January 2018 Open Thread

Welcome to this month’s edition of the open thread, our place for off-topic conversations, news tips, suggestions, discussions of stories no one has bothered to post (at least yet), etc. As 2017 ends and 2018 begins we remind you that the President has said that the war on Christmas is now officially over, so Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and please for the love of the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit no more debates about whether to wish people a “Happy Festivus” or a “Merry Festivus”, mmmkay?

Speaking of the President, to our knowledge, there is no truth that this song is about him:

2017 was a relatively slow year for IPR, especially towards the end, with no signs at this time that 2018 will be anything but slower. So slow, in fact, that a reader this morning asks:

Is IPR officially dead?

My reply:

It’s as dead as people want it to be. Quite a few people, yourself included, are signed up to post articles and I can sign up others if they are interested, especially if I know them from the comments here or real life or blogs elsewhere or have verifiable proof they are not one of our trolls in disguise. Every once in a while I get inspired to post a bunch of articles myself, but it’s hard to sustain that momentum when no one else is posting much in the way of articles, when I get busy with other things, when I get depressed, or when there is a lot of nonsense in the comments, or any combination thereof.

At the moment it’s pretty dead. I’m hoping it doesn’t stay dead, but I’m not sure whether or when I am up for trying to revive it yet again if I don’t get much help in doing so.

Or, since we do have that pesky video posting tradition in the Open Threads, here is how me and perhaps some of the past active article posters at IPR feel about it now:

No truth, to our knowledge, that Marilyn Manson is any relation to Augustus Invictus.

And it’s not even that 2017 was all bad. In some ways it was very, very good. For one thing I spent the summer in Kentucky…

And for another…

We’ll see if the bubble bursts in 2018 or just keeps on growing but in the meantime I have started cashing out profits slowly allowing me to retire (at least for now, and maybe forever). I thought I would use the opportunity to make what I thought was a very generous offer to work as a volunteer for my state party full time for 7 months, while bringing in major outside investment to get them on the ballot statewide for the first time in 16 years, but elements of my state party connected with the Mises Caucus and the Alt Right disagree heartily. Details in an upcoming article, if I ever get around to writing it.

With so much drama in the LPA it’s kinda hard being Paulie, hey, but I somehow someway ….

Oh, who am I kidding… about the only thing I have in common with Snoop there is the actual gin and juice. Speaking of which, I was sober from June to late November last year, but from one ceremonial drink when I got back around family for the first time since February on Thanksgiving to the aforementioned LPA drama and well, next thing you know…some people call it a problem, I call it a solution…

Also speaking of LPA, there is no truth, to our knowledge, that former LPA member (and current LPNH chair) Darryl W. Perry is actually also country singer Darryl Lix:

And that’s that for 2017. Here’s resolving to try to make 2018 better. Kind of like these guys and gals:

As for me, I’m back in Alabama and with any luck will be out in the woods before too long. Maybe even somewhere with no wi-fi or cell signal…it’s all good!

117 thoughts on “January 2018 Open Thread

  1. robert capozzi

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BiNsALquAQ

    NS does a fine job here, but his narrative is getting old. On some level, he may recognize that the NAPster foundations of the LP simply don’t allow for electoral relevancy, hence his “long run” positioning.

    Perennial chess-club president is cool and all, but the quarterback gets the glory. 😉

  2. Gina

    Interesting post from Conscious Resistance. Apparently Hoppebots are now modifying “1488” to “14888” in “honor” of Hoppe. So cute.

  3. Andy

    “Gina
    January 3, 2018 at 15:48
    Interesting post from Conscious Resistance. Apparently Hoppebots are now modifying ‘1488’ to ‘14888’ in ‘honor’ of Hoppe. So cute.”

    My guess is that some people were trying to be funny, or obnoxious, or perhaps they were trying to smear Hoppe.

    Whatever their motivation was, Hoppe calls for abolishing all taxation, and abolishing the state. He also supports secession and decentralization while states exist, which is the exact opposite view of Nazis.

    Also, don’t forget that Hoppe was good friends with Murray Rothbard, who was Jewish. Calling Hoppe a Nazi is an anti-intellectual smear.

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe: THE ECONOMICS OF FASCISM, The Economic Doctrine of the Nazis
    Recorded at the Mises Institute, 7–8 October 2005.

    https://mises.org/library/economic-doctrine-nazis

  4. Gina

    Nice try, but they didn’t say anything about Hitler. The original “1488” only refers to Hitler in the last “8” and even then only in one of two accepted interpretations of “88” as that stands for David Lane’s “88 precepts” in addition to “Heil Hitler”. The “14” seems to be common ground for Hitler and Hoppe and for followers of both. “888” in the Hoppean meme stands for Hoppe’s initials and if we add the “Heil” that becomes 148888. Aside from that, you should read the rest of the Conscious Resistance article.

    “Also, don’t forget that Hoppe was good friends with Murray Rothbard, who was Jewish.”

    And don’t forget that Murray Rothbard endorsed David Duke. Also don’t forget the rest of the information about Hoppe and his cohort in the article linked above.

  5. Thane Eichenauer

    Great open thread post. Now if only Kid Rock would pursue the Democrat nomination for POTUS 2020 I would be really amused.
    Any word if PredictIt has opened betting (OK, OK, a predictions contract) on “Will Roy Moore be elected POTUS in 2020?”

  6. robert capozzi

    Gina,

    Are you sure MNR actually “endorsed” DD? I’m not finding that, although I did find some quotes where he found supportable in that his positions were inoffensive to paleo-Ls and -Cs.

    I am a critic of MNR, but I like to keep the record straight.

  7. DJ

    1488 is a FM (Farm to Market road) between Houston and Conroe, Tx. which is north of Houston. The north can only be far right if east is the top of the map and you’re north of Conroe. LOL morons. Good Lord!

  8. Gina

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism

    Paleo-libertarianism developed in opposition to the social progressivism of mainstream libertarianism.lol The ideology was presented in Murray Rothbard’s essay “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement”, in which Rothbard reflected on the ability of paleo-libertarians to engage in an “outreach to rednecks” founded on social conservatism and radical libertarianism. He cited former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and former U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy as models for the new movement.[2]

  9. Gina

    https://beinglibertarian.com/dear-tom-woods-murray-rothbard-indeed-suck/

    “The first person Rothbard ever endorsed was Strom Thurmond, and the last was David Duke. Can you say with a straight face this was a good political practice?”

    https://thejewishlibertarian.com/tag/david-duke/

    Murray Rothbard wrote about Duke’s political program:

    “It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that? And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues. Indeed, even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point. Instead, the Establishment concentrated on the very “negative campaigning” that they profess to abhor (especially when directed against them). (Ironic note: TV pundits, who regularly have face lifts twice a year, bitterly attacked Duke for his alleged face lift. And nobody laughed!)”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/02/where-did-donald-trump-get-his-racialized-rhetoric-from-libertarians/?utm_term=.d1b9e5a51fd9

    “These and many other controversial views advocated by Mises writers make sense from a fanatical libertarian viewpoint. But they also originate in a political calculation Rothbard revealed in a 1992 essay lamenting the defeat of Republican white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in the 1991 Louisiana governor’s race by a bipartisan coalition.

    Expanding on themes raised two years earlier by his longtime partner and friend Llewellyn “Lew” Rockwell, an editor and fundraiser for libertarian causes, Rothbard argued that Duke’s candidacy was vitally important because it made clear that the “old America” had been overthrown by “an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar” and its “State Church” of government officials, journalists and social scientists.”

  10. Gina

    “1488 is a FM (Farm to Market road) between Houston and Conroe, Tx.”

    Yes and de Nile is a river in Egypt.

    “LOL morons. Good Lord!”

    Not as dumb as you want everyone to be apparently.

  11. dL

    1488 is a FM (Farm to Market road) between Houston and Conroe, Tx. which is north of Houston. The north can only be far right if east is the top of the map and you’re north of Conroe. LOL morons. Good Lord!

    1337 is a street address for dozens, if not hundreds, of businesses and firms within the US. However, if you are a hacker, or familiar with the hacker scene, you know 1337 is also slang for “elite”(leet).

    Likewise, 1488 is a known slang for white power, or some derivative thereof. However, unlike 1337, which I learned 1st hand back in the day, 1488 is something I learned second hand fairly recently.

  12. dL

    Are you sure MNR actually “endorsed” DD? I’m not finding that, although I did find some quotes where he found supportable in that his positions were inoffensive to paleo-Ls and -Cs.

    Bob, in “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement”
    http://rothbard.altervista.org/articles/right-wing-populism.pdf

    Rothbard certainly did enthusiastically endorse Duke as a model for libertarian strategy. It’s an old canard for someone to spend lots of intellectual effort and time evangelizing someone to converts and defending the same from detractors and then try to BS qualify it with, “well, I actually didn’t say go out and vote for the guy.” It’s the exact same tired modus operandi Rothbard protege Justin Raimondo tries to pull off with Trump.

    Note: as has been said before, the difference between Rothbard and Hoppe is that for Rothbard, paelo was strategic. For Hoppe, it is theoretic. It’s the difference between saying that appealing to redneck republican voters is the best way to advance libertarianism at this point in time vs white supremacism is a necessary condition to advance libertarianism, period. Hoppe is an unabashed white supremacist.

  13. robert capozzi

    Gina and dL,

    So, there was no formal “endorsement” of DD’s candidacy, but there was support for DD from MNR, it sounds like.

    I certainly believe that the paleo offshoot of NAPsterism is a cautionary tale. DD and other Haters should be avoided like the plague, and yet the late Pope of NAPsterism lacked the judgment to do so.

    My hope is non-paleo NAPsters — seeing just how fucked up MNR was — use the example to rethink NAPsterism.

  14. Andy

    “Gina
    January 4, 2018 at 04:44
    Nice try, but they didn’t say anything about Hitler. The original ‘1488’ only refers to Hitler in the last “8” and even then only in one of two accepted interpretations of “88” as that stands for David Lane’s “88 precepts” in addition to ‘Heil Hitler’. The ’14’ seems to be common ground for Hitler and Hoppe and for followers of both. ‘888’ in the Hoppean meme stands for Hoppe’s initials and if we add the ‘Heil’ that becomes 148888. Aside from that, you should read the rest of the Conscious Resistance article.”

    The 14888 comment was clearly an attempt at tying Hans-Hermann Hoppe in with Nazis, which is a smear, and a lie.

    As for common ground, you can find common ground between all kinds of people who may otherwise have lots of disagreements, including left libertarians and communists.

    How about an article about purging leftists?

    Gina, you seem to have a great interest in the Libertarian Party. Can you tell us what state party where it is that you are a member? I have never heard of you.

  15. Andy

    dL said: “Hoppe is an unabashed white supremacist.”

    This is another lie. Hoppe is not seeking to rule over anyone. He advocates that the state be abolished and a voluntary society emerge.

    The way that some people misrepresent Hoppe shows their lack of intellectual capacity, and/or lack of intellectual integrity. Hoppe correctly points out that a libertarian society would have private property and freedom of association. This means that people would be free to associate, or not associate, with whoever they want, for whatever reason, and that they could invite onto or exclude whoever they wanted from their property. He points out that this would solve a lot of conflicts that arise in society as like minded people could form covenant communities, and he even says that people would be free to exclude Germans like himself, if they so desired. Hoppe gets attacked over his “physical removal” concept, but this is no different that a hotel kicking out an unruly guest, as a person would only be “physically removed” if they violated the contract with the property owner and/or covenant community. He correctly points out that you aren’t going to have a libertarian society if you are surrounded by communists or democrats, or other people hostile to liberty. If you disagree with him, as in if you think that you can have a libertarian society, and fill it with lots of communists, democrats, and theocrats, then how about inviting a bunch of people like this to the Libertarian National Convention next year and see what the results are (this is sort of what happened at the last three presidential nominating conventions, as in there were a good number of people there who were not even really libertarians, and/or who were just extremely naive, voting to select the party’s presidential ticket, which is why the last three presidential tickets for the LP have not been plausibly libertarian).

    Hoppe says that if people want to live in a very left wing type of community in an anarcho-capitalist society, they’d be free to do that, so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of people who chose to live differently. He does not believe that a left wing type of community would be very successful in an anarcho-capitalist society, but he believes that people have the right to form such communities so long as they do so on a voluntary basis.

  16. Andy

    As for Murray Rothbard’s comments about David Duke, I don’t think that they were an outright endorsement of Duke.

    On the flip side of this, there are some libertarians out there that did outright endorse Bernie Sanders for President (or at least to win the Democratic party’s primary). Steve Kubby and IPR’s very own Warren Redlich come to mind.

    Also, what about libertarians who made positive remarks about Ralph Nader?

    If Rothbard is to be demonized for a comment he made about Duke, how about demonizing libertarians who made positive comments about socialist Sanders and socialist Nader? Or does is there are double standard here where it is OK for self professed libertarians to make positive comments, and even outright endorse, left wing socialists, but not anyone who is associated with the political right?

    Oh, and at one time, Rothbard did in fact pursue a left wing strategy by working with people on the left. Should he be criticized by that too, or should be only be criticized for pursuing the right wing “paleo” strategy?

  17. DJ

    Andy: Or does is there are double standard here where it is OK for self professed libertarians to make positive comments, and even outright endorse, left wing socialists, but not anyone who is associated with the political right?

    Me: Yes right wing politics is verboten (LOL) here because, apparently, the leftist here won’t recognize the left as it’s recognized in ‘this’ country as being anti-freedom.

  18. DJ

    Gina: Not as dumb as you want everyone to be apparently.

    Me: Morons. Notice the difference in spelling?

    mo·ron
    ?môr?än/
    nouninformal
    noun: moron; plural noun: morons

    a stupid person.
    synonyms: fool, idiot, ass, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, clod;
    ……………..

    dumb
    d?m/
    adjective
    adjective: dumb; comparative adjective: dumber; superlative adjective: dumbest

    1.
    temporarily unable or unwilling to speak.
    “they stood dumb while the attacker poured out a stream of abuse”
    synonyms: mute, speechless, tongue-tied, silent, at a loss for words; taciturn, uncommunicative, untalkative, tight-lipped, close-mouthed;
    informalmum
    “she stood dumb while he shouted”
    2.
    resulting in or expressed by speechlessness.
    “they stared in dumb amazement”
    synonyms: mute, speechless, tongue-tied, silent, at a loss for words; taciturn, uncommunicative, untalkative, tight-lipped, close-mouthed;
    informalmum
    “she stood dumb while he shouted”
    3.
    datedoffensive
    (of a person) unable to speak, most typically because of congenital deafness.
    “he was born deaf, dumb, and blind”
    synonyms: mute, speechless, tongue-tied, silent, at a loss for words; More
    taciturn, uncommunicative, untalkative, tight-lipped, close-mouthed;
    informalmum
    “she stood dumb while he shouted”
    (of animals) unable to speak as a natural state and thus regarded as helpless or deserving pity.
    4.
    North Americaninformal
    stupid.
    “a dumb question”
    synonyms: stupid, unintelligent, ignorant, dense, brainless, mindless, foolish, slow, dull, simple, empty-headed, stunned, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, half-baked, imbecilic, bovine; More
    informalthick, dim, moronic, dopey, dozy, thickheaded, fat-headed, birdbrained, pea-brained;
    daft
    “he is not as dumb as you’d think”
    antonyms: clever
    5.
    (of a computer terminal) able only to transmit data to or receive data from a computer; having no independent processing capability.

    verb
    verb: dumb; 3rd person present: dumbs; past tense: dumbed; past participle: dumbed; gerund or present participle: dumbing

    1.
    informal
    simplify or reduce the intellectual content of something so as to make it accessible to a larger number of people.
    “critics have accused publishers of dumbing down books”
    become less intellectually challenging.
    “the need to dumb down for mass audiences”
    2.
    literary
    make dumb or unheard; silence.
    “a splendor that dazed the mind and dumbed the tongue”
    ………………

  19. Cody Quirk

    Since Sessions declared war on state sovereignty & individual liberty today, I’ve reconnected with my inner Irish rebel and am getting back into active politics now.

    I’m also never casting my vote for ANY GOP candidate again; I’d rather abstain from voting in a race where there are no Libertarians or independents running.

  20. DJ

    CQ: I’m also never casting my vote for ANY GOP candidate again; I’d rather abstain from voting in a race where there are no Libertarians or independents running.

    Me: I determined that when BO was running. I noticed (finally) there is no difference between Left/Right Party hierarchy, i.e. POTUS and congress critters, except the rhetoric they use to sell their BS. Our monetary policy determines foreign policy which determines domestic policy and they do not enhance, or protect Individual Rights, and neither side has historically done their job in that arena, which I believe is their main job according to the oath they take when elected.

    Obama running against Romney caused me to look at Ron Paul (fueled by my oldest son and a couple acquaintances one of whom I call friend), as well as my personal beliefs which led me to calling myself libertarian, not to be confused with Libertarian.
    I look at the Libertarian representation here on IPR and it validates my personal belief about the collective mind set. With the exception of Andy (whom I don’t agree with on borders) most everything and everyone here is a representation of the lefts hysteria where anything Republican is evil. Though I don’t subscribe to Republican anything the hysteria displayed on IPR by Libertarians (except Andy) is frighteningly close to that of college kids and paid protesters.

  21. paulie Post author

    As for Murray Rothbard’s comments about David Duke, I don’t think that they were an outright endorsement of Duke.

    They were.

    On the flip side of this, there are some libertarians out there that did outright endorse Bernie Sanders for President (or at least to win the Democratic party’s primary). Steve Kubby and IPR’s very own Warren Redlich come to mind.

    Also, what about libertarians who made positive remarks about Ralph Nader?

    If you don’t recognize that Duke is far more politically toxic than Nader or Sanders, you don’t belong anywhere near practical politics. Being associated with white supremacists, white nationalists, the KKK and neo-nazis is the political equivalent of rolling around in nuclear waste and walking around with a Geiger counter going nuts around you all the time. It’s like advertising that you are HIV-positive and still won’t use condoms on a dating site. Sure, Nader and Sanders are horribly wrong on some issues, especially economic issues, but being associated with them is not nearly the kiss of death that being associated with far right extremist bigots is.

  22. paulie Post author

    Or does is there are double standard here where it is OK for self professed libertarians to make positive comments, and even outright endorse, left wing socialists, but not anyone who is associated with the political right?

    It’s not a double standard, it’s a qualitative difference. And extremist bigots are not “anyone who is associated with the political right.” David Duke isn’t Romney, Bush, Dole, Kemp or Reagan.

    Oh, and at one time, Rothbard did in fact pursue a left wing strategy by working with people on the left. Should he be criticized by that too, or should be only be criticized for pursuing the right wing “paleo” strategy?

    He was at his best when he pursued a left-friendly strategy and at his worst when he allied with the bigoted far right. Unfortunately he died in one of his far right stages and his followers have been to some extent stuck in that repulsive gutter, and most recently have taken a sharp turn for the even worse, severely sullying anyone and anything branded as libertarian in the process. IMO it’s an existential crisis for libertarianism.

  23. paulie Post author

    The 14888 comment was clearly an attempt at tying Hans-Hermann Hoppe in with Nazis, which is a smear, and a lie.

    Nope, follow the CR link. The “14888” pic was put up by a Hoppe supporter. 14 words + HHH and HHH does appear to be a fervent believer in the “14 words” based on numerous statements he has made.

    As for common ground, you can find common ground between all kinds of people

    It depends on what that common ground is. If their common ground is the white nationalist “14 words” regardless of whether they are nazis or white nationalist anarcho-capitalists they are still the same kind of slime and should both be ostracized, for the same reasons.

    How about an article about purging leftists?

    I prefer the one I already linked. Purge the fascists and work on finding ways to work together with leftists and bring over the persuadable ones to libertarianism while making libertarian outreach rhetoric more left-friendly. It’s the only way for libertarianism to not go down the drain along with fascism and racism.

  24. paulie Post author

    So, there was no formal “endorsement” of DD’s candidacy, but there was support for DD from MNR, it sounds like.

    I don’t know what definition of “formal endorsement” you are splitting hairs over.

    1992 essay lamenting the defeat of Republican white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in the 1991 Louisiana governor’s race by a bipartisan coalition.

    Expanding on themes raised two years earlier by his longtime partner and friend Llewellyn “Lew” Rockwell, an editor and fundraiser for libertarian causes, Rothbard argued that Duke’s candidacy was vitally important

    When you have a person lament Duke’s defeat in one of his runs for office, say his candidacy was “vitally important” and claim there is “there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians” what more do you need to call that an endorsement?

    DD and other Haters should be avoided like the plague

    Yes, very much agreed.

  25. paulie Post author

    Since Sessions declared war on state sovereignty & individual liberty today, I’ve reconnected with my inner Irish rebel and am getting back into active politics now.

    I’m also never casting my vote for ANY GOP candidate again; I’d rather abstain from voting in a race where there are no Libertarians or independents running.

    Yes, Sessions is doing exactly what he has promised and what I predicted all along. I hate to see my predictions coming true like this. Much more to come from where that came from.

  26. paulie Post author

    Rothbard certainly did enthusiastically endorse Duke as a model for libertarian strategy. It’s an old canard for someone to spend lots of intellectual effort and time evangelizing someone to converts and defending the same from detractors and then try to BS qualify it with, “well, I actually didn’t say go out and vote for the guy.” It’s the exact same tired modus operandi Rothbard protege Justin Raimondo tries to pull off with Trump.

    Exactly.

    Note: as has been said before, the difference between Rothbard and Hoppe is that for Rothbard, paelo was strategic. For Hoppe, it is theoretic. It’s the difference between saying that appealing to redneck republican voters is the best way to advance libertarianism at this point in time vs white supremacism is a necessary condition to advance libertarianism, period. Hoppe is an unabashed white supremacist.

    Yes, Hoppe is the worst sort of bigot. Utterly disgusting.

  27. paulie Post author

    Jeffrey Tucker, who currently has a book, Right wing collectivism, the other threat to liberty,” out on Amazon, has suddenly attached himself to Trump’s jock. Cognitive dissonance….

    Very unfortunate, especially since his book is right on the money and he had Trump pegged to a “T” in his articles during the campaign as an authoritarian, would-be dictator.

  28. paulie Post author

    Any word if PredictIt has opened betting (OK, OK, a predictions contract) on “Will Roy Moore be elected POTUS in 2020?”

    Dunno, but I’m willing to make a bet against that.

  29. dL

    most everything and everyone here is a representation of the lefts hysteria where anything Republican is evil.

    Hmmm… I would counter that the American libertarian movement actually exhibits a broad leftist derangement syndrome . The consequence of 70 years of conservative fusionism. I can guarantee you that if an elected Clinton had matched Trump’s current bluster on trade, Amazon, foreign policy, drugs and press freedom, you wouldn’t be seeing anyone pontificating about Clintonian libertarianism or bothering with penning articles disputing the merit of such vapid nonsense. Nor would anyone be demanding a fairness doctrine to give equal criticism to the republicans.

    Indeed, if an elected Clinton had barked aloud about Amazon needing to raise shipping prices to better compensate the victimized US Postal service–all because of her butthurt over bad press from the Washington Post–then any dupe still clinging to a Clinton libertarian bent would have metaphorically, if not literally, been taken out behind the woodshed for a tar and feathering.

    Not so with Trump. There is still a healthy libertarian enterprise out there bent on selling a Trump deregulatory prosperity. If you think there is a leftist libertarian slant against Trump here, well it’s not necessarily the norm elsewhere.

  30. dL

    And he was 100% correct.

    Unabashed refers to not even bothering with the dog whistle. He comes right out and says it in the clearest possible language in his essay, “(Race) Realistic Libertarianism.”

  31. paulie Post author

    Hmmm… I would counter that the American libertarian movement actually exhibits a broad leftist derangement syndrome . The consequence of 70 years of conservative fusionism.

    Most indubitably. And large segments of it have strong alt right tendencies where the slip and slide into outright fascism somehow makes sense. It’s sickening, and so far beyond counterproductive that words don’t truly express it.

  32. Anon-Tipper

    I’ve found a weird moral relativist tendency with the lvmi crew. Which leads them to idolize people like Pinochet and support David Duke, they really seem to just care what the end result “might” be, like the market reforms in Chile under Pinochet, they don’t care that thousands were killed and tortured, just that the market was “freed.” They’re like libertarianism’s version of tankies.

    I’m not surprised by Tucker, he didn’t have a problem writing a eulogy for anti-semite Sobran. And someone else from from FEE made a post joking about Pinochet recently.

    On a more positive note, I’ve noticed some of the alt righters getting pushed out of some of the libertarian reddit subs lately. I think there’s more “good” libertarians than it seems at at times.

  33. dL

    I’ve found a weird moral relativist tendency with the lvmi crew. Which leads them to idolize people like Pinochet and support David Duke, they really seem to just care what the end result “might” be, like the market reforms in Chile under Pinochet, they don’t care that thousands were killed and tortured, just that the market was “freed.” They’re like libertarianism’s version of tankies.

    Well, Tucker is no longer associated with LvMI, and I would contend there is a difference between Mises and say, FEE, the last place Tucker worked at. FEE, like a lot of libertarian economic publications, essentially have substituted “prospertarianism” for libertarianism.

    Bastiat, in his work, Economic Sophisms, wrote that the only practical use of economics was the identification of plunder. Indeed, absent plunder, the social science becomes a superfluous study(as plunder –>0, the social order–>perfection).

    Prospertarianism, on the other hand, has as its chief aim the identification of “prosperity” and is often quite selective with what it identifies.

    E.g, the Trump tax cut and the Trump Admin’s repeal of Obama’s net neutrality rules==the case for the Trump prosperity and the Trump libertarian drift. The prospertarian will dissect certain reductions in marginal rates as evidence of coming prosperity boom whereas the libertarian might skeptically view the entire thing at best as a zero sum game(the sheer volume of the passed law is sufficient to guarantee that it is at best zero sum). The prospertarian will proclaim the repeal of Net Neutrality as a deregulatory boon for internet freedom whereas the libertarian might view net neutrality as a war between two rent-seeking, self-serving interests.

    While I don’t think prospertarianism is rooted in an advancement of white identity politics, it nonetheless is more than willing to overlook quite a bit of that stuff if there is, say, a marginal tax rate cut being dangled at the end of the stick. It leads to the old saying, “a libertarian is a republican who likes to XXX.” Obviously, I don’t think that is an accurate statement vis a vis libertarianism, but there is some to truth to that when it comes to the prospertarians.

  34. dL

    NAPsters square off:

    Actually, that was a debate between a libertarian and a property-grabbing, gun-grabbing bigot…

  35. dL

    I’m not surprised by Tucker, he didn’t have a problem writing a eulogy for anti-semite Sobran. And someone else from from FEE made a post joking about Pinochet recently.

    On a more positive note, I’ve noticed some of the alt righters getting pushed out of some of the libertarian reddit subs lately. I think there’s more “good” libertarians than it seems at at times.

    RE: Sobran. Sobran was syndicated by my local newspaper when I was in middle school/high school. I read him every week, and I would have to credit him to some extent for my conservative skepticism at the time. Though internet publishing would later identity him to be a paleoconservative, I don’t recall that con cultural stuff, other than abortion, dripping from his newspaper columns . IIRC, the real crawl up his ass was Shakespeare.

  36. Andy

    “dL
    January 7, 2018 at 00:57
    NAPsters square off:

    Actually, that was a debate between a libertarian and a property-grabbing, gun-grabbing bigot…”

    You are being a bit hard on Adam Kokesh. Adam put forth a weaker argument, but I would not call him a bad guy. I think that Adam is sincere when he says that his end game is for a private property anarcho-capitalist society, but I don’t think him wanting to use the guns of the state to force integrate large numbers of people from other countries (many of whom are hostile) into the democratic welfare state in which we live is a realistic way of achieving a free society. Fortunately, Adam’s presidential campaign platform bypasses this and other political issues, by kicking everything back to the state or local level, as he wants to completely shut down the federal government, so under a hypothetical President Kokesh, immigration/migration would go back to the states, as under this scenario, the 50 states would all become independent countries, and I don’t think that most states would implement an “open borders” mass welfare statist migration program, or at least I think that there’d be several states that would not do this, so there’d be options available for those among the current US population who don’t like being overwhelmed by large numbers of “immigrants” with hostile ideologies.

    Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux both say they have the same end goal, as in both ideally want a private property anarcho-capitalist society. The private property anarcho-capitalist society that Adam says that he wants would not have “open borders” as it would have private property borders, so to achieve a society like this, all land and infrastructure would have to be privatized, and coercive government would have to be completely abolished. “Open borders”, which should be more accurately called government relinquishing control over land to private property owners (which means that private property owners would have the right to discriminate, and would not have money extracted from them for Marxist wealth redistribution via taxation), will not work under any context that does not include abolishing coercive government and establishing a private property anarcho-capitalist society, and Stefan Molyneux eloquently pointed out reasons why it would not work under our present democratic welfare state paradigm.

    I do not really agree with Stefan Molyneux for supporting Donald Trump in the 2016 election (but of course he did so from the sidelines since he’s a Canadian citizen and does not even live in this country), but I also don’t fully agree with what Adam Kokesh advocated last year, as Adam correctly pointed out that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were not really libertarians, but that people should vote for them anyway, just so a vote gets recorded for the Libertarian Party. Blind support for an organization is not a good thing. If the Libertarian Party can’t nominate candidates that are plausibly libertarian, and Adam himself admitted that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were not libertarians, then I dob’t think that it is a principled action to vote for candidates who do not even come close to adhering to the principles of the organization for which they were supposed to have been representing, the Libertarian Party. Voting for Johnson/Weld sent the message of, “Hey Libertarian Party National Convention delegates, we don’t care who you give us as candidates, or how far they stray from your party’s platform, we will just go vote for them anyway, just because they have an “L” next to their names.” The only argument that I could see for voting for Johnson/Weld, was if you lived in one of the few states where ballot access for 2018 was dependent on the presidential vote. This was not nearly as many states as some people thought it was, but there were some states where this was this the case (like Kentucky and Oklahoma, for a couple of examples), so I can excuse people who were in these states for voting for Johnson/Weld for this reason, but even with this, I’d say that the slim majority of 2016 national convention delegates certainly did create a crappy situation where people in some states had to vote for such an unprincipled presidential ticket if they wanted the party to retain ballot access for 2018.

    \
    It should be acknowledged that Stefan Molyneux never claimed that Donald Trump an ideal candidate, and he has criticized some things that Trump has done post election, like the missile attack against Syria. The fact of the matter is that the circumstances of the 2016 presidential election was situation where there were no good choices. I know that this is a painful reality check to some people out there who claim to be Libertarians, but casting a vote for Gary Johnson/Bill Weld was not a principled thing to do, and even if I were to give Gary Johnson the benefit of the doubt for being a lesser evil as compared to Trump and Clinton, it should be pretty clear to anyone who does a rational analysis of the facts that Bill Weld could not be trusted, and that he’s a ruling establishment shill, and given his obvious great influence over Gary Johnson, we probably would not be any better off if the unlikely scenario of Gary Johnson had won the presidential election, and given how goofy and unprincipled Gary Johnson is, him not winning the election was a good thing, as if he had won, it would have permanently discredited libertarianism. Molyneux did not get behind Trump because he thought that he was a really principled candidate, or because he believed that Trump was going to move the USA into an ideal libertarian ancap society. He got behind Trump because Hillary Clinton was a dreadfully horrible candidate who was going to destroy what is left of Western Civilization, so he, and some others from the libertarian quadrant, like Walter Block, got behind Trump because they wanted to block (pun with Walter Block’s name intended) Hillary Clinton from winning the White House, and to delay the destruction of the USA (even though Stefan lives in Canada, Canadians are facing a lot of the same problems as the USA, and what happens in the USA effects Canada). Whether or not this was a sound strategy is open to debate, but it should be pretty apparent that the Libertarian Party did not offer the public a strong or principled choice, and that there were no good choices in the 2016 presidential election that was on enough state ballots to have had a theoretical chance of winning the election.

    I am really glad to see that Stefan and Adam were willing to come together and have an adult conversation on this issue. I think that both of these men have made important contributions to the liberty movement, and I applaud them for engaging in open civil discourse.

  37. Thane Eichenauer

    Those folks interested in Libertarian James “Free me from all this clothing” Weeks can read a tiny bit about his campaign against US senator from Michigan Debbie Stabenow. The long article also mentions several other non-R, non-D candidates including a couple of Green party candidates and an independent running against Justin Amash. All candidates in this article are running for federal office. The article includes links to some campaigns.
    http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/see_whos_running_for_congress.html

  38. Thane Eichenauer

    James Weeks has a campaign domain name that sadly does NOT include any campaign positions interpreted into dance moves.
    http://weeksforsenate.com

    It does forward to a podcast which I might flatter as being Vermin Supreme-esque 0.2 as if Weeks did not exist in a world with pervasive video recording. We all know the future of politics is male interpretive dance [Adam Kokesh is proof of this. One of his best arrests was for politically incorrect dancing.]
    http://podcasttitlesareaspook.com/episode-3-making-the-lolberts-into-podcast-titles-are-a-spook-to-fulfill-my-ego/

  39. Anon-Tipper

    dL: “Well, Tucker is no longer associated with LvMI, and I would contend there is a difference between Mises and say, FEE, the last place Tucker worked at. FEE, like a lot of libertarian economic publications, essentially have substituted “prospertarianism” for libertarianism.”

    I should give Tucker more credit for leaving. Thanks for the “prospertarianism” explanation, seems to be a pretty accurate description of what’s motivating some people.

    “RE: Sobran. Sobran was syndicated by my local newspaper when I was in middle school/high school. ”

    Sobran was fired from National Review in 1993 for anti-semitism and in 2002 spoke at the Institute for Historical Review, and in 2001 and 2003 spoke at conferences organized by David Irving.

  40. dL

    Sobran was fired from National Review in 1993 for anti-semitism

    Well, I didn’t read The National Review, and it’s unclear from accounts whether the offense at the time was for anti-Zionism or antisemitism.

    and in 2002 spoke at the Institute for Historical Review, and in 2001 and 2003 spoke at conferences organized by David Irving.

    Well, I was no longer even reading the local newspaper by that time. In other words, I’m not going to condemn the fact that I read his newspaper columns based on what he did a decade or so later. From my recollection, his columns back in the day were usually quite good, even if I didn’t always agree with him, particularly wrt abortion.

  41. DJ

    dl: If you think there is a leftist libertarian slant against Trump here, well it’s not necessarily the norm elsewhere.

    Me: most everything and everyone HERE is a representation of the lefts hysteria where anything Republican is evil. (verbatim except the use of upper case for clarification).

    I’ve yet to see anything positive about Republicans (elected or otherwise) or anything negative about Democrats (elected or otherwise) HERE.

    It was even pointed out to me in another thread that the leftist slant I see here is reflective of the ‘original’ left of the European tradition. However, I’ve yet to see anything positive about Republicans (elected or otherwise) or anything negative about Democrats (elected or otherwise, who, in this country represents the left) HERE. Add to that that I could care less about anything European (presently or Historically) unless used in reference to; All conflict is caused by one forcing his will on another, which (to me) is indicative of entrenched Anglo superiority belief.

  42. DJ

    To dl: I’m not looking to pick a fight with you. You’re obviously well read and, and I really do appreciate your knowledge, but, I think at times your views are too esoteric. That, to me, turns people off. Most people won’t take the time to absorb, never mind study, the depth you present. And, if I may, a quote (I saw credited to the “evil” Republican William Buckley): Intelligence makes the complicated seem simple.

    The KISS theory works best in today’s world with today’s lack of attention span.

  43. Anon-Tipper

    dL: “Well, I was no longer even reading the local newspaper by that time. In other words, I’m not going to condemn the fact that I read his newspaper columns based on what he did a decade or so later.”

    His views definitely changed, so yes you’re correct, he wasn’t always like that, he started calling himself a “theo-anarchist” around 2002. My problem was that he *was* like that at LvMI and Tucker would’ve known his views. (However, I should give Tucker credit for leaving)

    “Prospertarianism has been a pet peeve of mine for years….”

    I’ll give that a read tonight, thanks again!

  44. dL

    but, I think at times your views are too esoteric.

    nah, I follow Bastiat: the libertarian message is meant for the rift raft; the priests can save themselves.

    The KISS theory works best in today’s world with today’s lack of attention span.

    It is simple. The state is a fickle master that serves itself. Woe to those who think they can use it to vanquish their political enemies or achieve their moral ends. Because that which is done to them will eventually be done to you.

  45. DJ

    dl: It is simple. The state is a fickle master that serves itself. Woe to those who think they can use it to vanquish their political enemies or achieve their moral ends. Because that which is done to them will eventually be done to you.

    Me: Been saying the same thing (with different words) for years. It amazes me how many people can’t recognize that.

  46. dL

    Me: Been saying the same thing (with different words) for years. It amazes me how many people can’t recognize that.

  47. Jonathan Makeley

    So, the Libertarians are up 312 2018 candidates. They still have a ways to go before they can get close to that 2000 goal.

  48. dL

    Apparently Arvin said something else controversial recently. I haven’t seen what it was yet… just allusions to it on the LNC business list.

    Sexual consent laws? Well, I read his latest facebook post on the topic and do not concur with his premise that government involvement in sexual consent laws creates more one night stands. And I say that as a proud participant in countless random acts of fornication. The state had nothing to do with it.

  49. Matthew Cholko

    Arvin said some Libertarian shit. A bunch of FB “libertarians” freaked out (as they always do). Arvin doubled down.

    That’s basically the whole thing.

  50. William Saturn

    “Sure, Nader and Sanders are horribly wrong on some issues, especially economic issues, but being associated with them is not nearly the kiss of death that being associated with far right extremist bigots is.”

    Donald Trump is President.

  51. William Saturn

    Others have said it and the perception exists. Nevertheless, he won the election.

    The same perception existed with Judge Roy Moore. And he would have won election to the Senate had it not been for the underage sex claims.

  52. paulie Post author

    Trump and Moore both denied any association with racism. Are you saying they could have won if they had acknowledged it?

  53. William Saturn

    Trump probably would have lost because he won by such a slight margin in WI, MI, and PA. It probably would have pushed enough people the other way. But with Moore, absent the sex claims, I think he still would have won if he acknowledged an association with racism.

  54. DJ

    Thoughts?

    For two days after his two years in jail, Cliven Bundy’s supporters got to listen, talk and learn from their hero

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/644098b7-a708-36a5-b936-cf01d6286bf2/ss_for-two-days-after-his-two.html

    Not just the article but the whole fiasco.
    Personally, I don’t call very many people a hero, but, will admit “ordinary people doing extraordinary things” is the definition I subscribe to.

    I think/believe he was right, but, it has been a while since I read anything other than his release and why it happened. I do think the judge got it right though.
    I’m all for defeating the gov’t (at any level) and I do admire his tenacity in his attempt.

  55. paulie Post author

    Trump probably would have lost because he won by such a slight margin in WI, MI, and PA. It probably would have pushed enough people the other way.

    I agree.

    But with Moore, absent the sex claims, I think he still would have won if he acknowledged an association with racism.

    I disagree. I think the same primarily suburban and urban, mostly moderate, relatively younger, relatively more female and slightly more racially diverse GOP and GOP-leaning constituencies that tended to go for Strange or not vote in the primary and tended to stay home, write in or cross over for Jones in the general election would have done the same in equal or greater numbers if Moore openly acknowledged association with racism in no uncertain terms. With or without sex scandal.

  56. dL

    That great prospective libertarian hero, Jeff Flake. Fraud..

    oh, and LOL, Boaz. Sad day, indeed!
    https://www.cato.org/blog/sad-day-republic

  57. Just Some Random Guy

    So, anyone more in the know than me have any idea which of the various races in 2018 a third party member might actually win in–or at least do reasonably well–and might therefore deserve some support?

    I know there’s three Libertarians in state senates that are running for re-election: Laura Ebke, Brandon Phinney, and Caleb Dyer. (there’s a fourth who’s in a state senate, Joseph Stallcop, but I’m not sure if he’s running for re-election; he’s not listed on the LP site as a current candidate) Granted, all of them were elected from another party and then swapped to Libertarian, but them getting re-elected might inspire more people to change their affiliation to a third party as it would show you can change party but still win re-election.

  58. Thane Eichenauer

    JSRG,
    I might suggest that Nick Sarwark will do reasonably well in his campaign for Mayor of Phoenix, Arizona.
    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/01/23/libertarian-nicholas-sarwark-running-phoenix-mayor/1054678001/
    https://sarwarkforphoenix.com/
    https://www.facebook.com/sarwarkforphoenix/photos/a.1740487669593836.1073741828.1739050876404182/1753858234923446/?type=3

    Take a look at all three URLs and see if you agree or disagree.

    Quote from the Facebook page, “In just 45 days #TeamSarwark has raised over $40,000!”

  59. Richard Winger

    The Libertarian Party of New Mexico has just gained a statewide elected office-holder. Aubrey Dunn, Land Commissioner, a partisan statewide office, has left the Republican Party and registered Libertarian.

  60. Andrew McCarrick

    Not that anybody cares, but I finally switched from Libertarian to unaffiliated…. Finally.

  61. Darcy G Richardson

    Unaffiliated is the place to be, Andrew. Political parties — Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and pretty much all of the nation’s minor parties — have long outlived their usefulness.

    I mean, seriously, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein and Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party did a pretty admirable job in adhering to their respective party platforms, without party labels would anybody have known that former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld were the Libertarian nominees, or that political newcomer Rocky De La Fuente — a well-meaning guy but totally unfamiliar with the Reform Party — was that party’s nominee for president in 2016? Think about it.

    I’ve been giving this a lot of thought the past couple of years.

    One can understand the need to belong to something, but we’re really all individuals capable of making up our own minds and judging policies and candidates without some sort of meaningless label to influence those decisions.

    Millions and millions of Americans base their decisions on those superficial labels.

    I never thought I would live to say that, but that’s the truth.

    Organized parties, sadly, have become the bane of American politics.

  62. DJ

    AM: Not that anybody cares, but I finally switched from Libertarian to unaffiliated…. Finally.

    Me: I changed my mind (from Republican) to libertarian when Romney was a candidate and his policy beliefs were no different from Obama’s whose policy beliefs were no different from Bush2 who was no different than his predecessors in the policy’s that most adversely affect citizens- monetary, foreign, and domestic. The rhetoric used to sell the bullshit is the only difference between D’s and R’s.

    DR: I’ve been giving this a lot of thought the past couple of years. Millions and millions of Americans base their decisions on those superficial labels.

    Me: Couldn’t agree more. Labels are everywhere in/on everything and are a tool for divisiveness. I’m libertarian by nature but will not endorse a Party association. Even Party’s have their “factions” which further divide- though by nature I’ve never been a joiner of groups. “I choose”, not a Party.

    Anyone who calls themselves politically aware who can’t see the superficial is, well, superficial and get what they deserve- superficiality.

  63. dL

    [The Libertarian Case for Drug Prohibition]
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20650/

    Of course, the easy rejoinder to that bit of dreck is that I find Catholicism to be guilty of the same thing the author assigns to drugs, namely undermining rationality, and hence, inhibiting the necessary conditions for freedom to flourish. Simply execute a search and replace for drugs with catholicism, and voila, the libertarian case for prohibition of the catholic religion. I’m guessing the author would object to that piece.

    As general retort, however, would point out that which one does to oneself is not a crime. To treat it as such is very much the foundation of authoritarianism.

  64. Andrew McCarrick

    I mostly dropped affiliation because I’m sick of the in-fighting and struggle for control by the genuine libertarians, the conservatarians, dixitarians (those that favor libertarianism but only for those that are White Americans – dixitarian is based on dixiecrat), and the nationaltarians (those who favor libertarianism but only for American citizens – i.e; Andy).

  65. DJ

    AM: I mostly dropped affiliation because I’m sick of the in-fighting and struggle

    Me: All groups have that, politics and religion being at the fore front. That’s ‘a’ reason I refuse Party crap. It requires “group think” which by definition relegates Individual effort or thinking to amounting to 0. I recognized that long before I made the choice to call myself libertarian. You’ll never see my name associated with Libertarian (or any group) unless it’s the first word in a sentence. Affiliation is out of the question.

  66. Andy

    This Andrew McCarrick character is misrepresenting my positions. I favor libertarianism for all people. I encourage all people around the world to adopt libertarian principles. I obviously can’t force people to accept libertarian principles, and I am skeptical that everyone in the world is ever going to accept libertarian principles, but even so, I think that the libertarian philosophy is how the world should operate, and I encourage everyone in the world to adopt libertarian principles.

  67. dL

    It requires “group think” which by definition relegates Individual effort or thinking to amounting to 0

    hmmm, in other places, you have criticized libertarians for not prioritizing cohesion. But here, I agree with you. Winner take all politics(2 party system) absolutely promotes a vapid groupthink…

  68. DJ

    dl: hmmm, in other places, you have criticized libertarians for not prioritizing cohesion.

    Me: Yes I have. I criticize group think in any capacity to anyone who will listen. I’ve also (in other threads, and in person) offered that should a person ‘choose’ to join a group that’s fine. It’s their choice, but, they have to be aware that they lose their individuality when they do. I do my best to make aware.

    dl: But here, I agree with you. Winner take all politics(2 party system) absolutely promotes a vapid groupthink…

    Me: Cohesion, IMO, doesn’t require one ‘join’ a group. The Libertarians here seem bent on separating ‘into’ sub groups as though that would give them an, or more, authority over those they disagree with in the larger group, or other sub groups.

    I suggested, and no one commented, a cohesive effort to “pool resources” to sow seeds would better serve the Party to get the message of libertarian philosophy to the masses than bickering over who controls the group and what it’s supposed to represent, which gets into nuance and esoteric discussions/argumets, which drains energy and accomplishes 0. Hopefully, though I don’t know any of the players innermost thoughts, they all believe in the philosophy of libertarian living. I think it would even ‘draw’ people to the Party which would ‘naturally’ better the chances at a POTUS or any elected office.

    So, one of two things was/is taking place. One: The Party representatives refuse an outsiders suggestion, because; outsider (or they’ve had discussions with paulie and I’m poison) or, Two: they don’t really believe the philosophy enough to live it and “advertise” it because they would become just another voice in the crowd; ego.

    So, what is libertarian philosophy?
    “We find these Truths to be self evident, All men are created equal and have certain unalienable Rights, Endowed”.

    They pre-date the constitution which is a legal and binding document to protect those Rights.

    Endowed is inherent, not “granted” by a benevolent gov’t or entity or installed on an assembly line.

    So, would the ego’s in question subscribe to the libertarian philosophy and set aside the ego to ‘express’ cohesion on self evident Truths?

    From what I’ve seen here, no.

    Andy: I am skeptical that everyone in the world is ever going to accept libertarian principles, but even so, I think that the libertarian philosophy is how the world should operate, and I encourage everyone in the world to adopt libertarian principles.

    Me: Presentation, presentation, presentation. Sow seeds. Self evident Truths.

    It isn’t likely the entire world will accept a libertarian philosophy, ever. But, they don’t have to for it to be effective. Follower monkeys will emulate lead monkeys. Lead by example does work.

  69. Andy

    DJ said: ” Presentation, presentation, presentation. Sow seeds. Self evident Truths.

    It isn’t likely the entire world will accept a libertarian philosophy, ever. But, they don’t have to for it to be effective. Follower monkeys will emulate lead monkeys. Lead by example does work.”

    The world is filled with people who are lazy and/or stupid and/or timid. Some people are sociopaths or psychopaths, and these people lust after government power. Lots of people prefer being led around by sociopaths or psychopaths rather than taking responsibility for their own lives. Lots of people lack the will to resist sociopaths and psychopaths.

    I agree that the libertarian message should be spread to as many people as possible, I just doubt that everyone is going to adopt libertarian principles after hearing the libertarian message.

    Libertarians should strive for as much liberty as possible, but it may end up that the best that we can get is either a bastardized, watered down version of liberty, or pockets of liberty, as in libertarians can establish some places in the world that have lots of freedom, while a lot of the rest of the world remains less free.

  70. DJ

    Andy: I agree that the libertarian message should be spread to as many people as possible, I just doubt that everyone is going to adopt libertarian principles after hearing the libertarian message.

    Me: Sow seeds, they will produce fruit. Truth will manifest itself in ways unimaginable. Just because you won’t be around to see it doesn’t mean you failed. It’s better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

    Andy: Libertarians should strive for as much liberty as possible,

    Me: Period end of story.

    Andy: but it may end up that the best that we can get is either a bastardized, watered down version of liberty, or pockets of liberty, as in libertarians can establish some places in the world that have lots of freedom, while a lot of the rest of the world remains less free.

    Me: And it “will” end up that the seeds sown will produce fruit that reproduces fruit. There “may” be bastardized fruit- that’s mind reading and that leads down a false path distorting the Truth.

    There will always be those who choose to follow a different path. That’s human nature. The reason/excuse is immaterial. Lead by example. Truth is constant, knowledge evolves. The knowledge can evolve to the production of fruit, which is in and of itself an evolution, while Truth will always be the seed, the constant.

    Instant gratification measured by the number of converts leads to false comfort which retards the sowing of seeds. The seeds sown need nurturing. Find comfort in that nurture. Lead by example.

  71. Andy

    Check out this interesting poll. Black Americans are the group that surveys indicate are the most in favor of reducing legal immigration.

    I am actually not surprised by this, as this is what my own anecdotal evidence has indicated. I have talked politics with many black Americans, and several years back I worked on a petition drive in California to prohibit illegal immigrants from collecting welfare and getting other government services, and during the course of this petition drive, I noticed that I got the best response on this petition (on average) from black Americans. A lot of white Americans signed as well, but I also encountered white leftists who’d stand there and give me crap. Surprisingly, I actually did have some Hispanic Americans sign this petition, but some of them got nasty with me (as if the country’s where they are from are really accepting to outsiders…not!). During the course of the drive I noticed that almost every black American I encountered signed this petition enthusiastically. After I noticed how just about every black American I asked to sign this petition signed it with great enthusiasm, I thought about trying to target predominantly black neighborhoods. The only reason that I did not end up doing this was because of distance and traffic. I was working in Los Angeles County and Ventura County, and the traffic in Los Angeles is terrible.

    If a white American makes any comments about restricting immigration, or says that immigrants should not be able to collect welfare, they get called a “racist” or a “white supremacist” (which is a term that gets frequently misused), so are these black Americans who want to restrict immigration also “racist” and are they “black supremacists” as well?

    When it comes to uses to the public commons/infrastructure of the USA, I make a distinction between American citizens, and foreigners. If a person was born here (and I don’t consider the current interpretation of Birthright Citizenship where foreigners can sneak in and have kids and then their kids are considered to be “American citizens”), and they have ancestors that have been here for generations, they have a legitimate property rights claim for use of the public commons/infrastructure of the country. A foreigner has no such legitimate claim. Foreigners can use the public commons/infrastructure of the country under certain conditions, but they do not have a right to it like an American citizens does (and the same is true if an American citizen travels to another country). Foreigners can apply to go through the Naturalization process to become American citizens (which I think should be made more difficult), and if they make it through the Naturalization process, they can then gain the same right to the public commons/infrastructure as Natural Born Citizens (but they can never run for President).

    This is much like a condominium complex, or for that matter, an apartment complex, that say has a pool, a hot tub, a gym, a sauna, and common areas with tables and chairs and grills where people could hang out and cook meals outside on the grills, and maybe a playground, and/or etc…. This stuff is for use of the people who bought condominium units or rent apartments, or their guests, but the guests can only use them at the discretion of the tenant. A person who is not a condominium owner and/or an apartment renter, can’t rightly just waltz in and start using the condominium’s/apartment complex’s pool, hot tub, gym, sauna, etc…

    If we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, that is how the present day land territory known as the USA would operate (as in my example above about the condominium or apartment complex).

    If you don’t like that the function of regulating migration/immigration is being run by governments (not just in the USA, but everywhere else in the world), fine, work to change that. Dismantle the state and institute a private property anarcho-capitalist society. I’m all in favor of this, and I will assist you in your quest. However, if you want to change this, you need to go through the logical steps that it would take to change this, and then you’ve got to actually get these steps implemented. Sitting back and engaging in left wing “politically correct” virtue signaling does not count.

    Poll: Black Americans the Most Supportive of Dramatically Reducing Legal Immigration Levels

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/28/poll-black-americans-most-supportive-dramatically-reducing-legal-immigration-levels/

  72. Andy

    Oh, and just because a person is white, it does not necessarily mean that I want them in the same country as me.

    Piers Morgan is an Englishman. The USA was founded predominantly by people of English descent. I have some English ancestry (I think that I’m at least 12.5% English). English is still a big ethnic group in the USA, and is likely under-reported in US census figures. English is the defacto official language of the USA.

    So one may assume that I’d accept Piers Morgan as an immigrant, right? Wrong. I can’t stand Piers Morgan, or at least I don’t like his politics (and since I don’t like his politics, I don’t want him as an American citizen). He’s a gun grabbing big government worshiper. He is the modern day equivalent to a Red Coat. He is the kind of guy that I had some ancestors (who were English and Scottish) fought against in the American Revolution.

    If I were building a Libertarian Zone somewhere, Piers Morgan would not be invited. I would invite a black libertarian like say Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell, or That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown), or Eric July (rapper/singer), or an Asian libertarian like Lily Tang, or Jefferson Kim, to be a part of the Libertarian Zone, but I would not invite Piers Morgan.

  73. paulie Post author

    Piers Morgan would not be invited. I would invite a black libertarian like say Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell, or That Guy T (aka-Taleed Brown), or Eric July (rapper/singer), or an Asian libertarian like Lily Tang, or Jefferson Kim, to be a part of the Libertarian Zone, but I would not invite Piers Morgan.

    And in the meantime, you want the US Government to decide who to invite and who not to invite? Good luck with that.

  74. DJ

    Rights are inherent. Entitlements generally (but not always) earned. The right to the Pursuit has no caveat. Ya know, that whole libertarian “philosophical” (message) thing.

    Presentation, presentation, presentation. Anything can be justified when worded just right and opposing freedom is no different.

    Andy: I agree that the libertarian message should be spread to as many people as possible, I just doubt that everyone is going to adopt libertarian principles after hearing the libertarian message.

    Me: It isn’t likely the entire world will accept a libertarian philosophy, ever.

    Lead by example. You’re esoteric imaginings for a perfect world (or place) will never happen, and, it is contradictory to the libertarian message. Freedom. Freedoms are being incrementally destroyed by more sinister methods and using immigration is just a tool to widen the divide amongst citizens robbing individuals of their rights in the process. Rights can’t be given, but, they can be taken.

    When you did that polling, did you espouse freedom? Or civil liberty’s? Did you try to explain (justify) the “reason” for the polling? Did you pander? If so, to what? Was the libertarian philosophy (not esoteric imaginings) discussed?

  75. Libertydave

    It’s amazing the twisted logic Andy uses to justify his prejudicial views. Claiming that we have to take away freedom to preserve freedom. Because if we let people go where they want then the government will take away our freedoms, and if we let the government restrict our freedoms then the government will let us be free.

  76. Andy

    “Libertydave
    January 30, 2018 at 20:43
    It’s amazing the twisted logic Andy uses to justify his prejudicial views. Claiming that we have to take away freedom to preserve freedom. Because if we let people go where they want then the government will take away our freedoms, and if we let the government restrict our freedoms then the government will let us be free.”

    It is amazing how irrational and unprincipled Libertydave is. Claiming that you are preserving freedom by flooding the land mass where you live with people who don’t believe in freedom is not a way to preserve freedom.

    “Liberty” dave is an authoritarian who wants to use the guns of the state to force Cultural Marxism down everyone’s throats. Screw your statist forced association anti-property right agenda.

  77. paulie Post author

    Claiming that we have to take away freedom to preserve freedom. Because if we let people go where they want then the government will take away our freedoms, and if we let the government restrict our freedoms then the government will let us be free.

    Exactly.

  78. Andy

    How do other countries handle illegal immigration?

    http://humanevents.com/2014/06/24/how-do-other-countries-handle-illegal-immigration/

    From the article: “Russia: Illegal border crossing is considered a crime, and “captured illegal border crossers have been sentenced to prison terms’ In October 2008, a North Korean was caught and detained as an ‘economic migrant’” He was forced to serve six months in Russian prison before being deported.

    Italy: A law passed by parliament in 2009 ‘penalizes illegal immigrants with a fine of €5,000-10,000 and allows immigration officials to detain them for up to 6 months.’”

    China: Whisleblowers who report illegals to the government receive a cash reward when their information “leads to an expulsion.”

    Australia: Passed the Migration Reform Act of 1992. This act and its subsequent amendments, ‘collectively require the authorities to detain all non-citizens who are discovered in Australia without a valid visa’.”

    Iran: According to Wikipedia, ‘Since late April 2007, the Iranian government has forcibly deported back to Afghanistan mostly unregistered (and some registered) Afghans living and working in Iran at a rate between 250,000 and 300,000 per year. The forceful evictions of the refugees, who lived in Iran and Pakistan for nearly three decades, are part of the two countries’ larger plans to repatriate all Afghan refugees within a few years.’

    Mexico: Tightened its immigration laws in 2008, and has been deporting mass numbers of Central Americans and Cubans.”

  79. DJ

    Andy: How do other countries handle illegal immigration?

    Me: This is not other countries. This country was founded on a philosophy; All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed.

    The countries you listed, as I’ve pointed out before, are typically of an singular ethnicity.

  80. Libertydave

    So Andy want our government to be more like Russia, China, and Iran and he calls me authoritarian.

  81. DJ

    Andy: Claiming that you are preserving freedom by flooding the land mass where you live with people who don’t believe in freedom is not a way to preserve freedom.

    Me: Freedom isn’t free. The price paid for living in a free society is adapt or die. In fact, the “flooding the land mass where you live with people who don’t believe in freedom is not a way to preserve freedom.” message is anti-freedom. Liberty is a plant of rapid growth. The example you’re setting is contradictory to unalienable rights. In fact, it could be said you’re advocating restricting the freedom of others based on a supposition- mind reading. That’s authoritarian when used to ‘police/restrict’ others.

    Your above states ; “flooding the land mass where you live with people who don’t believe in freedom is not a way to preserve freedom.” Preserving anything is allowing it to survive. Restricting it is the opposite. Ben Franklin stated it well. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    The founders, for all their flaws, were very intelligent. Truth is constant. Knowledge evolves. What was true yesterday, is true today and will be true tomorrow.

  82. dL

    So Andy want our government to be more like Russia, China, and Iran and he calls me authoritarian.

    In case you haven’t figured it out yet, those who scream “cultural marxist” at the top their lungs are the actual commies…

  83. paulie Post author

    How do other countries handle illegal immigration?

    Another very bad argument. Totalitarian, big government policies by other regime gangs don’t in any way justify authoritarian big government policies by the US regime gang. That’s libertarianism 101.

  84. Chuck Moulton

    For those people who agree with some of the Mises Caucus’s points in general, these outright lies are quite disappointing.

    First, the convention committee never denied Ron Paul a speaking slot.

    Second, the Mises Caucus spoke to Ron Paul’s booking agent, not Ron Paul himself.

    Third, it would cost $35,000 for Ron Paul to speak at the convention and the LP is unlikely to pay that.

    Fourth, Ron Paul could come speak for free or the Mises Caucus could raise the speaking fee. But the LP is not going to invite Ron Paul, hope the Mises Caucus pitches in the fee, then be on the hook when they inevitably don’t.

    Fifth, if the Mises Caucus wants Ron Paul to speak, then they can donate $35,000 to the LP convention committee tomorrow. Until the check has cleared, the Mises Caucus is just rabble rousing with bullshit.

    Even if I agreed with their entire agenda, I would never vote for any LNC candidate or any presidential candidate endorsed by the Mises Caucus ever under any circumstances. This is because outright lies are one of my pet peeves.

    It’s disgusting that the Mises Caucus thinks lying to people is good politics. Hopefully the LP delegates are smarter than that.

    I hope those candidates associated with the Mises Caucus will immediately repudiate that organization.

  85. George Phillies

    Thus spoke Sarwark:

    “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”

    Andy Craig from Wisconsin summed up the situation in a Facebook post (
    https://www.facebook.com/Andrew.Craig.Dixie.Pug/posts/947442695418584
    ) that I’ve copied and pasted below:

    “No, Ron Paul wasn’t banned or rejected from speaking at the LP convention.

    Some folks with no real agenda other than causing a stink, spoke to
    Paul’s booking agent, who expressed interest if Paul’s usual speaking
    fee was paid ($35,000), because that’s the job of a booking agent.
    (The same agent also reps Judge Napolitano, and mentioned that). This
    group then went to the folks handling the convention for the LP,
    demanded Paul be put on the agenda, and claimed they’d later raise the
    money to pay him. LP didn’t bite, for obvious reasons. Even if they
    could have done it (dubious), the party’s not particularly interested
    in seeing Libertarian donors diverted to pay for an exorbitant
    speaking fee with no real benefit. If the Mises [sic] Caucus would
    like to raise and spend that much money and rent a room in New Orleans
    and have Paul speak… well, good luck with that. There’s nothing
    stopping them, though I know a lot of Libertarian candidates who could
    better spend that money in the 2018 elections. There are races that
    could be won on less money than that.

    And if he desires it enough to say he’s coming regardless, I have
    little doubt Paul would be given a slot on the main-stage. It was just
    at the last convention that we gave him an award that he accepted via
    video message, after all. (An award given with some fair internal
    grumbling over his lack of support for the party or any of its
    candidates, while still often endorsing and supporting Republicans).

    Short version: much ado about nothing. Ron Paul himself expressed no
    interest in wanting to speak in New Orleans, and he still hasn’t.

    The whole point of this exercise was never to actually have him speak,
    but rather to frame a purely manufactured controversy, and that
    intention is absurdly transparent. I’ve had plenty of gripes about the
    party’s management and operations and convention-planning, but this
    whole thing is nonsense. Speaking slots at the convention don’t really
    matter that much (I had one last time!), and nobody from the LP told
    Paul he was unwelcome in New Orleans.”

    -Nick

  86. Anon-Tipper

    “For those people who agree with some of the Mises Caucus’s points in general, these outright lies are quite disappointing.”

    Thanks, I thought that they were probably lying. Looks like some of this came from Liberty Hangout. Was kind of hoping that paleos were getting shown the door, however I’m happy that the Mises Caucus nonsense is being brought to light. They’re just there to throw a fit.

  87. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    January 30, 2018 at 22:35
    ‘How do other countries handle illegal immigration?’

    Another very bad argument. Totalitarian, big government policies by other regime gangs don’t in any way justify authoritarian big government policies by the US regime gang. That’s libertarianism 101.”

    It is not a bad argument at all. We don’t live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Private property owners are heavily regulated, and there are a host of anti-discrimination laws on the books, which includes forcing people to do business with people whom they may otherwise not want to do business. The government is monopolizing the service of regulating migration. There is no free market alternative to this. We live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and public property, therefore, who crosses the border and who gets naturalized as an American citizen is quite relevant.

    Given that there are no free market alternatives to regulating borders and immigration, the only thing that anyone can do since abolishing the state and privatizing everything is not a realistic option that is on the table now, or is likely to be on the table any time soon, is to advocate that the government have an immigration policy that does not overwhelm, or threaten, the existing population.

    Saying that the government should just declare “open borders” and invite everyone in without changing any other policies in place, like the welfare state, anti-discrimination laws, democracy, public property, etc…, actually leads to mass violations of the rights of the existing population, and is nothing more than left wing “politically correct” virtue signaling by people who are too lazy, incompetent, and detached from reality, to do any of the hard work that it would take in order to privatize everything and to abolish the state and set up a private property anarcho-capitalist society, which would have private property borders, because this is the only way that relinquishing government control over borders and migration does not create mass rights violations against the existing population.

  88. paulie Post author

    It is not a bad argument at all.

    It is, and no amount of nonsense from you is going to make it anything else, so I won’t bother to read it yet again. The chances that I haven’t already responded to whatever it is repeatedly in past threads are virtually non-existent.

  89. paulie Post author

    The Mises Caucus seems to be running a slate for LNC and in the presidential race Kokesh seems to be associated with the caucus.

    That’s one big reason to not support Kokesh (or anyone else in any way associated with them).

    I’m voting against them every chance I get if I am a delegate.

  90. Libertydave

    Andy, so your saying that the government that has trampled the constitution and is taking our freedoms left and right should be the ones who decide who gets to come into the country? I hope you realize soon that the government will only let those who agree with government control in, instead of the people who believe in limiting government. What you are advocating will only make us less free, it won’t mean the the government will steal less because there are less poor people. If there are less poor people then the government will just steal more to make people poorer to make them dependent on government and easier to control.

  91. paulie Post author

    Andy, so your saying that the government that has trampled the constitution and is taking our freedoms left and right should be the ones who decide who gets to come into the country? I hope you realize soon that the government will only let those who agree with government control in, instead of the people who believe in limiting government. What you are advocating will only make us less free, it won’t mean the the government will steal less because there are less poor people. If there are less poor people then the government will just steal more to make people poorer to make them dependent on government and easier to control.

    I don’t know how anyone here fails to understand this. Must take hours of pounding bullshit into your head and repeating it to others on a daily basis to be oblivious to such simple things.

  92. DJ

    When you make demands on gov’t to meet/suit your beliefs/desires you will pay the price. Probably sooner rather than later.

    Can anyone say National ID?

  93. Anon-Tipper

    “Who are their slate? If you wish, contact me off line.”

    I believe Joshua Smith supports the LPMC. Not sure if they endorse him back though. He’s running for chair.

  94. Chuck Moulton

    George,

    I haven’t been following it that closely. Some people in Pennsylvania have told me they plan to run a full slate and aggressively recruit delegates though. I’m sure as we get closer to the convention their slate will become clearer.

Leave a Reply

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