Arvin Vohra, Vice Chairman of Libertarian Party, Announces Run for U S Senate

(Photo courtesy Arvin Vohra)

July 4, 2017

Over two centuries ago, our founding fathers declared fierce and open opposition against their own government. Today, I invite you to do the same with me. Today, I proudly announce my intention to run for United States Senate.

My campaign will be bold, unapologetic, and fearlessly Libertarian. I’ll be audacious in the debates they allow me in; I’ll be incendiary as hell when they don’t. If we have enough volunteers, we can make the campaign as much a focus as the “official” debates.

I will focus on abolishing federal departments, ending the Fed, and abolishing the income tax.

I will intentionally provoke opposition, and try to make as much of this senate election about my campaign as possible. They may block me from the official debates, but I’ll do my best to make the unofficial ones focus on my campaign.

By myself, I’ll be able to do a little. With your help, I’ll be able to do a lot more.

I intend to use my campaign to activate those who already dislike the government, but have given up trying to fight it. I will be recruiting new candidates everywhere I go. I will help new candidates understand how even “smaller” positions can openly nullify silly laws.

This campaign is an open political revolt. I have no intention of trying to be innocuous or politician-y. Whether I am working to give people psychological permission to openly oppose welfare, government schools, and militarism, or focusing on the benefits of eliminating most or all of the federal government, I will be bold, radical, audacious, and unapologetic.

Is there a high chance of “winning”? No one knows. But can we use this campaign to massively increase anti-state sentiment, recruit anti-state candidates, and put out a fearlessly huge-L Libertarian message? Without question. Can we inspire people to leave fearful statism and embrace freedom? Absolutely. Can we use it to inspire people to demand big cuts in government, while building the LP’s electoral infrastructure? Definitely.

If you’d like to be a part of my campaign, please go to: https://www.facebook.com/groups/VohraLiberty/

I welcome people from all states, all political parties, and all ages who want to brazenly, boldly, triggeringly, and unapologetically oppose the state.

In Liberty,

Arvin Vohra

Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate
http://www.votevohra.com/

98 thoughts on “Arvin Vohra, Vice Chairman of Libertarian Party, Announces Run for U S Senate

  1. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Which STATE is he running in? I couldn’t find it in the above post. I couldn’t even find it on his campaign website.

  2. robert capozzi

    My quick scan of this letter and the links do not reveal which state he’s running for Senate in. Usually, that’s an emphasis of a campaign.

    If he wants to be “unapologetic,” it might be nice to know to which state’s citizens that lack of apology is directed toward!

  3. Starchild

    Go Arvin! Sounds like the kind of guerilla politics we need to shake up the statist quo.

    Robert – Arvin lives in Maryland, and I presume that’s where he plans to run for Senate. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know this and were being sincere in asking – but trying to cast being “unapologetic” in one’s libertarianism as somehow directed against the people, rather than against the State, is unfortunately just the kind of remark I’ve come to expect from you.

  4. robert capozzi

    Starchild, you’re not quite getting my point. I see this short announcement used the word (in a form) “unapologetic” three times, so I sensed that seems to be his theme. Generally, most authors avoid such repetition, but there may well be a good reason for repeating the word, particularly if he’s targeting people who resonate with that word. My guess is he’s targeting “radical” Ls with this word choice.

    You are correct; I don’t know where Arvin resides.

    It seems quite odd that this announcement doesn’t specify which seat he’s running for, but, again, perhaps there’s a good reason for the omission. Any ideas on the matter? Is it some sort of transcendent message, where he’s running for a non-existent at-large Senate seat? 😉 I’m curious if others find this at least a bit off.

  5. Pete Blome

    Vohra’s criticism of veterans was one of the most politically inept things I’ve ever seen a national official of the LPF do. At the same time, it also showed blissful ignorance of the daily hypocrisy in his own life. It was such a furor, it forced the LP EC to issue a resolution basically saying “we don’t hate veterans,” as damage control. Now he moves from that disaster to running for the Senate. I predict a decrease in Libertarian votes in Maryland.

  6. Bondurant

    I thought Arvin was from and/or residing in CA. Perhaps he’s announced to run but deciding on a state? Odd that a state is not mentioned. Good luck to Arvin wherever he may be running.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    Doesn’t even mention what state he’s running in . . . . hmm . . . .

    He lost me at “abolish the income tax . . . ” He’s apparently one of those “right from A to Z . . . skip B,C,D etc.” libertarians.

    How about at least one campaign theme that can actually be achieved if he’s elected?

  8. Anthony Dlugos

    Why would a Operating Thetan…er, I mean, Libertarian, Level 8 like Vohra be concerned with trivialities like the human-construct “state” he is running for a Senate seat from? He’s on a mission to smash the state and usher in libertopia. Please don’t waste his time with Terrapin voter concerns. That’s so statist!

  9. Andy

    “Bondurant
    July 7, 2017 at 09:15
    I thought Arvin was from and/or residing in CA. Perhaps he’s announced to run but deciding on a state? Odd that a state is not mentioned. Good luck to Arvin wherever he may be running.”

    Arvin has lived in Maryland since as long as I have been aware of him, which is since the first time he ran for the LNC, which was also the first time he got elected to the LNC.

  10. Andy

    “Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)
    July 7, 2017 at 09:53
    Arvin Vorha last ran for US Senate in 2016 in the state of Maryland. He has run for US House in 2012 and 2014 [also in Maryland]. I presume he is running again in Maryland though I could not prove it.
    https://ballotpedia.org/Arvin_Vohra

    Arvin can run for whatever he wants to run for, but if he wants to stand a chance at getting elected, he should run for the state legislature or for a county or city office, and if he wants to help the LP stay on the ballot in Maryland for the next 4 years, he should run for Governor, because in Maryland, the LP has to meet a vote test for Governor, whereas they have to get a certain percent of the vote in the race for Governor, in order to remain a ballot qualified party in Maryland up until 2022.

  11. Andy

    Since Arvin is not go to seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination for Governor of Maryland, who is?

  12. paulie

    I thought Arvin was from and/or residing in CA. Perhaps he’s announced to run but deciding on a state?

    Nope. Maryland, within spitting distance of the DC border, as long as I have known him, which is about 5 years. Nice big house.

  13. robert capozzi

    ad: …Operating Thetan…er, I mean, Libertarian, Level 8 like Vohra be concerned with trivialities like the human-construct “state” he is running for a Senate seat from?

    me: Unkind, but on its face accurate, apparently.

    That is, unless he or his allies can explain such an obvious oversight in a plausible manner.

  14. Anthony Dlugos

    rc,

    In all seriousness, my guess is neither Petersen nor Vohra care about the seat they are actually running for or the people they are running to represent. Both campaigns will be platforms to advance their own brand.

  15. paulie

    I don’t think Arvin’s intra-LP spats will have a huge impact on his vote totals. Neither will whether he runs a hardcore or softcore l campaign. Most of the votes he gets will most likely be because he is on the ballot and listed as the LP candidate. He will get approximately the same number/percent of votes and approximately the same amount of media coverage regardless of what he says or does in the campaign. The only place it may make a big difference is in whether he is challenged for the nomination, and how successfully if so.

    As far as keeping the LP on the ballot in Maryland, I could be wrong but I thought they passed a law that 10,000 registrations is now another way to keep the party on the ballot, which the LP has, so they no longer need to worry about the Gov race as much. But I could be wrong.

  16. robert capozzi

    ad,

    Yes, your supposition makes sense to me.

    My hypothesis is running a pro-liberty campaign that underscores in tangible ways how more liberty is good for the people of the state or district the candidate is running in would be an even more effective brand-builder than AP or AV’s likely desire to say outlandish things in the context of a campaign.

    It would take more work to put a real-world lessarchist campaign into action vs. throwing out fusionist or anarchist one-liners, which can amuse and animate a tiny slivver of voters. Phoning in shock-jock-like rhetorical flourishes is easy and fun, though, and that’s my expectation of both efforts.

  17. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    July 7, 2017 at 12:24
    rc,

    In all seriousness, my guess is neither Petersen nor Vohra care about the seat they are actually running for or the people they are running to represent. Both campaigns will be platforms to advance their own brand.”

    I think that Arvin cares about expanding individual freedom, and Petersen probably does as well.

    I don’t think that either of them stand a chance at winning. They are both likely running to get their messages out, and maybe to build up for a future run for something else.

    Anthony Dlugos criticizes Arvin and Petersen for running for offices that they stand close to zero chance of winning, yet the same could have been said about his boy Gary Johnson in the presidential race.

  18. Anthony Dlugos

    rc,

    “It would take more work to put a real-world lessarchist campaign into action vs. throwing out fusionist or anarchist one-liners, which can amuse and animate a tiny slivver of voters. Phoning in shock-jock-like rhetorical flourishes is easy and fun, though, and that’s my expectation of both efforts.”

    agree 100%.

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    “Anthony Dlugos criticizes Arvin and Petersen for running for offices that they stand close to zero chance of winning…”

    I absolutely do not criticise them for running long-shot campaigns. I criticise them for running self-indulgent campaigns. At least Austin indicated he is running to represent Missourians. Austin is more politically and media savvy, however. As has been noted, Vohra doesn’t even mention what state’s seat he is running for.

  20. dL

    It would take more work to put a real-world lessarchist campaign into action

    A real-world lessarchist campaign in action==message board criticism of real-world LP candidates who are actually libertarian.

  21. Anthony Dlugos

    In the political arena, anyone who is a member of the Libertarian Party is an “actual” Libertarian.

    As an aside, no one needs a political slide rule to understand that a candidate (Vohra) who call members of the military “accessories to murder,” among other suicidal ideas, and plans on putting “incendiary ads in the most blatant places possible” as a campaign tactic, is gonna crash and burn.

  22. dL

    Go Arvin! Sounds like the kind of guerilla politics we need to shake up the statist quo.

    hear, hear

  23. dL

    In the political arena, anyone who is a member of the Libertarian Party is an “actual” Libertarian.

    Nope. Neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being a libertarian.

    to understand that a candidate (Vohra) who call members of the military “accessories to murder,

    Occupation is organized murder

    plans on putting “incendiary ads in the most blatant places possible” as a campaign tactic, is gonna crash and burn show someone in the LP finally has some balls.

  24. Anthony Dlugos

    “Nope. Neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being a libertarian.”

    I used the capitalized form of Libertarian. You probably think I’m not a Libertarian. My membership card says otherwise, and my effect on things such as who gets nominated for President does as well.

    “plans on putting “incendiary ads in the most blatant places possible” as a campaign tactic, is gonna show someone in the LP finally has some balls.”

    Plans on putting “incendiary ads in the most blatant places possible” as a campaign tactic, is gonna fall like a tree (purist) in the woods with no one around. (except other trees, of course).

    FIFY

  25. Andy

    Anthony, one could also say that Gary Johnson’s campaign was self indulgent.

    I think the difference is that you like Johnson, and you dislike Arvin and Petersen.

  26. Tony From Long Island

    Leave it to Andy to find a way to bash Gary Johnson . . . . It’s a sickness (among his many)

  27. Richard Winger

    The bill to leave the Libertarian Party on the ballot if it has at least 10,000 registrants failed to pass. It was HB 707 by Representative David Moon (D-Silver Spring).

    The bill that did pass in Maryland this year was HB 529, which says an independent candidate for statewide office needs 10,000 signatures, not 1% of the number of registered voters (approximately 42,000).

    Arvin declared his candidacy for US Senate in Maryland as a Libertarian in 2016, but then he didn’t complete the steps to be the nominee. The LP had no one on the ballot in 2016 for US Senate. The Green Party nominee, Margaret Flowers, got 89,970 votes for US Senate, 3.30%, which was the best showing for a minor party nominee for US Senate in Maryland in history. Traditionally Maryland has not been a state where voters are interested in minor parties, but that may be starting to change.

    I am glad Arvin is running, because in all history, only once has a Libertarian been on the ballot for US Senate in Maryland. I think a lawsuit against the law for staying on the ballot might succeed. The existing law is absurd. Why should a party that has over 10,000 registrants be required to go out and get 10,000 names on a petition? Obviously if the party has over 10,000 registrants, it has at least 10,000 people who want the party on the ballot, so the petition is absurd.

  28. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    July 7, 2017 at 13:51
    In the political arena, anyone who is a member of the Libertarian Party is an ‘actual’ Libertarian.”

    They may be a member of the Libertarian Party, but this does not automatically make one an actual libertarian, given that people can and have lied when they signed their membership pledge (like Bill Weld did), or they signed it without really understanding it.

  29. paulie

    From a current or former Maryland LP officer via email (I think current, but would have to check):

    Shawn Quinn, who ran for Governor in 2014, is running again. He was already nominated at our spring convention, in late April.

    We need to update the MDLP website with our candidates.

    Richard is of course also correct about the law; I did say I could be wrong, and I was. My memory is not always the greatest.

  30. dL

    I used the capitalized form of Libertarian. You probably think I’m not a Libertarian. My membership card says otherwise, and my effect on things such as who gets nominated for President does as well.

    I haven’t said anything about you not being a libertarian. However, i will point out that saying:

    Libertarian party member==Libertarian party member

    is a tautologically trivial statement that says nothing. Obviously, that’s not what I was saying. Nor was I saying the LP doesn’t run libertarian candidates. What I was saying is that people like Bob want the LP to run median voter theorem candidates(or perhaps, median pundit theorem candidates) and not actual libertarians(at the very least, ones who give no hint of being a libertarian when they are moving their lips).

  31. Pete Blome

    Instead of running, Arvin should step out of the limelight, dedicate his time to finding and grooming candidates who can win, and building the support structure to let them effectively compete.

  32. robert capozzi

    aj: Anthony, one could also say that Gary Johnson’s campaign was self indulgent.

    me: Whether the GJ “campaign” was “self indulgent” or not is interesting. I’d need more information about why you think so. Saying a campaign is self indulgent is different than saying the candidate himself is.

    The truth is that Johnson/Weld was a plausible ticket, and they got coverage and results that validate that. You may not be happy with their NAP plumbline violations; the campaign management’s lack of financial transparency; or GJ’s lack of preparation at key moments. All fair.

    AP does seem very interested in self promotion in an almost Root-like manner. AV I have no opinion about, other than the little I’ve seen of his stuff indicates that he’s a NAPster.

  33. Stuart Simms

    I can confirm that Shawn Quinn, the nominee for Governor in MD in 2014, is once again the gubernatorial candidate for the LP in 2018..

    Arvin lives in Maryland, mere yards from the DC/MD line. In 2016 there was no incumbent for the Senate seat in MD and many, myself included, were highly disappointed that he wasn’t on the ballot. Especially given that this was not a ballot access issue.

  34. Just Some Random Guy

    So, has he still not announced what state he’s running in?

    A lot of people are assuming Maryland, but it’s very baffling he doesn’t mention this on his site or in the announcement. This seems like rather important information to be omitting.

  35. Anthony Dlugos

    dL,

    “Libertarian party member==Libertarian party member

    is a tautologically trivial statement that says nothing.”

    I wouldn’t say it says nothing. I would say it says what is by necessity true, and what should be blatantly obvious.

    To wit:

    tau·tol·o·gy
    tô?täl?j?
    a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

    However, some people deny the blatantly obvious, that which you concede. Quoth Andy, timestamp 15:44:

    “They may be a member of the Libertarian Party, but this does not automatically make one an actual libertarian.”

    Now, I can’t make someone accept the blatantly obvious. I, can, however, strive to make the Libertarian Party a place people who deny the blatantly obvious don’t feel comfortable in. They are free to sulk away in their basement, writing a blog no one reads describing how only they know what libertarianism is, but the important thing is that the party will have dispensed with pointless debates, and unified in its mission of moving public policy in a libertarian direction.

  36. paulie

    And by what means can we determine whether a particular policy movement is in a libertarian direction or not?

  37. Anthony Dlugos

    Andy,

    re: self-indulgent.

    If I attempt to get a meeting with Google regarding their recently opened (hypothetically speaking) CEO position, I am being self-indulgent. I have no qualifications or resume for the job. I’m wasting everyone’s (board of directors, stockholders, employees, customers, etc), time with my delusion.

    Petersen is self-indulgent because, objectively speaking, he was not even remotely qualified for job he was running for. Governor Johnson was, as was Governor Weld. It is quite clear that previous experience as a Governor is a common requirement for the Presidency, based on not only voter preference, but on the common sense idea that it behooves one to have experience as an executive when you are “applying” for the job of chief executive of the federal government. Time spent as a blogger is not helpful from either perspective.

    Vohra’s situation running for the US Senate, while not as extreme as Petersen’s, still demonstrates pathological self-indulgence. His recent diatribes regarding teachers, members of the military and others, his campaign strategy of “incendiary ads in the most blatant locations” tells any normal person he is unconcerned with winning office, and more concerned with indulging his desire to make himself the center of attention. Either that or he has no freaking clue how to win elective office.

    The point here is that its not just personal dislike on my part. Johnson did not run a “look at me” campaign. Petersen did, and it appears Vohra will.

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    “And by what means can we determine whether a particular policy movement is in a libertarian direction or not?”

    I guess that’s up to each individual Libertarian to decide.

  39. paulie

    I guess that’s up to each individual Libertarian to decide.

    What that means in short order is that it will mean nothing at all, and it becomes a meaningless term, or one with no meaning other than seeking political power for its own sake.

  40. paulie

    tells any normal person he is unconcerned with winning office, and more concerned with indulging his desire to make himself the center of attention. Either that or he has no freaking clue how to win elective office.

    What exactly do you think he could do to make himself a viable candidate with a realistic chance of winning a seat in the US Senate? My answer is nothing. It’s about as likely at this time as a once in a million years sized meteor strike. So, being an actually sane person, Arvin is seeking something from the effort other than actually winning a seat in the US Senate. Sure, he should be prepared to serve if he is somehow elected, but come on…it’s a 100-yard field goal attempt.

  41. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Based on this announcement, AV wants to demonstrate his ability to be unapologetic when running for a non-existent at-large Senate seat.

    I can think of more dysfunctional objectives, to be fair.

  42. wolfefan

    FWIW the home page of his campaign website also does not mention what state he seeks to represent, and the contact page has no snail mail address that would give a clue. That’s just weird. http://www.votevohra.com/

  43. wolfefan

    Given that others have commented on the website already, I should have used the word “still” in the above post instead of “also.” While I am sure that Arvin doesn’t spend every waking hour reading IPR comment threads, it seems like someone would have mentioned this oversight to him, if it is an oversight.

  44. dL

    I wouldn’t say it says nothing. I would say it says what is by necessity true, and what should be blatantly obvious.

    A tautology is of the form:
    Identity: a=a
    Logic: a==a || a!=a
    Language: A member of the Libertarian Party is a capital “L” Libertarian.
    The ice in the freezer is frozen

    A tautology says nothing.

    To wit:

    I said the same thing earlier in the thread:
    “[Libertarian party membership] Neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being a libertarian.”

    They are free to sulk away in their basement, writing a blog no one reads describing how only they know what libertarianism is, but the important thing is that the party will have dispensed with pointless debates, and unified in its mission of moving public policy in a libertarian direction.

    Arvin Vohra is not sulking. He is running. And rest assured, statements like “describing how only they know what libertarianism is” is a double edge sword, brah. I get that all the time from the xenophobic, anti-immigration alt-right when I dispute their libertarian claims. You know, the “Trump libertarians.” And they’ve become quite adept at using that postmodernist crap as a weapon.

    If I attempt to get a meeting with Google regarding their recently opened (hypothetically speaking) CEO position, I am being self-indulgent. I have no qualifications or resume for the job. I’m wasting everyone’s (board of directors, stockholders, employees, customers, etc), time with my delusion.

    Google doesn’t interview for the position of CEO. lol

    It is quite clear that previous experience as a Governor is a common requirement for the Presidency, based on not only voter preference, but on the common sense idea that it behooves one to have experience as an executive when you are “applying” for the job of chief executive of the federal government.

    Only 17 out of 45 presidents have previously been a governor. Roughly, a third. Here are the official POTUS job requirements:

    • natural-born U.S. citizen
    • 35 years old
    • 14 years of residence in the US

    That’s it. Claims of any other requirements are gobbledygook. Now, I will a grant a certain unofficial requirement: money. Lot’s and lot’s and lot’s of it. If you can’t raise 9 figures, any talk of respectability, credibility, resume vis a vis electoral viability is pointless drivel.

  45. Andy

    dL said: “I get that all the time from the xenophobic, anti-immigration alt-right when I dispute their libertarian claims.”

    You mean when you falsely represent libertarianism as having something to do with modern day welfare statist “immigration” (ie-invasion of large numbers of non-peaceful people with the intent of increasing the welfare state and changing voter demographics in order to control future elections and create a more compliant population with the New World Order agenda).

  46. Bondurant

    Arvin’s website is good. The issues are clear and more detailed than most. No vague answers. Clearly libertarian.

  47. Matt Cholko

    I agree. His website is great, in that he clearly, boldly, and understandably states his solidly libertarian positions. I can’t recall ever seeing a better issues section. And, the fact that that issue section is the front page is an added bonus, in my opinion.

  48. Andy

    I have posted this here before, but I’m posting again due to dL’s continual MISREPRESENTATION of libertarianism as meaning that millions of people with Marxist and/or theorcratic ideologies have a “right” to be used a pawns by New World Order globalists and pour into 1st world nations, against the will of most of the native population, where they can get on government welfare programs, and use other public resources, and where they commit a disproportionate amount of crime (like rape), and where after obtaining citizenship, they disproportionately vote in favor of increasing the size of government, and that is is just peachy keen to force integrate these people onto the rest of the population, where they statistically outbreed them, in large part due to crushing taxation on the people who actually pay taxes, and decades of taxpayer funded radical feminist propaganda which has broken up families and led to a declining birth rate. This is NOT free market migration, it is a DEMOGRAPHIC REPLACEMENT AGENDA INVASION BEING LED BY MARXISTS AND NEW WORLD ORDER GLOBALISTS.

    Murray N. Rothbard, aka-Mr. Libertarian, DEBUNKED this INSANITY as being NOT libertarian back in 1994.

    “This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.

    Full quote & context below.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL

    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints” that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

  49. paulie

    dL said: “I get that all the time from the xenophobic, anti-immigration alt-right when I dispute their libertarian claims.”

    You mean

    dL described it correctly, although I prefer the more accurate altreich as opposed to “alt-right.”

  50. paulie

    I have posted this here before, b

    And I’ve debunked this crap you have posted I can’t even count how many times now. At this point it should be considered spam as you keep posting it as it has not been rebutted point by point repeatedly.

  51. Andy

    Next some MORON is going to come on here and accuse me of being “anti-immigrant”. I’m NOT anti-immigrant, and never have been. I am anti-INVADER. If you don’t know the difference, then you have not been paying attention, or perhaps your are willfully ignorant, or in a deep state of denial.

    I have no problem with FREEDOM LOVING, hardworking people from other countries coming here. I just don’t like the ones with hostile ideologies, and/or who are welfare leeches, and/or criminals, and every statistic indicates that a super-majority of modern day “immigrants” are in the hostile (ie-anti-liberty), leech, and/or criminal group.

    I’m not going to get into it here again, but I have already described what immigration would look like in an anarcho-capitalist society (similar to what Rothbard said in the article above), and I have also suggested an interim immigration policy, as in a rational policy that should be implemented in our present society, that has a government, and this policy is designed to WEED OUT UNDESIREABLES.

    And before some IDIOT libertarian says something stupid, like, “Look he wants government to protect him from the big, bad foreigners.” (HOW ABOUT STOP INVITING THEM HERE, STOP ENTICING THEM WITH WELFARE HANDOUTS, AND STOP MAKING LARGE NUMBERS OF THEM WHO ARE CLUELESS WHEN IT COMES TO ANY CONCEPT OF LIMITING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT FROM BECOMING CITIZENS AND VOTING?) Well, I bet if your house was on fire right now, you’d expect the government fire department to come over and put it out, and I bet you drive your car on the government’s roads, and I bet you complain when they don’t fix the potholes. I bet you’d also complain if the government released all of the murders, rapists, child molesters, and other violent thugs, from prison, and let them loose where you live, and I bet you;d call the police if one of them stole your car or raped your wife/girlfriend/mother/daughter, etc…

    SO SPARE ME YOUR PHONY ACTS OF PURITY AND SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES.

  52. langa

    I’m glad to see Arvin is running. As for the “unapologetic” line that RC keeps harping on, I’m guessing (and hoping) that it means that he is going to speak the truth, even when some people may not enjoy hearing it, just as he did on the military question that got so many pseudo-libertarians so bent out of shape.

    The one and only good thing that I can see about Trump is that his election has hopefully put an end to the idea that people have to walk around on egg shells, biting their tongue ’til it bleeds, for fear that someone, somewhere, might be “offended” by the truth, or the equally absurd idea that if you do say something that “offends” someone, you are then obligated to drop to your knees, issue tearful apologies, and beg for forgiveness. Arvin seems like the kind of guy that speaks the truth, and refuses to back down from it, even if it upsets some people. I assume that’s the point of the “unapologetic” line.

  53. Amin Causwell

    Run for office? No! He needs to APOLOGIZE for the INCENDIARY things he said about our heroes.

  54. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I am very pleased that Arvin spoke out against the weird hero worship assigned to people in the military. Out of consideration for their families, I don’t speak out as often as I would like to, but I do consider people who join a branch of the military and participate in combat to be murderers and accessories to murder. We’ll never change the rhetoric unless people start to realize what many of us (more evolved) people have figured out: imperialist, interventionist wars are flat-out wrong, no matter what country does it.

  55. Amin Causwell

    That is so PERVERSE and DISGUSTING!

    Poor people w/o many options join the military and often end up DEAD or w/ UNIMAGINABLE disabilities just so they can improve their standing.

    Your comment is basically pissing on the graves of everyone at Arlington and shitting on everyone at the VA hospital.

    FUCK YOU

  56. Andy

    “paulie
    July 7, 2017 at 23:49
    I have posted this here before, b
    And I’ve debunked this crap you have posted I can’t even count how many times now. At this point it should be considered spam as you keep posting it as it has not been rebutted point by point repeatedly.”

    You have NEVER debunked a goddamn thing I have ever said about immigration (ie-current New World Order invasion plan to bring down what’s left of any concept of limited government and Western Civilization).

    NOBODY has debunked anything I’ve said.

    True or false? A purist libertarian society would have 100% private property, which means PRIVATE PROPERTY BORDERS.

    True or false? Discrimination would be legal in a libertarian ancap society.

    True or False? There’d be no welfare state in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society.

    True or False? There’d be no democracy in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society, unless a democratic election were held by a voluntary association, which means that the results would only be binding on people who voluntarily consented to the election.

    True or False? A super-majority of modern day immigrants are on welfare (including their offspring).

    True or False? A super-majority of modern day immigrants, after obtaining citizenship, vote in favor of expanding the welfare state.

    True or False? A super-majority of modern day immigrants, after obtaining citizenship, vote in favor of more gun control laws.

    True or False: Various immigrant groups have caused increases in crime (especially rape).

    True or False: Various Marxist groups push in favor of “open borders” and mass immigration.

    True or False: New World Order globalists push in favor of “open borders” and mass immigration.

    There’d be no “open borders” in a libertarian ancap society. So this “open borders” BULLSHIT is NOT libertarian. It is forced integration and mass welfare state parasitism.

    Modern day immigration is NOT libertarian. It is STATIST migration, and it has an ANTI-LIBERTY agenda behind it.

    You see, I deal in FACTS , NOT fuzzy, feel good, political correctness.

    I understand and acknowledge that there are a few good immigrants in the mix, and I don’t have a problem with these people, so spare me the anecdotal lectures.

  57. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    If enough people talk about what the military really does to people, perhaps these poor souls wouldn’t allow themselves to be exploited, used, and discarded. I choose to honor veterans, especially damaged ones, by creating less of them.

    Clearly, many people disagree. Every time I see a homeless person who appears to be the age of Viet Nam vets (my time period), I say a prayer to never let it happen again.

    And I mean it.

  58. paulie

    You have NEVER debunked a goddamn thing I have ever said about immigration

    Yes, I have. Far too many times to count. With numerous links from many different sources. Over and over and over again. Including, repeatedly and in great detail to the very exact piece of revomiting of nonsense that you have once again revomited in this thread. And no, I do not feel like doing it again. My point was more that it should be considered spam at this point, given the number of times you keep vomiting the same exact nonsense over and over and over and ignoring all the points made against it. Furthermore, you ignore even the most basic rules of conversation, such as not yelling. Typing in all-caps is considered to be yelling and extremely rude. Someone like Amin Causwell may not know that, but you have had that pointed out to you many, many times. Yet you still do it.

    This behavior has driven off most of the people who were posting articles here. They no longer or very rarely participate in the comments here, specifically because of you, and no longer or very rarely post articles either. Seeing this kind of disgusting garbage repeatedly smeared all over IPR comment sections really demotivates me to participate as well, especially as far as posting articles goes but you may have noticed that I am in the comments a lot less as well.

    I am sick and tired of it, and it needs to stop. Take that horseshit somewhere else.

  59. robert capozzi

    more on “unapologetic”…

    To me, this term — especially with its repetition — has the feel of protesting too much. “Unapologetic” implies that there’s something to apologize for. MNR used the term “hold high the banner” frequently as his preferred approach to political discourse. This has a less defensive feel to it than AV’s “unapologetic” tack.

    Most honest abolitionist NAPsters recognize that their agenda is unlikely to be adopted any time soon. I have the sense they view themselves as shock troops, the first to stake out an extreme position with the hopes of attracting cadre, and then significant minorities, and then substantial minorities, and then for their ideas to prevail.

    I’m skeptical whether MNR’s approach was effective over the past 50 years, and I suspect they will get no significant traction in the next 50 years, either. AV’s (probably inadvertent) defensive stance is also unlikely to work. It shames the cadre to maintain the plumbline, but little else.

  60. Anthony Dlugos

    Jill writes:

    “If enough people talk about what the military really does to people, perhaps these poor souls wouldn’t allow themselves to be exploited, used, and discarded. I choose to honor veterans, especially damaged ones, by creating less of them.

    Clearly, many people disagree. Every time I see a homeless person who appears to be the age of Viet Nam vets (my time period), I say a prayer to never let it happen again.”

    I commend you for your prayer with regard to the homeless people you come across. I believe your feelings are genuine.

    I also believe the mission you describe in the first paragraph could be a worthwhile goal. It just not going to happen in the midst of a campaign for US Senate. How long do you think typical voters actually pay attention to a Senate campaign? A few months? You are talking about re-orienting their entire thought process of millions of citizens with regard to military action and volunteering. That’s a generational educational mission. Worthwhile, quite certainly, but in no way can it be compressed into a 12 or 16 week Senate campaign.

    Not to mention the fact that it appears such heavy lifting by Vohra is going to be included as part of a larger “incendiary” mission with more heavy lifting in multiple public policy areas. Such paradigm-shifting work is totally hopeless. With alacrity, the only people who will be listening will be a radical subset of Libertarians. And then, your mission to effect a change in thinking on military volunteering will be lost.

  61. Starchild

    Murray Rothbard wrote some very shrewd and insightful things, but the essay quoted by Andy above (July 7, 2017 at 23:40) isn’t among them. His description of what a libertarian country where all property was privately owned would look like in terms of ease of entry is simply not realistic:

    “…a totally privatized country would not have ‘open borders’ at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire.”

    Consider that a totally privatized country would be a country in which every property owner set his or her own border control policies. Now think about the large number (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) of property owners who own private property around the edges of a large country like the United States. How likely would it be that every single one of those owners is a xenophobe or nationalist bigot who refuses to allow migrants to cross his or her land? All it would take was one owner to allow unfettered right of passage or access, and the borders would effectively no longer be closed. Word of that entry point would spread, and people would gravitate to it. But of course there wouldn’t be just one entry point, or even a mere handful. Besides the sympathetic proportion of existing property owners, freedom of movement advocates would almost certainly buy land on the edges of the jurisdiction for the purpose of allowing access to the region.

    While property owners on the edges of the jurisdiction could choose to simply blockade those borders against anyone arriving from outside the jurisdiction without negatively impacting too many citizens of the jurisdiction returning from trips abroad and such, but property owners in the interior seeking to discriminate on the basis of nationality would not have this luxury. In a country comprised entirely of parcels of private property, would the owners of all the additional lands bordering properties owned by immigration-friendly owners be motivated to maintain at their own expense “internal checkpoints” or border controls that involved attempting to discriminate on the basis of citizenship or residency status? Not likely!

    Consider furthermore that if this country had total privatization of property, it would likely be much more libertarian than it is now in other respects as well. For instance, government authorities would probably not still be offering generous welfare benefits at taxpayer expense. Consequently one of the main arguments and motivations for discriminating against immigrants would disappear. Given a greatly reduced role of government and accordingly a much freer economy, it’s also a safe bet that the prosperity of people in this area would be greatly increased. These circumstances of prosperity, over and above the natural considerable appeal that real freedom would have, would sharply increase the incentives for poor people from other places to migrate there. Due to this booming economy generating the wealth enabling people to afford things like domestic help, gardeners, babysitters, etc., the demand for labor would also be greatly increased. So you would have both a greater demand for immigration from people within the region, and a greater desire for entry from people outside the region.

    Already now it costs the U.S. government (to say nothing of the taxpayers from whom the money is stolen) billions of dollars per year to keep people out as ineffectively as it currently does. Imagine how poorly such exclusionary efforts would fare under circumstances in which (a) the stream of government welfare currently paying for them dried up, (b) there was less anti-immigrant sentiment, (c) the migrants themselves were much more motivated to get in, and (d) any property owner could open his or her borders to immigrants at will, without facing any government penalty or aggression!

    From all this, it seems abundantly clear that, contra Rothbard, a “totally privatized” country such as he describes would almost certainly have much more open borders than the United States does at present, not much less. And this is ipso facto evidence that open borders, not closed borders, is the state of affairs more in accord with libertarianism.

  62. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Great comments on property and immigration, Starchild. Similar 2 ones that I make.

    Though immigration issue does highlight necessity of making this a worldwide movement so there aren’t any big nation states around to buy up a bunch of land, send in 100 million soldiers and then take it all over. 🙁 (Andy will love that comment.)

  63. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Anthony, I understand your comment, and perhaps you’re right that we need a more realistic view of change in this country. I’ve heard this before but I just can’t seem to portray incremental change. I’m a “big picture” person. I want to see quantum leaps in this country, especially after my recent illness that made me realize how short time can be for any one of us. I think of myself as a cheerleader standing at the goal line, shouting, “Over here! Come this way !” We need both cheerleaders and players.

    This is undoubtedly the first and only time I’ll ever use a sports analogy!

  64. dL

    With alacrity, the only people who will be listening will be a radical subset of Libertarians.

    No, the snowflakes will be listening. Their entire raison d’etre is to find outrage. So sans a 7 figure campaign budget, guerrilla marketing is the next best thing. In this instance, you are counting on on the outrage of the snowflakes to amplify your message.

  65. dL

    From all this, it seems abundantly clear that, contra Rothbard, a “totally privatized” country such as he describes would almost certainly have much more open borders than the United States does at present, not much less. And this is ipso facto evidence that open borders, not closed borders, is the state of affairs more in accord with libertarianism.

    Good post, Starchild. However, I must say “contra Rothbard” is often part of my vocabulary. I’m not a Rothbardian. I really don’t give a shit what he wrote on the topic. I’m much more of a Karl Hess kind of guy(if we are citing influences from that particular period). The fact is that the internet is a direct empirical refutation of the HoppeBot dream(the use of libertarian property rights to predict cultural sovietization). The internet is a collection of wholly owned privatized networks that has an emergent property of public network. The default condition is “pass,” not trespass. End of the discussion. At least it ends it for any talk about the use of the state as means for what would supposedly happen in a libertarian society vis a vis controlled borders.

  66. langa

    I agree with all the points Starchild makes above.

    Furthermore, Andy likes to claim that no one answers his arguments, but he, in fact, has never answered an argument that I have made against his position numerous times, namely:

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that in a stateless society, many people would choose to exclude others from their property based on where those people were born, so what? In a stateless society, many people would undoubtedly restrict the possession of firearms on their property. Does that justify gun control laws? In a stateless society, many people would undoubtedly restrict drug use on their own property. Does that justify the War on Drugs? In a stateless society, people would be free to practice discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, and so forth, and some of them undoubtedly would. Does that mean that government should discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and so forth?

    In other words, Andy, why should government adopt a particular rule, simply because in the absence of government, some people would adopt that particular rule? Unless you can answer that question, then your conjecture about what people would do in a free society is irrelevant to the decidedly unfree society that we actually live in.

  67. NewFederalist

    “Furthermore, Andy likes to claim that no one answers his arguments, but he, in fact, has never answered an argument that I have made against his position numerous times…” – langa

    I don’t believe Andy reads many comments other than his own. Even then he proofreads them after he already hits “enter” which results in all the annoying “should read…” stuff.

  68. paulie

    He has ignored numerous arguments I and others have made against his so-called points and then just reposts the same exact thing in thread after thread after thread ad nauseum and way, way beyond. It is really at the spam stage at this point.

  69. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Amin Causwell: Poor people w/o many options join the military and often end up DEAD or w/ UNIMAGINABLE disabilities just so they can improve their standing.

    I doubt poor people in the military “often” end up dead or disabled, for the simple reason that people in the U.S. military rarely (as opposed to “often”) end up dead or disabled. Quite a few civilian jobs are more hazardous than being in the military.

    A few years ago I saw one of those lists ranking “most dangerous Job” in the U.S. Commercial fishermen topped the list, followed by roofers. More fatalities on those jobs than being a cop.

    That’s not to disrespect those killed or injured working for the U.S. military. But as jobs go, it’s relatively safe. (For those on the other end of our drone strikes, bombing raids, etc., not so much.)

  70. William Saturn

    “It is really at the spam stage at this point.”

    It’s not spam. You just don’t like what he has to say. Others enjoy reading his insightful comments.

  71. paulie

    I’m much more of a Karl Hess kind of guy(if we are citing influences from that particular period). The fact is that the internet is a direct empirical refutation of the HoppeBot dream(the use of libertarian property rights to predict cultural sovietization). The internet is a collection of wholly owned privatized networks that has an emergent property of public network. The default condition is “pass,” not trespass. End of the discussion. At least it ends it for any talk about the use of the state as means for what would supposedly happen in a libertarian society vis a vis controlled borders.

    Same here and great point….one of many that Andy has repeatedly ignored on the topic.

  72. paulie

    It’s not spam. You just don’t like what he has to say. Others enjoy reading his insightful comments.

    I disagree, and not just because I disagree with his nonsense, which is far from “insightful.” He posts it over, and over, and over again …hundreds and hundreds of times… and simply ignores numerous points made in response, also repeatedly. He also hijacks numerous unrelated threads to post the same exact bullshit over and over again. I call that spam.

  73. langa

    It’s not spam. You just don’t like what he has to say. Others enjoy reading his insightful comments.

    I agree with Paulie here. Andy does in fact make useful comments on some topics, but when it comes to immigration (and a couple of other subjects, which he thankfully hasn’t mentioned lately), his comments are, in fact, spam-like. I define “spam” (in the context of a message board) as comments that make no effort to contribute to the discussion. Clearly, posting the same, long comments on dozens of threads, while making no effort to reply to the substantive criticism offered by others, does not contribute to the discussion. On the contrary, it disrupts the discussion, by turning every thread into a referendum, not on Andy’s arguments, but on his lack of Internet etiquette.

    He actually is starting to remind me of James Ogle (the U.S. Parliament guy), who also flooded every thread with the same long, repetitive posts, and made no effort to respond to anyone else. Out of all the “trolls” in IPR history (including Robert Milnes, Nathan Norman, and so forth), Ogle is the only one I have ever advocated banning. Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that Andy should be banned, because, as I said, he does contribute to the discussion on many subjects. However, when it comes to immigration (and a couple of other topics), his comments aren’t too much different than Ogle’s were.

  74. langa

    My comment is awaiting moderation? What the fuck is this shit?

    Moderation is supposed to be for newbies. I’ve been commenting here since 2008. What the fuck?

  75. paulie

    I’m not advocating banning him. But this shit needs to stop. It’s way past overdue and the rotting stench is becoming too unbearable.

  76. paulie

    My comment is awaiting moderation? What the fuck is this shit?

    Moderation is supposed to be for newbies. I’ve been commenting here since 2008. What the fuck?

    I was wondering the same thing. I think it may have been because you referred to Ogle, US Parliament and perhaps some other terms that tickled the automated spam filter.

  77. langa

    I was unaware that if someone was banned, no one else could even mention their name. That seems crazy.

  78. paulie

    Some of the trolls kept trying to sneak in under other names but couldn’t help but keep referring to themselves or their websites or whatever. Also, endless discussion about them is not necessarily better than them posting themselves. A post being held for moderation doesn’t mean it won’t be approved; in fact, most get approved pretty quickly, except if none of the moderators are online. We keep different schedules so there’s usually someone on here.

  79. dL

    I was unaware that if someone was banned, no one else could even mention their name. That seems crazy.

    b/c its usually impersonation spam

  80. Anthony Dlugos

    “Some of the trolls kept trying to sneak in under other names but couldn’t help but keep referring to themselves or their websites or whatever. ”

    That’s actually pretty funny.

  81. Andy

    I never post spam, nor do I troll. I talk about political topics that are relevant to articles, and/or to comments posted in article discussion threads. I am a no bullshit kind of guy. I call things as I see them.

  82. Tony From Long Island

    You are a conspiracy theorist and spam this board constantly with rambling screeds. So, while you are not a troll, you certainly do spam IPR on a pretty regular basis.

  83. Tony From Long Island

    Jill: ” . . . . . I’m a “big picture” person. I want to see quantum leaps in this country, . . . ”

    Jill, I’ve always seen “big picture” to mean one step at a time, i.e. “I’d love to immediately abolish the IRS, but in the big picture, I see that it can’t be done all at once..”

    It’s hard to take “quantam leaps” in a country of 320 million people.

  84. Anthony Dlugos

    His trolling is so predictable and hyperventilating, it becomes easy to satire. Sometimes, I have no idea if its Andy making a post or someone making fun of Andy by posting a similar xenophobic/racist screed.

  85. Tony From Long Island

    Jill: ” . . . .I am very pleased that Arvin spoke out against the weird hero worship assigned to people in the military. . . . .”

    I agree with you 100% about there being a “weird hero worship” of vets and members of the military. I respect their service but that’s about it.

    One of my pet peeves is that during the 7th inning stretch of Yankees games, instead of playing “take me out to the ballgame” they now play God Bless American and salute some random vet who they schlep in for that purpose. They started doing this after 9/11.

    Baseball should be a diversion from real life – a pastime. It’s not political theater.

  86. Anthony Dlugos

    Yes, I agree with that on God Bless America at the ball games.

    I was okay with it in the near aftermath of 9/11, and maybe on that date and July 4th/Memorial Day going forward on a long-term basis, but otherwise go back to “Take Me Out…”

  87. paulie

    His trolling is so predictable and hyperventilating, it becomes easy to satire. Sometimes, I have no idea if its Andy making a post or someone making fun of Andy by posting a similar xenophobic/racist screed.

    Unfortunately, a lot of times the only way I can tell the difference anymore is by looking at the IP. There have been a few where I was sure it was the trolls impersonating him until I looked.

  88. Anthony Dlugos

    The last couple in this thread I thought for sure were impersonators they were so over-the-top.

Leave a Reply

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