MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Nicholas Sarwark on the Future of the Libertarian Party

Trump is 'the best recruiting tool for the Libertarian Party we've ever had.'

"The Republican Party hates libertarians," says Libertarian Party national chair Nicholas Sarwark. "And as they show their disgust and distaste, and try to punish their legislators, what they're doing is driving them into our arms."

Sarwark sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas to discuss the Libertarian Party's plans for 2018, Gary Johnson's impact as a presidential candidate, and Donald Trump's effect on libertarianism.

"The Trump presidency so far has been tremendous," explains Sarwark. "It is pretty much the best recruiting tool for the Libertarian Party we've ever had."

Edited by Andrew Heaton.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

This is a rush transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy.

Nick Gillespie: Hi, I'm Nick Gillespie with Reason, and today I'm talking with Nicholas Sarwark. He is the chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, or the LP, as we like to call it around here. Nicholas, thanks for talking to us.

Sarwark: Thanks for having me, Nick.

Nick Gillespie: The Trump presidency so far, does it bear out your worst fears of what he was going to wrought?

Sarwark: The Trump presidency so far has been tremendous. It is pretty much the best recruiting tool for the Libertarian Party we've ever had. It's much better than anything I could develop inside the party. He's shown that the success of Republicanism is the death of liberty, which is a good way to show people that there's an option from the two-party system.

Nick Gillespie: What are the things that he's done so far that particularly, you think, drive that message home?

Sarwark: The nomination of Jeff Sessions as attorney general, a man who walked himself into lying to a senator during a hearing, which shows his incompetence as an attorney, and wants to bring us back to the failed policies of prosecuting the racist war on drugs, using civil asset forfeiture to steal money and things from citizens who haven't been convicted of a crime-

Nick Gillespie: Or necessarily haven't even been indicted or charged with anything.

Sarwark: Exactly. Basically highway robbery. Through bringing back an old failed program of adoption, he's able to work around state laws to try and prevent civil asset forfeiture abuse. Those sort of things are really putting a lie to the idea that the Republican Party or the Trump presidency is going to be any friend to somebody who favors individual liberty or small government.

Nick Gillespie: What is the LP strategy for the midterm elections and 2020?

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Oh, boy. Gilmore is going to have something to say about this.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    There's always the 2060 election. In the meantime, you guys might need a real job.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I think attacking the racist war on drugs

    Fighting that plain old non-racist war on the rights of individuals was getting tedious. Fighting the racist war on drugs gets my crotch so hot!

    The assimilation of libertarian orgs by the SJW Borg marches on.

    Sad.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Seconded.

    Sad.

  • Tony||

    Are you saying a) the war on drugs has nothing to do with race or b) you are uncomfortable talking about it?

    Like many other bad policies in this country, this will never be corrected without addressing the core causal factor that white people just don't give a shit as long as it's brown people being caged.

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    And we all know that black people have never, ever, asked for tougher drug sentences...except maybe a few Uncle Toms.

  • Tony||

    What could your point possibly be?

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    Tl;DR version, Tony is indulging in wild exaggeration again.

  • MarkLastname||

    That the war on drugs, far freedom m being a surreptitiously white supremacist policy, was largely motivated by black voters wanting the state to be 'tougher on crime' because their neighborhood are disproportionately burdened by crime.

    Back in the 80s, arguably most black people were more concerned with criminality than police brutality. Errant though the policy preference may be, their priorities made more sense than today, as the impact of police brutality on the black commhnity is negligible compared to the impact of rampant criminality.

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    All I know is I want an LP where the culture is such that a serious candidate is never hurt by something like a racist newsletter scadal again.

    As a Liberty Pledging LP member I want to say, Mr. Sarwark you have my absolute approval as Chairman. So far your doing a bang up job. Get a little more in the craw of people who have some unexamined dark corners of the psyche where racial antipathy hides.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > That the war on drugs, far freedom m being a surreptitiously white supremacist policy, was largely motivated by black voters wanting the state to be 'tougher on crime' because their neighborhood are disproportionately burdened by crime.

    Absolute bull shit.

    One of Nixon's top henchmen, I think it was Haldeman, said explicitly that it was a way to get people that were never going to vote republican off the voter roles. The film Reefer Madness and the concurrent propaganda was explicitly racist against blacks.

  • MarkLastname||

    Wow your head is so far up your ass.

    Black elected officials historically supported the war on drugs.

    Per NPR:

    "At the federal level, members of the newly formed Congressional Black Caucus met with President Richard Nixon, urging him to ramp up the drug war as quickly as possible."

    http://www.npr.org/sections/co.....r-on-drugs

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    When Black America Was Pro-Police
    As crime rose from the late '60s to the '90s, so did inner-city support for law-and-order policies.

    "A 1975 measure decriminalizing marijuana died in the majority-black city council [in D. C.], which went on to implement one of the nation's most stringent gun-control laws. Black residents endorsed a ballot initiative that called for imposing harsh sentences on drug dealers and violent offenders. Replicated on a national level over the same period, these policies led to mass incarceration and aggressive policing strategies like stop-and-frisk, developments that are now looked upon as affronts to racial justice."

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    Bottom line: Tony thinks black people stand in solidarity with black criminals, and the only people who want to punish black criminals are evil racist whites.

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    Get with the times buddy. The black community has long since seen the folly of WOD and a law and order agenda. DC happens to be one of the first jurisdictions to legalize marijuana. I wonder if your going to tell me Democrats were the party of the Confederacy next.

    That whole crime is worse than cops false dichotomy is a bunch of bunk. So bad I wonder if you aren't a GOP stooge or alt-right troll.

    Crime begets crime. Criminal records make the job search difficult, rendering successful social reentry more unlikely. Children lose a breadwinner and father to prisons. Violent police and skewed courts foster distrust and a community code that acts as a substitute law.

  • MarkLastname||

    You're missing the point. Oppose the war o drugs, great; but it's utter bullshit that it was invented by malicious whites to incarcerate blacks. It's a pathetic attempt by black "community leaders" to shirk responsibility for policies they or there predecessors championed and, as per usual, blame everything on white people.

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    Your missing the point. Even if community leaders supported bad policies in the past it is no reason for them to persist, particularly if it is to teach them a lesson about unfairly blaming 'whitey'.

    Also I'm willing to cut black people some slack on this. Lets ignore the fact that 'racist war on drugs' is refering to the indifference with respect to disparate impact and not a master plan for domination. Blacks have been victims of purposeful and systematic rapine by law and society for all but the last 5 minutes of their history here. Its not blameworthy for them to wonder how much it may still persist.

  • Cy||

    I agree that the war on drugs was created with racist intentions, but focusing on race instead of freedom is a trap I'd prefer we stay out of.

    This world doesn't need more people with victim mentality.

  • Tony||

    What you mean is you want everyone else to shut up so you can be the victim that matters.

    I'm just suggesting that knowing why a problem happens is helpful when it comes to addressing it.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Just as gun control has racist roots but is now just an ordinary control freak nanny matter, so the drug war started to keep nice white folk from taking up Negro drugs but is just an ordinary control freak nanny matter now.

    It's fun to call the Democrats the party of the KKK and slavery and Jim Crow, but they are just socialists now, intent on controlling every aspect of people's lives. The original causes are no more significant than the Republican's roots in fighting the slavocracy.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Tony, you're never more ridiculous then when you try to put words in someone else's mouth. Have you ever even considered refraining from embarrassing yourself like this?

    -jcr

  • MarkLastname||

    Evidently you've been neglecting your remedial reading lessons, because he didn't say anything remotely close to that.

  • sarcasmic||

    I agree that the war on drugs was created with racist intentions

    Yes it was. As was the minimum wage. Though I'm sure Tony hasn't a fucking clue that the creators of the minimum wage understood basic economics, and they actually understood that raising the minimum wage puts the unskilled and uneducated out of a job. But as we all know, Tony is a moron.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The original stages of the war on drugs -- the Harrison Act (1914), Prohibition (1920), and Marihuana Tax Act (1937) -- were indeed racist. Curiously, all of these were programs initiated by Democrat politicians with the full support of West Coast Sinophobes and the KKK. So, yeah, a century ago, the war on drugs was a racist project directed at Chinese, Catholics, blacks, and Hispanics.

    The Nixon/Rockefeller/Reagan stages of the war on drugs were bipartisan and fully supported by black and Hispanic leadership. In the 1980's black leaders recognized that crack was a scourge in their communities, and both Democrat and Republican politicians responded with the 100:1 crack disparity not to target blacks but to discourage the use of crack. Mario Cuomo's escalation of NY drug enforcement built on Rockefeller's for all categories of drugs.

    The only decent president in the war on drugs was Carter, but he caved in when his staff were reported to be snorting cocaine. At least the DEA's growth rate diminished during his presidency.

    Here is a pretty good timeline of black leadership's support for the war on drugs. Of course, the WOD failed, and its consequences were naturally worst for the poor. That's why black leadership was first to recognize the failure of the WOD.

  • MarkLastname||

    Also, it's been pointed out often before that the sentencing disparity between crack and normal cocaine was motivated by the fact that crack was so much more easily widely and cheaply distributed and therefore a more dangerous problem. This is also why sentencing is high for crystal meth.

    Meth and crack have similarly high sentencing for the same reason, though the former is a 'black' drug and the latter a 'white' one; the disparity between crack and coke is not motivated by racism.

  • AlmightyJB||

    All identity politics, all of the time.

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    The war on drugs is shitty for everyone, but it's shittier if you're black or brown.

    From arrest rates to sentence length to likelihood of being shot by a cop, white folks are treated less badly in the war on drugs.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    That has more to do with poverty and population density than race. Poverty provides motivation and population density provides opportunity for crime. Poverty also makes one less able to defend oneself in court, and population density makes more opportunity for policing. Unfortunately, blacks (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) are far more likely to find themselves in both those situations.

    In fact, Reason has disproved your assertions with regard to race time and time again by showing that white people in similar circumstances get screwed over in the WoD and hamhanded policing just as easily.

    But thanks for confirming that you've swallowed the SJW dogma whole.

  • AlmightyJB||

    No question that it impacts minorities more for a variety of reasons. But calling the WOD racist implies intent. As has been pointed out black leadership has supported the WOD including the "racist" crack sentancing disparity. In fact, they were the ones who demanded it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Calling everyone racist is only going to appeal to the SJWs who are never going to vote Libertarian

  • buybuydandavis||

    But they might invite you to more faculty mixers!

    Cocktail Party Invites Uber Alles!

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    Disparate impact and statistical discrimination are not SJW hogwash. They are established pillars of American jurisprudence. But your free to argue otherwise in a federal court. Good luck to you then.

    Trumpistas are even less likely to vote LP. I think you saw the stats. Clinton voters were twice as likely to have regretted not going for Johnson as Trump voters.

    Its also endlessly depressing to see all the alt right attitudes and parlance on Libertarian sites. I know, I know, freedom of speech and conscience. I just dont see the same level of sympathy with the occult, Islamism or progressivism anywhere. Unfortunately if Libertarians need to err its always on the side of the right. Just like Ayn Rands friendly testimony to HUAA. The scourge of communism was more critical to combat than a war on freedom of conscience and association.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Funny thing, that term "minority".

    Asians are a very distinct racial minority, but somehow are excluded when talking about minorities. Maybe they have cloaking devices or something that shields them from the inveterate racism of white people.

    Meanwhile, most Hispanics are racially white, but still get to call themselves a minority. If Scottish- and Irish-Americans call themselves Celtics, can we be a minority too?

    And of course women are a majority, but get to be an honorary minority for bigotry purposes.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The Harrison Act was directed at the West Coast Asian minority. That was the first shot of the war on drugs.

  • SIV||

    The Harrison Act was initially directed against doctors, white male doctors.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Oh yeah, there was historically a lot of explicitly racist legislation against Asians. No question about it.

    But in current affairs in 2017 they are commonly excluded from the laundry list of minorities because they tend to be successful.

  • buybuydandavis||

    If Scottish- and Irish-Americans call themselves Celtics, can we be a minority too?

    According to Ben Franklin, you're all swarthy Europeans, with the Germans and the Swedes.

    Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind

    24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.
  • Lachowsky||

    So why specifically call it out for its racism. Since it sucks for everybody, call it out for sucking for everybody. That way you don't alienate a large percentage of people who are sick to death of everything being tied to racial identity politics.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Exactly.

    African-Americans and Hispanics tend to suffer under shittier public schools, more restrictions on their gun rights, and greater risk of losing their homes to eminent domain. But good luck getting the new SJW leadership of the LP to call the teachers unions, gun control orgs, and real estate developers with political connections racist.

  • chemjeff||

    So are we no longer allowed to discuss the intersection between race and any particular policy? Is mere discussion of a potential intersection now evidence of sinister intent of "SJW-ism"?

    I don't think anyone here is arguing that the War on Drugs should be opposed *only* because it has a disparate racial impact. The racist angle is just one more argument against it.

  • Lachowsky||

    I think that taking the racism angle muddies the message. I am against the drug war because it is immoral primarily and has demonstrable ill effects secondarily.

    Let's say we get together a large group of people and start a movement in an attempt to put pressure on politicians to loosen drug laws because the laws disproportionately affect black people. We could call it the Black Drug Laws Matter. Since this group decided to use the racial identity angle as the primary focus of their movement, then this group would necessarily attract blacks to their movement at the cost of alienating whites, asians, hispanics, amd others who think that All Drug Laws Matter. I might even be able to think of a movement that started a few years ago with the goal of putting pressure on politicians to reform their police departments that failed miserably at doing so because they focused solely on how police abuse affected blacks and ignored the police abuse of everyone else.

    Racial identity politics is a loser. The modern progressive left is losing power all over the country because of it. Once we start looking at people as collectives based on whatever criteria and singling out collectives as "unfairly targeted" or "disproportionatly affected" Then we are playing a collectivist game.

  • chemjeff||

    But. Once again. No one here is arguing that drug laws should be repealed *only* because of their disparate racial impact. No one here is arguing that we take the racial angle to eleventy and make it the centerpiece argument against the drug war. You are the one who is evidently afraid that by even *discussing* the intersection of race and drug policy that it automatically enters the poisonous realm of identity politics. It doesn't have to be that way and we shouldn't let our fears of what *might* happen inhibit an honest discussion. Frankly I am willing to listen to any legitimate argument that can be used to promote the cause of liberty.

    Look at it this way. We here argue all the time that overweening government regulations of business stifles innovation and disproportionately affect the small companies struggling to compete against the big companies. Others can (and do) twist this argument to suggest that libertarians are "pro-corporate", and still others can argue that we are playing identity politics of small entrepreneurs vs. big business. Should we let the fear of how our arguments might be twisted by disingenuous people inhibit the expression of our ideas?

  • Lachowsky||

    "No one here is arguing that we take the racial angle to eleventy and make it the centerpiece argument against the drug war."

    Just watch what happens to a movement when a legitimate grievance is introduced ano identity politics is injected. It ruins the movement.

  • chemjeff||

    You are arguing that we should not discuss a topic for fear that others will twist and misuse it for their aims.

    Since that argument is potentially true for every single topic, then why discuss anything at all?

  • Lachowsky||

    I'm not arguing that a topic shouldn't be discussed. I'm arguing that this topoc shouldn't be discussed by ME in a manner that frames it as a racial issue, because it isn't. And since it isn't, it shouldn't be portrayed as such. Portraying it as such invites idiotic racial identity politics.

    The WOD fucks everbody. Some are fucked mote than others, but it still fucks everybody.

    Here is a video of pasty-white, cracker as can be Lachowsky getting a fucking by the Barling Arkansas police department. Even though Lachowsky doesn't do drugs and has no history of doing drugs, his pasty white ass still got fucked by the WOD.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OdXqk93FJYc

  • Lachowsky||

    Anyway, chemjeff.

    I gotta go to bed in about 30 minutes. If you have a reply to that before the brick bat and the morning links, then I'll need to see it pretty soon. Otherwise, your final comment will stand and you will win the arguement.

  • chemjeff||

    The WOD fucks everbody. Some are fucked mote than others, but it still fucks everybody.

    You will get no argument from me on that.

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    Do me a favor and revisit 'racial identity politics is a loser' in 20 years when America is even less white and teetering on minority-majority status.
    Hell, rethink it now. White identity politics powered Trump.

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    But I'm not given to flexing the muscle of a giant with feet of clay. The GOP majority is not long to last. He also lost the popular vote by 3 million to one of the most repulsive Democrats available if you'll recall.

  • Dizzle||

    He lost California by roughly 6 mil, won the other 49 states by 3 mil. Using the popular vote is stupid, and this fact is why the electoral college exists.

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    Because California votes matter less???? People are mobile in America. A lot of present day Californuans are former Ohioans, Montanans and Nebraskans.

    You missed the point. I rebutted the claim that Trump won some masdive public referendum on vision. A 3 million vote loss isnt a show of affection.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Heretic is right. The GOP energy plank, copied from the LP, won them the election. Dems countered with banning electricity and a carbon tax instead of repeal. It was a repeat of the Jimmy Carter campaign, but this time with 4 million LP spoiler votes in the mix.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Is mere discussion of a potential intersection now evidence of sinister intent of "SJW-ism"?

    Where is this discussion of potentials?

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Is mere discussion of a potential intersection now evidence of sinister intent of "SJW-ism"?

    Sarawak's comment was way beyond "mere discussion of a potential intersection". He presented the link as established fact. You sure do love your strawmen.

    I don't think anyone here is arguing that the War on Drugs should be opposed *only* because it has a disparate racial impact.

    Again, that's not what Sarawak said. He said that you are treated more badly by the WOD if you're a racial minority. Not mere "disparate racial impact".

    When you lead with the idea that the WOD is bad because racism, that implies the problem can be solved by arresting and imprisoning more white people. Note that you won't find SJWs like Sarawak complaining that a disproportionate number of men are arrested and incarcerated by the WOD.

  • chemjeff||

    In this instance Sarawak is right. The WOD had explicitly racist roots and continues to be fought in a racist manner as measured by a disparate impact standard. That is ONE OF MANY reasons why the War on Drugs has got to go. Is there any hint of Sarawak or anyone else in the LP saying that if only the WOD was racially neutral, then it would be A.O.K.?

    When you lead with the idea that the WOD is bad because racism

    Yes, it is bad because racism, AND because of lots of other reasons. What is this allergy to bringing up race in discussions *even in contexts where it helps us*? This is our version of political correctness that must be fought and opposed. There is nothing wrong with discussing the intersection between race and drug policy. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the drug war's racist roots or its racist manifestations. Doing so does NOT necessarily mean that you *only* oppose it due to racism. It does suggest, however, that if one gives tremendous power to the state, that the state's officers will tend to abuse that power in a manner that affects minorities more than it affects the majority. Well big surprise. Same essential reason why the income tax gets majority support - because the people that it screws over the most are in the minority. Where is the harm in pointing this out?

    He said that you are treated more badly by the WOD if you're a racial minority. Not mere "disparate racial impact"

    That is what "disparate impact" means.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    That is what "disparate impact" means.

    Do you practice being this dumb?

  • chemjeff||

    When you can't challenge the ideas, attack the messenger. Isn't that another SJW tactic?

  • Lord_at_War||

    Same essential reason why the income tax gets majority support - because the people that it screws over the most are in the minority

    Males?

  • buybuydandavis||

    So why specifically call it out for its racism.

    Because that's the way the Left foments the fear, hatred, and resentment of Identity Politics.

    Divide and conquer the peasants.

  • chemjeff||

    So we should not accurately describes the War on Drugs as racist because "that's what the Left would do"?

    Are there any other ways we should self-censor out of quaking fear of The Left?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The war on drugs is shitty for everyone, but it's shittier if you're black or brown.

    haha holy shit the LP is so fucked

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    "Hurricane Irma is shitty for everyone, but it's shittier if you're a Tampa Bay Lightning fan."

    -- "uh, only because most Lightning fans live in the path of the hurricane, which has nothing to do with their fandom"

    "Are you saying we can't discuss the potential nexus between hockey fandom and hurricane damage?"

  • MarkLastname||

    Actuallya Harvard study found that in comparable circumstances black people were no more likely to be shot than white ones.

    The main reason black people are disprotiornately on the receiving end of the criminal justice system is because they disproportionately commit crimes. Even if that crime shouldn't be a crime, disparity =\= discrimination, and while tailoring your cause to 'marginalized groups' may win traction with the Times and the Post, it diminishes its appeal to white people who see it as affirmative action for minority criminals.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    It merits observation that they disproportionately commit crimes because they're disproportionately impoverished and stuck in densely populated areas. Not because of some moral failing.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    It merits observation that they disproportionately commit crimes because they're disproportionately impoverished and stuck in densely populated areas.

    Do you have a link to this analysis? On the face of it, it sounds absurd. -- Black crime rates are often a full order of magnitude higher. -- Even sociologists admit that poverty = crime is far too simple a story. -- "stuck in densely populated areas" is another way of saying "born into the the areas with the most economic opportunity on the entire planet." -- Is the black crime rate even higher in cities? The crime rate in the black belt was pretty damn high last I checked.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > Not because of some moral failing.

    Again, WRONG. 85% of people in prison grew up without fathers (read: discipline). Not a black/white thing.

    Thank you, feminism!!!

  • MarkLastname||

    None of which is the result of police discrimination. When law enforcement becomes relevant, socio-economic etiology if crimes really isn't relevant. Does the fact that your mugger was likely abused as a child and dropped out of school because of an undiagnosed learning disorder make you feel better about being mugged?

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    The problem with seeing every question through color blind glasses is that it ignores real and easily addressed human suffering. When one group is systematically disadvantaged at every step in life -from birth to home life to schooling to employment propspect to compensation for comparable work to public perception to judicial bias to sentencing- its a perpetuation, not even capitulation of the skewed game we make minoritied play. Which in case you forgot is a legacy of a history of dispossession they have on top of all the aforementioned.
    This has nothing to do with caucasian guilt or a collectivist mentality. In what issue in life besides race are you so insistent on making no account for the circumstances of the individual? Seriously? Want to jettison mitigating circumstances or mens resa in law?
    Speaking about, thinking about and analyzing the racial dimension is the only way to reverse the injustice. There are socialist ways to do it. I also think there are Libertarian ways.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    If Sarwark can't give a straight answer to Gillespie's final question about the Johnson 2016 campaign, he's either disingenuous or dumb.

    This 28-year LP member only voted for Johnson because he wasn't named Hillary and the GOP candidate was so awful. Johnson is a good guy and a pretty good libertarian. I even canvassed for him early on, which I've never done before for any politician. But, as the debates began, Johnson said a lot of stuff that seemed to betray the idea of libertarianism. And, it should be obvious that Johnson ran an inept campaign fraught with unforced errors, gaffes, blunders, and excessive goofiness.

    The LP should face the facts that led to its blowing a historic opportunity in 2016. The LP should also avoid scheduling its convention next to a comic book LARP event and have a code of conduct that prevent obese strippers from turning its convention into a joke. The chair of the LP should also avoid intentionally alienating genuine libertarians to polish his SJW credentials.

  • Tony||

    Exactly how many centuries of recruitment are you planning for before the libertarian presidential candidate has an actual shot of becoming president?

    Long-term planning is certainly a good thing, but you'll be long dead before anyone but an R or a D gets elected, and I fail to see the point of voting for or working on behalf someone who can't possibly win.

  • Cy||

    I think the days of the R's and D's are numbered. I'm pretty sure that in the next 12 years we're going to see something of a political revolution.

    We have too many people that just don't have to stay in touch with reality. Between the debt, a winded fake bull market and 2 generations of SJW's with useless .GOV paid for degrees, when the music stops there won't be many chairs to sit in. There's going to be a lot of pissed off armed people looking for some one to blame and I don't see the old 'it's the other party' song and dance working out well.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    It seems likely that the party names survive, just because they have enormous ballot access advantages written into the law. But the current alignment of political positions probably won't. Dems and Repubs have switched sides on several issues in their 150 years of dominance.

    Libertarians would do well to try to influence the direction of those position shifts, in both parties, rather than trying to stand up a third party. The LP was a bad joke when created and ~50 years later is little more than a running gag. Due to the structure of our electoral system, a third party has to be regionally strong in order to accomplish anything. The FSP had the right idea but not nearly enough people to make it work.

  • Peter Verkooijen||

    At the moment socialists look best positioned to exploit the mess. Too many libertarians have aligned themselves with Trump and/or the alt-right.

    Classical liberalism may have a chance if it can capture pro-capitalist chunks of the Democratic Party, but so far nobody represents that option.

    American politics is now between nationalism and socialism, with libertarians relegated to the fringes of nationalism.

  • Microaggressor||

    pro-capitalist chunks of the Democratic Party

    The search for Bigfoot carries on.

  • Dizzle||

    When did nationalism become a bad thing?

  • Peter Verkooijen||

    Nationalism as collectivist tribal/race-based statism has always been bad, the opposite of classical liberal individual liberty, limited government, equal opportunity under rule of law.

  • sarcasmic||

    I fail to see the point of voting for or working on behalf someone who can't possibly win

    Some of us have a conscience that prevents us from supporting either the giant douche or the turd sandwich.

  • Tony||

    You mean you spend election season virtue signaling instead of doing anything useful.

  • sarcasmic||

    Define useful? Supporting a giant douche? Supporting a turd sandwich? Sorry, but I can't do it.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Did he say anything about supporting the R's or D's being more useful?

    ::heads for shower after defending Tony::

  • sarcasmic||

    Did you notice the question marks? That means I was asking. That's what I do when I don't know something.

  • Len Bias||

    Gosh Tony, given how you think Libertarians, especially Reason Libertarians are all closeted conservatives, shouldn't you be glad they are supporting a party that will never win?

  • MarkLastname||

    A vote for the LP tells the other parties that they can win more votes by appealing to libertarians.

    Voting for third parties is more useful than voting for the 'lesser evil' in fact; doing the latter signals that the Party can do whatever it pleases and still get your vote. (Not voting also impacts party behavior)

    It's not that complicated Tony.

  • Microaggressor||

    "Doing anything useful" in Tonytardese means voting for the (D); the only party that won't put gays in concentration camps.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    I take your point, but I'm pretty sure the Whigs said something similar back in 1850.

  • Tony||

    So you're gonna hope that it happens a second time in two and half centuries.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Completely different situations. Both major parties in 1850 attempted to straddle the fence on a major issue (slavery) on which the nation was divided, but most individual states and districts internally nearly unanimous. This enabled third parties to exploit that issue to win seats in Congress and electoral votes by appealing to single issue voters in those states and districts.

    In 2017 the major parties are much more uniform on the divisive issues, and have ballot access advantages written into the laws of pretty much every state to defend against short-term threats to their status. Also there really aren't any sectional issues with nearly the weight of slavery.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    I like how he says that they're going to build off of "whatever" caused Johnson's vote totals compared to previous elections with less-hated major party candidates. He has to know it was the weak opposition, which is unlikely to happen again for a long time. You can't build off of that. Trump vs. Clinton is never happening again. GOP would gouge their eyes out before allowing Trump or anyone like him to be nominated again, and he's betrayed his base anyway. With the Clinton faction severely weakened in the Dem party, they will probably put up a minority person more charismatic and less plagued with scandal.

    What's the LP message going forward? Opposition to Trump? Why would anybody bother with the LP for that when the Dems are doing the same from a much stronger position?

  • Dizzle||

    The GOP, sans super delegates, is at the whim of its primary voters. The dems will nom whoever their big money pays them too.

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    He did give the honest answer. Gary could have done better but probably no one could have done as well as Gary. He underperformed and he was our best shot.

    Life is full of ambiguity. Being a straight talker also entails not giving simple unequivocal descriptions of messy situations.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    I just came a little in my pants when I read this, CatotheChipper.

    If the LP did so freaking well in '16, where are the new dues paying members that signed the NAP pledge? What? No extra members to speak of? No more money? I thought that was why we had our arms twisted into accepting neocon Bill Weld onto the ticket. Wasn't he some sort of fundraising god? How come more people don't know what libertarianism and the NAP are? Is it because Johnson admitted he doesn't understand it?

  • Libertarian Heretic||

    The Bob Barr campaign raised $1.5M in 2008. Gary Johnson raised $12M in 2016. Any quetions?
    Gary Johnson holds the number #2 slot for most votes garnered by a Libertarian for his '12 run and his '16 run tripled that. What makes the claim so risible that he is out best performer except the totally fantastical counterfactual that Austin Petersen was going to win 30% of the vote? Press coverage was unprecedented that year as well. I bet Mr. Sarwark has spent more time on TV than all other LP Chairmen combined.

    I look at the NAP as a heuristic not a dogma or creed. Same with most punchy libertarian one liners. It's utopian, reductive and unattainable in the form many libertarians insist you must believe in it.

    Anyway your wrong on messaging, many times over more people are repelled than atttacted to a message of heroine for todlers, legalized chattel slavery and bestiality shops. I'm fine with marijuana/shrooms/ecstacy for adults, lower taxes, a 33% military cut and less redistribution for the time being.

  • DajjaI||

    I adore this guy Nicholas Sarwark. I think it's funny how hard he tries not to avoid staring at the jacket. Our strategy should not be to get people excited about libertarians - this is like getting excited about broccoli. Instead, we should demonize libs and cons and all their stupid policies. Especially gear towards the younger vote - remind them that they will have to pay back whatever the country spends on insane things like walls and wars.

  • Cy||

    But... Mexico is going to pay for the wall!

  • DajjaI||

    Also we need to decriminalize heroin so that all the Trumpkins overdose and die before the elections.

    Oh G-d Jill, we're getting banned now for sure.

  • DajjaI||

    If AddictionMyth were still with us (G-d rest his soul), he'd probably point out that decriminalization would reduce overdose and death. Nevertheless, he'd still support it. (He could be quite a little cunt sometimes. I miss the bloke.)

    Jill Stein tearfully approves this message.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Bitch, you don't have a future.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    How the F is this tool Sarawak still leading the LP? Have they all gone nuts?

  • Hank Phillips||

    To answer the unequal girl-bullying infiltrator: Nicholas' administration delivered a 328% increase in spoiler votes. Those 4 million votes have roughly the law-changing clout of 84 million votes wasted on communo-fascist looter hirelings. Those 84 million votes' worth of law-changing clout will, I'll wager, put a repeal plank in the next Democratic platform and cause the GOP to think more about electricity and less about prohibitionism, genocide and girl-bullying in its next platform.

  • wearingit||

    I actually think the Republican party likes Libertarians quite a bit. Not as much as dyed in the wool Republicans but it's quite evident a Libertarian would never vote for a Democrat and more often than not will vote for a Republican so yeah, Libertarians help more than hurt the Republican party.

  • sarcasmic||

    it's quite evident a Libertarian would never vote for a Democrat

    I dunno. I believe a good portion of the Reason staff voted for Obama at least once.

    Though that could have been so they get invited to the parties with the cool kids.

  • Cy||

    "I dunno. I believe a good portion of the Reason staff voted for Obama at least once."

    They've made it abundantly clear, many, MANY times, that most of them are not libertarians. They just want to smoke pot and not get bothered by the man.

  • sarcasmic||

    They just want to smoke pot and not get bothered by the man.

    Isn't that what libertarian means?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Not being gunned down by Dry Killers (Hoover Administration) or their murdering successors since is not a bad thing. The Dems and GOP both want your kid robbed and locked up with perverts over herbs. It's in the platforms of BOTH looter parties.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    I doubt you'll find any actual libertarians anywhere. Libertarianism died with Murray Rothbard. What you have left is an empty shell that's been occupied by SJWs that don't want to pay taxes. It's just another brand name that's been acquired by the left to peddle the same agenda.

    Politics in the West has become like General Motors. They may be selling their product under the names of former independent companies like Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac, but these days they all come off the same drawing board and are built at the same factory.

    So basically, these days you're either an SJW under one of it's many brand names, and if you aren't an SJW, well, you must be a Nazi!

  • AlmightyJB||

    My choices are Marxist asshole or Socialist asshole?

  • Microaggressor||

    Pick a side, shitlord.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    The Republican Party establishment hates the LP because they see it as a threat to "steal" votes from Republicans. Likewise with the Dem establishment's hatred of the Greens.

    Counterintuitively, the more similar the positions of the parties, the more their leadership hates each other. Of course that becomes less counterintuitive when you realize the parties care less about their positions than getting power for themselves.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I actually think the Republican party likes Libertarians quite a bit.

    Globalist GOP likes Globalist Libertarians.

    Reason is increasingly aligning itself with the Globalists establishment, Left and Right.
    SJWs for Corporate Profit

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Republican bacteria colony was taken over entirely by the ku-klux and prohi phages in 1928. Beauregard Sessions is proof that that hasn't changed. Republicans respond to LP spoiler votes and repeal bad laws so as to not be replaced entirely. This is a good thing. WINNING is repealing bad laws. Losing is becoming a useless leech on the government payroll.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    There pretty much are no real libertarians. 99% of people claiming to be libertarian fall into one of the following categories:
    1. The hipster Republican - This guy is a straight line Republican voter, who doesn't want to call themselves a Republican because they like to think they're different from everyone else.
    2. The Narcissist - Super gung ho about threats to THEIR liberty. The rights of everyone who isn't them, or perhaps an immediate family member, is of no particular concern at all
    3. The Mob - The government is too big, by which they mean the government is capable of deterring them from using violence to make other people do what they want
    4 The Iconoclast - Just a reflexively contrary asshole who ended up claiming to be libertarian because it lets them be anything suggested by anyone.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "The rights of everyone who isn't them, or perhaps an immediate family member, is of no particular concern at all"

    So most people ARE Libertarian.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If protecting your freedom and ONLY your freedom counts as libertarian, then yes most people are libertarian. Even Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were concerned about protecting THEIR freedom.

    It also makes "libertarian" and useless word.

  • MarkLastname||

    You plainly just have no idea what you're talking about.

  • Sevo||

    "You plainly just have no idea what you're talking about."

    Hey, SD thought it was a wonderful insight after the second dobbie!

  • buybuydandavis||

    The desire for political freedom is an extreme minority viewpoint in the world, though less extreme in the US.

    Hence the self defeating nature of US Open Borders Uber Alles "Libertarians". More big government voters in the US mean less freedom in the US.

  • chemjeff||

    "We have to destroy liberty in order to save it!"

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    We lost the term "liberal" to the socialists back in the 1920s. Looks like we're about to lose "libertarian" as well if SJWs like Sarawak and cosmo-stoners like Gary Johnson are allowed to represent the term.

    Any ideas for new terms for people who oppose initiation of force?

  • sarcasmic||

    pussy?

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Good one, but not new :)

  • sarcasmic||

    civilized?

  • DajjaI||

    neo-Trumpkin?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Antifo?

  • Lachowsky||

    Individualist is how I refer to myself in polite company.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Imaginary?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Oppose the initiation of force......hmmm........

    So, would you say that removing someone's' rights or trying to counts as an 'initiation of force'?

    Because, if so, then we're in a fairly constant state of being aggressed upon.

  • Sevo||

    OT
    This would be good news, except the hag lies so much, it's probably not true:

    "Hillary Clinton: 'I am done with being a candidate'
    [...]
    ""I am done with being a candidate," Clinton said on CBS' "Sunday Morning."
    [...]
    "But I am not done with politics because I literally believe that our country's future is at stake," she said in an interview with Jane Pauley."
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art.....186551.php

    I guess there's still some money to be made in some corrupt scheme or other.

  • lap83||

    "I literally believe"

    As opposed to her normal pretending to believe due to some ulterior motive

  • AlmightyJB||

    This time it's Literal.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Except that when "literally" is used thus, it actually means "figuratively" to Hillary's audience. It's kind of like how "unbelievable" and "incredible" mean totally believable and credible to Shawn Hannity's audience.

    However, I have no idea of what Hilary means by modifying the verb "believe" with the adverb "literally". It makes no sense whether "literally" is used in either sense.

  • Robert||

    What would it mean to figuratively believe something? I never heard of such a figure of speech.

  • Zeb||

    "Literally" is just an intensifier when used that way. Has nothing to do with the literal meaning of the word. One might say that "literally" is being used figuratively.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    She claimed to be retiring from candidacy after she quit Secretary of State too.

  • Bob Mitchell||

    I'm more attracted to the Freedom Caucus than I am to any Libertarian candidates. At least they don't do a strip tease as a presentation. I consider myself a small "l" Libertarian in the same way that I've always been a liberal while I watched the Democrats leave me. If the folks at Reason actually had been replaced by illegals at their jobs they may rethink their stupidity on free trade or open borders. I was surprised when the party went towards Bernie supporters instead of blue collar workers during the last election. That just showed how rife with elitist ivory tower intellectual wannabes the party is headed by. It's to bad Reason has become the establishment and lost its integrity. I still don't understand all of the attacks on the alt-right. I haven't seen any real evidence that it even exists except in the fears and weak mind of political commentators.

  • Sevo||

    "If the folks at Reason actually had been replaced by illegals at their jobs they may rethink their stupidity on free trade or open borders."

    Yep, making trade illegal is a great way...................
    To promote poverty.
    You first.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    I still don't understand all of the attacks on the alt-right.

    If you found yourself in a popularity contest with Hitler - and losing, you'd be pissed too!

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    ouch

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    You know who else was pissed about losing a popularity contest...

  • Episteme||

    Aphrodite?

    +1 Trojan War

  • TW||

    Aphrodite won - you're thinking of Athena and Hera.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    If the folks at Reason actually had been replaced by illegals at their jobs they may rethink their stupidity on free trade or open borders.

    You sure they haven't been? Robby Soave still hasn't produced his long-form birth certificate.

  • Zeb||

    If the folks at Reason actually had been replaced by illegals at their jobs they may rethink their stupidity on free trade or open borders.

    Because people are entitled to a particular job because of their citizenship?

  • Iheartskeet||

    Well, I guess anything is possible...Trump is president after all...but the LP appears stuck in Lala land as usual. If you are trying to spin 3% of the vote as progress after 30 years of trying, maybe it's YOU.

    Had to chuckle at the supposed hatred of L's by R's. Rattle off the most libertarian congressmen...all R's. L's can't even spot a friend.

    As for myself, it's finally time to switch my party affiliation back to R.

  • 2whlrider||

    I truly wish there was a libertarian party because this country could use one. The fake libertarian party, the one that bills itself as "the party of principle", is neither libertarian nor principled. Their nomination of non-libertarians Johnson and Weld proves that. More than anything else, the fake libertarian party is a party of losers--so much so that real libertarians, that want to win, must go to the rotten, corrupt Republican party and try to reform it. They try. They fail.

  • buybuydandavis||

    More than anything else, the fake libertarian party is a party of losers

    Losing to the Globetrotters is a steady gig with good pay. And you get invited to the parties with all the people who actually have power.

    Who could ask for anything more?

  • JeremyR||

    The Libertarian party should try to address the concerns of the average person, not big business or the rich, not SJWs

    What does it offer? $1 a day Mexican nannies isn't terribly appealing to a middle agged out of work dude in the MIdwest.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    I dunno bout that, the middle aged out of work dudes in the Midwest that I know would love to have a Mexican nanny for $1 a day.

  • Mark22||

    "What to do, what to do. One 300 dollar hookerbot or 300 one dollar hookerbots?"

  • Freddie||

    The Johnson campaign certainly had its miscues and blown opportunities, but I think they were on to something by trying to present themselves as the adults in the room instead of the wild-eyed radicals. Yes, it is the responsible, reasonable approach to combine free markets with social tolerance and a look-before-you-leap foreign policy.
    Most people don't think in terms of ideology and you won't be able to sell them on voting for a philosophy. You have to have concrete policy ideas inspired by libertarian principles.
    Finally, I think Libertarians need to prioritize minority outreach. Republicans have given "limited government" a bad name even in poor, urban communities that, for example, have been poorly served by dysfunctional, union-strangled public schools.
    Libertarian purity? All for it, but you can't get there in one shot. Let's work on getting as many people as possible into that upper right quadrant of the "Nolan Chart" and then we can work on nudging them out to the far corner.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Let's work on getting as many people as possible into that upper right quadrant of the "Nolan Chart" and then we can work on nudging them out to the far corner.

    Assuming for the sake of argument that it's any less difficult to get people to move to that quadrant, at that point we'll be one tiny faction in that quadrant and face the same problem we have today in getting folks into the corner.

    I'm all for agreeing to disagree over minor doctrinal differences. But it's possible to make the tent so big that the people inside are doing something completely opposite of what you originally intended.

  • Qsl||

    A few points:

    Some strongholds asides, a good chunk of elections are decided by razor-thin margins. Sarwark is absolutely correct in his observation that while the LP has very little functional influence, they are kingmakers, and that role (as well as the ability to demand concessions from the major parties) only becomes more acute as the LP grows.

    Libertarianism (as a philosophy more than a party) for whatever reasons has had very limited appeal to the vast majority of voters. At some point you either have to come to terms with either being The Party of Principle but No Affect, or pick and choose what concessions are most viable while still moving in a libertarianish direction. It may well be a case of two steps forward, three steps back, but there is movement, and that opens up venues of even greater change and hopefully less concessions.

    In the end parties don't matter as much as policies, and if some people want to call themselves dems while advocating some important libertarian positions, well, it will have to do. Moving a few people to this quadrant or that isn't as practical as shifting the entire chart where the baseline is recalibrated.

    Politics follows culture. You need to change the culture.

  • Mark22||

    Some strongholds asides, a good chunk of elections are decided by razor-thin margins. Sarwark is absolutely correct in his observation that while the LP has very little functional influence, they are kingmakers

    No, they really aren't. They are simply a "don't care" vote. When people actually care about the outcome between the two major party candidates, they are going to hold their nose and vote for the major party candidate they consider preferable.

  • Qsl||

    Keep in mind the GOP president elect was in many respects the "don't care" vote, and the other don't care votes were enough to change the course of the election. Apparently enough people were also willing to hold their noses and vote third party, even though the choices there were less than stellar.

    Not to mention if that is all the LP is, then there isn't any point in discussing candidates or polices... a Mr. Potato Head on an endless loop of "they're all crooks" should do just as well as a cheeto in a wig.

    It seems much of the rable-rousing from the left is to overcome the natural apathy of people who mostly agree with them, but can't be bothered to vote.

    In this and most every other election, the true "don't care" vote won in a landslide- the people who didn't vote at all.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Quisling ignores the law-changing power of spoiler votes. Sarwark knows that a 9% vote for looper populists in 1892 brought on an income tax copied from the communist manifesto (and financial collapse). He also knows that 1.4% of the vote created the 18th amendment, and revived the communist income tax. A single electoral vote caused La Suprema Corte to copy the 1972 LP abortion plank into Roe v. Wade, and the wave of repeal after the Bush asset-forfeiture crash and depression is a repeat of the Liberal Party plank being copied to elect FDR four consecutive times. LP votes spoiled any chance of God's Own Prohibitionists boasting a victory in the popular vote.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I think they were on to something by trying to present themselves as the adults in the room instead of the wild-eyed radicals.

    Bob Barr at least kinda pulled that off. Johnson said he was against freedom of association because Mormons could murder folks with impunity.

    Finally, I think Libertarians need to prioritize minority outreach.

    That's what all this cringe-worthy SJW shit is.

    Republicans have given "limited government" a bad name even in poor, urban communities that, for example, have been poorly served by dysfunctional, union-strangled public schools.

    I can't believe this is a real sentence.

  • Zeb||

    Seems like a pretty good sentence to me. Even in places where the failures of big government programs should be obvious, Republicans get very limited support. I think they bear a lot of blame for that themselves.

  • Mark22||

    Even in places where the failures of big government programs should be obvious, Republicans get very limited support. I think they bear a lot of blame for that themselves.

    That's a result of the public education system and the welfare system. Government schools teach that government dependence is the way out of poverty, while simultaneously not teaching self-reliance and personal responsibility. Furthermore, women are encouraged to have kids out of wedlock, and then they end up dependent for a couple of decades on government support.

    No amount of political campaigning by Republicans or Libertarians is going to fix those issues.

  • ||

    You have to ween them off it. Think that scene in 'Walk the line' when Johnny Cash has to overcome his addiction.

    What will be our 'Ring of fire'?

  • MarkLastname||

    It's also worth noting that many of the important 'big government failures' that most impact the poor and minorities are highly local. Education unions, for example, need to be taken on at the state level. Same with housing regulation, occupational licensing, and any number of others. More state/municipal than federal issues, and therefore don't really enter in to national politics much.

    So while these issues may seem like great opportunities for Libertarian or Republican mayoral or gubernatorial elections, the places where they are most relevant are already irredeemably one party cities/states for the Dems. Are these issues going to win New York, Chicago, or California for a Republicans? Not likely.

  • buybuydandavis||

  • Dave99||

    This is the same man who signed an "anti-fascist" letter and called on all libertarians to do the same. (Should we sign an anti-cancer letter while we're at it?)

    He then went on to allude that such men as Tom Woods must have fascist sympathies, because he and others wouldn't sign it.

    I liked Nick, but he tends towards the SJW and hyperbolic far too much for my tastes.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    > He then went on to allude that such men as Tom Woods must have fascist sympathies, because he and others wouldn't sign it.

    A Libertarian that doesn't like Tom Woods, just about the most Rothbadian guy on the planet?! Fuck Sarwark.

    Unlike Johnson/Weld, Woods can actually explain the NAP to the average voter.

  • Mark22||

    The LP sounds like they are unwilling to make hard choices; that is, if the LP got any real political power, they would simply implement a subset of progressive policies without making any progress on dismantling the welfare state, lowering taxes, or liberalizing markets.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    This is a crucial observation. If anyone here has read the work of Michael Porter on competitive strategy, excluding markets/customers is absolutely essential to profitability.

    If you're doing the same thing as everybody else, who needs you?

  • Cepera||

    The fact that Sarwark used the epithet "racist" with the term "war on drugs" shows that this guy is a demagogue. The fact that he did it twice in the same interview hints that this may become a slogan in the new LP campaign. If this guy stays at the helm of LP, should we expect to see more demagogic epithets like this diffusing into the libertarian speak? How about "sexist"? "Greedy capitalist pig" perchance?

    Opposing "war on drugs" means embracing freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Opposing "racist war on drugs" means an entirely different thing: fighting one (alleged) exhibition of the (alleged) governmental racism.

    I won't vote for a demagogue even if I share most of his or her political views.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Obama voters who watched the Dems sink under the weight of looter prohibitionism won't see it that way. And Sockpuppets for Fascism™ wouldn't vote libertarian anyway--at least not until staring through a noose at Nuremberg.

  • Brother Kyfho||

    Libertarians have got to get rid of the preposterous idea that we will ever EVER be in a position to vote our way to Liberty. Ain't gonna happen. Taking that as a given, what should a candidate do? They should educate, and increase and identify the number of (hopefully hard core) libertarians. We're not going to win, so we might as well get something out of the deal.

    Johnson sold us on the idea that if he could just get into the debates, and get some of FEC's stolen money, that he could actually WIN!! Instead, he was excluded (big surprise) and since he's not that much of a libertarian, he didn't bring us any new members (not like Ron Paul did, even when he ran as a Republican), he didn't inform America about explicitly libertarian solutions to statist problems and basically wasted all the money that we sent him. Just because he got a bunch of votes - DOESN'T COUNT UNLESS YOU WIN.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Another pants-dirtying conservative trying to pretend Libertarian spoiler votes haven't repeatedly forced looters to repeal bad laws.

  • renicantik||

    Thanks for the information, Very useful
    jual obat miom

  • Hank Phillips||

    Nicholas is the best thing to happen to the LP since David Nolan and the Hospers-Nathan ticket and platform. It took 45 days for the Supreme Court to copy the Libertarian plank on abortion into Roe v. Wade--this on the strength of a single non-superstitious electoral vote cast in December of 1972. Only one Republican "justice" preferred to keep bullying girls. That one was retired after appearing on the cover of Reason doddering in diapers. The LP has been repealing bad laws for a full 44 years, thanks to folks like Sarwark.

  • Azathoth!!||

    All one need do is listen to Nicholas Sarwark speaking to see that there is no future for the Libertarian Party, not as it is being mutilated by such as he.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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