Inside the Mises Caucus Takeover of the Libertarian Party
Supporters say they want to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again." Critics say they’re shitposting edgelords who will destroy the LP from within.
HD DownloadThe Libertarian Party (L.P.) is under new management, tweeted Angela McArdle, shortly after she became the National Committee's new chair at its 2022 annual convention in Reno, Nevada, which was attended by more than 1,000 delegates from around the country.
"We're obviously at a crossroads right now," McArdle said during a debate for the chair position. "I hate to sound like a scumbag politician…but we are going to move heaven and earth to make this [party] functional and not embarrassing for you. We are going to change the country."
McArdle, who won her election with about 70 percent of the vote, is part of the Mises Caucus, which swept all the national leadership roles and is now in complete control of the nation's third-largest political party.
Mises Caucus supporters say they want to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again," that it should no longer be concerned about offending progressives or Beltway types and shouldn't be afraid to reach out to the coalition that elected former President Donald Trump. McArdle says that the party faceplanted during the pandemic by failing to take a strong stance against lockdowns and vaccine mandates and that its messaging is far too tame and conventional to counter the power of the authoritarian state.
"If something like a lockdown or a vaccine mandate happens [again], we won't whiff the ball and humiliate ourselves and alienate everyone out there," she said in her acceptance speech.
Critics say they're shitposting edgelords who make controversial statements just to attract attention and that they have no interest in running viable candidates for office.
"If Angela McArdle becomes chair of the Libertarian National Committee and makes the party welcoming to bigots, the committee she is in charge of will shrivel and die," says Nicholas Sarwark, the chair of the Libertarian Party from 2014 to 2020 and a frequent critic of the caucus.
The Mises Caucus' namesake is the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, but its members are especially influenced by his student Murray Rothbard. Like Mises, Rothbard was a radical capitalist, who, unlike his mentor, favored the complete abolition of the state. Rothbard also advocated forming strategic political alliances with the New Left in the 1960s and then with paleoconservative figures like Pat Buchanan in the early '90s.
Rothbard was an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul's run on the Libertarian presidential ticket in 1988. He wrote that the party had become "increasingly flaky…libertine and culturally leftist" and saw Paul's campaign as a "last desperate attempt" to save the party. But it ultimately failed, in his view, leaving the L.P. "spiraling downward into oblivion." The Mises Caucus likewise looks to Ron Paul as a political role model, pointing to his 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential campaigns (which generated huge crowds and interest in libertarianism). Paul attended a Mises Caucus event in Reno to signal his support.
"These are the kids who came up in 2008 and 2012 inspired by Ron Paul," says Scott Horton, a popular anti-war radio host, author, and founder of the Libertarian Institute. It was Horton who officially nominated McArdle for the chair position. "Now they've been to college, grown up. They got their own lives and families and things, and they're ready to move in and take the next step."
As examples of the kinds of bold messages the party should be sending, McArdle points to Paul's famous 2007 confrontation with Rudy Giuliani during a nationally televised Republican presidential debate over the root causes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and when Paul told a Republican audience in South Carolina that heroin shouldn't be illegal.
"The priorities of the Mises Caucus have always been basically the priorities of the Ron Paul Revolution," says Dave Smith, comedian and host of the libertarian podcast Part of the Problem, who is also a likely contender for the party's 2024 presidential nomination. "Being anti-war…[and] with inflation raging, I think is a really good time to be sound on [Austrian economics]," he told Reason. "And then, of course, throughout the last two years, just completely opposing the rise of the COVID regime."
But when does "bold messaging" become counterproductive trolling? It's a line that several high-profile Mises Caucus members and official Libertarian Party social media accounts have struggled to identify.
"I think bolder messaging is important, but we don't need edgelording," former U.S. Rep. Justin Amash told Reason.
Amash rode to office on the 2010 Tea Party wave, representing Michigan, and Politico once described him as the "new Ron Paul" in Congress because of his willingness to buck party-line votes on principle. He switched his party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian in his final term, making him the L.P.'s highest officeholder since its founding in 1971. He's not a member of the Mises Caucus but says they've brought new energy to the party and that the important task now is "channeling that energy in the right direction."
"I don't think [Mises Caucus members] are coming here because they're nationalists or bigoted or any of that stuff," says Amash. "That's not to say that there aren't people within the Libertarian Party, just as there are within the Democratic Party and Republican Party and throughout the whole world who are bigoted and racist…And I think we should call out people like that and we should denounce those kinds of statements. But, do I think that the caucus as a whole is like that? I don't think so."
The convention was buzzing over an article that had just been published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) titled, "Mises Caucus: Could It Sway the Libertarian Party to the Hard Right?," and McArdle gave out a mock "Failed Grifter of the Year" award to the SPLC at a Mises Caucus event.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center, or the Soviet Poverty Lie Center as [historian] Tom DiLorenzo calls it… is the ideological enforcement arm of the regime," Tom Woods told the audience at a Mises-sponsored event at the convention. "And I would want to repel anybody who was clueless enough to treat it as a source worthy of a moment's attention."
Sarwark booked whistleblower Edward Snowden to speak in a different room at the same time as Woods, he says, in order to give the attendees "an option."
"I came to the conclusion that there is no magic combination of words I can ever utter that will make somebody who…would put Snowden against me [to] suddenly make him say, 'Oh, I've been wrong about you my whole life,'" Woods told Reason when asked about the double booking.
Woods is a best-selling author, historian, and host of the immensely popular libertarian podcast, The Tom Woods Show. When asked by Reason what the biggest misconception about him was, Woods replied that it was his association with the League of the South. It's not an organization that "these days…I, nor anybody I know, would join."
In 1994, Woods attended the group's founding meeting. He maintains that it only later became a neo-Confederate white separatist organization, one which was involved in the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally. In 1994, the League of the South was a group of "nerdy academics" like him, Woods says, and he had no idea what it would later become.
"I've never apologized for it," says Woods. "The easiest thing in the world for me would be to say, 'I'm so sorry. I joined an organization, or I was at the founding meeting of an organization, that is outside the allowable range of opinion…I'm not sorry because I didn't do anything wrong. Yeah, it was edgy to be in that group, but we never meant any harm to anybody."
Critics of the Mises Caucus worry that the group won't do enough to keep bigots—the sort of person that might join the present-day version of the League of the South—out of the party.
"There is a tendency for outsider groups to attract other outsiders," says Sarwark. "That's the nature of entryism into political movements…The only way to stop entryism is to put up clear signs that say 'no bigots allowed.'"
Dave Smith told a Mises Caucus audience in May 2021, "I speak for everyone in the Mises Caucus when I say it: We reject racism. It's collectivist, toxic garbage." But some delegates at the convention were alarmed that the caucus wanted to strike a sentence from the L.P.'s party platform condemning bigotry as "irrational and repugnant."
"What is a bigot? No one can agree," says McArdle. "All it leads to is everybody in the party pointing fingers and calling each other a bigot. I believe in freedom of speech. I prefer when people don't say horribly racist offensive things. I think that it's not well-met. It's pointless."
Mises Caucus founder Michael Heise defended the deletion of the language because "libertarianism isn't about wrongthink. It's about non-aggression, self-ownership, and property rights," and said he believes that the anti-bigotry condemnation fed what he calls a "woke," or "cultural Marxist" agenda.
"What is happening nowadays with the 'wokeism' is people are using language as dialectics along cultural lines to push for collectivist ends," says Heise. "So back in the day…the Marxist revolutions, they had the dialectics of the rich versus the poor and the owner versus the worker. And they were pushing towards collectivist ends. It's the same ideology that's happening now, but they're pitting cis versus straight and male versus female and trans versus whatever."
The delegates ultimately voted to remove the anti-bigotry statement. But on the initiative of Spike Cohen, L.P.'s former vice-presidential candidate, they added a new line stating that the party would "uphold and defend the rights of every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity."
The Mises Caucus also succeeded in removing the party's pro-choice plank, which McArdle said was called for because abortion represents "an irreconcilable difference" within the libertarian movement.
"We tend to push out people who are a little bit more socially conservative," says McArdle. "And I think that there's room in the party for people who are libertine and socially conservative. And I would like them to feel that way."
Mises Caucus leadership also says it's a mistake for the Libertarian Party to take an unequivocally open-borders stance on immigration. The current platform states that the "crossing of political boundaries" should not be "unreasonably constrained by government," and that language did not change during the convention.
"When you put open borders, plus pro-abortion in there…it kind of forms a cultural hegemony for one side that might not be indicative of the wider libertarian movement," says Heise.
Along with Rothbard, one of the biggest influences on prominent members of the Mises Caucus is the political theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who disagreed with the pro-immigration views of Ludwig von Mises. He wrote that politicians have a perverse incentive to let in "unproductive parasites, bums, and criminals" and that "the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations." Hoppe advocates for "the Swiss model, where local assemblies, not the central government, determine who can and who cannot become a Swiss citizen." Hoppe has also suggested that "democrats and communists" will have to be "physically separated and expelled" from a libertarian society.
"Open borders and private borders are not the same," says Heise. "But they're both libertarian canon. So…by taking a side on this [in the party platform], we're representing one side and basically pushing out another side or making them feel not represented."
Like the Mises Caucus, Amash often talks about the decentralization of political power, but he is also insistent upon the central importance of liberalism, or the protection of individual rights even at the hyper-local level of government. He says this idea is foundational to the United States and should be one of the Libertarian Party's core messages.
"I think that the emphasis should be on getting us back to our roots as a country," says Amash. "What do we believe in as a basic set of principles? And, really, what this country is about is liberalism in the classical sense, the idea that people should be able to free…to make their own decisions about their lives and government, to the extent possible, should just stay out of it."
On the first day of the convention, guest speaker Snowden made a similar point.
"Freedom from permission: That is what liberty is," said Snowden. "Just the ability to act without asking, to speak and to write, to do, and to be yourself without getting the paper stamped, without submitting yourself and the completed form alongside it to some central authority."
While Mises Caucus–endorsed candidates swept all other leadership positions that were up for grabs, there remains a discontented minority within the party, and McArdle says that about 40 members quit after the Mises Caucus took power.
"The party has been an embarrassment to libertarians for a very long time," says Brianna Coyle, an Ohio delegate who quit the party during the convention. She's clashed with Mises Caucus members online in the past. "I think, quite frankly, it's going to be even worse than it used to be….This is the paleo strategy happening yet again."
Others are taking a wait-and-see approach.
"I think it's going to be interesting," says Avens O'Brien, a California delegate who opposed the Mises Caucus' removal of the pro-choice platform language. "I welcome new membership. I welcome change…I think right now there are a lot of complicated feelings from a lot of delegates, and I'm hoping that the people who get elected are willing to work with everyone. And if they are, I think that there could be good things."
Amash, who is both sticking around and a rumored 2024 presidential candidate, says that he hopes the energy from the Mises Caucus can be channeled in a positive direction that grows the party. He says it should prioritize supporting candidates committed to protecting individual rights.
"It's not going to be easy to get this party on track," says Amash. "It's an uphill battle. I want to give [the new leadership] the opportunity."
He says that if the Republican Party sticks with Trump, and the Democrats continue to bring forth disappointing national candidates, it presents "an opening" for the Libertarian Party to draw from both the right and the left.
"This is maybe the chance of a lifetime over the next couple of years to bring people into the party," says Amash.
Heise said that delegates disappointed by or anxious about the Mises Caucus takeover should give them a chance to show results, which should be measured not only by electoral success but by party membership growth and donations.
"By our fruits, you'll know us," he says.
Produced by Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller; edited by Danielle Thompson; additional graphics by Regan Taylor; camera by James Marsh; sound editing by John Osterhoudt.
Photos: Keiko Hiromi/AFLO/Newscom; Brian Cahn/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Paul Hennessy/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Brian Cahn/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Jeremy Hogan/Polaris/Newscom; Albin Lohr-Jones; John Lamparski/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Brian Cahn/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Tim Evanson, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; tedeytan, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Ludwig von Mises Institute, via Wikimedia Commons; LvMI, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Stefani Reynolds/CNP / Polaris/Newscom.
Music: "Abstract Emotion" by Stefano Mastronardi via Artlist / "Bang the Drums" by Rhythm Scott via Artlist / "Born Tough" by Falconer via Artlist / "Coriolis" by REW<< via Artlist / "Counting the Money" by Ian Post via Artlist / "Deep Blue" by Stefano Mastronardi via Artlist / "Galaxy" by Sunny Fruit via Artlist / "Glass" by Claudio Laucci via Artlist / "Hajimari" by Searching for Light via Artlist / "Pistol" by Phototaxis via Artlist / "Poetic Sushi" by Amparo via Artlist / "River Runs Deep" by SLPSTRM via Artlist / "Roar" by Peter Spacey via Artlist / "Slow Down" by REPINA via Artlist / "Vendetta" by AlexGrohl via Artlist / "Voyager" by Vis Major via Artlist / "Yes I Am" by Zach Sorgen, The Wildcardz via Artlist
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Mises Caucus supporters say they want to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again," that it should no longer be concerned about offending progressives or Beltway types and shouldn't be afraid to reach out to the coalition that elected former President Donald Trump. McArdle says that the party faceplanted during the pandemic by failing to take a strong stance against lockdowns and vaccine mandates and that its messaging is far too tame and conventional to counter the power of the authoritarian state."
Current Reason Staff scratching heads.....
Critics say they're shitposting edgelords who make controversial statements just to attract attention
When someone writes something like this without a direct quote that is remotely close, they are just projecting.
Luckily the critics represent less than 30% of the party. I am fine with hearing criticism, but it should be understood how overwhelmingly unpopular these critics and their opinions are. It is rare to get 50% of libertarians to agree on anything. That the Mises Caucus organized a 70% majority is a huge accomplishment.
Yet, Reason Editors are still scratching their heads...
Good. Freeze the progs out. Getting rid of the prog leaning libertarians opens up the door to attract libertarian leaning conservatives.
libertarian leaning conservatives.
But...they're RACISTS and TRANSPHOBES!
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (ghj-12) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going this article.
.
>>>>http://jddm.2.vu/1
a common accusation used to perpetuate the divide - I sense sarcasm in your comment, so I suspect you already knew that. Kudos!
What has me scratching my head is that while they call themselves The Mises Caucus, they are actually more devoted to Von Mises student Murray Rothbard (whom Von Mises thoroughly disagreed with regarding whether government should exist and who advocated alliances with Anti-Libertarians such as the New Left and Paleo-Cons like Pat Buchanan and even White Supremacist David Duke, none of whom Von Mises would support at all.)
Already, this crowd is not being forthcoming.
Both open Wokeists tainting the Party with Cultural Marxism and dishonest Rothbardians using Von Mises good name are both right out!
Either a John Hospers Caucus for Rationality and Freedom or the Libertarian Party can forget ever getting a vote from me!
https://vpostrel.substack.com/p/purity-sorcery-and-cancel-culture?s=r
Start one. Being a contrarian and threatening to take our marbles (votes) away is easy; actually getting inolved and fighting for a libertarian message that can appeal to people across the political spectrum while avoiding being sucked into the left vs. right drama and preventing the party from going the way of the Tea Party (marginalized as right-wing) and Occupy (marginalized as left-wing) movements is harder. If you don't participate in the party of the freedom movement in the United States, you leave it to others.
Rothbardians really seem to like naming their organizations after Mises to promote the hard-right views of Rockwell, Gottfried, and Hoppe, while relentlessly bashing Friedman and even Hayek. It's disingenuous.
The LP was libertarian in 1972 and 1976. Since then, waves of anarcho-fascist and communist dejecta have infiltrated to make the platform repellent to voters--especially laissez-faire women voters. Read the original platform.
Don't forget to take your meds, Hank.
You got a rebuttal or just snark?
If you have no rebuttal just leave the conversation to the adults!
???
Ayn Rand is dead. Do you know anyone else? I don't.
Humanity's biggest asset is individuals who are free to innovate, e.g., free from coercive politics, free to make choices without interference from others, however "well intended". I contend "good intentions" are no excuse, no justification, for controlling peaceful others. People who want to "live & let live" have a right to life, liberty, property, business, happiness.
This is called, political equality, individual sovereignty, the opposite of a sovereign ruler or sovereign representation. A sovereign citizen cannot co-exist with others who believe they are "more sovereign", "more equal", or "authorities with special privileges". For example, people who have solutions for their needs may be prohibited from fulfilling those needs due to govt. intervention, e.g., monopoly "services", i.e., services forced on those who don't want/need them. Law often protects exploitation, prevents freedom of economic action, immorally, as if "the law is the law" is a magic chant that could explain/justify a wrong. It can't/doesn't, and no one should ever let that lie stand in their way.
We have a right to live and let live. It follows, natural assets are useless without economic freedom. Life as a free person is unlivable in the authoritarian state, the present situation worldwide, the unfree world.
To be free is to selectively, carefully, resist all authority, on principle.
Why do you keep using the term takeover when it has been done through party elections. It implies they don't belong and are outsiders.
I think we all know why. They aren't really managing to trick anyone.
It's the same way Trump took over the GOP. And it's for the same reason: They hate anyone who upsets their egalitarian sensibilities.
And by egalitarian you mean progressive cultural marxist sensibilities, right? Because that is what the majority of the writers here project and defend
Mostly, but they do in fact coat their arguments in egal language. We can't ignore that.
They mostly coat their arguments in Utilitarianism.
The Reason template when discussing some leftist proposed government response to a perceived problem largely consists of telling us that it will not actually solve the problem, tacitly acknowledging that government intervention could be warranted.
When was the last time any writer at Reason responded to the progressives by saying "this isn't a problem for government to fix, at worst it is simply one of the prices we pay for liberty"???
oooh I know! 1987!
I was thinking early '90's myself, but close enough.
I don't know what the last time was, but Reason published Steven Greenhut writing this as recently as January 2022:
"We all play along with the notion that politicians can solve all of our problems, even though we know better. I don't know anyone who has heard, say, Gov. Gavin Newsom's soaring rhetoric and come away thinking he'll really change the Earth's climate—even as he fails to keep his own Employment Development Department from sending billions of dollars in unemployment funds to scammers.
It's not a Democrat vs. Republican thing, either, as GOP politicians have suddenly discovered the supposed crisis of masculinity just as they have long bemoaned troubles in the American family. Politicians are adept at mining votes by identifying societal shortcomings, but their solutions always involve giving them more money and power."
(at https://reason.com/2022/01/07/before-promising-to-solve-the-worlds-big-problems-politicians-should-aim-to-fix-potholes/)
As Greenhut notes however, it isn't only progressives who need to hear the message. Many conservatives, for example, favor nationalist restrictions on freedom of movement. Even some LP members are wishy-washy when it comes to resisting efforts to have governments police national borders and detain people migrating without government permission, a blatant violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
Can we say it together? "Peaceful migration is not a problem for government to fix."
Quoting a progressive stalking horse does nothing positive for your argument.
Neither does your open borders hacktastery.
Steven Greenhut mostly focuses on promoting fiscal conservatism, taking on issues like out-of-control government pensions. How is he a "progressive stalking horse" in your view?
"Peaceful migration is not a problem for the government to fix."
Providing security for the USA - not the rest of the world - is precisely a problem for the government should address. Right now, the cartels control the border and crime is rampant. If you don't control the borders, you won't have a country. Open border advocates are so short sighted that they can't see even 10 or 20 years into the future by looking at the PRESENT situation in the southwestern states.
In contrast, the government should not be forcing someone to bake a cake.
The U.S. government is itself a cartel, and it has more control over the border I presume you're referring to than anyone else. Why do you think giving more power to this criminal gang, enabling them to police and control people coming and going, makes anyone more secure?
And what do you find so awful about life in the southwestern states?
Starchild asks, "And what do you find so awful about life in the southwestern states?"
Border crisis: 233% increase in fentanyl seizures at southern border
Man Who Shot at Minnesota Police Is an Illegal Immigrant, Previously Deported Seven Times (OK, that is the Southwest, just a recent headline)
2021 record year with 144,000 unaccompanied minors. Many (probably most) are human trafficked)
You have to be completely addled to believe that this tsunami of uneducated, unskilled poor illegal immigrants will be anything but a disaster for the country (look at the experience of western Europe). Why doesn't California release the information regarding how many in state prisoners are illegal aliens?
Yes, a lot of people's rights are violated at the border, and a lot of property seized and stolen by government, including drugs. That is indeed bad.
But it sounds like you want *more* of this sort of fascism, not less. You have to be completely addled to believe that this tsunami of unconstitutional "law enforcement" is anything but a disaster for individual rights and freedom in the United States.
There's no such thing as an "illegal alien". An *action* may be illegal, but not a person.
Can we say it together? "Peaceful migration is not a problem for government to fix."
Ah, NO!
That is exactly the problem the government should be fixing! What state can exist without a defined border? Claiming otherwise is simple foolish utopian fantasy!
"What state can exist without a defined border?"
Lots of states have:
"In historical terms, attempts to universally linearize borders are only a very recent episode in the broader history of territoriality. As recently as the late 19th century, well after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, the expectation that borders be linear has been far from globally accepted. Many historical polities were territorial, but without indicating borders with the scientific kind of precision expected today (Thongchai, 1994). As examples of non-linear boundaries, consider the heterogeneity of some of the answers given to an 1875 British inquiry into the boundaries of some Malay principalities: ‘The boundary of our State extends as far as the meeting of the fresh water with the salt water of the river’; or ‘If you wash your head before starting, it will not be dry before you reach the place’; or ‘The boundary may be determined on the river, as far as the sound of a gunshot may be heard from this particular hill’ (Daly, 1882: 398).
At least until the middle of the 19th century, non-linear borders, or at least the absence of borderlines agreed by treaty, were more the rule than the exception..."
– From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1354066118760991
Why would you think a state does require a defined border? And more to the point, why should we consider the requirements of *states* as being more important than the rights of individuals?
I actually disagree with this. I think that McArdle describes what has happened above. The Marxists have infiltrated and coopted institutions and language so that it is difficult to support socially liberal values without helping the Marxists.
It isn't my fault or others' fault that marxists are making the tension between socially conservative and liberal values the tribal battle ground of Marxism vs Capitalism. But they are. And that leads us into a lot of difficult positions, where supporting something on principle means giving aid and comfort to ideologues that ultimately will do us harm.
I genuinely believe ENB does not like marxism. The problem is that the marxists are using her social values as a shield behind which they dismantle the most effective economic system in the history of man.
I agree she's not really a Marxist. She’s a left-leaning libertine that found a home for pro-sex advocacy who isn’t really smart enough to understand true libertarian philosophy or that she becomes a useful idiot for other topics.
She is conventionally unconventional. A school fish swimming in a Marxist sea.
The fact that some Marxists feel compelled to use socially liberal values to promote their agenda (because their traditional class warfare approach hasn't been working so well for them) is not a good reason to withhold support for socially liberal values.
Abandoning social tolerance ourselves would do a lot more to help the enemies of capitalism and free markets than anything they can accomplish on their own. We don't want people to think they need to become leftists to find a community that supports their rights to reproductive choice or gender identity.
LOL
Yes, listen to the new leftist liar!
New? Starchild has been an LP fixture for quite a while.
"Abandoning social tolerance ourselves would do a lot more to help the enemies of capitalism and free markets than anything they can accomplish on their own. "
Nobody has suggested abandoning social tolerance. They have suggested abandoning a rigged playing board constructed and refereed by Marxists.
Standing with BLM does not mean social tolerance, but rather means standing with an explicitly Marxist organization. An organization that does not want equality, but instead wants equality of outcome. This is in their training materials, it is in the speeches of their leaders.
And if you feel that is a priority of the Libertarian Party, then luckily, you are no longer at the reins. *shrug*
We can and should stand against police abuses, and for the idea that black lives, as all lives, matter, without endorsing the Marxist ideas of a particular organization using the slogan "Black Lives Matter".
Make sense?
"We don't want people to think they need to become leftists to find a community that supports their rights to reproductive choice or gender identity."
Oh, I forgot to respond to this nonsense. SMH.
You wanna know what people think? They think that Libertarians agree that Tolerance equals obedience. When Weld declares that we must "bake the damn cake", what he is telling people is that they are right to be aggrieved. They are correct to demand that others bake the damned cake. And so they ask what Libertarians will do about it, and when the Libertarians tell them, "Nothing" they go right over to the Marxists who are using Intersectional nonsense to empower the government.
There is nothing wrong with explaining that Tolerance does not equal Acceptance. You think people's "Gender Identity" trumps biology? Fine. I got no beef with that. Tolerance does not require someone else to accept that fact. It does not require them to smile and nod as that person tells them their view of gender is Cis-White Authoritarian Patriarchy. They can tolerate you, but do not need to accept you.
The Libertarian Party spent too long straddling the line between acceptance and tolerance, and all that did was validated the people who wanted ACCEPTANCE while alienating them to the parties that would enforce acceptance at the hand of the state.
"When Weld declares that we must 'bake the damn cake', what he is telling people is that they are right to be aggrieved. They are correct to demand that others bake the damned cake."
This is a strawman argument. Bill Weld is no longer a Libertarian, and his views on this topic are not libertarian. Condemning bigotry doesn't mean we think it's okay for government to violate people's rights of freedom of association.
Just because something is wrong doesn't automatically mean there should be a law against it. Only aggression should be criminalized.
"This is a strawman argument. Bill Weld is no longer a Libertarian, and his views on this topic are not libertarian."
No. You don't know what a strawman argument is. This was literally an argument that Bill Weld made, while he was a spokeshole for the Libertarian Party. That isn't a strawman. It happened.
And my whole point is that Bill Weld made this stupid statement, because he thought it would appeal to younger lefty kids who think it is a crime that some bigot won't bake a cake. And because he didn't say "Yes that is bigoted, but it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of association", all he did was validate this notion that it is justifiable to force people to associate against their will.
And again, this brings a problem: There is already a party that will force people to bake cakes. Bill Weld's stance, that he took AS A LIBERTARIAN, basically said, "Hey people we agree that you ought to Bake the Damn Cake, but we Libertarians aren't going to do anything about it, so you probably ought to vote Hillary".
Overt, we are not helpless = The Marxists have infiltrated and coopted institutions and language so that it is difficult to support socially liberal values without helping the Marxists
We can use better and more precise language to combat that. What I have found is the 'vocabulary universe' is smaller for a significant segment of our country, and this leads to imprecision of language (and then erroneous thought, like Marxism).
Just need more superdelegates, like the Democrats use to stop populists from destroying democracy.
That's almost exactly what the New Hampshire Libertarian Party tried to do. Vest all voting rights into one person to expel the Mises Caucus from their elections.
That would be a huge mistake. The Democrats and Republicans are not grassroots parties, but parties run by political elites, and any special privileges for officeholders is a major step in that direction.
I don't think elected Libertarians should even be eligible to be Libertarian convention delegates, let alone be given some preferential status.
For any LP member holding public office, using that position to advance the cause of freedom as effectively as possible should be more than enough to keep them occupied.
"...like the Democrats use to stop populists from destroying democracy."
The Democrats are the antithesis of democracy. They use their Pravda "mainstream media" machine and fake polls to gaslight the people in thinking that they are centrist.
Here are real polling questions that they never ask:
Should a biological male be allowed to walk around a girls' locker room with his penis hanging out simply because he declares that he is female?
Should a doctor be allowed to push a baby back into the womb that is crowning at 39 weeks and 6 days then inject its heart to kill it then cut it up and deliver the pieces? (That is legal in New York and Denver but is described as "protecting reproductive rights".)
Should a nurse from the Philippines wait 3 years for legal immigration to help out with our critical nursing shortage while a Haitian with no education can walk across the southern border and immediately apply for food stamps, free medical care and free housing?
Democrats and their "mainstream media" allies are the enemies of democracy.
Here! Here! Well said!
You would be more accurate if you said faux-egalitarian. The claim, on 'their' part to be fair-minded and treat all equally is only that, a claim.
Libertarians are egalitarians, as people who want to eliminate state privilege and champion equality before the law.
It implies they don't belong and are outsiders.
70% on one side against a fracture on the other. It's pretty clear who is an outsider.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going this article.
.
>>>> http://oldprofits.blogspot.com
So, I read the article, don't know if it's a transcript of the video.
Seems interesting. Lots of infighting, and this seems like normal interparty political fighting. I don't think I'm currently a Libertarian though, and so I might not have much to say about this.
You mean libertarian, or Libertarian? Because being the latter doesn't mean you're the former, as Johnson and Weld illustrated.
I meant Libertarian. I don't think I'm a member of the party, but I honestly forget how I'm registered. It's either that or no-party affiliation.
I registered as Libertarian when I got out of the Navy, immediately regretted it as akin to joining the Anarchists Union, and changed to "decline to state" afterwards.
Why?....the principles are sound.
I've always been registered "unaffiliated". Collectivist individualism just never made much sense to me.
Small 'l' not big 'L' libertarians do more for the cause than the crazy people who actually join the party (which is kind of an anti-libertarian thing to do anyway, when you think about it) . . .
Why not do both? Work for freedom outside the Libertarian Party *and* register and vote Libertarian. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
This was a much better article, that is well balanced, and tons better than the drek offered up by Welch and Soave a few weeks ago.
The more I think on it, the more I feel like the columnists here at Reason need someone to check their Hot Takes. Because they are so insulated in their blue bubbles that their Hot Take on anything having to do with social conservatives is almost always "Ew! Barbarians at the Gates!"
If they would calm down, I think they would produce much more interesting content like above. They need an editor who will question these Socially Liberal orthodoxies that they just assume to be all that is right with the world.
The centralization in Washington DC and NYC has been their downfall. They've drunk too much swill disguised as Kool-Aid.
Absolutely true. I noted this when the subject was the SF recall last week. Lancaster (DC) and Sullum (Dallas) both had terrible takes on what was going on in SF, because they only see the sanitized fantasy that their Blue enclaves push on them. It was Rommelmann who actually went to the city and showed what a shitshow it is, pretty crime tables be damned.
The funny thing is that Reason's Headquarters are right near where I used to work up in Los Angeles. They don't really even have reporters here in LA other than Greenhut who just ships over the shitty columns he writes for the OC Register.
Off topic, but ... didn't the OC Register used to have that "Ask a Mexican" column? I always liked it for the way he thumbed his nose at political correctness.
That was OC Weekly.
That is not fair. They also have offices in LA
Can you give me some examples of writers at Reason being in what you call a "blue bubble" or being too excited and needing to "calm down"? I'm not seeing it.
When it comes to public policy issues, being socially liberal – supporting people's rights to live unconventional or non-traditional lifestyles – is being pro-freedom. Just as being fiscally conservative on public policy issues is being pro-freedom.
I've never seen Reason take issue with someone like Ron Paul being *personally* socially conservative, only with people who want to impose their social conservatism through government via things like bathroom laws, racial profiling, anti-nudity laws, anti-immigrant laws, and so on.
"I've never seen Reason take issue...only with people who want to impose their social conservatism through government via things like bathroom laws, racial profiling, anti-nudity laws, anti-immigrant laws, and so on."
Thats the key. They will take issue with policy from the right that could infringe on individualism, but almost never from the left. It often goes in one direction
Are you kidding? Reason regularly features articles that talk about infringements on individual liberty from the left. Do I really need to supply a list?
"When it comes to public policy issues, being socially liberal – supporting people's rights to live unconventional or non-traditional lifestyles – is being pro-freedom. Just as being fiscally conservative on public policy issues is being pro-freedom."
Just the other day, ENB ran an article arguing against Ohio allowing teachers to carry weapons. It seems to me that was a pretty anti-freedom approach.
When DeSantis forbade state institutions from mandating masks, Sullum was there to condemn him. And I want to be clear: this wasn't about DeSantis's stances on private employment. Sullum specifically said that it was wrong for DeSantis to support the freedom of people who choose to go unmasked or unvaccinated.
When San Francisco was choosing to abandon their DA, there were several reflexive articles from (for example) Lancaster in DC, and Levin in Houston. These were people across the country who didn't have any idea what was going on in the city other than the articles from WaPo and NYT that they cribbed for their Hot Takes. Later, when Nancy Romellmann actually went to SF and shared the real story, we got more balanced messages.
So yeah, I am pretty confident in stating that ENB, among others, lives inside her little bubble and that leads her to take these absurd hot takes.
Can you provide specific quotes and links? If your characterizations of the pieces by Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Jacob Sullum are accurate, I would tend to agree with you, but I'd like to see exactly what they actually said.
By the way, I live in San Francisco, campaigned for Chesa Boudin, and wrote a long comment in response to Nancy Romellmann (which she graciously published as a separate piece, acknowledging I made good points).
https://reason.com/2022/06/14/ohio-teachers-can-carry-guns-with-24-hours-of-training/?comments=true#comments
There is ENB.
Ooops, it was Soave, not Sullum, on Desantis. Here is the article:
https://reason.com/2021/08/13/broward-florida-teachers-died-covid-19-mask-mandate-unvaccinated-desantis/
"That's the aspect of this story for which DeSantis deserves criticism: His COVID-19 declarations get in the way of individual public schools or districts requiring teachers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment."
The leader of the state prevented government from REQUIRING vaccinations. He didn't prohibit vaccinations. He didn't mandate them. He required GOVERNMENT employers in his state to give people choice. And Soave thinks that deserves criticism.
"They need an editor who will question these Socially Liberal orthodoxies that they just assume to be all that is right with the world."
The big cheese here regularly appears on Bill Maher. He doesn't want to be there filling the role of bad conservative and not get any applause lines. So long as he is concerned with keeping the D media and SJWs too upset, he is never going to be a good leader of a libertarian publication. Most of the values libertarians are for (specifically individualism, and individual rights) are diametrically opposed to the left and SJWs.
Until these people grow a set and actually have some principles (vs trying to appear not too icky to the left) reason will remain noticably left leaning
I knew that Gillespie was one of the authors before I checked. He's one of the few Reason staffers who remember anyone named Rothbard.
>>Critics say they’re shitposting edgelords who will destroy the LP from within
critics come off like National Review writers.
What do you mean?
National Review put out a March 2016 edition that cover to cover said T was a shitposting edgelord who will destroy (R) from within
I see.
crusty, old-timey conservatism (if we change anything the terrorists win) from Nicholas Sarwark and I guess the other uncited "critics"
"Who is Nicholas Sarwark": a thought balloon over the head of every eligible voter in America.
Nick multiplied LP spoiler vote clout by 328% and caused Trump to lose the popular vote. Trump later begged libertarians to vote for his girl-bullying and youth-shooting policies and lost BOTH the popular and electoral vote. Every looter politician knows and fears Nick Sarwark.
Sure buddy sure.....Sarwark was more about not upsetting the cosmo woke democratic crowd by offering up Ron Paul as the sacrificial goat to show libertarians are no threat. I don't think Sarwark had any real strategy other than to virtue signal and put up folks that in no way threatened the bolshies running the country...when I listened to Dave Smith destroy him in Smith's podcast I knew it was just a matter of time until his ilk was out of power. a freshman poly sci major type pretending he was running a party..
I would vote for a shitposting edgelord at this point.
National Review has editors that actually...edit.
They do. The quality of thought and writing is much higher there, even when I disagree with them. I am a big fan of NR though, with a few of their writers being some of my favorite to read.
The quality of their writing is much better than the quality of their principles, though. Which is why I ultimately left the party and their site. As I was maturing my political thinking, I realized that people like Ramesh Ponurru, and the like had GREAT rhetorical ability to sell deeply unprincipled shit like the child tax credit, NCLB, the Iraq War, etc.
But then, when they were trying to ram Romney down our throats, I realized that they would support anything if it was valued by the GOP establishment. It was Romney's "Turn" and so we had to accept that the architect of Obamacare, candidate from Mass was the best alternative to defeat Obama? Please.
mostly exactly all this.
That's a valuable thing too though. Because, from everything I've seen, Ramesh Ponurru is an earnest and honest person. His arguments are strong, and I also often disagree with them.
Having someone like that to react against, to force you to think through their opinion to rebut it is of great value.
In general though, I think they have several excellent writers, and they force me to think better as well. Michael Brendan Doherty being one who I most disagree with and makes me think the most.
Yes, absolutely = The quality of their writing is much better than the quality of their principles, though. Which is why I ultimately left the party and their site.
I cannot say it better.
Hirsiyani just left for The Federalist from NRO.
That means I have to start reading The Federalist again.
They have some good writers there. And they feel free to trash the GOP leadership when needed.
In all honesty, I think a federalist approach is what libertarians should strive for as it allows states and communities to try different options of governance to allow the best results to rise up. That is largely what that site pushes.
yes.
Hirsiyani was one of the best writers here. I always appreciate when people link to one of his articles.
Excrete is misspelled.
Supporters say they want to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again." The Reasonistas claim they’re shitposting edgelords who will destroy the LP from within with awful, awful libertarianism.
Fixed.
If libertarianism doesn't comport with blue-check bien pensant orthodoxy, then it's not for TeenReason.
+1
Add the 30% who didn't vote for the MC, and pretty close to the truth, I suspect. Yet, there was some writing here about in-group biases, aka tribalism, and what a destructive force it is when combine w/ socipolitical belief. It only impacts the yucky righties, and occasionally a left-leaning sort goes just a bit too far, the cosmotarians, never.
There's really no use for a Libertarian Party now that the Democrats agree with Koch-funded libertarianism on its two fundamental, non-negotiable issues — open borders (especially during a pandemic) and 3rd trimester abortion access.
#LibertariansForBiden
No libertarian favors uninspected entry of terrorists. That is an anarcho-fascist infiltrator buggering of what was once a sensible plank. Search "anarchist" in 200 years of newsprint in Google news archives. The word has for centuries meant "violent murdering communist."
Either way, it's a win for libertarianism.
Which is why Reason is super-upset.
""If Angela McArdle becomes chair of the Libertarian National Committee and makes the party welcoming to bigots, the committee she is in charge of will shrivel and die,""
If bigots will respect the non-aggression principle, if they commit to not violating anybody's rights, what's left to object about them from a libertarian viewpoint? Bigotry shorn of rights violations is just an expression of liberty itself.
What we're facing is a demand that something else, 'non-bigotry', be more important than human liberty. I don't see how you can take that position, and still meaningfully be a Libertarian.
They won't. Bigots always want their bigotry somehow institutionalized via the state.
Cite?
Himself
Cite?
Everything the left says and does.
At some point, democracy becomes choosing who gets excluded.
If you want an all-encompassing society, where bigotry will not be tolerated, Democrats exist.
That is indeed why we have a written constitution giving us a republican form of government, and a Bill of Rights appended to it.
...unless you're a black person who runs for governor against Gavin Newsom. Then, break out the rope.
And the bananas and gorilla mask.
Perhaps they will not. The LP, however, should not be in the business of policing people's thoughts. If they want to propose racist legislation, then come out against it.
No. Those you call bigots are just other humans with different distastes than you. You, for instance, are bigoted against your definition of bigots.
I do not understand gay men. The old joke of being a lesbian in a man's body applies to me. But I don't discriminate against gay men, have no problem working with them, living next door to them, being friends with them, shaking hands with them, or dealing with them in way other than sex; I don't want governments to discriminate, and will avoid people and organizations which discriminate, as best I can.
See the difference between bigot and statist?
If not, you have extended your bigotry to being a statist.
Totalitarians like you always believe that. Totalitarians like you always foolishly believe that bigotry can be abolished through the political process if you only oppress people hard enough.
Bigotry and prejudice are part of the human condition; they can't be abolished. All we can do is to prevent people like you from abusing the state to impose your bigotry and prejudice on others via the state.
That's because they project too much.
The bigots are, by definition, the woke. They demand ideological and moral conformity, while hating all who don't follow their woke rules.
And the woke know what's best for "those people".
Sadly, this definition of bigotry is spot on and applies to many of our betters here @ Reason.
The New Puritans are literal descendants of the old Puritans.
Indeed. I remember figuring that out a decade ago, after picking up a random title at the used bookstore. It was called Cosmos Crumbling I think... I thought it was a cosmology/theoretical physics book, but no. Turns out it was about puritanism as political activism, from abolitionism through suffrage and prohibition (with other stuff in between). Don't remember too many details (was reading A LOT those days), just the realization that there was a clear line of those New England assholes to modern progressives (wokes)woke.
2 centuries, and really no fundamental change in the behavior.
Wokeness is just a new name for political correctness, and every authoritarian ideology has its own version of PC dogma and moral conformity that it wants to forcibly oppose on others, because authoritarians don't draw any lines between "I don't like that" and "There oughta be a law".
Authoritarians of the socially conservative variety typically hate those who don't worship at the nationalist altar. Anyone who doesn't stand when the national anthem is played should be fired from their job. Telling the American people about the NSA spying on them for "national security" is treason. Who cares whether Americans are free as long as America can be "great" again. Love it or leave it. Et cetera.
Libertarians should reject the bigotry of both left and right.
Fuck off, marxist bitch
Charming.
Social conservatism and jingoism tend to get lumped together, but it isn't a necessary association. Cultural communitarians or Christian democrats are typically socially conservative, immigrant-friendly, and anti-militarist. One American example would be the Solidarity Party.
You don't need to be a bigot to denounce lockdowns, vaccine mandates, misuse of emergency powers, restraint of trade, mask mandates, etc. You just need to desire liberty.
"If bigots will respect the non-aggression principle, if they commit to not violating anybody's rights, what's left to object about them from a libertarian viewpoint? Bigotry shorn of rights violations is just an expression of liberty itself."
An interesting point wrapped up here, is that the "New" definition of Racism is that you can only be racist if you have power over someone. Therefore, a black who hates whites is not racist because he actually has no power in The System (tm) to harm the white person.
By that definition, the Libertarian path is the only way to avoid Racism. Remove the power of the government to compel you, and you have removed the ability for people to be racist or bigoted. They are just people with opinions at that point.
I remember asking somebody I know who bought into that nonsense "Do you HONESTLY think my child has a better chance at success than Obama's kids? Seriously?"
She did, which was beyond sad.
the "New" definition of Racism is that you can only be racist if you have power over someone.
Yeah, that's a line of bullshit that the lefturds cooked up so they can pretend their racism isn't racism. I reject that quite emphatically whenever someone tries it in my presence.
-jcr
But the Wokeist definition of racist is absurd. Ascribing normative traits to physiological traits is what racism is, regardless of whether the person doing so has power. Otherwise, why would Wokeists be directing their "struggle sessions" at work-a-day corporate drones and captive audiences of children in Gummint Skoolz?
the problem with bigots is the tendency to see the targets of their hate as less human..... which tends to create imbalances that undermine the goal of actual "human" liberty. it is what causes some people to celebrate mobs damaging public and private property in one case while condemning it in another. it undermines a consistent and rational argument for the cause of liberty and breeds toxic tribalism.
To the contrary, ostracism, tribalism, and social rejection are not just universal parts of human nature, they are an essential part of how humans build and improve societies, establish culture, and establish rules. They are voluntary, individual choices, essential for making a free society work; you cannot have liberty without them.
Socialism/communism/fascism tries to substitute government mandates for such voluntary, individual choices. Not only does that lead to a totalitarian society, it simply does not produce functioning societies.
In a free society, people will ostracize you for gluttony, profligacy, carelessness, promiscuity, drug abuse, and other self-destructive behaviors. They will also ostracize groups perceived to be "lazy" or "unproductive". And the social and economic pressures this creates is what causes people to change their behavior and improve. Without the social pressure, with only government policy, these problems never get addressed, which is why we have an epidemic of homelessness, drug abuse, single parenthood, STIs, and abortions.
I'm not sure if you miss the point, or don't understand that your argument does not support giving bigots a pass...
the original question was what's the problem if bigots support human freedom?
the problem is that bigots tend to have a REALLY hard time supporting actual human freedom.
while tribalism might be natural, that does not mean it should be actively encouraged or does not include dangers to be conscious of. in the deliberately broad example i gave, it can cause people to actively undermine their principles to support the tribe. if you are against looting and destruction of property, you should ALWAYS be against looting and the destruction of property. we should not actively court those with a tendency to drive toxic tribalism that tends to skew away from the goal of human liberty...... we should do that other natural thing, and ostracize them.
Yeah, that nonsense is what leftists actually believe: that you can divide humanity into people with the right kind of consciousness and with the wrong kind of consciousness.
Sorry to break it to you, but everybody, you and me included, is "bigoted" and "toxically tribal" in some ways from someone else's point of view. We function as a society because most of the time it doesn't matter and most of the time we interact peacefully anyway. In most circumstances, I couldn't care less whether you are a racist, a cis-hating drag queen, or a religious fundamentalist, as long as you are peaceful and pay your bills.
However, I will say this: until 2022, the LP was run by people guilty of toxic tribalism and bigotry in a way that was actually relevant to the LP. So, I'm glad to see that those people are not in charge anymore. Good riddance. Whether the new leadership will be any better remains to be seen.
you seem to just be intent to be a jerk. i think you know exactly what i mean, but are ignoring that meaning just to fight..... otherwise, you would not be stupid enough to use the phrases toxic tribalism and bigotry in pretty much the exact same context i have been. (i guess not wanting to sew a woman's vagina shut at the moment of conception has you misguidedly thinking i only recognize one flavor of bigotry and toxic tribalism.)
as for the old board.... they done screwed up. the collapse of the pragmatic caucus, who i tended to agree with on many things, was in fact the result of just the kind of toxic tribalism i am talking about. you are not wrong.... and yes, people i have agreed with have also been guilty of it. (plus, they did ham-fist everything about the reaction to the pandemic.) i make no effort to deny that.... (i don't define myself on anyone i have ever agreed with on one thing or another.) i just don't see that as a justification to reach for another flavor of the same thing..... and that is my concern with being too accommodating to the openly bigoted.
for the new leadership, i hope for the best. i hold nothing against any of them, personally, and am willing to work with them. it is elements of the caucus further down the food chain that i hope represent a minority. i hope that they remember the clusterfuck the last leadership created and try to avoid repeating that behavior.... because i agree with them on many things, too.
if you have not guessed, i don't caucus....
I have seen zero evidence that the von Mises caucus is guilty of either "toxic tribalism" or "bigotry".
You simply repeat the talking points of the progressive left on abortion while pretending to be a "libertarian". That is typical also of what you call the "pragmatic caucus": you all are statists and progressives, and you are misusing the libertarian label.
I think the very concept of a "libertarian party" is nonsense. But I hope that the new leadership will stop recruiting confused progressives like yourself into an ideology you obviously don't understand and whose values you piss on.
i said i did not caucus. i explicitly called out the pragmatic caucus as engaging in toxic tribalism that led to it's demise, as well as underscoring other failings of the previous leadership...... you are really underscoring my opinion of you being a jerk just to be a jerk with your lame "you all are statists and progressives" BS. I'm guessing you have gotten so used to being a jerk in response to your perceived enemies that you can't recognize a principled argument if you are hit in the face with it. i never said abortion was moral, i made a principled argument that there is a line where enforcement of restrictions requires violating other natural rights... and any REAL libertarian should see that as reason to at least take pause for early term prohibitions..... so you can take your "progressive talking points" BS and shove it up your ass.
as for zero toxic tribalism....... i refer you to how much of a jerk that you and others on this thread have responded to my principled position that the restrictions of abortion should at least consider the other natural rights that enforcement of those restrictions require violating for early term abortions.
An actual libertarian society isn't the free wheeling society you imagine, it's a society that has replaced governmental restrictions with private restrictions. In a libertarian society, there wouldn't be legal restrictions on abortion, but it would be next to impossible for most women to actually have abortions or privacy because of the web of private restrictions, contracts, and obligations they are bound by.
What you are doing is to pick and choose a few policies out of the libertarian portfolio that happens to coincide with the progressive agenda while assuming that government continues to guarantee the positive rights that you love so much. That makes you a progressive, not a libertarian.
The cherry on your ideological shit pile is that your particular arguments for abortion are particularly incoherent; that you are simply parroting absurd left wing talking points on abortion. I mean, I don't give a f*ck about the legality of abortion either way, but for "libertarians" to spout your kind of nonsense is damaging to the libertarian brand.
for one, your assertion about what an "ideal" libertarian society would look like is completely idiotic and disconnected from reality. over 50% of the population has said that abortion should be legal in all/most cases for the last 30yrs..... that is before even digging down deeper into the early term abortions i have been describing..... your assertion that women would not be able to get an abortion in a society of ideal free association is nothing short of absurd.... if over half the people think abortion should be allowed under any circumstances, there is no version of reality where women would not be able to obtain an abortion for early term abortions. in an ideal libertarian world, more people would be comfortable letting a woman have an abortion than penalizing them for it...... and that is (again) ignoring the fact that in most cases, those who disagree would never know.
as for your continued attempt to tie this question to others topics not in evidence..... get bent. i have been very clear what principle i am arguing for, and you have consistently clear that winning the argument is more important to you than any principle..... that you will abandon principle and make baseless attacks to try and "win."
I'm simply stating what a libertarian society would be. I agree with you that the US isn't going to turn into a libertarian society any time soon because (as you yourself demonstrate), many people who call themselves "libertarians" reject fundamental libertarian principles.
So what? I'm not arguing for or against abortion. As I have pointed out repeatedly: I don't care either way. I have simply pointed out that you reject fundamental libertarian principles, and that your reasoning is unsound.
You have made clear that you fundamentally reject libertarian principles, and on top of that, your "argument" consists of repeated, forceful assertion.
I think we'd be best off with no LP and no libertarian movement, than with people like you giving it a bad name.
However, if the LP exists, its stance on abortion should be that it is a state matter, like SCOTUS has decided.
"So what? I'm not arguing for or against abortion."
yeah, whatever..... you just want to pretend an ideal libertarian society would completely ignore freedom of association and force the disclosure of personal medical information so that a minority could force their own morality on others at the point of a government gun...
guess what... i have not argued for or against abortion either. all i have said is that enforcement before a woman is showing requires violation of other rights. rights that anything resembling an ideal libertarian society would respect.
once again, take your "progressive" BS and shove it up your ass. the only one advocating the use of government force, here, is you. prohibition is what requires force, minding your own business does not.
No, that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that in a libertarian society, completely without any government interference or compulsion, many private actors would require the disclosure of medical histories and discriminate against women who have abortions. That has nothing to do with morality.
You are free to enumerate such "other rights" and connect them to libertarianism. A right to privacy is not among them. Rothbard: "there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one's property from invasion".
But you are not advocating "minding your own business", you are advocating for the state to enforce numerous "other rights", including privacy.
A libertarian society permits abortion, does not protect "privacy rights", and permits freedom of contract.
A progressive society permits abortion, protects privacy rights, and interferes with freedom of contract.
You want a progressive society, not a libertarian society.
"No, that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that in a libertarian society, completely without any government interference or compulsion, many private actors would require the disclosure of medical histories and discriminate against women who have abortions. "
let me see if i get this straight...... your assertion is that in a libertarian society, people would just magically decide that there is no right to privacy? you think a free society is one where people are forced to reveal private information to anyone who asks? and people will magically tell you all the private details without any force?
i think i see the problem here..... calling you dumber than a box of rocks would be an insult to rocks..... you seriously think a free society would be one where everyone give up all of their rights voluntarily.... and you will be able to make that happen without any enforcement...... women will voluntarily tell you they got an abortion so you can fuck with them more and punish them for it...... how the fuck does that even make any sense to you?
"A libertarian society permits abortion, does not protect "privacy rights", and permits freedom of contract.
A progressive society permits abortion, protects privacy rights, and interferes with freedom of contract."
another problem.... you don't know what "libertarian" means.... it means you will not use force to compel others to fit your own personal goals or desires.
my position is the one that requires no force and compels no one to do anything. a woman who wants an abortion finds a willing provider and does not have to tell anyone. nobody ever knows because it is before she shows any outward signs. mine is the position that would naturally happen in an ideal libertarian society, absent any government interference.
your position requires compelling the release of personal medical information that other people would otherwise never know...... you are the one seeking to use force to compel others to comply with your goals and desires. yours is a position that is impossible to realize without the use of government force.
You display exactly what you say should be ostracized...
I read this, and I thought, is this NOYB2?
I've seen your theory on how societies become conservative when the government stops paying for their bad decisions in other comments. I saved it. Keep it up.
Bigotry is more of a self-destructive behavior than promiscuity.
Are you saying that in a free society people should ostracize the promiscuous, yet in the Libertarian Party we should not ostracize bigots?
https://reason.com/2022/05/29/mises-caucus-takes-control-of-libertarian-party/?comments=true#comment-9518526
Bigotry shorn of rights violations is just an expression of liberty itself.
Well said.
Yeah, that was pretty catchy. I'll remember that line too.
McArdle said was called for because abortion represents "an irreconcilable difference" within the libertarian movement.
I got some bad news for you; "irreconcilable differences" means you are not within the same movement.
How about a reasoned argument that killing an unborn child with a beating heart does not violate the NAP.
(absent rape, a violation itself)
That argument is presented right here regularly and is waved away by the fetophiles with BUT YER KILLIN BABIES!
>>with a beating heart
don't have to work very hard to wave that one away lol
Strangely, some people believe babies have rights too. Including the right to not be murdered for the sake of convenience.
Biology and human rights are the abortion fancier's real enemies.
Strangely, some people pretend not to see the difference between zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and babies. Strangely, some people believe that women lose their self-ownership when they have sex.
FTFY
Again, the woman vanishes and only the embryo is seen.
The original LP platform upended Comstock laws provided ten years on a chain gang for writing to explain the rhythm method to your daughter or sending your son a condom. Our first two platforms called for repeal of laws sending men with guns to coerce pregnant women and doctors until 100 days after fertilization. The Supreme court adopted our plank and Canada abolished all, repeat ALL laws pointing guns at women and doctors. But mystical bigots want the political state to declare women non-individuals and coerce them.
"fetophiles"
That's me. Spent a good many months as a fetus myself. Fortunately mom wasn't a fetophobe like Vernon.
there always seems to be an attempt to move the goalposts, but i personally fall where the line has been drawn for pretty much all of history where anyone tried.
i don't care about heartbeats.
i don't care about nervous system activity.
i don't even care about hypothetical viability.
i care when you can tell a woman is pregnant without violating here privacy. typically a woman is showing obvious signs by around 20 weeks... the same point where babies start to kick noticeably. (what was called the quickening in pretty much all historical bans on abortion.) and the same point that the majority of states settled on after all the dust from Roe settled.
banning abortion prior to that point requires intruding on the woman's privacy. you need medical tests and personal data. we can dig deeper into personal feelings/morality/meaning of life/meaning of viability/all that personal metaphysical stuff...... but this is the point where any principled libertarian should be able to agree we have no right to interfere. we don't stand for no knock raids, illegal searches, government surveillance, etc. to catch criminals in any other case..... so, even if you... personally... feel it is murder.... you should still oppose violating other rights to convict the "criminals."
I don't see how. We make the procedure illegal and punish the person performing it. The privacy of the woman is not affected.
Libertarian societies don't mean "you can do what you want", libertarian societies mean that government and political mechanism are replaced by private mechanisms. In a libertarian society, having an abortion would likely cause you to lose your health insurance, and abortions would likely be prohibited through private contracts in most parts of the country.
We don't live in a libertarian society, we live in a social welfare state. You are arguing for a situation in which the social welfare state protects women from the negative consequences of their choice to have an abortion while allowing abortion on demand. That's not a libertarian position.
to know the procedure was done, you have to access the woman's medical records..... sorry, there is no way around this..... banning abortion before the the pregnancy is outwardly apparent requires violating the woman's privacy. i know the favorite game these days is to avoid going after the woman and focus on the provider, but at the end of the day...... knowing an abortion was given requires knowing the woman was pregnant. it requires violating her rights, even if you choose to skip prosecuting her to make it easier to sell.
as for your fanciful libertarian society, the same would be true.... all those private mechanisms still require you to know the woman was pregnant. you can only enforce abortion bans prior to the pregnancy being outwardly apparent by violating the woman's privacy.
and no.... i am not asking the state to protect women from anything. i am against those who want to use the state to explicitly violate a woman's right to privacy. you have to understand that if you are arguing in favor of abortion restrictions prior to it being outwardly obvious that the woman is pregnant, then you are the one arguing in favor of using the power of the state to violate other people's rights.
Why are the multiple third parties involved in any such procedure granted privacy for their actions?
Please don't tell me medical care is private because that ship sailed even before covid came along.
I'm all for not going after mom for what may or may not have happened. But anyone else who knew what was happening when it was happening deserves no such legalized ambivalence.
again.... please read it slowly so that you understand......
to know an abortion was performed, you must know the woman was pregnant.... you must violate her privacy..... it does not matter whether you "go after" her or not. to know a provider gave her an abortion, you must know she was pregnant.
and, are you saying you are for all the nonsense that happened concerning covid? unless you are saying that was all perfectly fine, it is kind of pointing out your own hypocrisy to bring it up.......
I know you have trouble reading , so I will type slow. LOL
Does not someone called a Doctor or Family Practitioner perform the abortion? Do they not get paid for it, have to file an insurance claim or a Medicaid claim to get paid? Do they not have to dispose of the remains as bio material?
It does not seem difficult to identify that an abortion was performed and it does not require no-knock raids, or medical monitoring of random citizens to accomplish.
Your arguments are convenient nonsense.
it does not seem difficult, because you have no clue what you are talking about.
lets start with the insurance..... not all health insurance covers abortions (11 states actually restrict it from doing so), and nothing requires a woman use insurance to pay for it even if it does.... (that is kind of why planned parenthood exists.) as if that had anything to do with the fact that you are still forcing SOMEONE to disclose the woman's medical information to the state.
the doctor.... you are still forcing SOMEONE to disclose the woman's private medical information to the state. (and violating the 5th amendment by forcing them to incriminate themselves at the same time.)
the remains.... since i have EXPLICITLY stated i am talking about prior to there being any outward signs of pregnancy, we are talking about something that looks roughly like a blood clot to the naked eye. (if it is removed whole.) and that is if there even are remains, since a large percentage of abortions at this stage are done with medications and go down a toilet. (and, of course... this does require confiscating medical samples from a person without permission or warrant.)
and, considering that last one would basically require testing everything that ever went in a bio-hazard bag... yes.... you are requiring medical monitoring of random citizens.
Foo diddy
That is complete bullshit. At 12 weeks the fetus is essentially completely formed. At 20 weeks it is in many instances viable and looks like an underweight baby. How do I know this? We had to terminate a 20 week pregnancy to safe my wife's life. It had to be extracted in parts. I have the fucking footprints.
By your earlier line of reasoning, as long as I don't get caught I'm free to kill someone if they are annoying me. Or for any reason, really.
I understand your privacy line of thinking. I'm just not sure you can rationalize killing a viable infant. Well maybe you can but I can't.
I can compromise to 16 weeks. 12 weeks would be preferable. The vast majority of women know they are pregnant by then unless they are in the extreme depths of denial, which ultimately is not the fetus's fault. So I see both sides but I can't support termination after 15.6 weeks.
I'll give you 16 weeks. that is around the time growth really takes off and showing begins to be possible. it is a little earlier than the letter of my point.... which is that by 20weeks you can usually begin to tell a woman is pregnant and you don't have to violate her privacy.....
i can respect someone who at least tries to understand the argument, and seeks a compromise.
as for murder..... not getting caught is not getting caught. would i condone or encourage it? no. i don't encourage people to get abortions either. (thankfully, killing a person already born and living in the world is a bit harder to cover up than 2 ounces of cells only one or two people ever knew existed.)
No, to know that a provider violated the law and performed an abortion, all you need is a witness, records, or physical evidence.
No access to any woman's medical records is needed. Of course, if there is probable cause to suspect a felony, then for the prosecutor to obtain those medical records isn't a violation of privacy, just like any other search with probable cause isn't a violation of privacy either.
and you get this evidence from who? the provider? have you even heard of the 5th amendment? your answer is that the provider must out themselves to the state? (or, you get some snitch on the inside?)
Wait, are you arguing that the government shouldn’t be able to get a warrant to search for evidence of wrong doing?
That’s a bold move Cotton.
Collecting evidence of a crime with a properly executed search isn't forcing someone to incriminate himself. That's retarded.
Consider the source.
and just how are you justifying the search warrant without the evidence from the search warrant? you guys can't really be this stupid, can you? if the "evidence" you need requires a search warrant, then you don't have sufficient evidence to get a search warrant in the first place.....
or is the idea to just draft random search warrants on doctors you don't have evidence are performing abortions?
Let me repeat it again: it might be a nurse, a colleague, an administrator, or another patient who alerts police. It might be a medical waste company or a stem cell researcher dealing receiving fetal tissue who alerts police. It might be a sting operation in which an FBI agent poses as a woman wanting an abortion. It might be that the clinic is found to have hired abortion specialists. It might be that the clinic is found to have ordered medical devices and/or drugs related to abortion. None of those require accessing any woman's medical record. This establishes probable cause, and a criminal investigation follows.
Clear enough?
Yes, it might be a nurse, a colleague, an administrator, or another patient who alerts police. It might be a medical waste company or a stem cell researcher dealing receiving fetal tissue who alerts police. It might be a sting operation in which an FBI agent poses as a woman wanting an abortion. It might be that the clinic is found to have hired abortion specialists. It might be that the clinic is found to have ordered medical devices and/or drugs related to abortion. None of those require accessing any woman's medical record. This establishes probable cause, and a criminal investigation follows.
Abortion is illegal in many Western countries, countries with stringent privacy laws; they don't seem to have any problem squaring their privacy laws with enforcement.
Look, I'm not arguing for or against making abortions illegal; I really don't give a f*ck either way (and I think this is not a reasonable political issue for the LP).
I am simply pointing out that you are repeating incoherent left wing drivel when you claim that "abortion must be legal because of privacy".
what i said is that EARLY TERM abortion restrictions require violating other rights. i never said it must be legal, i said that making it illegal requires violating other natural rights before the pregnancy is openly apparent. i am arguing against the use of government force to violate people's rights. if that is too close to "progressive taliking points" for your liking, IDGAF..... argue against the actual argument or STFU. it is laziness to ignore an argument and just pathetically claim it is some other tribe's talking point. either you can refute what i have said, or you can't..... apparently, since you can't, you just want to apply some label to it so you can refuse to even try.
You merely have made the argument that without violating the 4A, an anti-abortion law would be impossible to enforce in almost all cases. Even if true, that just means that most criminals wouldn't be caught; it doesn't mean that making abortion illegal itself violates anybody's "privacy rights".
it is better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent man be punished. that is what i believe.
i do not believe in violating fundamental rights to punish those i consider "criminals." funny how you switched in the other thread from talking about "an ideal libertarian world" to "abortion is illegal in many western countries." that might be first time i ever heard someone claiming so strongly to hold libertarian principles say a law is OK because similar laws already exist..... so much for changing things.....
throw the words "left wing" out a few more times...... maybe then your BS arguments will start to make sense. you are not arguing for or against abortion? STFU... the second you even use the words "left wing" you are taking more of a side than i ever have.
So do I. What's your point? Under most anti-abortion legislation, all women go free.
The criminals under anti-abortion legislation are the people performing the abortions. How are their "fundamental rights" violated?
I didn't say that the "law was OK because it exists in other countries". What I said is that other countries have no problem enforcing anti-abortion laws while at the same time having strict legal protections for privacy, showing that your argument also fails in the face of empirical evidence.
Oh, I'm very much anti-left; I think your views of society are deplorable and illiberal, you have no meaningful principles, and you are clearly not a libertarian.
However, being anti-left doesn't mean I care about every pet issue of the right. Abortion doesn't matter to me personally and I can see both sides of the argument. I think leaving it to the states is the right solution. It's you who is making grandiose and unsound claims that women have "privacy rights" that somehow necessitate abortion being legal across the entire nation.
"libertarian" =/= "anti-left"
"anything i disagree with" =/= "left"
you are basically admitting that you have no argument, and the best you can manage is to try and lump me in with the "other" in a blind fight based on pure tribalism..... tell me again how i don't have to worry about toxic tribalism from those in your camp....
Yes, libertarian means that people are anti-left, anti-progressive, and anti-socialist, because those ideologies are fundamentally irreconcilable with libertarianism and liberty.
To the contrary: after lengthy arguments debunking your drivel, I have pointed out the source of your drivel.
There is nothing "toxic" about kicking people like you out of libertarian institutions because you are not a libertarian, you are a progressive advocating progressive ideologies. You are either doing this deliberately to undermine libertarianism, or you are simply too ignorant to recognize it. Either way, good riddance.
As for "my camp", I'm not a member of the LP or the Mises caucus. In fact, my preference is to shut the LP down entirely because all it seems to do is attract jerks like you and serve no other purpose.
Left = anti liberty
Anybody trying to claim otherwise is a disgraceful liar
you really are a special kind of stupid. you have not debunked anything. you grasped at straws, and when those all fell apart you resort to baseless personal attacks based on pretty much nothing.
you advocate for violating privacy rights to enforce abortion bans before anyone even knows the child exists..... no matter how much garbage you try to wrap it in, that fact remains. my argument is one that upholds personal freedoms while yours is one that actively seeks to violate them.....
and somehow, you are just stupid enough to think your position is "libertarian" because progressives support a right to abortion that is far beyond anything i have suggested. that is really all you have left for an argument..... that my position is slightly more permissible towards abortion than yours (all while you try to claim you are NOT arguing against abortion) and therefore must be progressive.... you are pathetic.
You're missing the entire argument regarding the balancing of rights among the mother and the person with unique DNA inside of her. Ignoring this issue is where the biggest split in the debate comes from.
the biggest thing ignored is exactly what i have been talking about..... you have no idea the woman is pregnant or that that magical pile of DNA even exists without violating the woman's privacy.
we usually get bogged down with questions about when life starts, or where viability is.... questions that are more personal, metaphysical, and emotional than rational.... questions of opinion that are extremely unlikely to ever be changed. and we ignore on glaring reality.
before the pregnancy is outwardly apparent, we have to violate the woman's privacy to even have those conversations.
i know where i draw the line morally, and i know others draw it somewhere else.... and i know that question is a personal one that i do not hold against those who disagree with me. but as a matter of principle, i find it impossible to ignore the fact that until around 20-25weeks, it really isn't any of my business. i also find it telling that this is around where the line has been defined for most of history and is the point where 99% of all abortions happen before it. this is the sweet spot of compromise where you don't need to violate any other rights to enforce it.... and not many people fight it. those who think you could do it later understand that few women will wait longer so it is a non-issue, and those who think it should be earlier SHOULD understand that you have to violate the woman's privacy to do so.
I'd say that the remains of a fetus and/or a witness to the procedure are evidence enough by themselves that an abortion took place, without ever combing through anybody's medical records.
so, you want to seize and test medical samples. (remember, i said before the woman is showing, so we are not talking anything obviously looking like a child)..... and you don't think that is a violation of privacy?
You really don’t get what NOYB2 is saying, so you?
I recall this handle. Making idiotic, circular arguments that intentionally distorted or misstated the other person's comment. Ignoring what is said in order to keep making the same false assertions. And, very low comprehension of most topics, lower interest in individual rights for all or representative government.
i think you chuckle heads are the ones who don't understand what you are saying.
when confronted with the fact that you have to violate a woman's privacy to enforce abortion restrictions prior to the pregnancy being outwardly apparent, you are trying to fall back on some "other" evidence you think you can use.
the fact is that you guys are grasping at straws, and can't own up to the fact that your position lacks principle because you can only enforce what you want by violating other fundamental rights.
The government no more has to "violate a woman's privacy to enforce abortion restrictions" than it has to "violate your privacy to enforce murder restrictions". In both cases, criminal investigations start once there is probable cause, like a corpse, a fetus, and/or a witness who reports the crime.
The fact that serial killers and serial abortionists may be able to get away with many crimes before being caught (if ever) doesn't change the fact that their actions can be made illegal.
so.... we should make things illegal that we know are not actually enforceable without violating peoples other fundamental rights.....
tell me again how "libertarian" you are.....
It is your absurd, erroneous belief that we can't enforce anti-abortion laws without "violating fundamental rights", not mine.
What you want is a society in which government permits abortion and prohibits private actors for restricting it. That is not a libertarian society, that is a progressive/leftist society. In a conservative/right wing society, government limits abortion, which is the third option. Neither of these is libertarian.
The libertarian position is a third option, namely that government permits abortion but allows private actors to restrict it as part of contracts and voluntary agreements. You reject this libertarian position.
As a practical matter, in the non-libertarian society that we live in, I think we should leave it to the states because in reality, abortion is merely an issue that progressives and conservatives use to rile up their bases and that 95% of the population couldn't care less about. And that's the position a pragmatic LP should take.
I’ll take that as a “yes, I don’t understand that criminal investigations don’t have to violate anyone’s rights in order to be opened or collect evidence.”
so.... over 50% of people think that abortion should be permissible in all/most situations..... and you think that, absent government force, private restrictions will effectively ban abortion if driven purely by voluntary action? including the specific situation i have been describing where the <50% who disagree never know because they never can tell the woman was pregnant? how fucking stupid are you?
in an ideal libertarian world a woman would have no problem finding providers willing to give an abortion. i know you are frustrated with your inability to rationally counter the facts, but there is nothing "progressive" about anything i have said.
Yes, because private choices are driven by economics, not opinion or political preference.
That is correct: she would have no problem finding abortion providers. But afterwards, she would face higher insurance rates and other economic and social consequences, which is why she would try to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.
"But afterwards, she would face higher insurance rates and other economic and social consequences, which is why she would try to avoid getting pregnant in the first place."
you really are that stupid, aren't you? what part of that fact that she is not required to tell anyone is so hard for you to grasp? there is zero requirement she tell the insurance company.... 16 states actively forbid insurance from paying for the abortion.... even if you are stupid enough to think that insurance companies will jack her rates up for saving them money, (carrying a child to term costs them way more than an abortion) there is no reason for her to tell them...... the only way ANYONE ever knows she got an abortion is if you violate her right to privacy. this is pretty simple shit that you seem completely incapable of understanding.
I'm sorry, are you really this dense? Criminal investigations usually start with private citizens reporting a crime. That may be a nurse observing the procedure. Or it may be someone seeing a fetus being disposed. Aborted tissue is frequently sold by clinics as well. Or any of numerous other indications that an abortion has been performed.
An aborted fetus is pretty easily recognizable.
First of all, there is no "right to privacy" under the US Constitution. Second, I'm not suggesting the government monitor clinics for abortions, any more than the government monitors your bedroom for murder victims, even though murder is a crime.
The government starts a criminal investigation if private citizens bring credible evidence to the government that a crime has been committed. If a clinic or doctor regularly perform abortions, it is likely that sooner or later someone notices.
unique DNA
So, you consider a pair of identical twins to be just one person?
Even they have variations in DNA. Slight but still there.
Bullshit. They start with identical DNA.
They START with identical DNA
Is your DNA identical to what you started with?
That is just nonsense. The legal prohibition is on performing abortions. You can prove that a doctor performed an abortion through witness testimony and through physical evidence. Of course, if there is probable cause to infer that an abortion took place, any search of relevant medical records would not be a violation of privacy anymore, just like any other search isn't a violation of privacy if there is probable cause.
In my fanciful libertarian society, or in any society with private health insurance, you enter into a private contract with your insurer, and as part of entering that contract, you disclose a vast amount of private information to the insurer. In particular, a woman would have to truthfully disclose whether she has ever had an abortion and whether she intends to have one in the future, and the insurer sets rates accordingly. That's a voluntary transaction on both sides. You are perfectly free to disclose nothing and the insurer is perfectly free to tell you to get lost. There is no privacy violation.
first of all, there is no requirement for women to disclose past abortions. that is a flat out lie.
second..... "intends to have one in the future?"......... really? you think the women who get abortions intentionally get pregnant just to have one? you think women KNOW they will want an abortion at some point in the future? i know this was the second part of the sentence that included the previously mentioned lie.... but you really went from wrong to WTF pretty quick with that one.
and lastly, there is no requirement that women must use insurance for an abortion. 16 states actually forbid the use of insurance to pay for an abortion. in your imaginary world where an insurance company would rather pay for prenatal care, birth, and 18yrs of the sniffles rather than an abortion.... and for some reason actively penalize the woman for saving them money..... the woman would just pay for it herself and never tell them.
I'm not "lying", I'm explaining to you how things would work in a libertarian society and/or a society with private, free market health insurance. We don't live in such a society.
In the US, the cost and risk associated with abortions is socialized. And if society is forced to pay for the cost and risk associated with abortions, then society can also tell people whether abortions are allowed or not.
No, I am saying that in a free market for health insurance, your health insurer would be able to say (and would likely say) "As part of this contract, you agree not to have an abortion. If you violate this clause, we can raise your rate and/or terminate your insurance coverage."
agfain... since you seem to be intentionally slow... unless they are paying for it (and, in 16 states, they are not even allowed to pay for it..... the 16 states most likely to try and ban abortions...) no insurance company has any right to know you got an abortion. you are reaching for an alternative source of "evidence" to avoid the obvious invasion of privacy concerns.... and the straw you are reaching for does not exist.
you want to pretend you can not violate a woman's privacy by forcing someone else to violate their privacy for you..... and that someone else does not even have any right to the data in the first place. (and, elsewhere, you somehow want to pretend that you are NOT taking the anti-abortion position.)
In a free market, your health insurance company has the right to ask you any questions they want to ask you, you have the right to answer any you want to answer, and they have the right to set rates and/or deny coverage based on your answers. That's how free markets work, the bedrock of libertarianism.
The fact that you reject freedom of contracts means that you are not a libertarian, you are a progressive.
I have argued against pro-life positions as well; for example, I have pointed out that fetuses may be human beings, but they are not "persons" under the Constitution.
I really don't care where the law comes down in terms of legalizing our outlawing abortions. I think leaving it to the states is probably the best compromise.
But the abortion debate is quite revealing about where people stand politically and how easily they are manipulated by various forms of propaganda.
the best compromise is the one we have had for 40yrs.... the same one that has existed for basically all of recorded human history...... abortions can be banned once you can tell a woman is pregnant without violating her privacy.... in the old days it was called the "quickening." before the rest of the world knows the child exists, it is nobody's business but the woman. you can claim you are not taking a position until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day..... you are arguing to allow restrictions that require violating an understanding of privacy that has existed for millennium.
You live in a fantasy land. Privacy as a legal concept hasn't existed "for millennium [sic]". And abortion is illegal almost everywhere outside the West and became legal in most countries in the West only after WWII.
There are libertarian arguments one can make both for and against abortion; you aren't making them. You are just spewing ignorant bullshit.
We make the procedure illegal and punish the person performing it.
That's just silly. In every other case, paying someone to commit a crime is itself a crime. In the case of abortion, the woman is not just paying for the "crime"; she is actively participating in the commission. Would you support making it legal to hire a hit man? Is it OK if I pay someone else to steal your car for me? Your idea, though, is consistent with how the pregnant woman is invisible to abortion prohibitionists.
they know they can't get any support for increased restrictions if they actively go after the women..... they are not above ignoring principles to get the outcome they want. which is evidenced by the fact that they don't even care if it requires violating privacy to enforce.
You may be the stupidest poster here. Congratulations.
I don't care about heartbeats.
i don't care about nervous system activity.
i don't even care about hypothetical viability.
Me neither, my point is when there is unique DNA that will become a person if left to do as it does.
You don't get to kill people that YOU forced to be dependent on you because it's inconvenient.
Even if it takes violating your privacy to stop you from murdering them.
For me, the privacy is trumped by the right to live in the first place. Without the latter, the former does not exist.
spoken like every excuse to violate freedom ever imagined..... you just have to pretend you are protecting something else, and suddenly rights mean nothing.
Or reality. But you're firm in your beliefs so want to avoid the actual tough discussion.
What utter garbage. Every excuse to violate freedom ever imagined, has always started with dehumanization. Which is exactly what you're doing.
Do you want not consider the fetus something else?
This is a false assertion. If ' every excuse to violate freedom ever imagined' began w/ the rights to safety in one's person, you would not have an argument for the a woman's right to freedom of choice, or of privacy for medical records, etc. This is however how the vast majority of the arguments supporting policies and laws preferred by your in-group are rooted, the safety of X, the importance of the fears of Y, the need for vaccines and masks to protect Z. Arguing from a position of hypocrisy may be your strength, but it is unconvincing.
GFY
with your incorrect assumption of my "in group."
since attacking what you assume my "in group" is is pretty much all you got.... i guess, just GFY.
and how do you KNOW there is unique DNA? you have to test the woman to find out she is pregnant..... you have to violate the woman's privacy....
how far down the slippery slope do you want to go for this? do you support no knock raids? warrant-less searches? illegal search and seizure? unlawful detainment? did you even read my whole post to know this was part of what i was saying? respecting the natural rights of others means that sometimes someone will get away with something you don't like.
but hey..... at least you just admitted that you don't actually care at all about people's rights. you want the state to force your morality on others, no matter what rights they have to violate to do so. i hope you enjoy tyranny, because that is what you are asking for.
Did you just ask how you know a fertilized egg has unique DNA?
I'm asking how you know it happened, dipstick. you would think you would have read enough of what i wrote as you responded in multiple places down this thread to know that what i am saying is that you have no idea the little packet of DNA exists without violating the woman's privacy.
Are you being retarded on purpose?
The whole point of sexual reproduction is all about recombining DNA into a unique individual, which is why we don't replicate by parthenogenesis.
It's happened in every single instance for the last 1.5 billion years you fucking idiot.
i find myself forced to repeat your question to you.... i did not question how reproduction happens, i questioned how you know it was successful..... how you can look at any given woman and tell whether or not that thing is within her. before she is showing, you have to violate her privacy to find out.
who's the You? authoritarian much?
I'm not the one trying to control other people's bodies or violate their privacy, here.
you're deciding who's pregnant by sight like women are cattle and assuming everyone else is in agreement ... still control
I'm the one trying to control women?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
There is no need to test the woman at all. She has to ask someone else to perform an abortion. She self identifies when she asks for the abortion.
to you? i asked how YOU know, not her healthcare provider who is bound by oath and law not to tell anyone else.
"It's a violation of privacy to find out if someone intends to commit murder."
The violation of privacy argument really is among the worst pro abortion rationales.
If they cared about 4A in any other context, I might give them props, but there is zero evidence, anywhere of this. Virtue signaling does not count as support, voting and supporting policy when it is unpopular does.
and what, pray tell, do you base your assumption that i only support the right to privacy in this context?
seriously.... if you have ANY evidence that i EVER don't support this, please share. pretty please.
The only pro-choice argument you have made so far is that "anti-abortion laws violate a woman's right to privacy". You're welcome to try to make some other argument. Any time now.
"The only pro-choice argument you have made so far is that "anti-abortion laws violate a woman's right to privacy""
unlike you.... i am not grasping for excuses to achieve a desired outcome regardless of principle. i don't want more abortions, the principle just remains relevant that you have to use force to violate privacy to ban them before the point where anyone else can tell the woman is pregnant. i am arguing for the principle.... not because i think abortions are desirable.
you get caught doing an illegal wire tap to catch that would be killer..... they walk.
sorry if you don't like or understand that.
Jesus, this fat fuck prog is really, really stupid
Respond with insults when you have no response to the argument. Do you also post under the name "Sevo"?
Sucking leftist lady dick isn't a good look, vernon.
I'm personally pro abortion, but the privacy argument is idiotic, and fatty there can't make an honest case.
This is a stupid point. We don't inspect every home to see if you are following the law, we wait for you to interact with someone else. It may be to buy Fentanyl, sell your infant, any of thousands of other things.
The DOCTOR is already regulated on what he is allowed to do as a medical practitioner. Regulating when, where, and how he/she performs an abortion is no different from any of the other medical procedures he/she provides.
I don't see you railing about ability to sell a kidney, or even donate one directly to a non-family member so you are apparently just fine with OTHER medical procedures being regulated, it is only abortion you think should not be.
Not a principled argument, just your personal preferences.
to you? i asked how YOU know, not her healthcare provider who is bound by oath and law not to tell anyone else.
What do I know?
I'm not involved. I don't need to know anything.
I'm not describing what I think.
I'm describing what actually happens.
Test? What are you talking about?
If you seek an abortion, you are pregnant. If you are pregnant there is a separate individual that you and an accomplice forced to be dependent on you.
You don't get to kill them because you find that inconvenient.
What do you not get about this?
I'm caring about the rights of everyone involved.. No rights are violated here because there is no right to abrogate the rights of another.
Infanticide is a sacrament for some people.
Names?
She could move to the forest before "showing" until giving birth, then murder the baby. Still OK? Privacy not violated, right?
No, that would be murdering a baby.
What's a fetus?
A fetus.
Which is?
That argument is presented right here regularly and is waved away by the fetophiles with BUT YER KILLIN BABIES!
See what I mean?
It also means sending men with guns to coerce pregnant women on behalf of non-individuals not politically recognized by Constitutional law. See constitutionalism.blogspot.com and use the search feature.
Hah. I’ve heard it said that morning sickness (presents around 6 weeks) was evolved to alert the men in the tribe that (a) she’s incubating and (b) she requires protection.
Sometimes, nature has a way of screaming “she’s pregnant!!!” Even before the baby bump shows up. This one, I have first hand knowledge of. And in tight knit communities, women could tell before the men could and quite early, too, given that menstruation syncs, body changes (enlarged boobs start really early), cravings, and ms.
This isn't strictly true. I have been in organizations w/ people who held beliefs with which I violently disagreed, but had no choice except to agree/decide to avoid the topic. We agreed on nearly everything other issue, and could work well together. Your argument doesn't hold, or needs refining. The question comes down to, is the single (?) issue that one disagrees on more important than the multiple (?) issues upon which one agrees? I think McArdle is going in this direction, but it's hard saying w/o asking her.
I piss some friends and family off because I won’t humor people when they are objectively wrong. They say it’s better to go along to get along. My response is always the same. If that’s necessary, they need to talk to the other party, not me.
Abortion is the one issue I will never comprise on. It's fundamentally evil. If you don't want a fight, don't bring it up with me. I have zero tolerance for such ghoulish positions.
That seems fair enough. If the LP is to succeed, I think McArdle's take is more on point. This said, I tend to excise people out of my life after a few instances of lying, gross hypocrisy, refusal to admit bias is self/in-group when condemning it in out-group. I won't be political enough to really be concerned if the LP is more successful, but a move away from the current trend toward the smug bs that permeates the rest of the culture would be nice.
I don't see what a beating heart has to do with anything. A heart is just an organ. It just happens to be a part of normal human development. Prior to its development, there are other mechanisms to deliver nutrients throughout the body. It has always come across to me as just another arbitrary line to rationalize killing the developing organism.
It has always come across to me as just another arbitrary line to rationalize abrogating the self-ownership of the woman.
the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations.
Communities choosing their own members?
If I was a single issue voter, this would be enough to win me over. A very positive step if the MC follows through.
I am for open borders far more than most. I would leave it entirely to border parcel owners; they can prosecute whichever trespassers they want for any rationale they want. Everyone else needs to bugger off and buy their own border parcel, or buy a trespassing easement, all voluntarily of course.
This also presupposed government owns no lands, and that all roads are privately owned.
I have no illusions about this ever happening.
Right now, anybody stepping on US soil is imposing massive costs, legal obligations, and risks on US tax payers. That's a consequence of our social welfare state. Arguing immigration based on individual freedom of association simply doesn't work within that context.
But... what about undercover narcs and paid informants? Shouldn't Norbert the Narc be empowered to tap your phone? For the Children, Fuhrer and Jesus?
If it's not a private property owner making decisions about their own property, trying to exclude people from public property at the state or local level is just as much a violation of individual rights including freedom of movement and freedom of association as when similar authoritarian actions by government take place at the national level.
and no offense - well a little offense - but LP is the fucking Washington Generals it should have been blown up and reconfigured a long time ago if anything serious was going to be offered by Libertarians
*starts whistling "Sweet Georgia Brown"*
I got the bucket of confetti to the face once when I was 7 or 8 & they were at the Superdome
> ...and shouldn't be afraid to reach out to the coalition that elected former President Donald Trump.
So it's just more of Rothbard's failed "fusion" experiment. First he tried to outreach to the radical leftists, and they would have none of it. Then he tried to outreach to the radical right, but they would have none of it either. Except for the racist fucks, who finally found a group that would have them. This is why the LvMI is infested with Neo-Confederalists who still defend the practice of slavery.
They're not looking to reach out to mainstream Republicans, they;re looking to outreach to the Proudboys and other groups like Stormfront. Yeah, remember when Stormfront donated to Ron Paul? Doesn't mean that Ron Paul was racists (he's not) it means that Stormfront thinks they found an ally in libertarians.
Outreach to diehard Trump supporters, when Trump himself openly mocked libertarian ideas, was profoundly anti-trade, anti-immigration, and pro-authoritarian controls, is a huge mistake. Doesn't mean everything Trump did was bad, just means he's is profoundly NOT a libertarian and should not be set up as a libertarian ideal.
I know you refuse to see it because it contradicts your worldview, but right here in this very comment section are several libertarians that voted for Trump after previously voting libertarian.
Brandy's a woke simp who gives lip service to government incompetence, even as he argues for masks, lockdowns, vax obedience, and submission to totalitarian leftists at every opportunity.
And having the gavel thrown at all j6 protrstors.
You can’t possibly be a libertarian if you voted for Donald Trump!!!1!2!! - Jeff, brandy, etc.
That does follow. Republicans recognize hostile infiltrators, as do Dems. Yet they swap with each other all the time, which is what one expects from a subsidized, entrenched looter Kleptocracy.
I think being a libertarian, like adhering to any political philosophy, is always a matter of degrees. I have yet to meet anyone who's convinced me they're either 100% libertarian, or 0% libertarian, including myself.
That being said, I think voting for Trump was certainly less consistent with supporting libertarianism than voting for Gary Johnson or Jo Jorgensen.
I think Libertarians, and people who tend toward libertarianism, tend to be at risk for getting sucked into the conventional left vs. right paradigm because it is so pervasive, and reactionary politics can feel emotionally satisfying. Please note I'm not using the term "reactionary" here to mean right-wing. I mean more literally *reacting* in opposition to something, and allowing that to determine one's vote or one's political affiliation, instead of siding with whatever candidate or party most closely matches your actual beliefs.
Something like this I think has long tended to cause people in the libertarian movement to defend big corporations more than libertarian philosophy and the actual behavior of those corporations has warranted, simply because they have been widely *condemned* as capitalist institutions by people who oppose free markets. This "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach can seem superficially practical as well as emotionally satisfying as previously noted, but it has an obvious potential to lead us into taking philosophically unsupported positions.
Yeah, remember when Stormfront donated to Ron Paul? Doesn't mean that Ron Paul was racists (he's not) it means that Stormfront thinks they found an ally in libertarians.
There's an entire side discussion here about what happens when America's establishment and leading institutions fully embraced New Racism: They'd animate the old white racists by giving them ammunition. Which they have. Don't be mad at Stormfront for giving money to Ron Paul because they thought they found an ally, be mad at the DNC for constantly pimping "replacement" and the hyper-racialized way of looking at every problem as the solution to America's "fundamentally unfair, racist and capitalist system that began in 1619".
When mainstream voices on the left are telling you that the very business of opening a business and trying to make a profit to feed your family and possibly get ahead in life exists purely to continue a fundamentally racist system that you can't see, feel or touch, but trust them it's there, you think Stormfront isn't going to crawl out of the woodwork? You think that that REAL white supremacists aren't going to get animated when the so-called middle-of-the-road center left in this country is telling us that "whiteness" is toxic and must be eradicated from the culture?
I might introduce you to some very reasonable, liberal people, writers and thinkers who warned of this very thing if you're interested.
"I might introduce you to some very reasonable, liberal people, writers and thinkers who warned of this very thing if you're interested."
That has to be one of the more infuriating aspects for anyone who has been party to this discussion for any extended period of time. Foreseen consequences not being unintended consequences and all that.
More over all the denial that we are not dealing with actual Marxists. Because thesis, antithesis, synthesis is not supposed to be a libertarian's how-to guide. Yet, viewed on a long enough time line all those quite accurate warnings seem so much less ignored as they were actually taken as indications of being 'on the right track.'
She doesn’t want to hear from those terrible racists.
You're right - the anti-white/anti-West rhetoric of the last 10 years is pushing more and more whites towards different iterations of white identity politics.
In theory.
Haven't really seen it in practice yet...
Yes. And this is another example of reactionary politics (reacting against something, as opposed to basing our politics on principles that can stand on their own – as I discuss in another post above).
Embracing a different form of identity politics is no way to fight against identity politics. Tempting as some may find it to take up pro-Caucasian racism as a way to counter anti-Caucasian racism, this is a terrible mistake that makes the overall situation worse, not better. All forms of judging people on the basis of group identity rather than treating them as individuals undermine libertarianism and individual rights.
Stormfront thinks they found an ally in libertarians.
They certainly have common ground regarding freedom of expression and association.
This too. When you decide that certain forms of expression are verboten and openly attack the first amendment, but only for, you know, yucky racists, and you take up the first amendment as a pillar, guess who's going to join your movement?
Huh?
"They [libertarians and Stormfront] certainly have common ground regarding freedom of expression and association."
I doubt it. Neo-Nazis may claim to favor freedom of expression and association now, when their rights are under threat, but there's little to suggest they hold any real commitment to these principles. When have fascists in power upheld these rights for people whose views are at odds with their own?
Jo's support of anti racism bullshit was a much better strategy.
"They're not looking to reach out to mainstream Republicans, they;re looking to outreach to the Proudboys and other groups like Stormfront. Yeah, remember when Stormfront donated to Ron Paul? Doesn't mean that Ron Paul was racists (he's not) it means that Stormfront thinks they found an ally in libertarians."
Why isn't Ron Paul racist then? What is your proof that actually, Ron Paul wasn't actively trying to court racists for support? Did you read his mind to determine his motivations in the same way you have read the minds of the Mises caucus?
Can you expound on this technique? Or are you just making bullshit assertions about the motivations of people you don't like (e.g. Mises Caucus), and assuming the motivations of people you do like (e.g. Ron Paul)?
I assume he would not call Biden a racist in spite of David Duke supporting him. Because Biden does not, far as I know, support David Duke.
My guess is that David Duke, like so many in the current political environment, is trying to "game the system" rather than act with integrity in accordance with his own principles.
I don't believe for a minute that he actually feels closer to Joe Biden's views than to Donald Trump's; he simply recognizes that his endorsement or support carries *negative* weight for most people, and that he can harm Biden more by supporting him than by opposing him, and for that reason pretends to do so.
It's easy to have principles and be pragmatic at the same time. I live in California; my default voting rules are against all spending, new laws, and incumbents; to vote for any Libertarian I can spot, just to make ballot access easier next time; but pragmatic step one is to vote for a Republican who might defeat a Democrat, since the state has a Democrat super majority.
It makes no sense for me to vote for any GOP presidential candidate, in California. But I would have chosen Trump over Hillary, and Trump over Biden, if my vote had been a tie-breaker, simply because Trump is less evil than either of the Democrats.
I don't know how I would vote in a swing state, but I don't live in one and it would depend on how I weighed the odds, I expect. So would having electoral votes apportioned by popular vote, either within each state or overall.
Your automatic condemnation of anyone who voted for Trump shows you have neither principles nor pragmatism guiding you. I wonder what does....
You really are an evil, lying prick. Goebbels would be proud of you.
"They're not looking to reach out to mainstream Republicans"
Mainstream Republicans just worked with Democrats to further suppress your rights. Which they tend to do a lot.
I do not see mainstream Republicans expending ANY effort into cutting back the federal government in any way, shape, or form.
Mainstream Republicans are desperate to have the press like them as much as they like Democrats that they will crap on whatever values they profess to have (remember all their talk about ending Obamacare and then NOT doing so when they had the chance?) if the media says "Boo!".
"Doesn't mean that Ron Paul was racists (he's not) it means that Stormfront thinks they found an ally in libertarians."
Did Ron Paul SEEK their support? No.
They supported HIM. He did not support THEM by any known measure.
So what IS the deal with the Proud Boys? I know Gavin McInnes founded it with some drinking buddies as a counter to antifa and related groups that were always harassing them. They’re obviously not white supremacists, given that at leas tone of their leaders is not anywhere close to being white.
The media has maligned them endlessly. Is it all bullshit? Or did they actually get weird and radical?
Ron Paul wants men with service pistols to force women into involuntary servitude of reproduction. His son does too, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments be damned. Oh, and both are members of the Republican Party.
If they’re already pregnant, how are you forcing them to reproduce?
By forcing them to remain pregnant, moron.
Is not refusing to do some for someone a passive position? Are you FORCING them to do something or just refusing to allow them to force YOU to do something? Does that sound like a libertarian position to you?
Huh?
They’ve already reproduced idiot.
Why are pro abortionist so anti science?
They are in the process of reproducing. They have a right to stop that process.
Let them vacuum the little critter out, whatever.
I can see how someone might think forcing a woman to gestate the little crotch goblins till they’re ready to pop out is not ideal. Just stop using fallacious arguments. Don’t try to pass off the anti-abortion stance as something it’s not just because you think those people are icky. The fetus is, by definition, not a parasite. It is alive. It is human. The reproduction has already taken place (that’s the sexy part) so no, it’s not akin to sexual slavery.
Maybe someday you'll respond to what I actually say.
I did. That was the part where I said “the reproduction has already taken place (that’s the sexy part).”
Gestation isn’t reproduction, it’s a separate biological function.
No, it's not "separate". It's part of the process of reproduction.
McArdle, who won her election with about 70 percent of the vote
Was that before or after fortification?
Imagine going back in time about 10 yrs. and saying, "In 10 yrs. time the LP will be chaired by a woman and be more bigoted than it's ever been."
Funny how tolerating bigots while rejecting their bigotry is more bigoted than not tolerating bigots. Both positions reject bigotry but one embraces the right kind of bigotry,
I was there. No fortification. The officers were elected with ballots, but the voice call and standing votes by Day 2 were 2/1 in favor of Mises Caucus, and the margin only got bigger on Day 3.
Mises Caucus supporters say they want to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again," that it should no longer be concerned about offending progressives or Beltway types and shouldn't be afraid to reach out to the coalition that elected former President Donald Trump. McArdle says that the party faceplanted during the pandemic by failing to take a strong stance against lockdowns and vaccine mandates and that its messaging is far too tame and conventional to counter the power of the authoritarian state.
I follow this stuff about as closely as Reason does... so not very closely... but this paragraph sounds incredibly reasonable and on point.
As I said in a previous thread. I didn't even know what the Libertarian Party's position was on lockdowns.
That's a problem.
I think too much focus at the federal level has been a huge problem with the party for a long time. Though, it is hard due to difficulties getting the party on ballots it still seems to fit neatly with the concepts of libertarianism to have a movement starting in the cities and states of the nation.
Lockdowns and mandates were a national and federal problem. The LP's problem was not being too focused on the federal level, it was being unwilling to stand up to the liberals they were trying to court if that meant potentially standing up along side a bunch of "White Supremicists".
Even in the Reason articles, lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccine mandates were discussed tepidly by talking about science and inconclusive studies. Month after month, Sullum and Soave's arguments against COVID theater was "The science doesn't support this" as opposed to "This is a direct attack on our liberty." And the LP was much the same way.
Your radical individualism must be supported by the science, if it's not, then we temper that impulse.
And they didn't even voice tepid opposition until 6 months in...
Jo was too busy telling us we needed to be actively anti-racist to bother with such trivial issues.
I agree.
Rereading what I wrote, I do think what I said is true, but I can't recall what I was responding to from Diane's post.
If the science had supported the measures, I wouldn't have joined the LP. My arguments are still based on the failed science. I guess I'm not a real libertarian. But the state proved it would use coercion and censorship to push its incompetence. I am a big L Libertarian now because of what the state did during the scamdemic.
So are you saying that if the Science (tm) had supported lockdowns you wouldn’t have found your way to our sunny, if curmudgeonly, shores?
They should focus on state races, and maybe find ONE House congressional race that they could actually win. Then slowly build from there.
Getting a libertarian elected president right now is a ridiculous fantasy.
It's just a grift.
Professional libertarians draw a salary from the funds they raise, but presidential runs don't accomplish anything else at this point. People are aware of the LP, and they don't really do much to spread the gospel of libertarianism via the platform. They had a lower % in 2020 than 2016. The most a LP presidential run can hope to accomplish is throwing the race to the greater evil... which isn't ideal.
As you say, the party should focus on local races where they have a chance of getting people in office. Why not pick a city/county/state and try to get a libertarian run government to provide an example?
Under Sarwark I just assumed their position was whatever the craziest progressive was saying on most issues, minus the overt hatred of capitalism. You know, the Reason positions of open borders, vaccine mandates and lockdowns for your own good.
When has Reason ever supported government mandates requiring vaccination or lockdowns? I don't remember everything, and haven't read every word that appears on their website, but I do read the magazine cover to cover every month, and don't recall noticing anything like that.
Admittedly, I do think Reason has been too accepting of the establishment narrative on Covid.
Don't you even have a working search engine?
https://www.lp.org/platform/
Why do I have to "search" for their position when without searching anything I know what Amash's view on Trump was. See my comments below to understand the subtlety of what I'm talking about.
I know what the Spiked-online editorial position was on lockdowns, but Reason's? As Overt stated above, it was tepid criticism of scientifically unsupported claims and policies that... if possibly better supported would have been a justified attack on liberty.
To further drive this point home, without doing ANY searching whatsoever-- in other words, putting in a VERY Libertarian effort into my political drives-- I know EXACTLY what the Mises Caucus's position is on lockdowns. And I I can feel Reason's and Amash's tut-tutting from a thousand miles away. It burns.
who will destroy the LP from within.
Is there really anything to destroy? The earthquake doesn't cause any damage if all you had to start with was a pile of rubble.
Jo Jorgensen gave that her best effort
when does "bold messaging" become counterproductive trolling?
When you disagree with the message?
As a registered Libertarian in my state, I am thrilled at this new direction. Macardle has been great on the podcasts. Libertarians have not been standing up and speaking out against authoritarianism, especially during the lockdowns. Most people think of Libertarians as Conservatives. Journalists routinely lump them together. We need attention-getting, bold, humorous, rigorous new voices. Comedians are great. Ron Paul and Rand Paul were/are great, even though I do not share every one of their positions. Bold, outspoken leadership is called for, not the safe following posture so common today.
We need our original short platform back, free of commie-anarcho-crap, that actual libertarians can run on and get law-changing spoiler votes. Podcasts, ranting, and unfully sucking up to girl-bullying Trumpanzees are what infiltrating sockpuppets want, not Libertarians.
Some takeaways I got from the article:
1. Amish and the LP dead weight leadership, who appear terrified of being labeled racist or “far right” by the Democrats and their media friends, aren’t too pleased by the recent power the Mises Caucus has gained in the party.
2. Reason doesn’t appear to be pleased by this turn of events.
3. Snowden actually speaked at a convention in Reno? In person?
“spoke”
Never mind, Snowden’s speech was “virtual”.
https://onlineprnews.com/news/50021425-1653566881-edward-snowden-to-speak-at-libertarian-national-convention.html/
I was gonna say, every talk he's done that I've seen is over Zoom.
If the LP is going to be worth even half a shit, they can’t worry about kissing off democrats. Everything other than total submission pisses them off.
The US Constitution inadvertently created a two party system. Third parties have occasionally arisen, but they fade after an election or two. Slavery and abolition did split the Whigs; part was absorbed by the slavery Democrats, part become the abolitionist Republicans.
Every fringe party has two choices: to remain true to their principles, and forever a fringe party; or to migrate their principles close enough to a mainstream party to attract dissenters. This latter migration of course discards its principles, and its best hope for survival is that the mainstream party strays enough from its history that its members migrate to the third party; the other outcomes are oblivion as principled former members create a new fringe party, or being absorbed by the mainstream party and disappearing from history.
The old Libertarian party had shown its interest in straying from principles in search of dissatisfied mainstream members. I was willing to accept Gary Johnson at first, based on his track record as governor. But Weld as running mate? The guy was a has-been interloper having a late life crisis. And saying the cake shop should have been forced to bake that cake? Sorry, Chollie, that Libertarian Party was no longer libertarian.
I am glad for the "takeover", which is really more of a return to its roots. The Gary Johnson crowd turned out to be fifth columnists who would have been more useful staying in the GOP, and wanted to drag the carcass of the Libertarian Party along with them as a sacrificial gift showing their fealty.
That's counterproductive. What you need to do instead is pick one of the two leading parties and move it in your direction. That's the way two party systems are supposed to work.
Saying a bakery should be forced to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple was never the Libertarian Party's position, just Gary Johnson's. I believe the vast majority of Libertarians disagreed, including most of us who are strong supporters of legitimate LGBTQ rights (e.g. the right to be treated equally by law).
Is this the same Justin Amash about whom I'm very clear on his thoughts on how awful Trump is, but I really have no clear picture on what his position is on COVID lockdowns, Critical Race Theory being done TO your children in schools etc.?
"Oh but Diane, you debonair, striking figure of masculinity," I hear you say, "Amash HAS made statements about lockdowns and CRT."
That may be true, but again, without any effort to find out what Amash's view on Trump is, I damned well know what his position on Trump is. But the same [lack] of effort has given me zilch on his position on lockdowns. So that tells me how much energy he's spent telling me how awful Trump is, and how much energy he put behind condemning COVID policy.
Give me something that differentiates you from Democrats and Republicans, not something that tells me how much you align with them.
"So that tells me how much energy he's spent telling me how awful Trump is, and how much energy he put behind condemning COVID policy."
I think that is unfair. Trump creates energy. It is un-fucking-real how much energy that man creates. Back in the day, we knew that Trump had said something, because Huffpost's server capacity would fall over and die. They could post 40 articles about any single subject and a single Trump article would swamp that in clicks by a factor of 1000 at least.
I used to watch Amash's twitter feed, and he was pretty consistent on all this stuff. But he'd say "These lockdowns are terrible" and he'd get a meh from the public and a "How Dare You!" from a dozen Karens. But if he said a single offhand thing critical of Trump, it would be retweeted 10000 times. That isn't his fault, that is just how fads and viral social media works.
And, "That's all I got to say now. Go away!"
And yet, to continue to drive this point home, Reason didn't tell me what Amash's views on lockdowns were, but they sure as hell made sure I knew what his Trump views were, early, often and repeatedly. So that tells me how much Reason thought of his anti-lockdown stance.
Yes I do agree with you here. I don't think people realize how much Trump broke the entire publishing industry.
And we were part of the problem, by the way.
Go back to the Darkest 4 Years in American History (tm) and look at the comment counts, and you will find that articles discussing Trump had 2 - 5x the comments of articles without Orange Man. Reasonistas, Commentariat, lurkers- all of us loved nothing more than to argue about Trump.
I don’t feel like looking it up, but I feel like Covid articles got a lot of comments.
To be fair, Covid articles were just the last year of his presidency and many figured out creative ways to be about Trump.
Let me try to be more clear.
Reason is a constantly-open tab in my browser. I watch their videos on youtube. The youtube algorithm (despite my complaints about Big Tech) does a pretty good job of feeding me stuff that is within my scope of interest. So without much effort, starting in 2020, I started getting an increasing number of videos, commentary, commentators and other sources of thinkers, writers, philosophers criticizing lockdowns and COVID policy with significant spit and venom. The kind of stuff you'd think would come from Reason which should be at least on the goddamned farm team for Radical Individualism and Liberty. Let's just say that outspoken anti-covid lockdown policy has been... thin on the ground. When Glenn Greenwald is significantly more libertarian than Reason is, you've got a problem.
And don't even get me started on the hyper-anti-individualist CRT shit.
I completely agree when it comes to Reason and the LP in general. They made a conscious decision to downplay their resistance to a deeply un-libertarian decision. And I think that they did this largely because it wasn't goring their ox- and in fact it was goring the ox of all the people they resist.
Notice that Reason has pushed several articles now about Polis where they glowingly discuss his pandemic policy. See? They do agree that the lockdowns were bad. It's just they don't want to talk about it when it is DeSantis or Abbot making the call.
See? They do agree that the lockdowns were bad. It's just they don't want to talk about it when it is DeSantis or Abbot making the call.
Or while it was actually happening.
^
So, he's all for liberty as long as it's popular with the Twitter crowd.
Sorry, couldn't help it. But, to some extent, it's fair game. Even on Trump alone, he started to play fast and loose with libertarian principle if it came to an opportunity to ding Trump.
I think Amash and Reason both set aside libertarian principles when it came to all things Trump. Russiagate and impeachment were created whole cloth by the Clinton Campaign and the IC and they both played the role of useful idiot because they had a childish emotional reaction to Trump.
Compare that with Dave Smith of the Mises Caucus. He hates Trump, and is very clear about his feelings toward him, but he doesn’t let that effect his analysis of all things Trump. He calls a spade a spade, and recognizes that what happened to Trump is terrifying from a libertarian perspective.
Donald Trump himself is also terrifying from a libertarian perspective. A sitting president of the United States who, upon hearing the dictator of China has gotten himself made president for life, suggests it's something to think about here? If this were a one-off, this could be dismissed as a very poorly considered one-off joke, like Ronald Reagan joking that he'd just signed legislation to outlaw the Soviet Union and that "the bombing begins in five minutes". But Trump has a well-established pattern of cozying up to dictators, from Putin to Duterte to Kim. He also did everything he thought he could get away with to try to stay in power after losing an election. I don't think recognizing such a figure as anathema to liberty is a "childish emotional reaction", but a very sound and logical one.
"Trump creates energy."
It's not so much Trump himself as it is the vast numbers of people who have come to adopt him as their avatar. To beat the analogy to death - he's the lightning rod that draws the discharge from that cloud of charged ions.
Amash isn't really so much bothered by Donald J. Trump as he is that anyone outside his clique of acceptability resonates with so many voters.
I disagree. Trump is some kind of weird force of nature, I'll grant you, but one might think that the nominally libertarian congressman would be on record about grotesque violations a la covid freakout policies and the ongoing 6 Jan detentions and show trials.
It's the same Amash who supported deep state bureaucrats working with totalitarian leftists, including the prior administration, trying to frame Trump as part of a coup that would finally pay off in 2020.
The simmer we see the back of him, the better.
‘Sooner ‘
Yes, the same Justin Amash who apparently has no interest in staking out a position on anything that is even remotely relevant to the average voter. School choice? Immigration? Abortion? Freedom of speech online? Crickets.
" We are going to change the country. "
A tiny collection of antisocial misfits, obsolete bigots, disaffected clingers, irrelevant anti-government cranks, and downscale malcontents expects to change the country?
These pathetic, worthless losers will change America -- for the better -- when they are replaced. That's about it.
A tiny collection of antisocial misfits, obsolete bigots, disaffected clingers, irrelevant anti-government cranks, and downscale malcontents expects to change the country?
Yeah. The Democratic Party has had a lot of effect on the country and changed it a lot over the last 60 years. Whatever you think of those changes, there is no denying their existence.
Sorry dipshit, but reality is as they say what it is.
Good afternoon, Art.
As you probably know, Joe Biden is almost one year behind the schedule you predicted for a 13-member Supreme Court. How did you botch the timeline so badly? Did you sleep through court expansion theory at Harvard Law?
#LibertariansFor4MoreRBGs
Harvard Law, you're killing it OBL. You damned well the fake rev is at best some fat paralegal w/ a degree from a mail order degree mill.
Ha, that got the mouth-breathing credential-fetishist bigot's tiny little mind racing. Did it stop furiously masturbating while typing out oral rape threats on assorted media platforms? Likely not. Probably copied/pasted the pathetic lies about its successful life, again. As if nobody has ever come across an online huckster before.
When Democrats have the votes -- and in a nation whose improvement includes becoming less rural, less religious, less bigoted, less backward, and more diverse daily, as obsolete Republicans die off and are replaced by younger, better Americans in our electorate this is inevitable -- the Court will be enlarged.
And a few new states -- maybe D.C., Puerto Rico, Pacific Islands -- will be admitted (reducing the structural amplification of clingers' voices in the Senate).
And the House will be enlarged (with it, the Electoral College, reducing the amplification of hayseed voices at the Electoral College).
Disaffected, deplorable right-wing culture war casualties will still get to whine and whimper as much as they like, and to nip at the heels and ankles of their betters. But the culture war -- settled but not quite over -- will have consequences.
Bitter clingers hardest hit.
You’re the clinger shitbag, your democrat stooge in Texas lost by eight points in that special election. In a district democrat Viega won by 13 points less than two years ago.
Looks like you no one really likes your Marxist scumbag policies.
"There have to be guardrails..."
- N. Sarwark
Yeah, this coming from a guy who said he'd run Dick Cheney as the Libertarian candidate and vote for Hitler as an LP candidate on the off chance it would increased ballot access.
This is the sort of hypocritical arrogance from the pre-Mises leadership that illustrates why it was no longer fit to play a dominant role. They called themselves "libertarian pragmatists". Yet, they cozied up to the left under the guise of "liberaltarianism" or "bleeding-heart libertarianism" or the ever-popular "thick libertarianism". Only to get kicked to the curb like a used-up whore by progressives eager to move ever more authoritarian. All while dismissing the actual moves toward libertarianism, first by Ron Paul, who they tried to dismiss as a racist, and then the Tea Parties. Some "pragmatism".
All the while, the regime libertarians were insisting that, all of a sudden, libertarianism was no longer about just individual rights. It was about individual rights balanced with progressive social values. Anyone remember "Cosmopolitanism is the essence of libertarianism"? In effect, anyone whose personal values, ethics and principles wasn't all-in on progressive social values was somehow less of a libertarian, someone who needed to take a back seat to the "pragmatists", even when they were blatantly obviously selling out libertarian value and principles to be more socially acceptable to the progressives who'd announced their contempt for libertarianism time and again.
I wish the best for the Mises Caucus. God knows the regime libertarians have done enough damage to libertarianism as an intellectual or political movement. Regime libertarianism gave conservatives and, hell, a lot of libertarians reason to turn to guys like Sohrab Ahmari. Libertarianism has been morphing into a caricature of itself willing to excuse any infringement on liberty from progressives while attacking any belief in conservative values. Hopefully, through their control of the party, the Caucus can convince the world that the regime libertarians don't speak for all libertarians.
Here is what the regime Libertarians need to wake up and understand. The open border policy they love so much is actually working. The country is becoming more Hispanic and more Muslim by the day. And these newcomers have no interest in or support for the bougie social justice bull shit that regime Libertarians and the gentry white left are so in love with. The day of the woke white person is coming to an end in this country. It is only a matter of time. So, the regime Libertarians better figure that out.
Donald Trump himself is also terrifying from a libertarian perspective. A sitting president of the United States who, upon hearing the dictator of China has gotten himself made president for life, suggests it's something to think about here? If this were a one-off, this could be dismissed as a very poorly considered joke, like Ronald Reagan joking that he'd just signed legislation to outlaw the Soviet Union and that "the bombing begins in five minutes". But Trump has a well-established pattern of cozying up to dictators, from Putin to Duterte to Kim. He also did everything he thought he could get away with to try to stay in power after losing an election. I don't think recognizing such a figure as anathema to liberty is a "childish emotional reaction", but a very sound and logical one.
2016-2022 has been a banner year for a party that (I guess) claims to be radically individualist to raise its profile.
I let the lp when they changed leadership. I might be back
I have to say I find this a promising development, too.
I recall the article in reasonmag about progressive values aligning w/ libertarian ideals, and it wasn't parody. Notwithstanding their being zero overlap, the assertion was made.
I fully expect an article by the 2024 election with a title along the lines of “The Reason Case for Authoritarian Progressivism”. Since most of the writers ar more concerned with being able to get better jobs at the leftist rags, or invitations to beltway/Manhattan cocktail parties.
It’s more important for these people to go along to get along, than it is to stick to libertarian principles.
Well, as I said, that's been the claim of the "liberaltarian"/"bleeding-heart libertarian"/"thick libertarian" wing for years now. It's regime libertarians trying to make libertarianism "respectable" for a mostly progressive establishment. They keep trying to float it, but mostly nobody's buying it.
I wrote elsewhere, there is a type of left-leaning/progressive sort, who simply does not comprehend an environment where their words are not accepted as gospel in the new religion.
FFS, 'there.'
Conservatives value positive Christian National Socialism, and have since 1928. Small wonder their Austrian Trojan Horse is welcomed by the exact same girl-bullying, dog-shooting, no-knock, asset-forfeiture prohibitionists that caused the Great Depression.
You know that Prohibition was a huge Bipartisain effort right Hank?
Why would any organization put on two popular speakers at the same time? Libertarians are nothing if not open to hearing all sides of various arguments (if only so they are better equipped to debate against various arguments.)
Yeah, it's a bitch move. And if it wasn't for the fact that all Arizonans are excellent people of moral perfection I'd have said that Sarwark was just being a wiener there.
McArdle says that the party faceplanted during the pandemic by failing to take a strong stance against lockdowns and vaccine mandates and that its messaging is far too tame and conventional to counter the power of the authoritarian state.
You can include Reason and McArdle's beta male husband on that list as well. Since McArdle wears the pants in that family, what is her excuse for her husband and his employer failing so badly on this point?
Not the same McArdle.
Critics say they're shitposting edgelords who make controversial statements just to attract attention and that they have no interest in running viable candidates for office.
No shitposting edgelord has ever been elected President.
Oh, wait...
So you, too, question the election?
Amash could have been the "new Ron Paul." Instead he caught TDS and fell flat on his face.
He would rather be a Sith Lord than a force ghost. He chose poorly.
Thanks a heap for failing to define "edgelording".
It's when you're able to keep yourself from coming longer than anyone else who is willing to challenge you on it.
Go on...
I had to google it a few months ago too.
I guess it means not avoiding topics somebody would rather you not discuss, or something like that. I think maybe the first indication you're "edgelording" is that somebody yells "whataboutism!"?
More like calling out edgelording is actually a form of whataboutism.
It's a smug pejorative, generally used by millennials and millenial wannabes to denigrate both argument and arguer. Edge lords are/were internet personalities who generally held opinions not favored by establishment media types, twitter blue check cultists, or any of the associated left-leaning hivemind. Edgelord is a remarkably sexist, dismissive characterization, as one may expect from an in-group nominally concerned w/ 'inclusiveness.' If you weren't trolling...
Edgelording is the "no enemies to the left" approach taken in any direction other than left.
That is why the leftists hate it so much, it is their own tactic used against them.
This article is a sh*t post.
Reason once again is angry that libritarian are taking over the libritarian party
What is the "libritarian" party? Is that a new one?
Just curious, I've always wondered: Where do you get ths spelling 'libritarian?' Is this an inside joke I missed?
I'm so bad at spelling that SwiftKey gave up on me and now makes up words. It also doesn't help that I am ~6'4" and my fings span 3 buttons
Oh, big hands, huh? Well, I'll gladly overlook the spelling quirk and say: "You Da Man!" 😉
Well... Mises Caucus is largely right. The libertarians were noticeably quiet during the whole pandemic thing. And even if they claim they were, that's a further problem because no one heard their voice. I don't know if it's a problem with leadership and the ability to reach out, but the last 2 and half years, they should have been the loudest and most active voices, but I never heard from any of them. Even when I listened to some of the podcasts, they seem more interested in other things. This is a problem if you believe you are libertarian.
I guess to make things more succinct, the old leadership didn't defend or failed to advance libertarian policies during the pandemic, and if they did, then they had a problem with messaging and outreach. Both are significant issues since the pandemic was a ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME opportunity to advance the party. An opportunity that was wasted.
So you're saying, there was an honest to goodness libertarian moment, and the leadership that was fucked it up? No way. Certainly never been said here about other topics.
They didn't want to be associated with all the "imperfect" libertarian-ish people like Glenn Beck (libertarian-ish conservative) and Dave Rubin (libertarian-ish liberal).
It is SO much more important to be associated with the woke "cool kids".
The LP was infiltrated by Das-Boot-Headed anarcho-fascist infiltrators, multiple times beginning in 1980. Before that we were repealing bad laws and growing at 12% per year. Superstitious nationalsocialists change planks to alienate women voters, then witless communist clowns further wreck the platform to alienate everyone not actually barred from voting. Alternating flotsam is dumped on by both kleptocracy factions to keep us from getting votes and repealing bad laws.
With all the catch words and phrases the article is unreadable. This has always been the problem with the party, they never put out a straight forward message. "Lower taxes and more jobs!" That's all they need say and they might start winning.
I believe it to be pertinent to point out that Amash is pro life and stated so quite clearly in his Reason interview from 9 years ago. If the authors above are trying to draw a distinction between Amash on the left (literally in the graphic), and McArdle, Smith, et al on the right, then they might want to reconsider their analysis of the situation. I wholeheartedly agree with some of the above comments regarding the beltway libertarians finding an overrepresentation of voice at Reason. I used to enjoy Reason round table, but stopped listening during Covid. Mangu-Ward and Welch will let Peter Suderman say some of the most egregious and anti liberty things unchecked while you get the sense the Gillespie hardly belongs even considering his quite left of center social politics. The squishyness on covid lockdowns and vax mandates (Suderman), their celebration of cronyism via their undying support for Pfizer and Amazon (Mangu- Ward), as well as their lack of political philosophical interest (all sans Gillespie) led me away from the round table and further toward folks like Malice, Deist, Woods, and Smith. I feel a similar way listening to the Fifth Column- what is Kmele doing there? Reason- get a clue! Love, someone who moved from the city to the country for the sake of more personal liberty and found it.
See? National socialist infiltrators will stop at nothing to change the constitution until men with guns are again chasing women across state lines to force them into involuntary labor on behalf of mystical collectivism. Changing the platform to appease them will work as well now as it did when Neville Chamberlain, Father Coughlin, American Silvershirts and the Klan urged it in the 1930s. See: (https://tinyurl.com/mruxf9v7)
So the LP has been taken over by a caucus that only seems to want to argue about national issues via party platform changes.
Exactly how will this help elect - say a city clerk or county sheriff?
Look at the 2020 vigilante murder plank. Sheriffs and voters love those.
It won’t. And that’s where they need to start.
All I have to say is it wasn't the Mises caucus who drove out Maj Toure. If we want the party to be more diverse and grow instead of being all white men, people like Maj, Angela, Eric July, Maj and Zuby are exactly the type of people we should be inviting in.
Oh wait, isn't Eric July a regular on Glenn Beck? No, no , no, we can't have THAT!
We DON'T want the party to be more 'diverse'.
That is an irrelevant factor.
Pursuing such a thing is a leftist goal designed to tear the LP apart.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is nonsense. You are a leftist, not a libertarian.
Name calling is not political debate
“Bigot” The same millions of individuals that voted for T in 2016 voted for Obama twice.
“White Supremacist” see “Bigot”
“Woman” imonna skip that one
“Immigrant” someone who works their ass of, had jumped through hoops and ate ramen noodles to save their first five years of paychecks to immigration attorneys, and/or, anyone who stays in the U.S. without paying an attorney and secures public housing, food stamps, energy credits and public schooling to babysit the kids. Same exact thing
“Xenophobic” see “bigot” who disagrees with the definition of “immigrant”.
“Libertarian” non tolerance of “bigots””Xenophobes”
The problem is, as McArdle suggested, that "bigot" is so vastly broad a term as to be meaningless. "Bigotry" can cover everything from a night riding Klansman to a guy suggesting blacks are indebted to America to someone who doesn't accept CRT to the guy looking askance at "family-friendly drag shows" to somebody who refuses to play bottom to a transsexual, depending on who's doing the defining. And you can bet, over time, the definition will be broadened to its most inclusive, as the label is wielded by those most invested in branding their opponents bigots as a cudgel to achieve political hegemony.
I expect that we'll see rather less of the vaudeville shit like fat naked guys dancing or clowns with boots on their heads in future LP conventions.
I'm fine with that.
-jcr
The only thing good about vermin supreme is the free stuff mockery, though the boot is pretty funny for about 30 seconds. I like to push him since the LP is often pretty dysfunctional and ineffective, so a guy like him is more well-known than most libertarian thinkers or pols.
Sadly I suspect that the further the party attempts to move away from the progressives the more attempts to embarrass and discredit there will be.
But - also sadly - it won't be done by people so obvious as to be wearing brand new copies of the exact same color and brand of khakis.
And then of course opposing Mises we have such stalwarts as Nick Sarwark and former chair JBH. Nick's "assault" at the convention, his "vote for hitler" comments on Dave Smith's podcast and Joe Bishop Henchman's involvement in the New Hampshire fiasco are signs of small people doing dirty deeds in a quest to be big fish in a small pond. Good riddance.
And yes, I said Maj twice above because I really like him and was disgusted by his treatment by former power brokers of the party.
Have to admit Toure would be good for the party, but they did it to themselves, driving off diverse viewpoints.
Why should anyone care about the LP?
Amash is important there? C'mon.
To the extent that the LP succeeds, they usually take votes away from one of the other candidates which could actually influence a more libertarian result in government.
Contrast the LP to the NRA. Both broken in many ways, but the NRA ends up being a positive force for libertarian results. They do it by motivating people to vote for their cause.
they never put out a straight forward message. "Lower taxes and more jobs!" That's all they need say and they might start winning.
Pretty much anything which advocated well defined libertarian changes would be infinitely better than the total nonsense we see nowadays.
Something had to change. The embarrassment of the wishy-washy Jorgensen campaign, preceded by the wishy-washy Weld VP candidacy were just too much. Or too little I should say.
And the scandal of Sarwark trying to replace the duly elected NH Libertarian affiliate just because he didn't like their twitter feed! And the fact that when he resigned, and the new chick took over as National Chair, the LP News made no mention of it. The new person just magically appeared one day, and Sarwark disappeared. You might think the LP News would cover such a major piece of "LP news".
The LP News used to, just as Austrian papers used to cover news events... before the Anschluss into the Third Reich! Funny that their anarcho-posterboy Jeremy picked the same mascot (free ponies) Salvador Dali included in his satirical painting of Hitler Masturbating. Anarchists, communists and fascists are the wrong century, wrong landmass. They are the force-initiating stuff Second Amendment Americans developed nuclear weapons to restrain.
Wow, that's a reply! I can't even tell which side you're on though. You seem to be against the Mises folks (Jeremy is Spike's real name). But the non-coverage of Sarwark resigning happened way before the Mises takeover.
That Dali painting is something, though!
https://www.wikiart.org/en/salvador-dali/hitler-masturbating
Stormfront thinks they found an ally in libertarians.
LIbertarians should support free speech. Period. Anyone with their speech being suppressed by the government should find an ally with libertarians.
The LP should support Stormfront’s 1A rights and simultaneously condemn their positions. Free speech works both ways.
The LP should support Stormfront’s 1A rights and simultaneously condemn their positions. Free speech works both ways.
Fine, but supporting free speech does not imply endorsing any particular speech. That might need clarification, but condemnation of one speech ends up implicitly endorsing other uncondemned speech.
Even after all that, one presumes that Stormfront members sometimes report loving their mothers, and a complex entanglement arises when passing judgement on the speech of others.
I'm ok with the contemporary Supreme Court line. Over that line, it's criminal, and not worthy of support. Inside that line, it's worthy of support, and sometimes one might agree, sometimes intensely not, but a free speech supporter need not get into that.
A tiny collection of antisocial misfits, obsolete bigots, disaffected clingers, irrelevant anti-government cranks, and downscale malcontents expects to change the country?
Pretty much how the opposition views the NRA.
McArdle says that the party faceplanted during the pandemic by failing to take a strong stance against lockdowns and vaccine mandates
Libertarianism has no real answer to such questions as lockdowns or vaccine mandates, even though the calculator says "no". There may be times when either are indicated.
What was far worse than that has been ongoing suppression of speech regarding problems or lack of effect with government mandated solutions. Libertarianism has an answer for that, and we don't have to love or hate Trump to agree.
"...Libertarianism has no real answer to such questions as lockdowns or vaccine mandates, even though the calculator says "no". There may be times when either are indicated..."
Disagreed. Never can a government demand lockdowns under the assumption of 'what is best for you'.
Lockdowns = a planned economy; if you are to claim that there are circumstances where they are appropriate, please cite same.
I'm calling bullshit.
If the original two week Covid lockdown would have worked, it would seem reasonable in retrospect.
Our current reflection includes the knowledge that the original lockdown was doomed to failure by the already rapidly spreading disease.
Our current reflection also might include the knowledge that lockdowns are a blunt object cure which has an excellent chance of causing more harm than good. Especially when they are extended into months and then years.
But as an abstraction, the idea that a two week lockdown might prevent some catastrophe isn't totally removed from consideration.
There is a conservative position where such things could be indicated, but that silencing disagreement to any such proposition would be clearly against any conservative principles.
But it would not be libertarian in any way.
Libertarian fights government interference or involvement in nearly all situations, likely only stepping in to protect rights. Conservatism accepts limited use of government to maintain a certain order.
"But it ultimately failed, in his view, leaving the L.P. "spiraling downward into oblivion."
Sorry, Murray; that's not what happened after you stomped out of the LP in 1989. With an influx of Ron Paul supporters, and more professional management, the LP went from about 7,000 members to 30,000 over the next decade. The LP would love to have as many as 30,000 today. Yes, let's give the Mises Caucus a chance to show what they can do. But there's no need to re-write LP history in the process.
Oh no, it failed.
See, in amongst those Ron Paul rEVOLution folks were a shit-ton of berniebros. And they took libertarianism for a dance around the maypole.
Now the LP is a sock for the DSA......well, it was, until 70% of the delegates kicked that putrescence to the curb.
This kind of article warms my heart. IOW, the whole Libertarian party has been taken over by people who are GOP Proud like Caitlin and Milo. What a relief that there won’t be anyone there arguing that MExicans and people with smelly vages should have personal autonomy as well. Fuck that liberaltarian assholes. My favorite part was where the libertarian was arguing that communists should be exiled or thrown off a building. That’s the kind of thinking they have in the other country that should be a nominee for libertarian paradise— Russia. Can’t wait for the convention this year. Or— on second thought— maybe I shouldn’t go. Does the Libertarian Party really need another proud gay and Black man who wants to get tucked in the arse by Dear Leader? Probably not.
You are so bad at this. Hahahaha
I know, I know… I had a typo in the same sentence as Dear Leader. How could I have been so careless? You know what this means? Autoerotic flagellation to pictures of STEVE Bannon. I must make amends!
You should try immolating yourself as an act of contrition.
Do you really think this goes far enough for today’s Libertarian/GOP alliance. Somehow I don’t think so.
Stuff your heas up your ass, commie kid, and take a deep breath. Your family will be proud and your dog will be happy.
But make sure to note your grave site. If it doesn't mean standing in line, I'll be happy to piss on it. VERY happy.
Eat shit and die.
Bring back American Socialist, at least then you were being honest.
"That's not to say that there aren't people within the Libertarian Party, just as there are within the Democratic Party and Republican Party and throughout the whole world who are bigoted and racist…"
Just tape a "kick me please, Democrats!" to your butt next time. It's faster.
Thank goodness you published the print version of this video essay. Mr Heise was completely unintelligible at the end. "By our fruits, you'll know us," This is both hopeful and ominous to this non-affiliated LP Delegate. I imagine there must have been some rejected transcriptions: "Buy our fools you'll love us" "Buyer fructis novus" and "Hi, we're Mises, come worship satan".
Speaking of unintelligible...
"If Angela McArdle becomes chair of the Libertarian National Committee and makes the party welcoming to bigots, the committee she is in charge of will shrivel and die," says Nicholas Sarwark,
Good riddance. These leftists in disguise who believe everyone to their right is a bigot need to be gone.
The Austrian Caucus deleted the only plank recognizing women as non-slaves. It kept the plank inviting dangerous criminals and terrorists to slip across the border uninspected. It also kept the one calling for vigilante goons to kill people instead of a defined, constitutional government with a bill of rights and authority to restrain rampaging killers. This is the clearest proof the insurgents are European-style collectivists out to wreck the LP that scared the crap out of the Kleptocracy by earning 4 million votes in 2016.
I'll worry about the Libertarian Party purging bigots from its ranks if the Democrats and Republicans go first.
The Democrats endorse bigotry right in their platform.
While I am against abortion, I have no problem with sending it to each State to decide absent an amendment. I can live with libertarians on all side of abortion but I can't live with libertarians who do not demand to end the fed, shut down most federal agencies created after 1932, end deficit spending and stop all foreign military actions unless we have a declaration of war. And allowing voluntary economic transactions (yes both a seller and buyer get to decide if they want to engage in a transaction).
What about libertarians who want to leave our borders open to invasion? I can't live with that.
libertarians who want to leave our borders open to invasion? I can't live with that.
Libertarianism has no answer to this question with no context.
With context, libertarianism might seem to indicate "free immigration absolutely no welfare".
+ many.
That's still suicidal.
That's still suicidal.
Free immigration with no welfare was pretty much normal in America before about 1965. It yielded generally positive results.
It would have to be enforced, of course, which is why it's an abstraction in our current context.
It yielded "generally positive results" BECAUSE it was restricted. The Immigration Act of 1924 saved this country from catastrophe. Oh, and this isn't 1965.
The restrictions were mostly racial in nature, and advocated by unions looking to restrict the labor supply. Immigration was not harmful during this era, because there was no welfare dependency mechanism for new immigrants.
Immigration started being harmful once there was a way to go straight to welfare from crossing the border. That began in about 1965, but even then it was very difficult to go on welfare. Not until GW Bush in the 21st century did we start to see anything like a catastrophe, with millions of welfare recipients who came to America for that purpose.
Yes, this is a bit reworded. The earlier version was too simplistic. The bottom line is that immigrants who come to America and never collect welfare are a positive to our country.
And the only way to insure that immigrants are NOT coming here to collect welfare and subsidies is to control entry and choose those newcomers who are not likely to need assistance.
Immigration started being harmful once there was a way to go straight to welfare from crossing the border.
Immigration can also be harmful just because it is too much too fast. There is a limit to how many we can take and assimilate at once. Throwing the borders wide open now would result in a catastrophic tidal wave of immigrants.
"With context, libertarianism might seem to indicate "free immigration absolutely no welfare".
Might? Well, ok, maybe.
But libertarianism is also clearly not down with selective enforcement of any existing law.
This is leftism--
"With context, libertarianism might seem to indicate "free immigration absolutely no welfare"."
Not libertarianism.
With libertarianism you OWN your country. You OWN a share. So free immigration means people stealing the use of part of your share.
You can still employ anyone from anywhere, but you're also liable for whatever they do.
Personal responsibility. Ownership. Libertarian.
Free Immigration. Welfare. Leftism.
Free Immigration. Welfare. Leftism.
You're postulating a leftist view of free immigration.
There are other, competitive views.
GOP Lite should work within the GOP to reform their party. The point of the Libertarian Party is to be libertarian.
And therein lies the downside to the rise of Mises Caucus... if we still had legitimate elections and a central government not 90% dictated by totalitarian bureaucrats.
"The Mises Caucus also succeeded in removing the party's pro-choice plank, which McArdle said was called for because abortion represents "an irreconcilable difference" within the libertarian movement."
Slavery is dehumanizing a person. Treating them as less than so that you can subjugate them and do to them as you wish.
To not know that an unborn child is a person is sad. To intentionally pretend that an unborn child is not a person is slavery. So, no bigots in the clan. But Slavery is OK...
"...when Paul told a Republican audience in South Carolina that heroin shouldn't be illegal."
Sad state of affairs when people's political classification requires them to approve of legalized slavery and drugs.
If you can't make serious righteous decisions, don't expect your political programs to be a light unto the world. Just a 'cleaner' form of filth.
Libertarianism has no answer to the question of when a fetus becomes a human being. None. Best to focus on what we can agree on.
Libertarianism does have an answer to when the state may take an intrusive interest in what happens in the interior of your body: never.
When the entire medical complex is deregulated and I can have any medical procedure I want anytime I want by anyone I want then we can discuss how ONE PARTICULAR medical procedure, (abortion) is the pin upon which libertarianism turns.
Until then you can cram that argument up your ass. You are not arguing on principal but rather on your personal preferences.
Unintelligible again.
Anyone and everyone speaking sense is unintelligible to you.
If you are not consistent in how you apply your "principles" then they are not really principles at all.
I am consistent. I do not see pregnant or potentially pregnant women as differing in their human rights from anyone else, unlike abortion prohibitionists who insist that the state's interest in the welfare of zygotes overrides the self-ownership of women.
A woman's DNA from her bones, liver, brain, and hair are all the same. This is not the case with the Fetus. So even scientifically speaking, a woman is not a zygote and a zygote is not that woman.
But treating the zygote or fetus or unborn child as less than human is slavery.
Please tell me that libertarians will at least stand against abortion post birth. No?
Nothing in life is ever based upon anything I want anytime I want.
It is not the Pin on which LP turns. How histrionic. It's called having a moral compass and getting your ducks in a row.
One particular medical procedure that kills another independent life, human in this case, is ugly slavery.
Libertarianism has a very specific answer regarding when it's acceptable to completely abrogate the rights of another individual for convenience sake.
It's 'Never'.
If you take someone and force them into a state where they are completely dependent on you you don't get to kill them because the consequences of your actions have become inconvenient.
Trying to argue that you don't think they qualify as a 'someone' is also unacceptable.
Trying to argue that you don't think they qualify as a 'someone' is also unacceptable.
The question of when a fetus becomes someone is unresolvable by argument. Reasonable people come to different beliefs, and those beliefs are not compelling upon other people. When we start enforcing our beliefs upon others, we're for sure no longer libertarians.
Science says DNA between a mother and her child are not the same. Science indicates two different people. So no feelings of beliefs need to be involved. Just honest science. You're OK with honest science right?
What now?
Arguing that a pregnant woman does not count as "someone" and that she may be seized by the state to incubate "someone" else is also unacceptable.
Arguing that a pregnant woman does not count as "someone" and that she may be seized by the state to incubate "someone" else is also unacceptable.
Such arguments (from either side) are precluding effective libertarian advances.
Maybe we need a zone were people who find the abortion question to override libertarian issues to go argue with each other, while the rest of us can be in a place where we can focus on making some kind of libertarian progress.
People who think their interest in the welfare of zygotes overrides the right to self-ownership of women are not libertarians and should fuck right off.
You can expect that such people would usually leave your presence.
If you take someone and force them into a state where they are completely dependent on you...
What are you talking about? Who is doing that?
Engaging in sex does that. It is biology.
Men who promote abortion are creeps. Why do you hate women?
You're saying that women lose their right to self-ownership when they have sex, and you're asking why I hate women?
Science does. Science says a baby's DNA is different from the mother's and different from all other babies that are formed.
Libertarians are a political party.
The LP uses a vote to decide matters within the LP Party.
If Scotus reverses Roe V Wade, this will send Abortion back to the states.
How will the LP reconcile LP candidates in some states pushing to outlaw abortion and LP candidates in pushing to legalize abortion in other states?
Further, for those of you that say it is a woman's body and no man or other has a right to stop her from having an abortion, if the LP stood against abortion, would you leave the party?
If you leave the LP, were you LP to begin with? Or just a Democrat?
"He says that if the Republican Party sticks with Trump, and the Democrats continue to bring forth disappointing national candidates, it presents "an opening" for the Libertarian Party to draw from both the right and the left."
Wha what? Trump likely won all 50 states. Trump and the patriots are destroying the Deep State and Communists every day. Trump probably got over 100 million votes and Biden 10 million.
Disappointing national candidates? Not even honest to say Democrat candidates want to destroy the country and get rid of the constitution. Libertarians are not even aware of the Left's desire to burry us all and subjugate us to poverty and inflation and taxes and lost constitutional rights? Libertarians sound like they are Democrat light but not aware of what Democrats really want to bring to the table each year. More bureaucracy. More loss of rights. More taxes. More spending. And Libertarians still think Dems and Trump are an equal problem? LOLz.
If you do not see what Trump did during his presidency and what is still being done by Trump and the Patriots for this country check out X22 Report pod casts. Time to wake up people. Deep State is real and the cause of Ukrain, Inflation, crime, violence, threats against our SCOTUS, mass illegal immigration (one reason Libertarians will never win much of anything at all, especially after this influx of illegals), lock downs, vaccine mandates, vaccine pass ports, gas prices, covid testing for citizens to get back into the country but not for illegals at the border.
"What is a bigot? No one can agree," says McArdle.
Lolwut? The word has a well-defined meaning.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
That's what it means, dear Ms. McArdle. So bigotry, at its core, is a type of collectivism - treating every member of a group with hatred and intolerance based on superficial characteristics such as skin color. And Ms. McArdle and her merry band of Mises Libertarians don't think this should be condemned? I guess we found the one type of collectivism that they don't want to condemn.
"Oh, but it's 'thought policing' to condemn bigotry". YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT IT IS. I am all in favor of a 'big-tent' Libertarian Party but no tent can be infinitely big. Racists and bigots absolutely should not be welcome. By the way - the same goes for authoritarians who disagree with the NAP. (There are arguably way more of those than there are of genuine racists and bigots.) They shouldn't be welcome either because a precondition to the Libertarian Party ought to be some semblance of acceptance of the core concept of liberty. Should the Libertarian Party impose ideological tests or "anti-bigotry" tests on its members? No - I'm fine leaving it up to each member to decide whether he/she meets the relevant standards. But there is nothing wrong with clearly stating what the standards are that we expect of people wishing to join our cause.
"But The Left has corrupted the meaning of the words 'bigotry' and 'racism' and uses them as weapons against us!" Yes they have, and words in a party platform don't change that. Besides, who cares? We can't control what they do. We can only control what we do. We should be bold and confident in stating what we believe, what we support and what we oppose. Explain clearly what we mean and let others pass whatever judgment they wish. The last thing we should do is to let THEM define what WE believe. Same goes for the idiotic complaint that we don't want to be seen as being on the side of "cultural Marxists". If the "cultural Marxists" said we should support gun rights, is anyone here going to fret and worry that maybe the Libertarian Party shouldn't be so vocal in supporting gun rights because "we don't want people to think we are on 'their side'"? Absolutely not. And - news flash - Marx opposed gun control and thought the working class should be very armed and very dangerous.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7601546-under-no-pretext-should-arms-and-ammunition-be-surrendered-any
By the way. When The Right advocates for, say, low taxes, I have yet to hear anyone around here fret and worry that maybe the LP shouldn't also support low taxes for fear of being lumped in with The Right. Why is that? Hmm?
Removing the statement is a big fat welcome sign to the racists and bigots.
big fat welcome sign to the racists and bigots.
Don't be bigoted yourself.
Accept that plenty of other people are bigoted.
Find ways to align with bigots along axes where they are not bigots. Because that's how effective movements work. Work with people on things you agree about and don't worry about things you disagree about.
They aren’t saying bigotry doesn’t have a definition, they’re saying that the word bigot (much like racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobia, etc.) gets thrown around so much that pretty much anyone can be labeled as such.
And I don’t think anyone who went around calling any conservative leaning poster here a Trump cultist (or other) gets to lecture anyone about collectivism.
The left just isn’t that into you (libertarians).
So, is this your long-winded way of telling us all that you're a bigot, then? Because according to this, you are extremely bigoted.
Culture wars, not constitutional principles, rules this board, so if the Mises takeover is popular - and Trump welcome - you don't have a Libertarian party, you have a true believing MAGA party.
Case in point is the recent postings pretty much all in support of DeSantis martialing the full power of the State government to punish a company because it's CEO was critical of legislation just passed. The punishment was a taking away of a special district designation under which Disney has always operated since it's founding Florida. That is a particularly complex issue which has not been on anyone's agenda or wavelength for decades (Mother found an article from 1992) and it was passed in 4 days without a real hearing, no public or expert input, staff reporting, or any sense of how it will affect neighboring counties, greater Orlando which is based on tourism led by Disney, and the tens of thousands of related jobs.
Because DeSantis the next Great White Hope of MAGA, no one here would criticize him for this ridiculous temper tantrum and all rushed to defend him, claiming they knew what the issue was, how it would play out, and claiming it was a give away without explanation.
When you throw out the 1st amendment which is supposed to protect us all from government stifling of free speech because you like the politics of the guy doing it, you're not a libertarian.
PS Obviously I am not a Libertarian but come here in hopes - long faded - of intelligent discussion and challenging thought. On some very few issues I have been in agreement with majority sentiment here, but admitting that is an embarrassment given how intolerantly MAGA most here are - with a few exceptions. Given that there was no GOP platform in 2020 because Trump, one wonders how that fits with a libertarian party supposedly based on principles, or how that jerk off is welcome at all in it's thought.
Trump was the most libertarian president in modern times.
Trump had plenty of faults, but if you're looking for libertarian progress, Trump was your man.
Regulation went down. Taxes down. Freedom up. That's the stuff that matters.
Mean tweets, inability to form good personal relationships, that stuff is real but secondary when discussing politics. We're not interviewing a potential butler here.
You are correct but do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
Eat shit and die, Joe Asshole.
Fuck off and die, Joe Asshole.
Neither side in the LP seems to justify LP's existence. People who are anti-LP (as I've been for the past 2 decades, after having been in it for decades previous) leave it, and so are unrepresented in arguments within the LP, so those who stay never have to justify their decision to anybody listening.
on the initiative of Spike Cohen, L.P.'s former vice-presidential candidate, they added a new line stating that the party would "uphold and defend the rights of every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity."
It's revealing that while Reason has published 4 or 5 pieces on this event this is the first one to mention this. The other Reasoners omitted it so they could cling to their accusations of racism.
Waste.
Of.
Time.
The intro suggests the new leadership has its head out of its ass, but it doesn't matter; supporting non-LP candidates who promote l policies is a far better alternative.
The asshole Brandyshit, for instance, won't vote for anyone not L, in spite of the fact not a single one will ever get elected.
We had Trump, who, in spite of his "mean tweets" was the most L POTUS in the last century while ignorant assholes like Brandyshit and others claiming to desire L policies (yes asshole sarc, asshole jeffy, and more assholes than I care to count) took an infantile focus on personalities.
Thanks, steaming piles of shit, for delivering droolin' Joe. Yes, every one of you owns it.
Eat shit and die.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (ghj-17) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going this article.
.
>>>> http://xs2g.2.vu/1
Basically, all I got out of this is they want to dilute the political platforms of the party to be like the GOP.
"What's your stance on this issue?"
"Oh, we don't have one. We want to be welcoming to all people."
"So why should people vote for your party?"
"Well, because we aren't communists or fascists, obviously."
Its like the opposite of the MAGA take over of the GOP, but trying to bring in the MAGA component into the libertarian party.
Wow, few things could have been more wrong.
The point of this takeover, in fact, the reason a takeover was needed is because the left has been steadily taking over the LP and replacing libertarian ideas with leftist ones.
Hell, the whining here, about 'bigots' IS leftists whining. It represents the imposition, upon libertarians, of leftistidentitarianism, the primacy of race over all. We see this being mocked in the comments.
The point behind the takeover is to bring Liberty back to libertarianism, to scrape off the leftist corruptions of 'social liberty', 'civil libertarianism' and all other liberty eroding excretions that lurk under the term 'left-libertarian'.
The reason there is overlap with the MAGA crowd is because, despite 'left-libertarian' protests to the contrary, organizing YOUR nation to promote YOUR interests first IS a very libertarian thing to do. And a very MAGA thing to do.
when I first read about this so called take over, my reaction was hooray.It's about time. I don't really care if it's over Mises or Rothbard. That difference is so minor as to be a non starter.
The real difference is that the people who had no business being involved have been kicked out, you know the progressive leftists, the wokists and so on. They LP now has the room and the people in the right positions to begin to make some headway against the current political regime.
At a time when it seems the government in Washington can't get it right, that it's been taken over by radical left wing policy wonks and that America is indeed headed in the wrong direction, there is at least some sort of hope within the LP and just maybe enough to attract as many people as it takes to form a real movement.
Yet they still use the leftist language and signaling.
The LP is as flawed and unredeemable as the other parties.
To be fair, this is probably the shock to the system the LP needs. The LP should be fiscally libertarian and socially libertarian, not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That said, the Mises Caucus sounds more like the Rockwell Caucus.
Gary Johnson was outstanding during his New Mexico governor's run in 1996, reasonably good back in 2012, but to quote Margaret Thatcher, he "went wobbly", departing libertarianism in favor of a 1970s northeastern socially liberal Republican. And instead of bringing a harder edged VP candidate in 2016, he went with another northeastern socially liberal Republican. It was really John Anderson 2.0, rather than Gary Johnson 2.0. Despite this, I voted Johnson-Weld in 2016.
The criticism of Johnson-Weld not doing a thing to build off of, or even maintain what the LP achieved in 2016 was spot-on and fair. Weld was particularly awful, basically abandoning the LP only to want to use it in 2020.
The LP seems to either have squishy candidates like Johnson, or fringe candidates. Mainstream candidates like Amash, Larry Sharp, and Austin Petersen seem unable to achieve critical mass.
I would vote for an Amash-Sharp ticket in a heartbeat.
I would vote for an Amash-Sharp ticket in a heartbeat.
You're looking for a reincarnation of GW Bush? Jeb might still be available.
Gabbard-DiSantis 2024
So a ticket with two VP level candidates?
That's two more than the last winning ticket.
Amash is consistent, articulate and doesn't present himself as a kook. With those three strikes there's no way he'll rise in the LP...
Johnson only seems like a reasonable candidate when you compare him with others like Weld or Jo J...on his own he was a shit candidate.
The Libertarian party should rebrand itself to InstaMartyr since that is all they are interested in nominating.
Well I made it through half of this meandering verbosity! Anyway, when the Libertarian Party ever issues a piece of marketing that doesn't in some way extol the virtues of being a pothead as its obvious #1 mission--then I might take it seriously enough to consider joining.
That is how they present themselves to most of the world. Which is stupid, it puts off much of the population and is so easily subverted by the other parties is it actually becomes a threat.
Their last couple of presidential candidates have been borderline incoherent charisma voids who make individual liberty sound as appealing as combining a tax audit and colonoscopy.
Well said. This is my biggest problem with them as well. Far too many libertarians place drug use, prostitution etc at the top of the policy list. Mises himself was in favor of legalizing opiates, but said that it's very obviously self destructive. The argument for decriminalizing these things isn't that it's some great, laudable activity (libertinism), and it's not even close to the most important issue.
As if the Libertarian party could be more shit...
This article decried the manipulative use of language while quoting that same type of manipulative language.
I found the belief in the existence of Donald Trump libertarians to be particularly amusing. I'm sure they get together with all of the Kamala Harris libertarians and just have a grand ol time.
Until the party can nominate someone for president who has a consistent message, the ability to articulate that message in an appealing fashion and who has more charisma than a wet sock they're going to continue to slip into obscurity.
OK, but are they libertarian bigots? Or maybe he prefers non-bigoted statists? Some libertarian...
I regret to see the Libertarian Party drifting into Laissez faire economics. It is an inviting proposition were humans the rational and clear-thinking creatures that Libertarian ethos depends on be functional. Until we as a society strive to cultivate a Vulcan like dedication to rational thought, and control of baser emotional instincts, it can never work. I am a fan of the smart government agenda of targeting public dollars more smartly to initiatives that improve human capacity for self-governance and self-sufficiency. That supporting community welfare benefits each of us individually by creating communities we desire to live in.
Looks like Hank Phillips has a sock.
This argument comes down to "You may make a suboptimal choice, therefore I will select a Top Man to make the choice for you."
Is that Top Man's choice actually going to be the right one? Oh, sure. In Theory. Of course, history is littered with the bodies of people who Top Men left neglected due to...bad luck? Wreckers? Kulacks?
If only we could learn more.
Libertarianism is completely predicated on laissez-faire economics for the precise reason that no individuals have omniscient knowledge to steer the economy.
If humans aren't rational and clear thinking why do you want to take power out of individual's hands, who are closest to the decisions and thus most knowledgeable about them, and place them into the hands of a distant bureaucrat?
The state has a certain role to play, most libertarians would agree. One of which is not siphoning off money from producers to supposedly spend it more intelligently than the market would have.
One can listen to McCardle directly tonight at https://www.youtube.com/c/TimcastIRL
So the Mises Caucus are Alt Right bigots...but they elected the first female LNC chair?
And I just went to a LP happy hour in Ashburn, VA Friday run by the Loudoun County vice chair of the Libertarian Party of northern Virginia, which was "taken over" by the Mises Caucus last year, and that vice chair was... a gay black man...
I'll preface this by saying I am not too familiar with the Libertarian political party.
I completely agree, though, that many libertarians I've encountered online are far too libertine. It's as if they are libertarian for the simple sake of promoting culturally taboo things as valiant, and as if they are of the utmost importance to libertarianism. Be it porn, prostitution or heroin it would be suffice to say "they shouldn't be banned by government, but you are responsible for any harm to yourself" and leave it at that.
You read the works of intellectual giants like Mises, Hayek, Sowell and Friedman who are undoubtedly libertarian, but then find that the issues and strong arguments they make for libertarianism are almost completely ignored in favor of this promotion of libertinism. It's completely bizarre.
I don't know much of anything about the Mises Caucus outside of this article, but if they are going to focus more on economic issues, deregulation and a massive reduction in the size and scope of government rather than oratories on the importance of heroin use and prostitution I'm all for it. You will attract a much larger base by making the economic arguments in addition to ones about freedom of coercion and decriminalizing victimless crimes without necessitating agreement with everyone's choices.