A Power Struggle Consumes the Libertarian Party
The Libertarian Party's controversial plan is to "stop Biden" and extract promises from Trump along the way.
HD DownloadHow did the Libertarian Party Convention become a campaign stop for candidates with wildly anti-libertarian views? This year's speakers included Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who once called for jailing so-called climate deniers, and former president Donald Trump, a rabid opponent of free trade who added $8 trillion to the U.S. debt.
It's part of a strategy to transform the Libertarian Party (L.P.) into a major force in American politics that's largely the brainchild of political strategist Michael Heise, who viewed the 2016 presidential candidacy of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as a colossal failure.
"Gary Johnson, 4.3 million votes, highest vote total ever, no lasting movement, no return on investment on those votes," Heise told Reason in 2022 during the party's convention in Reno. "[Gary Johnson voters] didn't stay because they weren't what you might call 'true believers.' They didn't feel it in their bones. It didn't have that same animation to it [as did] the Ron Paul [movement]."
The primary goal of the new Libertarian Party isn't winning national elections, which Heise considers delusional, but to leverage its ability to draw enough votes to swing the election. Through its "spoiler status," the hope is that the L.P. can extract concessions and gain influence.
This year's convention, held in Washington, D.C., in July, was the first major test of the new strategy.
The change in strategy began when a group called the Mises Caucus took over the leadership of the L.P. at the 2022 convention in Reno, Nevada.
It modeled itself after Ron Paul's presidential campaigns by emphasizing a non-interventionist foreign policy that sets it apart from both major parties, as the podcast host Dave Smith told Reason.
"The priorities of the Mises Caucus have always been, basically, the priorities of the Ron Paul Revolution: being anti-war, being sound on Austrian economics."
The new L.P. invited in social conservatives by removing abortion rights from the party platform and attempting to do the same with open immigration.
"When you put open borders, plus pro-abortion in [the platform]…it kind of forms a cultural hegemony for one side that might not be indicative of the wider libertarian movement," says Heise.
These changes alienated libertarians who view social freedoms as core to the political philosophy, as did the L.P.'s brazen new approach to social media, such as when the New Hampshire L.P. gloried in a photo of Megan McCain, the daughter of Senator John McCain (R–Ariz.), crying over her father's casket.
The Mises Caucus leadership vowed to clean up its messaging and grow the party's membership and fundraising to unprecedented levels. But internal documents show that candidates, fundraising, and membership have plummeted since the takeover. And state affiliates have continued the online provocation.
But supporters predicted that in 2024, we'd see a turnaround.
"I think there's been there's been progress in a lot of ways," says Smith. "This convention represents something that never would have happened under the old guard, where we're making attempts to be involved in the broader political conversation."
A prime example of the kind of outreach Smith is referencing was the presence of former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who made the case for libertarians to ally with Republicans to support Trump.
Kentucky Republican House member Thomas Massie—a favorite of libertarians for his opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns, regulation, the Federal Reserve, and debt-financed federal spending—also attended the convention for a day.
"I think the Libertarian Party is really smart to invite other people to their convention. It's going to be probably one of the closest watched Libertarian conventions in years," says Massie. "Politics is about messaging, and you've got to get your message out. If you don't have an audience, you can you can preach to an empty room. But this will be a chance for libertarians to give feedback to President Trump and to RFK Jr."
The Mises Caucus' favored presidential candidate was Michael Rectenwald, a former self-described Marxist college professor and author of The Great Reset and the Struggle for Global Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda.
He views politics through a populist lens whereby elites seek total control over the population by leveraging or even creating crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic to achieve such ends.
"I'm the only candidate in the race that's actually talked about the new threats to liberty that we face," says Rectenwald. "Agenda 2030, the climate change tyranny, and what's been called the Great Reset, which is really just the project of the World Economic Forum and the U.N. to institute this new stakeholder capitalism model and to control and regulate the population through all kinds of climate change regulations and restrictions."
It's a similar message to that of RFK Jr., who threw himself into the ring for the Libertarian Party nomination at the last minute before being knocked out in the first of seven rounds of presidential nomination voting.
Although Trump was ineligible to seek the party nomination because of a GOP ban on running with multiple parties, that didn't stop him from opening his headline speech by proclaiming himself a libertarian and asking for the party nomination to a chorus of boos.
Trump did garner some applause later in the speech when he began to address some of the L.P.'s demands. He promised to commute the life sentence of Ross Ulbricht, founder of the black market website the Silk Road. He also offered to appoint a libertarian to his cabinet in exchange for the party's endorsement and to protect bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies from federal regulation.
Post-speech, three Libertarian presidential nominees delivered a response but most of the crowd and media had cleared out by then. Rectenwald walked out in the middle of the post-speech press conference and later admitted he was high on a gummy edible.
The Mises Caucus has adopted a strategy of using the Libertarian Party's spoiler status as a bargaining chip. With Smith's encouragement, their Arizona senatorial candidate dropped out and endorsed Republican venture capitalist Blake Masters—who once said "libertarianism doesn't work"—in a special election on the grounds that he was the lesser of two evils. Masters lost the race anyway.
But on the third day of the convention, a central pillar of the Mises Caucus' professed strategy would crumble beneath them.
In a surprising twist for a party controlled by the Mises Caucus, which had just reelected McArdle as chair the previous day, Michael Rectenwald was knocked out after six rounds of voting, leaving Chase Oliver as the last remaining candidate.
Oliver, who rose to prominence within the party after forcing a crucial Georgia Senate race to a run-off in 2022 by drawing 2 percent of the vote, had clashed with candidates from the Mises Caucus faction when he defended free and open immigration during the presidential debate.
In the final round of voting, Mises Caucus members attempted to whip votes for "none of the above" to ensure the party ran no candidate this year, but Oliver won with 60 percent of the vote.
Since then, Smith and several other Mises Caucus members have made clear that they will not vote for Oliver, whom they believe didn't do enough to resist COVID-19 restrictions. Oliver concedes that the pre-Reno Reset Libertarian Party should have opposed lockdowns and government vaccine mandates—both of which he publicly opposed—more vociferously.
"I could say that there had been instances during COVID when [the party] maybe erred on the personal responsibility side as opposed to fighting mandated lockdowns. We should have been maybe a bit more forceful there," says Oliver. "My message is pretty simple to those voters out there who have not heard from Libertarian: It's that if you're not committing force, fraud, coercion, theft or violence, if you're just living in peace, your life is your life. Your body is your body. Your property is your property, and your business is your business."
Oliver's victory complicates the Mises Caucus' strategy. They control the leadership positions but not the face of the party.
Following his nomination, Oliver was attacked online by Mises Caucus members and Trump supporters for his alleged weakness on COVID policy, his view that parents and not the state should decide whether puberty blockers can be prescribed to minors, and because Oliver, who is openly gay, has appeared at pride events holding a rainbow flag.
McArdle responded a week after the convention by hosting a livestream with rainbow imagery and donning a red clown nose. She gave Oliver the party's official endorsement and pledged to help him mostly in blue states where he'd be more likely to take votes from Biden.
The Libertarian Party grabbed attention and obtained promises from Trump—but if elected, will he follow through?
Can a Libertarian Party so deeply divided on questions of strategy and ideology make a difference?
"I think the most important thing that we need to do as a party to build our foundation," says Oliver. "I want to double our party's membership and hold it for the next four years."
- Camera: Justin Zuckerman
- Audio Production: Ian Keyser
- Editor: Chris Sowick
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
by drawing 2 percent of the vote
Which is a drop off from what previous libertarians had achieved in the state in the same elections.
So, what is the libertarian rationale for restrictive immigration policies?
It can’t be based on fundamental principles of liberty – the freedom to migrate is a subset of the freedom of association. If Alice and Bob own adjacent parcels of land, and Alice invites Bob onto her property, why should any government prevent Bob from associating with Alice on her property – even if there happens to be an international border between the two?
It can’t be based on economics. Do migrants consume welfare? Some do, sure. But that is a problem with the welfare state, not with migration per se. Do migrants “steal jobs”? Some take jobs that otherwise would be taken by native-born citizens. But that is not “stealing” a job, because the job was not entitled to be given to a native-born citizen in the first place.
It can’t really be cultural. Does migration attract some of the “wrong type” of migrants, however one might define “wrong”? Sure, I suppose. But even still, with the exception of migrants who have violated the NAP, using the “wrongness” of a particular type of migrant to justify barring that migrant from entering presupposes that there ought to be ‘top men’ determining which types of migrants ought to come here or not based on vague cultural considerations. That is not a particularly libertarian position.
I have read some of Hoppe’s articles on the subject, and from what I understand, he analogizes the nation as a type of HOA, and border restrictions as simply like the government (analogous to an HOA board) deciding on general rules on the overall character of the HOA. But even if you accept this analogy is valid, there are limits to what any HOA may demand of its members, and no HOA has the just authority to deprive individuals of their *inalienable* rights. Same with governments.
In my view, supporting restrictive, Trump-style or Cotton-style (or Biden-style) border restrictions is simply not compatible with libertarianism. It is more akin to a type of nationalistic conservatism which exalts the nation and “national character” over the individual, based on the premise that citizens and residents have some duty to conform to some unwritten rules associated with a nation's character, above and beyond simply obeying the law. E.g., to be "French" means more than just having the correct citizenship papers associated with France, it means conforming to some sense of identity associated with "French-ness". And I don't think that type of characterization can be compatible with concepts of *individual* liberty. Sure if individuals want to behave in stereotypical American ways they can, and if they want to persuade individuals to act in that way, they can, but an expectation to "be like a stereotypical American" shouldn't be a precondition for migration.
What is libertarian about taking from citizens to fund non citizens jeff? Fuck off. Youre the problem with the LP. Taking from those who contribute over time to give to those who didn't. Socialist fuck. Once again, here is Hoppe.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/
Your open borders to destroy social cohesion and topple capitalism aligns more with Marxists than it does libertarian. It is why you never discuss the costs or negative externalities. See:
https://www.marxist.com/video-why-marxists-must-fight-for-open-borders.htm
You are part of the capture of the LP. A socialist hiding their views under the veneer of libertarianism. You even called yourself a libertarian socialist for a while before the mockery got too high. You've advocated violations of the NAP and stated government must take from some to give to others since people don't voluntarily due it to people not doing it voluntarily to your vision. Again. Fuck off.
So, I'll take you off mute for today just to rebut your arguments.
What is libertarian about taking from citizens to fund non citizens jeff?
It's not. But that is a problem with welfare, not migration per se.
Your open borders to destroy social cohesion and topple capitalism
This is such a giant strawman. But you evidently believe it along with a lot of people, so let's take a look at it.
First, why should government be enforcing "social cohesion" via immigration policy in the first place, *from a libertarian perspective*? As I said above, this is a nationalistic conservative position, not a libertarian one. Nationalistic conservatives like yourself exalt the "national character" over individual liberty. Libertarians should place individual liberty as the highest priority.
Second, how would migration "topple capitalism"? Having free migration across borders would be the most free market approach to the labor market. Restricting migration by government fiat is akin to creating a domestic labor cartel at the expense of foreign labor, artificially propping up wages of domestic labor. You can argue how desirable you think that is all you want, but it is not a free market approach to labor.
A socialist hiding their views under the veneer of libertarianism.
Since you view individual liberty as a principled matter, as a type of "socialism", coming from you that's a compliment.
ou even called yourself a libertarian socialist
no I didn't, all I said was that "libertarian socialism" is a thing that actually exists, not that I agree with it or adopted it.
As for Marxists supporting open borders: Okay, so they do! That doesn't mean everyone who supports open borders is a Marxist. That would be a fallacy.
I'll just note that every time Trump does something that vaguely resembles something Hitler did, you will be the very first one to defend him and say "that doesn't mean he's Hitler!!!!" But when someone supports something like open borders, you will also be the first to engage in that same fallacy and say "that makes you a Marxist!!!!"
I was never on mute dumbass.
Spending on illegal immigrants is 150B a year. A wealth transfer from citizens to non citizens.
Last year according to the BLS immigrants gained 600k jobs. This is divided between 1.3M legal immigrants who followed the process and 1.5M did not. There aren’t jobs for those coming, they rely on welfare.
You have been given the statistics on refugees who have day 1 work permits. Their employment rate is right around 50%.
You have been given welfare or state program use from immigrant households. It is around 49%
You have been given the number of illegal immigrants granted work permits, 2% applied.
You have been given social media from immigrants, news casts interviewing immigrants, border interviews with immigrants, they all talk about the money they get from the state.
You’ve been given links to the immigrant NGOs funded by taxpayers who tell illegal immigrants how to get benefits and fake asylum claims.
Youre entire shtick is ignoring reality of the situation.
You ignore the number of open jobs, a third of yearly immigration numbers. Youre too fucking dumb to realize jobs don’t magically appear. You ignore the welfare spending and the demands from these groups. You ignore the market pressure on housing which does not grow at 3M domiciled a year.
You ignore all this with a simple hand waive, an aside to discuss jot discussing that issue. But that is the fucking primacy of the issue. This isn’t even discussing the fact your team wants to give them voting rights to vote more from public coffers taken from others.
Youre a socialist jeff. Youre not fooling anybody but sarc. A leftist who has never read a book from a libertarian author. A fat joke.
The most hilarious part is you've been told over and over if there was no welfare, no state benefits, sponsors were actually held responsible for costs, and they were denied voting rights, nobody would care if they came here. But that's not what exists. That's why you continue to hand waive the violations of the NAP while calling those who see it xenophobic and racist.
Oh yes you were on mute. How the hell would you know otherwise?
Once again the issue of spending is different than the issue of migration itself.
Wanting to restrict or ban immigration because some go on welfare, is analogous to wanting to ban guns because some use guns irresponsibly, or (as in the previous article) wanting to ban alcohol on airplanes because some might be at a higher health risk. Each of these is an overreaction which reveals that the stated reason is not the true reason. Those who want to ban guns only use gun violence statistics as a rationalization for their true reason, a motte and bailey tactic. Their true reason is to have this imagined gun-free utopia where everyone does as they are told by the state. Similarly for wanting to ban alcohol. And it is the same with you and your crowd who talk incessantly about wanting to restrict or ban immigration. Your perpetual use of welfare to try to justify restricting immigration is but a red herring. The real reason is because, as you say above, of "social cohesion". For you and the other border restrictionists, the migrants are the "wrong type of people" and you wouldn't want them here even if they didn't use any welfare, because they "vote for socialism" or some other overgeneralization which reveals that you don't really regard them as being worthy people for living on American soil. That is why you and your team continually harp on this issue, because they are your scapegoats for all that is wrong in America.
Lol. So many straw men here.
Well, I say that you just want them all here scrubbing toilets and picking crops instead of making positive change in their home countries that they insist they have pride in, (while somehow not being nationalistic themselves) to satiate your virtue signaling white savior fetish, you racist asshole.
Makes more sense than what you said.
So, I’ll take you off mute for today just to rebut your arguments.
POST THE LIST!
Jeff is a fucking joke.
And Moose-Mammary-Fucker is a death-loving necrophiliac! A servant and serpent of the Evil One!
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, will now SPEAK! HARKKK silently and RESPECTFULLY, all ye lowly heathens, as She Directs Death, and announces WHICH few of us MIGHT deserve to live, and WHO all deserves to DIE-DIE-DIE!!!
https://reason.com/2022/01/25/did-these-three-officers-willfully-deprive-george-floyd-of-his-constitutional-rights/?comments=true#comment-9323626 “You should really join ᛋᛋqrlsy, ᛋᛋhrike. You two goosestepping fascists offing yourselves would definitely be a mitzvah.”
-Quote MammaryBahnFuhrer the “Expert Christian Theologian”, AKA Mother’s Lament, with a head full of cement
So Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death… WHEN are You going to STOP stealing the IDs of Your victims, and then posting kiddie porn in THEIR names, and then blaming THEM?
Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!
A sophist, morbidly obese, global marxist, disingenuous, pedophilic joke.
Q: A sophist, a pedophile, and a global marxist walk into a bar.
A: Check the bar for damage from morbidly obese Jeffy.
Don’t let him run a tab.
Or roll over on top of a child.
How would Jeff know that he needed to take Jesse off mute to rebut his arguments... if Jesse weren't already off mute?
Also, I found the place in the profile settings where it'll show a list of the people one has muted. Joly shit I have muted a lot of spammers since this capability arrived!
Why bother? All his statements are going to contain “you” because he argues against people, not what people say. It’s a waste of time and energy that won’t persuade anyone.
Fuck off you dishonest, shit-smearing troll.
It is quite funny when you project incorrect statements when you dont actually mute me. Lol.
Even funnier when your comment is about me talking about someone else.
The who not the what as you say.
I’m soooo sorry that your Great Whitish-Orangish Pumpkin-Father has been CHEATED out of His Office by evil Demon-craps! I suggest that you might be able to retreat to your safe space… I hear they have laid in a large supply of Teddy Bears. Maybe one of the Teddy Bears will agree to lay with you, and snuggle your wuggle for a while! There, there!
In a mere few more years, as you are still jonesing for Great White Pumpkin-Father, I bet you could persuade Alex Jones to be your Next Savior! Slogan: Jonesing for Jones!
JesseSPAZ can’t be abidin’ with Biden, and settling for merely getting her hair smelled. JesseSPAZ wants to get back to having her pussy grabbed good and hard, by Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer!
PLEASE ask me if I give one single tiny poopy-shit particle about what your “truth” is, lying troll!
PLEASE ask me if I give a shit about what YOU think!
Question for you: Are all right-wing nut-jobs liars, or only the stupidest ones?
You mean like you do? You say this shit all the time, and then rant and rave at everyone here, because we call you out on your blatant lies, idiotic arguments, and democrat water carrying.
“….. free market approach to labor.”
Lol. Let’s examine that.
Let’s see if a half a billion or so third world “newcomers” put any downward pressure on wages for current citizens at a time when government debt absolutely requires inflation to keep the whole house of cards from crashing completely.
Why do you hate black people, Jeff?
Why do you hate black people, Jeff?
Because he's a Democrat.
Creatures like Morbidly Obese Pedo Jeffy are sources of endless irritation, misery, and horror for all they encounter.
"It’s not. But that is a problem with welfare, not migration per se."
The comment "fix welfare and we can discuss immigration" is not one that is unheard of.
I know that it makes me "not a real Libertarian" but I agree with you damikesc.
Taking from one person to redistribute to another isn’t libertarian but it doesn’t matter whether the takers are citizens or non-citizens.
You try to fix that by claiming that citizens pay taxes and non-citizens don’t. First, it’s false. Many citizens pay no taxes, and many non-citizens do. Your continued insistence on basing it on immigration status rather than actual taxes paid is what we call a tell.
Second, and more importantly, an actual libertarian doesn’t think forced wealth redistribution is “OK” if people pay taxes. That’s what you seem to be claiming, except that’s not really what you believe.
In years of posting there’s very little evidence that you care about forced wealth transfer to people you view as “Us”, basically, ethnically and culturally American. And that’s because you aren’t, in fact, all that much against it. You’re just against transferring it to people you’ve decided aren’t “Us”: immigrants, but more generally people who aren’t fully vested in traditional American values.
And you’re not just against them getting welfare, you’re really just against them being here. The economic/tax “justification” is post-hoc. Culture explains your positions well, economics doesn’t.
You try to fix that by claiming that citizens pay taxes and non-citizens don’t. First, it’s false. Many citizens pay no taxes, and many non-citizens do. Your continued insistence on basing it on immigration status rather than actual taxes paid is what we call a tell.
Where did I do so? I'm against all welfare. But Jeff and other liberaltatians you have to lie and try to move the discussion to a different argument not being made. Go look at the other thread dummy.
Limiting it to citizens at least limits the size of takers. As you see in my response, which you will ignore because CIS who uses federal databases is racist so the numbers don't count, immigrants utilize more resources as a share of their representation from day 1. There is no familial or historical source of resources or building. They are over represented as takers without a familial history of producers to the country.
You make the same ignorant narrative as Jeff, but not shocked at that.
Lastly there is zero cap on your views from migration into the country. So you want to take an estimated 120M people who continue no taxes and throw in a possible 5B more.
But please, continue to throw shit and try to shift the argument nobody has made.
My deal has always been end the welfare state and I don't give a shit.
Your deal seems to be bring everyone in until society collapses and then maybe the welfare state will end.
Lol.
"There is no familial or historical source of resources or building."
You really can't believe in people as individuals, can you. You think everything about a person can (and should) be judged by what country he was born in.
Leaving that aside:
1. Private property belongs to individuals and voluntary groups of individuals. It does not belong to cultures, not ethnic groups, not forced collectives.
2. Therefore there is no such thing as "trespassing" against a culture or an ethnic group or a forced collective.
3. Your property interest in my house and who is in it is zero.
4. You trespassing on my land is 100% as bad as when an illegal immigrant does it*.
5. Therefore, shouldn't whatever means and policy you favor to combat the illegal alien menace apply fully to yourself? If we need to preemptively deport or exclude the alien before he trespasses or gets violent or welches, then shouldn't we preemptively get rid of you, too?
6. I don't believe your categorical claim that he will act out and you won't, just because your momma was an American citizen. Even if there's some statistical difference, e.g. he's 25% more likely than you are, that's not enough to save you. If we're doing round ups 80% as likely, like yourself, needs to be rounded up too.
ducksalad...
Thanks for your valiant attempt! Sad to say, the unreasonable... Can NOT be reasoned with!!! The "hater boner" is STRONG with this one, which is known ass the JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer!!!
ALL HAIL those with the unquenchable thirst for always MORE power over their inferior scapegoats!
And if you have some magic way of getting those immigrants to your land and keep them only on your land, not crossing into land you don't own, you have every right to admit them. What you don't have is a right to invite anyone to land you don't own, unless you have the permission of the landowner to do so. You're playing a bait and switch here. You're suggesting, rightly, that Jesse doesn't have a right to decide who is allowed on your land. But, you're then dishonestly extending that to a claim that your guests have a right to access the roads, sidewalks, etc. that you most certainly don't own.
Second, and more importantly, an actual libertarian doesn’t think forced wealth redistribution is “OK” if people pay taxes. That’s what you seem to be claiming, except that’s not really what you believe.
Again where did I make this claim?
What the actual fuck. You lie even more than Jeffrey.
By the way. I’ll point out again the only one citing a libertarian author here is me. But I doubt you even know who he is. Lol.
Now let me make up a random argument from you.
You have immigrant family that has utilized the welfare state so the libertarian thing is to keep continue doing it no matter the cost. Because your family's gains is true liberty.
Authors can be found pushing any misguided philosophy one can imagine. I'm not impressed by arguments to authority, unless that authority is earned.
That last paragraph....over and over again you keep implying there's something better about a citizen criminal, a citizen trespasser, or a citizen living on the dole.
I'm against criminals and trespassers, and want to humanely get people off the dole. You're just against immigrants, as proven by your inability to leave out immigration status when it's irrelevant.
You nationalists laugh at the proggies for mentioning race when the victim is black and the perp in white, and leaving it out when that's reversed. But you're no better. You only mention the citizenship status of a criminal or dependent on the state when he's an immigrant, you leave it out when he's a citizen.
Yup, their countries are shitholes in the same way that some people live in a pigsty house. It’s their own damn fault.
Fuck em. Send em back.
I know that it makes me “not a real Libertarian” but I agree with you EISTAU Gree-Vance.
I would be for open immigration providing there is a screening process to weed out the violent criminals, the terrorists and those with infectious diseases.
Letting anyone and everyone in the US a recipe for disaster down the road.
Just ask Laken Reilly.
Anecdotal evidence is beautiful evidence.
You didn't know who Laken Reilly was when you posted this little retort, did you.
He just doesn’t care.
He called her murder "Anecdotal".
Media Matters and Open Society aren't sending us their best and brightest.
Given that their lead representative here is Shrike, they are definitely not. The child raping morn regularly posts links that contradict his bullshit arguments.
That’s why he’ll hold the top spot for stupidest motherfucker to post here for a long time.
Charlie hall, more sincere and moving in fast.
Still well behind Jeff.
It’s probably a lot of work to move all the way around Jeffy.
I know that it makes me “not a real Libertarian” but I agree with you Uncle Jay.
The libertarian case for easy immigration is simple — if someone is moving here to live peaceably and contribute to the economy, why would you try to stop them, or trust central planning to fine tune the number of immigrants who ought to be “allowed in” each year? Central planning never works.
If I’m a property owner or a renter or an employer, why should I be prevented by my own government from selling or renting or hiring to anyone I choose to?
The libertarian case against easy immigration seems to be that the immigrants might not be as committed to liberty as the current citizenry, or they might be coming here to freeload on government benefits. Both arguments seem weak, since most people choose to immigrate here for greater economic and personal and religious freedom, to find jobs to help support their families.
Opponents of easy immigration point to the pressure on the welfare state, but that’s really a separate argument. Stop giving away free money to anyone, citizen or immigrant. Allow anyone who wants to support economic refugees to organize and donate their own funds.
Aye
I dont know why you guys think you can separate reality from a nice first impression.
Thats not how reality works.
You wouldn't design an airplane using solely Newton and Bernoulli, but you want to design a society from first impressions while ignoring all other facts of the discussion.
You wouldn’t design an airplane using solely Newton and Bernoulli
No - but you would design an airplane STARTING with the principles discovered by Newton and Bernoulli. THEN you can discuss some of the practical details.
So when discussing immigration, as libertarians, we START with libertarian principles. Then we discuss the practical details.
From a *libertarian* perspective, we start by considering individual liberty first.
No – but you would design an airplane STARTING with the principles discovered by Newton and Bernoulli.
Oh fucking wow. Then why not just start your airplane at Eratosthenes, Archimedes or al-Khwarizmi.
Anyway you're a Nazi, not a libertarian. You're waving the corpse of libertarian principles here like a flag to justify the Democratic party's population replacement attempts. Using state welfare, that even residents aren't eligible for, to attract illegal immigration in the twisted hope that it will keep them in power.
"cOnSpiRacY tHeoRy"
Conspiracy fact. Schumer, Schiff and Jeff Zients have already said exactly that. 7.3 million illegal immigrants in three and a half years isn't just an accident, shill.
A government's most fundamental duty is to control the polity's borders.
If you won't allow them to determine who's granted or denied entry, you're denying the legitimacy of any government whatsoever.
President Wilson would agree. Didn’t know you were a fan.
We have the constitution on our side. You have the democrat party.
“If I’m a property owner or a renter or an employer, why should I be prevented by my own government from selling or renting or hiring to anyone I choose to?”
If all property and services were privatized, this would be a valid argument.
Edit: admittedly, that’s a more utilitarian argument than a libertarian one, but the point stands
The second the government/public start footing the bill for goods and services, the second they have a say in how they are used.
Aye
Read Pear's reply below.
There's how society is and how you want society to be. Yes, from a libertarian perspective, there should be no welfare state, but there is! And illegals are taking billions from that system just in cities like New York and Chicago, crowding out the locals who depend on those services.
And that's not taking into account the violent monsters who assault and kill American citizens.
Why should I object to paying higher property taxes for a school system that doesn’t need the extra pressure of trying to educate millions of ESL students in already overcrowded classrooms in order to fail miserably?
At some point, your freedom to migrate or travel runs into property rights, therefore it cannot be absolute. You're free to migrate, you're not free to squat on someone else's property and then claim you have a right to be there. If property owners near the border don't want people passing through their property, they have the right to remove them and the government shouldn't be a barrier in stopping this.
In a sense, having taxpayers fund shelters that feed, clothe, and house migrants is just enforced squatting. They're sitting down on something they didn't earn and are taking it from citizens. One of the few things they have as leverage is a willingness to work off the books, at sub minimum wage, so they're also a problem for the barriers of competition.
And this is where I see a problem with Chase Oliver and his wing of libertarianism. Nowhere in his platform is he saying he'd stop funding migrant shelters. He has nothing to say about the minimum wage or the abolishment of it. Unrestricting immigration is just one aspect of the greater whole of getting government out of regulating the free market. If immigrants knew that there was no shelter here, no guarantee of a job, nobody giving them pizza and a free apartment, we'd probably see a drastic decline, and Americans would have to be competitive for the low level entry labor jobs.
But when you focus on only one aspect, which incentives immigrants and removes them from regulations, while maintaining regulations on Americans who are also subsidizing the flow of immigration, you've broken the free market. You don't get the price indicators that would tell people it's not worth the risk of going to America only to starve there because they can't compete. Likewise, people are losing jobs because we put in $20 minimum wages for fast food workers, when the production created from those jobs is nowhere near.
If Chase Oliver was pushing for a big free market reset on immigration, where we close all the shelters, kick all migrants out, and tell them they're on their own while we're scheduling amnesty hearings, that's a position I can support. If he was saying he's against the minimum wage and eliminating all price controls exercised by government, he'd be consistent. But he doesn't even talk about these issues, he's just pro-immigration seemingly because he thinks immigration restrictions are driven by racism, and he doesn't want to be racist. That's my impression, at least, since he uses "free market" as a catch-phrase or slogan rather than a philosophical underpinning of his position.
I don't think I've ever heard him talk about the minimum wage, tax reform (other than saying he'll abolish tariffs, which is just more libertarian jingoism), social security reform, deregulation, licensure requirements, or things along those lines which are directly related to why we have immigration restrictions. There's no analysis of the conditions that have led to surges of immigrants and asylum seekers than are massively greater than they were a decade ago. He just has slogans and jingles, but feels really weak in terms of principles and ideas.
There's a reason public thoroughfares were invented. So people would have freedom to travel, and couldn't be arbitrarily blocked by people not wanting them to pass through the area.
The paradox is that private property requires public thoroughfares and public/commons property tends to require privatized thoroughfares.
It's funny how quickly open borders gets "libertarians" a boner for expropriation.
But what do you when the thoroughfares are overcrowded, and nobody is using them, instead choosing to walk across my property and dump garbage on it? If your ground state isn't one in which private property is respected, just declaring that you're in favor of free movement isn't helping the cause of liberty.
But what do you when the thoroughfares are overcrowded, and nobody is using them,
At times like those, I think of what Yogi Berra might have said about that.
So, your "more-libertarian-than-thou" argument fundamentally rests on the state violating property rights.
Glad we cleared that one up.
Think of Chase Oliver as a Post-Modern libertarian, i.e. someone unconstrained by reality, having no concept of logic or consistency.
His idea of freedom is freedom from facts, a world where he lives on an imaginary plane of existence where desires are supreme and that which can be imagined, is more real than reality.
He is the best representative of the modern Libertarian Party or is it the Post-Modern Libertarian party? If I had wanted to discredit human liberty, I would have created the Libertarian Party.
Open immigration is fine when everyone lives by the NAP. We are far from that point at this time. There's Libertopia and there's getting to Libertopia from where we are.
IMO - there is no 'libertarian' opposition to migration. There is a propertarian opposition and an alt-right opposition. They merely happen to create a populist 'coalition of interest'.
The propertarian argument is simple. There is no legitimate function of the state except to protect the interests of private landowners - brutally if necessary. There can be no legal basis for protecting against trespass unless the state is authorized to, and actively engages in, suppress movement of people. There's a truth there but propertarians go further by pretending that personal liberty and property (particularly in land which is the 'property' basis for immigration policy) are both based on natural right and so there can never be a conflict between those two.
The alt-right ethnonationalist opposition is pretty obvious. It is an opposition not to immigration 'policy' but opposition to the immigrant. Linking up with that was the overt strategy of paleo/populist 'libertarianism'.
That said - I don't really believe there is a libertarian argument for open borders - de jure or de facto - as a specific immigration policy either.
Without property rights there are no rights. An example of where your "open borders" policy leads:
You spend the year preparing the soil, planting crops, weeding them and then, when they are ready to harvest and you are sleeping, some passers-by harvest the results of your work and depart. No violence was done to you and, by your theory, you can't restrict people from entering the area you have worked on and do what they please.
The "freedom to migrate" means that no government should ever have the power to prevent you from leaving its jurisdiction. Finding somewhere that will accept you is an entirely different proposition.
What you are defining as 'property' is in fact usufruct. The right to use land to plant crops or improve it (usus), and the right to the fruits of that improvement (fructus). That does not conflict with a freedom to roam (which does exist, has for thousands of years, and is statutory now in Northern Europe).
What never existed in land until very recently was abusus - the right to destroy or alienate the land - the third element that in sum constitutes legal 'property'. No one thinks twice about property as applied to labor or capital. If you create a tool, you can run it until it breaks. You can commit suicide or take a vacation and no one says you have to keep working. Nor about alienation of either. But alienation of land is precisely the sole basis of preventing someone else from even roaming over the land.
It was thought to be a real problem re land specifically because land is not created by its owner. It is merely titled - by the state. And alienating it from others merely by virtue of its titled ownership means taking that freedom from others without compensation.
That fully depends on whether you’re a minarchist or a full on anarchist.
Monarchists, believing in a minimal state, are going to support some form of border control. Because sovereign nation states get to have borders and border/immigration policy.
Anarchists, believing in the absence of a state/hierarchy, by definition have to be against borders and sovereign nation states.
A fully open borders policy is incompatible with the first and a requirement of the second (I know it’s technically the absence of borders).
lol, autocorrect really doesn’t like the word “minarchist”.
Lol. This is the story of Alice and bob and the bears in their trunks.
Fuck off jeff. The oversupply of imported poverty will dovetail perfectly with crushing government debt inasmuch as you virtue signaling idiots will be forced to admit “oh shit, I guess there really is such a thing as too much” in roughly the same time frame that politicians discover that borrowing from the future can not go on forever.
Hint: both are happening now.
Getting rid of a Jeffy and his fellow travelers in a timely manner is of critical importance. Much like excising a malignant tumor before it spreads further.
Chase Oliver has suggested a plan that worked really well in the past. The immigration "crisis" results from violent warmongering to ban everything BUT gin and cigarettes everywhere on the planet. When Nixon, like Herbert Hoover before him, got foreigners to ban all safer alternatives, communism again became popular as it had in 1920 and 1929-33. Suddenly christian nationalsocialist goons with guns were conquering entire nations in South America. Love Amerika! We're killing you for Jesus, the way Germany did!
It can’t be based on fundamental principles of liberty – the freedom to migrate is a subset of the freedom of association.
Except in your example, Alice has the right to invite Bob onto her land and only her land. She doesn't have the right to have Bob cross Charlie's land to get to her land. And, of course, if she invites Bob onto her land and he happens to wander over and damage Charlie's land while he's there, the longstanding precedent is that Alice and Bob are jointly and severally liable. As Alice's guest, Bob is sponsored by her relative to Charlie.
What this establishes is that Bob does not have an unlimited right to transit, only a right to transit on property he either owns or is invited to. And in that case, the people inviting Bob assume financial responsibility for his behavior. What this means, in practice is that the society who owns the "public property" equally has the right to limit or refuse Bob's access to that property. I'll certainly agree that said property should be privatized. But, that's not the discussion we're having. You can try claiming that public property is somehow "unclaimed land" usable by anyone. But, that means, if I feel like it, I can try homesteading I-95 and turn it into a private toll road.
it should be immigration without welfare. i am a LONG time libertarian, 1986, but have learned that our purity test cannot be met so we must deal in reality. I AM NOT INTERESTED ANY LONGER IN THEORY. i am an open borders type but once here you will get exactly NOTHING you do not earn or have voluntarily given you. since that ain’t gonna happen in bidens america we need to close the border until we can assure that other folks stuff is not jacked to grease border crossers. FURTHER, open border or not i have NO PROBLEM EXCLUDING FELONS OR CRIMINALS OR SERIAL DEPORTEES forever…we don’t have time or resources for diddling. if you can’t play nice STAY THE FUCK HOME. HOPE THGIS CLARIFIES THINGS FOR YOU. caps intended
I have read some of Hoppe’s articles on the subject, and from what I understand, he analogizes the nation as a type of HOA, and border restrictions as simply like the government (analogous to an HOA board) deciding on general rules on the overall character of the HOA. But even if you accept this analogy is valid, there are limits to what any HOA may demand of its members, and no HOA has the just authority to deprive individuals of their *inalienable* rights. Same with governments.
Property rights. More like a country club than a HOA. Yes a CC has the right to restrict who may/may not come on the property. Coming onto others' property is NOT AN INALIENABLE RIGHT.
You are an idiot.
Being a pro weed, Mexican ass sex, and food truck cosmotarian that supports continuation and enlargement of the welfare empire doesn’t make one libertarian. Drawing 0.45% of the national vote for those positions likely won’t move the needle outside the halls of Reason HQ and associated cocktail parties.
lordy chumby, we're gonna need a minute to unpack that one. get me started...what's a cosmotarian. not asking for a friend. and how is mexican ass sex different from the other nationally designated ass sex's. inquiring minds and all that...
The fight is bored democrats and Marxists from blue areas trying to be edgy and try to fit their leftist views into a sheen of libertarian thought vs those who recognize social welfare and leftist programs do have violations of the NAP and read luminaries like Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe.
Liberaltarians vs libertarians.
The former cares more about freedom from consequences of their own actions while the latter wants freedom of violations of the NAP.
Here, Jesse, let me ask you this:
If Alice and Bob own adjacent parcels of land, and Alice invites Bob onto her property, why should any government prevent Bob from associating with Alice on her property – even if there happens to be an international border between the two?
What NAP violation has occurred if Bob crosses the border onto Alice’s property without government permission?
read luminaries like Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe.
Do you read any libertarian writers other than these three?
Oh and by the way, Mises was in favor of free trade and opposed to tariffs in general. Did you actually read Mises? Or did you just name-drop him because of the LP Mises Caucus?
Alice might have a bear in her trunk. That’s why.
You failed to address Jesse’s stated concern regarding welfare.
He is now 3 for 3 in his comments hand waiving away the violations of the NAP that destroy his fake libertarian views. It is all he is capable of.
Why don't you explain to us all how the NAP is violated by a migrant walking one foot over the border. Who was the victim of aggression there?
The issues include allowing murders, human traffickers, violent gang members, cartel operatives, pedophiles, people with chronic-deadly communicable diseases that had been essentially wiped out of the US, foreign agents hostile to the country, and people without a means to support themselves should they enter. In the current late stage collapsing empire that is the US, the financial burden of additional mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and souls to house makes the unsustainable system more unsustainable.
Under a full libertarian society, vetting visitors may well still occur due to some of the folks listed above such as the kiddie diddlers. That welfare system being looted is not compatible with the NAP.
The issues include allowing murders, human traffickers, violent gang members, cartel operatives, pedophiles, people with chronic-deadly communicable diseases that had been essentially wiped out of the US, foreign agents hostile to the country, and people without a means to support themselves should they enter.
Stop actively trying to make Cartman hard. It's gross.
"Why don’t you explain to us all how the NAP is violated by a migrant walking one foot over the border."
This is Jeffy cheaping out yet again by using a fallacious argument called ad absurdo, or the horse laugh.
He's such a piece of garbage. Everything he does is in bad faith.
TBF, it doesn’t technically violate the NAP, unless they cross the border and onto private property.
But not every law has to entail a violation of the NAP to be logical.
Your scenario is a failure created by an ignorant sophist. The real scenario.
Alice and Bob buy a house together. They get equal share. They split costs. Alice invites Jose to move in without asking Bob. Bon still pays for half the costs despite Jose now living there. That’s the reality.
Illegal immigrants are not removed from the costs of public resources. In fact they are granted many programs from schooling to Healthcare. Your retarded sophist question is created to ignore this reality.
I have read many other libertarian writers. Like most subjects libertarian thought builds on top of foundations which is why I refer to recency. But it is clear you’ve never read any with your simplistic sophist apology that ignores reality of the issue.
Youre an idiot jeff.
Why don't you try to answer the question that I posed, Jesse?
If Bob accepts Alice's invitation, why should any government prevent that association between Alice and Bob from occurring?
You don't answer because you know the correct answer makes you look bad.
Because your analogy is false as I discussed Jeffrey.
In your analogy you assume complete indepence between actors. Your analogy is more akin to the house being a country Jeffrey. You once again ignore the costs and dependency Jeffrey.
I can even give you real world examples of the damage done from migrants crossing ranches along the border causing tens of thousands in damage every year Jeffrey.
Your reliance on unmitigated bad sophistry is noted. Your eagerness to ignore costs and dependency leading to violations of the NAP is noted.
Again, youre a marxist socialist trying to hide your views under a veneer of libertarianism by ignoring actual costs and violations.
Youre a idiot Jeffrey.
It's not false, it's just not one that you want to discuss honestly.
Yes I assume Alice and Bob are independent, because they are free people with individual liberty. That they may each have some other relationship to the state in some other capacity is completely immaterial to the scenario that I posed.
Your analogy is more akin to the house being a country Jeffrey.
No - I am talking about two literal landowners with adjoining properties, but the property line coincides with an international border. Explain to us all why the state may rightly and justly prevent Bob from visiting Alice in the scenario that I posed above.
If you want open borders, change the constitution, you fat fuck. Or go live in one of those other countries with open borders.
Oh, wait……..
I don't believe you've read even a single one of those authors in any depth. Maybe you read a web page or quotation or two from some of them but you have not studied their ideas. If you had, you would come to realize that the entire ethos of libertarian thought is *INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY*. Putting the individual's rights and liberties above those of the state. And that is completely opposed to your team's border restrictionist crap. Frankly I wouldn't have expected you to have read any of their work because you're a conservative not a libertarian.
You can believe what you want Jeffrey. If thats what you have to tell yourself as your views are easily rebuffed do so.
I know you haven't read anything actually libertarian. You demonstrate it daily.
On my desk right now is 5 different books from those authors. More on the bookshelf.
But please. Add more lies to defend your sophistry buddy.
He will never address any hard questions and isn’t capable of doing so. Outside of blatant lies.
And even in your stupid analogy:
Alice and Bob buy a house together. They get equal share. They split costs. Alice invites Jose to move in without asking Bob. Bon still pays for half the costs despite Jose now living there. That’s the reality.
The problem in this scenario is the continued unfair distribution of costs after Jose has arrived, not Alice's invitation in the first place.
Your team's retarded idea is to forcibly prevent Alice from inviting Jose because Alice and Bob can't come to a sensible agreement on costs. Why should Jose suffer because of Alice's and Bob's idiocy?
And why did you give the guest a stereotypical Mexican name? Hmm?
The problem in this scenario is the continued unfair distribution of costs after Jose has arrived, not Alice’s invitation in the first place.
You were almost there Jeff! So close to seeing the problem. Then you retreated back to idiocy and sophistry.
Your team’s retarded idea is to forcibly prevent Alice from inviting Jose because Alice and Bob can’t come to a sensible agreement on costs. Why should Jose suffer because of Alice’s and Bob’s idiocy?
So you admit Bob bears a cost. He is now out voted by Jose and Alice and is forced to subsume more costs from property usary.
Youre so close to understanding jeff. Mouth the words out. You can even see the statistics I discussed above to see the issue.
Alice never subsumed all costs from Jose. That's not how the system works. Those costs are spread to others.
Work it out buddy.
So you admit Bob bears a cost.
Well yeah - because that is what you assumed. I'm only "admitting" that I can read what you wrote.
Alice and Bob buy a house together. They get equal share. They split costs. Alice invites Jose to move in without asking Bob. Bon still pays for half the costs despite Jose now living there.
He is now out voted by Jose
Whoa whoa whoa, I didn't say anything about voting, and neither did you in the paragraph above. Immigration is not the same as naturalization. But I do find it interesting that you immediately go to "voting" here. It is as JFree below says - your real problem here isn't with the costs incurred by Jose, but with the perceived character of Jose himself. YOU think he is going to come here and "outvote Bob". What does that have to do with the costs that he incurs? Hmm?
and Alice and is forced to subsume more costs from property usary.
If Alice invited Jose, then she isn't "forced" to do anything. If Jose is trespassing, then that is the issue. If the issue is that Alice and Bob both split costs equally even after Jose arrived, and that is not fair to Bob, then the real problem here isn't the presence of Jose but the perceived unfair distribution of costs. Which is my point. Migration and cost are two different issues.
Jose is trespassing, and Alicia is pushing the associated costs onto Bob.
And illegals aren’t migrants, they’re trespassers.
GlueJeff is repeating the errors Murry Rottbutt communists used to screw the LP. Our 1972 platform called for a lot of repeal of foce-initiating laws in the year 1972, when chemical, biological and nuclear weapons were rife--this 6 decades after socialist Jack London wrote of the West killing off all Chinamen with bioweapons. Invasion is entry without permission reinforced by tariff acts and military regs. Libertarian priorities--reducing coercion through leveraged spoiler vote clout--is not helped by specious and moronic urgings to attack national security RATHER THAN work to repeal prohibition laws and reduce taxes. EXPECT looter competitors and hostile foreign agents alike to exploit priority bugs. It's their job. OBSERVE they never ask anyone to read or compare THEIR platforms.
Do you read any libertarian writers other than these three?
Like who, Jeffy?
Marx? Foucault? Kim Sung Ju?
Katie Hill?
Sulu?
That's a big like from Jeffy, Luke Skywalker too.
I didn’t check for Bernie or any of the BLM Marxists.
Gotta wonder then if Jeffy liked any of Meathead's tweets.
Jeffy’s favorite Star Wars character is Episode 1 Anakin. Same with Shrike, and for the same reasons.
So many issues with this analogy. The least of which is the fact that governments exist and get to control their borders.
Having a friend visit is not exactly analogous to immigration. It’s 100% not analogous to illegal immigration.
There is such a house on the U.S.-Canada border at Stanstead, Que. and Derby Line, VT. John Lennon, inadmissible to These States because of something like a UK plea bargain for plant pollen, met there with other Beatles. This was all the news in Rolling Stone at the time. Lennon would come in through the Canadian door and the others were free to move through either entry.
Lennon lived in New York you imbecile
Reactionary sock puppet accuses political enemies of being democratic sock puppets, but it won't matter.
We've going to bury you either way.
You aren’t going to bury shit.
How do you propose to do that, comrade?
Leave something out?
Like child abuse?
If a kid zoomed around the living room saying he was Superman, should his parents be able to push him off the roof?
If a kid pretended to be one-armed after watching The Fugitive, should his parents be able to amputate his arm?
Fuck no! Same with puberty blockers and genital mutilation.
That's why Chase is a loser and why the LP is lost to me. I don't care one way or another about the Mises Caucus. I care about lies and I care about child abuse.
It used to be dogma that African tribal female genital mutilation was the scourge of the earth, an unimaginable evil.
It used to be dogma that homosexuality was genetically determined, not a choice, not something that could be reversed. This was the basis for banning gay conversion therapy.
It used to be dogma that chemical castration was too evil for even voluntary use by convicted rapists and pedophiles.
Now it's dogma that it is woke teachers' duty to "encourage" their kindergarten kids to want to change their gender with puberty blockers, chemical castration, and gender mutilation surgery, all without the parents' knowledge. Washington and California have actually made it illegal child abuse for parents to stop their children's "gender affirmation" surgery and will take their children away.
It used to be dogma that women needed their own sports leagues and events, with equal support as men's leagues and events.
Now it's dogma that third-rate male athletes can identify as women and enter and dominate women's events.
Why do so many drag queens feel the need to read to kids, especially while dressed up as oversexualized parodies of women? I have never heard of any strippers demanding performances with kids, or straight women dressed like drag queens.
Is gender dysphoria a real disease? If so, who should decide on the best treatment for that disease?
Looks like Chemjeff False Dilemma creator is back to his old tricks.
Lol. I hope somewhere downthread covid restrictions are discussed so Jeff can make it a trifecta of tard takes in one glorious comment thread.
It’s every issue for this fucking guy….
Can you find us the biological factor causing the disease?
Are permanent changes to a child that have negative repercussions abuse? Does your view apply to MBA? Does it apply to grooming children? Does it apply to strict and rigid discipline including physical discipline?
It is so fucking funny seeing you defend this while for years you attacked Conversion Therapy despite that having far fewer long term consequences than cutting a kids dick off or sterilizing them with pills. Lol.
Can you find us the biological factor causing the disease?
Not every disease has a direct or even well-understood biological origin. Some disease are mental disorders.
Are permanent changes to a child that have negative repercussions abuse?
They could be, or they could not be. For example, pediatric chemotherapy to treat cancer. The chemotherapy can often lead to permanent changes such as sterility.
So my standard is threefold:
(1) The action should be to treat some diagnosed disease.
(2) The action should follow some accepted standard of care.
(3) In "gray areas" when we are not sure, the libertarian impulse ought to be to err on the side of trusting parents to make wise decisions on behalf of their children.
Do you disagree? If so, why?
Not every disease has a direct or even well-understood biological origin. Some disease are mental disorders.
So a mental disorder, not disease. Glad you agree Jeffrey. Big step for you.
Do we tell anorexic people to go on diets? Pretend we can see people in the room with schizophrenic? Do we cut the arms off kids with body dismorphic disorders wanting a limb cut off? (This last one happened this year)
2) you are lying here. Because you always cite WPATH an activist groups whose "science" has been completely destroyed by the CASS report. It is why Europe and others are stopping drugs and surgery. Your standard of care seems to be what activists say, not what actual science say.
Many activist psychologists have now said sex is good for kids. Should parents now be able to sleep with their children?
Does an 11 year old comprehend the long term consequences of these activist doctors? The detransitioners you ignore say no.
3) permanent harm is not a grey area. This is sophistry. Especially for children. This is a means to set a false baseline as you leftists love to do. An undefined word/baseline meant to give yourself an out you can't defend from an objective baseline. Aka sophistry.
Youre an idiot Jeffrey.
I use the term "disease" broadly to include disorders and conditions along those lines.
Do we tell anorexic people to go on diets?
No, but we do tell the anorexic person that he/she is not well, and that he/she should get proper treatment. We don't tell the anorexic that "it's all in your head" and to "get over it" and that it's just "social contagion" and that the anorexic has just been "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated" by teachers or friends who for some bizarre reason want him/her to be anorexic.
And do you know what is the proper treatment for anorexia? I don't and I'm pretty sure you don't either. You know who else doesn't know? Trump, DeSantis, Biden, Bernie, pretty much anyone in government.
2) you are lying here. Because you always cite WPATH an activist groups whose “science” has been completely destroyed by the CASS report. It is why Europe and others are stopping drugs and surgery. Your standard of care seems to be what activists say, not what actual science say.
You haven't even read the WPATH documents or the CASS report. You just repeat what's been fed to you. WPATH has *a* standard of care, which they themselves admit is constantly evolving as new data emerges. All the CASS report said, on this topic, was that drugs and surgery shouldn't be the first intervention; that individuals suffering from gender dysphoria should first get intensive counseling. And the WPATH standard of care agrees with that!
And you know what? Based on all of that, if your child was suffering from gender dysphoria, and you wanted to reject WPATH and gender affirming care and all that, then you ought to have every right to do that. I would not force you to adopt WPATH's recommendations. On the other hand, if my child was suffering from gender dysphoria and I *did* want to follow the WPATH standard of care, you *WOULD* force me to not do that and instead follow the recommendations of a guy like DeSantis.
Many activist psychologists have now said sex is good for kids. Should parents now be able to sleep with their children?
I question the premise of this statement. But even if true: is sex with kids now adopted by the wider psychiatric community? Is there solid data to back up this position? The answer is no, so this is just a red herring.
Does an 11 year old comprehend the long term consequences of these activist doctors? The detransitioners you ignore say no.
An 11-year-old typically does not understand the long term consequences of MANY of the decisions that his/her parents make on his/her behalf. How far do you want the state to start regulating parenting, hmm Jesse? Should we get the DeSantis Moral Police into every home to start vetoing parenting decisions?
permanent harm is not a grey area.
Okay, so you want to ban pediatric chemotherapy then. Good to know. What do you recommend, Dr. Jesse, as the appropriate treatment for kids with cancer?
True story: I know a person who has a grandson who injured himself sledding on the snow. Him and his sled smashed into a concrete wall into the bottom of the hill, and he fractured his leg so badly that the only option was to amputate the leg. But, I guess under Dr. Jesse's rules, that would be "permanent harm" and therefore banned. What would you suggest to the parents of this poor child, hmm?
How are you not embarrassed to keep equating this with something like chemotherapy?
Jeffy has no shame. I'm not even sure he is capable of feeling any real shame.
Did you not see him equate bears in trunks with mitigating covid?
He’s something else, for sure.
I should also point out....
2) you've just pushed the decision making power away from an individual to another group of people. Who decides who authorizes standard of care. This is no different from government controlling the decision. It is a sophist means to pretend you want individual rights while still mandating control from some entity. The entity being whomever agrees with you politically is my guess. Such as, again, your citation of WPATH hundreds of times. Nobody empowered this group to be the owners of standard practice of care.
Lol.
2) you’ve just pushed the decision making power away from an individual to another group of people.
No, Jesse, that is you.
I believe parents should have the final say-so on how to raise their kids. You want the government's Family Moral Police to be second-guessing parental decisions.
Who decides who authorizes standard of care. This is no different from government controlling the decision.
It is very different - you are free to reject WPATH recommendations, but you are not free to reject government laws.
Such as, again, your citation of WPATH hundreds of times. Nobody empowered this group to be the owners of standard practice of care.
YOU'RE RIGHT! If you don't want to follow their standard of care then you should have the liberty not to. If there is another group with a legitimate standard of care that is based on solid empirical medical evidence then let that group put that standard forward and the medical profession collectively can have a conversation about the best way forward.
“In “gray areas” where we are not sure….”
Lol. You know why you “are not sure”, Jeff? Because you would never question “some accepted standard of care” for a “mental disorder”. “Accepted” by whom? Top men?
Yeah, there is no “gray area”. Leave the kids alone.
Most professionals will say it is real, though I’m not sure if it’s a disease or a condition. I know parents who are dealing with it. It’s not easy. I agree with Oliver in that these decisions are for professionals and parents, not politicians.
Social contagion.
Do you have a citation for most professionals?
His "professionals" are Jim Beam, Jack Daniels, Smirnoff, Captain Morgan, and Jose Cuervo, living on Boone's Farm with a Natural Light.
According to God's Own Prohibitionists, the Republican National Committee was personally appointed by God, Allah and Jehovah to mete out deadly force in resolution of any and all such questions. To enslave, a gang must divide and conquer. So rather than icky individual rights, invent a bunch of collectivized transfer payments or weaponized social customs, equivocate as bogus "rights" and use those to drive the wedge. Rinse, repeat and take bids on the death camps. Christian National Socialists wrote the book on that.
It is. And competent doctors are a good start. Not random government school employees, or government bureaucrats.
I think there are basically three cases for transgenderism.
Firstly, it's currently a fad and in vogue among young people, like anorexia or eating tide pods.
Secondly, some people are just troubled and think becoming transgender will solve their problems.
Thirdly, those that genuinely are. It's something that's been around forever. I don't know why.
But in either case, who should be the judge of what happens to kids? The parents or the government? Maybe parents will make the wrong decision, but that doesn't mean the government should make the decision for them.
This is exactly the argument from 1990. (https://www.fortfreedom.org/b29.htm) Anarchist Rottbuttians were infiltrating the LP to the exasperation of objectivist acidheads and other stakeholders--as of when Reagan was elected by the Ayatollah of Iran. Whackjobs wanted legalized murder, vigilante lynch mobs and the like "competing" for power, fuck the Constitution. So mental cases like Starkiddie demanded planks for six-year-old prostitutes claiming NAP protection. Our vote tallies fell as platforms became wordy, which was the whole point of the infiltration.
More countries ditching hegemony of USD/Euro - Bolivia President Luis Arce tells RT at SPIEF 2024
More and more countries are developing payment systems that will become an alternative to the hegemony of the dollar and the euro, Arce said on the sidelines of SPIEF.
He said that payment alternatives need to be gradually developed, in order to use national currencies in trade; BRICS members are already successfully doing this.
Western unipolar hegemony losing the plot
Olaf, Berserker!
Meanwhile China is dumping treasuries and the BRICs are buying gold.
https://x.com/The_Real_Fly/status/1799503860945322274?t=O-qFr3BwylypONj7C1DV1A&s=19
GAY PARADE IN UKRAINE SOMEWHAT RUINED BY MOBILIZATION VANS SENT TO RECRUIT GAYS INTO WAR
[Link]
They will never leave their buddies behind.
They probably thought they knew all about BOHICA, wait until Uncle Vlodko gets their asses.
And are experts at flanking.
“Oliver was attacked online by Mises Caucus members”
Because he’s a censorious socialist wearing a libertarian skin suit, Zach, you stupid cosmotarian fuck. No libertarian would support the things Chase has.
Libertarianism isn’t just about legal weed and butt-fucking. It’s also free speech and civil rights. Something you closeted Democrats don’t give two shits about.
To put the above article in context, folks, this was Zach in 2020:
Who do you plan to vote for this year? It makes me a little queasy, but I’ll be voting for Joe Biden, primarily for three reasons: (1) A feeble president Biden seems like an opportunity to erode the power and glamour of the dangerous cult of the presidency and also push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins, creating space for a more libertarian-friendly coalition to emerge. (2) Trump was an even more selfish and incompetent leader than I thought he’d be, he seems willing to stoke chaos to hold onto power, and I’m sick of talking and hearing about him. (3) The Libertarian Party doesn’t have a clear electoral strategy or even sense of purpose and continually seems to miss golden opportunities.
https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/
zachasmic may have voted for Biden reluctantly and strategically.
He was a little queasy.
Queasy, giddy, it's all the same.
C'mon Olaf, girls think sexy!
I love how you all think that voting for Biden is some unforgivable sin, but voting for Trump - the guy who unrepentantly cheated on his wife and slept with a porn star, the guy who lies habitually, the guy who "joked" about being dictator for a day, the guy who thinks of illegal immigrants as "poison of the blood of the nation", the guy who put the country $8 trillion in debt, the guy who based his entire campaign on scapegoating and vilifying foreigners, the guy who was a Democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat before he was a Republican, the guy who has no principles or integrity whatsoever - yeah, voting for that guy is no big deal.
Not all of us follow the worst liberals on Twitter and read Dark Brandon fan fiction like yourself.
But thank you for admitting youre a Democrat.
Look at all that Gish Gallop.
I love how you all think that voting for Biden is some unforgivable sin
Because it is, you shit-smearing DNC politruk. In four fucking years his puppeteers have done more to ruin and destroy the US than any American since Jefferson Davies.
A bunch of sneering halfwits with Political Science majors and Finance degrees, but no actual skills, have brought the US to near societal collapse, tried to instigate a race war, have violated every article in the constitution on a near daily basis and funneled hundreds of billions into the MIC and pharmaceutical corporations who are their true lord and masters.
Fuck them, fuck you, and fuck everyone who voted for them.
but voting for Trump – the guy who unrepentantly cheated on his wife and slept with a porn star
Look at you try and concern troll.
Since when does a pedophile-adjacent child castrationist, and full on rainbow sex cult true believer give a shit about marital fidelity? Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
You squeal like a stuck pig about evil x-tian nationalists enforcing their morality, and then pretend to get the vapors that a reality TV showman banged a porn star.
Tell us, did you feel the same opprobrium for Kennedy and Clinton?
"the guy who put the country $8 trillion in debt"
Nobody falls for that, shill. Everyone remembers the Covid hysteria. Everyone knows Pelosi and Schumer conceived, wrote, pushed and voted for those spending bills. Did Trump sign them? Yes, and that was stupid, but don't pretend your Democrat masters weren't the progenitors.
the guy who based his entire campaign on scapegoating and vilifying foreigners
Look at you try and conflate law-breaking illegals with legitimate immigrants like Melania and foreigners in general. It's your favorite trick but it's never worked.
Only Sarcasmic ever falls for it, and even then not really.
the guy who was a Democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat before he was a Republican
So? People wake up. Most former Democrats are repelled by what you guys have become. Nazis, fascists, kleptocrats and thugs.
the guy who has no principles or integrity whatsoever
From the guy who comes here and lies so much that everyone calls him Lying Jeffy. From the guy who shills for the senile crook who made his millions peddling influence. Who hits on kids. Who censors the internet. Who jails dissidents. Who arrests his opponents.
You're the last person who should be feigning concern for "principles", because you don't have any.
Every time I don't think I could loathe you more, you drop down another level.
Biden is sadly the most libertarian person Jeff knows.
Pol Pot is the most libertarian person Jeff knows.
Human traffickers are the modern day underground railroad.
Harriet Tubman was a Christian nationalist.
Hairy Fat Tubbyman is not.
Biden had a 50 year track record of being one of the slimiest, war mongering, rights abusing politicians to run for the office. And that’s not even getting into the very overt signs of abject corruption.
That may have something to do with it.
That is why Zach was a little queasy. Just a little.
Spoiler votes pack a large multiple of the law-changing clout of voting looter--and LP spoiler votes (avoiding antichoice looter infiltrators rife in Texas) reverse the errors of communist and prohibitionist parties of 1870 to 1970. The looter factions are pretty identical, motivated--like Guiteau, Czolgosz and like looter anarchists--by sinecure-seeking. Any difference of 2% makes one lose, delete planks and repeal laws. Voters use third parties to cause looter factions to change or lose. It works. Only an idiot votes Kleptocracy instead of libertarian because that dilutes their clout. See https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/getting-their-attention-with-spoiler-votes/
Now talk about how a Biden raped a staffer and serially molested his own preteen daughter in the shower.
I dare you.
Lol. Yeah, “identitarians” are waaaayyyy “back to the margins”.
The L Party wants to "stop Trump"?
Here's a broom; the tide's coming in.
The LP needs to address the single most important topic facing the American people today, and that is the debt.
How is it going to be paid off?
When it going to be paid off?
Who is going to bear the brunt of payments?
Unless this debt is paid off, there is a real chance the US might suffer the same consequences the old Soviet Union did back in the early 1990's.
A wise man once said, "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
Red Herring detected. Lack of freedom caused the debt. Restoration of freedom makes it possible to eliminate said debt. Laws banning trade and production are the liabilities column. Republicans want christian national socialism as the only (to them) imaginable alternative to materialist soviet socialism. The world is not a one-dementional monofilament of altruistic superstition, but clumsy false alternatives are.
A power struggle consumes the LP?
That's very ironic, since they have no power.
Cripple fight!
Libertarianism was destroyed by entryism, and there’s really nothing to be done about it.
A libertarian already has everything he needs in his intellectual toolkit to recreate progressivism from scratch. And eventually, he does.
Which is why libertarians and other classical liberals, always and forever, end up getting coopted and undermined by progtards. They’re in a perpetual war with their own grandchildren. And that's a war you can never win.
Don’t forget the TEA Party. Those classical liberals got co-opted by the far right.
I know. Adam Kizinger, jeff flake, ken buck, Joe Walsh, justin amash, and others all became nazi flag waiving far right Trump cultists.
Is there anything stupid you dont say?
You ever wondered if Sarc has dentures? Between his obnoxious rants and the ravages of severe alcohol abuse, I can’t see him having any real teeth left.
"Those classical liberals got co-opted by the far right."
How so, and define "far-right".
What does that descriptor mean to you other than something used on CNN to refer to the "bogeyman"?
Far right .. from what I can gather from CNN 'reporting' is that group of people who want to show respect for and act to conserve what remains of fealty to the constitution.
Ever notice how the democrat media has never ever used the term ‘far left’?
They are all too aware of how quickly they would be publicly denounced, cashiered, and shipped off to the 'learn 2 code' gulag..
Tea meant Totalitarians Equivocating Anarchists. They combined to force females to reproduce at gunpoint--that is--worry God's Own Prohibitionists that there were two admittedly regrettable but clearly distinguishable post-election scenarios; one where the commie Dems back emancipating women from slavery and the other where the sword of Arian Caucasian Jesus smites Jewish Bolshevist race suicide dead in its tracks. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/the-tea-party-effect/
Attempting to "swing elections" in the manner stated is the delusion. It can be said to "work" only by drawing enough votes from the major candidate closest to those voters' desires, that the major candidate farthest from those voters' desires is elected. Once enough voters realize that's the strategy, they would not vote for the spoiler, since the spoiler's interest is inimical to their own.
The goal is to shift the more sympathetic party further in the right direction, by showing them they can't take you for granted, and have to address your concerns or lose your support. So you may lose in the short run, but gain more ground in the long run.
But if your positions at that extreme were that unpopular to begin with, wouldn't the more sympathetic party decide instead to ignore your wishes, rather than bend to your extremes and turn off the rest of the party?
Roberta's childlike innocence confesses total ignorance of the stipulations in political party platforms. Those are lists of the sort of laws the party seeks to enforce at gunpoint no matter what grinning idiot is out there pandering for votes. Small party spoiler votes make the more recalcitrant half of the Kleptocracy LOSE. By THEIR lights "lose" means no nose in the trough or butt seated in Congress. The LP spoiler is only inimical to the parasites who convince idiots that WINNING is being robbed and shot by MY party. Hosts benefit when the more parasitical party LOSES. Their losing is the voter's winning. Any child can understand this. It is evolution in action. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/05/09/spoiler-clout-example/
What a concept!
A power struggle among the powerless.
Cripple fight.
Damn... you beat me to it (response to CE, above).
So the Mises candidate gets too high to even participate in the presidential nominating convention while the winner prances around in rainbow flags demanding chemical castration for kids. Which one of these clowns should Trump nominate for his cabinet?
When did saying something should be between parents and professionals become a demand?
Is that which is not prohibited mandatory?
Well this is bookmarked.
I assume you also think sex is between parents and their kid as well. Same level of argumentation.
To looter altruists it is. In South American languages, after decades of having gringo Kleptocracy politicians decide all elections from Brownsville or Calexico to Magallanes, the idea of something NOT being prohibited or required elicits the same bovine incomprehension as the explanation to a gathering of communist students that uninvited threatening and robbing at gunpoint is the same thing as the initiation of force. Liz Wolfe, the Squeaky Fromme of mystical MAGAts, is a textbook example of this bovine incomprehension in today's context.
"his view that parents and not the state should decide whether puberty blockers can be prescribed to minors"
This is the libertarian version of "gender affirming care". Who can argue with affirming care? Why do you want to deny parents their right to decide? Puberty blockers create permanent physical disabilities. They are not reversible. Using them on a child is an act of aggression. A violation of the NAP. It is a legitimate function of government to outlaw physical aggression even on the part of parents.
I don't get how it's called "affirming care" when it seeks to disaffirm someone's gender. Why modify your body to align with outdated gender stereotypes? Just be as masculine or as feminine as you like.
I guess for the same reason the pro-abortion types call it "reproductive freedom" when the goal is to not reproduce -- putting a friendlier name on something reprehensible.
^THIS^
I support reality-affirming care. You're not a woman, learn to deal with it rather than chopping off your penis so you can pretend that you are.
If you’re not going to stop supporting the intentional killing of the in utero, you’re not going to stop supporting normalized sexual deviancy (and now with the added awfulness of grooming children in it), and you’re not going to stop supporting the socially destructive recreational drug culture, and you’re not going to stop your open borders nonsense – well, sorry guys, but you’re at odds with most constituent groups across America. The only ones you’re not are, surprise, in the blue strongholds.
You keep trying to pretend you’re different from Democrats, but virtually every policy position you take is the Democrat one. These both anti-American and anti-human positions of: kill the babies, trans the kids, turn everyone else into addicts, and hand over America to foreigners? It’s just not a winning party platform.
I just don't get how you expect any normal, rational person to go along with any of that.
Libertarians are not "normal" rational people. They are often abnormal rational people though.
But why are you concerned with libertarians at all? Doesn't the MAGA republican party align with everything you want from the libertarians?
Libertarianism ≠ MAGAism
You're a leftist who still disguises your rhetoric.
That is all.
Great to have you back, Nardz.
Not even a little bit.
MAGA has more - far more - in common with the Marxist Left than they do anyone else. Literally, the ONLY thing that distinguishes them is their policy goals.
Interesting. I guess I misjudged you.
Even though you’re trying to smear, you’re not completely wrong.
Like early socialists and communists, MAGA is primarily a workers movement more concerned with the constitutional rights of workers and their enrichment, than handing the corporatist gentry class carte blanche to continue to loot the nation.
Where MAGA differs is that it is restorative rather than revolutionary, and wants to reduce the state’s power rather than increase it. In that it is the opposite of the Marxist left.
"Literally, the ONLY thing that distinguishes them is their policy goals."
Umm, lol. "They're completely the same except for all the important parts".
The important parts being their understanding of and approach to governance.
Where MAGA differs is that it is restorative rather than revolutionary, and wants to reduce the state’s power rather than increase it. In that it is the opposite of the Marxist left.
How?
Let me guess, legislatively? *smirk*
How else other than legislatively.
Wait... did you just actually try and conflate enacting legislation to divest power with handing the state power?
"*smirk*"
Mike Hihn just returned from the grave.
SNICKER
(Imagine it in a ghostly voice)
Now tell me why MAGA voted for Mitt Romney. On Trump's explicit endorsement.
MAGA believes the same thing the Marxists do. All the power in one guy. Their guy.
Their leader. Their fix to America. Their savior and messiah.
Same way the left felt about Barack.
or maybe for some of us it has a lot more to do with their political agenda and who's agenda is "worse than".... Trump is one of very few that wasn't picking the least-worse but actually picking a slightly better. Some of us are down-right tired of the treasonous [Na]tional So[zi]alist agenda promising to go STEAL for a ?free? pony.
Right. As he pisses all over his former Veep. Who was his single best trait.
Well gosh, who SHOULD we support? You’re so goddamned smart, tell us.
I could never presume to tell you that. Vote your conscience. Vote who you thinks best represents YOU and YOUR voice in government.
Trumps De-Regulation Committee?
I'd say MAGA separates from Republican better than Libertarians. I believe most non-biased people would fit Trump into the Libertarian-Republican label.
Why Libertarians decided to join leftards and their insane TDS BS is beyond me. Has any Libertarian even made a decent Trump Policy disagreement that isn't a flat-out lie besides Border Security? There is so much blind prejudice and bias about Trump it's absurd. Sheeple of mass-media indoctrination.
Agreed.
Yes
It is always fascinating to see the right wingers claim libertarians are lefties while the lefties claim libertarians are right wingers.
The main point you're mistaken on is where you've conflated libertarian principles with the libertarian party and them claim that the majority of Americans don't align with libertarian values. A far greater number of Americans share values with the libertarians than they do the major parties. Luke you most of them don't know what libertarian values are because they are disrted being propaganda and the shitshow of the Libertarian party.
The simple truth is that the type of people who believe in libertarian values are rarely the ones interested in seeking political power and the ones that do in their name tend to be kooks from the extremes.
...
Not just Americans, but people of all places and times, share values with libertarians and with authoritarians. Most people see these not as absolutes trumping (heh) all other considerations, but of desires to be weighed against each other, and a favorable (to them) compromise found. It's a mistake to refer to "the libertarians" when practically everyone is libertarian to some degree. It's also a mistake to refer to "values" as being of the major parties, when those parties reflect a shifting mix of persons with various opinions and priorities.
Actually it's not even sensible to refer to "authoritarians" in terms of values. There's practically nobody ever with authoritarian values. To have authoritarian values, you'd have to think that depriving people of freedom is a good in and of itself, and there's practically nobody mean enough to believe so. For instance on the issue of abortions, do you know of anybody who thinks, "I don't care whether abortion is forbidden or mandatory, as long as it's one or the other. I don't want anyone to have a choice in the matter."?
No, "authoritarians" are simply persons with other values who under-weight the value of liberty. They think certain social aims are worthwhile even if implementing them would require some sacrifice of freedom.
So most people have libertarian and other opinions in varying proportion. They value liberty, and they also value other goals that may conflict with their valuation of liberty here and there. Nobody is authoritarian per se.
The main point you’re mistaken on is where you’ve conflated libertarian principles with the libertarian party
Isn't "libertarian principles" kind of an oxymoron?
The simple truth is that the type of people who believe in libertarian values are rarely the ones interested in seeking political power and the ones that do in their name tend to be kooks from the extremes.
aka Reason.com.
There’s the libertarian conundrum.
How do you get people with no desire to control others into a position where they can reduce the size and scope of government?
Not carrying water for Marxist democrats might be a good start.
Anyone convinced that FREEDOM IS SLAVERY has to also believe that abortion is murder. There is no other way for a coward to convince dupes that they (not he) ought to pick up a gun and go bully them bitches, shoot doctors and cops for Jesus. Kurt Vonnegut brought this out as a thought experiment long before Robert Dear became the hero of Dave Skank and the Jesus Caucus. To enslave women you first declare them NOT to be individuals. Quod Erat Demonstratum.
If you’re not going to stop supporting the intentional killing of the in utero, you’re not going to stop supporting normalized sexual deviancy (and now with the added awfulness of grooming children in it), and you’re not going to stop supporting the socially destructive recreational drug culture...
You could always move to Michigan and vote with the Islamic bloc you are ideologically aligned with.
When has the LP not been a shitshow?
1972. Before Rottbutt anarco-communist infiltrators acted to drive the LP back into the arms of Nixon Republicans the platform was as good as it gets. Vote share to 1976 increased at a rate the slope of which is one degree shy of vertical. To help Reagan bully girls and bust hippies, whackjob infiltrators were in great demand.
You get that everyone here sees you as a pathetic senile joke, right?
I'm starting the NAP Party it has a one plank platform, prohibit government coercion.
Needs to be coercion or force.
In case individuals do not do the “right thing,” it will be necessary.
Needs to be deterrence or retaliatory force.
So, how do you enforce the ban?
It will be an interesting experiment, selecting a candidate for president who will appeal to the social conservatives with his view that abortion after the point of viability (usually considered 15 weeks) is murder. We'll see how that works out.
We saw already. Televangelists drooled on Donnie. Donnie packed the court to overturn the Libertarian plank adopted as the Roe decision. Donnie got his fat ass bounced off the asphalt in BOTH the popular and the electoral college votes. Read the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments. Women have individual citizen rights and the vote. Anything that is not an individual lacks these. Bodily Autonomy is here to stay; the Republican Party is not. Heck... even the Prohibition Party has given up demands for Girl Slavery by Amendment!
Jail the climate deniers ? Is there is no room in the asylums ?
https://x.com/unlimited_ls/status/1799259487884182010?t=Vt7AsA5GYJ0jVsGbZ3VQyg&s=19
JUST IN: BodyCAM Footage captures the suspect's arrest and the moments after the three-year-old boy was RANDOMLY TARGETED and STABBED to DEATH outside an Ohio supermarket while his mother was loading groceries into the back of her car
The Wood's family has raised over $210,000 to support Margot's husband Jared, covering Julian's funeral costs, legal expenses, and helping his wife recover
The family said they were overwhelmed by the support they received from friends and strangers at the beginning of a "long journey to recovery."
'Our family is overwhelmed with sadness,' they wrote in a collective statement.
'We have no explanation as to how or why this happened, it was a random act of violence. There was no prior altercation, they did not know each other… this was a malicious random act.'
'She has devastated our family beyond words, she took something from us we can never get back.'
'We will continue to share stories about our beautiful baby boy, his laugh, his cheesy smile, his rambunctious attitude, his love of dinosaurs, his love of school,' they wrote.
'His obsession with his new baby sister and wrestling his big brother every chance he gets... and all the other beautiful things about that sweet little boy.'
STORY:
Margot Wood, 38, and her son Julian Wood, 3, were attacked while loading groceries at Giant Eagle in North Olmstead, Cleveland, around 3 pm on Monday
Police called the attack an 'entirely a random act of violence'. and said the woman had no motive
Julian suffered fatal stab wounds to his back and cheek while sitting in a shopping trolley
The mother sustained non-life-threatening injuries. Both were rushed to St. John Medical Center
Bionca Ellis, 32, had been arrested days earlier on a parole violation after an unrelated incident at a Walmart but was released
She visited the North Olmsted Police Department on Monday morning to discuss her arrest
Ellis has been charged with aggravated murder and her bail was set at $1 million
[Video]
‘We have no explanation as to how or why this happened, it was a random act of violence.
I'm not so sure that's true.
No, I don't think she was specifically targeted by BLM - but it's not a far grasp to conclude that BLM, and its enablers among the media/left, is definitely the root cause of this sudden urge to randomly kill white people.
When Barack's and Kendi's disciples ramp the overt racism and enraged hatred up to a fever pitch, it's only a matter of time before their useful idiots start acting on the doctrine. It's not like we haven't seen this sort of thing before. You can read all about it in Helter Skelter.
Adores Trump is certain only that bitches need to be forced at gunpoint to reproduce no matter how many of them it kills. I hope his Republican buddies continue to rule all motions to change that plank "out of order," and make female enslavement their last stand the way Custer made autochthone genocide his last stand. The Jesus Caucus made sure no sane woman will read the platform and vote libertarian. Their choice votes will go to the Dems--despite Chase Oliver's courage and integrity. The Dems learned from experience.
Weird irrelevant reply that doesn't seem connected to anything. But OK.
He’s a hippie crackpot that’s gone totally senile and has delusions of libertarianism.
“When seconds count, the police are minutes away”
Seriously, the only chance that kid might have had would’ve been mom blasting the subhuman dead where she stood. Literally no other option.
A horrible lesson of why to CCW and get quality, practical training.
https://x.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1799561939560919415?t=G6aMOAUo2w4fkQKWmbBOUA&s=19
Lone unarmed old white dude with a fat lip of snuff in, trying in vain to protect his country’s legacy from a multicultural gender inclusive mob mindlessly chanting and destroying it while assaulting him and calling him the oppressor
What a scene. What a frigging perfect scene.
[Link]
It's amazing to me how the irony of it is lost on ALL of them.
Nope. One does not expect honesty from girl-bullying looters.
DC looks lovely this time of year
Which ones were mtrueman, Misek, and Jeff?
lol
That's what Bob Dole said after Ford Pardoned Nixon.
They all deserve death
Considering who the party just selected as nominee, they're going to do neither.
Unless the pan was to select Oliver to siphon votes away from Biden.
The MC members may have been playing 3D chess with the choice.
Tue really smart move would be to do that after making a secret deal with Trump for some libertarian concessions should Trump be elected.
Which is more than they’ll get otherwise.
They may have already cut a deal with Trump, but we'll never find out if he had them sign one of his rock-solid NDAs.
Fico Scores
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, recovering from serious injuries and subsequent operations, votes in the elections. Fico once again accused the West of inciting war and called for voting for those deputies who oppose the war.
Is Fico the most Experianced candidate? Is he going to form some kind of TransUnion Party of anti-war candidates?
Well lets start with the BOLD FACED LIE.
Trump did not add $8T to the debt. That lie was spread on the premise of a 10-year prediction. Literally taking the Tax-Cuts as an expense over a 10-year period. The only president mass-media changes the general meaning for. Without the COVID year US National Debt only grew $2.5T total the first 3-years. Obama added $2T ins just 2009 (1-year) alone.
Libertarians joining the BS media TDS propaganda just makes them look like leftards.
Of course it's a lie. Everyone knows Pelosi and Schumer conceived, created, wrote, pushed and voted for those spending bills.
Trump signed them and that was stupid, but Zach is trying to pretend the Democrats had nothing to do with it. Pure dishonesty.
I’m sure omitting those truths left him a little queasy.
According to Investopedia, the national debt over the Trump and Biden presidencies:
2017 $20,245 Congress raised the debt ceiling
2018 $21,516 Trump tax cuts
2019 $22,719 Trade wars
2020 $26,945 COVID-19 and recession
2021 $28,428 COVID-19 and American Rescue Plan Act
2022 $30,928 Inflation Reduction Act
2023 $33,167
The comments are those of Investopedia, not mine. From 2017 to 2021 the debt did increas by $8T, all of which was signed off by Trump. This, along with his craven support of Fauci show that, contrary to the propagandists, Trump was not a dictator, but a man cowed by “ratings”. He lacked the guts to say “No!” to either the Democrats or Fauci. Sure, Biden has been worse but it’s more like comparing strokes to heart attacks rather than “good” policies vs “bad” policies.
Investopedia ended its data in 2023. The data came from the St Louis Fed. Continuing that data, Biden drove the debt to $34.5T by 1st quarter 2024.
G W Bush doubled the national debt, Obama redoubled it and the devastating one-two punch of Trump-Biden has nearly redoubled it again.
The 2024 election isn’t about good vs evil, it’s about buying time to allow for sanity to eventually prevail.
LOL.. Do you think Trump served a 5-year term?
(1)2017, (2)2018, (3)2019, (4)2020, (5)2021
Even if you want to throw in his COVID year $26.9-$20.2 = 6.7 not 8.
Biden's stands at $34.5-$26.9 = 7.6 (on track to be the 8T winner).
But throwing in Trumps COVID year doesn't make an accurate picture of this non-COVID spending patterns now does it? Needless to say it was all over by the time Biden came so his Administration literally has no-excuse. As well as being the very party that wrote, pitched, and passed Trumps CARES ACT (COVID bill).
To God's Own Prohibitionists it's a choice between Trump and Race Suicide compounded by Reefer Madness. The platform takes six hours to read, but that's what it boils down to. The DEM platform says it's a choice between banning all energy the way the GOP wants to ban all drugs (except gin and cigarettes) and Warmunist Sharknado End Times. Each looter party defines "winning" as what IT gets to do to the voters without so much as a reach-around.
Ironically it was the DEM's who passed the Controlled Substances Act.
He doesn’t know. He just raves about Comstock and a few other things. He probably is in some kind of assisted living for his advanced dementia. Although I’m sure he’s been considered a weirdo crackpot his entire adult life. The kind where you cross the street to avoid interacting with him.
And the current Dem President who pushed it, and the current Dem VP who enforced it.
The Trump tax cuts ended up increasing revenue to the treasury.
Yeah, people always overlook the facts, or had already claimed our money for the government, based on older tax rates (which are coming back folks.)
If the feds had frozen spending at 2018 levels, the budget would be balanced already. Instead they jacked it up by 50% in 5 years.
I think the Libertarian Party needs to focus in personal freedom. Guns, drugs, sex.
Like it or not, no one is going to cut government spending that they like. And someone likes something. Even Reason is in favor of government museums, paying for abortions, goodies for illegals.
Precisely why the nations founders wrote a Supreme Law of the Land (US Constitution) that prohibited 'Gov-Gun' THEFT livings. (i.e. wealth distribution).
Once people start believing they can get away with 'armed-theft' of those 'icky' people ( ILLEGAL activity by the Supreme Law ); the definition of 'icky' continues to grow to fill-in for the zero-sum resources of the stealing game until it eventually it eats everyone.
There's criminal-mentality purpose behind today's mob-narrative that 'democracy' can elect Al'Capone as sheriff who will ignore the Supreme Law of the Land for gangland politics.
It's important for people not to allow themselves to be indoctrinated by this leftard-BS and actually understand the USA is a *Constitutional* (Supreme Law) Republic NOT a 'democracy'. If people can't find the definition of a USA (Constitution) it becomes whatever gangland politics wants it to be.
...
It'd be great if we could mobilize a constituency in favor of personal freedom. Unfortunately, all over the world, these issues are considered only in the particular, as to whether they concern "people like us" or "people like them". Anytime, anywhere a restriction on "personal" types of freedom is proposed for enacting or lifting, the political consideration is always mostly about "whom" the change is going to affect. We didn't even get freedom of religion in many countries out of some unifying principle, but just in recognition, borne of long experience, that particular religions fighting each other leads to no good in the long run, so they gave up.
I'd be interested in some way to break out of this paradigm.
"break out of this paradigm"
STOP using 'Guns' (Gov-Guns) about everything.
The curse isn't in the disagreements; the curse is in the belief that all people need to forced into lockstep (i.e. Gov-Gun deserving).
Precisely why (*Individual*) keyword; Liberty and Justice is the only human asset 'Gov-Guns' can provide. Just like the Supreme Law and foundation of this nation encapsulates.
Move to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or any Mohammedanistan and feel it on your hide. Comprehension will dawn promptly.
I think that the Libertarian Party needs to get a shovel, dig a six foot deep trench, jump in and pull the dirt in over them.
Seriously, 50 years and Chase Oliver is the best they can do?
This year, the Libertarian Party will engage in voter assisted suicide.
I see nominating Chase Oliver as a stealth Trump endorsement. I wonder if the Mises Caucus deliberately tanked their own candidate
The Jesus Caucus platform no longer defends individual rights for women. Bigots like Amash, the Paul hillbillies, Dave Skank, Baby Ginger Hitler, Tokyo Pink and whutername, the Quisling, have seen to that. The immigration plank still says to import terrists, parasites and enemy agents the way Thomas Knapp insisted it me rephrased. On the 1972 or 2016 platform Chase could easily get 8 million votes, even actually be inaugurated if either geezer keeled over. But with National Socialist infiltrators crippling the platform to suit Alabama Caucasians, not so good. Oliver is the best candidate since John Hospers, or Gary Johnson. Pity the enemies of freedom were able to scotch the Austin convention and Anschluss us in Reno. They are sure to claim Oliver's success as their own doing.
No one reads or knows the LP platform. No one has ever heard of Chase Oliver. The over/under for his vote total is more like 0.8 million than 8.0 million.
And calling principled medical doctors who have done more to advance the cause of liberty than all the Libertarians put together "hillbillies" sounds somewhat racist, or at least rises to the level of microaggression.
I think there is a very strong desire for an alternate party but not at the Presidential level. It is simple too big a leap. With the country divided and the existing parties weaking, there is room for libertarian growth. That growth is in young moderates. People who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. People who don't like the foolish policies pushed by extremes at either end of the political spectrum. The place where the libertarian can make the most effect is to get a few House seats and use that for leverage.
The idea is to use spoiler votes to make the slouchiest looters lose. Ask Hillary. Lookit how the Dems suddenly are all for women and repealing some bad laws.
The dems are against women, you stupid old hippie Marxist. Especially the 50% of babies that an infanticidal old faggot like you wants to murder. Then throw in the women that are robbed, raped and murdered by your illegals, and top off with the utter disregard for women’s rights when the democrats force tranny men into women’s private spaces.
The Presidential race is the only one people hear about though. Most people don't even know who their representative in Congress is, or what they have done, other than the party label. Harry Browne covered this many years ago.
"Just get a few House seats" sounds easier, but it's not.
The LP's strategy is really the only rational course of action, given the facts on the ground. The simple fact is there are two positions:
1. Make Chase Oliver the LP nominee
2. Draw any significant votes from Trump rather than Biden.
But, the two are mutually exclusive. You can only have one. And the liberaltarians foisted position 1 on the LP. Given that, targeting Biden voters, and therefore more likely throwing the election to Trump, is the strategy that will optimize the LP's performance.
Can a Libertarian Party so deeply divided on questions of strategy and ideology make a difference?
Why start now?
"My message is pretty simple to those voters out there who have not heard from Libertarian: It's that if you're not committing force, fraud, coercion, theft or violence, if you're just living in peace, your life is your life. Your body is your body. Your property is your property, and your business is your business."
But your country is not your country! say the leaders of the party.
Well, who does it belong to, if not we the people? Why can't we make whatever laws regarding immigration we think is in our best interests?
Open borders is a goal, but not very practical in our current reality. As a theoretical idea, I agree with the notion of open borders, but in a practical sense it is not viable.
Too many things need to be dismantled first and we don't live in a libertarian vacuum. And even if we did live in a libertarian vacuum, libertarians (or Libertan Mike ter Maat) do not uniformly agree.
The reality and what is practical is to reduce the inefficacy on the government bureaucracy, so legal immigration is incentivized and illegal border crossings are dis-incentivized.
Power struggle within a Party that has no power to wield. Facinating.
You mean like two fingerless lepers fighting for who gets to wear the One Ring?
I’ve seen a lot in the comments about how immigration hurts economically, but this is fallacious thinking akin to arguments against free trade and automation. There is an infinite amount of labor to be done, people will always demand more. And in a free market (no welfare state), everyone produces more than they consume with the extra going toward maintaining and producing capital goods that then contribute to future productivity. So purchasing power increases due to immigration. If it makes wages fall, then prices fall even more.
The reason this is counterintuitive is because currently we have inelastic supply in essential goods such as housing due to governmental restrictions such as zoning and permitting laws. So currently immigration reduces purchasing power.
Furthermore, other arguments I see about social cohesion or a desire for ethnic homogeneity are rendered moot if discrimination and segregation on private property (which all property should be) were legal. Then individuals could simply live in whatever environment they want with likeminded property owners. No reason for a nationwide ban on immigration under that scenario.
The only potential issue is that the countries that migrants come from are overwhelmingly socialist minded. Any grant of political power to them would be suicidal for a libertarian nation. Even if you don’t allow them to vote, just their presence will eventually lead to irresistible calls for suffrage. That is something that is very difficult to solve. It still does’t affect the issue of guest workers who come here to work and retire in their countries. But those who enter permanently and start families could easily become a political nightmare down the road.
“Can a Libertarian Party so deeply divided on questions of strategy and ideology make a difference?”
That one’s easy – not just “no” but “hell no!” The reason the LP is so deeply divided is that NEITHER approach being fought over will make any difference. The question that should be asked by them is, “In what way is the situation the Libertarian Party finds itself in now any different from the situation we were in sixty years ago?” There is a persistent pernicious false dichotomy between the purist “winning hearts and minds” versus the pragmatic “building the base” strategies that obscures the only thing we can do that can possibly make a difference: replacing the two-party district-based winner-takes-all election system with a proportional representation system in every legislature in America and in the Congress – a project that is both do-able and achievable.
There is a persistent pernicious false dichotomy between the purist “winning hearts and minds” versus the pragmatic “building the base” strategies that obscures the only thing we can do that can possibly make a difference: replacing the two-party district-based winner-takes-all election system with a proportional representation system in every legislature in America and in the Congress – a project that is both do-able and achievable.
I'd be all for that. Let political parties say what they really want and let politicians work within parties that they really fit within, instead of them picking one because they can't get elected outside of the two-party system. That way, the compromises between factions occur out in the open as a coalition is built, instead of most of it happening behind the stage.
The primary goal of the new Libertarian Party isn't winning national elections, which Heise considers delusional, but to leverage its ability to draw enough votes to swing the election. Through its "spoiler status," the hope is that the L.P. can extract concessions and gain influence.
This seems to be what every small political movement uses as a strategy these days. If they can position themselves within a larger coalition that would not have a majority except for their small support, then they can greatly magnify their power. Trying to increase their appeal to a wider set of voters could actually work against that goal. In order to widen their appeal, they might have to stretch their outreach toward both sides. To be part of one side's coalition though, they have to adamantly and vocally oppose the other side, which is likely to drive off even the voters on the edge of that side's support.
This has been a significant source of the dysfunction in U.S. government. Slim majorities allow small groups of or even individual legislators to make or break legislation. This results in greatly disproportionate amounts of power to be held by legislators that represent a small fraction of the country.
Unfortunately it doesn't work. Leveraging only works on single issues, one at a time and it only work on individual pieces of legislation from INSIDE the legislature. The LP cannot form a coalition because we can only influence one party at a time on issues that they can compromise with us on - for example, smaller government, less regulation and lower taxes with the Republicans; or whatever with the Democrats - never mind. But not with both at the same time and only in purple districts where two to five percent of the votes makes a difference in the election. Even then there is no guarantee that after we help them win an election that they will stay "bought."
Thanks for an understandable analysis of the Mises Caucus and its opposition. The LP needs to find a way to be the "party of principle" and to communicate those principles without immediately going to the anarchist extreme.
Recently, I have realized that the ultimate anarchist goal is not feasible in a functioning society, and we have a good example of what anarchy would look like in international relations. There is NO really effective capability for enforcing "rules", including the UN. Even at the lowest level, there has to be some alliance and rule enforcement to prevent the rise to power of bullies and psychopaths.
It is also totally unreasonable to expect an immediate change to a libertarian promised land. The LP, actually its candidates, need to provide a clear path to a libertarian goal without causing unacceptable damage to individuals and the economy. That is hard work and requires some deep education and thinking. The "libertarian macho flash" is NEVER going to be elected.
The bullies and psychopaths are the ones already drawn to government. Best to just limit the power available to them.
A power struggle in a party with no power, ironic.
Angling for concessions from one or both of the major parties is probably a more realistic approach, but it's hard to get people excited to join up when you start by admitting defeat.
Discontent with the Dempublicans is higher than ever. There exists a political opportunity to win as a third party, and move in a somewhat libertarian direction, with less spending, lower taxes, fewer wars and more freedom. It just wouldn't look a lot like the LP.
"Rectenwald walked out in the middle of the post-speech press conference and later admitted he was high on a gummy edible."
Sum up the LP in one sentence.