have to utilize the capabilities of the two parties. And the donkeys are crazy with mad cow.

    1. I feel we’d do better to push for a better voting system. Granted that’s the least popular with the politicians, as they prefer bad voting systems that force people to compromise on their actual beliefs.

      Approval voting is the way to go for any large scale position, don’t fall for the ranked choice trap, it sounds like it gives people more control over their vote, but it is still susceptible to tactical voting, and still gives far more control to the established parties, which is the main thing we should want to avoid.

  5. Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party was created to elect libertarians to public office, including the presidency of the United States.

    Founded in 2001, the Free State Project is an effort to turn New Hampshire—the “Live Free or Die” state—into a libertarian paradise of minimal government, with the ultimate aim of electing a libertarian to the governorship.

    Which is the more realistic path to creating a freer society?

    Well, we’re still, in many ways, no freer today than when each of them started, so until they both tighten up and do better, I’ll say neither.

  6. what Libertarian Party? and McCardle does redhead a billion times better than Psaki

    1. Who cares if they have “souls?” Would.

    2. Definitely wood, I mean would.

      1. Your jokes are exactly the jokes the average incel makes.

    3. She could make a lot of guys a mccardle carrying member of the Free State Project.

    4. Would for both, but the strawberry blonde is fire

  7. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again….

    Libertarians carry almost the exact same platform as Republicans do. To pretend Libertarians won’t have RINO’S just as the Republican party does is wishful thinking.

    Don’t “conquer” and divide the ‘right’ side – Coin the term Libertarian-Republican for those who aren’t RINO’S.

    1. Total garbage.

      The GOP has had all three levers of federal government twice since 1993 (Dubya 2003-07 and the Dotard) and spent money like McCain’s drunken sailors.

      You Republicans keep saying “Trust us next time”.

      Well fuck you.

      Not again.

      1. What was the democrats response during those times? I seem to remember Reid being senate leader and forcing debt limit showdowns while the media decried the collapse of the economy.

      2. Btw dummy the major increase in spending under W was FY 09 where Reid and Pelosi pushed a continuing resolution until Obama signed it after inauguration.

        The vast majority of government spending is Medicare, medicaid, ss, and other entitlements passed by democrats. But you’re too stupid to understand that.

      3. See JesseAZ…

        The GOP is far from perfect but Libertarian-Republicans like Rand Paul come pretty close. The mass-majority of Democrats on the other hand are criminals and the mass-majority of that party are Socialist-Democrats.

      4. You sound like my aunt. Bitches about republicans failures, and claims this is why I should vote for democrats. Even though democrats fuck everything up far worse.

        If we got rid of the democrats, then we could easily purge the RINO trash like Paul Ryan and Liz Cheney. Instead of being forced to frequently accept them as the lesser of two evils in a general election.

        1. I very much look forward to a day when ballots only have those who at least pretend to be USA patriots on them. Like a Republican or Libertarian party candidate instead of having to pick a totally Treasonous Criminal over a half Treasonous Criminal.

          I can’t even remember the last time someone campaigned on upholding the U.S. Constitution and honoring their sworn oath of office.

  8. A couple of things The Free State Project could do is first, get the stink of Nazi White Supremacist Chris Cantwell, the SJW/Mises Caucus Edgelorder infighting, the Grafton, NH Bear Invasion, and the futile shenanigans of the “Robin Hooders” completely off of the Libertarian Movement. Shun and disavow it all completely!

    Second, The Free State Project should franchise the best ideas for increasing freedom and limiting government to other States besides New Hampshire. The Nestle slogan said: “Make Your House A Toll House.” The Free Staters slogan of outreach could be “Make Your State A Free State.”

    1. You seem to think the LP is run and controlled by some king, instead of being the sum of its members.

      1. Obviously from his mises comment he supported the LP party there allowing their leadwr to usurp all power to expel all mises caucus members. So yeah. He does.

        1. Opposing the Mises Caucus does not equal supporting SJW LP Apparachiks. Ludwig Von Mises wouldn’t have supported either of them or any of the Paleos and Neo-Confederates that claim his imprimateur.

          1. Your presidential nominee endorsed racial marxism

            1. You assume I voted at all. I haven’t voted since 2004 and do not regret it.

            2. Are you paleos still butthurt over a single stupid Jorgensen Tweet? The MiCauc edgelords live to cause offense on Twitter.

      2. Neither the LP nor the larger Libertarian Movement are monoliths, but they’ve both been magnets for lots of stupid stuff that distract from actually increase freedom and limit government to it’s proper role. I say it’s time to scrape the stupid stuff off like you would horse shit on an outdoor boot brush.

      3. None of the outfits are monoliths, but all have attracted a whole lot of stupid stuff that distracts from growing freedom and limiting government. It’s time we scrape it all off like horse shit with an outdoor boot brush.

  9. Maybe try again in a warmer state?

    1. Exactly! Florida was a battleground state, where a small group of cooperating libertarians could be a power broker. Hawaii is super leftist, but libertarians could congregate on one island, influencing local politics at least on that one island. Etc. New Hampshire is way too cold and way too New Englander to attract too many libertarians.

  10. My backyard on a Wednesday night is a better idea than the Libertarian Party.

    1. Will there be free-range steaks and state-free drinks?

      1. I’d be more interested in a free range.

  11. The LP should dissolve and reform itself as a debate club between edgelords.

  12. Thank god for the lack of ranked choice voting.

    While Holmes has racked up endorsements from six City Council members, Attorney General Bob Ferguson and other prominent Democrats, his rivals have peeled off support from his right and left flanks, leaving him with no guarantee of finishing in the top two slots when primary votes are tallied.

    Rep. Gerry Pollet, D-Seattle, said Holmes’ campaign has reason to be “pretty worried” about whether he’ll garner enough votes to finish first or second in the primary and advance to the November general election.

    “It’s tough being in the middle,” said Pollet, who has endorsed Holmes. “Who gets motivated to vote in the primary? It’s right and left, not middle. That could leave him without a base to be in the top two.”

    In this case, a definition of terms is in order:

    Right: A Democrat who recently left the Democratic party who believes that violent crimes should be prosecuted.

    Left: A progressive who wants to literally abolish the police, jails and prisons.

    Middle: A progressive who has, by fiat of his office, executed bail reform, refused to prosecute serious crimes, and has vocally supported the vast, bizarre and sweeping decriminalization bill for “crimes of poverty”.

    As it has been noted. There is much diversity in Seattle politics. For instance, yes, most of the city council is democrats, but they have socialists and communists, too.

    1. The California recall election will show how it’s done.
      48% will vote to keep Newsom, and 52% will vote to give him the boot, so he’ll be finished.
      Then everyone will vote on one of the 95 candidates running, and a right wing libertarian leaning talk radio host will win with 15% of the vote.
      I can almost taste the Proglodyte tears, all the way from Sacramento.

  13. The LP is worse than worthless. I hope the Mises caucus takes full control and endorses DeSantis or Trump/DeSantis in 2024.

    1. Trump is like an anchor around the neck of the Republican Party when they’re trying to swim to shore. Much better to replace him with a more polished politician who agrees with him on the big policy points, but lacks the crazy and doesn’t stir up the Lefties so much. Would a fiscal conservative be too much to ask?

      1. Rand Paul ran but either quite too early or didn’t have enough votes to counter lefty-election-fraud. (i.e. for your “polished politician”).

        As a Rand Paul fan myself (actually not in-favor of Trump during election); Looking back, perhaps others saw something I didn’t.

        That bringing a “knife to a gun fight” just wasn’t going to cut it. Whether or not Rand or Ted would’ve had the stamina to De-Regulate, Cut-Taxes, and Thwart the ever-growing Nazi (def; National Socialist) Party is a question unanswered but after seeing Trump’s Administration *actions*; He now has my full support.

        1. Rand’s too short and too smart to make it big in national politics. He is not dominating enough physically, and has a hard time communicating with the average citizen due to his higher than average intellect, logic, and vocabulary. A taller, more brazen, average IQ bullshitter would fare much better in national politics.

  14. Get vaccinated, even if it won’t help you.

    CDC study shows three-fourths of people infected in Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak were vaccinated

    A sobering scientific analysis published Friday of an explosive Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak fueled by the delta variant found that three-quarters of the people who became infected were fully vaccinated. The report, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is one key piece of a growing body of evidence that bolsters the hypothesis that vaccinated people can spread the more transmissible variant and may be a factor in the summer surge of infections.

    The data, detailed in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, provided key evidence that convinced agency scientists to reverse recommendations on mask-wearing and advise that vaccinated individuals wear masks in indoor public settings in some circumstances.

    1. The important bit of data that is missing is what % of the crowd was vax and how big was that crowd.

  15. You need both. Because they’re not going to leave your enclave alone.

    1. When one side endorses anti racism to appeaze the left, you dont need them anymore. They’ve given up on liberty.

      1. And as usual to the retard blue pill crew that exists here…

        Anti racism is endorsing CRT and race based separation and education, not actually being anti racist.

        1. Nothing spoke that better than Seattle’s CHAZ insurrection that announced only Black Doctors could work on Black Patients.

          I’ve been laughing about that ever since the ‘demand’ list was published. The [WE] mob is Anti-Racist but we ‘demand’ Jim Crow laws.

      2. I want a militant version of libertarianism that aggressively engages in self defense against statists. Rabidly destroying them.

        1. You’re looking for the DOJ and Judiciary departments to do their job..
          “due process” must be upheld….

  16. Honestly, the LP as a practical matter should put the hard-core ideology on the back burner and focus on some initiatives that have like 80+% support, or have the potential to garner support regardless of party. I would suggest ‘government reform’ types of ideas. Just a few off the top of my head:

    1. Expand the size of the House to something like 1 member per 100,000 residents, closer to what it was like at the beginning.
    2. Proposals to limit or abolish state-level gerrymandering. (Just from a purely utilitarian perspective, the LP can only benefit from that position compared to the status quo.)
    3. More transparency in taxation and spending – have an online searchable database of all spending and taxation for any governmental unit, updated daily
    4. More transparency in voting – require voting machines to have open-source software, have a regular system of audits for elections that follow pre-established rules and procedures that all agree to ahead of time, not the joke of an ad-hoc “audit” in Arizona
    5. More security in voting *while at the same time* expanding access to voting – require ID to vote, but make those voting credentials incredibly easy to get; start building towards online voting procedures (if people can transfer millions of dollars online securely, why can’t we have secure online voting?)
    6. More options in voting – ranked choice voting, runoff systems to prevent a mere plurality from winning, things like that

    One doesn’t have to believe that “taxation is theft” or “privatize the roads” in order to find these ideas appealing. It can be a way to get the foot in the door.

    1. Jeff’s answer to a big government is a bigger government….

    2. Number 5 is what Georgia did that had the left freaking out

    3. The libertarian movement abandoned radicalism for accomodationism decades ago. What good has come of it?

    4. 1. What does this do? So we go from basically no representation to absolutely no representation as even more people have the power to control your life but you can’t vote for them?

      2. How do you stop this? What possible proposal isn’t going to be gamed by whoever has control at the time?

      3. You want the government to do this? Because private groups do this already. You just won’t pay any attention to their work.

      4. Doesn’t have popular support except among *some non-Democrats*. Everyone else – including most Republican politicians are absolutely the elections are safe and secure.

      5. Half the country says this is racism. Again – no popular support.

    5. Not a bad idea to focus on Reform. It almost worked for Homer Stokes.

      But I don’t think turning 435 Congressmen into 4350 Congressmen will make Congress more popular or effective.

      1. It will provide a lot more oversight

        1. And we can limit all of their staffs to no more than 50 highly paid “advisors” for each!

          Haha. JFC.

    6. The Libertarian Party won’t ever win with the present voting method in place. Enact ranked choice or single-transfer voting and the party may have a shot. The LP was originally formed to do political advocacy but, unfortunately, it morphed into a debate society.

      None the less, ladies and gentlemen, I have posted a comment below that is an alternative to the LP and FSP and would appreciate your interaction. Thank you.

  17. Jeremy mentioned, but didn’t underline, this point, so let me. Angela’s criticism of the Free State Project is that there is no Politburo Five Year Central Plan to achieve liberty. We don’t pretend epistemic knowledge that no one has. We will be trying many many different ways to move in multiple areas towards freedom. But the paths won’t be dictated to us — it will be set by you, the people who come here looking to build one small freed society.

    Look, no one knows how to achieve liberty, but one thing we do know for sure is that whining for liberty as a small, disparaged, ignorable minority does not working. By concentrating the 1-2% of rabid freedom lovers diffused throughout the 330M Americans in one state, we’ll have the numbers to try out numerous pathways to freedom. We’ve already made gigantic strides by concentrating only 0.001% of the rabid freedom lovers in one state, and we’re waiting for you to join us.

    Come and work with us to help us find a path to freedom. Your authoritarian neighbors won’t miss you, but we will.

    1. I love this post!

      Still…. Ain’t happening.

      It looks like the only path to libertarian is the God Emperor’s golden path from Dune. The authoritarian left is winning, big. Orwellian doublespeak is already normalized. Maybe when we reach Harrison Bergeron levels there will be a backlash and we can have our libertarian moment.

    2. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere here on this subject, something The Free State Project should do better is to scrape off all the stink from people who’ve tried to hijack Libertarianism and give it a terrible brand.

      Maybe we couldn’t stop them from acting, but we could stop giving them airplay under our banner. Tell the Chris Cantwells of the world to get their own damn podcasts for Neo-Nazi filth instead of besmirching us by getting on Free Talk Live!

      And lets pool butter-‘n’-egg money and get the Libertarians in Grafton, NH some locking garbage cans, som bear repellant, some 12 Gauge shotguns with small pellet shot rounds and Double-Ought Buck slugs, and some shooting lessons! No Libertarian Paradise should be subject to something as ridiculous as a bear invasion!

      And as for The “Robin Hooders” in Keene, well, that’s already a badly missed opportunity, but we can learn something from it.

      In all the time the “Robin Hooders” spent putting money in parking meters and harassing parking meter readers, they could have devised the apps for Uber or Lyft, totally circumvented the City parking meters. And at the same time, they could get all the credit for destroying cabbie monopolies nationwide and raise billions in real money for the Libertarian Movement!

      In the future, Free State Project, don’t be these guys! Be the storybook example to others, not the Despair.com example!

    3. Achieving liberty is simple, enforce the NAP.

  18. I choose the Free State Project.

    The people one is surrounded by makes all the difference in the world. Thousands have already voted with their feet to individually and collaboratively advance liberty in a place already much better situated than most of the USSA. It’s a modern day brain drain of critical thinkers — the community is diverse, vibrant, and growing.

    Further, the decentralized nature of the Free State Project is much more in accord with spontaneous order and human flourishing than any political party, which ultimately seeks to seize (and thereby cede authority to) an apparatus based on coercion and double-standards — something that’s antithetical to individual liberty.

    Come to the Free State of New Hampshire. Come on home, y’all.

    1. I had liked the idea behind The Free State Project when I heard of it years ago and wanted to make the jump to New Hampshire. I had visited once as a teen and loved the geographic features.

      My biggest barrier was the fact that, although NH has no income or sales taxes and a very small capital gains tax, the property taxes more than swamp those. Whether that’s because of high rates or highly valuated real estate or both, it made the possibility of a move a pipe dream for me.

      Also, to get there by land, I’d have to go through DC, Baltimore, New Jersey, New York City, Philadelphia, all the ugly Babylons where anything could happen in transit and none of it good. If only there was a ferry boat I could take there with the vehicle that would be super!

      Anyhow, I salute all who went for freedom and perhaps I’ll send some BitCoin to one of the causes when I get some, but ultimately, making the move wasn’t something I could swing. Perhaps it will succeed as a model and help “Make Every State A Free State!”

      1. NH does have an income tax, on dividends and interest. Makes it hard to retire there. Hopefully the FSP will repeal those.

        1. You’ll be happy to know that they have already been repealed.

          1. Meanwhile, here in WA the dems are furiously trying to find a way around the state constitution and it’s ban on an income tax. They’ve tried before and failed.

            When they succeed, WA could be a fertile recruiting ground for FSP minded people.

      2. When I participated in the Free State Project vote, my first choice was Wyoming and South Dakota my 2nd. Both are still Republican states today. Unfortunately, New Hampshire has had a number of “Massholes” who moved to New Hampshire from Massachusetts and have tilted the “Live Free or Die State” Democrat.

        None the less, ladies and gentlemen, I have posted a comment below related to a potential alternative to the LP and FSP and would appreciate your interaction. Thank you.

    2. Ah. A looter shill backing the either-or of a false alternative. First we add a welcome uninspected terrorists plank, then a vigilante death sentence plank, then an illiterate communist anarchist on the ticket. So goodbye 80% per annum growth in our spoiler vote share growth curve and hello shopworn diversionary tactics, global warmunism and increased initiation of force. Brilliant!

      1. Hates cops immigrants and babies. Way to take the worst ideas from all sides bub.

    3. Unfortunately, FSP has to contend with the “Massholes” who moved to New Hampshire from Massachusetts and tilted the state Democrat. When I participated in the Free State Project vote, Wyoming was my first choice and, thankfully, the state is still heavily Republican.

      None the less, ladies and gentlemen, I have posted a comment below and would appreciate your interaction. Thank you.

  19. The fuck-up with the Free State Project was when it came time to choose a state. With the result that something that could have been genuinely effective and transformative in Wyoming decided to be wasted in a pile of Massholes.

    So whether it was a better idea than the Libertarian Party or not is moot; it’s like asking whether the better response to California wildfires is Bud Light or Miller Lite.

    1. Are “libertarians” less likely to want to migrate to state’s with warm climates than the rest of Americans?

      1. Name a warm-climate state where the in-migration of 20,000 libertarians would be remotely meaningful.

        New Hampshire, despite having more than twice the population of Wyoming in 2003, at least vaguely looked libertarian-friendly (compare the People’s Republic of Hawaii, which had roughly the same population). But the Masshole Invasion was already clear if people were actually looking.

          1. Florida – simply due to its status as a battleground state. A concentrated political group could become power brokers.

          2. Or choose a territory – say the island of Vieques or Culebra off Puerto Rico. Getting 500- 1000 libertarians (who can work online) committed to living there could change local politics overnight.

        1. Mississippi seems small enough to gain traction IMO. Also, it’s super poor, so relocating would be less painful. Economy and education suck, so having a decent sized successful libertarian city there would probably be able to win people over more easily.
          I also think we need to drag the libertarianism hippies over to our side. The old commune style ones are pretty similar to libertarians in a lot of ways.

      2. Cold winters cuts down on folks apt to set up a homeless commune in front of your favorite establishments.

    2. Perhaps The Free State Project in New Hampshire and a Free State Project in Wyoming could have both set up shop and did a Trancontinental Free State Project, working and working to promote libertarian ideas across the land until they put the final spike through the last bit of Statism at some middle meeting point. A wild thought, no doubt…

  20. None of the above.

  21. The LP is hopeless so the Free State Project is a better bet, but … c’mon, neither effort is even remotely consequential.

    1. Quoth the anonymous looter plant.

  22. We might have more success if rebranded as the Libertarian-Leaning Party.

  23. “Free State Project” realistic… LOL!!

    “libertarian party” realistic…. LOL!!!

    That is great… Next do a debate about which Unicorn distribution plan is more realistic…

    1. The FSP unicorn thinks it can jump across the river. It makes it part way.

      The LP unicorn thinks it can jump to the moon. It’s still looking up.

      1. As nearly as I can tell, the major accomplishment of the FSP has been to turn the only moderately red state in New England into another blue state. Somehow this is supposed to qualify as a brilliant success.

  24. The FSP had a good idea. Concentrate the activists in one spot to maximize their effectiveness. They have made some progress in NH, and are assimiliating after the initial fears of the locals.

    But they have been greatly outnumbered by normal migration from Massachusetts and other liberal states. Fortunately most of those people aren’t actively political, or are less lefty-leaning than the people who didn’t leave Massachusetts.

    The real problem is everyone wants to win the culture war at the national level and force everyone else to live the way the winning side prefers. The best bet for the FSP in NH (and similar projects elsewhere) is if the socialists decide to leave more areas of life up to the individual states to decide, so the national policies don’t have to change every 8 years. But Progressives wouldn’t be Progressives if they couldn’t boss other people around.

    1. On a personal note, I almost joined the FSP back in the day, but instead got married and followed the money to California. It’s been a good choice for me and my family (despite being governed by morons), but the funny thing is I may have ended up better off financially by moving to NH for lower paying jobs, but getting talked into buying Bitcoin way back then….

    2. The problem is the people they call “Massholes” who moved up from Massachusetts to New Hampshire and tilted New Hampshire Democrat. None the less, ladies and gentlemen, I have posted a comment below and would appreciate your interaction. Thank you.

  25. The FSP has failed. February 2021 was the date for everyone to move by and only a quarter have.

  26. The premise is fake. The LP was founded to repeal cruel laws by allowing honest people to vote its pro-rights platform. With under 4000 votes the LP Population plank of 1972 generated the Roe v Wade decision protecting women and doctors from coercion at gunpoint by superstitious collectivist hillbillies. Invading a state is old hat and a red herring to draw us away from the original platform and into a quagmire of looter-drafted dead-ends. Law changing spoiler votes WORK! Hence the desperation to cripple the LP.

    1. Overturning “Roe v Wade” – That tiny ‘spot’ the Republican Party is JUST DEAD WRONG ABOUT; it is a violation of individual liberty of their own body.

      Yet, contrary to ‘mass media’, polls show consistently that both the Left and Right *citizens* are actually half-n-half divided on the subject.

      In other-words there are just as many registered Democrats supporting Pro-Life as registered Republican supporting Pro-Choice but telling one’s Party-Affiliated ‘Representatives’ that seems to be going nowhere.

    2. The inalienable right to life of a fetus was never a woman’s choice or a judge’s right to take away.

      1. #1. The inalienable right to life of a fetus can keep their rights so long as their rights don’t infringe someone else’s.

        #2. Judge’s don’t ‘order’ abortions last I checked.

        1. 1. Abortion isn’t self defence, it is the murder of a human being who was the normal result of the murderers choice to have sex.

          2. Judges allow the murder instead of protecting the inalienable right to life of the innocent.

          1. You do realize your not even talking about “life” right?
            Your talking about the ‘prospective’ of life.

            Roe v Wade was set at the ‘viable’ stage. That ‘prospective’ of life under 21-weeks is ZERO. You have no foundation to sit on outside of self-induced “faith”.

            And you can keep your self-induced “faith”. Preach it to world, ask that others follow your “faith”. You don’t have the right to use Gov-Gun-Forces to *FORCE* others to abide by your “faith”.

            1. Here is the definition of life. You’ll note that it does not mention age.

              “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death:”

              Without the murder of abortion, from the moment of conception every human grows for 8 months to emerge from its mother.

              This is science and logic, not faith.

              Your position denies logic and science and your ideology is murder.

              Again you deny inalienable rights for your own selfish benefit. Do you even realize the slippery slope you’re on?

              1. I’m just not going to support Gov-Gun-Forces dictating what women can do with their own-bodies by pretending any entity within that body over-rides her own ‘rights’ to her body.

                Especially when that entity within her body has ZERO chance of survival without ‘using’ her body (on-topic against her own will).

                You get you science to be able to ‘survive’ the removal of that entity or your stance is entirely that rapists should have the right to use her body against her will however they seem fit to do. I mean rapists are ‘life’ too right???

                My stance will be that women who shoot a rapist for having their ‘growing entity’ inside them against their ‘right’ to their own body justifies the “murder”.

                And the worst part about the Pro-Life’s using Gov-Gun-Forces to enact their “faith” is that it’s really NOBODIES business but the families.

                1. Your logic is faulty. This refutes your argument that attempts to make rape and pregnancy analogous.

                  Rape is not the direct and normal expected result of a woman’s actions. It wouldn’t be rape if it was.

                  Pregnancy is the condition of having another human being growing inside a woman. That human being has the inalienable right to life. The woman, by choosing to have sex could expect that her actions directly put that human there.

                  1. And you logic is faulty because; Even if I did invite a stranger into my house then later asked them to leave and they refused to the point of being murdered – that is still my right over their right to life.

                    Your stance would be that if you invited a bum into your home who ate all your food you could no longer kick them out because they were then dependent on you for more food and would die if you kicked them out.

                    So bring in the Gov-Gun-Forces and FORCE that homeowner to house that bum…!!! That bums right to life is more important than property rights…

                    1. You would be convicted of murder if you chose to kill a helpless innocent person who you invited into your home and subsequently could not leave without dying.

                      My logic stands.

                    2. You are demonstrating that your ideology is murder.

                    3. “You would be convicted of murder if you chose to kill a helpless innocent person who you invited into your home and subsequently could not leave without dying”

                      Humorously; That too has already been addressed by the U.S. Constitution.

                      3rd Amendment —
                      No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war

                    4. … But hey; A person’s house is so much more sacred than their own body? Right, right? And a fertilized egg is so much more sacred than a soldier? Right, right?

                      You have no foundation outside of “faith” to stand on.

                    5. Consent was given when the woman engages in the only activity, sex, which results in the new life inside her.

                      Once again your logic fails.

                    6. … And while your “faith” foundation could be right – Being right doesn’t justify the *power* over others free-will by Gov-Gun-Forces.

                    7. Murder is ultimate, infinite and irreversible power over another.

                      That is the ideology you advocate here.

                    8. Ever heard of rape?

                    9. Ever heard of reading the discussion before jumping in?

                    10. Does everyone agree that, aside from non-consensual sex, I have refuted all arguments that deny abortion violates the inalienable right to life of the fetus?

                      If not, you are not arguing in good faith and don’t deserve to participate.

                    11. “non-consensual sex” = fetus murder A-Okay???
                      Now; Rob, that’s not a ‘good faith’ argument.

                      Then again; you never really presented any thoughtful argument – it was all “faith” based ignorance to push Gov-Gun-Forces in other peoples lives they just don’t justifiably belong to satisfy your own pride. It’s none of your business, it doesn’t affect you at all. Except maybe the loss of pride in the ability to sick Gov-Gun-Forces over others.

                    12. Either you lack comprehension or are being disingenuous.

                      I have made arguments that demonstrate abortion denies the inalienable right to life of the fetus.

                      I have not presented an argument regarding non consensual sex.

                      I have based nothing on faith, only logic and science.

                      I have refuted every attempt you have made to deny my arguments.

                      Until you can refute my arguments, they stand and represent the best logical truth that our discussion has achieved.

                      What precisely do you deny about this?

                    13. “Does everyone agree that, aside from non-consensual sex…..”
                      HELLO!

                      And Round-Up denies the right to life of tree seeds.. Yet; tree seeds aren’t apple tree’s now are they? And a fetus isn’t an individual person until birth now is it?

                      Yet; with modern day science – that fetus could become an individual person at EXACTLY the point Roe v Wade was settled. The Supreme Court case makes sense – You do not.

                    14. I’ve already refuted your “fetus isn’t an individual person” argument with science.

                      Now you’re just repeating yourself.

                      Face it. All your arguments have been refuted while mine remain standing.

                      If you had any intellectual honesty you would recognize and accept the truth as I have shared it.

      2. Ladies and gentlemen, I have posted a comment below and would appreciate your interaction. Thank you.

  27. Liberty and power come from the people not a political party.

    Do people even realize that their rights and freedoms are eroding or are our velvet chains just too comfortable?

    1. Deciding which areas Gov-Gun-Forces is practical to be in. Because government isn’t government without Gun-Force. The founding fathers wrapped up the narrative that the only ‘practical’ place Gov-Gun-Force should be is in the pursuit of Individual Liberty and Justice from ‘others’ who wish to take that away.

      1. Summation — Defensive Gov Good, Progressive Gov Bad.

        1. Defence of what?

          Inalienable rights? You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t care about those.

          1. Confused? The U.S. Constitution can clear that up for you.
            14th Amendment; Section 1 … “All persons born”

            1. Even if you think that the use of the word “born” was meant to encourage abortion, which you could never demonstrate, do you think that non-citizens don’t have the inalienable right to life on US soil?

              A few lines farther down in the 14th section 1.

              “ nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,”

              1. Foul Play:
                #1. State does not order abortions last I checked.
                #2. Definition of person = individual human (per Webster)

                1. 1. States allowing abortion within their borders demonstrates complicity.

                  2.DNA fingerprinting science is how science proves one individual from another. A fetus has unique human DNA from the mother. Your invited bum analogy was better.

                  No foul. Your arguments are refuted.

                  Mine stand.

    2. Liberty comes from our natural right as sapient beings to be free from the initiatory use of force.

      1. Civilization requires that people play by rules.

        Those who don’t will be forced to.

        The only alternative theoretically available to those who don’t conform to the rules of civilization is to have absolutely no contact with civilization.

        Who is saying they want to do that?

        Or are you saying we will never have liberty so why not accept all forms of coercion?

        1. On-Topic; Reason being a generally ‘National’ coverage arena. The USA ‘Federal’ government is a “Union” of States most notably for a strong national defense against foreign attacks and a contract about certain ‘well defined’ but small set of State Rules.

          The ‘Feds’ were never granted any authority to make ‘rules’ over the people. It’s sad so many citizens never take the time to realize the foundation of the USA and why it was so great.

          10th Amendment
          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

          1. Once again you haven’t addressed much less refuted my argument.

            Do you think civilization requires rules?

            Do you think those rules prevent liberty?

    3. Ladies and gentlemen, I have posted a comment below and would appreciate your interaction. Thank you.

  28. Around the 1950’s, English millionaire Anthony Fisher approached Friedrich Hayek with the idea of starting a new political party due to his frustration with the Labour government in charge at the time.

    Hayek suggested that Fisher instead pursue organizing and financing think tanks instead saying they would be more influential. As it turns out, Hayek was right. Fisher went on to found the Institute for Economic Affairs and then later the Atlas Network which would help form think tanks in the U.S. and Europe. Most of the think tanks formed thanks to Fisher and the Atlas Network are highly influential.

    Imagine all of the libertarians on chat boards like this and in other venues, instead of arguing semantics, expend their time and effort forming and organizing think tanks and other political organizations (including online and print publications) to influence public policy? This as opposed to wasting time on a political party that can barely eek out 1 to 3% for presidential races and break double digit vote totals on the state and local level if they’re lucky?

    So, in light of the above facts, which efforts are worth one’s time and effort? I will wait.

    1. “instead of arguing semantics, expend their time and effort forming and organizing think tanks “

      I’d say starting organizing think tanks is a great idea and will generate some great meaningful ideas if you limit participation to those who demonstrate commitment to truth as discerned by logic and science.

      Otherwise people, bigots, whose agendas can’t withstand the scrutiny of truth will derail the conversation and sow discord as you see on every discussion board today.

    2. P.S. you probably want to change your bullshit name unless you want to alert every national security system every time you post.

  29. An article on The Verge on what happens when a small NH town is granted surplus military equipment (hint, they use it):

    https://www.theverge.com/22599932/bitcoin-raid-keene-new-hampshire-ian-freeman-libertarian-prosecution

  30. I’m really grateful for this useful information… thanks for sharing this valuable content with us. TotalAV security support. For any technical support and refund related query contact TotalAV customer support team to get instant help

Please to post comments