Zach Weissmueller: Will the Mises Caucus Save or Kill the Libertarian Party?
The L.P. just held its most-momentous convention in years. Here's what is next for the third-largest political party in the country.

Is the Libertarian Party (LP) being "trumpified?" Or is it now—finally!—home to the second coming of the Ron Paul Revolution?
If you're a watcher of Reason's videos, you know that a few weeks ago, I went to Reno, Nevada, to cover the long-awaited, much-anticipated Libertarian Party national convention, where a group called the Mises Caucus took over the party by winning all the leadership positions. I'm joined today by Reason video producer Zach Weissmueller, who coordinated and directed our video coverage (here's a full playlist).
Founded in 2017 by Michael Heise, the Mises Caucus has long pledged to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again." Over the past several years, it's taken control of several dozen state parties. Caucus members call themselves the Ron Paul Revolution 2.0, stress the need for bolder messaging, and came to Reno promising to remove the party's longstanding pro-choice plank, push for less emphasis on open-borders-style immigration, and strip out platform language condemning "bigotry as irrational and repugnant" that dates back to 1974. They also stress that the L.P. national's response to Covid restrictions was far too timid and accommodating.
Critics of the Mises Caucus say the group is filled with shitposting edgelords who are tacking hard toward Trump fans, social conservatives, and even people with alt-right sympathies. They worry that the Mises Caucus takeover will be the end of the Libertarian Party.
For today's podcast, I talk with Zach about we saw in Reno, the often-heated response to Reason's coverage of the convention, and what the future not just of the L.P. but of the bigger libertarian movement looks like.
Today's sponsor:
- Are you feeling burned out? BetterHelp is an accessible and affordable source for professional counseling. BetterHelp assesses your needs and matches you with a licensed therapist you can start talking to in under 24 hours, all online. As a Reason Interview listener, you'll get 10 percent off your first month by visiting our sponsor at BetterHelp.com/TRI.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No. Change it, yes. But lack of Mises Caucus takeover would also change it.
I even have made $30,030 simply in five weeks clearly working parttime from my loft. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was depleted and fortunately I tracked down this top web-based task and with this I am in a situation to get thousands straightforwardly through my home. Everyone can get this best vocation and can acquire dollars on-line going this link..> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Is the Libertarian Party (LP) being "trumpified?" Or is it now—finally!—home to the second coming of the Ron Paul Revolution?
Weird false dichotomy.
How about actually finally pushing libertarian ideals in a cohesive and active manner intended to actually cause changes towards liberty?
C’mon man, Orange Man Badding is so much fun.
NOTHING is as stale as “orange man bad”!
(With the implied idea being that “anyone who says bad things about Orange Man, no matter HOW long and well-documented the list of Trump evils may be, such bad-things-sayer must be a stupid moron”).
Albert Einstein delivers a long lecture with 553 equations and tons of evidence. Conservative moron will say that Einstein said “stuff and stuff is relative”, and walk smugly away, thinking that they have “summarized” Einstein!
Conservative moron will ATTEMPT TO START to tour Holocaust museums and “summarize” by saying “Mustache Man Bad”! (And skip the tour, lest they might actually learn something).
Fucking stupid, smart-ass moronic conservatives STOP smugly posting vacuous “Orange Man Bad”, if you EVER expect to convince data-driven thinkers of ANYTHING!
All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!
Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!
Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!
We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!
These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!
Fuck off, troll.
Did he do his copy pasta of that “Orange Man Bad alright” or his retarded salon link bullshit?
Confession: I peeked.
Eat shit and die, spastic TDS-addled asshole. And I mean that in a friendly manner.
Grey bars all the way down for the shit-eating sqrl.
Put up with that for longer than I should have.
You first, SmegmaLung! You hypocrite! If you are NOT a hypocrite, you will GLADLY lead by example!
(PS, WHEN are you gonna refute a DAMNED thing that I write, with something more intelligent and well-informed than grade-school diaper-shitting?)
Show us how it's done, Sevo the Pedo! Ye who has "muted" me and SUPPOSEDLY doesn't read my pearls of wisdom! Go trample yourself in your own pig-shit, pearly swine! Rhine-stone pig-pedo in a speedo!
SmegmaLung, this is NO way for you to earn yourself a SQRL necklace! NO SQRL necklace for YOU! BAD dog!
SmegmaLung AKA Swine-Stone Cowboy!!! Pearl-handled Pig!
Oh Ye Rhinestone-whine-stone pig-pedo in a speedo! What is YOUR favorite year of Rhine-whine-wine, Ye Greatest of ALL Great-Sour-Grapes Oink-oink-oenophiles?
The below poetry is dedicated to Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo,
AKA “SmegmaLung”!
Sitting on a park bench
Eyeing little boys with bad intent
Snot's running down his nose
Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes
Hey, SmegmaLung!
Drying in the cold sun
Watching as the frilly panties run
Hey, SmegmaLung!
Feeling like a dead duck
Spitting out pieces of his broken luck
Oh, SmegmaLung!
Sun streaking cold
A hateful man wandering lonely
Insulting others the only way he knows
Brain hurts bad as he tries to think
Goes down to the bog to spread his stink
Feeling alone
The army's up the road
Salvation a la mode and a cup of tea
SmegmaLung, my friend
Don't you start away uneasy
You poor old sod
You see, it's only me
By you insulting me,
The rotting goes to thee!
Now that's just crazy talk.
Are we still not done saying all that needs to be said about this?
I checked, there are 9 posts about this on the last 24 days, or almost 3 posts a week.
Get over it.
And this doesn't count the fact that half of those are podcasts.
This is at least a topic that a libertarian website should be making multiple posts over.
Libertarian site talking about the Libertarian Party. Of course it's the Trumpheads who complain.
Well, not so much as the TDS-addled piles of shit like you.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
"Purported libertarian site talking shit about the Libertarian Party. Of course it's the Trumpheads who complain."
Fixed that for you, Brandywhine.
It would be nice if they spilled as much ink on any number of rights violations being perpetrated by the federal government right now, but I can’t fault them for discussing the biggest party shakeup in recent memory.
Wasn't the complaint always that reason was ignoring the LP?
Kind of a weird flex to only pay attention to it because you despise who got 70% of the votes for the party.
When the vast majority of LP members are supporting such obvious badthink, maybe it's time for the Reasonistas to explore having superdelegates, like the Democrats do.
The complaint I saw was when the MC was shut out in NH due to partisan palace politics.
It will take years for Reason to get over their pearl clutching for anything that makes the Libertarian party more libertarian--and less slightly edgy, free-spirited liberal.
"I checked, there are 9 posts about this on the last 24 days, or almost 3 posts a week."
The crime isn't that they are writing so much about this. The crime is that they couldn't be fucking bothered to talk about the LP for the past 20 years other than little puff pieces. "Here's a thing that happened, now let's get on to trump!"
But Mises actually shakes things up, and Reason is suddenly very interested in what is happening in the party. Please.
Reason seems to be very resistant to anything that upsets the establishment/status quo.
I commend the libertarians responsible for trying something new with the miles caucus
*that should of course read *mises* caucus
#metoo What it's been doing is going nowhere.
The complaint / whine that too many people call you guys Democrats comes down to your fear of mean tweets. I remember one or two of your staffers literally saying they'd vote for Biden because Trump was divisive; one of the Volokhers said he'd vote for Biden because Trump spent too much, and while Volokhers are not Reason employees, that pretty much summed up those Reasonoids' attitude.
Jacob Sollum was (and is) the worst of the bunch, by far. He still pops out a TDS-riddled article once in a while, and it's beyond bizarre.
Another point: your continued emphasis on practical results of policies with nary a mention of good old individual rights. I do not include the gas tax holiday article; it clearly points out that the money is going to be printed and spent one way or another.
The best thing Reason could do is move out of Washington DC. What good do you get from being there? You are a magazine, not a bunch of lobbyists, you do not need to be on the scene to get the latest breaking news, and you can't afford the staff to uncover any breaking news ahead of the NYT, WaPo, and MSNBC who you quote and reference so much.
Them moving isnt enough. They are too far gone. They need to fire everyone and hire people outside major cities.
Eh, maybe. They changed when they moved to DC. They can change again.
But the staff isn't all in d.c. it includes new york and cali.
There really isn't anyone in Cali other than Suderman, and he does no real libertarian writing- he writes for the OC Register and is locked into standard political Red Blue nonsense.
Sullum is in Dallas I believe. Shackford is in Colorado.
But nobody is in the real red enclaves as near as I can tell.
BUT BUTT! Romellmann shows us you don't need to live in Deplorable land. You just need to visit the fucking places you are reporting on. If you are using NYT articles as sources for what is happening in San Francisco, you are not doing this right.
Romellman has been a breath of fresh air, to be sure.
Amen.
I believe Tuchille (or however you spell his name) lives in rural AZ.
But individual rights are so hard to reconcile with Reasontarian hopes for a properly managed society where people just listen to their betters.
"you can't afford the staff to uncover any breaking news ahead of the NYT, WaPo, and MSNBC who you quote and reference so much."
They're not even trying. They mostly just troll Twitter all day. You can do that from anywhere!
Probably neither.
This is real horseshit:
"Caucus members call themselves the Ron Paul Revolution 2.0, stress the need for bolder messaging, and came to Reno promising to remove the party's longstanding pro-choice plank, push for less emphasis on open-borders-style immigration, and strip out platform language condemning "bigotry as irrational and repugnant" that dates back to 1974."
Show me where they were promising to do that. Here is their platform:
https://lpmisescaucus.com/platform/
Please show me.
And yet they did it.
You don't know what they did Brandy, because you are just here night after night declaring that because they didn't use 5 magic words it means everything they've ever said (that you never looked at) is moot. Please give the concern trolling a rest.
That's not concern strolling, that's attempting to justify the asshole's raging case of TDS.
Fuck off and die, Brandyshit.
Except they didn’t.
"Plank 6 – Lifestyle Choices: We take no stance on the personal, cultural, or social preferences of individuals or groups. One’s lifestyle is merely an extension of their property rights. Thus, no individual or group can rightfully claim jurisdiction over the lifestyle of another. We assert only that any and all lifestyle choices must not violate the property rights of others.
"Plank 7 – Identity Politics: We categorically reject all forms of identity politics as nothing more than weaponized tribal collectivism that is antithetical to individualism."
Just try defending THAT at your next D.C. cocktail party.
A bunch of gobbledygook nonsense that's completely unnecessary. The LP needs to focus on one issue, stopping government from initiating force. The easiest way to get people to agree is to only have one issue.
Lying Jeffy hardest hit.
"Plank 6 – Lifestyle Choices: We take no stance on the personal, cultural, or social preferences of individuals or groups. One’s lifestyle is merely an extension of their property rights. Thus, no individual or group can rightfully claim jurisdiction over the lifestyle of another. We assert only that any and all lifestyle choices must not violate the property rights of others.
Oh good heavens. This is the apotheosis of "thin libertarianism" I suppose.
There is a difference between choices that ought to be illegal (violations of the NAP), and choices that shouldn't be illegal but ought to be discouraged or condemned. For example, in Libertopia, drunk driving would presumably be legal (since no NAP violation occurs simply by driving, only if the driver actually hits someone or something). However, the decision to drive drunk, vs. the decision to not drive drunk, are not two equivalent decisions that moral people should "take no stance". Similarly, in Libertopia, cocaine would be legal; but the decision to start a cocaine habit, vs. the decision not to start a cocaine habit, are not morally equivalent.
Here is another way to put it. I posit that a True Libertarian would argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 should be repealed, because it infringes upon freedom of association. But, the interested onlooker might then ask, if there is no Civil Rights Act, then what is to stop bigots from discriminating and refusing service arbitrarily to minority groups, to the extent that they might have no businesses at all willing to cater to them? My response would be that, with a combination of economic forces (money has the same color everywhere), and social moral suasion, that something like the Civil Rights Act would ultimately be unnecessary, because the amount of actual bigotry that would be manifested in the world would be vanishingly small in practice. But, it would take BOTH economics AND moral suasion for this to happen. Economic forces alone won't cut it - after all the Jim Crow South lost out on a great deal of economic growth because they were insistent on enforcing racial segregation to their great expense. But, if we are to adopt the "thin libertarian"/Mises Caucus philosophy of "take no stance" of all lifestyle choices, it would mean accepting the decision to be a bigot, vs. the decision to not be a bigot, as being equivalent choices, neither one of which should be praised or condemned if there is no NAP violation occurring. So in this world, bigotry is not marginalized, it is instead normalized as being just as equivalent as any other choice.
Seems to me, "thin libertarianism" really is just disguised moral relativism.
That makes sense. As I recall, Ayn Rand opposed libertarianism for much the same reasons.
Seems to me, "Jeff libertarianism" really is just blatantly obvious authoritarianism.
He is just an idiot. He thinks security clearances mean background checks in the other thread. And apparently think background checks ask your HS counselor about you. Lol.
Seems to me, the two of you are co-dependent trolls.
Oh? How are we "trolls", Jeff?
Now look who's being the sealion.
Lol. Says the guy making excuses for his new bf sarc when he says something obviously wrong in the other thread.
You are the one who claims to know more about sarc's life than himself.
Wouldn't all the roads in Libertopia be privately owned so a condition of use could be no drunk driving? This of course is hypothetical because in Libertopia there are flying robot cars you order on your phone.
Well sure that is possible, but in that case, the violation wouldn't be "drunk driving" per se, it would be "violating the terms of the usage agreement".
And yes I will be first in line for a flying robot car.
And of course this invalidates your points.
No, it doesn't. In Libertopia, driving drunk would not be illegal per se because it wouldn't be a violation of the NAP. It might only be a contract violation if driving on private roads, but not because of drunk driving per se, because of breaking the rules of the contract.
Who cares? In either case it won't happen.
For some reason you think that a snobbish Top Man giving you Approval (tm) for your life decisions is important in this world. Because for some reason, you think this is individualism.
In Libertopia, if a person is driving drunk on their own property, it is their own business. If they are driving drunk on someone else's land, that owner is incentivized to prevent that action.
Whether you have found a scold to shame them or not would not be important.
To be fair, I don't think he's saying such institutions are important, merely that they exist-- and to his credit he is spelling out that they should not have use-of-force authority.
Organizations from churches to the Boy Scouts will always try to persuade/shame people into "good" civic behavior; and that's fine, as long as the force-wielders don't get into that business.
The NAP deals with objective morality and bigotry is in the realm of subjective morality.
And?
Is libertarianism a moral philosophy?
Bigotry is far more NECESSARY than that to the 'paleolibertarian' drive. The Mises caucus is misnamed imo - it is really the Rothbard/Rockwell caucus.
SO: WHY TALK ABOUT RACE AT ALL?
If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?
Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.” - Murray Rothbard from a 1994 article archived on Rockwell
The tldr:
If the welfare state is abolished and the free market takes its place, then not everyone will win. Those who lose will tend to bunch along ethnic lines and therefore a vigorous defense of the free market will require that we call those ethnic losers genetically stupid as well. Because 'science'.
This is the sort of edgelordy bullshit that Libertarians will now be required to defend as necessary to Libertarianism.
Yes, the above is rather sad.
Two things get lost in the sauce: Laziness (willfully doing less than one is capable of, and free-riding in doing so) isn't genetic at all. It is freely chosen. The free market takes care of it quite well... Coercive socialism does not! Especially since the boss-caste socialists free-ride by "selling" their coercive talk, rather than working!
#2, Government-Almighty coercion in the form of licensing laws (making it harder for the poor to get a job, to protect the jobs of those who already have jobs) is nothing but throwing fuel on the fires on inequality!
"This is the sort of edgelordy bullshit that Libertarians will now be required to defend as necessary to Libertarianism."
Love watching people crawl out of the cracks spouting the same text that they read on other sites ("Edgelordy").
Go find me a leader of MC who would say anything other than, "Well Rothbard was wrong and we don't support that."
Well perhaps the Top Men of the Mises Caucus know that that's shit. That was another one of Rothbard's gems - Libertarianism via a Leninist-like vanguard of the καθαρός - pure righteous Cathari.
But that's why useful idiots (eg many of the commenters here who use the same argument on threads related to police abuses, capital punishment, crime/imprisonment, immigration, etc) are useful.
In the end it is cultural factors that would drive "clumping" of tribes in lower income segments...one reason to have govt subsidizes is to "numb" the lower tribes from action that would change their culture and hence increase ability and income moving up the ladder. But social scientists and govt would not be needed would they? Keeping people "down" is in politicians interest.
Well, in the interviews Nick did with the Mises Caucus members, they all talked about the need to do those things when Nick asked them about it. So not really sure how this is horseshit. More importantly, imo, I think they all gave pretty solid answers of why those planks/issues need to be addressed/changed. For example, I think it is completely legitimate to have the party not take a stance on abortion. I've seen libertarian philosophy used to reach pro-life and pro-choice stances.
Hi
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. (scs-02) Immediately while I've misplaced my ultimate business, I become exhausted and fortunately I observed this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in a function to acquire hundreds immediately via my home. Everybody is capable of get this satisfactory career &
can benefit extra greenbacks on line going this article.......... http://payout11.tk
"Here's what is next for the third-largest political party in the country."
Losing again.
And possibly pulling enough votes from the republican candidate to leave the fascists in charge.
Which is of course proof that in fact they are the party of Trump. They are so interested in helping trump that they will soak votes away from trump and cause him to lose.
Yes we can!
"Will the Mises Caucus Save or Kill the Libertarian Party?"
Depends on what you mean by "save."
If by "save," you mean is this an opportunity to bring the LP back to core libertarian principles, maybe.
But if you mean, "Will it make the lefties like us more and invite us to their cool cocktail parties as their quirky libertarian friends," then definitely not.
Real libertarians don't drink fru fru drinks anyways. Except whiskey mules. Because they are delicious.
"But if you mean, "Will it make the lefties like us more and invite us to their cool cocktail parties as their quirky libertarian friends," then definitely not."
ENB hardest hit.
I know this is a crazy idea but hear me out, how about they focus on LIBERTY! You know the idea that we should all be free to act as we wish as long as it doesn't violate the liberty of others? Maybe they can advocate to apply the NAP to government employees? Yes this is far out stuff but I honestly think we can get people behind it.
Your newsletter? I don't want it.
Being a slave is a choice.
Sevo the Pedo (Hippo in a Speedo) willfully enslaves itself to the Trump Cult! It has pro-Trump TDS!
Oh, and this is a particularly odious bit of drek from (I assume) Zack:
"strip out platform language condemning "bigotry as irrational and repugnant" that dates back to 1974."
First, Zack is using "dates back" to make you think it has been a party plank for all that time. This is not true, and he is a terrible pundit for disingenuously trying to imply it. Of the 25 Biannual platforms of the party (Starting in 72), 15 lacked this language. Second, you need to read the language as a part of the full position statement:
"Equality of the rights under law should not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin, or sexual preference. We shall oppose any governmental attempts to regulate purely private discrimination. However, we condemn bigotry as irrational and unjust."
Note that this statement was completely about the government being disallowed from interfering in the private choices of association. The government must not discriminate, and it must not interfere with private discrimination.
By 1980, the "Bigotry" language had been removed from the platform, though the specific message remained the same: People ought to be allowed to associate with whomever they want, and the government should not discriminate whatsoever.
Then in 2008, the party adopted this platform:
"We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs."
So note that, while they recycle the "bigotry" language, this plank has completely changed. It is not the same plank that was present in 1974. They have now completely dropped the notion that the government should stay out of private association. This is when the Libertarian party began moving to "Just bake the damn cake!"
So everything Zach is implying here is absolutely misleading. He is mischaracterizing the actual platform language (which, let's be honest, he likely never read). He is doing this as a counterpoint to the Mises claim that they are "Returning the LP to the Libertarians". But that only works if you are fooled by his disingenuous implication that the "Bigotry" language has been there "since" 1974, and if you don't read the actual language. Once you read the language, you understand that not only has this "Bigotry" language been out of the platform longer than it has been in, but also that "Bigotry" language notwithstanding, the 2008 plank was absolutely a retreat from the standard Libertarian message that the government doesn't have the right to interfere with private choices.
"Note that this statement was completely about the government being disallowed from interfering in the private choices of association."
But modern libertarians embrace the mystical duality of people and government, right?
What!?! A Reason editor misleading a topic that benefits far left progressives! Only on days that end in Y.
"the 2008 plank was absolutely a retreat from the standard Libertarian message that the government doesn't have the right to interfere with private choices."
And this is an important point to make.
While Brandy (et al) will be here in a minute I'm sure to fret about how the Libertarian Party needs to stop being so dogmatic and puritan, he has also in the same threads insisted that the Libertarian Party is selling out its principles when, say, de-emphasizing abortion rules (which, btw, have been planks in the past). So which is it? Should they be principled, or should they be inclusive. We know Brandy's answer: whatever is less likely to offend Brandy's left-leaning proclivities.
But I argue we need to be principled. Abortion is a grey area because it depends on where you believe human rights begin. I would have argued for a platform plank that acknowledges this, nonetheless. As recently as 2006, the platform acknowledged exactly this.
But the specific plank about discrimination was absolutely a departure from Libertarian principles. The Libertarian Party abandoned the position that the government does not have the right to interfere in private transactions. They ceded this ground to the left, and the "Just bake the damn cakes" nonsense was one of the biggest reasons people were upset with the leadership. In addition, it did nothing to distinguish the Libertarian party from the SJW Left. It joined their Rhetoric, while offering no solution except what the Left provided.
This is exactly what the Mises Caucus called "Vote Chasing". They were abandoning principles to get votes that were never going to come to them. Instead they could have been educating people how a world free of government caused problems would make all of our lives 10x easier. They could have been demolishing the moral case for government trying to perfect our thoughts.
Overt, glad to see you defending the MC. Have you aligned more to their side? I've been following them since NH. And do agree with most of their stances. Was just curious on your take.
If you read my stances during the Pandemic, I think you will find that I am pretty much in lock step with the MC. The greatest priority for liberty over the last 2 years should have been resisting the pandemic state. That the LP and others felt Racism was the cause of the hour is insanity, and was playing right into the authoritarian playbook.
I said this in the other MC articles, but the LP lost an entire generation of young adults with this pandering. When people objected to Pandemic State, or Racial Outrage, the LP was there to join the lefties and government condemning those objectors. But they could not offer any solutions, and so anyone they were pleasing with this signaling naturally joined the leftist authoritarians.
I also think obsession with Economics is the most important point. Again, as I said in other MC articles, economics may not be the sum total of issues, but almost every individual action- including social actions- require economic liberty. We cannot be socially liberal if our economic choices are mandated by the state.
Now is the time to hit energy regulations without mercy
In addition, it did nothing to distinguish the Libertarian party from the SJW Left. It joined their Rhetoric, while offering no solution except what the Left provided.
Why is it that giving a sop to the SJW Left is such a terrible thing, but giving multiple sops to the Right is no big deal?
The Mises Caucus decidedly moved towards Team Red with their abortion position. Why isn't this a bad thing for that reason alone?
This is exactly what the Mises Caucus called "Vote Chasing". They were abandoning principles to get votes that were never going to come to them
Would it be "vote chasing" to abandon a libertarian "open borders" philosophy in order to chase votes from disaffected right-wingers?
"Why is it that giving a sop to the SJW Left is such a terrible thing, but giving multiple sops to the Right is no big deal?"
I dunno. I didn't argue that, so go find someone who will.
I argued that by abandoning advocating rights of free association, while mouthing SJW platitudes, the LP failed to give the value proposition of Libertarianism. That has nothing to do with "giving multiple sops to the Right". It has to do with abandoning one of the key rights of a human (freedom of association).
"The Mises Caucus decidedly moved towards Team Red with their abortion position. Why isn't this a bad thing for that reason alone?"
Because they are dealing with principles, while all you seem to care about is Right vs Left. It is a fact that people have a right to life, and a right to associated. There is no question that the Libertarian answer to "racism" is that people should be allowed to associate how they please and that it is wrong for the government to interfere with that. That is a basic libertarian principle that was on the platform from '72 until '08.
Abortion is not based on principle. Abortion comes down to when the rights of a human begin. Once you have solved that, the moral principles naturally follow. Because there is no agreement in the party as to where human rights begin, we cannot apply those principles. This is not a sop to the right, it is the consistent application of principles.
So if the Republican Party somehow blocked Trump from running in their primary and he approached the LP reminding them of his long support of anti-interventionism, free market capitalism legalizing all drugs, gay marriage and his deregulatory successes as president would they let him seek their nomination? He's certainly no less libertarian than the GayJay/Weld ticket or even Bob. Barr.
I'd love to see Trump as the LP nominee on the ballot in all 50 states running against the two major parties. Hell, he'd probably win!
That's... actually a great idea.
Only way the LP could ever win, and might actually lead to a relevant 3rd party longer term.
Unfortunately, there's no chance of a free or fair election anymore, so TPTB would never let it happen
Oh they might let it happen, if they feel that the LP is any kind of threat to their power. Let’s not forget that Hillary and the
DNCmedia decided to push Trump during the Republican primaries because they thought he’d be easier to beat in the general.Is this an insurrection? Abortion protestors shut down a state government today.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PPAWI/status/1539648047466295296
I watched Nick interview Angela McCardle. Nick had his little talking points (probably from Sarwark) and it was the usual smug Nick oozing his distaste for the Mises caucus. "mmm" Nick should his contemptuous distaste for well libertarians again and again. When Nick interviews some marxist or leftie type he is always so gracious.."we have so much in common"..and "libertarians are woke..we pledge not to be racist..to support trans rights" and so on. All to be the cool kid at the next Salon or Slate or WAPO party.
Does any political party pledge to not be offending? To not be "bigots"? Hell the Democratic party has made European Males who are Christian enemy number one again and again "white supremacy..white math..white privilege.
For the record Nick:
Abortion: Libertarians can be on both sides. Life and Liberty can apply equally to both the mother and fetus in some eyes. So it isn't a deal breaker as a libertarian.
Open Borders: some utopian insanity. Nation States can be the best protector of liberty. End the warfare/welfare state and we can talk about immigration.
Stop being afraid to be a libertarian. You have the right to discriminate...the govt doesn't but you do. Nothing wrong with saying that in a free society.
You have the right to discriminate...the govt doesn't but you do. Nothing wrong with saying that in a free society.
Yes there is something wrong with saying that from a libertarian perspective, when discussing discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation. Because it is a type of collectivism, and a particularly ugly one at that. Racial/sexual discrimination judges entire groups collectively based on superficial characteristics.
It shouldn't be illegal, but the decision to be a bigot, vs. the decision to not be a bigot, shouldn't be treated as morally equivalent either.
Nothing in libertarianism says that you can't be a "collectivist" or hold "collectivist beliefs". Libertarianism simply says that you can't use force (including the state) to impose your collectivist beliefs on others.
I see nothing "ugly" about being a gay man and wanting to rent my apartment preferentially to other gay men. I see nothing "ugly" about being a Polish Jew and wanting to build my business by hiring other Polish Jews, people whose culture and religion I share and understand.
Being a homosexual or a Jew or Polish or whatever is not a "superficial characteristic"; sexuality, ethnicity, and religion affect every part of someone's life and way of interacting.
That is precisely why, in a free society, you should be able to discriminate based on such characteristics.
Nothing in libertarianism says that you can't be a "collectivist" or hold "collectivist beliefs". Libertarianism simply says that you can't use force (including the state) to impose your collectivist beliefs on others.
Once again this is the moral relativism inherent in Mises Caucus libertarianism. The decision to be a collectivist, vs. the decision to not be a collectivist, are supposedly morally equivalent.
I see nothing "ugly" about being a gay man and wanting to rent my apartment preferentially to other gay men. I see nothing "ugly" about being a Polish Jew and wanting to build my business by hiring other Polish Jews, people whose culture and religion I share and understand.
The ugly part is when you take someone's sexual orientation, or ethnicity, or religion, and use that to form sweeping judgments about their moral character. How do you know that the other Polish Jews that you hire will share your same commitment to building your business that you do? Because they're Polish and Jewish? I'm sure there are Polish Jews who work very hard and would assist you in building your business, but I'm also pretty sure there are Polish Jews who are lazy and don't give a damn about building your business, and who just want a paycheck. But you would hire them anyway, because they are Polish Jews. You are insulting the Polish Jews who work hard, by treating them as no different than the ones who are lazy, because you do not even bother to discover who they really are, only their superficial traits like ethnicity and religion.
That is precisely why, in a free society, you should be able to discriminate based on such characteristics.
It should be legal. But, the decision to be a bigot, much like the decision to drive drunk, or the decision to start a cocaine habit, they shouldn't be treated as morally equivalent as the decision to not be a bigot, to not drive drunk, or to not start a cocaine habit.
You really didn't understand the point he made. Did you? If you want to join your socialist buddies and live in a community, have at it. Libertarians don't give an actual fuck. When you try to force people to join you, that is when they care. Sort of like you saying we should all do what government experts tell us.
Well, you certainly didn't understand it, and you are just responding here because you're a creepy stalker troll.
No. I actually understood it.
Nothing in libertarianism says that you can't be a "collectivist" or hold "collectivist beliefs". Libertarianism simply says that you can't use force (including the state) to impose your collectivist beliefs on others.
Do you understand his point dummy? You've really decided to embarrassing yourself tonight. Then again, I think you're so deluded you are incapable of embarrassment.
chemjeff very clearly and repeatedly illustrated the difference between "this thing is unethical and morally sub-standard" v/s "this thing should be illegal". Authoritarians like JesseBahnFuhrer cannot or will not understand the distinction... For them, all good things must be mandated, and all bad things forbidden, leaving us with... ZERO personal freedom!!! All Hail Der JesseBahnFuhrer and OBEY, now!
Yes, and the problems with his statements were:
(1) The LP is a political party, not a church. As such, it has no business telling people what is ethical/unethical.
(1) His moral compass is broken. But then, yours is as well.
Libertarianism doesn't make any pronouncements on most moral issues, just like it doesn't make any pronouncements on most mathematical issues. Libertarianism is a specific ideology about the relationship between man and state.
You're thinking of this in terms of a false dichotomy: either (1) I treat people as individuals completely separate from sexual orientation, ethnicity, and religion, or (2) I ignore all individual characteristics and just prejudge everybody based on group membership.
If I'm a Polish Jew, I understand other Polish Jews, their language, their mannerisms, their backgrounds. That means that I can interview and judge them much better than people from backgrounds I don't know. On top of that, if they are part of the same ethnic minority and community as me, they have a strong incentive to be honest or face ostracism.
This isn't hypothetical, these kinds of ethnically cohesive communities are the basis on which immigrant communities have succeeded in the US. It is utterly deplorable that you want to destroy such voluntary and beneficial cooperation based on some bizarre, autistic belief about how real people cooperate in the real world.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. As long as you support the NAP and a society based on voluntary, private arrangements, the fact that you are a morally reprehensible person and self-aggrandizing prick is irrelevant as far as libertarianism is concerned. Of course, don't expect to be invited to a lot of parties or dinners.
I might add that if I'm a Polish Jew, I might also simply hire other recent immigrant Polish Jews in order to help them and in order to help my community. I consider that a perfectly moral and good thing to do as well.
My old boss hired exclusively in the Persian community, mostly college grads who recently immigrated so they would have a steady income as they learned their way through American culture and a place they could work and speak Farsi without having to worry about being discriminated against. I was the only white American in 16 years working there.
And if I’m reading jeff correctly, he thinks that guy was morally repugnant.
From your story, it sure sounds like your boss was condescending and infantilizing towards his Persian employees. Much like many left-wingers will act as bigots towards groups that they feel like are discriminated against, by condescendingly assuming that they are helpless without the special privileges that they and only they can provide. This type of bigotry is not as bad as the hateful bigotry of racial hatred, but it is still bad enough and when it comes to a philosophy that is premised on individual liberty, shouldn't be preferred.
Seriously? One Persian immigrant helping other Persian immigrants is "condescending and infantilizing"?
You know, Chemjeff, why don't you just cut your losses and stop putting YOUR bigotry and ignorance on display again and again.
If I'm a Polish Jew, I understand other Polish Jews
No, you understand a *stereotype* of a Polish Jew, and you impose that stereotype onto everyone else who is also a Jew from Poland. Once again you don't even bother to understand who the individual is, only tribal membership is what's important.
On top of that, if they are part of the same ethnic minority and community as me, they have a strong incentive to be honest or face ostracism.
Oh, so now you want to use ethnicity as a weapon to enforce tribal loyalty. If someone doesn't conform to the stereotype that you impose upon them, then they are kicked out of the tribe? How is this any different than Biden's "if you don't vote for me you ain't black" comment? Because the implication of course is that black people vote for Democrats and if a black person doesn't, then that person is a race traitor. If a Polish Jew doesn't do what the "community of Polish Jews" expects from them, then that person is kicked out of the Polish Jew club. How is this at all a sign of a morally superior person, especially from a libertarian perspective which values the rights of *individuals* over "group rights" or other collectivism?
And yes I am well aware of how immigrant communities tended to work over time in this country. I also note that these clusters of immigrant communities have largely vanished as separate communities, because the American focus on assimilation and individual rights tends not to support the concept of secluded ethnic enclaves. That is a point of pride in America that is lacking in many other places.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I understand the cultural references, ideas, idioms, preferences, etc. of people whose culture I grew up with. I know how to read people from a culture that I'm familiar with much better than I know how to read people from cultures that I don't know.
No, I'm saying that people who are members of the same community tend to behave more responsibly towards each other. Trying to portray this elementary fact about human relations in terms of using "ethnicity as a weapon to enforce tribal loyalty" is downright vile of y
Real people in the real world live in communities; we share cultures, ideas, religions, and morality. We have social networks and families that connect us. This is the basis of human societies.
It's mystifying to me how you can't understand that. Chemjeff, are you just an ignorant loner? An incel? Are you autistic? Whatever you are, you need to understand that normal, social, moral people don't share your reprehensible, atomistic view of humans in society.
"Once again this is the moral relativism inherent in Mises Caucus libertarianism. The decision to be a collectivist, vs. the decision to not be a collectivist, are supposedly morally equivalent."
There is no moral relativism. It is merely that SOME things are morally neutral. Specifically things that don't hurt other people.
But please, Chemjeff- tell us how a woman who wants to room with Women, and not men, is immoral. Tell me how a man who only wants to date other men is immoral. These are both sex-based discrimination. Are you going to condemn them? If not, what is your moral principle?
"...Being a homosexual or a Jew or Polish or whatever is not a "superficial characteristic"; sexuality, ethnicity, and religion affect every part of someone's life and way of interacting..."
Taking issue, but supporting your point:
It is irrelevant whether the characteristic is "superficial" or otherwise; your point stands.
I could well dislike, oh, left-handed people, and so long as the government takes no action, my choice benefits me or otherwise by economic means.
I agree with you that as far as libertarianism is concerned, it doesn't matter whether your dislike of other groups is rational or not.
But Chemjeff's positions seems to be that discrimination based on sexual orientation, religion, and/or ethnicity should be legal but that the LP has a moral duty to condemn it.
That's why I'm pointing out that, even from a moral point of view, discrimination based on those factors is often not just rational but the right thing to do.
"...discrimination based on those factors is often not just rational but the right thing to do." OFTEN, yes... ALWAYS, no! (Humans are complex, so the answers need to be complex). So thanks for using "often" and not "always".
If we ALWAYS engage in this kind of behavior, then what happens to the man or woman (or "other"!) who belongs to NO tribe whatsoever! Such non-belongers will ??? be left with ONLY the possibility of being hired by a tribe of non-belongers!!! And the tribe of non-belongers will immediately schism on stupid bullshit little sticky points, and then... No one will hire them!
If you belong to no tribe whatsoever, you're probably in a mental institution or in solitary confinement in prison; this is not a normal mental state for human beings.
However, on the off chance that you don't belong to any tribe, that you are the ideal inhuman cog in the machine, fear not: the modern corporation is greedy and soulless enough to keep you fed, entertained, housed, and employed. In fact, from their point of view, people like that are actually preferable.
What I hear is Chemjeff saying to be a bigot and claiming also to be a libertarian is cognitive dissonance. After all, if one believes in judging entire groups collectively, that's a pretty slippery slope down which one's belief in individual rights may possibly slide.
Well put! Thanks!
Yes, that's what Chemjeff is saying. And he is wrong both on his ethical analysis and on whether such an ethical analysis is relevant to the LP or libertarianism.
Yes there is something wrong with saying that from a libertarian perspective, when discussing discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation. Because it is a type of collectivism, and a particularly ugly one at that. Racial/sexual discrimination judges entire groups collectively based on superficial characteristics.
This now requires we make a clear definition of bigotry: When Biden said he would only consider a "woman of color" for the next Supreme Court nomination, this explicitly excluded groups based on their superficial characteristics, yet this was seen as progressive and forward thinking. It was... an anti-bigotry decision, if you will.
Again, no one I can think of would claim to be FOR bigotry, but when we have this hard a time defining even what it is, maybe it has no place in a party platform that espouses radical individualism and liberty.
"...Again, no one I can think of would claim to be FOR bigotry, but when we have this hard a time defining even what it is, maybe it has no place in a party platform that espouses radical individualism and liberty."
(Hand up) Me! I'm for bigotry under the definition I use. I am absolutely bigoted against Nazi scum like Misek. Lefty shitpiles like Joe Asshole.
There is nothing wrong with bigotry so long as the government (coercion) plays no part in it.
Perhaps my choices were wrong; always an alternative. In this case, the market will quickly tell me if they were.
Note that Biden's choice of a federal employee based on sex and skin color is wrong because it violates the libertarian principle of equality under the law. Government may not make such distinctions between citizens, private businesses should be able to.
If Biden were hiring for his own business, it would be perfectly fine for him to hire only black females; he might do so for the most noble of reasons, or simply because he likes to sniff their hair.
No, there’s not anything wrong with saying that Jeff. What you’re wanting to do is police people’s thoughts.
I would love if no one ever discriminated, but you’re not free if you’re not free to be wrong.
You ought to be free to be wrong. You are not free to dictate to everyone else not to judge you for your wrongness.
Your entire complaint about what the MC did hinges on the LP dictating to everyone that we should judge people for what others think is someone’s wrongness.
Forgive me if I don’t want to leave it up to people who think that pointing out basic scientific fact or arguing against original sin makes me a bigot.
And govt should try to stop freedom of thought even if it bothers you? Or you interpret as bigotry? I'm totally against central banks and I think Goldman is a criminal organization, so I guess I"m a "fill in the blank"...
Well, we know whatever came before it did yeoman's work to kill it so... let's give this a shot.
The Libertarian Party is, and has always been, politically irrelevant.
What the Mises Caucus takeover might accomplish is to stop the LP from giving libertarianism a bad name, because what the LP has been up to over the past decade or two has been disastrous for libertarianism.
ZACH WEISSMUELLER
Senior Producer
Who do you plan to vote for this year?
It makes me a little queasy, but I'll be voting for Joe Biden, primarily for three reasons:
(1) A feeble president Biden seems like an opportunity to erode the power and glamour of the dangerous cult of the presidency and also push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins, creating space for a more libertarian-friendly coalition to emerge.
(2) Trump was an even more selfish and incompetent leader than I thought he'd be, he seems willing to stoke chaos to hold onto power, and I'm sick of talking and hearing about him.
(3) The Libertarian Party doesn't have a clear electoral strategy or even sense of purpose and continually seems to miss golden opportunities.
Weissmueller was and is full of shit:
"(1) A feeble president Biden seems like an opportunity to erode the power and glamour of the dangerous cult of the presidency and also push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins, creating space for a more libertarian-friendly coalition to emerge."
The stupid sumbitch has no idea how "feeble" figureheads are dominated by those around him; the TDS-addled asshole is ever more stupid than his comment suggests.
"(2) Trump was an even more selfish and incompetent leader than I thought he'd be, he seems willing to stoke chaos to hold onto power, and I'm sick of talking and hearing about him."
No, TDS-addled asshole, you are more than happy to whine about the best POTUS we've had in the last century. Why? Because you are a fucking TDS-addled ignoramus.
"(3) The Libertarian Party doesn't have a clear electoral strategy or even sense of purpose and continually seems to miss golden opportunities."
Irrelevant, as is the LP.
If you are interested in liberty, vote for the candidate most likely to deliver regardless of the label, but that label is not likely to be D.
TDS-addled piles of shit like you and, oh, Brandyshit, given your adolescent focus on personality, are not likely to make adult decisions worthy of consideration.
Fuck off and die, asshole; you are but one of the causes of my current $0.05 annual contributions.
And if it doesn't kill the LP, what can libertarians do that will?
Jo tried her hardest by joining the kendo ibram anti racism movement.
So, have they included a "right to affordable housing" plank yet?
Professor Gillespie, for what its worth as a fan of the Mises caucus goals I found all of Reason's video and podcast coverage to be very fair and balanced. I have not read anything in the magazine.
Overall the Mises guys are right. The LP squandered a massive opportunity, for messaging if nothing else, with 2 deeply unpopular establishment party candidates in a presidential election year when they crushed our civil liberties.
Clearly the status quo was not moving the needle. Time for the younger generation to assume the reigns and shake it up a bit.
All of the Silent Generation is way too old and needs to step back. Most of the Boomer Generation is too old and need to take a step back. This is the time for Generation Z to take control and show us what they can do. Most of the Millennial Generation are too young and inexperienced.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule and generations are arbitrary divisions. Old Boomers have little in common with young boomers, so actual ages are more valuable the BS classifications they try to force us into.
As people age they gain experience and wisdom, but after time they lose vigor and quickness. Eventually the memory starts to fail and people become more content and passive as the remaining years are limited.
When people are young they are full of vigor and the world is at their feet, but they lack the wisdom and experience. When you are young you believe that you are part of the most intelligent generation ever to have existed on the face of the earth.
As we age we start to realize that the opinions of our parents are not necessarily wrong and that there is wisdom in their words and actions. All ages are necessary and valuable, but older generations need to let go and become advisors to the younger generations. Using the BS Generation classifications, Generation Z needs to assume control, Take advice from the Boomers and mentor the Millennial Generation.
I say let the younger Mises Caucus make their mark and see what they can accomplish. Build on the previous generations actions and learn from our missteps.
Gen Xer will just sit and play video games I guess.
what of LP is to save? if a corporation everyone would have been fired.
I even have made $30k simply in five weeks clearly working part-time from my loft. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was depleted and fortunately I tracked down this top web-based task and with this I am in a situation to get thousands straightforwardly through my home. Everyone can get this best vocation and can acquire dollars
on-line going this interface..> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
A fundamental weakness of the Mises caucus, is its attempt to frame every issue as an economic issue. Often, Libertarian economic arguments are either incomplete or irrelevant to most people's concerns. Furthermore, economists have a bad habit of getting just about everything of importance to real people wrong, and so the prognostications of economists aren't really persuasive to a lot of people.
For example: Libertarians make the case that globalism will be great for the American economy. No doubt, for a lot of wealthy Americans, globalism has been great; however, we sent a lot of critical industries, such as semi-conductor manufacturer, overseas. We're now panicking because most of our "chips" are either made by a potential adversary or they are being manufactured by countries of immediate risk of attack by that adversary. Now, we have to consider going to war with China because, 30 years ago, Economists told us that shipping our semiconductor manufacturing overseas was a great idea.