Nicholas Sarwark on the Future of the Libertarian Party

24 thoughts on “Nicholas Sarwark on the Future of the Libertarian Party

  1. Krzysztof Lesiak

    I fully endorse paleolibertarian freedom fighter MAX DICKSTEIN for LNC chair. Go Max Go!

    Max Dickstein: The Future of the Liberty Movement

    https://thegrandinquirer.com/2017/06/11/meet-the-candidate-max-dickstein/

    Max Dickstein’s list of top ten bastards and top ten bastard slayers:

    TOP 10 BASTARDS OF THE 21ST CENTURY
    1 : George W. Bush
    2 : Hilary Clinton
    3 : Dick Cheney
    4 : Recip Erdogan
    5 : Pope Benedict
    6 : Lindsay Graham
    7 : William Weld
    8 : Barack Obama
    9 : Tony Blair
    10 : John Mcafee

    TOP 10 BASTARD SLAYERS OF THE 21ST CENTURY
    1: Ron Paul
    2 : Julian Assange
    3: Ross Ulbricht
    4 : Nigel Farage
    5 : Milo Yiannopolis
    6 : Alex Jones
    7 : Glenn Greenwald
    8 : Darrell Castle
    9 : Peter Schiff
    10 : Bernie Sanders

  2. V for Vagina

    Does the “American” “Freedom” Party allow Jews to run for chair? If they do, Dickstein could be a good fit. If not, maybe Lesiak should run himself.

  3. Andy

    I don’t see why John McAfee is on this “Bastards” list, and why Bernie Sanders is on the “Bastard Slayers” list.

  4. Chuck Moulton

    Those lists alone are great reasons not to vote for the paleo guy that the crazy guy supports.

    Nick is doing an awesome job as LNC chair. I hope he wins a third term.

  5. George Phillies

    Nick is the best chair the LNC has had in the last twenty years. He should be re-elected.

  6. Krzysztof Lesiak

    I was going to unleash a fury of words against Chuck Moulton, but after a few seconds, I found the term “crazy” to be somewhat endearing, so I will just say whatever. LOL.

    I support and Austin Petersen / David Earl Williams III or Larry Sharpe / David Earl Williams III presidential ticket in 2020 for the Libertarian Party. BTW TRUMP 2020 IT”S GOING TO BE REAGAN 1984 ALL OVER AGAIN!!! Watch. Option number 2 has at least a 14% chance of succeeding. Maybe as high as 44% or even as high as the famous Romney gaffe 47%. We shall see!

  7. Gene Berkman

    Nick is incorrect when he says that no state organization of the Democrat or Republican Party has endorsed legalization of Cannabis. The California Democratic Party endorsed Yes on Proposition 64 to legalize recreational use of marijuana in 2016. It passed, also getting support from Our American Initiative, the Republican Liberty Caucus and The Green Party.

  8. Oliver Steinberg

    The Minnesota state Democratic-Farmer-Labor party’s Legislative Action agenda, part of the party platform adopted in the state convention in 2016, calls for expanding the state’s medical cannabis program and legalizing “recreational” cannabis for adults. Of course, the incumbent DFL Governor and State Auditor and Attorney General are all opposed. However, at least four of the six or seven serious candidates seeking the DFL’s 2018 gubernatorial nomination have stated support for legalization; on the other hand none of five or six seriousRepublican candidates are in favor.

  9. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    “The California Democratic Party endorsed Yes on Proposition 64 to legalize recreational use of marijuana in 2016. It passed, also getting support from Our American Initiative, the Republican Liberty Caucus and The Green Party.”

    Meanwhile, opposed to Prop 64: The Libertarian Party of California, continuing its streak of being on the wrong side of darned near everything.

  10. Cody Quirk

    Hey Chris, maybe you should visit a Kingdom Hall in Harem NY and testify of your views on White Nationalism and also campaign for the AFP there at the same time too; you just might find a fellow JW or two that would be receptive to your campaign 😉

    ;p

  11. NewFederalist

    Why is the old logo used in the photo? Has the “Trump Hair on a Stick” been officially replaced?

  12. Luke

    Reason.com made the video. I don’t think anyone is going to do anything about them using an old logo.

  13. Thane Eichenauer

    Gene Berkman> Nick is incorrect when he says that no state organization of the Democrat or Republican Party has endorsed legalization of Cannabis.

    The word he actually used was pushed not endorsed. The point he made was that all marijuana legalizations at the state level have been voter initiatives and not legislative enactments. If the elected members of the Democrat Party or the Republican Party REALLY-REALLY supported legalization they would have passed a bill in one of the fifty states but they have not.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=216&v=sKDvAkUuztQ

  14. Thane Eichenauer

    Cody Quirk,

    “amthirdpartyreport.com recently expired! Oh no!
    “American Third Party Report” is not available at the domain amthirdpartyreport.com right now. This domain expired, and it has to be renewed before it is lost.”

  15. Starchild

    I don’t think the Libertarian Party of California was on the wrong side of Prop. 64. I think they (we) saw that last year’s initiative to legalize marijuana in the highest-population state was deeply flawed, and made a correct decision to oppose it.

    Back in 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Initiative, better known as Prop. 215, which established a legally recognized right to medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation. That’s pretty much it. It was a short, clean measure that did not enable further taxation, regulation, or control of cannabis by the state government. It did not even list which medical conditions you had to have in order to get a recommendation, but simply left it up to the judgment of doctors.

    Now however, by passing Prop. 64, a much longer and more complicated piece of legislation which was the subject of heated debate within the cannabis community as to the meaning of its provisions and its likely effects, but which does allow the state legislature to impose additional regulations, voters appear to have opened the door to the undermining of the strong and largely unregulated protections previously established for medical usage – which in practice made cannabis legally available to just about any legal adult seeking to self-medicate*.

    According to an article in the Sept. 7 issue of the Bay Area Reporter, the Medical Board of California (the organization that licenses physicians in the state) last month issued a proposal which would require anyone seeking a doctor’s recommendation to use cannabis to undergo a physical exam.

    Why does the ease of getting medically approved to use the drug matter, if cannabis is now legal for any adult in the state? For multiple reasons. One is because California residents traveling with or using cannabis outside the state may be better protected under the law in other states which allow “medical” but not “recreational” usage, if they have a doctor’s recommendation. Another is because Prop. 64 only legalizes marijuana production and distribution for recreational use by legally authorized growers and distributors, which will of course be highly taxed and generally more expensive than cannabis obtained on the black (or perhaps “grey”) market of people growing and distributing for medical purposes. Now that another source of legal weed will be coming on January 1, 2018, when 64 goes into effect, I think we are seeing increased government efforts to restrict and encumber the less-taxed, less-regulated, medical cannabis market.

    Where I live in San Francisco, there are around 35 municipally-licensed dispensaries providing for that market (Prop. 215 did not specifically authorize dispensaries, but did not prohibit them either, so naturally they spouted up like mushrooms around the state except where specifically prohibited, with around 800 in existence at one time in Los Angeles alone). Just a couple weeks ago however, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a moratorium on the opening of any new medical cannabis dispensaries. The medical board requirement of physical examinations by doctors recommending medical usage, if adopted by the legislature, will likely lead to a spike in the price of recommendations, which currently cost typically around $35-$55 per year but often involve a very cursory review by a physician after a patient fills out some paperwork about his or her reasons for using marijuana for medical reasons, effectively forcing more people who want to get their medicine legally but cannot afford to pay substantially more for a doctor’s recommendation into the more heavily taxed and regulated recreational pot market that’s coming soon. If it were not for last year’s passage of Prop. 64, I do not think we would be seeing these negative developments.

    So endorsements of Prop. 64 by organizations like the California Democratic Party were not necessarily well-intentioned moves by people who recognize that the Drug War has failed and want to roll it back. Indeed, the same (all-Democrat) San Francisco Board of Supervisors which recently passed the dispensary moratorium also passed a ban on flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, which is reportedly the harshest in the country and represents a further ramping up of Prohibition with respect to another drug now much less in favor than marijuana in these parts, namely tobacco.

    *Dennis Peron, the main author of Prop. 215 (with help from Libertarian Steve Kubby among others), is famously on record saying that ALL marijuana use is medical.

  16. Starchild

    I should note that the San Francisco ban on flavored tobacco products is being challenged, and will face a voter referendum on the June 2018 ballot seeking to overturn it.

  17. Gene Berkman

    “Back in 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Initiative, better known as Prop. 215, which established a legally recognized right to medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation. That’s pretty much it. It was a short, clean measure that did not enable further taxation, regulation, or control of cannabis by the state government.”

    After passage of Proposition 215, cities and counties passed laws to prohibit marijuana dispensaries, and have closed them down even without a local law. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, California Attorney-General Dan Lungren brought in federal law enforcement to close down dispensaries under federal law. No regulations meant no framework for legal sales, and only after 14 years did the legislature enact regulations of any sort to protect medical marijuana. And Dispensaries are still illegal in the city of Riverside, where I live. Proposition 215 provided no real protection for producers or sellers of marijuana, and only a notional protection for users of medical marijuana. Proposition 215 did not protect people against being arrested; it provided a defense that could raised in court, if one were prosecuted for possession of marijuana.

    Proposition 64 does protect against arrest for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. By making possession of up to an ounce legal, possessing no longer provides probable cause for a full search, so in fact many people possess more than an ounce with no fear of prosecution.

    Proposition 64 created a regulatory framework that lays out objective rules for protecting legal sales of marijuana for recreational use. It limits what new regulations can be passed, and mandates that regulations must be consistent with the purpose of making marijuana legally available to users.

    Passage of Proposition 64 has changed the debate in California, and nationally. Legalization in the most populous state has boosted efforts for federal legalization and federal tolerance of state legalization efforts.

    Proposition 64 was written by a committee formed by Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, and the Democratic Party did push for a yes vote. Numerous Democrat officeholders backed Yes on 64, and two Republican Congressmen – Tom McClintock and Dana Rohrabacher – both endorsed it.

    The Libertarian Party of California made a major mistake opposing Proposition 64, and I don’t expect the LPC to have any influence in California in general, or the legalization movement, anytime in the forseeable future.

  18. Cody Quirk

    Thane, the issue was addressed on the ATPR Facebook page; the owner is in the middle of renewing the domain name and the website should be back up in a day or too.

    These things happen.

  19. Darcy G Richardson

    Scotty Boman, who is currently running for Detroit police commissioner, and Ken Krawchuk, who will be announcing his candidacy for governor of Pennsylvania tomorrow on the steps of the state capitol in Harrisburg — both of whom have been deeply involved at the local, state and national levels for years — are two of the most impressive Libertarian candidates in the country.

    Both of them understand the importance of trying to represent everyone — not just those who agree with the party’s ideology.

    Unlike the relatively large number of ex-Republicans, white nationalists and assorted malcontents who have flocked to the party in recent years, one can only hope that they’re truly the future of the Libertarian Party.

    If the LP fielded more candidates like them it might be worth supporting.

Leave a Reply

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