February 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. February opens with Facebook banning all cryptocurrency advertising, the LNC pursuing an apparent de facto partnership with Facebook to censure libertarian speech on the social media platform, and a released outer party memo alleging inner party surveillance of key Ingsoc members. In typical fashion, John McCain blames Emmanuel Goldstein.

188 thoughts on “February 2018 Open Thread

  1. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    This sounds like the beginning of a big circle jerk. So won’t follow it.

  2. Bondurant

    It’s a shame most people I know rely on Facebook as the only form of communication. I debate removing my page but never do so knowing that it will mean I cease to exist to many I know. Perhaps their not worth knowing and I should duck out anyway.

  3. dL Post author

    It’s a shame most people I know rely on Facebook as the only form of communication. I debate removing my page but never do so knowing that it will mean I cease to exist to many I know. Perhaps their not worth knowing and I should duck out anyway.

    Q: Why do people use facebook despite being fully aware it functions in part as a controlled surveillance platform?

    A: Avoiding it imposes a perceived social penalty

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    Addtional answers:

    1) Using it brings a perceived social reward; and

    2) Most of the public Internet is full of hooks into the overall controlled surveillance platform anyway, and avoiding those hooks is a gigantic pain in the ass, so most people are just getting used to the idea of living in a panopticon no matter what they do. Which makes Facebook not really a bridge farther.

  5. George Phillies

    On the Arvin vote, both sides appear to be warming up fora holy war at the National Convention.

    An appropriate slogan that both sides seem to support is “Kill Them! Kill them all! God will sort them out!”

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    I doubt there will be anything resembling “holy war.”

    My expectation is that if a credible opponent throws hat in ring, Mr. Vohra will not be re-elected as vice chair. Heck, I was prepared to take a hard, positive look at his one current opponent I know of until that opponent threw in with the Get Arvin Brigade. And if a better candidate does show up, I might be persuaded to vote for that candidate.

    So far, Mr. Sarwark doesn’t seem to have any credible opponents either.

    Usually in-between-convention dust-ups don’t seem to greatly affect LNC election outcomes. And with a couple of exceptions (Hagan and Harlos), this seems to have been a “usual suspects and their fuckery” affair.

    Harlos is probably safe because she used an “I am slavishly representing my region, when the chairs in that region start acting retarded I guess I have to act retarded with them” smokescreen.

    Hagan is probably safe because he has a well-earned reputation for integrity. I’m sorry he got conned, but I doubt anyone is going to hate him for it.

    And it’s likely that a small minority of delegates will have even heard about this crap, let alone formed an opinion on it, as of their arrival in New Orleans.

  7. Chuck Moulton

    I see Root’s Teeth Are Awesome has been duped by the pathological liars in the so-called Mises Caucus.

    In other news my Bastiat Caucus pledged to raise $100 million dollars to dig up Bastiat’s corpse, re-animate it, and pay his speaking fee, but the Libertarian Party refused to put Bastiat on their convention agenda and advertising because they hate liberty.

  8. Steven Berson

    Regarding a credible opponent to Arvin Vohra for LNC Vice Chair- Alex Merced has a long history working hard for the New York Libertarian Party, including doing a few well organized runs as a candidate for NYC local offices, and maintains an excellent social media presence – and to me would be a most excellent choice as Vice Chair – in particular because he knows how to maintain rhetoric that works to bring in more people towards pushing the ideals of liberty, not scare them away (as Vohra has done in a major way on two occasions during his term as Vice Chair). http://alexmerced.com & https://www.facebook.com/AlexMercedLP/ for more info.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    Root’s Teeth,

    A group offered to raise the money to bring Ron Paul as a speaker, then didn’t. At some point the convention committee chair said something like “well, I guess Paul’s out, then.” That’s all that happened. There was no “rejection” of Paul. You got conned.

    Pro tip: 99% of the time, that will be the case if your source is Liberty Hangout. The other 1% of the time is when the site doesn’t load correctly.

  10. Chuck Moulton

    It seems Alex Merced is associated with the Mises Caucus, which has publicly demonstrated it is full of pathological liars who will make up whatever bullshit they can if they believe it will further their agenda. There is zero chance I would ever vote for Alex Merced for LNC or NYC dog catcher.

  11. Bondurant

    Another reason to hate Facebook/social media: idiots are spreading the “Ron Paul banned from LP convention” bullshit. Huge difference between a ban and not wanting to pay a 5 digit speaking fee.

  12. George Phillies

    Michael, These appears to be appreciable overlap between one of those groups and the hooded key holders. Mind you, I am equally disimpressed with the other group.

  13. dL Post author

    2) Most of the public Internet is full of hooks into the overall controlled surveillance platform anyway, and avoiding those hooks is a gigantic pain in the ass, so most people are just getting used to the idea of living in a panopticon no matter what they do. Which makes Facebook not really a bridge farther.

    You don’t have to make it (real-time) easy for them. You wouldn’t get my politics if you rifled my smart phone and/or graphed my amazon profile or github account.

  14. Anon-Tipper

    Chuck Moulton: “It seems Alex Merced is associated with the Mises Caucus”

    Is this true? I thought he was pretty reasonable in his debate for comptroller, he seems more level headed than them. However, I’ve noticed that Ramsey is supporting him, it could be just his hatred of Vohra (I think Ramsey thinks that Vohra is running a pedo ring or something else really crazy). Hope this isn’t the case.

  15. dL Post author

    Chuck Moulton: “It seems Alex Merced is associated with the Mises Caucus”

    Endorsed by them.I don’t know if he is one. However, his views–to the extent that I’ve digested them– are too sympathetic to that point of view for my taste.

  16. dL Post author

    This sounds like the beginning of a big circle jerk. So won’t follow it.

    Look forward to seeing ya back in March!

  17. Andy

    “George Phillies
    February 4, 2018 at 00:18
    What are the views, DL, of the Mises caucus?”

    Here is the website for the LP Mises Caucus.

    http://lpmisescaucus.com/

    I spoke to Michael Heise yesterday. He said that members of the LP Mises Caucus generally agree, but that they do have some differences among their membership ranks as well.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Merced disqualified himself as a candidate when he threw in with the Vohra witch hunt. I don’t claim to know whether he did so as a matter of appallingly poor general judgment, complete dishonesty, or laughably miscalculated political opportunism, but it was one, or a combination of, those three things.

  19. dL Post author

    What are the views, DL, of the Mises caucus?

    Merced, in a video on immigration, equally balanced the liberty to travel against human migration as suicide pact attractor. Human migration is not a suicide pact. A suicide pact is arguing that the State as a redistributive agent thusly confers it the authority to regulate every scintilla of human behavior.

    The Mises Institute, under the influence of Hoppe, has advanced the idea that the redistributive state opens up the question of libertarian violations being justified in the name of managing political competition.

    The Mises Caucus has openly engaged in behavior that suggests it is in the business of replacing LP leadership that is publicly at odds with Hoppean sympathies. So, George, if you want a LP chair to go on the right-wing talk circuit and sympathize with the notion that immigration is a suicide pact for the American way of life, throw in with the Mises Caucus.

  20. Anon-Tipper

    “Merced, in a video on immigration, equally balanced the liberty to travel against human migration as suicide pact attractor”

    Oh, so it’s confirmed, he’s a hoppean cultist, damn, another one.

  21. George Phillies

    dL I was thanking Andy for providing the link, since I was mildly curious as to what they stood for or who their candidates were. That does not mean that I support their stands or candidates. At this point they appear to have a Chair and a Vice Chair candidate. Given their Paul outburst, I am currently disinclined to support their people, though it depends who else is running. I can think of people who I am sure are even worse.

    Keep in mind that the LNC has no say in the platform.

  22. dL Post author

    Oh, so it’s confirmed, he’s a hoppean cultist, damn, another one.

    To be fair, I said he was sympathetic to it. For him, liberty of movement in the left hand weighs in at 1, suicide pact in the right weighs in at .9, so it tips in the favor of liberty of movement. But it’s real easy to tip that the other way.

    The proper argument is that lady liberty doesn’t hold out her hands. Liberty of movement is the default presumption(the torch). Suicide pact is laughed out of the court room(the middle finger)…

  23. George Phillies

    Behold the highly sensible statement of our National Chair on the Ron Paul issue:

    If Ron Paul decides he wants to attend the Libertarian Party national convention in New Orleans and speak, I’ll make sure he gets time on the stage.

    He’s a life member, former Presidential nominee, and Hall of Liberty award winner. It’s the least we can do if he’s able to attend the convention.

    The party never said no, that’s a lie being spread by some people trying to divide us.

  24. dL Post author

    since I was mildly curious as to what they stood for or who their candidates were.

    By their fruits(the shit they stir up), ye shall know them…

  25. Andy

    “dL Post author
    February 4, 2018 at 11:31
    ‘What are the views, DL, of the Mises caucus?’

    Merced, in a video on immigration, equally balanced the liberty to travel against human migration as suicide pact attractor”:

    So in other words, he’s got common sense.

    Swedish woman who believed in “equality” and open borders executed and beheaded in Africa

    http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/swedish-woman-who-believed-in-equality.html

    From the article: “Zaida Catalán (6 October 1980 – March 2017) was a Swedish politician who was a member of the Green Party and leader of the Young Greens of Sweden between 2001 and 2005. She was known for her work in animal rights, equality and the sex purchase law (which she supported).

    Equality is one of the cornerstones of the Greens’ ideology. They promised equal pay for equal work, breaking gender segregation in employment, splitting parental leave into three parts (one for each parents and one freely transferable including to a third person close to the child), fighting violence against women, quotas for women on the boards of stock market-listed companies, investments in school health (to fight mental health problems), laws against sexist advertising which perpetuate gender norms, improving sex ed, improving support to people who have faced abuse and a law on gender mainstreaming.

    In line with this, the Greens are the most pro-immigration party, enthusiastically supporting open borders (or a world without borders). Its manifesto endorsed a liberalization of asylum laws (an automatic right to a permanent residence permit if an asylum seeker hasn’t been deported within 2 years, facilitating family reunification, people born and permanently residing in Sweden should automatically obtain citizenship); better integration (easier access to housing and jobs for new arrivals) and fighting discrimination.”

    Yeah, inviting hostile, violent people, many of whom hold Marxist and/or theorcratic ideologies, into the society where you live, and even enticing them to come in with government welfare money, is really going to make that society more free….not!

  26. Andy

    dL said: “The proper argument is that lady liberty doesn’t hold out her hands. Liberty of movement is the default presumption(the torch). Suicide pact is laughed out of the court room(the middle finger)”

    There is no liberty to movement on property that is already owned and occupied by other people. The present day USA is not an open frontier (there are over 325 million people here, and this is the 3rd most population country in the world). Those days ended a long time ago.

  27. paulie

    dL is correct. Freedom of movement applies to public spaces and property. No one is claiming freedom of movement on anyone’s personal property here. We just reject the absurd notion that the present day regime is the rightful owner of everything else and rightfully entitled to act is if some people are trespassing against it in entering spaces that seem to be open to all. We also reject the equally pernicious notion that it has some right to tell property owners who do in fact want certain people as employees, tenants, consumers, etc., that they can’t have them on their own property.

  28. paulie

    By rumor Sam Goldstein is running for Vice Chair. Trent Somes has a Facebook page up calling him a candidate, but that page has not been used recently.

    Somes has told me he is not running. I’ve seen something to the effect that Joe Hauptmann (IN) is running.

    I also something saying Somes resigned from LNC, but not on the LNC list. Anyone here know the facts?

  29. Andy

    “this is the 3rd most population country in the world”

    Should read, “this is the 3rd most populated country in the world…”

  30. paulie

    . Human migration is not a suicide pact. A suicide pact is arguing that the State as a redistributive agent thusly confers it the authority to regulate every scintilla of human behavior.

    Exactly!

  31. DJ

    Andy: Yeah, inviting hostile, violent people, many of whom hold Marxist and/or theorcratic ideologies, into the society where you live, and even enticing them to come in with government welfare money, is really going to make that society more free….not!

    Me: Inviting-enticing is not the same as not discouraging.

    Andy: many of whom hold Marxist and/or theorcratic ideologies, into the society where you live,

    Me: How many don’t? There are theocratic ideologies on many corners of many familial streets in America. They’re called church. Not that I agree with church theocracy, I don’t. I also don’t believe any entity or Individual has the right to restrict another based on hearsay (theocracy) or the fear (theocracy) of what ‘might’ happen. You’re advocating for what you want policed. That makes no sense.
    What ‘might’ happen is thought policing (see your argument about Kokesh being in jail for thought policing [files]), and thought policing isn’t inviting or enticing migration, though it is funded from the public coffers. However, it is, at this point in time less invasive than being shot, though that too happens with “thought police” who “fear” for their life. How free is that? How free is Kokesh? Can you say national ID card? Is that what you want? Will that guarantee your being free?

    The only thing that will make anybody (that society) more free is to be the example more free in “that society” on a large scale which can come from education founded in self evident Truth- “all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed.” Truth is constant. Knowledge evolves. What was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow.

  32. Andy

    “paulie
    February 4, 2018 at 15:39
    dL is correct. Freedom of movement applies to public spaces and property.”

    Only for the people who paid for the public property, as in the resident taxpayers (ie-the “citizens”) of the country. A person from say Pakistan, or China, or Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or Korea, or Brazil, or anywhere else, has no property claims in the USA. They can apply to become American citizens, and if they make it though the application and Naturalization process (which I think ought to be made more difficult), they can then gain the right to use the public property/commons (although I’d design the test so about 80% of those currently applying would would fail, because I want to keep out Marxists, theocrats, welfare leeches, and common criminals, and if they sneak in anyway I would not offer them, or any offspring they have, any taxpayer funded services, with the exception of deportation).

  33. Andy

    If a foreigner is visiting the USA on vacation, or they are here under a work VISA, they should be able to use the public commons/infrastructure while they are here, but this does not give them them same right to the public commons/infrastructure as do the resident taxpayers (ie-the “citizens” of the country).

    This is how the world is arranged right now, and if the society we live in was rearranged under the principles of anarcho-capitalism, the same function of regulating borders/migration would be performed by private property owners, like the condominium or apartment complex examples I provided in recent posts here, as well as past examples I gave about private cities (like my Disney World/Disney Land private city example).

  34. Chuck Moulton

    I have seen private confirmation from a LNC member that Sharpe and Somes resigned. It is very odd that this isn’t on the LNC business list though.

  35. paulie

    I saw screen shots on FB regarding Sharpe so I can confirm that one. This is now the second confirmation I got about Somes.

  36. DJ

    Andy: This is how the world is arranged right now

    Me: It is, whether you approve or not. Adapt or die.

    Why don’t you just come out and say what you’re inferring? IMO, what you’re saying is; Freedom is good as long as someone (many or a majority of like minded) says it’s okay, but, it’s not for everybody.
    Either everybody counts, or nobody counts.

  37. Steve m

    So there is a story going around about the ceo of Guinness the ceo of Miller and the ceo of Budweiser getting together for a drink. The Miller ceo ordered a Miller Lite. The Budweiser ceo ordered a bud lite. The ceo of Guinness ordered a coke. The ceos of miller and bud were shocked aren’t you going to have a beer they asked. To which the ceo Guinness replied if your not going to have a beer then nether am I.

    I used to think the libertarians were the Guinness party lots a flavor some what bitter but real.

    Now rhwy seem more like a bud lite. No taste unsatisfying.

  38. dL Post author

    I used to think the libertarians were the Guinness party lots a flavor some what bitter but real.

    The LP is not the end all or be all of libertarianism. The same incentive problems that infect other political parties will infect a libertarian political party, too(although granted, one would think those problems might be a bit more suppressed when you are only hovering around ~1%) .

  39. Steve m

    If the LP had been around in the mid 177os they would have taken a position against the Declaration of Independece as it beeing too inflamitory and they would have sencured Patrick Henry.

  40. steve m

    I need to stop using my cell phone or these comments… it only enables me to spell even worse…

    Look if the LP is going to just be a me too another lite beer then it will never go anywhere.

    If one lesson should be learned from Trump it is that if you take strong stances that make people sit up and go what did you say? Then you can get their attention and you have a very brief moment to get your message across.

    We need firebrands that raise difficult issues. Without them we are just bud lite. And going no where.

    Who besides Arvin is not bud lite in our party?

  41. Anon-Tipper

    dL:”To be fair, I said he was sympathetic to it. For him, liberty of movement in the left hand weighs in at 1, suicide pact in the right weighs in at .9, so it tips in the favor of liberty of movement. But it’s real easy to tip that the other way.”

    “Mises” Caucus must think they can either tip it or he’s the most sympathetic to their “cause.” tbh, anyone that they think is “good” we should be suspicious of since they’re dead set on shaping the LP in their own vision.

  42. Anon-Tipper

    Does anyone think that Liberty Hangout, 71 Republic, The Mises Caucus, and some of the white-nationalists in the FLP are connected in some way?

    They were all parroting the same story about the convention “controversy” with Ron Paul. Liberty Hangout still publishes pro-Augustus articles, they seem pro Mises Caucus. And 71R also has a lot of pro Mises Caucus, pro Joshua Smith, etc. stories. Liberty Hangout seems to think that there’s a pedo-ring in the LP, something Ramsey has been screaming about too. It’s just weird that they are seem to just say the same thing at the same time.

  43. paulie

    Crabby Abby Presents :

    The Dramatarians Guide to Surviving Drama

    Latest Libertarian kerfluffle got your knickers in your nanny? Crabby Abby tells us how to deal with the dish of the day :

    1. Shut it down by shutting off your phone and volunteer for your state or a campaign instead of QUITTING 4EVAR (FOR REAL THIS TIME!!!).

    2. Consider the source. Did you even pass 8th grade English? Stop squawking in all your favorite gossip groups and use common sense before giving more ad revenue to trolls (looking at you Liberty Hangout ?)

    3. Deep breaths. Surfacing for oxygen, always helps Crabby Abby remember the internet isn’t real life.

    4. Mad because the LNC won’t buy you a pony like our pal Vermin Supreme or put you on the campaign gravy train? That’s cute.

    5. Calm your tits. Abby’s tits are calm and yours can be too!

    Do you have burning questions? Need life advice? Want sagely input on someone or something? Inbox us and your question will be featured in Abby’s new monthly advice column!

  44. sludgepuppy

    I’m wondering if someone isn’t playing this to get control of the party because of ballot access the list of contributors, or something else?

  45. Anon-Tipper

    “I’m wondering if someone isn’t playing this to get control of the party because of ballot access the list of contributors, or something else?”

    Ballot access definitely. Also, I think, to gain legitimacy by using the libertarian label, since most other groups on the right (I know placing libertarians on the right isn’t exactly correct, depends on the person, etc. but I’m just going with the popular usage) are either intellectually bankrupt, or have damaged their own reputation. If you look at the Liberty Hangout staff page (who are pushing this), a lot of them are young conservatives/trumpkins. The rest are hoppean cultists/alt-righters pulling the old fascist trick of co-opting a label.

  46. paulie

    More from Dramatarians

    Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Hayes Has Got to GO!
    ~ by Snarky Mark

    Readers, I am furious. Furious! I am so mad I could spit fire. I’m madder than the time Birdy almost burned the entire office down.

    The other day we shared with you some revolting statements made by Daniel Hayes where he refused a kind and sincere request by the Libertarian Party Audacious Caucus to invite Libertarian activist and bitcoin expert MK Lords to speak and perform a strip tease at the 2018 Libertarian Party National Convention.

    Screen shots have recently surfaced showing Hayes denying other requests from party members. Not only does Hayes absolutely HATE Ron Paul AND MK Lords, but he apparently doesn’t care enough to bring Harambe back to life and pay a small number of bananas upfront to cover his speaking fee.

    This goes against the core of libertarianism itself! I am absolutely disgusted with the behavior of Hayes at this point. I can live without seeing Ron Paul speak for the 500th time (seriously, you can watch him for free on Facebook every day. Who cares), but MK Lords would be PERFECT and the Audacious Caucus would make sincere efforts to try to pay the party back eventually (maybe). What about Harambe as well? His speaking fee is a few bananas, but Hayes is too biased against Harambe to even consider.

    We hope that the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus will share our complete outrage over this and handle it with as much vigor as they have their fake Ron Paul prank.

    Why do you hate MK Lords and Harambe, Hayes? We demand answers! Our readers should as well. Please message Hayes and demand MK Lords and Harambe speak at the 2018 convention, or else. Send us your screenshots.

    #ousthayes #OustHayes #unseathayes #UnseatHayes

  47. paulie

    Dramatarians
    16 hrs ·
    Don’t you DARE call Liberty Hangout Alt Right or they will unleash their triggertarian TJ Roberts and sue you, The Jack News!

    Anarchyball came by to say “well they aren’t wrong”. After Christopher “Making White Babies is What We Fight For” Rachles/Radical Capitalist said he was an Alt Right Hoppean AnCap (we still are unsure as to what that is), Moldow said he couldn’t find anything to disagree with Rachels on.

    We anxiously await the lawsuit. Whatever you do, don’t call them Alt Right. So, for example: Liberty Hangout is Alt Right. Liberty Hangout supports the Alt Right. Liberty Hangout are Alt Right; don’t say any of that……. or else!

    I guess we’ll get a legal notice soon enough. ~ Snarky Mark

  48. paulie

    Dramatarians
    February 4 at 5:30pm ·
    The Mises Caucus…. sans the Mises
    ~ by Snarky Mark

    Andy Craig for Congress recently posted some screen shots showing odd statements from the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus. Since their founding, the caucus has been rumored to be a group of nationalists that adore Hans-Hermann Hoppe and have more in common with “Radical Capitalist” than Ludwig von Mises.

    As they move forward, trying to oust those that espouse nationalistic beliefs, it seems that they do not share the beliefs of Mises. Here we can see a side by side from Craig, with his words that reflect Mises, and the Mises Caucus rejecting them.

    Has the Mises Caucus actually read Mises? If not, then who?

    https://www.facebook.com/dramatartians/photos/a.1535123303186081.1073741828.1535067816524963/1791726177525791/?type=3

  49. paulie

    Dramatarians
    February 4 at 1:30pm ·
    BREAKING! Pro Trump Bordertarians Liberty Hangout Endorse Chair Candidate!
    ~ by Snarky Mark

    A few hours ago we shared a tweet from Liberty Hangout, the notorious fakertarians that brought you such hits like “our goal is simple: to infiltrate the LP and make it right wing” and “if you don’t like Trump, you’re probably a communist” (see here: https://tinyurl.com/y7ynbm3k).

    Now the Alt Right group has come out and directly expressed their support for Joshua Smith For LNC Chair 2018. This is a strange alliance, to be sure. Smith – and the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus which he isn’t-a-part-of-but-in-but-not – promotes himself saying that the LP needs to be principled. If this is so, then why does Mr. Smith support the endorsement of an Alt Right group that was the #1 reason for the creation of the page Fakertarians? (lest one believe that Mr. Smith does not accept the support of Liberty Hangup, we have screen shots that show he is not opposed)

    Why would Mr. Smith accept the endorsement of a Pro Trump group that until just last week employed skin heads and were making inroads with white nationalists? Is there something Mr. Smith is hiding about his beliefs? Or is this an alliance that is only skin deep in an attempt to remove a mutual enemy (Sarwark)?

  50. paulie

    Dramatarians shared Finley Collins’s note.
    January 28 at 6:37pm ·
    Third time, and we’ll keep reposting it until the Radical Capitalist frog army stops snowflaking. Keep honking, we’re reloading. Share this in every group since they’re so determined that no one sees it.

    Snowflaked, Degenerate, and Laid Bare!
    ~ by Snarky Mark

    Just an hour ago, our newest editor wrote a great piece about the latest drama about Christopher Chase Rachels of the white power Alt Right blog Radical Capitalist. Immediately, it was removed and thrown down the Facebook memory hole. CCR and his army of Green Men can try to remove this, but we will make backups, and will distribute it even more this time. No one takes our articles down. No one.

    THAT SAID… BREAKING NEWS!!

    A former lover of Rachels (a Female to Male transgender) has written in detail about Rachels’ past, his obsession with IQ, genetics, and making babies, and his long history of supporting white supremacy (it was just more low-key until the rise of Trump and the Alt Right). The full note, can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/finley-collins/what-i-know-about-ccr/1596727760362637/. An archived version of the post (which will not go away no matter how hard Rachels and his Green Army of Snowflakes try) can be found here: http://archive.is/kau1M

    This isn’t new for Rachels. Previously, Fakertarians had broken a story – later confirmed by Rachels – that he had a child out of wedlock with a woman who was in a relationship (he was sexually active with both male and female partners of the relationship). This child has since been abandoned by Rachels, claiming that the mother wants nothing to do with him and it’s okay because there is a man in the child’s life. Likewise, Rachels’ friend and associate Jared Howe has recently had a child out wedlock……. this is what they call “degeneracy”..

  51. Bondurant

    @ steve m

    I believe the key to Trump’s success was a crowded GOP primary and the overtly corrupt DNC. If Trump had gone independent, third party or if the GOP had wised up earlier or if the Democrats went with anyone other that Hillary, I’d wager Trump is not president today.

  52. Anon-Tipper

    We really need to do more to push out the alt-right. What sort of mechanisms are there in the LP to prevent them from installing their own puppet (Joshua Smith)? Should the LP have “official” and “unofficial” designations for caucuses? Should people associated with the LPMC be denied LP membership? Should more dramatic (i.e. disaffiliation) actions be taken against the FLP? Is the process to become a delegate restrictive enough to keep most/all of the LPMC members out? We absolutely need to come up with strategies. What are some solutions people here have thought of?

  53. Gina

    How about spiking all their drinks with ex lax at the convention? Itchy powder in their shorts?

  54. George Phillies

    2018 LSLA Conference
    Denver, Colorado
    March 24, 2018
    Full Day Candidate/Activist Training Session

    Please circulate news to Libertarian contacts

    In collaboration with the Libertarian Party of Colorado, the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance presents our first 2018 Conference. The LPCO is kindly handling the site, tickets, meals, and is providing most of the panels in conjunction with their 2018 state convention.

    Candidate Training by Larry Sharpe
    Saturday, all day

    Saturday Afternoon – Hour Panels:
    Alternative Paths to a Libertarian Future (George Philllies, David Demarest)
    Building a County Affiliate — Wayne Harlos
    Approval Voting – A Better Way to Make Group Decisions (Frank Atwood/Blake Huber)
    Nuts and Bolts of a Colorado Candidacy (Kim Tavendale)
    Regulatory Barriers to Running a Small Business (Susan Kochevar) (Title TBC)
    Building a Libertarian Base (Laura Ebke) (Title TBC)
    Marijuana, PTSD and the Opioid Crisis (Todd Mitchem/Matt Kahl/Third Speaker TBC)
    Topic TBC (Trevor Burrus from Cato)

    The hotel is the DoubleTree in Thornton, Colorado. Thornton is a northern suburb of Denver. The hotel is immediately off I-25, about 22 miles (40 minutes) from the airport. Street address: 83 East 120th Avenue.

    Special Room rates have been arranged.
    http://doubletree.hilton.com/en/dt/groups/personalized/D/DENTNDT-LIB-20180323/index.jhtml?WT.mc_id=POG

    Ticket prices
    For Tickets: http://store.lpcolorado.org/

    Candidate Training and Panels only—$10
    Saturday Lunch—$50 (keynote: Senator Laura Ebke)
    Saturday Banquet—$70 (Libertarian entertainment featuring Larry Sharpe, Nick Sarwark, and Laura Ebke. )
    Saturday All Day—$125

  55. Anon-Tipper

    Gina:”How about spiking all their drinks with ex lax at the convention? Itchy powder in their shorts?”

    Yeah, forget what I said, let’s just do that!

    George:”Approval Voting”

    Glad that this type of voting is being discussed, seems to work better than rank choice. It’s easier for the voter, has a higher voter satisfaction rating, and can support more than two parties. From what I understand, rank choice can’t really support more than two, and can result in non-optimal (compared to approval) outcomes when a third party has sufficient support.

  56. George Phillies

    I am not sure why anyone thought I was advocating approval voting, which does not work in the real world.

    Very rapidly, voters realize that the way to win an approval voting contest is the BULLET BALLOT–you vote for only one candidate. Note that there has been an LP NatCon vote using approval voting, and someone last time got up and whined at people to vote for lots of candidates. As he did not add “…because otherwise it will be painfully obvious that approval voting is a worthless crock…”

  57. Anon-Tipper

    I was responding to this part of your comment, I didn’t assume you were advocating for it:
    “Approval Voting – A Better Way to Make Group Decisions (Frank Atwood/Blake Huber)”

    “which does not work in the real world.”
    “Very rapidly, voters realize that the way to win an approval voting contest is the BULLET BALLOT–you vote for only one candidate.”

    This is not true on average. There’s been a number of studies done on approval showing better results on average than plurality:

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&qsp=1&q=%22approval+voting%22+elections

    A conclusion from one study in the google scholar results:
    “We analyze 10 three-candidate elections (and mock elections) conducted under approval voting (AV) using a method developed by Falmagne and Regenwetter (1996) that allows us to construct a distribution of rank orders from subset choice data … On the basis of these distributions of preferences we find strong evidence that AV would have selected Condorcet winners when they exist and would have always selected the Borda winner. Thus, we find that AV is not just simple to use, but also gives rise to outcomes that well reflect voter preferences.”

  58. Anon-Tipper

    * It’s vulnerable to bullet voting, but on average produces “better” (as in higher voter satisfaction) results.

  59. Chuck Moulton

    I agree with George. Approval voting is a terrible way to vote on candidates. Single transferable voting or cumulative voting would be far better for multi-member district elections — like LNC at-large or JC.

    However, approval voting is appropriate for voting on things like convention locations and meeting times/days.

  60. Anon-Tipper

    “Single transferable voting or cumulative voting would be far better for multi-member district elections”

    I didn’t know George was talking about multiple winner voting situations, he didn’t say that in his comment, he condemned approval for any voting situation, which is just untrue.

    But I agree that those methods seem to work better for multi-seat elections.

  61. Steven Wilson

    Missouri State LP Convention
    Feb 24, 8:00am
    Double Tree by Hilton
    $50 early bird, Feb 14
    $60 at the door
    We will nominate US senator and state auditor candidates. Arvin Vohra is scheduled to speak. We should have quite a few candidates this year; myself included. If you care to join us in Jefferson City, please come. 12 rooms have been made available at a special rate. Donations will go to filing fees for all candidates.

    Any questions,
    Contact Email: RickVandeven@sbcglobal.net
    Contact Name: Rick Vandeven
    Contact Phone: 573-318-5564

    Steven

  62. Anon-Tipper

    https://niskanencenter.org/blog/future-liberalism-politicization-everything/
    “the facile “libertarian” argument that asserts freedom of expression is a “negative right” distinct from the “privilege” conferred by, say, voting or marriage rights. Instead, universal suffrage, marriage equality, and freedom of expression all derive from the same mechanics explained above”

    I’ve never heard a non-paleo assert something like gay marriage wasn’t a rights issue, it’s been on the LP platform since the founding. tbh, I just hate read Hammond now, I really don’t know why he insists on libertarian = paleo.

  63. Anon-Tipper

    “I have seen approval voting in action. Very rapidly, most voters in a somewhat partisan community use the bullet ballot.”

    Yes, it’s definitely not perfect, it’s just on average has better results than plurality. (I mentioned it earlier, but I agree with Chuck on the other voting systems for the multi-seat elections). I’ve heard that score can perform better than approval, but I imagine that with highly partisan people they’ll just assign a score to their party. I’m not confident that we can improve voting much more than the current system.

  64. George Phillies

    For electing multiple people, multiple cycles of STV work very poorly–I had to count this for Faculty elections. The Cambridge MA system, while slightly hard to explain actually works decently well.

  65. paulie

    LIBERTARIAN VICE CHAIRMAN CANDIDATE DEBATE
    Sponsored by 71 Republic
    Candidates attending:
    Arvin Vohra
    Alex Merced
    Joe Hauptmann
    Joe Paschal
    James Weeks
    Steve Scheetz
    Moderated by:
    Matt Geiger
    Andrew Zirkle
    Time:
    Saturday, February 10th, 7 PM EST – 8:30 PM EST
    How to watch:
    At the start of the debate, click the link below:

    Can I submit questions to be asked?
    Yes, email 71republicco@gmail.com with your question, and we will try to fit it in.

  66. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Crane was very sexy in the 1970s-early 80s and easily got women. Once he got bloated and older and married, he obviously stopped having as much luck.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’m wondering if someone isn’t playing this [Mises Caucus, etc.] to get control of the party because of ballot access the list of contributors, or something else?”

    That’s one possibility.

    Another, if we want to go “conspiracy theory” on it, is that it’s a government COINTELPRO provocateur project aimed at keeping the party ineffectual by fomenting internal arguments that marginalize the organization because one side of them is so obviously Cuckoo for Coco Puffs that any party taking it seriously is by definition dumb.

    Anecdotal evidence for that proposition: The most obviously likely government provocateur mole in the LP if there are any, Andy Jacobs, has gone all in on deranged Hoppebotism in preference to his previous attempts at making the LP look like a bunch of fucking idiots (e.g. “anyone who doesn’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job just because there’s no evidence that it was is a FOOL” and “every mass shooting is a government false flag attack using paid actors”).

  68. Andy

    Hey Tom, I have been in the LP for a long time, and I have associated with a lot of party members, so it is rather telling that none of the people who actually know me in person are saying this.

    If were a part of some nefarious plot why have I been the chief person blowing the whistle on the fact that most of the people the LP hires to gather ballot access signatures are not even libertarians, and that some of the people misrepresent the party to the public (either because they are dishonest, ignorant, or both), and that Libertarians should get up off of their asses and get their own signatures (whether for pay or as unpaid volunteers), rather than needlessly funneling the in person field outreach work out to people who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Libertarian Party or libertarianism?

    Why would I promote jury nullification of victimless crimes?

    Why would I advocate that Libertarians work to elect a Libertarian Sheriff and implement the Deputize ‘Em plan, that is appointing Libertarians as deputies?

    Why would I promote cryptocurrencies and gold & silver?

    Why would I have turned down so much campaign work for anti-liberty causes over the years that it has caused me to be in a much less comfortable financial situation than I would be otherwise (ask Paul Fankel or Jake Witmer if you do not believe me)?

    Why would I have enthusiastically supported Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik, but I did not support Bob Barr and Gary Johnson (of course, anyone who thinks that Barr and Johnson really represented libertarianism may disagree with me, but I do not care what those people think)?

    I have busted my ass for the Libertarian Party and movement for years. I am far more skeptical of the people who sit on the sidelines doing little to no real world activism, and who put down down those who do.

  69. Andy

    This is exactly the kind of spirit that the Libertarian Party needs.

    Nationwide End The Fed 2012 – Philly – Michael Heise

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    You ask “If were a part of some nefarious plot … ?”

    I didn’t say you are. I’m just saying that if such a nefarious plot exists, you are the most likely suspect.

    “why have I been the chief person blowing the whistle on the fact that most of the people the LP hires to gather ballot access signatures are not even libertarians”

    Another way of phrasing that question would be “why have you been the chief person demanding that the LP increase the costs of, and decrease the effectiveness of, its ballot access efforts by restricting the supply of a particular service to those who pass an ideological test, rather than focusing entirely on who can get the job done most quickly, most cheaply, and most effectively?”

    There are several possible answers to that question, only one of which is that your’e a saboteur. It could be rent-seeking (the more artificially restricted the supply, the more you can charge as one of the suppliers pre-qualified by your suggested regulation). It could be simple economic idiocy. It could be self-imposed ideological blindness. It could be a specific intention to harm the party. Or it could be some combination of those.

    “Why would I have enthusiastically supported Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik, but I did not support Bob Barr and Gary Johnson”

    For the same reason that any provocateur will spend a certain amount of time establishing credibility before getting to work on the sabotage.

    But, once again, I am not saying you are a government mole. You could just be a crank or an idiot. But if there is a government mole, your actions make you the most likely suspect.

  71. dL Post author

    Crane was very sexy in the 1970s-early 80s and easily got women. Once he got bloated and older and married, he obviously stopped having as much luck.

    Isn’t Crane the progenitor of libertarianism for the serious people? Well, the problem, Ed, is that what is respectable to the cocktail circuit today can often change to tomorrow’s pariah. And now Crane/Cato are the embarrassments. And no one–yesterday, today or tomorrow–will ever have have to respond to an inquiry about James Weeks with the lines “I’m sorry, I can’t comment on alleged cases or remedies” or “Cato now has strict title VII compliant sensitivity programs in place.”

  72. DJ

    TK: You ask “If were a part of some nefarious plot … ?”

    I didn’t say you are. I’m just saying that if such a nefarious plot exists, you are the most likely suspect.

    Me: Why? Because you disagree with him on some issues? As on outsider I can easily say, all of you look guilty. And for the record I don’t agree with Andy’s stance on immigration. There is, however, plenty of evidence that 9/11 was a set up by other than those accused. Denying it makes one look like an apologist for the status quo. Pro or con doesn’t equate (IMNSHO) to a nefarious plot as an infiltrator, but I’d be much more concerned about a denier. I’d also say that all the esoteric socio-economics discussions are far more harmful to the Party since none of them will ever happen (and do require more in depth understanding= esoteric = outsiders won’t understand), but are discussed as though they may/could. You’d all be better off to focus on true nefarious perpetrators who will ensure and insure and change of substance will never occur; That which you know exists- not what you wish would exist- In fighting and accusations prove nor help anyone or anything. “Putting out others light doesn’t make your’s shine brighter”.

  73. Thomas L. Knapp

    DJ,

    No, not because I disagree with him on some issues. Because he consistently picks out the issue that would seem most likely to damage and embarrass any party associated with it, and tries to associate that issue with the Libertarian Party.

    If we’re going to assume that the LP is infiltrated by government moles — and Andy leans hard toward that assumption — then it follows that we should use standard criteria to figure out who those moles are.

  74. DJ

    TK,
    Why bother with it? Unless they (moles) are in a majority all they can do is disparage. BFD. It’s not like there’s none occurring already (factions in the Party). People are going to think/believe what they think/believe, but, those can be influenced in the negative a lot easier than influencing in the positive. Attacking each other in public is a negative influence easily picked up on by everyone (including moles) adding fuel to an already existing negative fire.

    Preach freedom! Always and forever. If people don’t believe it, lead by example and ignore those who choose (or are differently influenced) to follow the nefarious and blatant path to serfdom. Andy has very little influence (except on creating personal attacks from Party members). He is one person.

  75. Andy

    The Libertarian Party is already infiltrated with government plants, and has been since its inception (according to FOIA requests I have heard about from multiple people, including one from 1978 California gubernatorial candidate, and 1980 presidential candidate, Ed Clark). Unfortunately the names of the plants were redacted and nobody bother to do any follow-up investigation. I would have loved to see the rats get outted.

    The establishment clearly upped its infiltration and sabotage game against the LP in the last three presidential elections, due to the growth of the internet and the Ron Paul r3VOLution making libeetarianism more popular, which is why the LP has ended up with such lame candidates who were not really libertarian in those elections.

    The establishment fears an effective Libertarian Party.

    If anyone thinks this is far fetched, keep in mind that the government has already been caught spying on and infiltrating groups that are smaller than the LP.

  76. George Phillies

    Actual Florida vote totals
    Actual Florida vote totals

    Democrat: Margaret Good – 23,054 Votes.

    Republican: James Buchanan – 19,796 Votes.

    Libertarian: Alison Foxall – 1,338 Votes.

  77. Anon-Tipper

    “For electing multiple people, multiple cycles of STV work very poorly–I had to count this for Faculty elections. The Cambridge MA system, while slightly hard to explain actually works decently well.”

    Sorry this reply is kind of late, but thanks I haven’t heard of the Cambridge one before.

  78. Anon-Tipper

    Looks like Marion Marechal-Le Pen is invited to CPAC, another example of why we need to extract ourselves from the right.

  79. paulie

    another example of why we need to extract ourselves from the right.

    They are legion. I’m not sure that anyone who fails to see these myriad reasons already can be convinced by anything whatsoever.

  80. Anon-Tipper

    You’re right, they’re quite attached to the right or it’s more, they’re anti-left to the point of lunacy. The LP should try to get Gary Johnson to not attend (he’s an invited speaker), we really don’t need to go down this path with the right.

  81. paulie

    Johnson emphasized a lot of issues which libertarians and the left share more so than libertarians and the right, though. It’s true he was a Republican governor but within the LP and l-movement he is relatively left-leaning.

    For a better illustration, see how much more skepticism Cynthia McKinney is getting now that she has converted to the LP as opposed to for example Bob Barr or Wayne Root when they were (temporarily) in the LP.

  82. dL Post author

    For a better illustration, see how much more skepticism Cynthia McKinney is getting now that she has converted to the LP as opposed to for example Bob Barr or Wayne Root when they were (temporarily) in the LP.

    Root is the gift that keeps on giving…

  83. Anon-Tipper

    “Johnson emphasized a lot of issues which libertarians and the left share more so than libertarians and the right, though. It’s true he was a Republican governor but within the LP and l-movement he is relatively left-leaning.”

    Oh no, I meant he’s invited to be a speaker at CPAC, I’m worried about libertarians continued association with the right by attending their conferences.

    “For a better illustration, see how much more skepticism Cynthia McKinney is getting now that she has converted to the LP as opposed to for example Bob Barr or Wayne Root when they were (temporarily) in the LP.”

    And it seems she has voted more in favor of libertarian positions when in office than either of them, from what I know.

  84. Anon-Tipper

    I don’t think Johnson was too right, but was commenting on him being invited to CPAC and how conservatives continue to invite us (in general) to their events, and maybe we should be way more skeptical before accepting a speaking invitation or attending such an event so we don’t get caught up in the right’s nonsense. I have no idea if that makes any sense.

  85. paulie

    And it seems she has voted more in favor of libertarian positions when in office than either of them, from what I know.

    Root was never in office. If he had been I’m sure you would be correct.

  86. paulie

    If you actually mean skeptical I think we were a majority. I know some of the people who voted for them were skeptical but got talked into it, or decided that Ruwart was even worse than Barr, or that once Barr was nominated it did not matter who the VP would be, and so on. I guess you can say they were skeptical, but not skeptical enough.

  87. dL Post author

    If you actually mean skeptical I think we were a majority. I know some of the people who voted for them were skeptical but got talked into it, or decided that Ruwart was even worse than Barr, or that once Barr was nominated it did not matter who the VP would be, and so on. I guess you can say they were skeptical, but not skeptical enough.

    I can still recall the Georgia delegation on CSPAN commending Root–after securing the VP nomination– for “saving the party.”

  88. dL Post author

    Oy vey. That would work out really well.

    In the parallel universe where Johnson/Weld win the presidency, Romney would have been all over that. Essentially, a de facto Romney staffed administration. The poor libertarian saps in that universe are now dealing with the consequences of libertarianism eternally discredited. Libertarian==flip flopping republican with a hand out for a corporate subsidy.

  89. dL Post author

    I don’t think Johnson was too right, but was commenting on him being invited to CPAC and how conservatives continue to invite us (in general) to their events, and maybe we should be way more skeptical before accepting a speaking invitation or attending such an event so we don’t get caught up in the right’s nonsense.

    LOLLibertrarian

    1. Trump
    2. Pence
    3. Marion Le Pen
    4. Don McGhan
    5. Rick Perry
    6. Betsy DeVos
    7. Sean Hannity
    8. Ajit Pai
    9. Ted Cruz
    10. John Bolton
    11. Sheriff David Clarke
    12. Wayne La Pierre
    13. Dana Loesch
    14. Nigel Farage
    15. Gov Gary Johnson

  90. Anon-Tipper

    That whole list is just cancerous and now the most recent LP presidential candidate is going to be at the same event as a neo-fascist.

  91. paulie

    I can still recall the Georgia delegation on CSPAN commending Root–after securing the VP nomination– for “saving the party.”

    Didn’t see it on CSPAN since I was there in person, and missed that happening. I remember a bunch of the black hats parading around the hall and chanting “Barr-Root, Barr-Root, Barr-Root” and I chanted back “Boor-Ratt, Boor-Ratt, Boor-Ratt.’ (as in Borat). As with my suggestion of wearing white cowboy hats the counter chant did not take off. Later I found out that we could have actually gotten the white hats easily if only the correct attendees had been connected with that idea. Oh well.

  92. dL Post author

    I don’t know, McKinney is coming off as a conspiracy nut, tweets from RT, sputnik news, and alternative health sites.

    Looking at her recent timeline:
    1) US used bacteria warfare in the Korean war is far from conspiracy tripe. It’s plausible.
    2) The world views US school shootings as blowback from overseas militarism. I imagine that’s probably accurate.
    3) Treating disease with lasers is not “alternative” science. It’s edge science.
    4) Coincidence of federal drills with shootings. She is a truther. I’m not. Well, I’m not a 9-11 truther. However, I have to come to take a default position of pretty much disbelieving anything the State claims about terrorism. The burden is on the state…one that it rarely, if ever, meets. Besides, 9–11 happened a generation ago, and today I would view RussiaTruther conspiracies to be a more insidious thing than 9-11 conspiracies.

  93. paulie

    “libertarians gone wrong” is a quite apt title for those two…

    Or alt right neo-confederates gone far right in a Trumpster fire. Too long, I know.

  94. paulie

    If anyone still thinks Molyneux or Woods are libertarians, there is a fundamental foundational error in your thinking. They are not libertarians gone wrong, you went wrong in thinking they were or are libertarians to begin with. Libertarianism is just their mask or facade. In the case of Woods it is coming off and in the case of Molyneux it already has.

  95. robert capozzi

    Well, PF and dL, I’d say — as a person who has been told I am not a L because I’m too moderate and do not worship at the altar of the NAP — that I’m not willing to say SM and TW are “not L.”

    I would say that I strongly disagree with them both on some issues, so much so that I’d not want to be associated with either of them.

    Woods quoted MNR as saying one is allowed one deviation to remain in the L tent.

    Both TW and SM indicated that there’s some kind of imperative for Ls to take extremist positions. They didn’t bother to justify their views.

  96. Anon-Tipper

    “If anyone still thinks Molyneux or Woods are libertarians, there is a fundamental foundational error in your thinking.”
    “Or alt right neo-confederates gone far right in a Trumpster fire.”

    Let’s get neo-confederate to stick! Thanks for using it!

  97. Thane Eichenauer

    Tom Woods is clearly the secret mastermind behind a vast neo-confederate conspiracy. I hear (the voices in my head) that he managed to persuade Eric July of Backwordz and supposed anarchist without adjectives Michael Malice to appear on his 1,000th episode fandango which I am told inspired a chuckle or five.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGpgnfCENGk
    https://tomwoods.com/ep-1000-roast-of-tom-woods-plus-a-lot-more-episode-1000-live-from-orlando/

    I would never admit to watching that 2.5 hour video more than once as to do so would put me at risk of being mentally suborned by the highly advanced mental persuasion of the vast network of deep cover Soviet agents that allegedly escaped from countries such as Siberia and the Urkaine but who are even now doing the bidding of… THE RUSSIANS!!! Nice try Comrade Malice!

  98. dL Post author

    Well, PF and dL, I’d say — as a person who has been told I am not a L because I’m too moderate and do not worship at the altar of the NAP — that I’m not willing to say SM and TW are “not L.”

    Molyneaux himself has publicly defected from libertarianism(atheism as well). So, no need to to worry about whether you think he is one or not. For Molyneaux, it’s not “what’s wrong with libertarians,” it’s what’s wrong with libertarianism. Libertarianism fails to take into account the social-critical group sensibilities of butthurt white people(particularly, butthurt white christian folk).

    I imagine Woods is positioning himself to take advantage of the attempted Hoppe entryism into the LP. Either way. If the Mises Caucus were to somehow prevail, it would be a great propaganda victory for Woods. If they fail, it provides a pretext for a thousand butthurt social media entries to rile up the snowflakes about the LP’s persecution of Ludwig Von Mises. Win-Win.

  99. robert capozzi

    dL,

    I’ve not seen SM’s defection. IIRC, he claimed to be a NAPster still when Kokesh was on his show.

    I only watch him on occasion, but my impression is that he’s still an atheist, but he seems less militant against Christians and Christianity.

    Do you have a better source for your claims?

  100. Chuck Moulton

    I’m surprised no one here is commenting on the LNC travel reimbursement hoopla playing out on the LNC business list. There have been a crazy number of messages.

    This doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that will come to the JC, so I’ll throw in my 2 cents here.

    The issue is whether Caryn Ann Harlos (and potentially others) should be reimbursed for travel expenses to state conventions for the purpose of signing up national members. She was reimbursed for flights to attend conventions in AZ and WA (both of which are in her region) and was considering doing the same in TX and CA. These trips were at the request of the executive director, and the expense was pre-approved by the LNC chair and treasurer. It will be noted in the treasurer’s report under related party transactions.

    I agree with Joshua Katz that these reimbursements should not be clawed back because there was detrimental reliance: she would not have attended the AZ and WA conventions if not for the promise of reimbursement.

    I am not sure if Joshua Katz is right about corporate law generally requiring disinterested directors to approve related party transactions. He’s probably right… I just haven’t researched it and my corporate law class was more than a decade ago. It probably would be a good policy. It isn’t explicitly in our policy manual — our policy manual only seems to have that policy with respect to contracts.

    I agree with Joshua Katz that the burden should have been on staff to disclose related party transactions. Elizabeth Van Horn seemed to have been attacking Caryn Ann Harlos, when in reality this ought to have been a civil discussion about future policies, not going after someone for past conduct which was technically in compliance with policies.

    All that said, even though what she did wasn’t technically wrong, I think it showed poor judgement and could create a bad perception. Alicia Mattson is right that it gives an exposure advantage to those running for LNC office — even if they have not yet declared. It also helps boost membership numbers in certain states, which gives advantages in forming regions and getting representation on platform and credentials.

    These advantages don’t necessarily mean membership recruitment — or travel reimbursed membership recruitment — shouldn’t be done; rather, it means disclosure should be sought, it would be better if the LNC voted, and the member should try to steer clear from the appearance of impropriety.

    When I was on the LNC we had the give-or-get program to solicit funds from large donors. Travel expenses were sometimes reimbursed. Additionally, as an officer I sometimes made trips on behalf of the LP. In particular, one time I drove to New Hampshire to observe a meeting where they had planned to vote to disaffiliate. Chair Bill Redpath asked me to submit receipts for reimbursement. I did not. I never asked for or received reimbursement while on the LNC — for fundraising or otherwise. When I was chair of the bylaws committee in 2014 I was offered a room upgrade. I declined.

    Wes Benedict claimed that Caryn Ann Harlos had a good ROI. Looking at the actual numbers, I disagree. She may be more effective than others, but it still seems like a loss. He seems to assume the marginal benefit of each membership is $25 and its marginal cost is zero. In reality, things like LP News cost money. Caryn Ann has pointed out that memberships are loss leaders which generate future returns. That is true, but presumably many of the people she signed up were renewals, not completely new prospects.

    I hope the LNC will carefully consider its policies and how it fundraises. There is no need to attack people for their activism. The LNC should spend its money wisely. It should not be penny wise and pound foolish though… sometimes you need to spend money to make money.

  101. dL Post author

    I only watch him on occasion, but my impression is that he’s still an atheist, but he seems less militant against Christians and Christianity.

    Hmmm, I see, you rarely follow or keep up with Molyneux, but you just happened to run across this video on the same day it was published on Youtube. A discernible fellow might get the possible impression that you are a subscriber.

    Do you have a better source for your claims?

    Bob, since you were able to locate this video, I’m sure you can find the one he published where he announced his divorce.

  102. Andy

    “paulie
    February 24, 2018 at 04:19
    If anyone still thinks Molyneux or Woods are libertarians, there is a fundamental foundational error in your thinking. They are not libertarians gone wrong, you went wrong in thinking they were or are libertarians to begin with. Libertarianism is just their mask or facade. In the case of Woods it is coming off and in the case of Molyneux it already has.”

    There is a flaw in the thinking of anyone who thinks that they are not libertarian, especially when it comes to Woods. I can see giving Molyneux some crap for getting behind Trump, but he only did so because he perceived Trump to be the “lesser of two evils” as compared to Hillary (whether or not Hillary was more evil is open to debate), and he thought that Hillary was going to destroy civilization. Woods never endorsed Trump. The last candidate for President that Woods endorsed was Ron Paul.

    If Molyneux, and his entire body of work, are to be condemned for endorsing Trump as a “lesser of two evils” candidate, then everyone who voted for/endorsed the Gary Johnson/Bill Weld ticket ought to be equally condemned. If Johnson had been elected, Bill Weld would be more than his Vice President (keep in mind that Bill Weld recently said that he thinks that the US government should “sabre rattle” and show its military might by engaging in air strikes from time to time), he’d be his co-President, as Johnson said he’d elevate Weld to this status. Johnson said that he’d nominate Mitt Romney for Secretary of State, and I recall the list of people that he and Weld intended to offer appointments as judges to not being very libertarian, if they were libertarian at all. It is a good thing that Gary Johnson was not elected President, as if he had been, it would have permanently discredited the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism (not that Johnson/Weld actually represented libertarianism, but most of the public would not understand this, and would just assume that since they were Libertarian Party candidates, that they must actually represent libertarianism).

    I don’r automatically throw people out if I have one, or even a few, disagreements with them. I generally agree with Larken Rose, but I have a few disagreements with him. I still value his overall body of work even though I have a few disagreements with him (I probably agree with him like 98-99% of the time).

    If I threw a tantrum and threw people under the bus for having a disagreement with me, I probably would not support anyone, because I could find something to disagree with everyone on.

    I’m generally willing to work with people, unless they are complete frauds, like Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Bob Barr, or somebody else like that.

  103. dL Post author

    I’m surprised no one here is commenting on the LNC travel reimbursement hoopla playing out on the LNC business list. There have been a crazy number of messages.

    Well, Chuck, I for one don’t typically begin my day by firing up the ole LNC News threads. I will only say that I’m not surprised that Harlos once again is “truly and deeply offended.” I’m not an expert in the economics of fundraising, but it seems to me to be a bit passe to rely on face -to-face appeals in the age of the online submission form(unless, of course, we are talking big ticket donations, which typically happen at events expressly for the purpose of big ticket donations). However, it should be apparent to any libertarian, whether one is fluent in the economics of fundraising or not, that this could be easily abused to organize a personal power base(the coalition of the truly and deeply offended) at general expense.

  104. robert capozzi

    dL: A discernible fellow might get the possible impression that you are a subscriber.

    me: You are discerning in this case. I do subscribe to SM’s channel along with many others; I rarely watch his stuff. The pic of GJ caught my attention.

    Searching SM’s channel, I see his entitled “Why I am not a L” from 6 years ago, but then I see him doing “L-ism: An Introduction” 4 years ago. The dude’s erratic, although sometimes interesting and sometimes has guests I’d like to see. I definitely recall his telling Kokesh that he’s still a NAP adherent a few months back.

    After our discussion about Tucker Carlson, where you seem to believe that anyone who watches content you disapprove of MUST be somehow in 100% lock-step with these people. It was amusing that you kept ignoring the fact I watch Rachel Maddow, too.

    I like to expose myself to a range of opinions. Works for me!

    Kinda hard for me to understand your perspective, frankly, given your propensity to deflect and evade.

  105. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “After our discussion about Tucker Carlson, where you seem to believe that anyone who watches content you disapprove of MUST be somehow in 100% lock-step with these people. It was amusing that you kept ignoring the fact I watch Rachel Maddow, too.

    I like to expose myself to a range of opinions. Works for me!

    Kinda hard for me to understand your perspective, frankly, given your propensity to deflect and evade.”

    What you are describing is a guilt-by-association tactic. If you like somebody’s work, even if you have one or a few disagreements with whoever it is, a person who uses this tactic will try to find something wrong with whoever it is that you cite as liking their work, and then they will try to demonize you for whatever this thing is, even if you also may disagree with this person on whatever it is.

    The guilt-by-association crowd will also demonize you if you even view content on their “I don’t like that person” list, even if you disagree with whoever the content producer was and you only viewed the content for informational purposes.

  106. dL Post author

    After our discussion about Tucker Carlson, where you seem to believe that anyone who watches content you disapprove of MUST be somehow in 100% lock-step with these people. It was amusing that you kept ignoring the fact I watch Rachel Maddow, too.

    When you watch the content and repeat the arguments with your own fingers, then it is a reasonable inference that you are, um, kind of in lock step.

  107. robert capozzi

    dL,

    But I don’t repeat anywhere near all his arguments. I do “repeat” his point that education costs are not counted in assessing the overall impact of illegal immigration. It makes analytical sense to me to include those costs. If Caplan’s analysis doesn’t include the burden on public school budgets, and even his site suggests that illegal immigrants are a slight net positive economically speaking, adding in a real, significant cost could well tip the balance to a slight net negative.

    There’s probably something to TC’s point that illegal aliens could suppress wages of lower-skilled American citizens.

    Other than that, I can’t think of areas of immigration policy that I found TC’s thoughts on immigration helpful.

    I’ve often thought it makes some sense to have a check-in for security reasons, long prior to my sometimes watching TC. But I don’t feel super-strongly about it, and I might be convinced that it’s simply not worth the cost of doing so, even factoring in the signaling value of requiring a security check-in.

    Here I think Andy’s onto something. But I think it could be labeled guilty-by-partial-association. If I agree with TC 1/5th of the time, I must be an apostate in dL’s estimation! 😉

  108. robert capozzi

    And that I agree with Rachel Maddow 1/5th of the time must set off some serious deviationist alarms for you, yes, dL?

  109. dL Post author

    And that I agree with Rachel Maddow 1/5th of the time must set off some serious deviationist alarms for you, yes, dL?

    No, I’m not a snowflake. If you were here posting Carlson/Molyneux talking points AND Maddow talking points, I would think you were just trolling, which to some extent is what I used to think you were doing. That is, until you started up with Condo Homeowner Taxpayer Association stuff and then let slip what you really felt about the Syrian war refugee migration into European countries. Then my HoppeBot detection antennae perked up…

  110. paulie

    Molyneaux himself has publicly defected from libertarianism(atheism as well). So, no need to to worry about whether you think he is one or not. For Molyneaux, it’s not “what’s wrong with libertarians,” it’s what’s wrong with libertarianism. Libertarianism fails to take into account the social-critical group sensibilities of butthurt white people(particularly, butthurt white christian folk).

    I imagine Woods is positioning himself to take advantage of the attempted Hoppe entryism into the LP. Either way. If the Mises Caucus were to somehow prevail, it would be a great propaganda victory for Woods. If they fail, it provides a pretext for a thousand butthurt social media entries to rile up the snowflakes about the LP’s persecution of Ludwig Von Mises. Win-Win.

    Bingo.

  111. paulie

    I can see giving Molyneux some crap for getting behind Trump,

    That’s not even scratching the surface.

    but he only did so because he perceived Trump to be the “lesser of two evils” as compared to Hillary

    Baloney. He did it because he is excited that his no longer latent white nationalist and otherwise bigoted views finally had a champion with a plausible shot at the presidency.

    If Molyneux, and his entire body of work, are to be condemned for endorsing Trump

    His entire body of work should have and was condemned long before that and has only spun further into the far right fever swamps since.

  112. paulie

    he managed to persuade Eric July of Backwordz

    The black guy who says nazis can be libertarian? I believe that is an exact quote, or at least that was what I was told.

  113. paulie

    my HoppeBot detection antennae perked up…

    I doubt it. Pretty sure Capozzi is on the Cato/Reason side of the split with Rothbard and minions. I believe Rothbard personally branded him a loyal cog of the Kochtopus, well before my time but I read a digital scan of the original print rag rage many years after the fact.

  114. robert capozzi

    dL: until you started up with Condo Homeowner Taxpayer Association stuff and then let slip what you really felt about the Syrian war refugee migration into European countries. Then my HoppeBot detection antennae perked up…

    Me: PF is correct. I’m far closer to the Orangeline Mafia. I’m certainly not a HoppeBot. I’ve never read Hoppe, and from what I know of him, I’m no fan.

    I don’t recall TC (Carlson) mentioning condo associations…does he use that or an equivalent? I think I first heard that metaphor from a TX L who might be characterized as a constitutionalist L. I didn’t buy it at the time. I think the influence comes from neo-Georgists I encountered around Michael Strong and John Mackey’s FLOW group, whom isn’t strictly a neo-Georgist, I don’t think, but who is sympathetic to their thought system.

    Maddow doesn’t discuss immigration much if at all, so it’s no surprise that she has no influence on me on that issue. I have sometimes asked questions TC might ask about immigration because I’m curious how a NAPster might respond. Don’t assume that all my questions reveal a bias. My process involves looking at issues from a range of perspectives and eliminating those that don’t work as I stumble toward truth, with any luck.

    As for Syrian refugees, jeez, I don’t have much if any view on the matter. I’m wracking my brain trying to recall what I might have said on the subject. Is there a correct position on the matter? Should the US take ALL Syrian refugees? None? Should US taxpayers pay for their relocation, education, housing, food?

    I’d think that the NAPster position would be As many as all, with no incremental costs to US taxpayers, yes? I’m not sure that’s viable and realistic, since I don’t think there’s a way to immunize taxpayers at this time from the additional costs.

  115. robert capozzi

    In light of Parkland, is now the time for Ls and the LP to re-legalize automatic weapons?

  116. Libertydave

    robert capozzi, you stated that you “repeat” his point that education costs are not counted in assessing the overall impact of illegal immigration.

    Illegal immigrants pay into the education system as much as everybody else. Schools get there funding from property taxes. Property tax is included in rentals, if you rent a place to live, you are paying taxes into the school system.

    Our free education system isn’t free. We all pay for it, including illegal immigrants, unless we are homeless.

  117. robert capozzi

    LD,

    I’ve not said otherwise. The question is: Is the education of illegal immigrant children fully paid for by their taxes, or are they subsidized?

    The estimates that Caplan and others don’t account for education costs at all. Since average annual costs per student is in the $11-12K, odds are high that illegal immigrants are likely being subsidized.

    I’m not sure Caplan’s calculations include health care services, either.

  118. Andy

    That is no different than if the present day USA waa all private property (owned by the descendants of those who founded and built the country), and the private property owners were kicking trespassers off of their private property.

    Also, if an American goes into say Mexico or any other country in violation of that country’s laws, they will be jailed and deported as well.

    I just got back from Mexico, and Mexican government officials checked my passport, and I had to go through the Mexican version of the TSA. I also had to fill out a form telling the Mexican government officials why I was entering Mexico, how long I was going to be there, and where I was staying. There were Mexican government officials with guns at the airport. A couple of Americans who were in line with me had their bags opened up and their stuff rummaged through by the Mexican version of the TSA (I do not think they found anything incriminating).

    The hotel I staid at in Mexico gave wristbands to hotel guests, and they checked wristbands when you entered the hotel or used the hotel’s facilities (like if you wanted a to well, etc…). The hotel was guarded by men with machine guns.

  119. Andy

    Every country in the world deports people who violate their border crossing/immigration laws. Even on North Sentinel Island, home of perhaps the most backward and isolated tribe of people in the world, if an outsider comes to their island, they meet them with extreme violence, throwing spears and rocks at them.

    If we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, this same function would be done by private property owners, who may employ private security guards.

    Mexico Deports Thousands of Central Americans Back to Conflict-Ridden Countries: Report

    https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Mexico-Deports-Thousands-of-Central-Americans-Back-to-Conflict-Ridden-Countries-Report-20180124-0014.html

  120. robert capozzi

    aj,

    I note the mother’s reprise here: Just because “everyone else is doing it” is not an excuse for bad behavior.

    The question is: Is deportation under certain circumstances justified? I’d say Probably yes.

    dL maintains that anyone has the right to go anywhere anytime. I’m not sure how he (?) justifies such an outlying position, but it does strike me as politically non-viable.

  121. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    February 27, 2018 at 19:04
    ‘aj,

    I note the mother’s reprise here: Just because ‘everyone else is doing it’ is not an excuse for bad behavior.

    The question is: Is deportation under certain circumstances justified? I’d say Probably yes.”

    Considering the fact that a super-majority of modern day immigrants use welfare (higher rate than the domestic population), and that after becoming “citizens” they vote in super-majority numbers to increase the welfare state and increase gun control laws (both at rates higher than the domestic population), I’d say that there are very good reasons to throw people out. There is also the increased rates in crime that some immigrant groups bring.

    People who don’t or can’t defend their property are people who are asking to be conquered, or demographically replaced (which is another form of conquest).

    Part of the globalist/commie agenda is to flood European based countries with large numbers of migrants, mostly from the 3rd world, in order to destroy these countries. This is all being done by design, and it does not have a damn thing to do with libertarianism, it is actually anti-liberty.

    Just because the government is performing a function, it does not mean that the function is not legitimate, and that there would not be a demand for said function in a free market society. There would still be a market demand to defend property, and to regulate the migration/immigration onto property, even in an anarcho-capitalist society.

    I agree that coercive government is not the best or most ideal way to organize society, but the reality in which we live is that the world is organized into coercive governments, and I don’t see libertarians changing that any time soon, and declaring “open borders” into democratic welfare states with forced association laws and public property, which attracts large numbers of people with hostile ideologies (as in people who are not remotely libertarian), is not a path to more freedom, it is a path to destruction, and this is exactly why this is an issue stance that is pushed by New World Order globalists and Marxists.

  122. dL Post author

    dL maintains that anyone has the right to go anywhere anytime. I’m not sure how he (?) justifies such an outlying position, but it does strike me as politically non-viable.

    hmmm, just waiting for the local klavern to show up as an excuse to restart that rebutted argument?

  123. DJ

    The times they are a-changing- adapt or die. It’s called life. The boat of freedom sailed a long time ago.
    It left port before the ink was dry on The Constitution. 242 years since havoc was created- chaos has ensued-catastrophe is inevitable. There is no time line assigned. Nature will run its course. It can’t be stopped. It can only be dealt with- minimized, with knowledge, founded in Truth because Truth is constant.

    Worrying yourself silly over what you can’t control won’t turn out well for yourself or those you hold dear.
    Be constructive. Be positive. Focusing on a perceived problem begets perceived problems which ultimately lead no where. Focus on what you can control- leaving your space a little better than you found it. It’s not about what you can get others to do, but, what you can get yourself to do.

  124. robert capozzi

    DJ: Focus on what you can control- leaving your space a little better than you found it.

    me: Wonderfully well put. NAPsters seem to reject this counsel. They don’t seem to focus on what they can control; they offer profound, civilization-changing remedies based on one principle.

    It’s a set-up for failure and disappointment.

  125. paulie

    Part of the globalist/commie agenda is to flood European based countries with large numbers of migrants, mostly from the 3rd world, in order to destroy these countries.

    It’s official, Andy believes in “white genocide” conspiracy theory. Not that it was in any real doubt before.

  126. paulie

    That is no different than if the present day USA waa all private property (owned by the descendants of those who founded and built the country), and the private property owners were kicking trespassers off of their private property.

    You know better than that. Treating the entire country as the de facto property of the regime is as far from libertarian as you can possibly get. Mix that with the “white genocide” crap you are parroting and you may as well have a swastika armband and a tiki torch as you march down the street chanting “Jews will not replace us,” “blood and soil,” “Heil Hoppe” and “Russia is our friend”…

  127. robert capozzi

    pf: Treating the entire country as the de facto property of the regime is as far from libertarian as you can possibly get.

    me: Not sure if that’s a fair characterization of AJ’s view, but we could view public property as the public’s property. That IS the de facto treatment now. The “regime” serves as hired property management.

    Ideally, there could be another configuration that works better. Comparing the current set-up with a speculative construct that perhaps 1% of the population at most buys into is where the NAPster approach goes off the rails. It’s an ineffective attempt at social engineering!

  128. paulie

    Yeah, we’re not going to agree on that and we’ve been over it more times than I count. At some point I get tired of repeating myself and that point has long passed.

  129. paulie

    Not sure if that’s a fair characterization of AJ’s view

    Why not?

    Andy’s argument is that white people, especially Northwest Europeans, are the ones who “built this country” and therefore the regime is a reasonable proxy for private property owners in carrying out deportations, nation of origin migration quotas etc. He is basically saying that the white race, or a subset of the white race, as a collective built this country and therefore their descendents collectively “own” it, and the regime thus has property rights as a proxy for these whites.

    This is, of course, collectivist nonsense. The labor of black slaves and their descendents has done a lot to build this country. The efforts of different groups of Latinos, especially but certainly not only in areas that used to be part of Mexico and/or the Spanish Empire before they were part of the US, did a lot to build this country. Chinese-Americans helped build the railroads among many other things, and on and on and on. Different waves of immigrants, including the current one, has done a lot to build this country. All throughout the history of the US and long before it existed all sorts of different nationalities and so-called races intermarried throughout this country or areas that later became part of it. The country itself is just a part of the North American landmass that’s claimed as its turf by the ruling regime gang; in no way whatsoever is it even remotely akin to private property, any more than whatever areas of a city are claimed as turf by any particular street gang legitimately belong in any way to that gang.

    Andy believes that “globalist/marxists” (or in the more honest language of the people he gets these toxic ideas from – variously, “zionists,” “khazars” or “jews”) have some conspiracy to import “third world,” that is non-white, people to outnumber, conquer or blend out through intermarriage/interbreeding, the white race in “white countries,” including the US. This is of course also nonsense. The fact is, and always was, that people move from areas that are more poor, discriminatory, dictatorial and war-torn to areas that are less so.

    Thus, for example, few people move to Russia or Eastern Europe, except for people from places that are even more poor, such as other former Soviet Republics. Russians and Eastern Europeans frequently move to Western Europe and the US, but the reverse is not nearly as true: very few Western Europeans or USians move to Russia or Eastern Europe. Countries such as Qatar and United Arab Emirates are not what Andy’s sources call “white countries,” but they have a lot of immigrants from other parts of the world, because they are relatively wealthy. There is a lot of immigration – often illegal – from, say, Myanmar (formerly Burma) to Thailand, or from one country in South America to another, and so on. Again for the same reasons.

  130. paulie

    People pick up and move themselves. They are not “imported” or moved around by some conspiracy, they make individual decisions that their children will be better off in some other country. The same factors drive internal migration within any nation-state. “Okies” were not part of a Marxist plot to reduce the Mexican and Asian percentages of the population of California, they were people fleeing economic and environmental devastation for a better life.

    Andy’s arguments derive from racist, collectivist sources. They rely on collectivist “logic” to excuse authoritarian policies carried out by regime gangs using their guns and troops paid for by tax victims under the threat of force being also employed against them by the same regime gang to enforce the same illegitimate “property” rights that, if they existed, would likewise justify the same regime taxing, regulating and micromanaging everything within the turf it claims even far more so than now.

    This poison was artificially injected into the libertarian movement by Rothbard, Rockwell and their followers starting in the 1980s and it needs to be cut out of the libertarian movement completely and immediately like the life-threatening malignant cancer that it is. There can be no peaceful coexistence between libertarianism and fascist, collectivist blood and soil pigshit which is being imported by a conspiracy of “paleo” “libertarians,” cryptofascists and out in the open nazis in order to conquer, overwhelm and ideologically interbreed libertarianism out of existence. The “paleo” tendency must immediately be recognized and treated as a life threatening parasitic infection and radical treatment to remove it is called for immediately, with no assurance of success, as it may well already be to late.

  131. robert capozzi

    pf,

    What I found as unfair to AJ was this: “Treating the entire country as the de facto property of the regime is as far from libertarian as you can possibly get.”

    It’s highly uncharitable of you as I see it, since I offer a far-more-grounded-in-reality framing of public property as the public’s property. This framing doesn’t foreclose the possibility and desirability of privatizing even all property. It simply recognizes the reality that we are NOWHERE NEAR that condition.

    I share your concern about NAPsters like Cantwell and Mises crowd’s increasing alt-right-ization. AJ seems to be moving in that direction, too. My contention is that — probably on an emotional, sometimes unconscious, level — NAPsters are attracted to extremism and us v them thinking as much as they are for well-reasoned moral thought.

    Extremism for extremism’s sake seems to co-exist with applied NAP extrapolations.

    My hypothesis is that the NAPster mind recognizes that NAP nirvana does not exist and that if anything we are moving away from their ideal. Rather than challenging their construct, they lash out at the cognitive dissonance that this condition creates in their minds, wanting a major break in the status quo in the hopes that disruptive crisis creates opportunities.

    It’s a revolution model, one that has far more downside than the NAPster seems willing to admit.

  132. Andy

    Every country in the world treats the property of the regime as its property. That is the way that the world is presently arranged.

    Forced association, particularly of people with hostile ideologies, is about as in libertarian as you can get, and this is exactly what the “open Borders” crowd pushes. It is no coincidence that this issue is pushed by CFR and the Bilderberg Group and Marxist groups like Socialist International.

    The real libertarian solution is not to open the borders, but rather to turn all land over to private property owners and to abolish the state and transition to a private property anarcho-capitalist society, which would have private property borders.

  133. Andy

    Robert, I have not moved in any direction. I have had the same views for a long time. It has been many years since I changed any issue stances.

  134. Anon-Tipper

    “The “paleo” tendency must immediately be recognized and treated as a life threatening parasitic infection and radical treatment to remove it is called for immediately, with no assurance of success, as it may well already be to late.”

    What do you think are remedies for this? I’ve seen that Cato is trying to alienate them more lately, they recently had a talk on Douglass and in it they told off neo-confederate “libertarians.” Reason had made some videos making fun of the alt-right (and they were then hammered by triggered Lauren Southern fans). That’s obviously not enough, but helps with some PR issues (as in, “no, we’re not mixed in with the alt-right, look at all these talks/videos we have”).

    What do you think the LP specifically could do? As I fear that they are targeting it to gain political power as there’s a real chance libertarians could get elected if the D’s and R’s continue on the way they are. I think Florida needs to be totally cutoff and maybe even any of their members that have positions at the national level too. (And the veteran caucus, which seems to be another one of their arms).

    I’m also getting worried, because from what I remember when I followed the election results in last November, the states where libertarian candidates did the best were Florida and Pennsylvania (Scheetz from PA endorsed Augustus, so I’ve been wondering if there’s a potential cancer growing in that state too).

    Do you think that we’re going to experience a “self purge” of alt-righters and they seem so prominent right now because they’re trying to hold on? Or are they ramping up to move in and totally infiltrate?

    idk, I’m just getting very worried as I think you and other’s here that this issue will not be addressed and it can ruin our movement.

  135. Andy

    The Japanese people built Japan and they have lived there for centuries (I do not know how long, but it must be for a long time). I do not believe that the Japanese have any obligation to declare “open borders” and allow mass numbers of people from around the world to enter Japan, become Japanese citizens, and start gaining political power, and eventually get to the point where they start displacing the Japanese peolple, but of course the Japanese are not foolish enough to allow this to happen.

  136. robert capozzi

    aj: It has been many years since I changed any issue stances.

    me: Sorry to hear that. I relish making adjustments to my thinking as facts change and I gain new perspectives. Sounds kinda boring for you.

    I’m not monitoring Andy-grams all that closely, but you do seem to expound on immigration issues a lot more in the past 2 years or so. You seem to link a lot more to shady, alt-right URLs more, too.

    I could be misperceiving this, but it is my current perception.

  137. Andy

    I have been talking about immigration for a long time. Maybe the issue seems to have gotten bigger recently, but I am not really saying anything differently than what I said 15 plus years ago.

    I even thought there were problems associated with it in the mid to late 1990’s, but I figured that a lot of those problems would be resolved once Libertarians got rid of the welfare state. We see how that has worked out thus far.

    I have been involved in politics for a long time, and I put a lot of thought into it. I do constantly challenge myself and examine issues, but it has been more than a decade since I changed or modified any issue stances. Most of my big issue changes happened in the early or mid 1990’s.

  138. Chuck Moulton

    As usual Paulie is 100% correct and Andy is 100% wrong. It’s too bad Andy keeps repeating all of the garbage that has been refuted hundreds of times and never bothers to read the extensive literature linked to over and over again by Paulie proving Andy is factually wrong (aka making shit up).

  139. paulie

    As usual Paulie is 100% correct and Andy is 100% wrong. It’s too bad Andy keeps repeating all of the garbage that has been refuted hundreds of times and never bothers to read the extensive literature linked to over and over again by Paulie proving Andy is factually wrong (aka making shit up).

    I rarely bother to repeat this stuff anymore. It’s like talking to a brick wall. What’s the point? It’s like trying to discuss issues with the perpetual motion energizer bunny of the most repulsive bullshit imaginable.

  140. paulie

    The Japanese people built Japan and they have lived there for centuries

    Whereas the US has never been an ethnically based nation, it’s always from the beginning been a multi-ethnic and multi-racial melting pot with settlers and refugees from every part of Europe, Native Americans, Africans, Mestizos in areas that later became part of the US, Native Hawaiians, Native Alaskans, etc, etc. Thus, the “blood and soil” BS is particularly ridiculous in the US, a nation based from the very beginning on the idea that we can all escape from and transcend that bloody, soiled garbage.

    Instead of attempting to bring that bleeding crap here, why not continue to shine a beacon for the rest of the world as the Statue of Liberty symbolizes, helping the rest of the world rise above petty blood and soil hatred and primitive tribalism rather than being dragged down into that same ugly and disgusting bloody gutter?

  141. paulie

    What do you think are remedies for this? I’ve seen that Cato is trying to alienate them more lately, they recently had a talk on Douglass and in it they told off neo-confederate “libertarians.” Reason had made some videos making fun of the alt-right (and they were then hammered by triggered Lauren Southern fans). That’s obviously not enough, but helps with some PR issues (as in, “no, we’re not mixed in with the alt-right, look at all these talks/videos we have”).

    Dunno. Physical removal could be considered defensive force at this point, perhaps. I saw someone suggest slipping laxatives in their drinks and itchy powder in their shorts, but I think that person may have been joking. I wish I knew. Suggestions welcome.

    Ridicule and loud, total dissociation are good places to start.

    Do you think that we’re going to experience a “self purge” of alt-righters and they seem so prominent right now because they’re trying to hold on? Or are they ramping up to move in and totally infiltrate?

    It could be either one. One thing for sure, either they will need to go or we will. The time for any co-existence or cooperation with them has long passed. It’s them or us, but it can’t be both in the same party or using the same term to describe how we identify politically.

    idk, I’m just getting very worried as I think you and other’s here that this issue will not be addressed and it can ruin our movement.

    Exactly.

  142. Anon-Tipper

    paulie: “Dunno. Physical removal could be considered defensive force at this point, perhaps.”

    Mostly disaffiliation and membership removal, but I don’t think many people would get on board with something like that and would rather allow the cancer to spread up to the national level and other state parties. I don’t think it makes any sense to run a party like a country, a large company wouldn’t just let a subsidiary totally change their brand, product, marketing, etc. they allow a good amount of discretion, but will ultimately rein it in if shit goes sideways.

    And starting up a caucus, group, etc. to publish educational material for members; how to spot fascism, symbols, language, arguments they use (so stuff like the closed borders, culture argument being a dog whistle, use of the phrase “cultural marxism,” Rock against communism, etc.), organizations they’re part of (American Guard, militia groups). Material on how to document and report violent threats that these people have done. This group could then put pressure at the national level to deal with states that have been compromised, and maybe if (that’s a big if) enough people are aware of the entryists, they won’t be able to claim plausible deniability based on people’s ignorance.

    I haven’t thought much of it completely through. A lot of the above has already been done, but it’s scattered throughout articles here and the Libertarians against Fascism profiles and some individuals, it probably mostly just needs to be collected and put in a central location that can easily point people to. And most people don’t have the time for this.

  143. Thane Eichenauer

    Anon-Tipper,
    It’s all clearly a vast fascist conspiracy controlled by a vast communist conspiracy. If nobody can Rock Against Communism without being disparaged as an evil, neo-fascist racist then the communists will have it all sewn up.
    P.S. Nobody go see Death Wish (2018 film) with Bruce Willis. It doesn’t really matter why you would want to see the movie because the important thing is that you drink down a cold 32oz mug of philosophical spite for gun owners.
    https://ijr.com/2018/03/1072042-death-wish-evil-racist-nra/

  144. Anon-Tipper

    Well the Rock against Communism genre has several neo-fascist bands, they don’t really hide it. It’s a well know white-supremacist genre. But you probably already know that. I have no idea what the Death Wish link is suppose to be about, does it have anything to do with ROC?

  145. dL Post author

    If nobody can Rock Against Communism without being disparaged as an evil, neo-fascist racist then the communists will have it all sewn up.

    lol…i’ve never heard of the genre. Without wikipedia, I would have thought one was referring to The Scorpions Eastern European tour in the early 90s. Having read the wikipedia entry, I put it there with Rock Against Satan. lame

Leave a Reply

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