Virginia: Former Libertarian Congressional Candidate, Convicted of Presidential Death Threat, to Run for State Legislature

As reported by WUSA 9 News:

Eight years after he emailed the Secret Service and threatened to kill President Barack Obama, a Northern Virginia man is now out of prison, equipped with enough signatures in at least one county to run for the House of Delegates. … [Nathan Daniel] Larson intends to run for Virginia’s 31st House District, an area encompassing Prince William and Fauquier Counties. Fauquier election officials confirmed Monday Larson exceeded the threshold of signatures needed to have his name on the November ballot.

Larson is on record as opposed to voting rights for women and in favor of father-daughter marriage.

He ran for Congress in 2008 on the Libertarian Party’s ballot line (as reported on at IPR here and here).

This time he intends to run as an independent, as the Libertarian Party of Virginia is likely to expel and denounce him at a meeting on March 26. Per the WUSA 9 article, LPVA chair Bo Brown says “[t]here’s no chance he’ll be running with this party.”

64 thoughts on “Virginia: Former Libertarian Congressional Candidate, Convicted of Presidential Death Threat, to Run for State Legislature

  1. Carol Moore

    Oh, Geez, he’s all over facebook. https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=nathan%20larson%20libertarian

    He wants the death penalty for guys who have sex with another man’s wife? And pedophilia is fine with him. More stuff you can read at the link. INSANE.

    Obviously an attention whore. Surprised he hasn’t dyed his hair green or become transgender.

    I ran into him quite a bit on Wikipedia. He kept re-writing libertarian articles to make anarcho-capitalism look more prevalent among libertarians than (defacto decentralist) minarchism. Or he’d create really wacky articles with anarcho-capitalist themes.

    We had some email exchanges where he made somewhat more ambiguous statements to me than the ones that got him in trouble.

    I’d like to think he had gotten saner, but FB posts indicate not. Si LP VA made the right move.

  2. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . Obviously an attention whore. Surprised he hasn’t dyed his hair green or become transgender. . . . ”

    Transgender people are attention whores?

  3. George Phillies

    Can the LPVA do anything about this? In Massachusetts, candidate nominations belong to the people, not the corrupt party bosses. If he wants to show up here, satisfy the ballot access requirements, and put himself on the ballot, the only way to stop him would be to run a candidate in the primary against him (if we were a major party at the time) or put a real libertarian on the ballot to attack him (if we were a minor party candidate).

    As a convicted felon, is he legally eligible to run? He can run for Congress.

  4. paulie

    Just re-read the story and I missed the part about the county party endorsement again. How far down the article is that?

  5. Tony From Long Island

    George, I’m not sure what your gripe is, as he is running as an independent and the LPVA guy said they would have nothing to do with him.

  6. paulie

    Just to make sure I did a text search for county and came up empty.

    As a convicted felon, is he legally eligible to run? He can run for Congress.

    Yes, the article does say he can both run for office and vote thanks to restoration of rights orders for VA felons by the governor there.

    However, various news articles disagree on whether the president he threatened to assassinate was Bush or Obama. It was right around the time of the transition between the two.

  7. George Phillies

    Tony, You are being remarkably opaque. I asked specific questions about VA election law and contrasted with the situation here. George

  8. Andy

    “George Phillies
    March 7, 2017 at 10:26
    Can the LPVA do anything about this? In Massachusetts, candidate nominations belong to the people, not the corrupt party bosses. If he wants to show up here, satisfy the ballot access requirements, and put himself on the ballot, the only way to stop him would be to run a candidate in the primary against him (if we were a major party at the time) or put a real libertarian on the ballot to attack him (if we were a minor party candidate).”

    George, this sounds like a person could proclaim themselves to be a Libertarian, gather enough petition signatures to get themselves on the ballot as a Libertarian Party candidate, and do so WITHOUT being nominated by the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, or even actually being a Libertarian, correct?

    Assuming that this is correct, what if somebody who is universally disliked by LP of Massachusetts members were to gather enough petition signatures to place themselves on the ballot as a Libertarian Party candidate, and what if the LP of Massachusetts did not have major party status, and therefore had no primary, which means that this candidate goes straight to the general election ballot, or if the LP of Massachusetts did have major party status (which the LP of Massachusetts currently has as of the 2016 election results), which means that it does get a primary, let’s say that no other candidate can gather enough petition signatures to get in the primary to run against the universally disliked candidate, or say a candidate does get in the primary to challenge the universally disliked candidate, but let’s say that the universally disliked (by LP members) candidate wins the primary anyway, are we to take it that the LP of Massachusetts has no way to stop the universally disliked candidate from using the Libertarian Party label?

  9. Richard Winger

    Virginia law does not allow a petitioning candidate to use a party label (even the label of an unqualified party) unless the officers of that unqualified party OK it. So there is no problem. Many states have “name protection” for unqualified parties. The fact that Massachusetts has no such protection is one more indictment of the Massachusetts ballot access laws. I sincerely George would turn his considerable brainpower and energy into working to improve the horrible Massachusetts ballot access laws. I will be pleased if he acknowledges that wish, either here or to me privately. It is a terrible waste that someone like him doesn’t engage in that activism.

  10. paulie

    Andy, very long way to ask the question but just on the margin of paragraph length I will read. Yes, LP Mass has no ownership of its ballot label. As with many states, the label belongs to the voters (by petition or primary), not the organized party leadership or dues paying or pledge signing membership.

  11. George Phillies

    “r even actually being a Libertarian,” Ummh, no. In order to run as a Libertarian, you must be registered Libertarian, at least when we are a major party.

  12. Andy

    George Phillies
    March 7, 2017 at 15:27
    ‘r even actually being a Libertarian,’ Ummh, no. In order to run as a Libertarian, you must be registered Libertarian, at least when we are a major party.”

    Perhaps I should have been more clear. Yes, a person can check the Libertarian Party box on a voter registration form, but this does not mean that they are actually a philosophical libertarian. A person could even sign the Libertarian Party’s membership pledge, and send dues to the national and or state party, but this does not mean that they are really any kind of philosophical libertarian either (see Bill Weld or Bob Barr for examples of this).

    So in Massachusetts, anyone could check the Libertarian Party label on their voter registration form, and start gathering petition signatures to be on the ballot as a Libertarian Party candidate, and the party would have no way of stopping them from using the label, even if it was blatantly obvious that the person doing this was in no way a libertarian.

  13. George Phillies

    And we have an adequate number of people who are in complete agreement that the other guy is not a Libertarian and who are appear ready to hurl anathemas at each other.

  14. dL

    This was talked about in a previous thread. I looked at his platform. Roughly 80% is libertarian(although some of those positions may not be that popular). The other 20% looks to be imported from the 12th century. His position that marriage is an indentured servitude contract between the female and the husband should be sufficient to disqualify him from the LP.

  15. Andy

    “George Phillies
    March 7, 2017 at 15:50
    And we have an adequate number of people who are in complete agreement that the other guy is not a Libertarian and who are appear ready to hurl anathemas at each other.”

    You can have this, but the universally disliked (by Libertarians) candidate who falsely represents himself or herself as a libertarian, and who gathers enough petition signatures to qualify for the ballot as a Libertarian Party candidate, can then go around the state campaigning as a Libertarian Party candidate, and they may get more publicity as a Libertarian Party candidate, particularly if they have a lot of money behind them, and/or are at least semi-well known, than those in the Libertarian Party who denounce them. I could see this causing a lot of damage to the Libertarian Party brand if this were to happen, and considering that there are rumors that Bill Weld may run for US Senate in Massachusetts next year, it might end up happening.

  16. NewFederalist

    “The expulsion vote is on March 26. I expect that it will be unanimous.” – Jacqueline Passey Mason

    See Capozzi? 7/8ths isn’t THAT tough! 🙂

  17. Tony From Long Island

    George, I think I was being quite translucent.

    You asked ” . . .Can the LPVA do anything about this? . . . ”

    What can they possibly do about a guy running as an independent?

    How do you run a primary candidate against an independent? You can do that in Massachusetts?

  18. wolfefan

    Hi Paulie – the part about the county LP starts in the 19th paragraph of the newspaper article I linked.

  19. paulie

    The 19th paragraph by my count reads “Bo Brown, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, said his party would neither nominate nor endorse Larson’s effort to unseat Del. Scott Lingamfelter, a Republican, from the 31st District seat.” There’s nothing about county parties. I counted twice and looked at adjacent paragraphs just to make sure. Perhaps you are looking at an old version of the article that is cached on your computer but has since been corrected by the newspaper?

  20. Jacqueline Passey Mason

    There is no county party where Larson lives.

    It is the Libertarian Party of Virginia that is having an expulsion vote at our March 26 state central committee meeting.

    I’m the LPVA Secretary if you have any questions about the process.

  21. Footnote Fanatic

    Those with an interest in Nathan Larson may wish to read up:
    “Larson looks forward to unlocking ultimate libertarian achievement”
    http://nathania.org/wiki/Larson_looks_forward_to_unlocking_ultimate_libertarian_achievement
    which includes a link to the article: “Larson refuses to resign from the Libertarian Party”

    Naturally if you want to know why the LP VA might want to expel him you should probably read his actual published words on his campaign site:
    http://larsonfordelegate.com/wiki/Main_Page

  22. Carol Moore

    I can’t remember exactly what LNC did to James Weeks II for being sex positive and flashing his man boobs et al at the LP Convention. (I know it was discussed by them.) But I’m sure all of this is much worse and actually calls for being kicked out of the party.

  23. Footnote Fanatic

    Nathan Larson has published his position on th abolition of gun control. The part that doesn’t mention legalizing attack submarines and tactical nuclear weapons says (in part):
    “I think that anyone, including preschoolers and violent felons, should be allowed to purchase firearms, with the exception that women should not be allowed to have weapons without the consent of their guardian (i.e. their father or, if they’re married, their husband).”
    http://larsonfordelegate.com/wiki/Abolition_of_gun_control

  24. Tony From Long Island

    . . . . . I can’t remember exactly what LNC did to James Weeks II for being sex positive and flashing his man boobs et al at the LP Convention. (I know it was discussed by them.) But I’m sure all of this is much worse and actually calls for being kicked out of the party. . . . .

    From what I remember, pretty much nothing. There were multiple posters on here saying how great it was and that he was just expressing himself . . . umm OK.

  25. Andy

    “Carol Moore
    March 9, 2017 at 18:38
    I can’t remember exactly what LNC did to James Weeks II for being sex positive and flashing his man boobs et al at the LP Convention. (I know it was discussed by them.) But I’m sure all of this is much worse and actually calls for being kicked out of the party.”

    How about kicking Bill Weld out of the Libertarian Party? What he did was much worse than what Weeks did. Kick Gary Johnson out as well.

    Do I have to list the multiple occasions where they campaigned against multiple sections of the Libertarian Party’s platform, and where they gushed over one of their not even remotely libertarian opponents, Hillary Clinton, or do we all acknowledge these facts?

  26. Andy

    What is worse, a fat guy dancing on stage in his underwear, or the Libertarian Party candidates for President and Vice President saying that there should be watch lists to deny gun purchases, that there should be Carbon Taxes, that the TPP is good deal, that the taxpayers should fund abortions, and that Hillary Clinton is “a wonderful public servant”?

  27. Nathan Larson

    The LP routinely allows second-string Republican politicians to run on the Libertarian ticket, despite the incompleteness of their conversion to libertarianism. The presence of LINOs in the Party has usually been tolerated, since if people don’t like them, they can just vote against nominating them. I’m not sure why one would want to go so far as to start expelling those whose positions deviate from current libertarian orthodoxy.

    Core libertarian principles such as the NAP are open to interpretation. That’s evident from the fact that if you ask anarcho-capitalists what they think about a person who threatens the President, they may say that it is a bad public relations move, but they usually won’t call it an initiation of force. The Libertarian Pledge was deliberately left vague enough that both anarchists and minarchists could interpret it as they pleased. Likewise, there has been disagreement within the Libertarian Party over such matters as the age of consent and the rights of children.

    As for the party platform, it is a political document hammered out in committee every two years. It’s not holy writ. As Rothbard wrote, “Libertarianism, while vital and true, cannot be merely graven in stone tablets; it must be a living theory, advancing through writing and discussion, and through refuting and combating errors as they arise.”

    In order for libertarianism to continue evolving as a philosophy, and to compete with new philosophies as they emerge, it’s necessary to have a free and robust debate in which arguments are presented and attempts are made to refute them. Libertarians have to be free to synthesize ideas from different philosophical frameworks and come up with their own variants of libertarianism, without worrying about getting kicked out of the Party.

    This freedom has thus far resulted in the creation of anarcho-capitalism, geolibertarianism, left-libertarianism, and paleolibertarianism, all of which may deviate in some ways from the minarchism espoused by the national LP platform. Adherents to these different variants have thus far been able to work together within the LP, even if they didn’t always have enough support from their fellow Libertarians to get the LP nomination for public office.

    My own variant that I’m devising is red pill libertarianism. True, enslaving the female population is arguably contrary to the national platform. But maybe the platform should change. Why not keep an open mind? Feminism is a fairly recent social experiment. It has only been in the last couple centuries that women’s status has been changed from that of being property. Red pillers generally argue that there is significant evidence that this experiment has failed and should be rolled back.

    I suggest, give the new philosophy time to develop further, and allow for arguments to be presented in its defense, before you judge that espousing this philosophy makes a person deserving of expulsion. Most libertarians are probably unfamiliar with the red pill; it’s sufficiently complicated that it takes quite a bit of reading to fully grasp its key concepts and their implications. Red pillers themselves are divided between various camps such as the alt-right and libertarianism. Red pill libertarianism will focus on the intersection between the red pill and libertarianism, explaining the implications of each for the other.

    Today I launched a Red Pill Libertarian website which may eventually include a video series, “Why women should be enslaved,” which will explain how the childish nature of women, the natural specialization and division of labor between the sexes, and the requirement that families have a strong leader, among other things, suggests that full application of the self-ownership principle should not be extended to women, as this has tended to cause discord and misery.

    Are we the party of political correctness now, or are we a Party that can handle internal dissent, even when it challenges assumptions that many hold dear? I tend to agree with Louis Brandeis’s sentiment, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech”. So if you think I’m in error, let’s hear your speech.

  28. Andy

    Nathan Larson said: “My own variant that I’m devising is red pill libertarianism. True, enslaving the female population is arguably contrary to the national platform. But maybe the platform should change. Why not keep an open mind? Feminism is a fairly recent social experiment.”

    Feminism was pushed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Rockefeller Foundation, with the goal of breaking up and weakening the family. I agree that that was a bad thing, however, saying that women should be enslaved is nuts. This sounds like something from a Muslim theocrat, not a libertarian.

    There ought to be an amendment to the Constitution that strips voting “rights” away from anyone who receives government welfare, or who works for or contracts with government, so this would mean that the typical single mother on welfare would not be able to vote, but it would also mean that everyone else on welfare would not be able to vote, and everyone who works for the government (or who receives government pensions), or who contracts with the government, would not be able to vote. All of these people should also be barred from donating money to political campaigns. If the only people who could vote or take part in politics were those who don’t receive their livings from government, we’d have a much more free society right now.

  29. dL

    Are we the party of political correctness now, or are we a Party that can handle internal dissent,

    No, it’s a party that does not tolerate the advocacy of involuntary indentured servitude. There is nothing to debate on that matter. There is no pill to swallow. Nor is retreating into a postmodernist victim identity posture to deflect criticism of your 12th century views likely to precipitate a more sympathetic review of your position. Opposition to some of your more objectionable views is not political correctness. It’s moral correctness.

  30. dL

    Feminism was pushed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Rockefeller Foundation, with the goal of breaking up and weakening the family. I agree that that was a bad thing, however, saying that women should be enslaved is nuts. This sounds like something from a Muslim theocrat, not a libertarian.

    If you ever were curious what a tin foil hat debate would look like…

  31. Nathan Larson

    Slavery is actually not all that radical of an idea. Already, both men and women are enslaved till they reach the age of 18. They have to do whatever chores their parents order them to do, and they can be spanked or otherwise disciplined for disobeying. They are subject to compulsory schooling and can be thrown into detention or juvenile hall if they resist. They also are not allowed to vote, even though they pay taxes (sales taxes when they spend their allowance, and income taxes when they turn 16 and start working). The average voter probably supports all this.

    Red pillers favor extending the enslavement of women beyond 18, under the theory that, especially during some of women’s most important years (ages 15-30), they are usually not able to make decisions that are as wise as what their fathers could make for them. In countries like India where arranged marriages are the norm, it does seem like there’s a higher marital success rate.

    Bear in mind, the term “enslavement” tends to be used very broadly by libertarians, to cover everything from conscription to jury duty. Mainstream society, and the Supreme Court, obviously don’t consider that kind of mandatory service enslavement, or it would have been struck down as a 13th Amendment violation.

  32. Andy

    “Nathan Larson
    March 10, 2017 at 22:33
    Slavery is actually not all that radical of an idea.”

    It is not a libertarian idea either.

    “Already, both men and women are enslaved till they reach the age of 18. They have to do whatever chores their parents order them to do, and they can be spanked or otherwise disciplined for disobeying.”

    Stefan Molyneux argues that spanking is a violation of the non-aggression principle. I agree with him here.

    “They are subject to compulsory schooling and can be thrown into detention or juvenile hall if they resist.”

    The government school system is not libertarian.

    “They also are not allowed to vote, even though they pay taxes (sales taxes when they spend their allowance, and income taxes when they turn 16 and start working).”

    There is evidence that the income tax was never properly ratified, and that even if it was, it is not being applied legally in most cases, as in it does not apply to the earnings of most Americans. Also, from a hardcore libertarian perspective, all taxation is theft, and is therefore illegitimate.

    ” The average voter probably supports all this.”

    The average voter is not a libertarian.

  33. Andy

    “dL
    March 10, 2017 at 22:28
    ‘Feminism was pushed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Rockefeller Foundation, with the goal of breaking up and weakening the family. I agree that that was a bad thing, however, saying that women should be enslaved is nuts. This sounds like something from a Muslim theocrat, not a libertarian.’

    If you ever were curious what a tin foil hat debate would look like…”

    So says a person who has not done any research. This is all a part of the public record now. The CIA funded Ms. Magazine.

    The late Aaron Russo said that a member of the Rockefeller family admitted to him that the Rockefeller Foundation funded the feminist movement with the goal of breaking up and weakening the family.

  34. Nathan Larson

    I feel like there’s a certain amount of inequity in how I’m being treated, given the reaction (or lack thereof) when others have made statements that went against the LP platform. For example, Gary Johnson can advocate banning burqas, and that’s okay. William Weld can extol Hillary Clinton’s virtues to the press, and that’s fine. Bill Redpath can advocate gun control, and that’s cool. Robert Sarvis can call for a tax on vehicle miles driven (to be enforced via GPS, which would give the state information on where you’ve been driving), and it’s all good.

    But I’m the one who gets expelled. I think it’s because I challenged the feminist agenda, and those other candidates didn’t. Libertarians are usually pretty open-minded and tolerant people, willing to debate a wide range of ideas. But the LPVA, like many formerly pro-liberty organizations, such as the ACLU, has been infiltrated and taken over by feminists who want to suppress dissent from the feminist party line. (That’s why, by the way, you don’t see the ACLU taking on the kinds of cases they used to, defending the free speech rights of pedophiles.) As Vox Day has documented, feminist and SJW entryist tactics tend to be successful unless people catch on to what they’re up to and put a stop to it.

    I don’t think the expulsion is related so much to the Presidential assassination threat, because the LPVA leadership knew about that for years, and didn’t care. I still was able to sit on the State Central Committee (as a proxy) and on the communications committee (as website assistant, or whatever my title was). Likewise, everything else in my writings (other than my red pill writings, which are more recent) and personal life that they’re now finding objectionable, was all over Facebook and my blog, and SCC members who were connected to me via Facebook (including some of the same people calling for expulsion now) were aware of it the whole time.

    By process of elimination, then, we can see that I’m being kicked out because of the red pill political positions I espouse. Yet I’m certainly not the first Libertarian to take a stance that others complained about, saying, “You’re advocating a NAP violation.” That happens all the time. People are constantly disagreeing about what the NAP does and doesn’t allow, and what is or isn’t initiation of force.

    Expulsion from the LPVA is unprecedented, to my knowledge. That’s probably because it’s unprecedented that anyone in the LPVA has challenged the feminists.

  35. dL

    Slavery is actually not all that radical of an idea

    Ah, the moral relativism dodge. Yes, too often slavery in one form or another has been part of societal ethical norms. However, the problem with the moral relativism argument is that those being enslaved tend to view slavery for what it it is. So, to say society at any given point has accepted A,B,C..Z is not exactly true. Not everyone in society at any given point has accepted A,B,C…Z as an ethical norm…namely, the slaves themselves. Indeed, the master-slave dynamic is the easy universalist rejoinder to moral relativism. Telling people what to do and simultaneously resenting being told what to do is a moral dynamic that transcends the postmodernist cultural relativism that you are spitting out here. And I can assure that you are going to encounter very little moral relativist sentiment when it comes to opposition to marital indentured servitude.

    Secondly, the libertarian appeal to to the parent-child dynamic to justify your 12th century view of female indentured servitude fails on two counts.

    (1) Libertarians generally oppose most of the child indentured servitude bullet points you listed above

    (2) while the balancing act of child welfare vs child autonomy for a child below the age of contract(or consent) is one of the more difficult problems of libertarianism(which, btw, is also difficult for any moral system), the problem disappears at the age of consent(or contract). Indeed, the one thing libertarians are generally unified on across all strains is that the “child problem” does not extend to treating adults like children. Hence the typical libertarian mockery of “but what about the children.” Hence, your attempt to selectively extend the child problem to female adults is trivially academic from a libertarian perspective to knock down.

    Lastly, your attempt to shift gears and point out that what libertarians often consider indentured servitude nonetheless passes the 13th amendment test is a moot point. Marital indentured servitude would not pass that test. And rightly so.

  36. Jim

    Nathan Larson “I feel like there’s a certain amount of inequity in how I’m being treated, given the reaction (or lack thereof) when others have made statements that went against the LP platform…”

    Would you treat each violation equally? Advocating a tax on soda is equivalent to kidnapping, skinning, dismembering, and eating your neighbor?

    Nathan Larson “For example, Gary Johnson can advocate banning burqas, and that’s okay….”

    Johnson took so much heat from libertarians for that that he reversed his position the following day. All of those people were criticized for their violations of the LP platform.

  37. Jill Pyeatt

    Why women should be enslaved, which will explain how the childish nature of women, the natural specialization and division of labor between the sexes, and the requirement that families have a strong leader, among other things, suggests that full application of the self-ownership principle should not be extended to women, as this has tended to cause discord and misery.

    LOL! What a hoot! That’s the funniest and dumbest thing I’ve read this year so far!

  38. Chuck Moulton

    I emphatically disagree with Nathan Larson’s platform positions which advocate taking away basic rights from women.

    However, I think missing in this discussion is that his “red pill libertarianism” is one outgrowth of the thick vs. thin libertarianism debate. His version of thick libertarianism tries to extend the philosophy to cultural issues in a way many of us find abhorent. The underlying problem is thick libertarianism itself, which allows anyone through intellectual gymnastics to extend libertarianism to his preferred cultural norms.

    As a former Virginia Libertarian and former LPVA chair (I am now back in Pennsylvania), I want to weigh in on a few things.

    First, Sarvis never said his milage tax would involve GPS. That was a lie made up by the Republicans. In fact, a milage tax could be implemented simply by looking at the odometer and a milage tax can be thought of as a user fee for roads, which may be a better tax method than collecting income tax, putting it in the general fund, then allocating it to transportation.

    Second, I helped out with the website when Nathan Larson was a website assistant. He was a tireless volunteer that did a lot of good work for the party.

    That said, in my opinion there ought to be different vetting procedures for a behind the scenes volunteer and for someone representing the LP and libertarianism to the public as a candidate. It is entirely appropriate in my opinion to welcome dedicated volunteers with various baggage while simultaneously not want to hand that person the party’s microphone.

    I gather some in the LPVA are frustrated that a volunteer with some baggage was working behind the scenes helping the party for years. It would be great if we were so flush with volunteer interest that we could afford to exclusively work with angels. Until that time, I think it’s prudent to recruit hard workers and keep them focused on tasks where their baggage is not a detriment.

    Third, the LPVA is acting entitely appropriately denying its nomination to someone it feels would damage its philosophical brand.

    Personally I give some latitude to candidates on philosophical variations, but I only support candidates whose “top 3” issues — their campaign forcus — are all libertarian positions. In my opinion Nathan Larson fails that test, although admittedly I am a “thin” libertarian.

    I think it would be best if Larson campaigns as an independent instead of as a “Libertarian” or a “libertarian”.

    Finally, I get that it’s a wise publicity and marketing move to expel an intellectual lepur from the party. I’m not so sure it’s the right move operationally and from a due process point of view. Instead, in my opinion the LPVA ought to ask Larson to remove LP references from his campaign and website and have an amicable separation for the duration of this campaign — after he is out of the limelight, he could potentially be a valuable behind the scenes volunteer again someday — or his positions may evolve toward libertarian orthodoxy in the future. But I’m just a Pennsylvanian now, so those Virginians can deal with this however they want.

  39. Chuck Moulton

    It also bears mentioning that the LP has a demographic problem: there is a gender disparity among voters and an even bigger gender disparity among volunteers. This anti-woman philosophy masquerading as a strand of libertarianism would only exacerbate that problem.

    As a Libertarian activist who wants our candidates to do well and get elected, I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that alienates half the voters.

    As a single heterosexual man, I would prefer to date libertarians rather than statists, so I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that repels women by casting them as mindless slaves.

  40. George Phillies

    ” intellectual gymnastics to extend libertarianism”
    That’s the real problem. That’s NeoPlatonism in action, the belief that you start with a few allegedly self-evident postulates and deduce everything from them. That’s a philosophical approach that has been dead since the time of the Emperor Justinian, and that was actually dead at a much earlier time. It’s the opposite of how modern science works.

    But Jill is right. The proposals heard there are unusually silly even for the internet.

  41. dL

    However, I think missing in this discussion is that his “red pill libertarianism” is one outgrowth of the thick vs. thin libertarianism debate. His version of thick libertarianism tries to extend the philosophy to cultural issues in a way many of us find abhorent. The underlying problem is thick libertarianism itself, which allows anyone through intellectual gymnastics to extend libertarianism to his preferred cultural norms.

    “Thickness” can devolve into a postmodernist critical theory judgment of culture. Indeed, that is a common and valid criticism of the thing. As Chomsky might say, critical theory often reduces to incomprehensible jargon babble that merely ends ups reinforcing the status quo. The more corrupt the social polity, the more likely the elites of that polity are disciple of it.

    However, dialectics and (cultural) context have their uses in the social sciences. Particularly when when they are used to interpret and explain rather than make judgments(i.e., social justice). For example, consider the following question:

    Does a free market result in hierarchical firms?

    That question cannot be answered via logical deduction or from a academic consideration of a rational(economic) process divorced from the cultural context. If the context is one that values “innovation,” relentless rent-seeking through heterogenous product differentiation, “buy for one, sell for two,” has an education system that trains for division of labor, then yes, a free market will produce firm hierarchy. Very little doubt about it.

    However, if the cultural context is one that does not necessarily highly value those things, and largely wants to trade apples for oranges, then, no, the organization structure will be much flatter.

    Hierarchy is a function of the rent-seeking context. “Thickness” and dialectics is useful to interpret and explain what we see in that regard. When it steps over into making judgments RE: a preference between the two is when it can get into trouble. Resorting to “intellectual gymnastics” to explain away what it doesn’t like in terms of preference==injustice is a first sign of it. Libertarianism goes into extreme error when it demands a critical theory cultural commitment of one sort or the other to necessarily arrive at the right outcome. And frankly, I see that error these days from both right and left libertarianism.

    Libertarianism is thin in the sense of duties owed to no one. That version of thinness shorts circuits the critical theory cultural commitment nonsense. However, I do not share the “thinness” of NAP in the sense of a heuristic law or a common law /w dispute resolution being capable of logical inference merely from a simple non-aggression principle.

  42. dL

    As a single heterosexual man, I would prefer to date libertarians rather than statists, so I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that repels women by casting them as mindless slaves.

    And chuck just hung himself with his own rope w/ the cultural postmodernists…

  43. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    Chuck Molton says “As a single heterosexual man, I would prefer to date libertarians rather than statists, so I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that repels women by casting them as mindless slaves.”

    I do not see that Larson makes any such claim that women do not have minds.

  44. Nathan Larson

    “Ah, the moral relativism dodge.”

    That wasn’t the way I intended it. Part of my point was that slavery of children has been tried before, so it’s a practice that we have some empirical evidence about. One of the problems with a lot of libertarian ideas, such as anarcho-capitalism, is that there’s little empirical evidence about how it would work, so people will say, “Show me one place on earth where a society without a state has flourished” and use that as a reason why we can’t try it. The subjugation of women to men has also been tried extensively throughout history, so we know a lot about the consequences of it. It wouldn’t be an untried social experiment; to the contrary, feminism is the relatively new social experiment, and we’re just now starting to get some evidence of the results (e.g. falling fertility rates, diminished levels of female happiness, rising suicide rates among menopausal women, etc.)

    The other aspect of enslavement of women is that it is very similar to practices the voters already approve (e.g. the enslavement of children). As a pragmatic political realist who is always mindful of what the voters will be receptive to, I have to take that into account.

    “Libertarians generally oppose most of the child indentured servitude bullet points you listed above”

    I’m not so sure about that. One of the rationales for why I’m being kicked out of the LPVA is that they say I don’t respect the fact that children can’t give informed consent (e.g. to sex). The idea that children can’t give informed consent is one of the main arguments for enslaving them. Apparently, the LPVA does believe children are incompetent to exercise their rights of self-ownership. If they don’t own themselves, then someone else owns them (at least temporarily), which is the very definition of slavery.

    If we can justify taking away rights from kids on the basis of their being less competent than their parents or other guardians, then why not take away rights from women on the basis of their being less competent than their fathers and husbands, if that can be proven? The theoretical foundation having been laid, and agreed on by Libertarians at least with regard to children, all that is left is to gather the empirical proof.

    “This anti-woman philosophy masquerading as a strand of libertarianism would only exacerbate that problem. As a Libertarian activist who wants our candidates to do well and get elected, I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that alienates half the voters.”

    I’m antifeminist, not anti-woman. There are female antifeminists as well, such as Ann Coulter and Christy0Misty (anonymous YouTuber), who have said that women’s right to vote should be taken away. Mises (in Socialism) and Rothbard (in Power and Market) too made suggestions along those lines.

    “As a single heterosexual man, I would prefer to date libertarians rather than statists, so I don’t want libertarianism associated with a philosophy that repels women by casting them as mindless slaves.”

    You seem to be presuming that (1) equality of women to men is a libertarian view, (2) the idea of enslavement of women to men repels all women, and (3) it’s preferable to date libertarians rather than statists. Actually, I think it’s often best to have a romantic relationship with women who are apolitical. Thus far, I haven’t observed libertarian women to have a very good track record of loyalty; most of them seem to end up divorcing at least one husband.

  45. dL

    The other aspect of enslavement of women is that it is very similar to practices the voters already approve (e.g. the enslavement of children). As a pragmatic political realist who is always mindful of what the voters will be receptive to, I have to take that into account.

    Appealing to child indentured servitude to justify adult indentured servitude can be used against anyone or any group.

    we’re just now starting to get some evidence of the results (e.g. falling fertility rates, diminished levels of female happiness, rising suicide rates among menopausal women, etc.)

    Actually, the demo w/ the highest suicide rate is white male. Given that the social experiment of male marital indentured servitude has never before been tried, perhaps it is now time to look into this.

    Conclusion: Using Larson’s own logic, Larson inadvertently makes a better case for while male indentured servitude.

  46. Double Standard Much?

    This guy is out there with some of this stuff… But I’m choking on the irony. Libertarians say it’s OK to include gun grabbing Bill Weld and Fair Tax Gary Johnson, but this guy isn’t OK. Makes no sense.

  47. Joshua Koch

    I don’t see this “irony” or “double standard.” I would hardly compare the fair tax or signing incremental gun control measures as the Republican governor of a liberal state, neither of which I agree with, to advocating the legalization of rape or breeding girls specifically for the purpose of child molestation. If you do, I’d suggest the problem is with you. He is not just completely outside the bounds of libertarianism – and he is – but also way outside the bounds of modern civilized society, and should be treated by the LP or any other political party as a moral and social leper at best.

  48. Nathan Larson

    “Appealing to child indentured servitude to justify adult indentured servitude can be used against anyone or any group.” Indeed. When you take away the rights of one group, the same arguments can be used to justify taking away the rights of all the others, too.

    “Actually, the demo w/ the highest suicide rate is white male.” As it should be. Men have much heavier burdens than women; we can’t just live a life of ease, with no other responsibilities beyond cleaning the house, cooking dinner, changing diapers, and spreading our legs. In addition, there’s a greater standard deviation in the bell curve of abilities and competence in the male population than there is in the female population. There will, therefore, always tend to be more men than women who are unable to fulfill their responsibilities, and have to give up.

    There have been successful Virginia politicians who supported keeping rape legal. See the 2002 Washington Post article, “Va. House Backs Bill To Outlaw Wife Rape,” in which Bob Marshall asked, “If a wife simply said no and the husband simply wanted to have relations, is that rape?” (Dick Black took a similar stance, and he not only has gotten re-elected but has advanced in his career to serve in the state senate.)

    Bob Marshall continues to be re-elected to represent Virginia’s 13th House of Delegates district. He’s not treated as any kind of leper by his party.

    The reason is that the people who vote for him don’t care about his stance on marital rape (or, if anything, they agree with it). They’re a bunch of Catholics who only care that he’s pro-life. Every two years, they turn out to back whatever candidate is with them on that single issue.

    Similarly, why can’t Libertarians just say, “Oh, Nathan Larson is pro-gun and pro-cannabis, so let’s ignore these other stances of his”? The Catholics and Republicans actually have better unity than the Libertarians, which is why they’re able to win. They don’t get caught up in all this infighting. They hold a primary if necessary, and then get behind the best candidate available.

    If the Libertarians would put another Libertarian on the ballot in the 31st District and nominate him, maybe I would drop out of the race (although I would’ve preferred if they had put forth a candidate back in January, before I started gathering signatures). But they don’t have their act together enough to be able to find someone in this area who is willing to step up and gather 125 valid signatures. So, for those who want a candidate who wants to legalize pot, legalize machine gun ownership by private citizens, etc. I’m the only guy in the race who offers that.

  49. Jill Pyeatt

    “Actually, the demo w/ the highest suicide rate is white male.” As it should be. Men have much heavier burdens than women; we can’t just live a life of ease, with no other responsibilities beyond cleaning the house, cooking dinner, changing diapers, and spreading our legs. In addition, there’s a greater standard deviation in the bell curve of abilities and competence in the male population than there is in the female population.”

    I’ve been too busy running my two businesses to bother responding to you, but I just have to say this:

    Please give me your wife’s and daughters names so I can pray for them.

  50. Footnote Fanatic

    For those with an interest either in favor or against Nathan Larson’s campaign for delegate:

    “Larson announces fast unto death in protest against laws that infringe free speech by criminalizing possession and distribution of child pornography
    From Nathan Larson for Delegate
    CATLETT, VIRGINIA — 28 March 2017 — Nathan Larson announced today, “I am undertaking a fast unto death in protest against laws that infringe free speech by criminalizing possession and distribution of child pornography. The fast will continue until (1) these laws have been repealed, both at the state and federal levels; and (2) all those convicted under these statutes have been pardoned.””

    The release is 474 words long.

    http://larsonfordelegate.com/wiki/Larson_announces_fast_unto_death_in_protest_against_laws_that_infringe_free_speech_by_criminalizing_possession_and_distribution_of_child_pornography

  51. Great ideas

    Well, he’ll get more attention but probably not more sympathy. In fact, he may actually achieve the difficult task of making child molesters even less popular due to his other proclivities such as raping and enslaving women, breeding daughters for the purpose of molestation and rape, and threatening to kill the president. I guess we’ll see if he actually follows through with starving himself to death.

  52. Footnote Fanatic

    It appears that Nathan Larson’s campaign for delegate and the fast declared above have taken a sharp turn.

    The sole remaining declaration from Nathan Larson remaining is:

    “Nathan Larson is running for Delegate in Virginia’s 31st House of Delegates district on a plain vanilla anarcho-capitalist platform of abolishing the state, so that the power of the free market can be fully unleashed to provide security, dispute resolution, and other services. That is the entirety of this campaign’s agenda. For more information, see the Wikipedia article on anarcho-capitalist literature.”

    http://larsonfordelegate.com/wiki/Main_Page

  53. Footnote Fanatic

    Certainly pranksterism must be considered. Nathan Larson has appended further words to his main candidate page. I will include a small slice of the revised and further appended main page.

    “Nathan Larson renounces antifeminist views; embraces feminism
    CATLETT, VIRGINIA — 1 April 2017 — Nathan Larson, candidate in Virginia’s 31st House of Delegates district election, 2017, announced yesterday that he has renounced his antifeminist views and embraced feminism.

    “First of all, this is not an April Fool’s joke,” Larson remarked. “The proof of this is that I had already announced this change on 31 March 2017, the day before April Fool’s Day. It’s just now that I’m getting the press release out, though.”

    The entirety of his main page press release is 1,153 words long. Items mentioned include Clockwork Orange, Murray Rothbard, the Constitution and Independent Green parties, Ludwig von Mises, Walter Block and Bryan Caplan.

  54. Pingback: Nathan Larson renounces antifeminist views; embraces feminism | Independent Political Report

  55. Jacqueline Passey Mason

    I hope that he proves to be sincere in this. I like to believe that anyone is capable of redemption.

    Nathan has walked a very long way down a very dark path. But one can always choose to stop and turn around. If he has, good for him.

  56. Nathan Larson

    Don’t we all seek some form of attention or another? When a loved one is being inattentive, for example, one may feel neglected.

    If you’re trying to influence public opinion or action in some way, you pretty much have to seek the attention of a large number of people. The advertiser advertises; the politician campaigns; the activist who despairs of effecting change through politics maybe does something more drastic.

    If you can accomplish your work without being in the public eye, then there’s no need to seek attention. You just quietly carry out your mission in the privacy of seclusion. If I were coding software, for instance, there might be no need for fanfare.

    Facebook turned attention-seeking into a MMORPG, and involved the masses in humblebragging, selfie-taking, and generally propagandizing about how great their lives are. But I’m not on Facebook.

  57. Great ideas

    Why not? It seems like it would be a natural fit for you. Perhaps not as good as myspace in its heyday but still pretty serviceable.

  58. Nathan Larson

    I just find that Facebook tends to have a negative effect on people. They get caught up in the drama of, “Only seven people liked my vacation photos!” or “So-and-so liked everyone else’s comment, but didn’t like mine!” It’s also poorly designed compared to a lot of other platforms. I’ve written several essays where I go into more depth about what I don’t like about Facebook, but that’s the gist of it.

Leave a Reply

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