Justin Amash

Justin Amash on How To End the Civil War in the Libertarian Party

The only L.P. member to ever hold national office says the party needs to stop being gratuitously shocking and start making the principled case for limited government.

|

HD Download

Can the Libertarian Party (L.P.) become "a major contender that consistently wins elections?"

If the organization's dismal, 50-year track record in winning elections isn't discouraging enough, now the L.P. is in disarray after its chairman and two members of its national committee resigned in the wake of an attempt to decertify the New Hampshire affiliate due to conflicts over its social media presence. 

This episode has revealed an organization at war with itself over vision, tactics, and messaging.

To get a better sense of what's going on, Nick Gillespie spoke with former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.), who finished his five terms in office as the first and only Libertarian to hold national office. He had been elected as a Republican, became an Independent, and affiliated with the L.P. for the last few months of his tenure. Amash flirted with a run for the L.P.'s presidential nomination in 2020 before choosing to drop out of consideration. Despite not holding an official position in the party's leadership, he is its best-known member.

In the wake of the recent scandal, he chastised the New Hampshire affiliate for its "horrible messaging" even as he said attempts to remove its leadership were illegitimate. "I'm committed to making [the L.P.] a major contender that consistently wins elections," he wrote. "We must work together to build a big-tent party that can take on the old parties and defend the rights of the people."

Narrated by Nick Gillespie, edited by Regan Taylor and John Osterhoudt, additional graphics by Lex Villena

Photo Credits: Darron Birgenheier from Reno, NV, USA; Paul Hennessy / SOPA Images/Sipa/Newscom; Allan Xu from Fullerton/ Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign at CSUF; Noca2plus (talk)/Bob_Barr-2008.jpg: Bob Barr; Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Carolmooredc; Editormichaelmorrison; State of Alaska Official Election Pamphlet/Division of Elections staff; politicks.org http://politicks.org/About-Us/ Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St.; Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America; MarcMontoni; Seth Ilys Gary Johnson from Taos, NM; John Hospers | Online Library of Liberty; Press Photos—Jo20.com; Cory Morse | MLive.com; https://lpaction.org, Fair use; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Dreamstine 134608696; Illustration: Lex Villena; John Kropewnicki, Dreamstime.com; Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons, Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Stefani Reynolds/ZUMA Press/Newscom: Dreamstine ID 175407847; Dreamstine ID 134151188; Image by Krzysztof Pluta from Pixabay

NEXT: How Bitcoin Could Replace the U.S. Dollar

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I like Amash, but I think he was naive about joining the Libertarian Party, not knowing how dysfunctional the family he was joining is.

    1. To be fair, he was formerly a Republican, so he should know about dysfunction.

      1. True. He dared to speak against Trump, which is the new definition of RINO.

        1. I’m sure it’s the one thing you really like about him.

          1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings FFR are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

            1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i’m Working four hour Dailly and make forty dollar Easily ..KJH This is enough for me to glad my circle of relatives..How ?? I’m making this so u can do it Easily
              HERE…… Work202

        2. The definition of Rino hasn’t changed. Those were the motherfuckers that said we couldn’t just repeal Obamacare without having something to replace it and actively worked with the Democrats to keep troops in Afghanistan.

          Basically every big spending, big government asshole with an (R) after their name.

          1. Basically every big spending, big government asshole with an (R) after their name.

            So, Trump the RINO?

            1. In a manner of speaking, yes, he was. Do you think that he was, generally speaking, a principled, ideological, textbook Republican?

              The fact that he did some libertarian-ish things in office on a more consistent basis than most recent executives was an almost accidental result of the establishment refusing to work with him under almost any circumstance.

              If the Dems had resolved themselves early on in his term to negotiate with him to get some of their policy agenda passed, Trump would have signed off on a bunch of that stuff just to get the appearance of a ‘win’. Remember all of those times he had Pelosi and Schumer over for dinner? But they decided to go full nuclear on him with the media, the courts, congress, intelligence community . . .

              1. Wouldnt’ principles make you a RINO?

                1. Principles is what people cry out so they don’t have to do the hard work of trying to bring 50 different viewpoints together. Reality is a lot tougher than what is required to set up an ideal system. That’s why Amash was terrible. He railed against taking 5 steps towards liberty because it wasn’t 10 steps towards liberty quite often. He sought perfection instead of settling for good and small victories.

                  There is a reason his biggest accomplishment was naming 2 post offices.

                  1. Were those post office names even libertarian?

              2. Trump is better defined as a federalist. He believed most things belonged in the realm of the states, not the federal.

                He was also a firm believer in the president exercising the job outlined for him by the constitution. However, the deep state thought that was authoritarian.

                1. “Trump believed firmly in exercising the job outlined in the constitution.” That is utter fantasy.

                  Trump believed firmly that “being President means I can do whatever I want.” He would have to have read the constitution to know what the constraints of his office were.

                  One of the scary things about Trumpians is how they attached their own fantasies to Trump and then declared that that is what he endorsed. I’ll never forget that guy who was posting memes back in 2016 stating that Trump was going to take over all the farmland and give it to small farmers who would only grow organic crops. When I asked where and when Trump said this he had no answer. His reply was, “But don’t you think that’s a good idea…?”

                  And so it went. That’s essentially how you get folks claiming that the antifree-market, protectionist, tariff mongering, anti-immigrant, antifreedom-of-movement Trump, who thought FOX’s job was to get him re-elected, who sought to punish companies he didn’t like, who wanted to steal private property for his wall, etc, etc, etc, was a libertarian. They just blocked out anything inconvenient to their fantasy.

                  1. The President who didn’t seize national power during the pandemic is the one who didn’t respect the limits of his office?

                    One of the scary things about Trumpians is how they attached their own fantasies to Trump and then declared that that is what he endorsed.

                2. He was also a firm believer in the president exercising the job outlined for him by the constitution.

                  Especially Article 12 of the Constitution.

                  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-hell-protect-constitutions-article-xii/story?id=40422352

                  Trump doesn’t even know what the Constitution says.

                  1. Based on your long history of sophist idiocy, you certainly don’t.

                  2. Nor does he care much.

                3. Excellent point CLM1227! IMHO, the reason the establishment didn’t want to work with Trump, is because he wanted to give some freedom to the people (same thing as removing government power) so they fought him. He deregulated extensively via EO, which Biden is undoing. The only help he got from Congress is the tax cut bill because he forced the GOP to live up to its word. He obviously talked a lot about authoritarian things he might do that he never did, which looks like a negotiating tactic.

              3. That was actually my greatest fear when Trump won: That the Democrats would decide to work with him. He’d have taken them up on that in a heartbeat.

                Instead they made it clear that they were going to relentlessly oppose him, so his only hope of any support would be retaining the right’s loyalty.

            2. Tell us again how Schumer and Pelosi’s insane spending bills were Trump’s fault. Especially the vetoproof one, and the one he refused to sign during the election.

              You’re so shit at this. If I was your boss at the fifty-cent factory I’d totally can your ass.

              1. Especially the vetoproof one

                They were all vetoproof.

            3. I will preface this with saying that I don’t think any President should really be blamed for spending, seeing as how it originates in the House. So if I blamed Obama for the out of control spending in his first term, that’s my bad.

              Having said that, to the extent that Trump agreed with or wanted to increase spending? Absolutely. Maybe not so much in the size of the government.

              1. Veto proof bills should always fall on the legislative branch. The problem is half this site is full of “analysts” who don’t actually understand the form of government that exists in the US.

                Trump wanted infrastructure, but he was a real-estate guy, so that is understanding. He also ordered cuts elsewhere. The problem is the presidency acts under impoundment, he can not unilaterally not spend unless a project is complete. So basically the media and the leftitarians highlight the former, and ignore the latter.

                1. ” So basically the media and the leftitarians highlight the former, and ignore the latter.”

                  Well of course they do. Their goal isn’t to keep the government accountable or open a dialogue about reigning in spending, it’s to run cover for the Establishment.

            4. Trump was not a republican by any stretch. He’s a populist who ran under the repub party, and aligned somewhat, simple as that. Most republicans are not really republicans. The like their gov super size too they just some different items on the menu compared to their dem brethren.

              1. Yup. These Republitarians who think Democrats are the sole problem slay me. There’s a reason that Libertarians despise both major parties.

                1. The democrats have to be wiped out first. How many times has the choice been between a RINO piece of crap and an outright communist? Get rid of the communists and it becomes easy to run off the RINO scum.

                  1. The (non-neocon) RINOs are preferable to “real” Republiclowns.

                    1. To a leftist, yes. To an American who values freedom, no.

                    2. To an American who doesn’t have a hard-on for Donald J. Trump and whose ultimate political value isn’t “owning the libs,” yes.

            5. Yes.

              Did you think he was a principled Republican? The man’s run for President as a Democrat before.

              1. Trump never actually ran for president prior to 2016.

            6. It used to be all the non-neocons were unpatriotic RINOs. Now, all the neocons are unpatriotic RINOs. Whatev.

          2. “every big spending, big government asshole with an (R) after their name”

            You basically just repeated yourself 3 times

          3. Foreign wars have long been a sacred cow amongst Republicans. This new facade of opposing war is totally bogus. Let us not forget that only 4 short years ago it was Iraq war opponents who used to be called the un-American traitor RINO communists. This current no-new-wars fad will quickly pass.

        3. And White Mike again tries to make the case that Warpig McCain and Pierre Delecto’s only faults were being AntiTrumpers.

        4. That’s not why he was extricated. But please, continue to push the left’s narratives. LOL.

    2. Amash has jumped ship again, back to being a Republican.
      He only moved to the Libertairian Party AFTER he won his eletion.
      Even then, he was more a Never-Trumper that a true Libartarian (if such an animal exists).

      1. “Amash has jumped ship again, back to being a Republican.”

        He has? Can you provide a link to where you heard that?

        1. Amash has not returned to the Republican Party.

      2. Amash is still very much a part of the LP. What are you smoking?

    3. Where else can antichoice christianofascists swim to as their rotting hulk flounders? They are the same thing as the Honduran and Guatemalan victims of national socialism. They flee the ideology that–like an anchor–sinks everything it touches, yet they insist on tossing the anchor of looter altruism into the boats of anyone dumb enough to let them approach. Amash could go to Honduras and bully girls with other superstitious creeps instead of passing plague to the leaky LP.

      1. Yes, you love infanticide Hank. Kermit Gosnell is your hero.

  2. LP winning national elections is like fusion, perpetually 50 years away. Anyway, get woke go broke as they say.

    1. The LP has constantly won elections, if by winning you mean getting bad laws repealed. Biden’s wife used to teach the severely retarded. Maybe she could explain that in terms even Nick can understand. Law-changing spoiler vote clout requires only the ability to add and subtract.

      1. It’s amazing how many bad laws are getting repealed.

      2. I didn’t know that you were once a student of Jill Biden.

  3. Can the Libertarian Party (L.P.) become “a major contender that consistently wins elections?”

    For that to happen, Americans in general will have to become a lot more libertarian. And if that happens, obviously the Republican and Democratic parties will also become a lot more libertarian.

    Which would be a win-win-win, and it shows why the original question doesn’t really matter.

    1. I’d bet that a huge percentage of the eligible voters who don’t vote are libertarian minded and just don’t know it. They want to live their lives without being fucked with, and have no desire to fuck with other people. They don’t want to be micromanaged, and have no desire to micromanage others.
      When elections are a contest between who’s going to fuck with who, and what parts of life are going to be micromanaged, these people don’t show up. They don’t care.

      If libertarians could secure the apathetic vote they just might gain some headway.

      But that’s like organizing The Pessimists of America. They don’t go to meetings because they figure no one will show up.

      1. Hey remember when you spent the entire year of 2020 endlessly promoting Joe Biden for president and insisting he was the best possible candidate in the race and would finally restore your trust in our cherished democratic institutions? Because everyone else here does you useless pathetic alcoholic drug addict welfare queen kiddie fucker.

        1. He claims he never did that and still attacks both sides equally despite him not ever attacking Biden (plenty of opportunity for him yesterday where he attacked the GOP instead). Was fun to watch.

          1. It would be deliciously ironic if Sarc got beaten to death by an antifa mob.

      2. I think what you’ll find is that large swaths of the populace agree in general with a lot of what libertarians want, but in specifics they will disagree vehemently. People overwhelmingly want justice reforms when you bring up specific problems, they don’t think a person should be in jail for a decade or more for marijuana, etc. But then you get into some of the other issues, that turn them off. From the right you have abortion–which the majority of Americans oppose in most non-life-threatening circumstances, but the LP would literally support up to birth for any reason. From the left you have language issues, microaggressions and the like, which the LP ostensibly would say you shouldn’t have laws about or be messing with people over, and they just can’t handle that. These are big things to both camps and the LP will have an uphill fight building a real constituency because of it.

        1. From the left you have language issues, microaggressions and the like, which the LP ostensibly would say you shouldn’t have laws about or be messing with people over

          Joe Jorgensen literally campaigned on a platform of black supremacist racism and Sarwark spent his entire time as Libertarian Party chairman supporting restrictions on speech. There is quite literally nothing the Libertarian Party disagrees with on the left. Which is why they are superfluous and useless as a party. People who want radical Marxism already have the Communist Party USA, Green Party, and Democratic Party. It’s a crowded space.

          1. Indeed, and doing so turns off the other side, and the “principled libertarian” end of things as well. But if you don’t view the LP as an organization that desires to win elections, and rather as one that has long desired to move things more in a unilaterally “progressive” direction, it makes sense. In the end, they have to pick a side, and they have indeed picked. The sad thing is that so many principled libertarians haven’t realized it yet.

            1. You’re responding to Tulpa.

              1. Tulpa isn’t always wrong. Neither are Jeff or Tony.

              2. It’s hilarious that you still can’t differentiate me and Tulpa. Considering you operate at least 3 known sockpuppet accounts that you have outed in your drunken stupors you’d think you’d have at least some minimal ability to ascertain when someone else is doing the same thing, but then nobody ever accused you of being anything other than a brain damaged drug addict kiddie fucker.

                1. IIRC the rules of the comments on Reason has been “It’s Tulpa all the way down” since before I started reading over a decade ago. I’ve been called Tulpa as has everyone else here lol

                  1. I don’t think I’ve ever been called Tulpa, but I’ve been called Mike Hihn a lot.

                    1. I can see that.

                    2. That’s absurd. I don’t always agree with you, but Hihn was consistently incoherent in a way you aren’t.

                      Plus, he’s dead, so…

                    3. Hihn is definitely dead. I doubt he had the resources nor the mental clarity to fake all the evidence of his death online. Plus he would never let his wacko website, featuring his enemies list, go willingly.

                  2. No one ever calls me Tulpa……

          2. “Joe Jorgensen literally campaigned on a platform of black supremacist racism and Sarwark spent his entire time as Libertarian Party chairman supporting restrictions on speech.”

            Those are at the least wild exaggerations if not untruths.

            1. The accurate version is Jorgensen attended a candlelight vigil for black victims of bad policing. That’s all she did.

              1. Possibly, but I wouldn’t take your word for it. You have credibility problems.

            2. “Wild exaggerations” is bend-over-backward charitable. He’s full of crap.

        2. How does a mother killing her unborn child prior to birthing it not violate the non-aggression principle?

          1. First of all, how early in the pregnancy are we talking?

            1. According to Rothbard and Rand, it doesn’t matter how far along she is or whether her unborn baby is a person. The child is a “trespasser” (Rothbard) or a “parasite” (Rand) deserving of death if the mother decides at any time that she doesn’t consent to the use of her property.

          2. Let’s go full throttle here. Do you support abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape? If so, why is it any different? It’s certainly not the gestating fetus’ fault the mother was raped.

            But then you’re in the position of declaring that rape victims should be forced to carry to term, which is a level of consistency beyond most people.

      3. This is so not obviously true. People like being taken care of. And they will trade freedom for security all the time.

        That they think security means they will have more freedom and aren’t really bothering other people just shows a lack of forward thinking intelligence.

      4. Explain how 1.4% of the vote caused the Prohibition and Income Tax amendments. That spoiler vote leverage works just as well to increase freedom as it did to increase ignorant totalitarianism. You are what you vote for, and uncomprehending cowards vote Kleptocracy.

        1. And zealous idiots vote for infanticide.

    2. Another sockpuppet pretending not to know the meaning of “win.” Communist and Prohibition Party zealots joined forces to pass two Amendments. One was torched after it used the other to wreck the economy. But thanks to dummies who do not realize that every time the IRS kicks in a door and shoots someone, that is another victory for the progressive looters of 1913. Electing looters is losing. Making looters lose is winning. What part is too hard to understand?

  4. The LP needs to focus on one issue, prohibiting government from initiating force i.e. applying the NAP to government.

    1. Non starter; no taxes, no government.

      1. Another concept leaks through the Sieve. There was no government and no roads in 1913, right? There sure as hell was no communist manifesto income tax. But to realize that is Thoughtcrime.

    2. And they need to do this aggressively.

      1. With force if necessary. The end justifies the means

    3. Agree. Every position needs to be a reinforcement of the NAP. I would support that.

    4. As long as there is room at the Round Table for The Knights (And Ladies and Trans Minstrels) Who Say “*NIFF!*” (Non-Initiation of Force and Fraud.)

    5. NARAL focussed on one issue, and Trump and all his bootlickers are now bawling in the gutters. Naral learned this stuff from the 1972 LP platform.

  5. >> must work together to build a big-tent party that can take on the old parties and defend the rights of the people

    send. money.

  6. Justin Amash did not hold office as an LP member.

    He became an LP member after he shit on the party he was a member of and the people who voted for him.

    This worked out so well for him that he was ignored as a ‘candidate’ for President and replaced in the House by a Republican in the following election.

    He is the poster boy for what happens when you abandon principle for pandering.

    1. ^^ shorter, more to the point article.

      1. So, you are a no for the George Will symposium?

        1. specifically limiting George to baseball would be okay with me.

      2. Exactly

    2. Whut? He now believes women have individual rights alluva sudden?

      1. Except for female babies, right?

    3. He may have showed that running for Congress as a Libertarian is impossible even for a seasoned incumbent but I don’t see how he abandoned principle. There is nothing principled about the Republican Party; they didn’t even bother to publish a platform last year so they’re not even pretending to have principles anymore.

  7. You can whine about the Mises Caucus all you want. But, the simple fact is that the Mises Caucus has been the center of energy for the LP for the last several years. And if the LP’s leadership hadn’t been willing to “bend” their commitment to the NAP to appeal to progressives (like some other libertarian institutions), the Mises Caucus probably wouldn’t have gotten as far as they did in reaction. Whether you want to call it liberaltarianism, “thick libertarianism” or woketarianism, the strategy simply doesn’t work. Moreover, it simply doesn’t appeal to a great many libertarians. The Mises Caucus’s whole goal seems to be returning the LP to principled libertarianism. And whatever, you think of the “messaging”, the tweets published by the party were entirely consistent with libertarian principle.

    1. Ever since the Kochs created the Libertarian Party from the ashes of Students for a Democratic Society in the 1970s as a means to getting a Marxist foot in the door of American classical liberalism they have been violently raging against Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises for appropriating the term “libertarian” from its roots as as a term for European anarcho-communism and abusing it to refer to individual liberty and classical liberal governance and economics.

      1. As a Libertarian, I fully support your right to partake of whatever drugs have addled your brain so thoroughly, but I still think you need to get clean before you do yourself in.

        -jcr

        1. It is interesting that there are a lot of leftist trolls on here. For the tiny party that LP is! Maybe that’s a positive thing?

    2. An institute that praises the Confederacy is not an institute that understands the first thing about the NAP.

      1. Did they praise the confederacy or did they say that they had every right to secede? Because a lot of people will say the two are the same, but they’re not.

        1. They certainly had the right to secede. They did NOT have the right to secede so they continue with their slavery. The Confederacy itself was all about the slavery. The LvMI myth that it was all about states rights is bullshit. States don’t have rights, people do, and you can’t enslave people under the NAP. Period. Slavery was the proximal cause of secession, and a founding principle of the Confederacy.

          1. This is literally no different from saying that it’s OK to confiscate firearms from people because criminals use firearms. But then since you’re a Democrat who supports gun confiscation I guess that’s probably not a good example.

            Oh, also, check the 9th and 10th amendments to the US constitution. States have rights. Period. But then since you’re a Democrat who doesn’t believe the constitution is a valid legal document I guess that’s probably not a good example.

            It’s too bad you’ve never hit yourself as hard as you did that strawman though. It might knock a couple IQ points into you and get you into the range of an average African slave.

          2. I’ve always been of the mind that they should have been allowed to secede and left to wither until they learned (as all other civilized countries did) that slavery was wrong and they were ready to be welcomed back into the union.

            The idea that the North, who conscripted people to fight a war they had no desire to fight, and whose slaves were not freed in the Emancipation Proclamation had some kind of moral high ground is, to me, laughable.

            But just so we’re clear, fuck anyone for thinking they had a right to own people.

            1. The Confederate government seceded because of slavery.
              The Union government launched a war of conquest because they wanted to maintain control.
              The average Confederate soldier fought the war because there was a foreign army attacking his home (roughly 20% of Southerners owned slaves).
              The average Union soldier fought the war because he was conscripted and didn’t have enough money to buy his way out.

              1. I’m not sure the confederate states seceded explicitly because of slavery. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but that’s simplistic.

                For example, Virginia was one of the last states to secede. Up until Lincoln demanded VA send some 2,000 troops to the Union, the Virginia government was against secession. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were against secession. Stonewall tried to avoid the war by organizing a day of prayer for peace. His wife said he never would have fought a war over slavery.

              2. The confederates seceded for the same reason as prompted the Nullification ordinances that once lowered tariffs a little. The Morrill tariff made it clear that the North, not Britain, was the mercantilist Metropole, while the south remained the illiterate, slave-whoppin’ colony. By focussing on hypothetical concern for transportees, tax enthusiasts are able to divert attention away from the very real protective tariffs that replaced the Acts of Navigation, excluding foreign implements as competitors. Dems sought revenue-only tariffs.

              3. BD,

                Pffft. Get outta here with your facts. Nuance is violence.

          3. Having the right to secede would make them a foreign power.

            Forcing them to abandon slavery would have been the US playing world cop.

            Are you currently advocating the US invade countries where slavery us still practiced?

            Or are you just a dishonest fuck?

          4. There were slave states in the Union all through the Civil War and even admitted another slave state, West Virginia, during the war. Lincoln did nothing to emancipate those slaves, Lincoln didn’t give a shit about slaves. It was all about the money, cotton and tobacco tariffs especially.

  8. Let me guess: the solution is to utterly and completely acquiesce to the radical Marxist racists currently at the helm of the Libertarian Party and support all of the policies of Democrats like they have been doing for the last 50 years?

    1. Here’s a thought: The LP has been doing this for 50 years, so maybe that’s what the LP really is? Expecting something else from them may be expecting too much.

      1. Exactly.

      2. At this point I think the biggest value of the Libertarian Party is that it is a place for libertarians who like to passionately debate the fine points of the NAP, and Robert’s Rules of Order to get together and argue with each other, and not distract from the wider libertarian movement.

    2. I don’t think you know what marxist means.

  9. There is no ‘civil war’ in the LP.

    Libertarians are finally standing up and removing the leftist infestation. Since those people were only there to destroy the LP, and never supportive members, purging them is a expulsion of invaders, not a civil war.

    1. Who will take care of the Rothbardian-Rockwellian-Hoppean “radical right” infestation?

  10. Maybe at one time there was a need for a Libertarian Party. But those days have come and gone.

    After all, libertarianism — especially the Koch-funded variety promoted by Reason and Cato — is fundamentally about making billionaires even richer. And we now know the ideal conditions for skyrocketing billionaire wealth occur when modern, open borders Democrats control the government. IOW, today’s Democratic Party is effectively the “Libertarian Party” — at least on the issue that really matters.

    Go ahead. Try to convince me that the top 10 richest Americans would have gained even more than their $169 billion haul under Biden ……. if only Libertarian President Justin Amash occupied the White House.

    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. You can’t say that with a straight face. The dems are near unlimited in their wishes on size of government and have many billionaires in their corner, perhaps the majority of them!

      The dems don’t want open borders to satisfy the employment market, they want open borders to be “the opposite of Trump” and hence the disaster they’ve created for themselves.

      1. Nothing OBL says is with a straight face (though for 4th wall reasons they’ll deny it) because it’s a satire account. Sometimes quite a good one.

  11. The only LP member to ever hold national office

    Bitch, please.

  12. Perhaps following Justin Amash will lead to even more future election victories for the Libertarian Party.

    1. Probably not.

    2. Like that time he was elected to office as a Libertarian? Remind me when that was.

      1. Amash is the best campaign consultant the LP could ask for. He knows what it takes to run for federal office successfully and win reelection. Unlike Gov. GayJay, he has acquainted himself with libertarian philosophy, and his brain isn’t a loaded baked potato.

  13. As an outsider looking in, this populist uprising against the establishment of the LP is interesting to watch. Not in a “drama is fun” or even in a schaudenfreud kind of way, but as a case study in how populists can succeed and fail. Personally, I think the “Mises Caucus” will lose, because they are up against a far better funded, deeply entrenched opposition, and one that lacks principles, and will do anything to hold onto what they have. This is the case with populist movements within the major 2 parties as well. I can’t wait to see how this turns out in the end though, perhaps they can prevail.

    1. Since I don’t follow the LP closely, and am not a member, what I found truly interesting was that the Chair and another EC member resigned in disgrace when their attempted coup failed. Is that because Mises has enough members on the EC to force the issue? I mean, it’s obvious that GayJay’s caucus is on their side, and it supposedly imploded. Does anyone have some details on the inner workings of this? I’m interesting in kind of charting it out for further study and usage in other scenarios as well as in forecasting.

  14. Well as far as I can see, there are two dimensions to this conflict.

    One dimension is a conflict between those who want to create a “big tent” Libertarian Party that has people who support liberty broadly but who don’t necessarily support every single position, vs. those who want to create a Libertarian Party of pure principle. As I recall, there was a candidate who epitomized the purism tradition, Bergland in 1984, who refused even to get a driver’s license on principle. That’s pretty hardcore. He of course failed miserably. Just from an empirical point of view, the “big tent” campaigns of Gary Johnson were more successful than any purist campaign. Is there a Libertarian Party candidate who was elected, anywhere, by standing on a mountain of pure principle? But there have been plenty of Libertarian Party candidates elected in various offices who were elected despite some heterodox beliefs, because they were viewed as reasonable alternatives to the two-party duopoly, and one reason they were considered reasonable was because they WEREN’T hard-core ideologues.

    The other dimension to the conflict is how to package and sell libertarianism. Being edgy and prioritizing the most unpopular libertarian positions is not the way to go IMO. I mean, if you want to sell the Libertarian brand, why on earth would you start your opening pitch with a statement like “maybe child labor should be legalized”? WTF? There are COUNTLESS examples of how our liberties are infringed upon that are much easier sells. Going on about legalizing child labor, or overturning the Civil Rights Act, or privatizing the roads, or securing the right to own nuclear weapons, is just going to turn people off.

    Personally I think the LP would be well served by pursuing some “good government” proposals that are strictly speaking not libertarian per se, but could secure interest and support, and are unwilling to be addressed by either Team Red or Team Blue because it would undermine their duopoly. Such as, expanding the size of the House. Pushing for more open access and more transparency on how government at all levels works. They can be “gateway issues” to the Libertarian philosophy at large.

    1. As I recall, there was a candidate who epitomized the purism tradition, Bergland in 1984, who refused even to get a driver’s license on principle.

      That was Harry Browne, but you’re just as good at being a misinformed moron as you are at being a lying piece of shit.

      there have been plenty of Libertarian Party candidates elected in various offices who were elected despite some heterodox beliefs, because they were viewed as reasonable alternatives to the two-party duopoly

      There has never been a Libertarian Party candidate elected to any national office and the number elected to local office could be counted on one human being’s fingers and toes. Which is why you provided no examples to support your assertion: there are none.

      I mean, if you want to sell the Libertarian brand, why on earth would you start your opening pitch with a statement like “maybe child labor should be legalized”? WTF?

      Yeah go with the surefire winners like mandating that children in public schools be taught about anal masturbation and that white people are inherently evil because of the color of their skin.

      1. “white people are inherently evil because of the color of their skin”

        That’s a distortion of the CRT concepts that left-libertarians like jeff and I want public schoolchildren to learn. We don’t say white people are “evil” — only that they are privileged, and must atone for that privilege by supporting affirmative action and open borders.

        #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism

        1. You have gone from parody to understating. It’s a tough gig these days, I know, but you are actually way more “moderate” than actual CRT proponents

    2. I’ve had dinner with Bergland. I shared a joint with Gary Johnson. The big difference was that Bergland was campaigning to libertarians, while Gary Johnson actually tried to win. He had no chance, but at least he tried.

      p.s. Also had dinner with W.A.R. What a tool. He just wanted to hang out with brohs. Fuck, he even brought along his own broh entourage just in case he wasn’t fawned over enough.

      1. LOL, the closest I got to conversing with one of the LP Presidential candidates was using the urinal next to Ron Paul. Don’t think I even said a word to him, though. 🙂

    3. The political career of a personal friend of mine, John Inks, is an example of how to do it. He was mayor of Mountain View, CA, one of the most progressive cities there is. He was openly Libertarian, but still got elected.

      But he also did the grunt work of building a base of supporters and rapport by volunteering on city committees, being the only city council member who would take every phone call from every constituent who wanted to talk to him, etc.

      1. I walked several precincts for John Inks. Wore out a lot of shoe leather.

        p.s. And yes Mike, we’ve met. But I’m keeping my online identity secret. Because I’m Batman.

        1. You’re not supposed to peek through the gloryhole.

        2. Good for you.

          1. That might have sounded wrong. What I meant was, “Good for you to do that. Inks is a good guy.”

      2. Grunt Work? Base building? That doesn’t sound a lot like cocktail parties.

        1. LOL, he actually got invited to more cocktail parties than a bunch of our county LP’s typical socially awkward Libertarian candidate who would draw a whopping 0.5% of the vote. 🙂

          1. Aww, be nice to the Aspergo-capitalists.

      3. The political career of a personal friend of mine, John Inks, is an example of how to do it. He was mayor of Mountain View, CA, one of the most progressive cities there is. He was openly Libertarian, but still got elected.

        He ran as a radical leftist in a radical leftist town, won, then immediately lost his position in the next election to the youngest faggot to ever be elected mayor. What a colossal achievement. You must be so proud.

    4. If you want to be big tent, maybe don’t shit on people who are conservative leaning while bending over backwards to suck off people who are progressive leaning?

      Just a thought.

      1. Maybe when “conservative leaning” stops meaning “bending over backwards to suck Trump’s dick” they might deserve a some respect.

        1. Better than all the Dem cock you’ve been gobbling here I suppose.

        2. Please keep your weird sexual fantasies to yourself.

        3. You’re not new here sarc. Yokeltarian has been a slur for anyone remotely conservative leaning long before Trump became President. Tha fuck?

          (Also, I’m curious what you consider “bending over backwards to suck Trump dick”. Would you say that of me?)

          1. He says that of anyone who doesn’t fantasize about Joe Biden’s shriveled old chode in between blackout drunken stupors and raping their daughter like he does.

            1. Y’know, I get that Sarc is particularly unpopular around here these days, but “raping his daughter” is a pretty strong accusation unless there’s some solid backup to it. Is there such?

              1. I notice you didn’t even blink at the assertion that Biden rapes his own daughter.

                1. I didn’t read the predecessor comment as making that claim. It’s possible that I got lost in the thicket of pronouns. Also, monkeysphere. I’ve never interacted with Biden. I’ve interacted with Sarc. Thus, the claim about him has more personal impact than one against Biden.

                  I dunno. I’ve seen a lot of shit flung here in the comments, and have flung my own share to be honest. But that seems like a pretty harsh one, and I’ve seen it repeatedly, so I figured I’d ask.

                  Of course, I’m also not very likely to keep monitoring this thread for replies, so it’s likely that even if anyone responds, I’ll never see it.

                  *shrug*

              2. It stems from Ashley Biden’s diary and mention of ‘inappropriate showers’ with Joe.

          2. Ever since he became broken, sarc’s only purpose here is to broadcast his TDS.

        4. Which started 4 years ago. Explain the last several decades of Libertarians sucking off progs.

          1. They haven’t.

            1. Best thing about Trump was his ability to pull masks. Reason wasn’t immune.

              1. “pull masks”? What does that mean?

                1. Getting you leftists to show your true beliefs.

                  1. Is that NewsMaxspeak?

                    1. It means Trump was good at getting phony libertarians to show their leftist beliefs. Was that somehow not obvious?

                    2. 1. Left-libertarians do exist. 2. Trumpism isn’t libertarian in any way, shape, or form.

    5. Is there a such thing as a “Libertarian Party of pure principle”? I think not. Bergland was more like an anarchist which is where libertarianism leads SOME.

  15. In the 50 years that the Libertarian Party has existed, it has won 0 statewide elections.

    When I am restored to my position as Libertarian Party chairman, I intend to double that number

    –Michael Malice.

    1. Malice is mildly amusing. Dave Smith should take notes.

  16. All political parties are coalition parties. The Libertarian Party is comprised of various factions, none of whom believe in coalitions. That is the core of the problem right there. Randians are never going to get along with Rothbardians, minarchists will never get along with anarchists, crunchies will never get along with turtles.

    I’ve been in LP executive meetings at the state level. Nasty shit. The lower the stakes the pettier the politics, and when the party as a whole has completely given on the idea of actually getting someone elected, there literally are no stakes so it’s the maximum of petty sniping. And I’m sure the state level was Emily Post in comparison to national.

    I’m not sure any sort of “Can’t we all just get along” from Justin is going to many any difference. The LP needs to disband and reform itself as a debate club.

    1. You’ve capsulized my experience in county and state level LP committee meetings. I quit the party because of it.

      1. Best thing for you. As you’re a progressive leftist anyway.

      2. Well, that confirms my theory on what’s wrong with the LP.

      3. Man you guys must be super important just like Mikey Hihn was. Did you also successfully lose 30 attempts at running for local dog catcher too?

  17. The LP vice presidential candidate in 2016 endorsed Hillary Clinton. The end.

    1. Bill Weld was and remains a clown.

  18. As a Libertarian leaning conservative I would suggest the following strategy:

    1. Focus on State Legislatures and local elections, and rather than always run your own candidate also nominate some acceptable conservatives.

    2. Don’t get into the muck of foreign policy, defense, immigration, tariffs. You are
    decades to never away from ever electing a candidate that will have any say over those issues, and it will just drive away people at the state and local level that might vote for you.

    3. Focus on the most popular libertarian positions: decriminalizing drugs, deregulation of occupations, freedom of choice in schools, private property rights, smaller government, lower taxes, gun rights, home distilling, no electric car mandates, or natural gas or propane bans. Health insurance deregulation, and fee for service measures like encouraging publishing prices and requiring providers that take government payments to offer the same prices for cash payments.

    4. Stay away from hot button issues where you may have a good point, but you are never going to win on the issue and it just poisons the well for attracting voters: civil rights and public accommodations laws, and child labor laws. Don’t emphasize pro-abortion, it’s already the law, but certainly oppose government funding.

    If you do that then maybe you can become enough of a force in local, small states, and regional elections to start to matter at the national level.

    1. People have been saying this for years, I don’t think it’ll ever happen.

    2. That’s not how you win your first office. You win by being prominent in your community. You win on honesty and competence. Sometimes you win by being a protege of a well-liked senior office holder. It’s not about policy.

  19. If I heard and understood Amash correctly, he said the LP needs to embrace diversity politics (at least on some level) because young people care about it.

    The whole point of diversity politics is to divide us.

    Wokeism is designed as an end around of our rights, especially the first amendment. It has almost rendered the first amendment as useless.

    I am incredulous and disgusted that the LP and any libertarian would in any way embrace these ideas.

    1. Anything to stop Trump. Orange Man Bad.

    2. I am incredulous and disgusted that the LP and any libertarian would in any way embrace these ideas.

      First day at Reason?

      1. Hahaha, I have been gone a very long time. I’ve been checking in recently to see how they are covering the Biden admin compared to the Trump admin and it’s as I expected.

        1. Are all the Reason articles criticizing the Biden administration not Trumpy enough for your taste?

          1. No, I want to see BDS.

    3. Well libertarians are in the cat bird seat and know why these issues are and could articulate solutions better than the two major parties.

      I agree we should not embrace CRT or any of that nonsense. But the real root causes of these civil issues are government as we all know. Vast over-criminalization, militarizing/increasing the aggression of police, destruction of bill of rights protections, programs that for a couple generations now have destroyed the black family nucleus by rewarding single parenthood, poverty traps, poor utilization of education dollars, housing regs that drive up prices, etc…

      The dems answers are that it’s because we are all racist and the repubs answers are that we aren’t following jesus/we’re immoral so there seems to be a lot of room for reasonable explanations and solutions that people would prefer.

  20. I really like Amash’s focus on process. Very very rare. Just not sure he (or anyone who thinks like a candidate) is the guy to help make that happen. The whole point of the ‘Pragmatist Caucus’ was to bring in folks to build a party organization. Sorely needed – but candidates don’t bring that skill-set, they benefit from it. We need people like Mary Matalin (now an LP member I think). We need people like Jimmy Wales. We need people like Trevor Lyman. We need people like Birgitta Jónsdóttir.

    You wanna talk about localism as a governing philosophy? Create an organization that can mobilize people to win a local election. That gives the party that does that – credibility. Talking about non-intervention, gold standard, privatizing roads, ballot access in DeRpistan (not everywhere in the US has shitty ballot laws), presidential ‘joint appearances’ – irrelevant to localism. But you damn well better figure out how the streets are going to get plowed. You damn well have to figure out how registered voters join and pay dues to a party organization that benefits them on the 99% of days that are not ‘election day’. You damn well have to figure out how to screen/sell talented candidates going from non-partisan office to partisan office.

    There’s a ton of other process stuff that a)tends towards creating libertarian ideas within government and b)tends towards creating the things of an effective party organization.

    1. “You damn well have to figure out how to screen/sell talented candidates going from non-partisan office to partisan office.”

      This is one that some colleagues and I tried to make some progress on, when we were on our county and state level LP central committees. We proposed a program where we would groom candidates, including how to dress and speak, as well as give them support such as setting up precinct databases.

      We got SO much resistance to our proposal that we would ask candidate to, like, bathe and get a haircut and wear a tie.

      1. Certainly the giving them basic campaign support that candidates can tap into.
        Create a wiki format.
        Copy stuff from tons of D and R sites about how to canvass a neighborhood, how to hire a campaign manager and what do they do, how to run a meeting, how to speak in front of people, how to get positive publicity, how to network and gladhand, how to raise money.
        Ask a polisci professor from a local college if ‘help organize a county level political party’ would be a useful class project. You think the DeRps will do that?

        As for recruiting/screening candidates – only two approaches
        Find the purists at heart and teach them how to hold office and win elections
        Find the existing officeholders of non-partisan level and teach them how to deal with the issues of that next-level partisan-elected office as a libertarian would.
        The former is useless for candidates/elections (and it becomes obvious why with just a bit of thought) The latter is pretty difficult – but is exactly how a pragmatic political party can become national in steps.

      2. What specifically was the resistance to your proposal? It seems pretty widespread since the LP does that nowhere. I don’t understand that. Especially if you did the hard work of putting the idea/program out there. ‘Select the best candidates’ is like Political Party 101.

        1. Basic stuff like bathing, combing their hair, and wearing a suit and tie. Literally. Not exaggerating.

          1. “Why does that stuff matter? Our ideas are the correct ones. That is all that matters.”

            1. Did you stumble into the Audacious Caucus? You can’t ask some neckbearded radicals to quit looking and acting like bums because, “i’M rEaChInG tHe BuM pOpUlAtIoN!!1 fUcK OFF, sLavEr.”

  21. “The only LP member to ever hold national office”

    Big stretch here considering he was not elected as such and lost re-election afterwards.

    Every good thing that came out of the LP was just a platform adjustment for Republicans. That’s why nobody actually joins this joke of a party despite considering themselves Libertarian.

    There’s no point in having policies if you can’t win seats and as unfortunate as this may sound to you, a party that boos speakers for not wanting drugs to be sold to children and advocates for legalizing DUIs offends the average American more than a Republican party that wants to reduce the size of government but struggles to do so in any meaningful way.

    1. Amash didn’t run for re-election.

      1. We all know why he didn’t. Stop pretending.

    2. The 3rd party vote at least sends a message, especially when it is perceived as causing one of the parties to lose.

      1. Yeah, it sends a message that you’re privileged and insulated from the consequences of elections.

    3. It offends me when Republicans steal my money while telling me they are for small government. I’d rather lose elections than do any of the things you’ve suggested. Why should we comprise our positions on policy just to win? Also, I’m a registered libertarian. Left the republican party 15 years ago. Never going back.

      1. You act as though Republicans can just win supermajorities and abolish the entire federal government overnight. Parties aren’t a monolith and iconoclasm is no way to govern.

  22. You know that guy Abraham Lincoln, who didn’t say “fuck you, slavery is evil” and then refused to work with pro slavery states and individuals who were still loyal to the union? Yeah he was among the greatest president there ever was.

    You know that guy on the street passing out manifestos which has all the right ideas? Yeah, he won’t win any seat in government.

    Amash is exhibit A in why libertarians don’t win elections. Because he exemplifies their inability to even slightly go past their “principles” form coalitions and build up numbers to actually pass or do anything. Or should I say, their REFUSAL to do so.

    Libertarians will always allow some key differences between likeminded allies from coalescing. Immigration is obviously one those issues. Nothing Trump did as far as to merit impeachment, whereas the left’s true coup attempt was a threat to the republic. Amash, playing the role of the “only principled guy”, ignored this reality and made personal vendetta against Trump, alienating whatever base he or his party needed to win.

    Rand Paul and Massey are viable on the national stage because they can remain loyal to the president and his supporters while offering criticisms on his policy and errors. They know how to be presentable and frame certain issues. That’s how you win elections. Voters aren’t rational beings, they’re team players who are emotionally invested in someone or some ideas. If you alienate them, you lose, period.

    Trump made respectable gains among minority voters because he connected with them on a personal level during a lawless, uncertain time. He was a brash, outspoken voice against lot of nonsense in the world. If libertarians elect anymore white bread candidates whose best quality is “muh principles” they’ll keep on losing.

  23. Amash doesn’t know much about the LP. But he does know about being a Republican, so why should libertarians listen to him? The problem the LP has is not that it is too radical to be successful, but that libertarian principles are incompatible with the requirements for political success. You can’t adhere to the non-aggression principle while pursuing election so that you can participate in government actions to deprive people of their rights to life, liberty, and property. Successful politics requires lying to get elected and compromise of moral principles in pursuit and exercise of political power. Libertarians will never be any good at that. Libertarians should focus their efforts on delegitimizing government, showing the public the damage that governments do, the dishonesty practiced in politics, the corruption of any activity dependent upon government support, the value of liberty, and more. The goal of libertarians should be to make the public aware of hypocrisy and dishonesty in politics, and to publicly shame politicians for what they do. The goals of libertarians should include showing the highlights of liberty and explaining the achievements of free people, and showing that the justifications offered for government do not stand up under close examination.
    Paul Grant
    Former LP National Chair

    1. “The problem the LP has is not that it is too radical to be successful…”

      That is precisely the heart of its problem. The NAP is a good rule of thumb, but it is by no means a magic bullet that always gives the correct answer on how to have good government. Some scenarios in real life are too weird and messy for simple answers based on NAP.

      1. Radicals have a place as the party’s ideological center of gravity. Unfortunately, the LP’s radicals are culturally divided between uncouth, slightly deranged alternative lifestylists and smarmy, hard-right Austrolibertarian jackasses, while the pragmatists tend to resemble Rockefeller Republicans or market-friendly, progressive Democrats. If the party were a safer place for sane radical centrists in the vein of Larry Sharpe, we would be a lot better off.

        1. The Nolan Chart is one of the best means of recruiting people and educating them on libertarian ideas. Unfortunately it is 50 years out of date. Which no one seems interested in updating. And it seems a significant part of the LP doesn’t see what the purpose of a Nolan Chart is if the result is that anyone ends up in the libertarian quadrant.

          1. Unfortunately a lot of radicals inside and outside the LP are convinced that “real” libertarianism is a corner point rather than a quadrant, and all other points might as well be totalitarian statism.

  24. It is perplexing given that far more Americans are in sync with the libertarian perspective than the party’s numbers would indicate.

    One issue is that some “populism” is a pill that probably has to be taken. For example most libertarians like the idea of ending social security for the failure that it is, but given 70% or more of the country wants it, that is a losing and perceived “extremist” position right off the bat. The libertarian message for that should probably be “we won’t get rid of it, but we won’t expand it, and unlike the D’s and R’s we’ll be honest stewards of your money, telling you where it stands and how to sure it up if it isn’t”

    Also, more of a criticism of Reason in particular but can go to many libertarian pundits is simple wishy washyness. There is too much on-parity criticism of the two major parties, where the pundit is careful to criticize and/or complement the two major parties perfectly equally, often in the same sentence (“democrats do this wrong, and repubs to that wrong …”). Life doesn’t work like that way, nothing is perfectly equal and I think it greatly weakens the libertarian message to try to portray that, like we don’t have our own opinion, we are just in the exact middle of those two, where ever they are.

    1. Libertarians ask voters to listen to what the two looter gangs forming The Kleptocracy say about EACH OTHER. All we need is for them to remember some of that on election day, and have guts enough to not drink the cyanide.

      1. “All we need is for them to remember some of that on election day”

        Wishful thinking isn’t going to get you there and that’s the real downfall of conservatives and libertarians. They both believe their ideas are reasonable and people will listen to reason. Elections require real work and organization and that’s the weak point of the LP.

    2. “It is perplexing given that far more Americans are in sync with the libertarian perspective than the party’s numbers would indicate.”

      You are delusional. The LP has become the party of the alt-right because of the Mises Caucus. It’s never gone anywhere despite having decades to ‘get the message out’ and now it’s going nowhere fast.

      1. The Mises Caucus isn’t alt-right per re, but they’re paleos and have an uncomfortably high tolerance for far-right, cultural reactionary bullshit.

    3. I’ll support getting rid of Social Security if you explain what you intend to put in its place to guarantee that old people don’t starve to death on the streets by the millions.

      1. No you wouldn’t. The only thing more acceptable to you would be an even more gargantuan government program. You can’t conceive of anything else.

      2. you intend to put in its place to guarantee that old people don’t starve to death on the streets by the millions

        The correct answer is – guillotines (privately owned and operated of course) at all public parks. Starving to death is a horrible way to die. And selling tickets is also the best sort of for-profit street theater to educate people on the tragedy of the commons.

  25. Comstock Law book-burning, girl-bullying bigots are what formed the T-Party in an attempt to wreck the LP by making people thing libertarians are ku-klux republicans. How’s that working out?

    1. You’re the bigot. Do you think anyone who talks like a raving bigot, such as yourself, will ever get more than a few people to vote for them?

  26. A woke republican is not a libertarian. Sorry amash. Take your bullshit somewhere else.

    1. Amash is neither “woke” nor a Republican, so you take your own bullshit elsewhere.

      1. He was elected as a republican. Never elected as a libertarian. When he talks, he sounds like a republican politician to me.

        He’s not woke? Telling me I’m wrong for being color blind. That’s not enough for him? Why is it any of his business my opinions? No libertarian I’ve ever met asked me to change my personal viewpoint. Amash just tried to shame us for being color blind.

        For those reasons, imo, amash can take his bullshit elsewhere. So can his bootleggers. Psst, that’s you, douchebag.

        1. I meant bootlickers. Not illegal liquor smuggler. I would never accuse him of that

          1. Whose boot am I supposed to be licking again? A person can and should treat people with equal respect, regardless of race or ethnicity, while also acknowledging that some people suffering disproportionately on those bases is a systemic issue that Libertarians ought to address openly.

  27. Amash reminds me of this new wave of Reason articles that panders to the left. From what I’ve heard of him anyways.

  28. The dilemma is that the LP is pushing a program of limited government in an era where most people want Big Government to enforce their own political agendae. Repackaging the LP message of Small Government may gain some marginal increases in voters, but there needs to be a paradigm shift in the general worldview of the people before we get a free country.

    Still, Amash does have a point or two, and he should be listened to.

  29. Transcript?

  30. 1. Is there actually a civil war?

    2. If there is, the only way to end it is for everyone to want the same things.

    3. This would mean we are no longer libertarians.

    1. Also, people are simply too used to government being weaponized against them that they currently feel the only way to protect themselves is to gain control of government – to be used against those who’ve wronged them.

      You’re seeing in the modern US the exact same dynamic that plays out in nations smooshed together out of multiple tribes during the colonial era.

      We think we’re rational. We think we have free will. We are ants following our programming.

      1. “You’re seeing in the modern US the exact same dynamic that plays out in nations smooshed together out of multiple tribes during the colonial era.”

        That… is disturbingly accurate.

      2. Strangely, the people who actually live in the most diverse communities (they’re called cities) have the least problem with different types of people. It’s almost as if we get used to our surroundings.

        So what’s the excuse of those who freak out so much about diversity, while living in 100% white suburbs or rural areas? Perhaps they just watch too much cable news.

    2. 1. Yes, albeit a cold one so far. But stay tuned.

      2. No, just less slavers (democrats, and RINOs). This has to happen.

      3. There is nothing against libertarian principles to destroy your enemies in self defense. Prog government is enslaving, murderous force. Therefore escalating action to stop them is pure self defense.

  31. Early in the video, Nick Gillespie says that it’s a testament to the LP that “bigger parties fall apart because they are liars and hypocrites, the Libertarian Party falls apart because people disagree.” This is dissembling nonsense and it has to be intentional. Just look at a few of the posts that led to resignations – including that it ‘would be a better world if trans people were murdered and no one had to pay taxes.’ What kind of ghoulish ‘disagreement’ is that? What is the point of posing that hypothetical? That tweet was only to condone and normalize violence against a minority group. It cannot seriously be viewed as a normal political disagreement. Reason can go its own way on this and create whatever content it likes. But it will discredit itself and have only white trash alt-right followers left. It will get what it deserves.

    1. What on earth makes you think Reason condoned that messaging?

  32. The problem with the LP is not that it is ‘dysfunctional’, it is ‘why’ it is dysfunctional is the problem; and vision and tactics reveal the problem; which is, the message of purity and fidelity to the cause; the utopian vision of Libertaria.

    Think of it like this; I think All Catholics should be Libertarians, and know the perfect book, once the read it; they will agree.

    In both instances, my success depends upon others, believing, reading or buying something. And, why should they?

  33. The Libertarian Party is what it is. It is a 1 percent party in a good year. If Amash ran in 2024 or 2028 he would do better than Gary Johnson did in making some kind of coherent case for Libertarianism, and he would get 1 percent. Not sure why he or anyone would want to devote time to that, but it’s something to do. The two parties suck so hard, who wouldn’t enjoy having the chance to bash them on National tv for a few weeks. Just once, an LP presidential candidate should say “fuck off, slaver” to someone, somewhere. It’s all we can do. Fuck off, slavers!

    1. That’s what Ron Paul tried to do and we all know what the Republican party did to him.
      The Democrat Party would do the same.
      Both parties are tossers.
      Which is why I quit voting.
      Besides if you vote, you have no right to complain.

  34. Amash is not a libertarian. Rand Paul is a Libertarian. And the LP is not a libertarian party. Just like Reason is not a libertarian site.

    I’m seeing a pattern here. Fake news.

  35. Liberty, free markets and sound money are the most basic tenants of the Libertarian Party.
    The NAP refers to the governments use of terrorism ie: threats of violence including the use of force and violence to get what it wants.That the government so often prefers to use violence against those it believes to be troublesome is proof we no longer have a legitimate government at all.
    Ruby Ridge; Waco, Texas, the Bundy Ranch and the murder of Lavoy Finnicum at the hands of the government are proof we no longer have a government of the people.
    It is a government of the government, by the government and for the government. In short, America is transforming into a totalitarian state. It is also a state that is now running on economic fumes. Very soon collapse will become the main event. What happens after that nobody can predict with certainty. We may very well loose what’s left of what freedoms we have and replaced with outright tyranny.
    If you aren’t prepared for what’s coming then you are prepared to be one of its victims.

Please to post comments