How's the New Libertarian Party Doing? Live with Angela McArdle
Join us Thursday at 1 p.m. E.T. for a livestream with the chair of the Libertarian National Committee to discuss the state of the party post-midterms.
Angela McArdle became the head of the Libertarian Party (LP) in May 2022 at the national convention in Reno, Nevada. She represents the Mises Caucus, a group that aims to take the LP in a new direction. Under McArdle's leadership—officially, she's the chair of the Libertarian National Committee—the LP's social media messaging has angered some members, and a handful of state chapters have disaffiliated or dissolved.
What's been going on behind the scenes at the LP? Is the party growing or shrinking? How did LP candidates fare in the midterms? What's the plan looking ahead to 2024?
Join Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller for a live conversation with McArdle about all this and more on Thursday, November 10 at 1 p.m. Eastern. You can watch it above, on Twitter, or at Reason's Facebook page. We welcome comments and questions at YouTube and Facebook, and we'll put the best to McArdle.
Addendum: Several current and former members of the Libertarian Party disputed a claim that McArdle made in this livestream beginning at the 55-minute mark.
"We're going to build actual infrastructure for our candidates and [state] affiliates," McArdle told us. "Training. How to run a campaign, how to be a treasurer. This is this is like nuts and bolts stuff that is not that exciting…. How to fundraise, how to use tools, how to get earned media. That just hasn't been there in the past. It just doesn't exist."
In response, Libertarian Party members shared photos on social media of past trainings. McArdle responded to our inquiry by saying, "This was clearly said in the context of candidate trainings, and my comments about it not existing were specific to these topics. Certainly, regional trainings with overviews on campaign management exist, and I've attended them, but that is not what I mentioned."
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
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of (ubs-08) greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link--------------------------------------------->>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> ???.????????????.???
They aren't doing well. Particularly here at Reason.com. There are a bunch of moronic leftards here, writing articles. They are pro-liberty, and that means they want to smoke crack while exchanging seminal fluids with a legal prostitute. So they like freedom, but not responsibility. And so inevitably, they start accidentally advocating for democrat/leftist ideals when they open their mouth and start articulating ideas. And the problem with that, is democrats are the party of big government. They are the party of strong centralized government. They are the party of taxes, the party of rules and regulations. The party of racism/bigotry, racial division, and the party of intersecting the people into groups they can pit against each other while taxing the shit out of them, and telling them inflation isn't really happening while their dollar goes to shit. And for the most part... these ideas run counter to the ideals of libertarianism. So I'm confused why Robert W. Poole Jr., Manuel S. Klausner, Tibor R. Machan, and subordinates, keep hiring these fools.
Have the Purity Purges started yet?
MAGA caucus vs Mises caucus, throwdown!
I thought the misses cauces was the Maga caucus
If there’s a joke there I don’t get it. I just see MAGA people hostile towards Mises people (and everyone else for that matter) so I thought my comment was funny.
What's the difference between a Mises Caucus person and a MAGA person? About 2 years.
Oh shit, whattup, Chipper? I was just talking about you a week or so ago.
When you start to know the Trolls names you are spending too much time in your mom's basement. Go out and get laid or something beside arguing with strangers on the internet over politics. Life is too short and you only get so many chances to find a man for you.
Hey. Youre back! Please tell us how Marxists are closer to libertarians than conservatives again. That was an astute realization.
Pretty much. Having been LP for twenty five years, and running a couple of Libertarian meetups, I run across the Mises Caucus types all the time. Most are Edgelords, most are disciples of Hoppe. They are on the far-right. Not the Stormfront right, but still the far edge. What most people call the alt-right.
And when Trump entered the GOP race, I saw quite a lot of them flock to the MAGA banner. Many are still there.
They are contrarians for the sake of being contrary, and their joy with Trump is that he was going to stir shit up. It's the same stuff that led them to libertarians, thinking that libertarian was synonymous with contrarian. It wasn't about principles, it was about being contrary to anything perceived as mainstream. Hoppe just gives them intellectual cover.
You say you have but you don't know the history. If you did, you would realize all that McArdle did to the Manifesto was reverse the changes made at Portland in 2006.
The manifesto was otherwise "deradicalized" in 1972. Ancaps and classical liberals settled their score on the abolition of government back then. Nothing else has changed
I will add one more point. David Nolan, founder of the LP warned against it becoming a tolerant version of the GOP in 2008
The GOP is neoliberal and cuckold. The LP under Sarwark put a communist and a mutualist to run. Tried enlisting Romney the next year. Weld was even in favor of shooting down suspected drug-smuggling planes
Do you understand what Nolan meant? If you don't like it, leave. But you clearly don't bother to understand party history
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/10/11/libertarian-party-loses-state-parties-donors-after-hard-right-turn
You mean like the fact the old LP supported secession behind closed doors? A position with more support from blacks and latinos than whites?
Or the Civil Rights Act which has been opposed by black libertarians like George Schuyler with praise on this site, Cato and FFF? An act that says the state controls and may coerce your labor?
Funny because if you had been around anywhere from the 60's-80's, you'd know the LP not only opposed the CRA internally but in public.
Or suffrage, opposed by Locke? Rose Wilder Lane? Even progressives like Lysander Spooner?
That narrative was shifted in the early '90s, when Rothbard died. You've been fed lies
Self determination is a basic human right. Anyone who supports freedom should support peaceful secession.
Hoppe opposes immigration controls and not once proposed monarchy. His books have not been widely read, this is clear from the stances that self-proclaimed "hoppeans" take against him
Contrarianism is bunk because it isnt substantive. G. G. Allin basically demonstrates that by example in how wrong it can go
The problem is, you assume the MC is itself grounded in nothing substantive. It is. Most "Hoppeans" do not think because most HUMANS do not think
That is true of all ideologies though, including the Sarwark bloc you defend. The only difference is that the Trumpite and Hoppean Meme brigades grab more attention by being controversial.
As such, you make a strawman for your more silent and uneducated lot. It is a strawman, you know what a strawman is, right?
What’s the difference between moderate/civil/across-the-aisle libertarians and Hillary supporters?
No seriously… what’s the difference?
One supports the government boot and justifies it by pointing to the fact he wants women to have an abortion unlike you
The other simply supports both without the need for phony justification because they never claimed to be libertarian
Liberals want "good government.' Libertarians want less government. Liberals are yesterday's communist and tomorrow's victim of it
http://www.isegoria.net/2013/06/liberty-under-the-soviets/
Also, I would point out there are secular humanists who oppose abortion. They even have a lobby. Chris Sciabarra is progressive and opposes abortion. Jonathan Tucker, now a rising star of the NeverHoppe movement (and who praised Hoppe years prior) is opposed to abortion.
Hardly the stuffs of a conservative conspiracy. I oppose it because of this thing called sentience. In the 16th week, the baby feels. It feels because it has nerves. It has nerves because its brain is now developing.
People can deny a heartbeat, not sentience. Alas, that is not the point. The new manifesto doesn't even make a pro-life stake. It simply makes it easier for pro-life candidates to run
The Sarwarkites say they wanna make it more accessible but they were restrictive. Not restrictive enough to stop hiring literal abusive FBI agents to the R Street column on privacy
Which i find rather ironic. It is like Copblock hiring the guy who killed Floyd to write on brutality.
Sure, but most sentient entities have no concept of the future and therefore don't care whether they live or die.
Meanwhile if sentience is all it takes to make it for you, do you oppose the deliberate killing of all sentient things?
Seeing as the NAP applies to humans and not animals, there isn't really a catch no matter how hard you try for there to be
The question of sentience requires no prescience and never did in libertarian thought.
Also that wasn't the point. The point was it is not as simple as a statist versus libertarian debate on abortion, the way it is on other questions
Idk if you notice but the Sarwark bloc is essentially taking an asthetical turn over the philosophical.
It shows a complete misunderstanding of what libertarianism is and isn't. I am simply trying to contribute understanding as to why a pro-life platform could be argued from a libertarian perspective
And before you ask my views on rationality as a potentiate and actuality, no I do not subscribe to the theory of mental content
The only one responsible for George Floyd's death is George Floyd himself.
Making bad personal decisions have consequences.
Thing is, you can't moderate libertarianism. It is libertarian and not liberal because it is radical. That is why classical liberals adopted the term.
You can moderate conservatism or progressivism, even socialism. Granted, the last one always fails.
Moderate something that has but one radical definition and it is simply no longer libertarian. It is liberal
Europe has liberals. America has libertarians. We got away from the liberals last time, they are following us here and trying to sabotage the libertarian label now too
Many MC fanatics aren't in fact libertarian. But not because the Caucus is not. The Caucus is simply comprised of paleos and ancaps. Mises was fairly social moderate, utilitarian and dismissive of natural rights.
Most ancaps tend to be more conservative than other libertarians. However, classical libertarians do affiliate with the MI over Cato for the latter's dismissal of Rothbard from boards. More sinister is its support of cap/trade, immigration tariffs and more recently, intervention in the Syrian civil war.
Classical libertarians were grouped in as altright simply because they did not support egalitarianism. As ancap, being they supported a limited state with zero welfare and not a limited state with limited welfare
Maga is simply the old tea party being recycled into its constituent religious right, buckley liberal and "reformed" democrat parts.
It is peculiar that voting Trump for lack of a possible LP victory gets one labeled Maga but Weld literally voted for Biden and he still gets called libertarian
Dude, he wanted to shoot planes down, simply on suspicion of smuggling drugs.
Oh and Paleolibertarian didn't always refer to "thin" libertarianism. It simply once was to distinguish the old right libertarian bloc from the rising bunch of "positive" and "group right" believers within the RWL camp
RWL, itself referring to the capitalist and thus not left or socialist bunch. It is factionism, not fusionism
That people migrated to it is no different than what Sarwark did with progressives. Only, a conservative libertarian might or might not sell out. Progressives tend to be neoliberal. They are sold out, no matter what.
On its face, progressivism looks less restrictive or more liberal. Philosophically, that is complicated.
People forget Rothbard WORKED WITH THE NEW LEFT for decades. He wasn't opposed to it, he simply lost faith. Though he continued to urge right cooperation to his death, he also worried about and warned against the populist transformation to socialist and protectionist foci
The Sarwarkites make him out to be some crypto conservative or fascist. In reality, they've never read him. Sarwark only once quoted him and he got that from Knapp.
The most hostile people to the MC are you, brandy, and Mike. Wtf.
Is there a particular reason why MAGA natcons and paleocons who keep an eye on third-party politics are so defensive of the LP Mises Caucus, which is owned and operated by Rothbardian ancaps?
...[rising intonation] Because they really want to roll the government back to pre-WWII levels?
They don't but neither do the Sarwarkites. The Sarwarkites fear racism turns into socialism, that they prefer working with literal socialists to "avert" that. An absolute insanity
This is also not a parliamentary system. The idea the LP could ever help the GOP gain power makes absolutely zero sense
Of course, Sarwark wanted to give Democrats power and even ran as one this election. Not really shocking, Weld the plane assassin and 2-week LP member voted Biden
It is worth noting that even under Sarwark, 70% of the LP polled for Trump over Biden as a backup choice to Jo. Jo is running again with endorsement from McArdle, I am waiting for the "pragmatists (whatever this means)," to call her isms and phobes
Maga hates us for the GA run and tried eliminating LP from the TX ballot. If you take a minority of bloggers' opinions from some non-mainstream sites, sure but that proves nothing
MAGA shot themselves in the foot in Georgia, by pouting and boycotting the runoff to protest possible fraud in the original vote. Not surprisingly, they lost the runoff and the Senate and we all suffered.
Unlike Sarwark, McArdle actually understands the worth in individuals irrespective of their social philosophy. If you mean the neoliberals, they left voluntarily
In fact, it is quite spectacular that for all the complaint the LP is the only bulwark against the other two parties, it was the Sarwark bunch that disbanded entire state chapters
So much for unity. No, my dear. Purges are a creation of your kind. Not ours.
I’m just curious why in the midst of all the jabbering above and below, no one has said: Would!
Surely all the LP factions involved would be more than willing to rub dicks and bump balls to simultaneously hit that! ?
Unless the LP stops trying to get candidates elected who have no chance in the two-party system; and stops trying to "educate" the public about liberty with no chance of success or of changing anything in the real world; then I couldn't care less what McArdle has to say. Every libertarian in America and all libertarian organizations should immediately start putting every available resource into a major effort to implement proportional representation election systems for every state legislature and the Congress as soon as possible to destroy the two-party system. That is the only chance we have of getting libertarians a seat at the table and throw tyranny off the rails.
Getting the two parties to vote away their own power by passing proportional representation has less chance of success than getting Libertarians elected.
Exactly. Libertarians are not popular because people don't like getting rid of their welfare. But the only possible people Sarwark could've gotten were younger hipsters who make up a minority of even Gen Z. Most are culturally right, center right on economics and socially moderate or far left on all three
Boomers would rather vote for a libertarian than a democrat but they will never become part of the label as Republicans, first. Thing is, younger Republicans are the old Libertarians who don't like Trump and are accused of that simply for speaking as part of the Meme Brigade, that Sarwark alienated
Now consider, the DNC is split between Clinton Democrats and far left. Far left will not vote for the LP, no matter how much we moderate because anything not fully socialist is too capitalist for them
But the Clinton Democrats will never label themselves as Libertarians either, no matter how much they resent the far left turn. Mainly because they see it as "Anti American" or "of hipsters" too
They would rather ranked choice voting. That would help Libertarians but not enough to win, except in districts without a mainstream candidate
That is why the biggest vote shares that LP candidates received under Sarwark came in ballots that lacked a GOP candidate. Under McArdle, lacking a DNC candidate
She also managed high shares in one ballot against TWO Republicans, very promising. Not enough, looking at what "high" entails
The only way a libertarian wins with help from the GOP or DNC is if it pushes them over 51%. These "high" points reached its top, 30% this year. If neither mainstream party despises the other enough to give a LP candidate 51%, that is only 2/3 of the mainstream base at a time
In a red district, 2/3 is enough. Red districts run GOP candidates though. So the only instances in which there will be LP against DNC or LP against GOP, there is enough hatred of the other side by those missing their own candidate to push it higher. Not enough love of the LP alternative to weaponize it into an LP majority
We need networking for that and progressive candidates don't win GOP voters. The DNC will vote LP if it means stopping the GOP though, almost always. Most don't pay attention to manifestos and LP or SPLC blogs. They just see Libertarian, assume less conservative and vote out of spite
Sorry, that ship sailed decades ago. Libertarianism in varying shades across a wide variety of issues is alive and well. Still, the coalescing of it into a movement, let alone a functioning political party that can win an election, much less group such successes in such a way that it can accomplish something.... well, I'll first put my money on the powers of pixie dust because it takes slightly less suspension of reality.
And that's before you take up the likelihood of wedging yourself into a system where the only two players can pound you into the sand if you start to get out of line and WAY before you start thinking you can pry enough voters loose from their tribal roots. You'd stand better chances as a Mormon missionary looking for converts outside The Kaaba.
And THOSE are the primary reasons that the LP can't attract candidates that are simultaneously lucid and don't fall into the outfield of the creeper zone. I'm serious as hell... who is there that is motivated enough to put in the time and risk of running for office and sign up with a political party that routinely runs in the low single digits, has no resources, no visibility, and spent the last 25 years with only one state seat in the Wyoming House?
Proportional representation is worth doing just to make government more representative of all the people, even if it doesn't end up making America more free. Saying that it won't work before it has even been tried while sitting back and letting the current dismal situation continue to worsen seems defeatist to me. Are you a defeatist or are you willing to try something new?
If people can pass cannabis legalization via ballot initiative; why not proportional representation? Didn't Alaska or Maine or somebody do that with ranked choice voting? If the two party dominated state legislatures will never vote to remove power from themselves (or to share with 3rd parties) bypass the fuckers and give the vote to the people. Just got collect some signatures and raise some $$.
Because supporting weed is not exclusive to libertarianism? Marx opposed taxes and supported a gold standard. Wanna tell me he was libertarian?
Democrats do have a big base, libertarians never did. Weed is a SPECIFIC issue. Don't confuse specific issues with entire platforms
Also, cannabis legalization in California means mass licensing regimes and taxation schemes
In Pennsylvania, it meant giving the state a literal monopoly on dispensing it. You can co-opt democrats on certain things, you are foolish to believe you can follow them to a libertarian future
Not to mention fraud, corruption and even violence.
The LP has a potentially big base -- more Americans identify as independents than Dems or Repubs, and many of them are financially conservative and socially liberal. Unless you try to cut Social Security or Medicare. Or talk about guns or abortion. Then you start dividing the pie. And if a centrist candidate gains traction, he hurts the more pro-liberty two-party candidate.
So you end up with an accomplished (and apparently ethical) businessman and two term governor, running against hated and reviled candidates like Trump and Clinton, getting 3 percent of the vote, because people hate and revile the other 2-party candidate more.
It is a varying shade between ancaps and classical liberals, conservatives and progressives
The ancaps fought against Crane for nominating an LBJ Democrat and McElroy for enjoying Gandhi back a while but McElroy is an ancap. Many progressives are.
In fact, Knapp who advised Sarwark was an ancap. The "ancap" management pushed not one ancap candidate. Ancaps easily compromise.
Conservatives, progressives, minarchists did not however get purged. Many left, none got purged. Sarwark outright purged the ancaps, classical liberals and conservatives. Who is really intolerant?
The LP has been working for proportional representation for a long time. But at the same time, being an actual alternative on the ballot has value. You can manage to make it to some debates and get the word out. But being a members-only club with purity pogroms, of the sort the Mises Caucus wants, means you have no voice. Singing to the Edgelord choir.
There's a significant number of LP members who do NOT want to win elections. And they significantly overlap the Mises Caucus. They don't want a big tent, they want a tiny tent with strict entrance restrictions.
I disagree that the LP has been "trying for a long time." If the LP had been putting the same resources that they've been putting into failing to "educate" the voters about freedom and failing to get candidates elected into changing the system that prevents candidates from getting elected and prevents possible libertarians from voting for losers there would be many more states that use proportional representation by now. But if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.
Not only that but for all the rumors of a conservative takeover, the NH candidate this year is pro abortion and in GA, pro-abortion/pro-trans.
So much for a conspiracy theory
Foolish of you to believe that one can win the presidency with 3% of the popular vote. Not only would that need to be multiplied by 15, the LP will never own the electoral college.
The college means everything, more than popular. So why bother selling out for no gain?
https://books.google.com/books?id=OWkE2QW1g1kC&pg=PA12&q=%22reflected%20their%20understandable%20desire%20to%20gain%22&f=false
Last time libertarians "compromised," the Labour Party was born
I should also note that except for a few losses in the Gubernatorial and Senatorial races, the LP did quite well for itself in the House elections as contrasted with 2018 shares.
Further, the number of elected local officials doubled under her. Unlike the federal, LP can win local and state. In that scheme, you are proven wrong.
That would seem to be a workable solution but is impossible to get passed. The uniparty would definitely be dead set against it. Therefore it will never happen.
The problem with running candidates who might have a chance to win is that you get celebrities or mainstream politicians with little understanding of libertarian theory (think Ross Perot, Mark Cuban, Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Bob Barr, etc.) Then they don't win either, and you've missed a chance to educate the public and change hearts and minds toward smaller government and more liberty.
Harry Browne and Ron Paul were not viable presidential material, but they sold ideas to people and helped the movement grow.
Best I can tell we had a 100% fall off in libertarian elected officials yesterday.
Essentially the libertarian leaning candidates also lost completely as well. Pro state candidates won. Expect more decisions provided to you instead of by you. Good times.
They lost in 2016 and 2018 too. Part of the drop was the Sarwark bloc deliberately voting against us without examining the candidates themselves
They just assumed they were conservative
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/new-hampshire-governor-abortion/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7g4eq/chase-oliver-libertarian-georgia-senate-election-runoff
Yeah so much for a conservative turn. Fake news
2018 - 2022 (Gubernatorial LP):
Wyoming: 1.5% - 4.5%
S. Dakota: 1.4% - 2.9%
Iowa: 1.6% - 2.4%
Illinois: 2.4% - 2.8%
Idaho: 1.1% - 1.1%
Pennsylvania: 1% - 1%
Oklahoma: 3.4% - 1.4%
Kansas: 1.9% - 1.1%
Texas: 1.7% - 1%
Oregon: 1.5% - 0.3%
N. Hampshire: 1.4% - 0.8%
Michigan: 1.3% - 0.9%
Colorado: 2.7% - 1%
Arkansas: 2.9% - 1.8%
2018 - 2022 (Senate LP):
Indiana: 4% - 3.5%
Pennsylvania: 1% - 1.4%
Missouri: 1.1% - 1.4%
Utah: 2.6% - 2.4%
Nevada: 0.9% - 0.6%
Too lazy to delete markup
> LP 2022 (House):
>
> Texas: 4.34% (12)
> Arkansas: 3.63% (3)
> Idaho: 2.3% (1)
> Kansas: 2.3% (1)
> Maryland: 2.15% (2)
> Wyoming: 2.9% (1)
> Montana: 2.65% (2)
> Nevada: 1.75% (2)
> S. Dakota: 22.6% (1)
> N. Carolina: 1.4% (2)
> Michigan: 1.67% (9)
> Missouri: 2.34% (7)
> Utah: 2.7% (1)
> Louisiana: 5.02% (3)
>
> LP 2018 (House):
>
> Texas: 2.65% (31)
> Arkansas: 2% (4)
> Idaho: 1.7% (1)
> Kansas: 4.05% (2)
> Maryland: 1.82% (6)
> Wyoming: 3.5% (1)
> Montana: 2.9% (1)
> Nevada: 1.3% (3)
> S. Dakota: 1.5% (1)
> N. Carolina: 2.46% (5)
> Michigan: 1.75% (2)
> Missouri: 2.05% (8)
> Utah: 4% (1)
> Louisiana: 0.83% (3)
free staters population
2018: 1,909 members
2022: 6,232 members
https://www.lp.org/libertarian-party-shatters-records-as-unprecedented-number-of-libertarians-elected-to-office/
5 months after Henchman left
And how many progressive Dems moved from Boston to NH to work from home in the past 3 years?
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.
Here’s what I do...............>>> onlinecareer1
https://reason.com/2022/11/03/libertarian-party-chair-angela-mcardle-wont-endorse-blake-masters-slams-dr-oz-fetterman-georgia-gop/?comments=true#comment-9776430
Sarc thinks she looks like a boy, apparently.
I'm much more interested in her policy positions and how the (L) party can be more strategic about elections.
I think she's actually quite attractive, which can be an asset when trying to convince people to think outside the standard box. Not that we shouldn't focus on issues and policy, but it doesn't hurt to have a pleasant-looking spokesperson.
Sarwark: "but but but but but she's a GOP plant"
She isn't. Dave Smith, on the other hand? Eh.
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
🙂 GOOD LUCK.:)
More here>→→→→→ http://www.pay.hiring9.com
It seems like they're actual libertarians and not libertine Democrats that occasionally pay lip service to economic issues. They are also working on creating a grassroots movement at the local level where races are actually winnable.
Gosh, I said that in the seventies and eighties. I actually won a local election. Had zero effect. And now here we are forty years later and we're still saying we need to build a grassroots movement at the local level. Sigh.
Perhaps presenting voters with platforms that are popular, practical and principled, and not offered by the main parties. That might not be possible, as the issues of taxes, drugs, guns, education, trade, immigration etc have all been staked out by the two major parties, and the Libertarians find themselves following one party on one issue, and the other party on another.
It seems Americans are on the whole content with the system and don't particularly want to do anything that might upset the pendulum that swings back and forth between the two parties. In a well run democracy, you really have no choice. That's why China might be more fertile ground for Libertarianism, where people are more receptive to change, actually have an entrepreneurial spirit, rather than merely claim to have one, and value independence.
China? Libertarianism? Bah, no. They were good for BTC mining, that is about it.
Lao Tzu has been long watered down by legalists and the society is collective, conservative to its core.
You will get social democrats, that is about it. Tiannamen was mostly a Maoist demonstration, remember?
"and the society is collective, conservative to its core."
That's true, but the collective is the family rather than the state. The government is subject to the mandate of heaven which can be lost at any unlucky break like an earthquake, famine, etc. Something of particular interest to libertarians is their entrepreneurship. Whereas most Americans aspire to employment in a well paid, prestigious job, under the direction of a host of bosses, Chinese prefer self employment, or the family business, even if it's something as humble as selling prepared betel nuts on the street.
"Tiannamen was mostly a Maoist demonstration, remember?"
Tiananmen - is the correct spelling. I thought, if anything it was Gorbachevist in nature. Also a Chinese politician who called for similar reforms had died and the crowds of mourning students kicked off the protests. The demonstrations incidentally coincided with an important state visit to Beijing by the G man.
In the west, there is a paradox that strong families create individualistic orders. In the east, I am not sure a technical difference translates into practice.
There were some social democrats, but few. Most of it was in anger towards the wage controls being reformed. Not only is this a majority-minority confusion, every literal organizer was associated with the harder line faction within that party.
Don't ask me to remember names but you will find them easily with Google. The social democrats are alive today, but they simply get the most attention because they fled to Taiwan and Homg Kong and make CIA media look good. Again, don't confuse those who participated and have a voice with its organization or its majority
"In the east, I am not sure a technical difference translates into practice."
In China there is less reliance on the state and more emphasis on family and entrepreneurship. I thought this might give an opening to Libertarianism, but perhaps I'm wrong.
"every literal organizer was associated with the harder line faction within that party. "
I'm not sure what you mean. Mao had been dead for more than a decade, the gang of four and its leftist, anti-capitalist followers had been purged from the party soon after Mao's demise. Reformers were in ascendency in USSR and the death of a similar reformer in China sparked massive spontaneous demonstrations of mourning all over China that we call Tiananmen. The hard line communists like Li Peng weren't behind the demonstrations, I believe they were the ones issuing orders to fire on them and break them up.
Deng was interested in economic reform, not political reform.
There was a reformist politician who defended it as a human rights activist but they weren't protesting for speech reasons.
Speech BECAME a rallying cry with their being faced down by tanks. But it was only a consequence of the regime's heavy-handed reaction and again, not their reason for organizing
Also Gorbachev wasn't much of a reformer. By the 6th year in that he released wage controls, he faked his privatization by shuffling the SOEs around to different departments. Only Yeltsin began privatization in 1993 with the voucher system
China? You mean Red China? Look, any Chinese person who values change, entrepreneurship and independence either finds a way to Taiwan, the U.S. or somewhere in the West or wants to find a way!
There is no group of students marching the streets of a Beijing yelling: " Lao Tzu Clan Ain't Nuthin' To Fuck With!" who aren't either shot or sent to the Laogai (the Chinese Gulag!)
Now get back to work, Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!
"China? You mean Red China? "
Yes, and Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. All share Chinese language and culture.
" Look, any Chinese person who values change, entrepreneurship and independence either finds a way to Taiwan, the U.S. or somewhere in the West or wants to find a way!"
In the past few years some 3 million Chinese have emigrated to Africa to make their fortunes. Africa is a lot of things, but West isn't one of them.
You ought to familiarize yourself with China and the culture. Learning the language might be too much to expect, mastering the characters requires a half decade long slog of tedium, but try to keep up with current events and trends. You might be surprised to learn what happens in the streets of Beijing and elsewhere. For now, understand that Chinese first loyalty is toward the family, not particularly libertarian, but also entrepreneurship and independence.
Yes and the progressive revision doesn't change that. Reality is, movement libertarianism is only good as a form of philosophy not votes
There is benefit in going further than issue libertarianism as Rockwell urges. However, electorally is not where we will win
Action is generated by the desperate boomer. No need to accelerate the conditions of collapse, just keep committing to a long march for that moment.
Clinton's inauguration speech ushered in an end to the age of welfare, he dismantled ATT and semi-privatized the airports
Sarwarkites act as though it is a question of "no true scotsman" among "radicals." Fact is, Sarwark speaks no differently than Clinton
Clinton also created the immigration bureaucracy, started a war in Kosovo, tried passing universal healthcare, instructed the FBI to create the Clipper chip and murdered the Weaver family
Poll people on libertarian issues and they display knowledge of them as good as their knowledge of other ideologies. They simply reject them. This has been true for decades. We don't need to get the message out, it's long been out, more exposure won't help with it.
We need to unite, not market basically. Neither side wants to do that. McArdle is a godsend but the MC will get blamed for any statist moves - or those particularly greedy.
Like weed legalization in MO being voted against. I understand decriminalization is better as it voids licensing, regulation and taxation but the expungement measure was promising. It wasn't even unpopular with Republicans, just with the establishment and their Governor. But it is a universal value libertarians honor, to free the weed
That is internal and not external. If there are anti weed candidates, it makes me worried about an infIux of Republicans
That said, I am watching the NM, VA and MA chapters disband or secede to the point of mass expulsion. That worries me
Sarwark was taking us away from our old roots. Issue is, McArdle's more local acolytes are taking the idea of a populist libertarian unity approach too far as to snuff libertarian values again, like weed
All that aside, I consider McArdle the best leader we've had. I still feel like both Sarwarkites and the MC are acting like kids.
In VA, the LP had no respect for its constituents. In MA, the Civil War is just becoming a shot in the foot. Idk how to feel about that
People join the LP because they aren't joiners. If they wanted to be in a big tent they would join the D or R tent they are closest to. When everyone is convinced he is right, only I am.
When I hear the term "national divorce", dissolution of the U.S. government is exactly what I think of. And that is the only thing that will prevent a - very bloody - civil war. Texas is already working toward that end and it is the only logical solution. 350 million people is far too large of a population to be governed by a single entity. There is no possible way that anyone will get fair representation because there are simply too many fundamental differences in beliefs, philosophy, priorities among that many people. The pro-life vs. pro-abortion chasm is simply the one in the headlines right now. Self-defense and gun ownership is just as fundamental and just as divisive. Drugs, medical autonomy, myriad other issues means that you need to be able to associate with people who share your values and your priorities. Then live the way that you choose while people across the border - with the opposite values and priorities - can live the way that they choose.
I left the party after their last lame attempt for a presidential run. Thought they would pick up steam after Johnson but I was wrong. May come back when they decide to act a little more serious.
I'm sure people such as Ron Paul, Tom Woods and Jeff Deist might has something to say regarding the lack of interest and participation into the LP movement and they have so stated many times before.
The Libertarian party has simply got to step up their game if they ever plan to succeed.
Mises University is a start but they have to go much further than that. The LP really needs to find a way to connect with Americans, not just a few who attend the Mises Institute but to parents, business people and young people especially.
Unfortunately the odds are stacked against the L.P. Public education has been taken over by left wing extremists, with the CRT/LGBTQXYZ and post modernist Marxist indoctrination. The MSM ignores the LP like the plague and of course the uniparty is a ferocious enemy.
Until they find a way to connect with the rest of America, they will always be also rans.
Sometime ago, I think it was in the last year, Angela McArdle posted a link to an article by Megan McArdle (or posted a quote from Megan) on Twitter and Angela said something like "I am glad I am not related to her." Does anyone recall that or have the link?
The new LP seems to be doing about like the old LP.
Just a point about Perot, because I was very active in the LP at the time: Perot did NOT legitimately qualify for the ballot in more than a handful of states.
He got on the ballot in most states because one or the other major party elections official waived the rules for him, explicitly to use him as a spoiler. Pissed Libertarian activists like me off no end, because we had to WORK for that access.
He only created a "third party" because it was not legally possible to be on the ballot as an independent in many states. Then he kept it around because he was thinking of running again.
And he was, bluntly, a nutcase.
The Libertarian Party was taken over by alt-right losers who don't have real jobs. They are such a punch line right now. They don't even have candidates on the ballot. Total losers. That's what you get you when you elect bigoted garbage. They are talking like they just discovered fund raising and organizing because all the people who used to do that (and qualify candidates) left. It's so entertaining and satisfying to watch.
Angela is just getting more and more impressive. Zach Weissmueller had a hateful look on his face the entire time; it was funny, even if he didn't mean it.
The whole section where he tried to indict her with the tweets was hilarious. But, but, but, serious grown-ups don't challenge the story that Epstein committed suicide! Only childish edgelords contradict Papa Government! Angela was like, "Yeah, uh, we should know more about that, so why not just say the truth?"
No, Zach, we don't have to go along with what we're told is the truth when we know it's a lie. That's our function in this world.
The LP needs to go in a new direction, their single issue of pot legalization is now moot. Move on LP.