Libertarian Party Mises Caucus: ‘A Challenge to the Status Quo’

108 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Mises Caucus: ‘A Challenge to the Status Quo’

  1. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I have gotten to know these guys and they are doing great work, bringing in Party members including likely a new life member today.

    Though they and the Radical Caucus differ in some areas, we look forward to a productive radical working relationship to keep the Party true to its principled roots.

    Good job Michael! Its been a real bright spot getting to know you.

  2. dL

    well, this one is really burning up the comments section!

    Fear the Mises Caucus! lol

    I don’t know much about them. The paleos have stained the Mises name to the point that I presume any “Mises” group or caucus is just another set of Hoppe white victim identity knuckleheads.

  3. Anthony Dlugos

    That’s a good presumption.

    I listened to the podcast. Ron Paul’s name was mentioned a good five or six times, so I lost the bet taking the over, “lack of principles , blah, blah, blah”, and oh yeah, the incipient caucus hates Weld, and wants Woofs to run for the nomination. lol

  4. Aiden James

    Can the paleocon nutcases just leave the lib party already… You guys already have the American Freedom Party and Constitution Party.

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    Breath of fresh air? lol Did you actually listen to the podcast? The guy from the Caucus spoke for a good half hour and had not one fresh idea. Banal doesn’t begin to describe a caucus designed to “inspire rather than get votes,” serve as a educational outlet for Austrian economics, and that uses Ron Paul as a model politician.

  6. paulie

    It’s a breath of extremely foul air, and yet another slander on the name of Ludwig von Mises, such as we have come to expect from the Hoppeans.

  7. paulie

    Can the paleocon nutcases just leave the lib party already… You guys already have the American Freedom Party and Constitution Party.

    Exactly!

  8. paulie

    The paleos have stained the Mises name to the point that I presume any “Mises” group or caucus is just another set of Hoppe white victim identity knuckleheads.

    Right again!

  9. Thane Eichenauer

    For today I am going to agree on the main with Anthony Dlugos. I listened to this episode a day or two ago from beginning to end. I can’t say I recall any notable points made by the guest save the above noted bashing of Bill Weld whom I must say I still feel is worth continued denouncing. I will note a second exception which was the desire to recapture the sizzle of the Ron Paul campaigns. I miss the Ron Paul sizzle too. Naturally I wish the caucus well as fellow members of the Libertarian Party.

  10. Thane Eichenauer

    Others comment above “Can the paleocon nutcases just leave the lib party already… You guys already have the American Freedom Party and Constitution Party.”

    As readers of IPR full well know the obstacles the duopoly party wings called the Republican Party and the Democrat Party have created to hobble functioning alternative political parties are formidable. Until such time as new parties are permitted ballot access equality with the duopoly party people that might otherwise fork off from the greater Libertarian movement aren’t likely to create a new party or leave the Libertarian Party. Hoping otherwise is to wish for the extremely unlikely. I would love to have a vibrant sea of political parties but no matter the amount of hope and love I invest such is not going to happen given current regulatory constraints.

    Here in Arizona the Republican party was so afraid of competing with the Libertarian party that they increased the signature requirement ten fold which has poisoned the choices available to Arizona voters.

    http://ballot-access.org/2017/07/10/u-s-district-court-upholds-arizona-primary-petition-requirement/

  11. paulie

    Though they and the Radical Caucus differ in some areas, we look forward to a productive radical working relationship to keep the Party true to its principled roots.

    I gotta say I am very disappointed in the Radical Caucus lately. Maybe I should have expected this given the shared Rothbardian lineage, but honestly I always felt the RC was more left-friendly than it is turning out to be. The last time I spent any time on the RC facebook groups, the main and for a long time only one of which I created, they were filled with people throwing fits about the vanishingly miniscule LP socialist caucus as if it was some major problem for the LP. It was also chock full of people ignorantly and incessantly siding with Woods, Diest and the Blood and Soil Institute against Sarwark, Vohra and the LP.

    I wrote what I thought was a pretty good explanation of why the far right is a much bigger threat, to this country and more specifically to the party and movement.

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/09/paul-frankel-why-libertarians-need-to-denounce-the-alt-right-and-white-nationalists-and-dont-need-to-worry-about-libertarian-socialists-and-antifa/

    No one there would even engage my ideas. No one wrote an article in reply after I asked for one. Caryn Ann at least had the legitimate excuse that she is too busy, and indeed she is very busy. Another of the caucus’ long time leaders said we would attack any response in the comments, and posited forth the ridiculous and undefended assertion that Trump, the Republicans, the Democrats, the fascists and the antifascists are all on the “left” and apparently libertarians must be alone on the “right” (the latter deduction by elimination). This assertion has no relation to the historical evolution of the terms left and right in a political context nor any logical relation to how they behave today.

    Some other ignoramus that I had to block insisted on repeatedly replying to the title of the article while proudly admitting having not read it, and had to be blocked. He or another blockhead insisted that I was just trying to increase the clicks on IPR, as if I own this site. The stupidity and ignorance there were overwhelming and I have not been back since then. Although, to be fair, I have avoided facebook altogether since then as well. I just really, really hate nested comments and it’s damn near impossible to get people from there to come over here and participate in the comments here rather than continuing their nested comment crap over there.

    Maybe there should be a Left-Libertarian caucus that is not socialist. I’m done trying to create LP caucuses though. Especially on facebook. Yech.

  12. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I never understood the Ron Paul hatred and won’t get on board with that. He wasn’t perfect. Neither was Rothbard nor anyone else I like.

    Also I’ve been part of the group as an observer (my hands are full with the rads and economic focus isn’t my main interest) and to describe it as Hoppean is a bad representation.

    I don’t get along with Hoppeans. When I first was in the group there were some of the usual characters with their “you’re an ethnomasochist” drivel. They were booted out.

    I expected bad and was pleasantly surprised.

    It is a good group.

    Yes it is bringing in people from the right and I’m no more hostile to that than bringing in from the left. I’ve gotten to know them.

    Some of the hostility in these comments makes me realize this is really badly needed to restore balance to the force.

  13. paulie

    As readers of IPR full well know the obstacles the duopoly party wings called the Republican Party and the Democrat Party have created to hobble functioning alternative political parties are formidable.

    Indeed, but the far right, migrant-bashing gasbags belong in the LP only somewhat slightly less than the Socialist Workers Party does. Really, they should go back to their pre-Ron Paul Republican presidential candidacy position of principled non-voting and non-participation in political activity. Maybe Chris Lesiak can start a wave of conversions to the Jehovahs Witness faith among them; that would be ideal.

  14. paulie

    Some of the hostility in these comments makes me realize this is really badly needed to restore balance to the force.

    The balance which needs to be restored is that the LP has been far too embedded with the right, including the bigoted far right, with disastrous results. The last thing we need is bringing in more people from the far right.

  15. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I have been really busy Paulie and I don’t pay nearly even attention to which side is worse. I deal with the awfulness of the day and move on.

    The RC is as it has been when I first found it- pretty plumbline old school LP-Platform – and heavy on very permissive social views.

    And what members say and do changes with the times. I don’t think that “rent is theft” brouhaha comes up anymore in either group except as a joke.

    And RC seems pretty solidly on Nick’s side.

    Which is why I said there are differences.

    But ANYONE- left or right- who wants to stick to our roots is a friend of mine.

    The right-left libertarian paradigm is old and I am convinced, irrelevant. When it comes to the LP either of those descriptors are just preferences (which I don’t care about) or deviations from plumb line in the SoP and early Party sense (which I don’t want any part of).

  16. Caryn Ann Harlos

    From what I have seen Paulie they are not far right. Open borders support is about even. Anybody peddling white nationalism is thrown out.

    You are being pretty unfair.

    The balance needed is that we have to stop thinking we can micromanage who is coming in- either side. Being hostile either way is a wild pendulum swing I wish to get off of.

    I’m interested in solid Libertarian Party Libertarianism. Not bean counting who came from where but where they are now.

    I have no patience for far right and I haven’t seen it there without it being shown the door.

    And I’ll never join the general Ron Paul bashing. I frankly thing it is … well I can’t use a kind word. Just like I can’t stand when people hero worship to the point of no criticism allowed.

  17. paulie

    If they are not right wingers then I don’t understand their point. I thought their whole organizing principle was that they were siding with Woods and the Blood and Soil Institute against Sarwark, Vohra and the LP leadership.

    I’m not bean counting, but I think my article referenced above explains why I believe we are leaning over heavily to the right already and in serious danger of toppling as a result.

    I don’t hate or worship Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard, both have/had a lot of good points but far too close a relationship with the bigoted far right as their major boat anchor, and it is the latter which I think is a serious existential danger to the LP and libertarian movement as a whole.

    I’m not for micromanaging as I think the tone that the party is trying to set lately with Nick and Arvin, especially on the things the Blood and Soil folks really dislike them for, is the correct one.

    I already know and acknowledged that you are busy. But that doesn’t explain why no one else from the RC even thought my argument which I took some time and effort to lay out even so much as merited a response.

  18. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==If they are not right wingers then I don’t understand their point. I thought their whole organizing principle was that they were siding with Woods and the Blood and Soil Institute against Sarwark, Vohra and the LP leadership.==

    There is room for reasonable difference of opinion about that speech. I came out against it. Other people I am in alignment with did not. The whole twitter spat I thought was foolish on all sides, and ignore it. And it is not fair to take the whole work of MI and call it the blood and soil institute. This kind of outlandish rhetoric is not helping the party. Deist said something he should have backed up from. He didn’t. I went after it. But I am not about to trash everything about every great thing I found there. The MI helps keep me solidly libertarian. Rothbard talked about starving babies. I condemn that. Yet Rothbard helps me in my libertarian education.

    These folks are coming from the right. As did I. Many RC folks came from the left. I hope they all meet in Libertarianism and stop this left-right nonsense. – Its either preference or deviation – none of which belong in the LP direction.

    ==I’m not bean counting, but I think my article referenced above explains why I believe we are leaning over heavily to the right already and in serious danger of toppling as a result.==

    Every week I can argue one case or the other. I have figured out it is a useless exercise. LPCO is getting heavy to the left this year. Oh well, it will balance out.

    ==I don’t hate or worship Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard, both have/had a lot of good points but far too close a relationship with the bigoted far right as their major boat anchor, and it is the latter which I think is a serious existential danger to the LP and libertarian movement as a whole.==

    Turning away those who see that danger too and are actually coming to the LP is not a good move. Late Rothbard went astray, no doubt. Tired of obsessing about it.

    ==I’m not for micromanaging as I think the tone that the party is trying to set lately with Nick and Arvin, especially on the things the Blood and Soil folks really dislike them for, is the correct one.==

    Nick made his statement and moved on. I wish more people would.

    ==I already know and acknowledged that you are busy. But that doesn’t explain why no one else from the RC even thought my argument which I took some time and effort to lay out even so much as merited a response.===

    I can’t speak for anyone else. Marc gave his reason, and each person has their own reasons. Probably because debate just takes too much time away from other things. I am running out the door now for a full day with Party records. That is much more important I think.

    My stand against far right and white nationalism remains as fierce as ever. However, to me sadly, I stand fiercely against the far left as well. I don’t and won’t pick one. They are both a danger to our Party. And leftist who wish to come home to the LP and become Libertarian and rightists who wish to do the same are my allies and friends.

  19. Cody Quirk

    “My stand against far right and white nationalism remains as fierce as ever. However, to me sadly, I stand fiercely against the far left as well. I don’t and won’t pick one. They are both a danger to our Party. And leftist who wish to come home to the LP and become Libertarian and rightists who wish to do the same are my allies and friends.”

    AMEN.

    This is the proper Libertarian approach here.

  20. paulie

    They are not equivalent threats – not to the country, not to the party and not to the movement. See my article linked above as to why. Here’s the latest example forwarded by Nick Sarwark to LNC list:

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/henrygomez/libertarians-are-still-looking-for-the-next-thing

    Notice that libertarianism and the LP are portrayed as a flavor of conservatism, as is usually the case in such media accounts. There’s discussion of mainstream Republicans, populist nationalist Republicans, allegedly libertarian Republicans, the far right and the extreme hater right – nothing about Democrats or the far left anywhere in there. The ties between libertarianism and the true “blood and soilers” are once again explored.

    One of countless examples.

  21. paulie

    Nick made his statement and moved on. I wish more people would.

    I don’t. The paleo strategy has long standing consequences that are coming back to bite us in a big way. Sweeping it back under the rug is neither desirable nor likely to be effective. We need to deal with it.

  22. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I don’t get into the measuring contest of equivalence and for the people and property who’s heads and stores have been smashed by leftist thugs might disagree. The neonazi assholes just happened to kill someone – the left hasn’t – not for want of trying.

    I see just as many LP associated people defending punching people for speech as I do “physically removed” people.

    I don’t have to pick a worse side, I tell them both to kindly shovel it out the door.

  23. Anthony Dlugos

    “The balance which needs to be restored is that the LP has been far too embedded with the right, including the bigoted far right, with disastrous results. The last thing we need is bringing in more people from the far right.”

    F’ing-A 100% correct.

    Paulie’s wisdom here is that he understands the existential threat posed by our connections…lose or otherwise…to the alt-righters, white nationalists, and xenophobes. This is NOT just the brain dead dumb “blood and soil” comment by Deist that can be compartmentalized as an off-hand comment. I don’t have to tell anyone here that the noxious paleo connections go back decades to Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul’s newsletters and they continue up to this day, with Woods twitter account devolving into frankly Trump-level inflammatory idiocy. Whoever the guy is on this podcast said his preference is for Woods to run for the LP nomination in 2020, under the deluded assumption that Johnson-Weld came close to getting on the debate stage, and so would anyone else we had nominated .

    What does that tell you about where this guy’s heart is, that he thinks Woods should be what we present to the American people in 2020, “here, this is what a Libertarian is.” As Woods himself points out, the presidential nomination is far and away the single biggest marketing tool any party in this country has.

    Suggesting we set up Woods as our standard-bearer in 2020 means at a bare minimum that we are not bothered by the disturbing connections between hard-right paleolibertarianism and white nationalism/alt-rightism. When you get Woods, you get all that comes along with that.

    Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell/Mises made their play in appealing to racist whites and neo-confederates. It blew up in their faces. Not only is it a bad idea to merely brush that aside, I would recommend some level of public censure of Ron Paul, Woods, the Mises Institute, and so on at the 2018 Convention. I got no problem throwing those people under the bus. They are hardly innocent, and as Paulie properly suggested some time ago, I am more and more worried that some lunatic Libertarian with paleo/alt-right leanings is gonna set off a truck bomb somewhere and kill scores of government employees and take the LP down with him.

  24. Tony From Long Island

    Caryn:

    “My stand against far right and white nationalism remains as fierce as ever. However, to me sadly, I stand fiercely against the far left as well. I don’t and won’t pick one. They are both a danger to our Party. And leftist who wish to come home to the LP and become Libertarian and rightists who wish to do the same are my allies and friends.”

    Are you saying that there are far leftists WITHIN the Libertarian Party? I’m not sure I understood you correctly.

    I am strongly against the far right. I am not much of a fan of the far-left either. However, I will continue to press that it is wrong to equate the two as equally bad. The far-right has by far larger numbers.

    There is much less of a blur between the right and the far right. The regular left, however, is more “center left” than the regular right is “center-right.”

    How many “center-right” people are in congress? Remember when John Kasich was considered far right 20 years ago? He’s considered almost moderate. That’s how far gone the GOP has gotten.

  25. DJ

    LOL….. this thread is exemplary of why I refuse ANY party association. Paulie, an admitted left leaning libertarian, is insisting his way is the right way, which deters the opinion of others since he also claims to be a longtime credentialed libertarian whose opinions are to be deferred to because….. credentials. By joining/associating with a “party”, regardless of prefix, one has to defer to another (or group think) which is preposterous since libertarians (at least this libertarian) believe in, and act for the right of the individual to choose his own way. IF that individual chooses to ally with a party then that individual has to defer to the party (group think) regardless whether he/she agrees with it or not, and sadly, on this site, the left seems to be the dominating factor/personality.

    Like I’ve said previously; I came to this site hoping to rub elbows with like minded individuals. Instead what I find is intolerant leftist opinions.

  26. Anthony Dlugos

    “And it is not fair to take the whole work of MI and call it the blood and soil institute. This kind of outlandish rhetoric is not helping the party.”

    Its 100% fair. I do it gladly. I do it for every person who is busting their ass for this party, but who unfortunately fail to see the danger presented by these people. The blood and soil comment ALONE would be enough to write them all off, to say nothing about the aforementioned decades of flirtation between the paleos and wn/alt-rightism, as paulie documented.

    Its not like its even a difficult decision, pragmatically speaking. They offer our party NOTHING but downside. NOTHING. F*ck ’em. F*ck the lot of them. I’ll tell Woods to his face, no problem. What we’d gain by chasing way these defects of character would far outweigh what we’d lose, many times over.

  27. paulie

    I don’t get into the measuring contest of equivalence and for the people and property who’s heads and stores have been smashed by leftist thugs might disagree. The neonazi assholes just happened to kill someone – the left hasn’t – not for want of trying.

    The nazis didn’t just happen to kill one person. Members of stormfront have killed at least a hundred people in many separate incidents over the last several years. At the Charlottesville event alone either 34 or all 35 of those hospitalized were from the antifascist side with 0 to 1 from the fascist side, and only 19 were from the vehicular assault; the others were from a bunch of separate attacks by the fascists. There have been numerous other attacks where they have killed people, including several this year alone. There is simply no equivalence.

    Nor is there any equivalence in how much they have penetrated the LP and libertarian movement. Just take a look at the “libertarian” generic (not party) FB group. Most of it is far right trash, at least as of the last time I bothered to look. Please read or reread http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/09/paul-frankel-why-libertarians-need-to-denounce-the-alt-right-and-white-nationalists-and-dont-need-to-worry-about-libertarian-socialists-and-antifa (and for those of you who get a chance the discussion thread) to see much more evidence.

  28. paulie

    Paulie, an admitted left leaning libertarian,

    Correct.

    is insisting his way is the right way, which deters the opinion of others

    I don’t “deter” anyone’s opinions. I have my opinions and express them, as others do the same with theirs.

    since he also claims to be a longtime credentialed libertarian

    That was only in response to your repeated claims that I am not a libertarian at all. I don’t usually go around mentioning any credentials.

    whose opinions are to be deferred to because….. credentials.

    Nope. I’ve never done that.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    “Nor is there any equivalence in how much they have penetrated the LP and libertarian movement. ”

    Bingo.

  30. Andy

    Ron Paul ran the most successful libertarian presidential campaigns ever from the standpoint of getting the message out and building the movement. The Ron Paul r3VOLution of 2007-2012 gave the libertarian movement in this country a much needed shot of adrenaline. Ron Paul brought in people from across the political spectrum, including people from the left and independents and non-voters.

    Ron Paul is a hardcore Mises Institute guy.

    Andrew Napolitano and Tom Woods are two of the top libertarians in the country. They are both hardcore Mises Institute guys.

    Andrew Napolitano/Tom Woods 2020 would make an excellent presidential ticket.

    If Napolitano is not interested in running for President, Woods would make a great candidate. Unfortunately, he does not appear to be interested in running either. Maybe he will change his mind in the future. I think he would stand a chance at becoming the first Libertarian to be elected to the US House if he decided to run for that office. He has a big enough audience to where I bet he could raise the $2 million plus it would probably take to win.

    Andrew Napolitano or Tom Woods would tear up any Democrat or Republican in a debate. I would pay money to see either of them debate President Trump and whoever the Democrats come up with as a candidate for President in 2020.

  31. Andy

    DJ, there is infighting in every political party and movement. Just because you join a political party it does not mean that you have to agree with or support everyone in that party.

    A person can run for office as an independent, but it is generally more difficult to get on the ballot, especially for President, and to have a support base.

    So if you want to play the electoral politics game it is either work with a political party or go the independent route.

    Either that or don’t take part in electoral politics, or only vote on ballot initiatives and referendums if there are any on the ballot where you vote.

  32. dL

    There is room for reasonable difference of opinion about that speech.

    No, there is not. It is absolutely clear what that speech meant.

  33. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    DJ, there is infighting in every political party and movement. Just because you join a political party it does not mean that you have to agree with or support everyone in that party.

    You are correct. However, there are some pretty basic tenets that each party has that are sorta dealbreakers. Here’s an example . . . A member of the libertarian being an anti-immigrant xenophobe.

  34. V for Vagina

    Yes, too bad the “Mises Caucus” is a reference to the Mises Institute rather than the man himself.

  35. DJ

    Andy
    September 30, 2017 at 12:38

    DJ, there is infighting in every political party and movement. Just because you join a political party it does not mean that you have to agree with or support everyone in that party.

    A person can run for office as an independent, but it is generally more difficult to get on the ballot, especially for President, and to have a support base.

    So if you want to play the electoral politics game it is either work with a political party or go the independent route.

    Either that or don’t take part in electoral politics, or only vote on ballot initiatives and referendums if there are any on the ballot where you vote.
    …………..

    I respect your opinions, (and I did state ANY party). I disagree with your tactics, they’re collective. I’ll live my life (as best I can) as a libertarian. Example is how hearts and then minds are won. Individual effort is what will “win” the day. The collective, regardless of its intent, is always co-opted by those who have a ‘self’ serving agenda. True leadership is for the benefit of the follower, not the enrichment of the leader……one of the greatest quotes I’ve ever been exposed to, and I’ve seen one politician in my time (I’m 69) who came even remotely close to that fine belief. Ron Paul.

    But, like I said, what I’m seeing here is exactly the reason I refuse ANY party association. I swear, most of the posters here sound just like cry baby Republicans. Me, me, me, I’m best, smartest etc., etc., etc., except of course paulie, who is a leftist and pure as the driven snow because he has “credentials” proving his pureness, which perpetuates my belief about party association. I’d just as soon not be associated with someone so full of hate.

    Then we have the idiots who denounce a web site they disagree with but refuse to discuss the context of the article which is about a documentary….exactly like Republicans I’ve dealt with in the past. Do I need to spell it out for them? E X A C T L Y like Republicans I’ve dealt with in the past.

    I’ll keep reading, and maybe post something occasionally, but I’ll NEVER be officially “joined” to ANY party that acts the way most of these morons act (present company excluded).

    Keep up the good work Andy. I appreciate your efforts.

  36. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie I see you have some misinformation:

    ==If they are not right wingers then I don’t understand their point. I thought their whole organizing principle was that they were siding with Woods and the Blood and Soil Institute against Sarwark, Vohra and the LP leadership.==

    Search Facebook for tag #misescaucus and you’ll see this was in the works in June – long before any of that – which is a coincidence. They didn’t have a triggering event.

  37. George Phillies

    “A member of the libertarian being an anti-immigrant xenophobe.” That’s ‘Libertarianism in one country.’ Persons familiar with the history of Communism in the USSR will recognize the parallel quote. It’s ‘we can make it work here, if we are reasonably isolated while the bugs are being worked out’.

  38. paulie

    Search Facebook for tag #misescaucus and you’ll see this was in the works in June – long before any of that – which is a coincidence. They didn’t have a triggering event.

    I’ll take your word for it. For one thing I’ve never known you to lie, and for another I have been avoiding facebook and don’t really feel like looking up anything at all on facebook for the foreseeable future. Who knows, maybe never. Most likely not never but we’ll see.

  39. paulie

    “A member of the libertarian being an anti-immigrant xenophobe.” That’s ‘Libertarianism in one country.’

    The USSR didn’t have problems with too many people trying to get in. Too many people trying to get out, on the other hand…

  40. paulie

    pure as the driven snow because he has “credentials” proving his pureness,

    I don’t know where you got such nonsense. I am the first to admit my many shortcomings. And I very rarely bring up my credentials. They were only brought up with you due to you repeatedly claiming I am not a libertarian.

    I’d just as soon not be associated with someone so full of hate.

    ROFL

  41. robert capozzi

    cah: My stand against far right and white nationalism remains as fierce as ever. However, to me sadly, I stand fiercely against the far left as well. I don’t and won’t pick one.

    me: “Fierce” seems attitudinally contrary to the core of my L stance, which is summed up as “anything peaceful.” Most extremist stances are rooted in anger, be they far right, far left, or extremist NAPsterism. “Fierce” opposition to dysfunctional thought systems tends to validate extremists who adhere to these sorts of anger-based thought systems.

    There is another way.

    Peace.

  42. Steve Scheetz

    “The right-left libertarian paradigm is old and I am convinced, irrelevant.”

    Agreed on the old part.. However, this paradigm, if left unchecked, will make the LP irrelevant.

    When we continually see Libertarians butting heads screaming: “My brand of Libertarianism is better than yours.” we lose some of the most amazing message ever put forth.

    “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

    We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

    There are people who would continually bicker over who is right and who is not. These people stand in the way of achieving a respect for the rights of all to live in whatever manner they choose… My personal message has always involved one simple idea: “Let’s come together and work on those issues where we can agree. Let’s achieve victory in the face of the tyranny we are currently living with, and then, after we start shrinking government, (which is growing at a breath taking pace as we continue to bicker amongst ourselves over whose ideas are better) THEN we can revisit the rest. However, the more we worry about who represents the greater threat to Libertarianism, the more I conclude that we all are a threat to Libertarianism, because we are making it a debate club instead of a political party working to solve real problems, and reintroduce real freedom, real liberty, and most importantly, real WORK for the people in our nation.

    I have stated many times that I want my neighbor to live free, because I want freedom for myself. I worked with one of the cofounders of the Misses Caucus. (Michael Heise) to create an End The Fed Rally in Philadelphia. I spoke at this event… So did Will Coley… So did Larry Sharpe. We talked about ending the organization whose purpose is to print money so that we can bomb people in foreign nations. We talked about free market solutions to that organization. solutions currently in place, some we should work to strengthen.

    So yes, we are out working together. Want to come join us? Or is the general preference an interest in seeing our efforts become irrelevant?

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  43. Caryn Ann Harlos

    You know I agree with you. Oddly enough I didn’t notice this thread until the silly mean-spirited first comment- I visit about once a week and see what comments are on the side bar.

    This is something the LPRC posted three weeks ago:

    Hopefully helpful FAQ on recent questions:

    *What is the difference between the LPRC and the LPMC (Mises Caucus)*

    The LPRC is an inward focused advocacy group focusing on re-radicalizing the Party back to its roots. Our target audience is current Party members and activists. We advocate for a more functional internal Party culture with full inclusion of radical voices.

    Our primary concerns are foundational and fundamental Libertarian Party principles, not the wider libertarian movement. This iteration was formed after the gutting of the Platform in 2006, and that event is a core part of our identity. We wish the Party to state a clear vision of Libertarianism, never losing sight of the end goal.

    We are not focused on any particular figure in the libertarian movement- while many here are Rothbardians, Rothbard is not an untouchable figure – he got some things wrong. The Statement of Principles is our beacon.

    We don’t focus on typical “conservative” issues but on the freedom to be conservative or a libertine – your choice. We are radical individualists and tolerant of all peaceful lifestyles and don’t bother much with judging what other people voluntarily do.

    We are solidly “open borders” as part of a radical agenda. We also hold to “no particular orderism” – which tends to be a unique point, but is the position of the early Party.

    We have a history back into the 1970s in multiple forms. Our primary purpose in membership dues is supporting radical candidates, and do not cross Party boundaries. We are for the *Libertarian Party* – not the two old parties. There is always a good candidate to support if any particular candidate is not to our liking.

    *Is there any overlap*

    Yes there is – in a lot of radical ideas. But as stated above, there are differences. For most people they will not be deal-breakers – just a different emphasis and methodology.

    *Can someone be a member of both?*

    Of course. We have a friendly relationship and recognize our differences.

    We are Libertarian fundamentalists. Everything else is a freedom preference.

  44. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie I thought the same as you and commented that forming around being mad at the chair isn’t helpful and I was directed to the past conversations where this was planned well before.

    If I had to say a triggering process for the formation of the LPMC it would be this (my perspective):

    1. Our past candidates, particularly Weld, and the appearance that this is the direction some people want to go(

    2. Related to the first, that the last campaign is massaged as some success rather than a huge missed opportunity and failure to launch (however debate access is likely next time- and they don’t want another pair who do not represent essential Libertarianism);

    3. The general move in the Party to trash Ron Paul (which is just as baffling and noxious to me personally BTW);

    4. The impression that the Party is purposefully alienating right-libertarians.

    Please don’t argue with *me* about our ticket- I’m giving my view on *their* view. Any LPMC member please correct me.

    People got upset with me in my Reason interview about me giving our last ticket as a reason PEOPLE TOLD ME about why they didn’t renew. My reporting what I found was the subjective view of some lapsed members was apparently offensive . Boo hoo.

    That’s not my view. I think quitting the Party over the beauty pageant is a bad reason. But I do not get to tell other people their own mind. I chortled when people got mad at me for a factual statement. I guess I should have avoided it because feelz.

    We all saw this coming. People are unhappy. You can agree with them or not but this was bound to happen and I am pleased it is bringing new members – dues payers- into the Party.

  45. Anthony Dlugos

    “Let’s come together and work on those issues where we can agree. Let’s achieve victory in the face of the tyranny we are currently living with, and then, after we start shrinking government…THEN we can revisit the rest. However, the more we worry about who represents the greater threat to Libertarianism, the more I conclude that we all are a threat to Libertarianism, because we are making it a debate club instead of a political party working to solve real problems…”

    Excellent idea, Steve.

    One day, I think your mind is gonna be blown. That day will be the day when you realize that organizing principles like:

    “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

    and,

    “Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime…”

    and

    the centrality of the NAP for some as some kind of public policy talisman,

    makes it inevitable that our political party devolves into a debating club/cult.

    We’re professing a utopian, messianic mission, and then are surprised when we end up with an endless series of factional arguments. We coulda just asked the Muslims what happens when dogma becomes your organizing principle.

  46. V for Vagina

    Does Steve Scheetz still think Augustus Invictus is a real libertarian? Even Ryan Ramsey and the American Guard have dissociated themselves from Invictus now due to his open penchant for what they politely call ethnocentrism. And they are no slouches in that department themselves, with only the tiniest of fig leaves to cover themselves.

  47. dL

    Then we have the idiots who denounce a web site they disagree with but refuse to discuss the context of the article which is about a documentary….exactly like Republicans I’ve dealt with in the past. Do I need to spell it out for them? E X A C T L Y like Republicans I’ve dealt with in the past.

    Ah, the dogged petulant whining of someone demanding the debunking of a known far right fake news peddler. The idiot is the one who would take the bait. Of course, any gullible dolt suckered into taking the bait would unfortunately have to start at the top with this lunatic’s howling….Obama, a Communist Party plant. The Democratic party, a communist party front. Drugs, a communist party plot…etc

    There is a simple way to deal with the extraordinary/whacked claims of fake news peddlers: independent confirmation. DJ, if you find 3 independent sources of verification for Trevor Loudon’s claims, then I will bother with a refutation. Oh, and these sources have to be outside the right-wing noise machine. Sorry, Rush Limbaugh or Cliff Kincaid do not count.

  48. DJ

    Sorry to disappoint your beliefs, dl. I don’t listen to ANY talk radio, and morons want to argue about a web site when the article posted is about a documentary. Period.

  49. Andy

    Caryn, “open borders” is only a libertarian stance if you are talking about opening up the border of your own private property, and not having a negative impact on the person and property of others in the process.

    “Open borders” in the context of a democratic welfare state is not a libertarian position, no matter how much the leftist commie and globalist NWO infiltrators want it to be.

    The real, purist stance on the issue is not “open borders” vs. “closed borders,” but rather government control of land/having a state vs private property control of land/not having a state (as in having a private property, anarcho capitalist society)

    If government ceased to exist, and we lived in a private property, anarcho-capitalist society, borders and migration restrictions would still exist, they would just be regulated by private property owners, who would be free to discriminate for whatever reason, including because they were racist, or xenophobic, or homophobic, or whatever. You either believe in property rights and freedom of association (which means the right to discriminate/exclude for any reason), or you do not (in which case, you are not a libertarian).

    Our present reality is that we do not live in a private property, anarcho-capitalist society. We live under a government, one that has devolved Into to being a democratic welfare state. Much of the land and infrastructure is outright under direct ownership of the government, and even that which is considered to be “private property” is taxed and regulated by the government. We do not have freedom of association, as there are all kinds of anti-discrimination laws, which force people to do business and interact with those who they may not wish to do so otherwise. There are all kind of taxes and Marxist wealth redistribution programs in place which punish the productive and responsible and reward the unproductive and irresponsible. Rights are routinely voted away in democratic election, or by judges who violate their oaths of office. So under this context, it is quite relavent as to who crosses political borders, because we are all tied together under this system of government. People who cross the political border of the country gain access to all of the infrastructure/public commons of said country (which was paid for and is maintained by the taxpayers of said country), and they are then force integrated into society, and, if they obtain citizenship status (and note that the Department of Naturalization in this country routinely engages in mass fraud, by swearing in new “citizens” who swear an oath to support the US Constitution, yet who display little understanding or agreement with this document after becoming citizens, as clearly displayed by the fact that super-majorities of these people support unconstitutional government welfare programs and unconstitutional gun control laws).

    So given our present reality, which I just described above, it is intellectually dishonest to act as though it does not matter who crosses political borders, and one is not taking a libertarian stance by saying that anyone should be able to cross political borders while this situation exists, as in as long as we live in a democratic welfare state, where government owns and/or controls property, forces people to associate via law, and has Marxist wealth redistribution programs. What those who call themselves “libertarians” who push this “open borders” into a democratic welfare state nonsense are really doing is acting as “useful idiots” for the Marxists and globalists (the central banks, the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, etc…). This is in no way a principled libertarian position. Any so called “libertarian” who pushes the “open borders” into a democratic welfare state position either a) does not understand their own self proclaimed philosophy, or they are completely inept when it comes to how to go about achieving the goals of their self proclaimed philosophy, or b) is a liar who is intentionally trying to use libertarianism to achieve the goals of the Marxists and globalist (as in global government, also known as the “New World Order”).

    The purist libertarian position on the issue of borders and immigration is not to declare “open borders,” but is rather to call for abolishing the state and privatizing all of the land, and leaving the issue of migration/immigration up to the discretion of private property owners, who would have full freedom of association, which means the freedom to disassociate.

    Those who promote “open borders” while the state continues to exist, and who act as though anyone should be able to flood in while disregarding present conditions is not promoting libertarianism, they are actually promoting forced multi-culturalism and Culutral Marxism, and whether they realize it or not, they are aiding the socialists/communists and the globalist “New World Order” puppet masters.

  50. Steve Scheetz

    Vagina,
    If you read anything I ever wrote on the subject, you would understand that the entire point for inviting Invictus, (at the time a dues paying member in good standing of the Libertarian Party) was to invite him to to discuss unification and answer questions as to why it was that he thought his ideas WERE Libertarian.

    So, if you wish to go there, and continue to prove my point about how some Libertarians would rather scream about how their version of Libertarianism is better than others, that is your right, but you continue to miss the larger point that our nation becomes more and more authoritative while the people who SHOULD be fighting for freedom continue to bicker about who is better at fighting for freedom.

    Anthony,
    “We’re professing a utopian, messianic mission, and then are surprised when we end up with an endless series of factional arguments. We coulda just asked the Muslims what happens when dogma becomes your organizing principle.”

    I am not. I am trying to get people to work together. I will tell everyone that whatever I do will be done in a principled manner, but I will work with anyone willing to work with me to change the direction of our nation. If I am asked to be something other than a principled Libertarian in order to receive any interest in helping me with the cause, then I will walk away, but I am thinking that if people really wish to fight to solve problems, and are mature enough to be willing to work and make something happen, those people will respect my principled approach.

    On a side note, I have experience with this already. The moment I gathered Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Communists, conservatives, liberals, etc. THAT group got together in order to protest the drone base in Willow Grove. We did not care about anyone else’s reasons for being there, we all understood that what was happening there was F%$^ED UP, and we said so. There are a number of issues like this one in the United States, not the least of which is the INjustice system. I am putting that band back together. I am doing it because any free market solution requires that all who would be free under a new system be there to help craft it. (not messianic, NOT dogmatic.) If you think it is, you are free to work on your own solution and we will continue to be ineffective, OR be part of this solution.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  51. Anthony Dlugos

    Steve,

    I agree that you are not. You regularly appear to take the high road, even if I thought the A.I. thing was a bad idea.

    But I wasn’t accusing you. I was explaining to you why the party, as you correctly point out, seems to be a never-ending debating club instead of a political party. We’re taking on a utopian mission. Why be surprised when the party gets inundated with people looking to save the world (for white nationalists, or the anarchists, or the austrian economics devotees, etc, etc, etc) rather than solve the quotidian problems of their fellow citizens?

  52. Anthony Dlugos

    re: Thane Eichenauer post of 09/30, 9:13 and the “Ron Paul sizzle”

    I can sympathize with the desire to try and find someone who can create the sort of buzz that Ron Paul did in 2008/2012. But, leaving aside his problematic connections, can we try and find SOMEONE else other than an octogenarian to try and do that? For pete’s sake, lets leave the old man alone. At least the Republicans pined away for the NEXT Ronald Reagan. Pursuant to that, I suggest checking out the Facebook timeline of the person who was interviewed on this podcast. Tossing in the number of times he mentioned Ron’s name on the podcast. its frankly disconcerting to see someone that obsessed with Dr. Paul.

    Secondly. bringing Ron Paul’s problematic connections back into this comment, perhaps not everyone here is aware that Dr. Paul recently went on the Alex Jones show to talk about the national anthem protests and called it a “cultural marxist” plot. I decided to post a link to a Liberty Hangout article crowing about Paul agreeing with LH, which, if no one is aware, has basically descended into some kind of fascist-leaning outlet.

    Does anyone here need a slide rule to figure out where this could be headed?

    http://libertyhangout.org/2017/09/ron-paul-agrees-liberty-hangout-calls-nfl-protests-cultural-marxist-urges-boycott/

  53. Steve Scheetz

    Anthony,

    Fair enough.. I understand that the only way to solve problems is to work on solving problems, not talk about which idea or which way is better. My goal moving forward it to focus on action instead of debate.. bringing people together instead of being divisive…. We can do this while remaining true to our principles, but it does involve work, and it does involve picking those issues that EVERYONE can agree upon, not necessarily the issues that are meaningful to specific groups or individuals.

    I want to see a policy win… I do not believe this is too much to ask a group who says that it wishes to live free! We need clear goals, clear metrics, and a focus on people being clear on their intent to work on these issues, and then following through on their intentions. THAT is how we win, THAT is how we solve problems. (and this is not for me, this is for EVERYONE who wants to see freedom and Liberty becoming the norm in lieu of our current system.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  54. Libertydave

    Andy, open borders is derived from the concept of easement.

    While private property owners can say who is allowed on their property, they’re not allowed to say who can go around their property.

    It is the concept of easement that enables free trade. You claim that the freedom of association allows you the right to choose who you do business with, or not do business with.

    Your position on closed borders is a violation of my freedom of association. By closing the border you are telling me who I am allowed to associate with and who I can’t associate with. How can you telling me who I am allowed to associate with be a libertarian position?

  55. dL

    Sorry to disappoint your beliefs, dl. I don’t listen to ANY talk radio, and morons want to argue about a web site when the article posted is about a documentary. Period.

    You know, when one resorts to calling to someone an idiot or a moron, another might puzzle over why that one would care about that someone’s opinion on anything, be it documentaries, books, articles, film, et cetera, et cetera?

    But to answer your question, and perhaps the answer is more for the benefit of the general audience than for you, the reason any intelligent person might reference the Trevor Loudon’s website when challenged about viewing a documentary by said person is that time is a relatively valuable commodity. Well, it is at least for most people. And a video often is an inefficient medium to quickly process information. In other words, it can be a big waste of time. To avoid that, one would be wise to filter out the nonsense by people who have zero credibility. And I’m not talking about mere bias, here; no, i’m referring to out and out lunacy.

    A quick glance at Mr. Loudon’s website and his wikipedia page instantly confirms that he is indeed a card carrying lunatic. He is a long time fake communist conspiracy peddler. However, on the off chance that his antifa documentary actually has any pertinent facts, I left open for the possibility of reviewing it if one could produce 3 independent sources of verification of facts/claims made in the documentary.

    Good luck…

  56. dL

    When we continually see Libertarians butting heads screaming: “My brand of Libertarianism is better than yours.” we lose some of the most amazing message ever put forth.

    No one goes around screaming that. What I do see, however, is a lot of people whining “purist” to anyone who has the apparent gall to point out that certain positions being peddled as libertarian(or consistent w/ libertarianism) are, in fact, not libertarian.

    Fortunately, I’m not a member of the postmodernist set to simply waive off “libertarian error” by a dive into the swamp of cultural and sociological relativism.

    Yes, the LP is about politics, and politics is about compromise. But the compromise is in terms of strategy and tactics, not principle.

  57. robert capozzi

    dL: Yes, the LP is about politics, and politics is about compromise. But the compromise is in terms of strategy and tactics, not principle.

    me: OK. Then the REAL question is: What is the principle? How was it arrived at? How is it put into action? Is it in fact actionable? How is it maintained and policed?

    Near as I can tell, the NAP was arrived at by 88 20-somethings + Hospers. It is — somehow! — taken quite literally, and it’s policed by the 7/8th depth charge.

    iirc, you are not a NAP Adherent yourself, so I wonder why you seem to justify the LP’s dysfunctional set-up?

  58. William Saturn

    An easement permits one to go through someone’s property to get somewhere else. It has to be purchased. It is not a right.

  59. Tony From Long Island

    DJ: ” . . . and morons want to argue about a web site when the article posted is about a documentary. Period. . . . ”

    That moron you refer to (me) wasn’t even referring to you – or replying to you – when I provided the link to the media bias site. Don’t flatter yourself by continuing to think I was. Libertarians – even the nutty ones – are generally rather intelligent people, but you can’t seem to figure out how the media bias site works. Not my problem.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

  60. dL

    iirc, you are not a NAP Adherent yourself, so I wonder why you seem to justify the LP’s dysfunctional set-up?

    The Rothbardian, Randian or Hosperian NAP is not a pledge requirement to join the LP. There is only a simple self-certification that one opposes force to achieve political goals. I have no issue w/ that. A LP party that did begin to take issue w/ that would be the very definition of a dysfunctional libertarian party.

  61. robert capozzi

    dL,

    It all depends on one’s definition of “force.” If one means s/he opposes the use of force in furthering political goals (e.g., police state tactics or violent revolutionary ones), I don’t see that as especially “libertarian.” Most liberals and conservatives probably agree. I do believe the leading 20-something, The Nolan, had stated that that was what he meant.

    NAPsters since the founding, OTOH, mean “force” in the Randian/Rothbardian sense, by and large.

    Personally, I’d like to see this utopian meaning put to the test, perhaps in the first Seasteading experiment. Short of that, NAPsterism strikes me as wildly simplistic and non-implementable in a world filled with the NAPster’s meaning of “force.” It’s a world based on force, and it always has been. Minimizing force makes tons of sense, but the tortured prescription of NAPsterism in the current context is an obvious non-starter except for the rare True Believers.

  62. dL

    NAPsters since the founding, OTOH, mean “force” in the Randian/Rothbardian sense, by and large.

    Force simply means “compulsion backed by the threat of violence.” That’s the dictionary definition, not a holy book definition. It is quite clear to anyone what force means.

    It’s a world based on force, and it always has been.

    Well, that’s the status quo/tradition logical fallacy. That certainly is not an argument against the LP pledge. And in practice, I find that people that espouse that point of view are not really interested in generally minimizing compulsion, given that they frequently argue that opposing today’s compulsions is unreasonable because it falls outside today’s “overton window.”

  63. Libertydave

    William Saturn, you statement; “An easement permits one to go through someone’s property to get somewhere else. It has to be purchased. It is not a right.” is almost correct and evades the question I asked.

    Your position on closed borders is a violation of my freedom of association. By closing the border you are telling me who I am allowed to associate with and who I can’t associate with. How can you telling me who I am allowed to associate with be a libertarian position?

  64. Luke

    There’s also public easement through custom or necessity. Otherwise you could just trap someone on their own property by buying up all the property surrounding them.

  65. robert capozzi

    dL1: The Rothbardian, Randian or Hosperian NAP is not a pledge requirement to join the LP.

    dL2: Force simply means “compulsion backed by the threat of violence.” That’s the dictionary definition, not a holy book definition. It is quite clear to anyone what force means.

    me: Now I’m confused about your view. #2 sounds Randian/Rothbardian to me. “Anyone” is interesting, since most liberals and conservatives I know don’t view government as “force,” per se, as they tend to believe that the governed consent and can vote, or somesuch.

    (I see government as basically force by your definition, but I’m skeptical that a force-free civil society is possible, though possible.)

    dL: And in practice, I find that people that espouse that point of view are not really interested in generally minimizing compulsion, given that they frequently argue that opposing today’s compulsions is unreasonable because it falls outside today’s “overton window.”

    me: I don’t know anyone who labels him-/herself L who feels that way.I don’t. I do, however, believe that it’s wise to pick and choose where the State should be rolled back, places where such rollbacks could be popular and helpful and least disruptive of domestic tranquility.

    There may have been advocates of, say, marriage equality 400 years ago. Assuming there were, they were WELL outside the Overton window.” NAPsters are similarly outside today’s window. Why they position themselves there is anybody’s guess, but being that ahead of the times does assure obscurity and ineffectiveness, for obvious reasons.

  66. robert capozzi

    haste. Make that:

    (I see government as basically force by your definition, but I’m skeptical that a force-free civil society nearly inconceivable, though possible.)

  67. dL

    since most liberals and conservatives I know don’t view government as “force,” per se, as they tend to believe that the governed consent and can vote, or somesuch.

    ah, the government is just us, you and I. We are the government. Of course, “we” have:

    DHS, NSA, FBI, ATF, FDA, DEA, CIA, TSA, ISA, CGI, DIA, OIC, OIA, OTFI, MCIA, NGIA, NRO, NIA, CBP, ICE, USCIS, USSS, FAMS, ERO, OFO, FPS, DOE, OST, BIS, EPA, FCC, FAA, FED, FDIC, FTC,ICC, SEC, CPSC, DOC, USFS, USDA, PFPA, HUD, DOT, AID, USCP….

    just to make sure….lol

  68. dL

    (I see government as basically force by your definition, but I’m skeptical that a force-free civil society nearly inconceivable, though possible.)

    The state is the organization of plunder…and I’m equally skeptical that a state could ever act any differently.

  69. dL

    There’s also public easement through custom or necessity. Otherwise you could just trap someone on their own property by buying up all the property surrounding them.

    Whether it would be done my custom or purchase is irrelevant. It would be done. Otherwise, most everyone would starve to death.

  70. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Even if you can convince non-NAPsters that government is a plundering force (I give you an outside chance of converting significant minorities to your view), I give you about the same odds as marriage-equality-advocates of 400 years ago of persuading the vast majority of the correctness of their view in their lifetime to adopt a stateless social order…00000001%.

    Bully if you can pull it off!

  71. dL

    dL,

    Even if you can convince non-NAPsters that government is a plundering force (I give you an outside chance of converting significant minorities to your view)

    That’s all you need. Collective action is dominated by the minority. Public opinion majority is nothing but a fait accompli…

  72. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Seems grandiose to me for you to say that. I have met conservatives who acknowledge that government is force, but it’s necessary, for ex. I agree it’s force, too, but it’s necessary for the time being to maintain domestic tranquility unless and until voluntary institutions can replace it.

    What makes you think that government = force is all that’s needed to usher in NAPster-topia?

  73. dL

    dL,

    Seems grandiose to me for you to say that. I have met conservatives who acknowledge that government is force, but it’s necessary, for ex. I agree it’s force, too, but it’s necessary for the time being to maintain domestic tranquility unless and until voluntary institutions can replace it.

    What makes you think that government = force is all that’s needed to usher in NAPster-topia?

    Well, my statement is that “the state is the organization of plunder,” not government is force. The latter expression is an apocryphal George Washington quote.

    A minority who believes that, and there is already such a minority who does believe that, is a necessary condition, though not a sufficient one, to affect change. So, it is not a guarantee. But rest assured, the modern westphalian state, like all things, will end. Sooner or later.

  74. robert capozzi

    dL: But rest assured, the modern westphalian state, like all things, will end. Sooner or later.

    me: You can assure me all you want, I see NO evidence that the State will wither away. Your faith in the outcome is charming on one level, but it seems to’ve been arrived at in a haphazard manner.

    If you are like the marriage-equality proponents of 400 years ago — WAY ahead of your time — I tip my hat,

  75. dL

    ***crickets***

    Well, I said sooner or later. The United States is an empire…and all empires end. That’s axiomatic. And the end event typically is not a withering away….

  76. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Sorry, you didn’t say the “US.” You said the “modern westphalian state.” Different, you see? I took westphalian state to mean that you were predicting global nonarchy.

    What constitutes an empire and what has historically happened to empires is interesting. Whether that history will apply to the US is questionable, given WMD. Now, the USSR did somewhat come apart, but the bulk of that state was Russia. They are still a nuclear power with MAD all-but-assuring its statehood for the foreseeable future.

    But it’s the motive for political action that I find curious among anarchists. Why advocate for anarchy when there’s all-but-no chance for it happening in their lifetime?

    TK’s answer is semi-coherent. He seems to believe that collapse is imminent, so he wants Ls to consistently hold high the Black Flag so that AFTER the collapse, people will remember the Nonarchist Message and decide to adopt statelessness as the polity.

    Do you share that view, or some other reason for holding high the Black Flag?

    Bracing stuff, as I see it. Not impossible, but so unlikely that I really can’t take it seriously.

  77. DJ

    Andy
    October 2, 2017 at 23:03

    Excellent article. Must read for anyone who is interested in a serious discussion on the topic.

    Benefits and Perils of Immigration:
    The Double Edged Sword
    by Jeff Fullerton

    http://ncc-1776.org/tle2017/tle941-20170924-06.html
    ………….

    Interesting article. I was sorta believing in his rationalization until he said “wall”.

    That has to be the most stupid belief I’ve ever seen endorsed by anyone. Every ‘benevolent’ action encountered/implemented by a gov’t (especially ours) is never temporary. Never. Be careful what you wish for from gov’t. Sooner or later they’ll come for you. It is that simple.

    Look, people have been going where the grass is thought to be greener since they discovered putting one foot in front of the other takes them someplace other than where they are. It will never stop. The best thing to do is learn to live with it to your advantage. Adapt or die. Pretty simple.
    Migration should be orderly, but a wall is just a stupid idea. We have laws. Either we abide by the rule of law or we’re not as we claim to be, which shoots down the entire property rights argument. I think it would be a more worthwhile effort to expend energy and resources pointing out the many, many derelictions of duty by those who profess to uphold and defend the constitution and don’t.

    There is no answer that will be immediately beneficial to us. It has to be incremental to last, and it has to be amenable and humanitarian to everyone involved .

    Anecdotally; I’d like to see any poster here swing a weed eater from can to can’t 6 days a week. Down here people want their lawns to at least look like they’re manicured but don’t have the time since a great deal of their time is spent commuting and the other necessary tasks of just living in today’s world. And no, legal immigrants won’t do it. They’re here for other jobs that pay better than 10 bucks/hr.

    An answer is cut welfare, but, their getting it in the first place is probably illegal. A wall is just stupid.

  78. Andy

    This speech is also from the recent Mises Institute 35 Anniversary Celebration held in New York City.

    Video description from YouTube: “The world needs Murray Rothbard, because he still matters. And it’s up to all of us to secure his legacy.”

    The Man the World (Still) Needs | Jeff Deist

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp0LAr54snA&t=56s

  79. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    October 6, 2017 at 19:42
    Here’s the latest from the sick, twisted fucks at the Mises Institute. Fuck them. Fuck the lot of them. Fuck anyone too stupid to realize the threat that Institute is to the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian movement now. Fuck the Mises Caucus. Fuck Ron Paul and his dog whistle blather about “cultural marxism.”

    Disgusting twats, every one of them.”

    I say fuck you and fuck the frauds like you and Bill Weld and Gary Johnson and all of the other phonies. It is frauds like you who are ruining the Libertarian Party and movement.

    Ron Paul accomplishes more for liberty in one day than you will ever do in your entire worthless life.

  80. Andy

    Here’s an event for real libertarians. The 1,000th episode celebration of The Tom Woods Show.

    Includes special appearances via video from Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Peter Schiff, Bob Murphy, Glenn Jacobs (aka-“Kane” from WWE), and others. The event is hosted by libertarian rapper/singer, Eric July.

    It looks like it was a fun event. I wish I could have been there.

    Ep. 1000, The Tom Woods Show, Live from Orlando!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGpgnfCENGk&t=1331s

  81. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    October 11, 2017 at 12:22
    lol. struck a nerve about your god, did I?”

    Take your “shiny badge” worshiping of frauds like Bob Barr, Gary Johnson, and Bill Weld, along with your dog whistle to the Council on Foreign Relations and other establishment shills, and shove it up your ass.

  82. Krzysztof Lesiak

    God Bless Andy. Jehovah loves you, IPR Andy.

    Tom Woods is a boss BTW. I had the privilege of meeting him at the September 2013 Libertarian Party of Illinois state convention in Bolingbrook. The Mises Institute people are all great people.

    I feel the Constitution Party is a much better fit these days for Woods and the rest of the Mises fellowship. Just my humble opinion.

  83. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak
    October 11, 2017 at 13:13
    God Bless Andy. Jehovah loves you, IPR Andy.”

    Thanks again for the vote of confidence.

    “Tom Woods is a boss BTW. I had the privilege of meeting him at the September 2013 Libertarian Party of Illinois state convention in Bolingbrook. The Mises Institute people are all great people.”

    I saw Tom Woods speak in California back in 2010, but I did not speak to him. I did speak to Tom Woods briefly in Orlando, FL last year at the Libertarian National Convention. I would love to have spoken to him longer.

    “I feel the Constitution Party is a much better fit these days for Woods and the rest of the Mises fellowship. Just my humble opinion.”

    Woods is an anarcho-capitalist, as is most everyone else at the Mises Institute. They may occasionally use the Constitution to make a point, but they ultimately do no believe in any coercive government, which means that their preference is not to “restore the Constitution,” but rather to eliminate coercive government.

  84. Andy

    Here is the full video of the 1,000th episode celebration of The Tom Woods Show. I thought that I posted this here last night, but it looks like it mysteriously disappeared.

    This looks like it would have been a fun event to have attended. I would love to have been there.

    Ep. 1000, The Tom Woods Show, Live from Orlando

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGpgnfCENGk

  85. George Dance

    William Saturn: “An easement permits one to go through someone’s property to get somewhere else. It has to be purchased. It is not a right.”

    That’s counter-factual. Not that I’m a property scholar, or anything, but it is a matter of historical record in the U.S. and Canada that private property came with attached rights-of-way, or easements: corridors that were simply reserved for passage, open to anyone for that purpose. Private property in land wouldn’t have made much sense without a way to get on or off one’s property.

  86. paulie

    Saturn was already corrected on that point earlier. The migration restrictionists just grasp at whatever illogical straws they can. Never mind that it’s a regime, not a legitimate property owner, getting in the way of actual property owners who want to be able to e.g. rent to, sell products and services to, and employ people who cross regime borders, with or without regime permission. But libertarianism 101 goes out the window here because these people are afraid that the Jews (or the Illuminati, UN, etc) are carrying out some plot to replace them.

  87. Libertydave

    Most easements are created when real estate is bought or sold. They are part of the contract when buying or selling private property. After you own the property any new easements would have to be purchased. That’s why I said his statement was almost correct.

    And Andy is still claiming that closed borders is the libertarian position without answering the following question.

    Your position on closed borders is a violation of my freedom of association. By closing the border you are telling me who I am allowed to associate with and who I can’t associate with. How can you telling me who I am allowed to associate with be a libertarian position?

  88. paulie

    Yeah that will keep getting sidestepped just like anything else that’s not convenient to the “…will not replace us” paranoia.

  89. D. Frank Robinson

    If the United States government ruling elite want to exclude non-citizen serfs from entering its fiefdom, then it should exclude those non-citizen serfs from purchasing its debt. In other words, only citizen-serfs would have the privilege of buying USG debt – trillions of dollars of it.

    Meanwhile non-citizen serf holding any USG debt, e.g., Federal Reserve Notes, ought to be able to enter the US and inspect the collateral as long as they wish.

  90. George Phillies

    What collateral? That’s nonsense. There isn’t any. At one time, they could inspect the printing presses, but we now thriftily do such things electronically.

    And note that allowing the bonds to expire and cash them has no effect, in that they had a completely fluid financial instrument, they after exchanging for cash still have a completely fluid financial instrument, and therefore there is no effect on their ability to buy things, no drive for inflation. Of course they could dump the bonds on the open market, which will briefly create a buying opportunity when the prices of their bonds fall, but that is recoverable. Indeed, over the past year the Chinese government has sold a trillion dollars of their bonds to stabilize the RenMinBei, with no other effect.

  91. D. Frank Robinson

    What collateral? That’s nonsense. There isn’t any. George Phillies

    That’s what the debt holders should be able to verify for themselves by entering the country.

    I merely point out the hypocrisy of excluding people while encouraging them to buy debt to finance their exclusion.

  92. Luke

    I think this sums up the Mises Caucus best:

    In response to Andy “The Mises Caucus is a breath of fresh air, and I hope they kick ass in New Orleans in May at the Libertarian National Convention.”

    Paulie: “More like a breath of fresh ass. And I hope they kick air.”

  93. Luke

    But, Andy is right about one thing… I do hope they show up to New Orleans in May. That would be splendid.

  94. Luke

    “What collateral?”

    The “full faith and credit of the US government” is I believe how they like to phrase it.

  95. dL

    What collateral? That’s nonsense. There isn’t any.

    Yeah there is. There is such a thing called sovereign default. Creditors may not seize any physical/tangible assets, but they will seize your public policy.

Leave a Reply

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