Stossel interviews Sarwark on LP in 2018 (video)

Stossel: Is 2018 the Year of the Libertarian Party? – Reason.com – John Stossel & Naomi Brockwell via GD’s Political Animal:

January 2, 2018 – “Nicholas Sarwark, Chairman of the Libertarian Party, says [the 2016 campaign] was a great success. ‘We tripled all previous records. In the 45-year history of the Libertarian Party, we’ve never had that kind of support from the electorate.’

“Johnson only got 3.5% of the vote. John Stossel asks, ‘is that really winning?’ ‘We’re growing, and they’re dying,’ answers Sarwark. ‘Voter registration identity with Republicans and Democrats is dropping. Voter registration identity with Libertarians is the only party that’s growing’…..

“Sarwark says the plan for this year’s midterm elections is ‘to be on the ballot in all 50 states. We’ll definitely be on the ballot in all 50 states in 2020’….

“Stossel talks to Sarwark about what we can learn from the last election, and what the future holds for libertarians and the Libertarian Party.”

Read more: http://reason.com/reasontv/2018/01/02/2018-the-year-of-the-libertarian-party

40 thoughts on “Stossel interviews Sarwark on LP in 2018 (video)

  1. Starchild

    Nick hit one out of the park again — he is a terrific interviewee. The only thing I question is his statement that choosing Gary Johnson again is the best choice we could have made, but I understand why he’d say it in that context rather than open a can of worms. Much appreciation for John Stossel too, in interviewing the LP chair. He was tough but fair.

  2. Andy

    Here is a little reality check for everybody. Most of the people who voted for Gary Johnson only voted for him as a protest vote because they did not like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Gary Johnson was the only other candidate who was on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC, and he was the only alternative candidate on the ballot in North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, and Oklahoma.

    There is lots of negative backlash against the Libertarian Party for having nominated Johnson/Weld, and I have heard it in the multiple states where I’ve been on the ground petitioning (Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Ohio, and Arkansas), with lots of people, including many who are libertarian, or libertarian leaning, who made negative comments about Johnson/Weld, either for lacking in libertarian principles, or in coming off as goofy and unprepared in interviews, or both. I am not the only one who has said this, as I have heard the exact same thing from every other petition circulator who I have spoken to who has been on the ground gathering signatures in multiple states during this same time frame.

    Anyone who does not believe this, I challenge you to pick up some pens, clipboards, and petition sheets (you can even make up your own plebiscite petition, you just need an excuse to go out and talk to the public and to get people to stop and talk to you), and to go out and start talking to the public.

    Running unprincipled candidates who get a higher than average vote total due to a higher than average percent of the population not liking the major party candidates, and due to no higher profile minor party or independent candidates being in the race, is not some great leap forward for the Libertarian Party.

    I will say this though, the public is still hungry for alternatives to the D’s and R’s, and if the Libertarian Party can finally get its act together there is room for lots of real growth. Whether or not the Libertarian Party will ever get its act together remains to be seen.

  3. Andy

    I should also add that not only is a lot of the public hungry for alternatives to the D’s and R’s, but there are also a lot of people out there who are open to the Libertarian Party specifically. It is not enough to where the Libertarian Party can realistically elect a President or Governor or US Senator, but it is enough to where the Libertarian Party has the potential to be much larger, and more successful than it is now.

  4. robert capozzi

    aj,

    Are you hearing anecdotal evidence that the Street is clamoring for a Kokesh un-presidency?

  5. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 7, 2018 at 16:31
    aj,

    Are you hearing anecdotal evidence that the Street is clamoring for a Kokesh un-presidency?”

    Not as many people have heard of Adam Kokesh, but I actually did encounter a small handful of people here and there who brought up Adam Kokesh (without me saying anything to prompt them other than the words Libertarian Party) and who were enthusiastic about him.

    I still hear the name Ron Paul more than any other when talking to the general public about the Libertarian Party and libertarianism. Ron Paul is well respected by most (even by some of the people who don’t like his views), and has inspired a lot of people.

    Going back to the days of Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik, not as many people had heard of them, but out of those who did know who they were, the responses were overwhelmingly positive. I still occasionally run into somebody who mentions Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik (these occasions have of course gotten rarer the longer it has been since they ran, but I still encounter people who remember them every once in awhile).

    I actually encountered several people who said that they think that the Libertarian Party should have nominated Austin Petersen or John McAfee for President instead of Gary Johnson.

    There are people out there who are just hostile to Libertarians, and/or to any minor party or independent candidate, and/or to anyone who is not with the major party of their choice. I expect negative comments from these people. What I consider to be a shame is when people who are libertarians, or libertarian leaners, or are at least people who want to have other choices on the ballot other than the D’s and R’s, make negative comments about the LP’s presidential ticket being unprincipled, and/or goofy and unprepared, and/or both, and what I think is a bigger shame, is that in the case of the last three LP presidential tickets, these people are correct.

  6. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    I feel your pain about the past.

    But didn’t Barr and the 2 GJ runs get more votes that Browne and Badnarik? If there are these throngs of L voters that you meet while petitioning that want more dogmatic candidates to vote for, why didn’t they come out in 00 and 04 in larger numbers?

  7. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 7, 2018 at 22:11
    AJ,

    I feel your pain about the past.

    But didn’t Barr and the 2 GJ runs get more votes that Browne and Badnarik? If there are these throngs of L voters that you meet while petitioning that want more dogmatic candidates to vote for, why didn’t they come out in 00 and 04 in larger numbers?”

    Barr got a few more raw votes than Browne did in 1996, but in terms of percent of the vote, Browne got a higher percent of the vote in 1996 than Barr got in 2006.

    You have to look at the market conditions of each election. Browne had to run against two higher profile minor party/independent candidates in 1996 in Ralph Nader and Ross Perot, and in 2000 against Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan.

    There were less people on the internet back in the days when Browne and Badnarik ran, and the internet is a way that Libertarians can reach a lot of people cheaply that they probably would not have been able to reach otherwise.

    The Ron Paul r3VOLution of 2007-2012 gave a huge boost to the libertarian movement in this country, and it increase public name recognition of the word libertarian to higher than it had ever been before.

    Back in the days when Browne and Badnarik ran, a lower percent of the population knew what a libertarian was, or had even heard the word.

    The 2016 election was an especially good opportunity for the Libertarian Party, which I believe that the party blew, due to the record levels of disgust that much of the public had for the major party candidates, and due to their being no higher profile minor party or independent candidates for the LP presidential ticket to have to contend with which has caused past LP candidates to get lost in the shuffle.

  8. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I hope one of the libertarian women running for office this year make a big splash, big enough for 2020.

  9. Andy

    “Barr got a few more raw votes than Browne did in 1996, but in terms of percent of the vote, Browne got a higher percent of the vote in 1996 than Barr got in 2006.”

    Whoops. Made a mistake here. This should read that Bob Barr got those votes in 2008, not 2006.

  10. Andy

    ” and due to their being no higher”

    Should read, “and due to there being no higher…”

  11. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    So is it that you want us to believe that a Kokesh-type candidate would build on the 16-level results?

  12. wredlich

    I generally like Kokesh but I don’t think he is the way forward for the LP. What we need is a credible candidate to run on a simple message that resonates with voters. A simple message like … “Stop Wasting Money.”

    Doesn’t have to be that one but it did work in the past.

    Trump demonstrated more than ever that “Three Word Message” is effective. “Lock Her Up”. “Build That Wall.” Etc.

    What’s the three word message from the LP? “Ain’t Got One”

  13. dL

    What we need is a credible candidate to run on a simple message that resonates with voters….

    Trump demonstrated more than ever that “Three Word Message” is effective. “Lock Her Up”. “Build That Wall.” Etc.

    Tear down that wall!

    oldie, but a goodie…

  14. Andy

    dL said: “Tear down that wall!

    oldie, but a goodie…”

    Yeah, allow unlimited numbers of third world migrants who hold socialistic and/or theorcratic ideologies to enter the country so they destroy what’s left of having any concept of Western Civilization and limits on government power. The hell with property rights (foreign nationals have no property rights here).

    Hey, maybe we can end up like Sweden, or South Africa. This would be a great idea….NOT!

  15. paulie Post author

    What we need is a credible candidate to run on a simple message that resonates with voters. A simple message like … “Stop Wasting Money.”

    If you want it done right you might have to do it yourself 🙂

  16. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 8, 2018 at 07:34
    AJ,

    So is it that you want us to believe that a Kokesh-type candidate would build on the 16-level results?”

    I have no idea what kind of vote total Adam Kokesh, or someone similar, would get if he were to be the LP’s presidential candidate in 2020. 2020 is a long way away, and we don’t know what the market conditions for that election is going to be.

    Depending on a variety of factors, he could get less vote than Johnson got in 2016, or he could get more or he could get about the same.

    The cryptocurrency market has been blowing up over the last year, and lots of libertarian, or libertarian leaning people, are into cryptocurrency. Kokesh has embraced the cryptocurrency community, and if this trend continues, it is possible that he could get lots of campaign donations from cryptocurrency enthusiasts, and this could raise his profile as a candidate.

    Regardless of what happens in 2020, I think that Kokesh would be a better spokesman for the Libertarian Party and cause than Gary Johnson and Bob Barr were (both of which were not good spokespeople at all for the Libertarian Party), and I say this even though I think that Adam just got an intellectual butt kicking from Stefan Molyneux in their recent immigration debate. Kokesh is running on a bold platform to institute an orderly shut down of the federal government, and he is attempting to transcend a lot of political issues by ceding all issues back to the states. He would like to see all state and local government abolished as well, and he’s hoping to inspire movements for that, but in the interim, he thinks that he can appeal to more people than libertarians usually appeal to by promoting decentralization/localization (as in if somebody thinks that government healthcare is a good idea, even though he disagrees with it, he thinks it is better that they try it on a local or state level rather than by imposing it on the 325 million plus people who currently make up the population of this country). Will his campaign ideas lead to more votes or less votes for the LP? I don’t know. I will say that at the very least that he sounds a heck of a lot more libertarian that Bob Barr and Gary Johnson.

    Whoever the LP runs on its presidential ticket in 2020, the party needs to run people who are high enough up in the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart to where they are plausibly libertarian, and where post campaign, lots of people are not saying, “Hey, was that guy (or gal) running on the Libertarian presidential ticket really a libertarian?”

    Getting votes just for the sake of getting votes is pointless, and this is exactly what the LP has done with its last three presidential campaigns.

  17. Matt Schutter

    wredllich wrote What’s the three word message from the LP? “Ain’t Got One”

    I would say ” We stand for Freedom”

  18. robert capozzi

    aj: Kokesh is running on a bold platform to institute an orderly shut down of the federal government

    me: “Bold” understates. It comes across as wacky to virtually everyone except dogmatic NAPsters. Surely you see that?

  19. robert capozzi

    aj: I think that Adam just got an intellectual butt kicking from Stefan Molyneux in their recent immigration debate.

    me: I understand. However, for me, both made fools of themselves. Molyneux’s narrative goes something like: Some parts of the world have low IQs on average. Operating in a free society requires higher IQs. Immigrants from those places come here and immediately go on welfare. Therefore, the US should ban immigrants from those countries.

    Wow!

    And Kokesh takes his NAPster construct WAY too literally and rigidly. Borders are illegitimate, therefore there’s no such thing as immigration.

    Wow!

  20. paulie Post author

    Kokesh is right, based on that description, but he should not have even given Molyneux the time of day to debate him. Kokesh discredited himself further by dignifying that crap with a debate.

  21. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I could only watch 40 minutes or so, as I was rolling my eyes just too much for my own health! 😉

    I had the sense that Kokesh was intimidated by Molyneux’s intellect, grasp of (apparent) facts, and quick wit. I think he was a Molyneux fan-boy at one point, so that may explain it.

    Molyneux claims to be a philosopher (we all are, of course), and yet his logic leaps are stupendous and embarrassing. Unless Kokesh got better as it went along, he never challenged Molyneux’s “facts,” instead just weakly repeating NAPster bromides.

    Kokesh suffers from severe no-particular-order-ism, most pronouncedly.

  22. Andy

    Adam Kokesh is not a newbie to political activism, or to political debate, or to being on video. He lost the debate to Stefan Molyneux because he’s wrong. Put anyone else up against Molyneux on the same topic, be it Larken Rose, Jacob Hornberger, Bryan Caplan, or anyone else who thinks that so called “open borders” and mass immigration should be pushed regardless of the other conditions in place (which in this case is living in democratic welfare states with forced association laws and lots of public (ie-taxpayer supported) property)}, and they will lose as well, because it is an irrational point of view which is actually counterproductive to liberty (as in it is not a libertarian view, it is a view pushed by Marxists and those who want global government).

    Adam Kokesh has even admitted that his ideal, which is a private property anarcho-capitalist society, would not have “open borders”, as he acknowledged that it would have private property borders. Being that we don’t live in a society that only has limited private property (of which is heavily regulated by the state), and which was lots of public property (ie-taxpayer owned and supported property), and which is a democratic welfare state, and which has forced association laws, you can’t declare “open borders” without creating mass rights violations against the resident taxpayers (ie-the “citizens”) of the nation state. Either the government is going to regulate borders and migration/immigration, or private property owners are going to regulate it, and given the existence of the state, which is how not only this country, but the rest of the world, is currently arranged, private property owners are PROHIBITED from regulating migration/immigration (due to mass public property, and due to forced association laws), so this leaves the job to the government, and if the government declares “open borders”, everyone on the planet can just come on over here, this is still government imposing a policy at gun point, because not all of the resident taxpayers are in support of this policy (surveys indicate that the vast majority of the population opposes this policy), and this situation is made even worse due to the existence of the welfare state, which acts as a magnet to bring people here who are coming for the free stuff rather than coming because they really want freedom (which you aren’t going to find as much of in this country anymore).

    FYI, I tried posting the Kokesh vs Molyneux immigration debate as an article here, and I noticed that it still has not posted, and I posted it here like 2 or 3 days ago, along with an unrelated video for another article, so it is looking like I am being censored here. Certainly, the Adam Kokesh debating Stefan Molyneux video should be regarded as newsworthy for IPR, since Adam is an LP member and he has announced that he is interested in seeking the LP’s presidential nomination for 2020, so if this does not get posted as an article here, it will be a clear case of political censorship.

    I still like Adam, and I may still support his presidential campaign (I am officially uncommitted for 2020), but I think that it should be pretty clear that he lost this debate with Molyneux. Now in all fairness to Adam, I do think that he’s done a lot of good work over the years, and I think that his end goal is good, and I also like the fact that his platform calls for abolishing the welfare state, at least at the federal/national level, as well as the federal/national government, so his platform, if implemented, would mean that each state would become an independent country, so migration/immigration would be left to each state. I agree with Adam, as does Stefan Molyneux, that coercive government should not exist, but while it does exist, I agree with Molyneux that it should not have an immigration policy that is destructive to the existing population.

  23. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 8, 2018 at 19:05
    aj: Kokesh is running on a bold platform to institute an orderly shut down of the federal government

    me: ‘Bold’ understates. It comes across as wacky to virtually everyone except dogmatic NAPsters. Surely you see that?”

    I agree with you that this comes off that way to a lot of people (although I think that there’d be more support for it than you realize), but you should also keep in mind that any kind of libertarian platform, even a very moderate one, comes off as wacky to a lot of people.

    I have talked about politics with a heck of a lot of people over the years, both in person and online, and I’ve had people freak out over the idea of small cuts in taxes and/or government spending, or over other baby steps toward liberty, like passing medical marijuana.

    Some people think that it is wacky to vote for anyone who does not have the Democratic or Republican party label next to their name.

    Adam is hoping to build momentum for implementing his platform, and he is not naive enough to think that he will be elected President in 2020. His goal is to start building momentum behind this platform, so that maybe he, or somebody else running under the same platform, could have a realistic chance of being elected and enacting this platform by say 2028 or 2032. He sees it as a long term process, and he is trying to push the Overton window.

  24. robert capozzi

    aj,

    I think you are correct that someone somewhere might think someone else’s views are wacky. The standard should not be will ANYONE think position X is wacky?, because that would certainly seem to imply that no position is worthwhile, since anyone can veto it and stigmatize it as wacky.

    Surely you see that if only 2% are true believers, 5% might be sympathetic, and 93% find a view to be wacky that it’s electorally a non-starter. Some positions alienate far too many people to the point that one gets positioned as similar to white supremacists and Antifa. Contrast the range with, say, positions taken by Pat Buchanan and Bernie Sanders.

    Do you see the difference?

  25. robert capozzi

    more…

    I’d submit that unvarnished NAPsterism like that espoused by Kokesh is widely perceived as MORE radical than white supremacism and Antifa. While most find both those thought systems hateful, unworkable, etc., NAPsterism is unfathomable and beyond utopian.

  26. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 9, 2018 at 15:35
    aj,

    I think you are correct that someone somewhere might think someone else’s views are wacky. The standard should not be will ANYONE think position X is wacky?, because that would certainly seem to imply that no position is worthwhile, since anyone can veto it and stigmatize it as wacky.

    Surely you see that if only 2% are true believers, 5% might be sympathetic, and 93% find a view to be wacky that it’s electorally a non-starter. Some positions alienate far too many people to the point that one gets positioned as similar to white supremacists and Antifa. Contrast the range with, say, positions taken by Pat Buchanan and Bernie Sanders.

    Do you see the difference?”

    Once again, I agree with you that Kokesh’s campaign platform is radical, even by the standards of most LP candidates, although Kokesh addresses this by saying that all issues will be kicked back to the states, and since the states will become independent countries, some states may do things with which he does not agree, although he’d like to see Libertarians running at the state level as well who’d move the states in the Libertarian direction, or better yet, from his perspective, shut down the state governments as well. This platform is in a lot of ways more radical than the platforms of Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Ron Paul. all of whom called for big cuts in the federal government, but none of whom openly called for outright abolishing the federal government, although Browne sort of pointed to this by saying something to the extent of after the federal government is cut by 95%, there could be a fundraiser to rent out a large arena where a bunch of us could get together to debate about how much more government we could cut, and how to go about doing that.

    Is Kokesh’s platform so radical to the point where it would not be good for the Libertarian Party for him to be the presidential nominee in 2020? I don’t know. I will say that from my perspective, which is held by many in the Libertarian Party and movement, that the platforms of the last three LP presidential tickets have been weak to the point where it is questionable if they were even libertarian at all (and, as I said before, I lean toward the latter), so I think that whoever the presidential ticket ends up being in 2020, they should be pretty solid libertarians. I am sick and tired for the watered down crap that the LP has put on its last three presidential tickets, and I’d rather have somebody who is running on a platform that some may say is “too radical”, like that of Kokesh, than be subjected to another Bob Barr or Gary Johnson.

    Kokesh is looking at this as being part of a long term strategy. Like I said above, he wants to build momentum for shutting down the federal government, and he hopes that by 2028 or 2032 that this will be achievable. Is this an achievable plan? I don’t know. I do know that it won’t stand any chance of happening if nobody tries it.

  27. robert capozzi

    aj,

    Right. I’d say GJ’s positions were too radical since there was no reason to believe that they were attainable during his term, had he been elected. He would have been profoundly successful had he gotten 25% of what he proposed.

    it’s fraudulent to run for an office proposing things that — for all intents and purposes — will not happen. “Not L enough” is simply a construct; it’s not politics.

  28. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 9, 2018 at 23:49
    aj,

    Right. I’d say GJ’s positions were too radical since there was no reason to believe that they were attainable during his term, had he been elected. He would have been profoundly successful had he gotten 25% of what he proposed.”

    Gary Johnson’s barely qualified as being libertarian, if it was libertarian at all (and I lean towards it not having been a libertarian platform). If you think that Johnson’s platform was “too radical” I don’t know why you bother voting, or hanging around in Libertarian Party circles at all. It sounds like you may be more at home with the Democrats of the Republicans.

    As for how much of Johnson’s platform would he have been able to enact if elected, well, considering how weak and non-libertarian his platform was from a libertarian perspective, libertarians should be thankful that Gary Johnson was not elected, because if he had been, it would likely have permanently discredited the Libertarian Party and libertariansim.

    “it’s fraudulent to run for an office proposing things that — for all intents and purposes — will not happen. ‘Not L enough’ is simply a construct; it’s not politics.”

    You could say the same thing about every politician. I suspect that a lot of them intentionally say that they are going to do things once elected that they never intend to do, just to get votes. I’d assume that Libertarians and most other minor party or independent candidates are sincere people since they should know that running as a minor party or independent candidates means that they have little chance to win, but if they did somehow pull off a victory, they’d make a solid effort to enact their campaign agenda.

    I’d say that it is fraudulent to get the nomination of the Libertarian Party, and then run with a campaign message that strays as far from the Libertarian Party’s platform as did the campaign of Johnson/Weld.

  29. Andy

    Also, Robert, you seem to forget that the purpose of running as a Libertarian Party candidate is not to get votes for the sake of getting votes, it is to promote, and if elected, work to implement, the Libertarian Party’s platform.

    Given the current circumstances, the only offices that Libertarians stand anything resembling a realistic chance of winning are city/county offices (as long as whatever jurisdiction in which they are running does not have a population that too high to make running to win unrealistic, like say electing a Libertarian as Mayor of New York City or Los Angeles), or seats in state legislatures. Anything beyond that gets into the realm of not being winnable races, especially when you get to the presidential level. So from the standpoint of running to win, it does not matter who the Libertarian Party runs on its presidential ticket in 2020, that ticket is not going to win.

    Given that conditions are such that the Libertarian Party stands practically no chance of winning the presidential race in 2020, regardless of who is on the ticket, and what their platform is, the most important criteria should be having at least a fairly strong libertarian message, and having a good ability to communicate that message in a persuasive manner, in order to build the Libertarian Party and movement for future success.

    Can Adam Kokesh do this? I think that he’s already doing this. and I say this in spite of the fact that I think that he lost that recent debate against Stefan Molyneux. Is Adam Kokesh going to be the best choice for this role in 2020? I don’t know. It depends on who else jumps in the race, and what he does between now and then.

    I will say that given the choice between a candidate who some would say is “too radical” (such as yourself), and one whose platform is watered down to the point where after the campaign lots of people are questioning whether or not the candidate was even really libertarian (as happened with the campaigns of Bob Barr and Gary Johnson), I’d prefer the candidate who is accused of being too radically libertarian.

  30. Chuck Moulton

    Obviously I’m not going to waste time reading Andy’s novels here. But I will say Caplan would have wiped the floor with both debaters — both because he is correct on immigration and because his grasp of the literature is far more intellectually rigorous.

  31. robert capozzi

    aj: Gary Johnson’s barely qualified as being libertarian, if it was libertarian at all (and I lean towards it not having been a libertarian platform).

    me: Do you not see how chilling this statement is? You are sitting in judgment about who is washed and who unwashed.

    gj: If you think that Johnson’s platform was “too radical” I don’t know why you bother voting, or hanging around in Libertarian Party circles at all.

    me: It seems I’ve explained this to you before, but allow me to try again. While I’m a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, that doesn’t mean that I don’t still support the idea that the government should be rolled back, substantially so. Just because I find the NAP a useful sentiment only doesn’t mean that one cannot advocate for a significant reduction in the net incidence of coercion.

    I propose that to be L should not mean that one need to position oneself as either a lunatic, dogmatist, or utopian. What I’ve never heard from NAPsters is why one MUST toe their extremist line.

    Is there a good reason why? Why can’t a “true” L advocate more achievable goals when running for office? Why must a L be “destinational,” and not merely “directional”?

    I’d really like to hear the justification for L extremism.

    aj: It sounds like you may be more at home with the Democrats of the Republicans.

    me: Why do you say this? Please elaborate.

  32. Andy

    Stefan Molyneux has put out an open debate challenge. Let’s contact him and Bryan Caplan and see if a public debate can be arranged.

  33. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    January 10, 2018 at 14:29
    ‘aj: Gary Johnson’s barely qualified as being libertarian, if it was libertarian at all (and I lean towards it not having been a libertarian platform).’

    me: Do you not see how chilling this statement is? You are sitting in judgment about who is washed and who unwashed”

    Everyone does this. The general consensus that I have gotten from talking to lots of people, both in person and online, many of whom were Libertarians, or small “l” libertarians, or libertarian leaners, is that the Johnson/Weld ticket were severely watered down libertarian at best, to not really libertarian. I think that it is fair to say that even Johnson/Weld supports would regard them as moderates.

    “me: It seems I’ve explained this to you before, but allow me to try again. While I’m a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, that doesn’t mean that I don’t still support the idea that the government should be rolled back, substantially so. Just because I find the NAP a useful sentiment only doesn’t mean that one cannot advocate for a significant reduction in the net incidence of coercion.”

    Yes, you say this, yet you criticize everybody who is actually trying to do this, or who is advocating this.

    “I propose that to be L should not mean that one need to position oneself as either a lunatic, dogmatist, or utopian. What I’ve never heard from NAPsters is why one MUST toe their extremist line.”

    I have no problem with looking at a range for who is a libertarian, and who is not, but there needs to be a cut off at some point where if a person falls below a certain level, they are not a libertarian, and I think that Bill Weld clearly falls well below that level, and I’d say that Johnson falls below it as well, even though Johnson did a better job of conning people, at least during his first run.

    “‘aj: It sounds like you may be more at home with the Democrats of the Republicans.’

    me: Why do you say this? Please elaborate.”

    All you seem to do on here is criticize other Libertarians, including ones who do far more real world political activism than you do. Yes, every self identified libertarian who has ever posted here has criticized some other libertarians, but you seem to do it more than anyone else I can think of who has ever posted here. Now you are going so far as to assert that the Johnson/Weld platform was too radically libertarian, and that if they had been elected, they would not be able to get their “radical” libertarian agenda through.

    If you want LP candidates with a platform that is more watered down than that of Johnson/Weld, I’d say that you are probably affiliated with the wrong political party.

  34. robert capozzi

    PF,

    I hear you, but I think I disagree. I’d like to see a sane lessarchist making the case for a pro-immigration with reasonable restrictions take on SM’s dog-whistle immigrant haterade. Those Ls persuaded by SM would benefit from a well-reasoned counter.

Leave a Reply

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