Libertarians cautiously hopeful Trump will reduce regulatory burden

Today Libertarians praised President Donald Trump’s goal of reducing federal government regulations by 75 percent and expressed hope that his plan to counter any new regulation with the elimination of two existing regulations serves to reduce the massive regulatory burden that Americans suffer under today.

Libertarians caution that some regulations impose 100 times the burden that others do. So a two-for-one deal won’t necessarily result in a net reduction in red tape, bureaucratic obstruction, or needless government meddling in people’s lives.

“Progress requires that any new regulation be less onerous than that which it replaces,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.

The damaging effect of government over-regulation is widespread:

  • Government regulations diminish human freedom.
  • Government regulations prevent businesses from forming or expanding, killing millions of American jobs.
  • Government regulations hamper Americans’ ability to compete in world markets.
  • Government regulations constrain human prosperity, leaving many Americans financially insecure.
  • Federal government regulations cost hundreds of billions of dollars to administer and force Americans to spend $1.9 trillion for compliance every year. State and local government regulations add to this burden.
  • Government regulations typically do more harm than good. As one example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alone kills many thousands of Americans every year by making drugs unaffordable and by making it financially infeasible for drug researchers to develop needed drugs such as antibiotics and cures for rare diseases.

Removing unneeded regulations will have the opposite effect: More freedom, better health, more prosperity, and a thriving economy.

“The American economy rose to unprecedented heights and became the envy of the world before today’s regulatory regime took hold,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “If we’re going to create jobs and make America great, it must include a massive reduction in government meddling in businesses and in the lives of Americans.”

It is easy to tell the toiler
how best he can carry his pack.
But no one can rate a burden’s weight
until it has been on his back

– Ella Wheeler Wilcox

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado, Colorado State Coordinator for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, as well as Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LPCO, LPRC, or LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

76 thoughts on “Libertarians cautiously hopeful Trump will reduce regulatory burden

  1. John

    Meh. Way to fall for a cheap publicity ploy. New regulations are on hold pursuant to an existing order, so no regulations will be done away with here. And if they are done away with, will existing protections that shield corporations from liability, thus socializing risks and costs while privatizing profits, be done away
    with at the same time? Something tells me the answer is no.

  2. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I’m sure they will selectively deregulate to help big corporations and friends and only here and there symbolically in any way that will help average americans and small businesses.

    They’ve already targeting regulations against air/water/ground pollution – but you can bet they won’t get rid of the regulation/law that keeps us from SUING all polluters!

  3. dL

    The audience here is skeptical that a regulation freeze will help any “person” save corporations (the awful dreaded corporations). I am not as skeptical. The release makes good points.

    No, its b/c the LP shouldn’t be in the business of reminding people there were libertarians that supported Augusto Pinochet. That press release encapsulates everything wrong w/ the LP the last 35 years.

  4. Anthony Dlugos

    1) You have to be brain dead stupid to be “cautiously hopeful” that an economic nationalist like Trump will reduce regulatory burden in this country.

    2) You have to be brain dead stupid to not realize that, as dL points out above, re: Pinochet, that this press release will be reduced from “Libertarians cautiously hopeful Trump will reduce regulatory burden” to “Libertarians support(ed) Trump” at some point in the future, either right away or down the line at some point.

    3) At a bare minimum,. this brain dead stupid press release should have been titled “SOME Libertarians are cautiously hopeful…” or “Chairman Nick Sarwark says some Libertarians are cautiously hopeful…” or some such blather. I’m a Libertarian, and I’m not hopeful at all that this alt-right nationalist megalomaniac will reduce the regulatory burden in this country.

    Unbelievably myopic.

  5. Starchild

    Is it possible to simultaneously believe that Trump is a dangerous, racist, nationalist megalomaniac and that he deserves to be given credit for what appear to be some truly promising steps toward reducing regulation? I hope so, because that’s my view. I was the one who suggested this press release, so if you think it’s horrible, you can blame me for it.

    I continue to feel that the LP needs to focus more overall on appealing to the left, to correct a long-time imbalance of presenting the libertarian message in ways that make us appear conservative, but I also felt this was an instance where we should give credit where it’s due, and that we’d be hypocritical to let something like the White House chief of staff asking agency heads to put a freeze on new regulations and an executive order to eliminate two regulations for every new one introduced go by unremarked.

    And if you have ideas for other topical press releases that make libertarian points while being critical of Trump, or right-wing policies, by all means send them along. I’d particularly like to see us put out something really hard-hitting on the new administration’s awful immigration policies, so any help lobbying for that and content suggestions would be appreciated. Contact info for myself and other members of the Libertarian National Committee is at https://www.lp.org/libertarian-national-committee/ .

    By the way, I’ll also be the guest on an upcoming Feb. 27 LP conference call (3:00 PM, Pacific Time) on the topic “Standing With The Oppressed: Liberty and Justice for All”, to discuss outreach to the left (and more crucially, to those who will tend to become leftists if they don’t hear from us why we need freedom to help protect the poor, marginalized, and disadvantaged). If you’d like to call in to listen and/or ask a question, email LP development head Lauren Daugherty at Lauren.Daugherty[at]LP.org for call-in details.

    Starchild
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

  6. Anthony Dlugos

    Starchild,

    Here’s my opinion on the matter, so you know where I am coming from:

    We Libertarians tend to be so enamored by our philosophy, that we tend to forget the general public is not.

    I don’t mean to say that they are not enamored by our philosophy per se, but that, when it comes to politics, philosophy is a tertiary concern. They don’t make the fine distinctions between Trump’s “potential” good things and all the real bad stuff.

    So, when we attached our name to him…or anyone…we get it all. If you want to know where this “conservative imbalance” comes from, I give you Ron Paul. To some extent, we’ve been attached to ALL his beliefs, good or bad.

    I tell you again, the mistake here is thinking the voters typically make the philosophical distinctions between a politicians’ good and bad policies. They don’t.

    I can see where, in some instances, they would, but we have to be careful about when to utilize such a tactic, and who the politician is. If it is a generally level-headed person, then it might be worth it. If they are a “dangerous, racist, nationalist megalomaniac” as you point out, then forget it. We are better off keeping our distance. We’d be far more effective putting out a press release that says

    “The Libertarian Party does not associate with..nor endorse… dangerous, racist, nationalist megalomaniacs. Before we even get to a discussion of policies, we review the person themselves. Nothing in this man’s background or campaign makes him trustworthy at all. nor do we wish to associate our good name with such a person, policy positions notwithstanding. Before a person can be trusted with restore liberty to the American people, they have to be trusted, period. This man has given the Libertarian Party no reason to trust him. Barring a spiritual conversion, we seriously doubt this trustworthiness will suddenly be a part of his character. Therefore, do not expect an endorsement of any of his policies from the Libertarian Party. We are good people first, Libertarians second.”

    Or something like that.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    For illustrative purposes, I once owned a debt collections company, and had occasion to consider hiring a 2nd and 3rd collector.

    Do you think…at some point…I checked their social networking sites to see what type of person they were? Of course you know I did. Do you think I was going to hire someone who “said some good things” in the interview, but had a Facebook page filled with references to drug use and mysoginist/sexist/racist statements? Of course not. Would I vouch for such a person if I did not hire him and some other collections firm contacted me and said, “What did you think of so-and-so?” Absolutely not.

  8. Anthony Dlugos

    You’re a standup guy for standing up and taking the heat, Starchild, I commend you for that.

    Most people wouldn’t do that, or they would come out swinging if they did. I’m impressed.

  9. dL

    Is it possible to simultaneously believe that Trump is a dangerous, racist, nationalist megalomaniac and that he deserves to be given credit for what appear to be some truly promising steps toward reducing regulation? I hope so, because that’s my view.

    No…That mistake has been made before with the likes of Augusto Pinochet and to a lesser extent, Reagan. If you expand the national security state, if you expand the authority of the worst parts of the state, if you are in the business of building walls, if you are in the business of handing out special exemptions to some, either pure through brow-beating or cozy relationships, you are not in the business in reducing the regulatory/compliance burden imposed on the country.

    Biggest mistake the beltway crack pipe(e.g, DC think tanks) make is to treat the compliance burden as some type of in-the-moment accounting ledger. Check mark here for this, checkmark here for that. Add the praise, subtract the criticism, and voila, get the libertarian scorecard. The real world doesn’t work like that. You have to treat political economy much more as an integrated thing. And libertarian study of political economy is a scientific prediction of what will happen.

    Take Reagan, for example. Whatever regulatory burdens he “reduced” back in the day have long since been erased. The new ones he imposed at the time are still with us and even more burdensome today. Core foundational statism like banking surveillance + drug war, RICO, unaccountable secret government, unitary executive power, prison industrial complex, ratcheted up military spending, normalization of massive budget deficits, i.e, big government on a credit card. I don’t how many Americans are really for big government, but I would guess more if you put the bill on a credit card.

    The result is that if calculate a libertarian scorecard for Reagan today he ranks at the bottom. But at or around the time, someone like David Boaz championed him as the greatest champion of limited government in modern times. What a joke.

    Pro-tip: when someone says this in an inauguration speech:

    At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

    When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us, “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”

    We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.
    When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

    There should be no fear — we are protected, and we will always be protected.

    We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.

    He is an enemy of liberty. You should already know what the “scorecard” for this chump is going to end up being. If there is one lesson from people like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders, it is the potential populist dividend of trading in foresight.

  10. dL

    We Libertarians tend to be so enamored by our philosophy, that we tend to forget the general public is not.

    Libertarianism doesn’t have an education problem. Most people have an explicit or intuitive grasp that politics is a rent-seeking game. You are not running up against some mass ingrained communitarian tradition that views the State as merely being “us.” It’s not a philosophy problem. The problem is THE FACT that politics is a rent-seeking game. Which leads to Bastiat’s “Great Fiction:” Everyone thinks they can use the state for their own ends. Frankly, I’m not really convinced that any thing would substantially change if 100% of the population suddenly self-identified as “libertarian.” I think the primary result of that would merely be “the libertarian case for the same ole shit.”

  11. Carol Moore

    Anthony: Your are correct, sir! Tempting as it may be to agree with him the occassional time he gets things specifically right, who wants to get tarred with all the things he does wrong.

    Sure I was delighted to hear him say in yesterdays hilarious press conference things like “We don’t want a nuclear war with Russia” and “I’d be real popular with SOME PEOPLE (Hillary supporters?) if I just bombed that Russian ship off our coast, but I’m not going to do that.” (One really dishonest newscaster said he’s threatened to do it. He doesn’t want to admit Trump is mocking the media BIG TIME.)

    But that’s all I’ll say here cause want to avoid the tar brush!! 🙂

  12. dL

    Here’s why we don’t go down the rabbit hole of selectively picking policy proposals that we like of a man like Donald Trump:

    yep…

  13. Andy

    dL said: “The problem is THE FACT that politics is a rent-seeking game.”

    This is why I have said that there should have been something in the US Constitution that prohibited people who work in government, contract with government, or receive hand outs from the government, from voting, or from donating to political campaigns.

    Getting this passed right now would be next to impossible, but if this were in place, I bet that we’d have a heck of a lot more freedom right now.

    Is government the servant or the master? Government is supposed to be the servant (at least according to the propaganda put out by government). If government is the servant, then why are people who receive their living off of government funds (which were taken from the rest of the public through taxes, fines, and government imposed fees), getting to determine government policy through voting, lobbying, and financing political campaigns? This is a clear conflict of interest, because they have every incentive to vote for and donate money to people who want to increase the size of government.

    Just imagine how different politics would be in this county if government employee unions, defense contractors, welfare recipients, etc…, could not vote, or donate to political campaigns? This would wipe out a lot of the voter base and donor base for the major political parties, so they’d either cease to be major political parties, or they’d have to change their political platforms to cater to those who do not receive their living from government money.

    I’d like to see this as an officially proposed bill, not because it would stand any chance of passing under our current political climate (it would not), but rather to shed light on the fact that there are many people in this country who should not be voting or taking part in politics, due to a conflict of interest, which is them receiving government money.

  14. dL

    This is why I have said that there should have been something in the US Constitution that prohibited people who work in government, contract with government, or receive hand outs from the government, from voting, or from donating to political campaigns.

    The “great fiction” applies to everyone….Personally, I’m fine w/ anyone receiving government handouts, privileges, rents, special benefits, etc not voting. Applied uniformly and w/o prejudice. Of course, that would pretty much exclude anyone from voting.

  15. Starchild

    The proposition that we should never say anything positive about the Trump administration seems very problematic to me. Hypothetically I’m willing to entertain the idea that if a regime is bad enough on balance, it’s better not to support them in any way even by commending them when they take the occasional meritorious action, but where to draw the line is very unclear. I don’t personally think we’re close to there yet, but if a mass murder regime like Stalin’s, Mao’s, Hitler’s, or Pol Pot’s were around today, I’d be ready to adopt that stance.

    The untenable nature of applying it to the current U.S. president at the current time seems well illustrated by Carol Moore’s post (February 17, 2017 at 11:35) in which she first agrees with the stance of not praising him, then acknowledges the temptation of doing so, then proceeds to give an example, and finally implies that there is more good to be said which she is refraining from mentioning only in order to “avoid the tar brush” – arguably producing the same overall effect as just voicing the praise directly!

    The idea of limiting the vote based on conflict of interest (Andy, February 17, 2017 at 11:54) has occurred to me too, and I think it’s a good one. But I would apply it only in the direct case of government employees. That still wouldn’t establish a completely clear-cut standard (as witness current court fights over when someone such as a rideshare driver is an employee versus when they are an independent contractor), but avoids creating a too-broad category that would risk jeopardizing broad public support for democracy itself by including most of the population. Creating conditions in which politicians or government agencies could disenfranchise anti-government constituencies by buying them off with handouts would not be desirable either!

  16. paulie

    The proposition that we should never say anything positive about the Trump administration seems very problematic to me.

    Only if we do the same for Democratic administrations.

  17. dL

    The proposition that we should never say anything positive about the Trump administration seems very problematic to me.

    That’s not the proposition being advanced. What is being is said is that he should actually do something to merit praise before issuing press releases giving praise. And the consideration of praise should be made in the context of the overall policies of the regime. If the overall tenor of the policy regime is quite horrible, he would need to do something extraordinary to merit any praise. And we don’t need to refer to Hitler, Mao or Mussolini. We can simply go simply go back about 5 decades in American history. If a segregationist southern governor, say a George Wallace, reduced the tax on a sick of gum, I don’t think a hypothetical LP at that time should have issued a press release praising George Wallace for reducing the size and scope of state government.

  18. dL

    Only if we do the same for Democratic administrations.

    I believe the LP issued a press release RE: the Obama clemency of Chelsea Manning….that would be an example of where such a press release would be appropriate. Or at the very least, not inappropriate.

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    I understand WHY Starchild is making the argument he’s making: this is the reductio of “The Party of Principle.” I.E., it’s not that principle matters, it’s the ONLY thing that matters.

    Hence, praising a Trump proposal, shorn of ANY connection to the totally untrustworthy Cheeto proposing it, and not viewed in context of his other, terrible ideas.

    In fact, I tend to believe some Libertarians are actually disconcertingly attracted to praising event the hint of a decent proposal from such a man BECAUSE of who it comes from. “LOOK AT HOW DEDICATED TO PRINCIPLE WE ARE!!!” The Libertarian version of “Hitler Made The Trains Run on Time.”

    If the LP were a business looking to hire this man, we couldn’t afford the insurance against his likely p*ssy grabbing escapades.

    When it was revealed that Michael Vick, quarterback, was running a dogfighting ring, his endorsement companies predictably dropped his ass. Dynamic quarterback or not, they wanted NO part of the lowlife.

    And I want no part of this one.

  20. Andy

    The Libertarian Party does not look so principled when you consider that the party has not had anyone on its presidential ticket that is really much of a libertarian since 2004.

  21. dL

    In fact, I tend to believe some Libertarians are actually disconcertingly attracted to praising event the hint of a decent proposal from such a man BECAUSE of who it comes from. “LOOK AT HOW DEDICATED TO PRINCIPLE WE ARE!!!” The Libertarian version of “Hitler Made The Trains Run on Time.”

    ell, you lost me, here. I’m not sure how having principles necessarily leads to selective praise for Donald Trump.

  22. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, I didn’t say principles necessarily lead to selective praise of Trump. I was suggesting maniacal adherence to principle (radical adherence?) ends up excluding stuff like character and good judgement, and THAT leads to selected praise of Donald Trump.

    You said it yourself, dL…its about more than a “libertarian scorecard,” or in this case, a “good” tally mark on Trump’s ongoing scorecard because he decided on a “goal” of reducing regulatory burden. There’s a man’s character and past history and campaign statements here.

    I have principles. One of them is not associating with louts who’ve proven themselves to be louts lo’ these many years. But if all that matters to someone is libertarian principles, its easy to overlook the lout that might inadvertently speak one of them.

  23. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    February 17, 2017 at 22:21
    Well, I didn’t say principles necessarily lead to selective praise of Trump. I was suggesting maniacal adherence to principle (radical adherence?) ends up excluding stuff like character and good judgement, and THAT leads to selected praise of Donald Trump.”

    Lack of principles also led to the Libertarian Party nominating Gary Johnson and Bill Weld for its presidential ticket.

  24. dL

    Well, I didn’t say principles necessarily lead to selective praise of Trump. I was suggesting maniacal adherence to principle (radical adherence?) ends up excluding stuff like character and good judgement, and THAT leads to selected praise of Donald Trump.

    Well, I’m a radical. That approach in part that leads me to the following conclusion: take the liberty rhetoric of politicians w/ a grain of salt…take their authoritarian rhetoric at face value. Trump by his rhetoric and actions disqualifies him as someone I’d ever give any benefit of the doubt to. Principle never excludes character and good judgment, though principle may define what one means by character and good judgment. My definition of what is good character, or more specifically, what is a bad character, may be different than someone else’s. But classifying Trump as a “bad character” is a good way to put it. On that we agree. And I’m pretty sure Starchild(who is someone I respect) agrees w/ that assessment as well. In think in this instance, the disagreement w/ Starchild is mainly over strategy. Personally, I think it is bad business and branding to be jotting out any positive PR for the guy at this juncture .

  25. dL

    Lack of principles also led to the Libertarian Party nominating Gary Johnson and Bill Weld for its presidential ticket.

    And a stockpile of principle usually leads one to avoid consistently committing the fallacy of the red herring… as in any discussion about Trump somehow always invariably leading back to a discussion about Gary Johnson.

  26. Andy

    “dL
    February 17, 2017 at 22:58
    ‘Lack of principles also led to the Libertarian Party nominating Gary Johnson and Bill Weld for its presidential ticket.’
    And a stockpile of principle usually leads one to avoid consistently committing the fallacy of the red herring… as in any discussion about Trump somehow always invariably leading back to a discussion about Gary Johnson.”

    Donald Trump was the Republican Party’s candidate for President. We already know to expect bad things out of Republicans. We should expect more out of Libertarian Party candidates than we got out of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, who really don’t even deserve to be called libertarians.

  27. Starchild

    Okay, Anthony and dL, you guys are starting to convince me here, with an assist from the excellent essay I just read by Brian Doherty at Reason, warning libertarians on Trump:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/trumps-anti-libertarian-ethno-nationalis

    I posted a short comment there expressing similar sentiments:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/trumps-anti-libertarian-ethno-nationalis#comment_6763749

    Thank you both, by the way, for your kind words as well. Though it’s troubling to think I may be susceptible to flattery. 😛

    Now, are you two (Paulie and Carol and others of like mind are certainly invited to pitch in as well) going to help me put together, and lobby fellow LNC members for, some more aggressive Libertarian Party communications speaking out on Trump’s authoritarian tendencies?

  28. dL

    We should expect more out of Libertarian Party candidates than we got out of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, who really don’t even deserve to be called libertarians.

    Well, I agree. However, TeamGov’s diagnosis of Trump was one of the better attributes of that campaign. Indeed, Weld’s comparison of Trump’s immigration plan to Kristallnacht was best thing about that campaign, rhetorically speaking. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    Agreeing with Andy might not be conclusive proof that you are on the wrong path, but its damn close.

    As long as the Libertarian candidate doesn’t win the presidency, of course, we should expect more. Then again, Johnson-Weld got more than any other Libertarian ticket did.

  30. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    February 18, 2017 at 13:15
    Agreeing with Andy might not be conclusive proof that you are on the wrong path, but its damn close.”

    My track record for being correct is pretty damn good.

  31. Anthony Dlugos

    Then run a radical, or whoever you want to run, win the nomination, and get more than 4.5 million votes.

    Until then, you’re just whistling dixie.

  32. Andy

    “dL
    February 18, 2017 at 12:58
    ‘We should expect more out of Libertarian Party candidates than we got out of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, who really don’t even deserve to be called libertarians.’
    Well, I agree. However, TeamGov’s diagnosis of Trump was one of the better attributes of that campaign. Indeed, Weld’s comparison of Trump’s immigration plan to Kristallnacht was best thing about that campaign, rhetorically speaking. Couldn’t have said it better myself.”

    Johnson/Weld criticizing Trump was like the pot calling the kettle black. There was plenty wrong with Johnson/Weld, and I doubt we’d really be any better off had they been elected (remember, they wanted to nominate Mitt Romney as Secretary of State). Johnson/Weld were actually WORSE than Donald Trump when it came to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as Johnson/Weld supported it, and Donald Trump opposed it.

    Also, Bill Weld’s support for immigration is not from a free market perspective, it is from a New World Order perspective. Weld is not for peaceful people crossing borders and engaging in free market activity, he is for using immigration to expand the welfare state, enact gun control, and tear down national borders in favor of global government. He even said that he admires Angela Merkel (former Communist Party member), whose policies have been destroying Germany.

    Johnson/Weld pushed the New World Order agenda. Gun control, tax payer funding of abortion, the United Nations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, mass immigration into a democratic welfare state, the Fair Tax, Universal Basic Income, carbon taxes, etc…

    This was not surprising at all to any of us who know anything about the Council On Foreign Relations, of which Bill Weld is a member. It was also not surprising to us when Bill Weld started shilling for his long time pal, and fellow CFR acolyte, Hillary Clinton.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    As I said, run your right-wing nativist xenophobic black helicopter Jessie Ventura Ron Paul retread…”libertarian” in 2020 and let’s see what’s what. If he/she is such a good libertarian, they’ll be able to convince the delegates and win the nomination.

  34. Andy

    Ron Paul did a heck of a lot better than Gary Johnson did when it came to getting a libertarian message out and inspiring people to get active, and even in votes, when you consider that it is more difficult to get votes in the primaries than in the general election.

    You can use all of the negative sounding language you want to try to discredit me, but any of the other main candidates on stage at the convention in Orlando would have done a better job at getting the libertarian message out than Johnson/Weld did. The key to who gets nominated at conventions has more to do with who all shows up as delegates. We need better delegates at future conventions.

  35. dL

    Johnson/Weld criticizing Trump was like the pot calling the kettle black. There was plenty wrong with Johnson/Weld, and I doubt we’d really be any better off had they been elected (remember, they wanted to nominate Mitt Romney as Secretary of State).

    I imagine those not “properly” papered and documented by the state would feel quite a bit better off under a TeamGov regime than the current Trump one. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have to be resort to seeking refuge in catholic churches to escape the clutches of the border control thugs. Listen, I was opposed to Weld. But I’m not going to make a moral equivalence between Weld and Donald Trump.

    Johnson/Weld were actually WORSE than Donald Trump when it came to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as Johnson/Weld supported it, and Donald Trump opposed it.

    Trump’s position on trade, which is crony deals for insiders, taxes and protectionism to finance border walls for everyone else, is much worse.

    Also, Bill Weld’s support for immigration is not from a free market perspective, it is from a New World Order perspective. Weld is not for peaceful people crossing borders and engaging in free market activity, he is for using immigration to expand the welfare state, enact gun control, and tear down national borders in favor of global government.

    Jez, I think Andy Jacobs is the only person in the world who can turn me into a defender of William Weld. You are simply making stuff up about his motives. I have never him say nor has his actions ever implied that he supports immigration simply as means to expand both gun control and welfare spending for the poor.

    Johnson/Weld pushed the New World Order agenda.

    I don’t watch Alex Jones so I’m not cognizant of the proper conspiratorial definition of “new world order.” My reading of “New World Order” is a thing from 25 years ago to denote UN cover for the US military to bail out Gore H.W. Bush and company’s business interests in Kuwait. And then the term vanished forever from popular use, sans the Ministry song about LA cops beating up on brown people.

  36. paulie

    Now, are you two (Paulie and Carol and others of like mind are certainly invited to pitch in as well) going to help me put together, and lobby fellow LNC members for, some more aggressive Libertarian Party communications speaking out on Trump’s authoritarian tendencies?

    Yes. Let me know what proposed communications, and I will be happy to endorse them and ask LNC members to get on board.

  37. dL

    Now, are you two (Paulie and Carol and others of like mind are certainly invited to pitch in as well) going to help me put together, and lobby fellow LNC members for, some more aggressive Libertarian Party communications speaking out on Trump’s authoritarian tendencies?

    Happy to help anyway I can, but I’m not sure how much of an influence I can be wrt the LNC…

  38. paulie

    I don’t know that most of them really care that much what the membership thinks, but I’m happy to send an email if anyone thinks it makes a difference.

  39. Carol Moore

    Sharchild wrote: “Now, are you two (Paulie and Carol and others of like mind are certainly invited to pitch in as well) going to help me put together, and lobby fellow LNC members for, some more aggressive Libertarian Party communications speaking out on Trump’s authoritarian tendencies?”

    I did read REASON article and it’s good for bringing Libertarians who are being overly -optimistic out of fantasy land. So pass it around to LNC.

    Start a list of laws threatened or passed. Off hand it seems the exec orders all have been within current law, so emphasizing the law itself is bad may be necessary; but may not undermine Trump himself. It’s a matter of time before he enrages the LNC, so I don’t think you have to push too hard.

    The deep state messing with Flynn and working to stop better relationships with Russia obviously creating some sympathy for him. But it’s really a bunch of guys who have vested political and economic interests in Europe/Middle East and don’t want to have to learn Chinese, or hire people who speak it.

  40. paulie

    Trump’s “better relations with Russia” are with a kleptocratic, authoritarian regime that crushes internal dissent, manipulates elections, is militarily expansionist, and destroys civil liberties. Trump’s team is working to create the same sort of regime in the US. They are linked together through corruption, much like criminal families linking together through a mob commission. It’s highly likely that they will get into major wars against Muslim nations, China, Latin America, and perhaps at some point have a falling out and get in a war with each other (Trump’s USA vs Russia).

  41. Starchild

    Regarding LP communications on Trump, I don’t have any specific proposed language at this time. If any of you do, great, please send it along. Party press releases are usually tied to some kind of current event or topic in the news (see https://www.lp.org/press-releases-party-news/ for recent releases).

    In general, I’d like to see us put out something hard-hitting in defense of open borders and condemning Trump’s nationalism and xenophobia. Further media focus on the border wall or other immigration-related stuff seems likely, and that will be a good news hook for such a release when it happens.

    So contacting LNC members – contact info at https://www.lp.org/libertarian-national-committee/ – to voice your support for that is one thought. Beyond this, you might note the party’s history of appealing more to conservatives and tell them you want to see more balance by the LP speaking out more on issues, especially non-traditional issues (i.e. not just the War on Drugs) that will resonate with non-conservatives, younger people, etc. Some possibilities include:

    • mass incarceration
    • solitary confinement
    • the plight of refugees
    • transgender rights
    • police abuse
    • polyamory (equal marriage rights, etc.)
    • age discrimination
    • use of the commons
    • California independence
    • decriminalizing prostitution
    • child protective services
    • free range kids
    • Internet provider monopolies
    • homelessness
    • decriminalize vending
    • war on youth (restrictions on raves, skateboarding, etc.)
    • speaking out on behalf of specific people victimized by government
    • the Flint water scandal
    • the YIMBY movement
    • government identification (Social Security, drivers licenses, etc.)
    • voting integrity
    • nationalism
    • obedience to authority
    • controlling your own medical records
    • living off the grid
    • letting people decide where their tax money goes (e.g. not funding wars)
    • cutting the salaries/benefits/pensions of the highest-paid government officials
    • institutional racism (e.g. poor/minority neighborhoods getting the worst government schools)
    • corporate welfare and bailouts
    • government harm to the environment
    • government as a worldwide problem harming the poor and oppressed the most
    • how the problems of poverty, homelessness, etc., are the fault of statism, not individuals
    • the need for government transparency and press access

  42. Andy

    Starchild said: “In general, I’d like to see us put out something hard-hitting in defense of open borders and condemning Trump’s nationalism and xenophobia.”

    The Libertarian Party’s national platform does not call for open borders, and in fact, the platform says that it is OK to reject people who are a threat to security, health, or property.

    The Refugee Resettlement program is a TAX PAYER FUNDED PROGRAM, as in TAX PAYER FUNDS are being used to bring people to the USA. Note that if the REAL CONCERN was to help these people, which is NOT a function of the US government, it would be much cheaper to help them in some other country which has a lower cost of living than here in the USA, so even if one believes that there is some kind of moral obligation to help people from other countries, even though this is not a constitutionally enumerated function of the US government, bringing them here is NOT cost effective.

    Also, once here, statistics indicate that 91.4% of these people are ending up on welfare, and not just for a short period of time, they are on welfare for a long time, plus, the statistics also indicate that they have a very high unemployment rate, and a higher crime rate than the native population.

    So given that the Libertarian Party platform says that it is OK to reject people from entry to the country who are a threat to “security, health, or property,” why would anyone think it is a horrible thing to deny entry to people who are in fact a threat to “security, health, or property”?

    Now some people might say, “Well these people just want a chance to become American citizens. They just want a better life.” My response to this is that everyone on the planet wants a better life. Does this mean that everyone on the planet should come here? There are over 5.6 billion people in the world who live in conditions that most Americans would refer to as poverty. The USA currently has a population of about 325 million people, which makes the USA the 3rd most populated country in the world. The frontier/pioneer days of the USA are over, and there was no welfare state back in those days. Back during the frontier/pioneer days there were lots of immigrants who found like to be too difficult here, so they self deported, as in they went back to wherever they were from. There were no government welfare programs back in those days, so that gave the USA a more rugged population, which contributed to the country becoming prosperous.

    The statistics clearly indicate that a super-majority of modern day immigrants vote to expand government welfare programs, and for more gun control laws, after obtaining American citizenship (and note that to become an American citizen, they have to swear and oath to support the US Constitution, and since the statistics indicate that a super-majority of these people do not really support the US Constitution, this means that mass fraud is taking place with the agency that handles the naturalization process, and remember, falsely swearing an oath is perjury, which should invalidate the citizenship status of those who falsely swore that they support the US Constitution). The statistics also clearly indicate that a large percentage of Muslim migrants do not really believe in things like freedom of religion, equal rights for women and for gays, and for other civil liberties which are supposed to be guaranteed by the US Constitution. I can tell you that have have spoken to some of these people about the Libertarian Party, and these people were particularly hostile when the subject of gay marriage came up. The instances when this happened these people said that gays should be rounded up and executed, and I assure you that I am not making this up.

    The old question on the World Smallest Political Quiz asked about peaceful people crossing borders, NOT about non-peaceful people crossing borders. Welfare recipients, criminals, or people who are just hostile to the concept of individual liberty, ARE NOT PEACEFUL PEOPLE.

    I think that some Libertarians have this view that it is “mean” to shut anyone out, and this causes them to throw rational analysis out the window.

    I am NOT saying that Libertarians should support Donald Trump, but politics is a lot more complicated than, “This person is on a different team than I am, so I have to oppose every detail of everything that they do.” I have a general dislike for the police (and for government in general), but this does not mean that I think that every time the police arrest somebody that it is a bad thing, as there are people out there who commit legitimate crimes, as in coercive acts of violence, theft, or destruction of property, like murder, rape, robbery, arson, etc…, and these are things that would be crimes even in a libertarian society, so since we currently lack in the areas of free market alternatives to the government police and justice system, we rely on them to arrest and prosecute people who commit legitimate crimes. Sure, they also arrest people for things that are not legitimate crimes, and they sometimes falsely arrest people for things that are legitimate crimes, and these things are problems, but just because these problems exist, it does not mean that people who actually do commit legitimate crimes should not be arrested and prosecuted, because until libertarians build a market alternative to the government’s criminal justice system, and are able to replace, or withdraw from the government’s criminal justice system, we are stuck with the government’s criminal justice system. The same thing goes with other functions that the government is currently doing. Roads and fire fighting should also be functions of the market, but given that they are not at this time, it does not mean that the roads should not be maintained, or that the fires should not be put out. We have to function within the world in which we are currently living. The world that we envision does not exist at this time. If we could transition to it that would be great, but such a transition if far easier said than done, and we are not even close to making that transition at this time. Keep working to make that transition happen, but also keep in mind that we have to operate within the world as it is at this time.

  43. Andy

    “who found like to be too difficult here”

    Should read, “who found life to be too difficult here…”

    “I can tell you that have have spoken to some”

    Should read, “I can tell you that I have spoken to some…”

  44. paulie

    The Libertarian Party’s national platform does not call for open borders, and in fact, the platform says that it is OK to reject people who are a threat to security, health, or property.

    Yes, that historically anomalous error should be removed from the platform asap so we get back to an unambiguous stance like the party always had prior to the Portland platform massacre. However, it’s still a position against quotas and restrictions of the type we have now and which Drumpf aims to make worse.

  45. paulie

    Regarding LP communications on Trump, I don’t have any specific proposed language at this time.

    Let me know if/when there’s something to lobby for. I like your suggestions but have no proposed language either.

  46. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Anthony Dlugos

    wow. Andy is full-blown Xenophobic.

    Agree with him on anything at your own risk.

    I’m more confused about his apparent need to correct every single typo in another post no matter how tiny or insignificant it is. People can figure out from context that “like” was supposed to be “life.” It just clutters up the comment section pointlessly. So is deciding to make two separate comments for two different random links he wanted to share rather than just putting them in one comment; I could understand if they were separated by an hour or something, but one literally comes one minute after the other.

  47. Carol Moore

    In cas Andy hasn’t heard, thousands of serial rapists get away with in the US since the police have higher priorities than testing rape kids and tens of thousands never have been tested.

    And remember only maybe 20% of raped women even ever report it!

    Maybe that guy’s already on 3 rape kits and they’ll never make their case because of that.

    So there are more than enough sexists in our society to go after too!

    And, yes, he should be lobbying the Constitution Party for stronger language if that’s his thing, not the LP.

  48. paulie

    I wonder why he’s not in the Constitution Party?

    Not religious enough for them.

    I’m more confused about his apparent need to correct every single typo in another post no matter how tiny or insignificant it is. People can figure out from context that “like” was supposed to be “life.” It just clutters up the comment section pointlessly.

    Yep!

    So is deciding to make two separate comments for two different random links he wanted to share rather than just putting them in one comment; I could understand if they were separated by an hour or something, but one literally comes one minute after the other.

    I’ve done that before too. It may be a spontaneous decision to post something else, even if it’s only a few seconds later.

  49. Carol Moore

    paulie wrote: “Trump’s “better relations with Russia” are with a kleptocratic, authoritarian regime that crushes internal dissent, manipulates elections, is militarily expansionist, and destroys civil liberties. Trump’s team is working to create the same sort of regime in the US. …”

    As I wrote to a bunch of liberal feminists screaming about Russia (quote)

    I assume Trump will be quite fascistic. However, it is interesting to see Trump being subjected to intelligence and media abuse on Russia because of three of the few good things he did: saying it was bad/false intelligence that brought us into Iraq, yapping about the US role in supporting Islamic extremists in Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc. and questioning the Russian conspiracy scenarios. The Powers that be, including in intelligence and the military are outraged….

    Russia of course has been defending itself against US intelligence and “orange revolution” special ops for 25+ years. First, the US broke it’s promise after the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union not to place military bases (and doubtless nuclear weapons) on Russia’s border, in former Soviet Republics. Then western billionaires allied with American billionaires gave millions to western-friendly Russian
    bureaucrats to buy up major Soviet industries cheap from the drunken Yeltsin. Before you know it there were truly crazy people running for Russian leader, ready to nuke the US over it. Putin won and got the resources back into Russian oligarch’s hands without war. And Russians remain glad Russia was not made a puppet government of the west.

    Media never mentions that the US surrounds Russia – and China – with military bases and helped kick out the elected Ukrainian president through riots and shootings in the streets. It did mention that US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland was handing out snacks to rioters who eventually overthrew the elected government in spring 2014. Something else publicized, was that the first thing the neo-Nazi ridden new Ukrainian parliament did was make it legal to promote Nazism, and also illegal to use Russian language in official dealings, which is widely done in eastern Ukraine. (Laws eventually repealed when they got too much publicity and now largely forgotten.)

    So given the military importance of Crimea and the vast majority being Russians, it’s not surprising Russia took it back again, so that it did not become yet another Western military base. (Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1964. Obviously we’re all aware that the Russians and Soviets seriously oppressed native Tartars etc. for a couple centuries, thus the Russian majority. But even the Tartars seem to prefer them to the Ukranian crooks who would replace them.)

    This may be the sort of US meddling that the intelligence community is terrified Trump will reveal. And these are the same people who would screw any libertarian party candidate who somehow managed to get elected. Assuming they don’t just have him assassinated like the did J.F. Kennedy when he defied the US militaries aggressive agendas. Didn’t Chuck Schumer already warn Trump not to mess with the CIA? (end quote)

    So we’ve got a lousy choice between an erratic guy with clear dictator propensities and a more quiet dictatorship that manipulates and threatens elected officials – including libertarians, if necessary. Do you really want to choose sides? Both suck… (And you did read that it was discovered that CIA messed with 2014 French elections, right?)

  50. paulie

    I stand by my prior comments. Trump is no doubt partnering up with Putin on two fronts: stealing money with both hands by abusing his government power and learning how to transition to a more authoritarian system in the US. I don’t see how those are good things.

  51. Andy

    Carol, just in case you have not read the Libertarian Party’s platform, IT DOES NOT CALL FOR OPEN BORDERS, AS IT SAYS THAT IT IS OK TO REJECT PEOPLE FROM ENTRY WHO POSE A THREAT TO “SECURITY, HEALTH, AND PROPERTY”.

    If these people do not pose a threat to “security, health, or property”, then who does? And before anyone chimes in with “The government does”, we already know this, and the same can be said of every government on the planet. Once again, we have to operate in the world in which we live, and even in a stateless society there would still be a market demand to deny people entry to places (like my Disney World example).

    I have said NOTHING that violates the LP platform, or any libertarian principle.

    It sounds to me like some of you people should go to the Green Party, or the Democratic Party.

    Also, your comment about the police in this country not solving some rape cases because they were too busy going after people for things that should not be crimes is irrelevant to the point I was making.

    The facts clearly indicate that the Muslim culture has a far higher problem with rape than is prevalent in Europe and North America.

    I am sorry if facts offend people, but being offended does not change a fact.

    Am I communicating with libertarians, or am I communicating with politically correct left wing liberals who are incapable of confronting facts and engaging in rational dialouge?

    If the late “Mr. Libertarian” Murray Rothbard were alive today, he would agree with me here, as I have already shown on another thread when I posted an article from him which brought up some of the same points I have raised.

  52. Anthony Dlugos

    “If the late “Mr. Libertarian” Murray Rothbard were alive today, he would agree with me here…”

    lol. you’re not helping your cause with that one.

  53. Jim

    Andy “If the late “Mr. Libertarian” Murray Rothbard were alive today, he would agree with me here…”

    Show me where Rothbard said he wanted immigration restrictions, as you do. In Nations by Consent Rothbard only said he wanted citizenship restrictions.

  54. Carol Moore

    Andy:

    I’m aware of what the platform says. Since I see immigration more as a property rights issue than a state issue, I don’t get too excited one way or the other.

    What does annoy me is when libertarians don’t make cutting off welfare benefits to illegal immigrants the primary issue. Why don’t they just say: cut off the benefits, give people a one way ticket to their original home, and let those willing to work get work permits. If Johnson had been saying that during the campaign he would have brought up an issue Trump was avoiding and been able to speak out for freedom of legitimate immigrants. Obviously in practice this would have to be fine tuned, since some already have paid relevant taxes, others may have been crippled on a job, etc. but that basic message would be agreeable to many people.

  55. LibertyDave

    Andy

    When most libertarians are arguing against you and the only people who are agreeing with you are constitution party members and republicans that claim to be libertarian, then maybe it you who is wrong and not everyone else.

    The platform you are miss-quoting in your post above is:

    3.4 Free Trade and Migration

    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

    In your post above when you copied the last sentence, you left out the word credible that is in front of threat to security, health or property. Your fear that an immigrant might be a threat is not credible. In order for the threat to be credible you need proof that the person in question is a threat, not just your suspicion that they might be a threat because someone who looks like them did something bad once.

    So YES, what your saying does violate the LP platform and is against libertarian principle.

  56. Anthony Dlugos

    I don’t know…unless Andy is an avowed atheist (full disclosure: I am), I think his bosom buddies are in the CP. Not that I want to boot him from the LP. He may just prefer to argue.

    Immigration:
    https://www.constitutionparty.com/principles/twelve-key-issues/immigration/

    Trade deals:
    https://www.constitutionparty.com/principles/twelve-key-issues/treaties-trade-deals/

    “Globalism:”

    https://www.constitutionparty.com/principles/twelve-key-issues/united-nations-agenda-21-global-organizations/

  57. William Saturn

    “When most libertarians are arguing against you and the only people who are agreeing with you are constitution party members and republicans that claim to be libertarian, then maybe it you who is wrong and not everyone else.”

    Argumentum ad populum

  58. William Saturn

    “Trump is no doubt partnering up with Putin on two fronts: stealing money with both hands by abusing his government power and learning how to transition to a more authoritarian system in the US.”

    This is a neoconservative talking point/conspiracy theory meant to erode support for Trump. But like most of the ad hominem being employed against Trump and his supporters, it’s having the opposite effect.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/opinion/sunday/are-liberals-helping-trump.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/v2tFrDvDo2

  59. dL

    Argumentum ad populum

    This is not an example of an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The Ad populum fallacy is asserting the truthfulness of a proposition based on it’s popularity. Religion usually falls into this line of fallacy. Like: God must exist b/c so many people believe he exists. However, in this instance, we have the observation that the person is making an argument that is line w/ the KKK, the CP and the GOP but not the LP. That observation is categorically true. We can also make an inductively sound argument along the lines of: if your immigration position sounds like a Neo-Nazi/KKK press release, it is probably wrong.

  60. LibertyDave

    William Saturn

    I said my point of view is the libertarian view because most libertarians hold this view.

    Then you said, “Wrong. He is arguing his point of view is correct because “most libertarians” supposedly agree with him.

    This is wrong because my sentence above never claimed it was the correct view because it is what libertarians believe. It claims that it is the Libertarian view because it’s the view held by most libertarians.

    My point of view is correct point of view because of the arguments and links provided by myself and others which you and Andy choose to ignore.

  61. William Saturn

    You said: “then maybe it you who is wrong and not everyone else.”

    Your fallacy is that just because the majority of libertarians believe A does not make A the libertarian position. By using “correct/wrong” I am simply using your own terminology. “Correct” is an antonym of “wrong.”

  62. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    February 19, 2017 at 21:29
    ‘I don’t know…unless Andy is an avowed atheist (full disclosure: I am), I think his bosom buddies are in the CP. Not that I want to boot him from the LP. He may just prefer to argue.”

    I’m an avowed anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist, and as far as religion goes, I’m in the atheist/agnostic camp.

    There are things that I like about the Constitution Party. I am an anarcho-capitalist at heart, so I don’t really believe in any coercive government, and I agree with Lysander Spooner, in that the Constitution is not a valid contract, because nobody living today signed it, and even when it was written, it was only signed by those who attended the constitutional convention. There is a school of thought that says that the Constitution was coup to overthrow the Articles of Confederation, and to establish a strong central government, that was set up with loop holes in it to allow for the growth of central power. This is the thesis of a book written by Boston T. Party, aka-Kenneth Royce, which I finally obtained a copy of a few months ago (I’ve been wanting to get this book for a long time), but have not finished reading as of yet (I need to finish Marc Stevens’ latest book, Government Indicted, first).

    Having said this, although I’m an anarcho-capitalist at heart, I’m also a practical anarcho-capitalist, in that I think that the political system should be utilized to move society in the direction of individual freedom, and I am realistic enough to recognize that there are major hurdles that would have to be overcome to actually achieve an anarcho-capitalist society, and that this may not even be possible without libertarians separating themselves from the rest of society, which is what led to my creation of The Libertarian Zone concept ( http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ ).

    I see minarchism, aka-small government, government limited by the Constitution, as more of a fallback position from the ideal, which is a voluntary society, or anarcho-capitalism. I certainly see reducing the size of government to be preferable over our present situation, where government just gets bigger and bigger.

    I’d prefer to see a transition to a free society that is as smooth as possible. There are real hurdles that would have to be overcome in achieving such a society, and I think that there are a lot of libertarians out there, and a lot of self professed anarcho-capitalist libertarians specifically, who do not understand what all of those hurdles are, or how to overcome them. One issue that would have to be figured out is what to do with all of the assets that the government currently possesses. Most people, even most libertarians, have no idea just how big government really is. Most libertarians have no idea that government entities actually own a large portion of the stock market. So it would have to do with all of the government held assets. Some of them could be sold off, but then where does the money go? Harry Browne suggested that money from the sale of government assets go to pay off debts, and to liquidate Social Security and Medicaid. This is a great idea, but what if there is not enough money from the sales to do this? Or what if there are still government assets left over? Simply handing assets over to the well connected or wealthy is not really such a good idea if it means screwing over millions of people who paid taxes for many years to support public infrastructure. Also, here is a question that nobody has ever answered, and I’ve asked it to quite a few self professed anarchist libertarians. That is, the government currently holds a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This includes nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. What happens to these weapons in the event of a government shutdown? Can I have a nuclear missile and a container of Anthrax? Some libertarians may say that these weapons should be destroyed, but who is going to make sure that this gets done?

    My approach toward immigration is actually an incrementalist approach, that is that the government’s borders can be relaxed and torn down the further that we transition to a free society. Declaring “open borders” while having a democratic welfare state in place is a SUICIDAL policy. “Open borders”, which is more accurately borders controlled by private property owners instead of a coercive state, is something that would only work in an anarcho-capitalist society. I am all in favor of an anarcho-capitalist society, which would have a true free market in migration/immigration policies, some of which would be very open, and others would be more strict than what we have now.

    Given that I’d prefer as smooth a transition as possible into a free society, I recognize that there could be transition that might lead to a free society, but that would not be so smooth, and could lead to a massive amount of chaos, with lots of people dying, and then at the end, maybe whoever is still left alive might be able to build a free society after the chaos ends. I’m talking a violence in the streets, societal/economic collapse, bloody revolution scenario. I think that violent revolution is morally justifiable, but this is not the preferred course of action, because lots of people would die, and frankly, I don’t think most people, even a lot of libertarians, have the balls for it. The more laws government passes, and the bigger government gets, and the better technology that government has, the more difficult violent revolution would be. It would probably take some type of cataclysmic event to trigger a violent revolution, like maybe an economic collapse, or a big terror attack (which would almost certainly be a false flag, as in elements within government would be behind the attack, but they’d blame it on someone else), which would be followed by mass gun confiscation raids and rounding up political dissidents. It would be at a point like this where a small percentage of the population, made of of libertarians (minus the wussy libertarians, of course). constitutionalists, and other dissidents would finally rise up and resist the state with violence. The problem is that by this point the state will have armed drones, and probably armed robots as well. A scenario like this might cause other people to riot. I could see riots breaking out if people don’t get their welfare checks or food stamps, or if there are food shortages.

    I’m pretty sure that I had some ancestors who fought in the American Revolution (they were revolutionaries), and I’ve always had an affinity for the idea of revolting against a tyrannical government, however, this would NOT be my first choice for how to go about transitioning to a free society (and the more advanced government gets, and the more government can disarm the population, the less chance that a violent revolt would be successful).

    Realistically, there’d have to be a transition phase. I don’t know how long this phase would take, and I would prefer it to be shorter rather than longer, if possible, but acting like libertarians can just “wave a magic wand” and make government go away is not realistic thinking. Even if libertarians could get a majority of the population to stop believing in government (good luck with this), there’d still be a lot of hurdles to cross to figure out what do to with government assets, and what to do about all of the liabilities that government has created, and how to transition from some of the things that government is doing that would still be needed in a voluntary society. All of this stuff is far easier said than done.

    There are a lot of libertarians that are good at spouting philosophy. A lot of libertarians are well informed on a lot of political issues. A lot of libertarians know a lot about history. There is one area where a lot of libertarians are weak though, and this is the area of political strategy. This is probably the weakest area for most libertarians. If you don’t know anything about strategy, then it means that you don’t know how to see your philosophy implemented. It is one thing to sit around and talk about liberty, but if you are clueless about how to achieve it, then all of your talk about liberty is just that, talk.

    Lots of libertarians being weak in the area of political strategy is a big part of the reason why the Libertarian Party and movement is not more successful. I have been involved with the Libertarian Party and movement since 1996, and I’ve spent a lot of time studying philosophy, issues, history, etc…, but I’ve also spent a lot of time studying, analyzing, and in some cases, implementing, political strategy. I find it very frustrating to watch libertarians make bonehead political move after bonehead political move, over and over again. I’ve seen libertarians foul up so many opportunities to get the party and/or the movement ahead over the years that it gives me a sick feeling to even think about all of the opportunities to get ahead that libertarians have screwed up over the years.

    The issue of political strategy is relevant to this immigration policy discussion, because declaring “open borders” regardless of the other policies that are currently in place (like the fact that we are living in a democratic welfare state), is such an unrealistic and suicidal policy, under current market conditions (such as the existence of a welfare state), that anyone who advocates that this is a sound policy that should be put in place in isolation, as in without changing other policies (like shutting down the welfare state, or at least barring immigrants from receiving welfare) at the same time, or preferably, before immigration restrictions were lifted, is simply not living in the real world. They are idealist philosophers who are CLUELESS about what it would take to implement their philosophy in the real world. Given the realities of world population, the number of people who live in poverty in the world, the number of people who’d like to come to the USA if given the chance, various political philosophies and cultural attitudes from around the world (many people hold beliefs which are not compatible with libertarianism), the current political realities in the present day USA (and there MANY non-libertarians who’d just love to take advantage of a bigger mass influx of people from around the world coming into the USA, as they would seek to use these people to further their political agendas), and the fact that travel has become cheaper and easier than it has ever been, that there’d be such a large influx of people into this country, that it would actually destroy any chance we’d have at reducing government. The USA currently admits 1 million legal immigrants per year (and of course there are varying amounts of illegal immigrants entering the USA per year). If the President and Congress got together and officially declared “open borders”, and if nothing else changed, like the welfare state remained as is, I do not think that it is unrealistic at all to say that 10 million or more people would flood into this country per year. The population of the USA is currently at about 325 million people, and I bet that within 10 years of declaring “open borders” that the population of the country would exceed 500 million people. This would be the largest movement of people in the shortest period of time ever, and the largest demographic shift in the shortest amount of time ever. Under our current political reality, this would not mean that there’d be a larger percent of the population that would be libertarians, it would mean that libertarians would become an even bigger minority than we are now.

    So if you are serious about building a society that does not have a state controlling the borders or migration/immigration, then you need to get busy building an anarcho-capitalist society, and you are not going to accomplish this by putting out the welcome mat for foreigners who are socialists. communists, theocrats, welfare leeches, or criminals. You won’t have a libertarian society unless you have a critical mass of people around you who actually want a libertarian society.

  63. Andy

    “Carol Moore
    February 19, 2017 at 20:17
    Andy:

    I’m aware of what the platform says. Since I see immigration more as a property rights issue than a state issue,”

    Then it sounds like you and I may be closer on this issue than you realize.

    “What does annoy me is when libertarians don’t make cutting off welfare benefits to illegal immigrants the primary issue.”

    I have been saying this for years, cut off welfare to illegal immigrants, and to legal immigrants, but believe it or not, I’ve had a few libertarians freak out over this suggestion. They have said that it is “mean” or “racist” or “xenophobic” to just cut off welfare to immigrants, and that it should be cut off for everybody, or nobody. I responded by saying that Americans collecting welfare is certainly a big problem as well, but at least most Americans paid taxes into the system, or they at least had family who paid into the tax system, while a lot of these foreigners are showing up and paying little or nothing into the American tax system, and then start feeding at the tax payer financed trough. I also brought up that allowing immigrants to ride the welfare system attracts too many of the wrong kind of people to come here, and that political reality is that it may not be politically feasible to get rid of the welfare system for Americans, but that it would be more politically feasible to get legislation passed that would prevent immigrants from riding the government gravy train. These points may have gotten through to a few of these individuals, but I think that some of them carried on with their delusional view of the situation.

  64. Andy

    “William Saturn
    February 20, 2017 at 00:53
    You said: ‘then maybe it you who is wrong and not everyone else.’

    Your fallacy is that just because the majority of libertarians believe A does not make A the libertarian position. By using “correct/wrong” I am simply using your own terminology. “Correct” is an antonym of ‘wrong.'”

    I would say that it is more of a case of a) some libertarians have not thought their philosophy through, or b) some libertarians are inept when it comes to political strategy.

    There are most definitely libertarians out there who agree with me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *