Nathan Davis: ‘LNC Proposal Rejects Classical Liberalism in Startling Reversal on Revolutionary Era Values’

An image of an earth globe sitting in a field of grass displaying two quotes by Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

This post originally appeared on the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party Facebook Page. Its author, Nathan Davis, is a member of the national Libertarian Party and the caucus’s Oklahoma LP-LSC Affinity Group. It is a response to a recent “Property Rights Resolution” that has ignited a firestorm of debate across the party. The vote’s outcome can be viewed here.

Nathan Davis writes:

While the chairman has provided quite appropriate leadership in criticizing its either clear redundancy, inappropriateness, and/or divisiveness, I would like to call attention to the particular content of the recent McCarthyist resolution by Libertarian Party officials, clearly designed to intimidate fellow members and newcomers to the libertarian party.

The authors of the resolution claim to uphold the “free market”, to respect that which is “an extension of the individual”, and to respect “agreement by all parties”, yet in no place in such resolution do we find explicit references to the established libertarian and classical liberal principle of “equality of liberty”, or as Jefferson stated “equal rights for all — special privileges for none”. Nor do we see explicit reference to the long-established “labor theory of property” that unites nearly all libertarian theory, nor respect for the rich diversity of thought contained therein.

Do not individuals have a natural right to equal liberty? Do not all individuals have natural, equal rights to the earth and to the product of their labor, regardless of statist monopoly, privilege, and authority?

Instead we find a call to uphold “lawful libertarian means”, despite the fact that existing property relationships upheld by force of law are the product of privilege and monopoly and bear almost zero resemblance to actually authentic libertarian relations by any internally consistent theory. Instead we find a conservative appeal to the authority of one size fits all, statist legal monopolies, and our non-consensual social contracts with these systems standing in by fiat. Instead we hear calls to centrally plan and mandate what interpersonal dispute resolution for what the proper beginnings and ends of the “extensions of individuals” in non bodily property must look like. And this rather than to embrace the diversity and decentralized knowledge that a truly freed market of non state, voluntarily supported, poly centric common law courts would provide when weighing the facts on the ground and considering the perspectives of all concerned parties.

In insinuating that all libertarians must support the fiat enforcement of perpetual claims to property in land throughout all time, the authors seem to insist that we must bear no regard to the Lockean, classically liberal principles of “enough, and as good as left for others” and any various theories to satisfy this requirement. Must all libertarians bear no regard for the Lockean and classically liberal principles of the “spoilage” of untended lands, their constructive abandonment, and the right of adverse possession? Must we bear no regard for new laborers and transformers of the land and their own claims regarding what they would consider direct “extensions” of themselves and their labor? Where is this claimed “agreement by all parties”? And how can we justify prioritizing lawful “purchase”, over and against actual on the ground questions of laborers, occupants and homesteaders working the land?

The authors appear even to lend support to the bribing of statist monopolies for the enforcement of preempted, fiat territorial claims on non homesteaded (i.e. vacant, unimproved) land, the non libertarian practice condemned by Murray Rothbard – a founder of the Libertarian Party, who made it clear we must oppose various forms of “land monopoly” with a call to reject not only “feudalistic” arrangements, but any legal claims to vacant, unimproved land as “land engrossment” regardless of titles, purchase, or law. Must all libertarians support the enforcement of prior fiat claims over and against the rights of would be first transformers of vacant, unimproved land? Why should unconsenting third parties support territorial claims to non homesteaded portions of the earth, and what of their own labor, or of “voluntary agreement by all parties”?

Other problems with this resolution include the confused characterization of private property in land as “capital”, even though classical liberals view the means of production as three distinct factors of land, labor, and capital – being, as a resource pre-existing humans and their labor, that there are no labor inputs to the “production” of land. And lastly, the ending summarizing paragraph, in presuming to condemn not only libertarian “socialist and communist property ownership schemes” but also any “incorrect characterizations of private property” along with any “unlawful usurpation of property”, leaves one wondering what precisely the authors stand for, beyond repeated appeals to legal authority and fearful reactionaryism.

Rather than any desire for careful introspection or dialectical dialogue and analysis between diverse libertarian theoretical views committed to the goals of equal liberty, this is all explicitly a slight against libertarian advocates of the internally consistent, labor theory of property known as usufruct or “occupancy and use”, and probably more intentionally as a slight against, as stated, anything sounding “socialist” or “communist”, despite the fact that the “free market” ideology of individualist anarchism – modern American libertarianism’s own claim to the classical libertarian tradition and for what Rothbard stated “nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of the largely forgotten legacy” – was itself considered a “socialist” ideology by adherents.

But what precisely is included in the condemnation of “incorrect characterizations of private property”? Does this document not also throw classical liberals of various stripes under the bus including: non proviso Lockeans, proviso Lockeans, geolibertarians, and a wide variety of, yes, usufruct advocates such as mutualist, who in large numbers in the party alongside geolibertarians see their particular property theory advocacy as a commitment to the spirit of the Lockean proviso and the law of equal liberty? Must we be opposed to Lockeanism in holding an understanding of the earth as held by all in common (understood by some as a form of “social ownership”)?

What of Thomas Paine and of Thomas Jefferson, in whose names the Libertarian Party bestows awards, and their claims that:

  • “Men did not make the earth, and though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it” (Paine), or
  • “A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment… He who plants a field keeps possession of it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it“, and “whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on.” (Jefferson)?

What of statements by J.S. Mill or Herbert Spencer:

  • “The essential principle of property being to assure to all persons what they have produced by their labor and accumulated by their abstinence, this principle cannot apply to what is not the product of labor, the raw material of the earth.”, “When land is not intended to be cultivated, no good reason can in general be given for its private property at all.” “When the sacredness of property is talked of, it should always be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property. No man made the land.” (Mill)?
  • “The right of each man to use of the earth, limited only by the like rights of his fellow-men, is immediately deducible from the law of equal freedom. We see that the maintenance of this right necessarily forbids private property in land. On examination, all existing titles to such property turn out to be invalid.” “You have turned over the soil to a few inches in depth with a spade or a plough; you have scattered over this prepared surface a few seeds; and you have gathered the fruits which the sun, rain, and air helped the soil to produce. Just tell me, if you please, by what magic have these acts made you sole owner of that vast mass of matter, having for its base the surface of your estate, and for its apex the centre of the globe? … You say truly, when you say that ‘whilst they were unreclaimed these lands belonged to all men.’ And it is my duty to tell you that they belong to all men still; and that your ‘improvements’ as you call them, cannot vitiate the claim of all men. You may plough and harrow, and sow and reap ; you may turn over the soil as often as you like; but all your manipulations will fail to make that soil yours, which was not yours to begin with… This extra worth which your labour has imparted to it is fairly yours… but admitting this, is quite a different thing from recognising your right to the land itself.” (Spencer)?

Is this resolution not just an affront to radicals and the whole of classical libertarianism, the latter of which was itself birthed as a call of support for the equal liberty of laborers against the presence of statist monopoly, but also an affront to classical liberalism itself?

What one is inclined to suspect is that the strong need to declare opposition to more libertarians of various stripes committed to seeking the principles of equal liberty joining the party is more likely an opposition to the fundamental principle of equal liberty itself. And given recent widespread apologism for the welcoming of racists, bigots, xenophobes, and nationalists into the party, who have little to no interest in the equal liberty of all, and the sudden need to prioritize the condemnation of more egalitarian minded libertarians such a hunch would make sense.

Yet the ideologies of “liberty for me and not for thee” are destined to fail, while those of us committed to making this world a place of maximal and equal liberty for all are destined to succeed, for we recognize our mutual liberty and well-being are bound up together.

Source for Quotes: http://earthfreedom.net/lvt-advocates

110 thoughts on “Nathan Davis: ‘LNC Proposal Rejects Classical Liberalism in Startling Reversal on Revolutionary Era Values’

  1. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Happily this little Smith/Harlos’ power trip is going down in flames at LNC. They still are trying to organize a resolution that will pass, but most members think the platform has a clear stance on property and aren’t buying into their demogoguery. They want to use the issue, like they used Arvin’s tomfoolery, to stir up their base to attack anyone who doesn’t follow their lead.

    Someone opined somewhere the platform allows some of the interpretations Shipley quotes above. Inferred from “2.8 Marketplace Freedom… We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association…”

    The big issue is confiscation of long unused property. And Jefferson and Paine’s statements, based on a time when Indians owned most of the land and the white man wanted it, should not be taken as a basis of libertarian philosophy. However, Rothbard’s more nuanced approach obviously has more merit.

    The important point in the platform is: “2.0 Economic Liberty – …The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected”.

    Obviously there will be disputes over what is and is not unjust property. Either you need a minimal state to resolve them or some other more voluntary mechanism. The important point is not to see property disputes as an excuse to take up the gun and start violent disputes (whose partial purpose often is to let the males prove their manhood).

    Those being assholes on either side of ideological disputes – or real disputes – over property should just stop and find a mediator who has a broad perspective on the issue. Otherwise it’s just dogs pissing on territory and getting into a fight when pissing doesn’t work. And demogogues taking advantage of the disputes to seek power.

  2. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Oh, yes, here’s the platform quote referring to “justly acquired property” which obviously is relevant. “1.9 Self-Defense – The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression.”

  3. Fred Stein

    Government is growing dangerously while some people are debating fine points. We have alot of work ahead of us before we arrive at a Libertarian society. Who Is John Galt?

  4. Andrew

    @Fred Stein … i don’t see it as much of an issue. It’s perfect for another new party, that’s moderately libertarian, to sweep in and take all of their competent members (there are few unfortunately) and actually win elections.

  5. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    It is important to have a consistent libertarian ideology and not let any high profile individuals or special interest group significantly pervert it. A few noisy socialists aren’t as dangerous as a few noisy abortion prohibitionists or pro-war/pro-foreign country activists or screaming bigots.

    The LNC HAS done relevant resolutions, as that sparked by Wayne Root’s writing “The most important principle is winning.” For example, Root told libertarians to stop criticizing the state of Israel in order to get lots of money from Jewish contributors.

    Nolan present this resolution very pointedly vs Root and his crew (including Aaron Starr and his then crew on the LNC: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/david-nolans-final-resolution/

    A few noisy libsocs macho flashing with statements that clearly infer aggressive violence vs. justly owned property aren’t worth all the attention they are getting. Hopefully, the younger couple flashers soon enough will get bored with it all http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/bootroot/davidnolan.html

  6. SocraticGadfly

    People are still dumb enough fücks to try to be libertarian socialists in today’s wingnut Libertarian Party?

  7. dL

    “(Ground) Rent is theft” is well within the libertarian/classical liberal tradition. Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Henry George, Benjamin Tucker et al. Plus, the resolution could be construed as a full throttle endorsement of Intellectual Property, which is whole different can of worms with no consensus whatsoever.

    I looked this up on the LP mailing list. Harlos claimed the LNC put their foot down with regard to the alt-right. Now it’s time to do the same w/ regard to libertarian socialism. However, I’m not aware of any anti Alt-Right resolution sponsored by Harlos. Or any anti alt-right resolution period from the LNC. Indeed, the term “alt right” doesn’t even show up in the thread list. And I’m pretty sure Harlos didn’t spam members with 70 emails over a 4 day period on the topic of the alt right(like she is doing here) or fill up here timeline with anti alt-right posts. She is a right wing drama queen.

  8. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    By the way, I just wrote on Matt Kuehnel and Macomb County Libs page the following. Why be theoretical? Detroit is giving away land and houses as fixer uppers and anarchists/hippies and alternative types are creating whole communities there. You guys must know some of them doing so.

    And it’s good to live in white minority towns and neighborhoods. I’ve been doing it myself for 45 years. 🙂 https://statisticalatlas.com/county/Michigan/Macomb-County/Race-and-Ethnicity

  9. Paul

    I recall the last LNC refusing to take a stance against addressing alt-right entryism in state and local affiliates. There was a staff statement by Wes Benedict, who later said in an email to the lnc distro that he thought Augustus Sol Invictus was treated unfairly. (Props to Caryn Ann Harlos for being the only person I’ve seen to question Wes Benedict on this, though I don’t think she ever got a response.)

    Interestingly enough, two of the other co-sponsors seem to have a history of defending white nationalists within the Libertarian Party. It’s funny the strange bedfellows conservatives are willing to make to fight a (sometimes pretend) partisan foe. If nothing else it speaks to character and principles, or lack thereof.

    All that being said, I think the resolution needs work if they want to craft a resolution calling for specific property norms and condemning geo-libertarians, syndicalists, mutualists, socialists, communists, and the like – without hilariously seeming to support things like eminent domain, state annexation, etc.

  10. Andy

    What evidence is there of any so called alt-right entyists in the Libertarian Party trying to change the essence of libertarianism, as in like these leftists are doing by rejecting property rights?

    Augustus sol Invictus is an eccentric fellow, but he he is no longer in the Libertarian Party, but when he was, there was nothing in his political stances that really fell far out of libertarianism. He was (and still is, I assume) a minarchist, so if somebody wants to fault him for that, i suppose that is fair game, but lots of Libertarians are minarchists, and as per the Dallas Accord, anarchists and minarchists can coexist in the LP.

    Due to all of the hoopla surrounding Augustus Invictus when he was in the LP, I ended up watching most of his videos, and I agreed with most of his political stances, and I say this as someone who subscribes to the anarcho-capitalist philosophy. He took very strong stances against the War on Drugs, gun control laws, the Federal Reserve System, the income tax, the United Nations, military imperialism, and the welfare state. He said a few things where I disagreed with him, but nothing that would rise to the level of me saying that his views were terrible, or were far outside the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart.

    There was the controversy about him supporting a government forced eugenics program, which i strongly disagree with, but he abandoned that view several years prior to being in the Libertarian Party, and when he was asked about it, he always gave the same answer, as in that he had abandoned that issue stance, and that he believed that that was too much power for government, and that ending the welfare state would achieve the same objective, in that government welfare programs create perverse breeding incentives, and that they make people lazy.

    I have not heard Augustus contradict his revised stance on this issue to this day, unlike say Bill Weld, who claimed that he changed his stance on gun rights and that he had become fully on board with the right to keep and bear arms while he was at the 2016 LP National Convention (he even signed a pledge at the convention to supposedly affirm this), but then not long after the National Convention, while on the campaign trail as the LP’s nominee for Vice President, he started campaigning against tge right to keep and bear arms, by calling for a federal government task force to determine who can own a gun and who can’t, and putting people on “no buy” lists without a trial, and without even informing people that they are on the “no buy” list or why they are on it, and also by calling for so called “assault weapons” to be banned, as well as by saying that handguns were a problem.

  11. Paul

    Oh look, Andy is defending neo-nazis and eugenics apologetics now, somehow claiming Weld to be worse.

    I guess we get to see that libertarian to alt-right pipeline in action once again.

    Pro tip Andy: Mr Holocaust-denying wannabe demigod’s eugenics paper was even named after a famous Hitler speech, and during his 2016 campaign he literally said in campaign literature that ending eugenics was a failure of the federal government. In fact, most of his symbolism, names, and references are straight from the Third Reich. But lol, of course you would jump to his defense.

    He’s also anti-trade and has called for mass deportation and total war on the Muslim world. So I think you might be wrong on most things, as usual.

    Though his only true sin, according to many, was apparently becoming a Republican, lol.

  12. Paul

    Andy,

    Out of curiosity, since you seemed to specify “government forced” when talking about eugenics, which part of that is most upsetting to you? The government part, the forced part, or the eugenics part?

  13. Paul

    Mike,

    Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but I think the title of this article might need some work. It seems to imply that this is a proposal from the LNC, and that it has explicitly rejected classical liberalism. Neither is true. It is a proposal within the LNC, not a proposal from the LNC, and subjectively it may reject an aspect of classical liberalism, no explicitly and completely reject classical liberalism.

    Perhaps the title might be better with the author’s name before his claim:
    Nathan Davis: LNC proposal rejects…

  14. Anthony Dlugos

    “Augustus sol Invictus is an eccentric fellow, but he he is no longer in the Libertarian Party, but when he was, there was nothing in his political stances that really fell far out of libertarianism. ”

    Could rank #1 with a bullet on the list of stupid comments by Andy, and that is quite a list.

  15. DJ

    SMH- Libertarians want people to join their movement? and can’t even agree on what their movement? consists of. LOL- we all know (to be read sarcastically) that the left is pure as the driven snow and the right is evil personified- depending on who is representing what of course. Antifa are saints, nationalist are devils- Hillary is better than Trump blah, blah,blah.

    Y’all blast Andy but side with the left who are in fact the face of evil regardless of what excuse is used. What’s recognized as the left in the US are the faces of what’s wrong with DC and they control the duopoly- the D’s and R’s in this country which represent the left (D) and the right (R) are NO different inside the beltway with policy after policy proving it, and no, rhetorical sound bites don’t count- results are what count and the results are evident- the US left have been behind the ruination of what the founders envisioned and the likelihood of convincing enough of the populace to change the direction of the country that leftist Libertarians desire ain’t gonna happen because- the Left. It’s faces are repugnant, it’s messages is repugnant, it’s results are being lived and pointed out and pushed back against, because- the Left. Leftist Libertarians are (from reading here) as arrogant as the leftist in DC with their holier than thou “we know better” attitude which is what voters are voting against- the Left.

    As for “property”- that ship sailed a long time ago. It exists in name (and memory) only, no matter what the LNC states. It’s a moot point-

  16. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Carol Moore/Secession.net wrote: August 19, 2018 at 13:38
    “Why be theoretical? Detroit is giving away land and houses as fixer uppers and anarchists/hippies and alternative types are creating whole communities there. You guys must know some of them doing so. ”

    While some people have been succeeding despite regulations, it also was pointed out in reply that different government agencies contradict each other so often in what they allow/don’t allow on the “homesteaded” land that it can be more trouble than worth. Sigh…

  17. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    The resolution in question has pretty much FAILED at LNC with August 22 the voting deadline.

    The 5 – 7 troublemakers, led by Ms. Harlos, continue to dominate LNC email list discussing how to accomplish their goal of a passed resolution.

    An email forwarded from former LNC member and Acting Judicial Committee chair Chuck Moulton pretty much cleans the trouble makers clocks…
    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015107.html

  18. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Oh, Great Mother Goddess, Ms. Harlos claims that keeping to the topic, not yapping away, and not trying to control the conversation is a MALE modus operandi. And she’s in a female dominated industrying that acts differently. What bull…. Women (myself and Ms. Harlos aside) usually do write less and keep shorter and to the point, not wanting to take up too much space.

    “And here is the funny thing about all the gendered discussion that has come up recently. I am not even a feminist. I never paid attention to this stuff until it hit me in the face last year when the LNC sat there and let another LNC member basically say to me that my husband will just give me a position and absolutely no discussion was held about that. In fact when I tried to object I was summarily shut down. I didn’t want to escalate as a Policy Manual complaint as I felt it was all unintentional but unintentional sexism is still sexism. It set me down a path of examining inadvertent and unrecognized gender biases in our communications. ” etc etc blah blah

    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015110.html

  19. Libertydave

    I blast Andy because he falsely claims that alt-right statist policies are libertarian. If we have someone from the left that comes here and claims that left statist policies are libertarian then I’ll blast them to.

    The problem with this resolution is that it is a solution in search of a problem. We don’t have a problem with the left libertarian claiming that economic statist policies are really libertarian. We do have a problem with right libertarian claiming that social statist policies are really libertarian.

    This left-right battle is exactly what the powers that be want. It is distracting you from realizing that the republicans and democrats are working together to enslave us all.

  20. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Paulie, I never received a response from Wes.

    Re: Alt-right, when I examined the Ryan Ramsey evidence I sent many emails to the list laying out the case that there was definitely an issue there. I started off not thinking so- Paulie urged me to look closer.

    Now I don’t think it was a Florida-wide existential issue but definitely at least a few loud members – kinda like the situation now.

    I never had to offer a resolution because staff and Nick were on top of it like bosses. Unlike this time. In which more people are involved than in that situation.

    Time will tell. I hope time proves me very wrong or we are in for some dark times. The LP is vulnerable to a major Party split – something I never want to see happen. That’s not new, I think we have been in that vulnerable stage for quite some time.

  21. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Dang… important first sentence of my quoted Ms. Harlos comment fell out, which was “So Chuck while I think there was a lot of good advice that I certainly will take for efficiency reasons, I ask you to consider that you are asking me to communicate like a typical corporate male, and I must decline.” Thus my statement probably now makes more sense: “keeping to the topic, not yapping away, and not trying to control the conversation is a MALE modus operandi.”

    In other words, in real life women on email lists tend to post far less (too little) and yap less, and guys are more free with their words – though not as much as Ms. Harlos’ over-posting! So she’s claiming women who over-post to dominate the discussion are being suppressed by males with her sob story. She is such a hypocrit. My initial complaint about her on the abortion issue.

    Harlos post in question again. http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/08/lnc-proposal-rejects-classical-liberalism/#comment-1869869

  22. Anthony Dlugos

    wow. I gotta laugh.

    Its really poetic justice that the NAPists are getting hoisted with their own petard.

    How do I donate to this libsoc caucus?

  23. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I see above Ms. Harlos doesn’t understand the reply she keeps getting from LNC members and which has been shared by various people on this list:

    It’s an election year! Cut out the internecine battles. A couple loud mouth lefties NOT half as dangerous as a few loud mouthed racists – and media actually is more sympathetic to them.

    But when it’s all about one’s own ego, who cares about other’s responses?

  24. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony Dlugos
    August 20, 2018 at 10:49
    wow. I gotta laugh.
    Its really poetic justice that the NAPists are getting hoisted with their own petard.

    Anthony: Just because Ms. Harlos calls herself “Ms NAP” as she did in a speech at last LP NH convention, doesn’t mean she represents all of those who think the non-aggression principle is useful, a variation on the Golden Rule.

    Of course, Ms. Harlos and the prohibitionists she enables HAVE made me realize that it is important to emphasize that “self-ownership” is the other side of the NAP coin (or ying yang symbol). So you can defend yourself when “pro-lifers” come along and mess with reproductive rights, or “save the babies” people want to force you to give a kidney to one, or people say suicide and assisted suicide should be illegal, etc etc etc.

  25. Paul

    Carryn Ann,

    I don’t think that any statement against the alt-right in the Libertarian Party would have been made had there not been large-scale media attention as was the case when multiple organizers of “Unite the Right” were affiliated (at least at some point) with the libertarian party or movement. Libertarian socialists have made no such grand media notoriety – and if they have, not while being associated with the term “libertarian.” Additionally, the platform explicitly condemns bigotry, but not socialism or communism (albeit perhaps one definition of socialism and communism).

    I don’t think an explicit reaffirmation of property rights – and distancing from certain anarchist factions – in response to a large media event would be controversial (for example, in response to vandalism from a black bloc protest.) And while the platform does mention property rights, it does not give the same specifics that are included in this resolution. Additionally, I think a resolution that gives any deference to the “legal” theft of property could be seen as a violation Dallas Accord.

  26. Anthony Dlugos

    “Just because Ms. Harlos calls herself “Ms NAP” as she did in a speech at last LP NH convention, doesn’t mean she represents all of those who think the non-aggression principle is useful, a variation on the Golden Rule.”

    It IS a useful variation of the Golden Rule. I’m on board with that.

    On the other hand. it’s not just useless in the realm of public policy (what happens when an elected Libertarian is faced with a bill that is partially aggressive and partially aggression reducing?), its foolish consistency makes it counterproductive to getting elected in the first place.

  27. Andy

    Condeming bigotry has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarianism is about property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle, and that is it. Libertarianism has nothing to do with social preferences.

  28. Cody Quirk

    Yep. It looks like we have a serious entryist threat to the LP today, and this time it is coming from the far left.

    I oppose entryism from ANY authoritarian fringe of the ‘political spectrum’, and/or from any group (or a “caucus”) that seeks to distort and alter our party’s principles -especially on private property rights and free enterprise -and change our platform to something that isn’t at all libertarian.

    Once I get my personal life back in order, I intend to get more involved in the LP and work to counter such entryism in our party and keep it strong.

    While there is a risk of a ‘split’ in the LP -its happened before in the past (Boston Tea Party), and the LP will do just fine in the political arena if a faction gets pissed off for not getting their way and decides to go solo.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    “I oppose entryism from ANY authoritarian fringe of the ‘political spectrum’, and/or from any group (or a “caucus”) that seeks to distort and alter our party’s principles -especially on private property rights and free enterprise -and change our platform to something that isn’t at all libertarian.”

    Robert Brewster: Skynet? The virus has infected Skynet?

    John Connor: Skynet IS the virus. It’s the reason everything’s falling apart!

  30. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===Condeming bigotry has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarianism is about property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle, and that is it. Libertarianism has nothing to do with social preferences.===

    It has everything to do with Libertarianism as our Platform has that position.

  31. Andy

    Just because it is in the platform, it does not automatically mean that condeming bigotry has anything to do with actual libertarianism, which is all about property rights and the NAP. Property rights includes the right to discriminate, including because one is a bigot (like a private bake shop owner has the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings because the bake shop owner is a bigot). This is called freedom of association, which also means the right to disassociate.

    Saying that “condemning bigotry” has something to do with libertarianism just because some people who went to a convention voted to put it in the LP platform, is like saying that just because a majority of LP convention delegates voted to make Bob Barr and Bill Weld Libertarian Party candidates, that this means that Bob Barr and Bill Weld are actually libertarians, which if you really believe this, you should beware of people who offer to sell you bridges.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth CAH:

    “The LP is vulnerable to a major Party split – something I never want to see happen.”

    Then why did you introduce a resolution that was essentially a manifesto for such a split?

  33. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Andy, it may not make it about libertarianism but it is about Libertarianism.

  34. Jim

    The first property anyone owns is himself. The concept of individualism cannot be separated from libertarianism.

    But, as Ron Paul says, “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.”

    So, while libertarianism allows for discrimination, those who do so are not acting in accord with libertarianism. They are simply acting as parasites on libertarian tolerance for stupidity, knowing that the NAP prohibits direct action against them. They are like a disgusting oil slick floating on water. Both the oil and water are present, but they don’t mix.

    Racist’s rejection of individualism means that racism and libertarianism are fundamentally incompatible and condemning it very much has to do with libertarianism.

  35. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Steven Nekhaila would be very surprised to learn he was really me Tom.

    I didn’t introduce any resolution. I didn’t write it either other than upon seeing the first draft insist that absolutely voluntary actions must be excepted.

    Like it or not there are others who independently are very concerned who are not my mere doppelgängers.

    And unlike others who must live by perpetual outage, I said my piece, I voted, and I went on to other work.

    Bad, bad, facts.

  36. Anthony Dlugos

    You know, Andy, at least people can respect white nationalists who publicly proclaim their racism. You’re too chickensh*t so you hide behind a convenient philosophy.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Steven Nekhaila would be very surprised to learn he was really me Tom.”

    I apologize — I understood it to have been you. In fact, Steven’s post to the Florida LP Facebook group gave no indication that he was the author, it just asked people to encourage the LNC to vote for it.

    You certainly SEEMED, along with Smith, to be the chief water carrier for the damn thing. “Your piece” constituted, IIRC, the majority or at least the plurality of all posts arguing about it on the LNC’s ballot thread.

  38. robert capozzi

    CAH: And unlike others who must live by perpetual outage

    Me: Amusing typo! Would that be something gay magazines do? A description of lifelong poverty?

    In my experience, NAPists exist in a state of perpetual OUTRAGE. In a world filled with perpetual aggression, everything is always wrong.

  39. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===I apologize — I understood it to have been you.====

    Nope. Not even a primary author. But an after-the-fact reviewer. I had been talking about this for about a week before the resolution. If I wanted to author a resolution, I would have done so a week before. But, I think those need to come from regionals or At-Larges as being more directly in touch with affiliates. I support it quite obviously, but I didn’t bring it or write it. And if someone else hadn’t, I wouldn’t have.

    ===You certainly SEEMED, along with Smith, to be the chief water carrier for the damn thing. “Your piece” constituted, IIRC, the majority or at least the plurality of all posts arguing about it on the LNC’s ballot thread.==

    Hey, read above here. My posts are the plurality of posts on ALL subjects on the LNC list. You know that. If you didn’t already know this was a volunteer position you wouldn’t be blamed for thinking I got paid by the word.

  40. Seebeck

    Geez, what hot steaming pile from Davis, compounded by the continued senseless blathering of Moore in her perpetual absurd rants against CAH. Give it up, Moore; you’re polluting the Internet.

    Once I waded through that sewer and steam-blasted the muck away, it all comes down to this:

    1. Libertarian socialists don’t have a clue about classical liberalism, libertarianism, or freedom in general.
    2. The resolution made sense in the spirit of re-emphasizing the individual self-ownership vs. the absurd collectivism of the socialists, but it was poorly worded.
    3. Most of the LNC lacks the courage to stand for the Platform.

    What this all comes down to, is something I stated about this on Facebook:

    The disconnect of the oxymorons that are the “Libertarian Socialist” Caucus should be rather obvious.

    Personal property rights, at the very core of libertarianism, begin with and always derive from self-ownership.

    To call for abolition of property rights is to call for abolition of self-ownership and the abolition of individual rights.

    That isn’t what libertarianism is about. In fact, it’s the opposite.

    Who enforces that abolition, anyway?

    And if self-ownership is abolished, then only other-ownership remains.

    So who is that “other,” and what legitimate claim could they possibly have to my body, mind, and soul, and the derivatives thereof?

    I have yet to hear any so-called socialist answer that question. The reason why is that their answers automatically preclude them from owning themselves and therefore their own position is also not their own.

    While voluntary socialism is perfectly acceptable within libertarianism, it is also impractical in reality, because the mass complexity of human interactions in a non-socialist society make it untenable.

  41. Anthony Dlugos

    “I have yet to hear any so-called socialist answer that question.”

    Oh, they answer your question all right. They’ve answered it repeatedly. All they have to do is define aggression differently, and presto!!! One dogma replaces another. Its like our own little shia vs. sunni sectarian throwdown, and I find it uproariously funny.

    RENT IS THEFT!!

    Either these LibSocs are just as rigid as the NAPists, or its a wonderful piece of libertarian satire.

    I’d like to think its the latter.

  42. dL

    I didn’t introduce any resolution. I didn’t write it either other than upon seeing the first draft insist that absolutely voluntary actions must be excepted.

    No, you started it with your “Socialist Entryism” post that suggested some action needed to be taken. You probably didn’t have time to compose the resolution itself because you were too busy spamming the mailing list with your commentary. 70+ posts on the matter, including your own self congratulation posts that you are single-handedly restoring confidence in the LP. When another LNC member posted that some LP members were complaining you’re abusing your position to sow discord amongst philosophical libertarians, you responded with:

    There are member complaints given to me that the LNC is shamefully silent
    about leftist infiltration.

    No unity with socialism.
    No unity with communism.

    Does any LNC member want to defend unity with the below? The membership
    deserves to know if you do.

    You then have the unmitigated gall to claim you are worried over “The LP is vulnerable to a major Party split – something I never want to see happen” when you are intentionally precipitating the very thing you are supposedly trying to prevent. This LP member thinks you are full of shit. And I’m not surprised you have found new allies with the Blood and Soil Caucus.

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The resolution made sense …”

    Even if so, the bylaws provide for two kinds of resolutions from the LNC: Public policy resolutions and suspension resolutions. This resolution is neither, and neither resolving ideological/factional disputes within the Libertarian Party nor censuring the ideological/factional opponents of the LNC’s members are on the legitimate resolution menu.

    The resolution was a giant steaming pile of manufactured junior high drama. Anyone who supported it should be embarrassed. But, being in junior high drama frame of mind, probably won’t be.

  44. dL

    Libertarian socialists don’t have a clue about classical liberalism, libertarianism, or freedom in general.

    One thing that I’ve found, much to my disappointment, is the extent libertarians are unfamiliar with the source material of classical liberalism. Instead, they are wholly products of conservative fusionism, a latter 20th century formulation, which is then substituted as a fake history of classical liberalism. Clearly, Seeback has not read Thomas Paine, or Adam Smith, or David Ricardo, or Henry George et al, much less the actual more radical libertarian philosophers. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be so readily exposing his ignorance with such a statement. (Ground) rent is theft is not a controversial statement in the classical liberal tradition. Today, rent is theft in regards to IP is not an overly controversial statement within libertarianism. I forced to conclude that this abject hostility to “rent is theft” is a proxy for something else.

  45. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Rent is theft is not referring to ground rent – the people who proclaim it say far too much for you to soft sell in that manner. Ground rent is simply Georgism, and though I disagree with Georgism, its nothing new (though never made its way into platform acceptance).

    And you might try to know someone before assuming they are not well-read. You are barking up the wrong tree with Seebeck (not Seeback).

    And if one is to have gall, it should be unmitigated. Mitigated gall is about as useful as non-alcoholic beer or decaffeinated coffee. Bleh.

  46. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==Even if so, the bylaws provide for two kinds of resolutions from the LNC: Public policy resolutions and suspension resolutions. This resolution is neither, and neither resolving ideological/factional disputes within the Libertarian Party nor censuring the ideological/factional opponents of the LNC’s members are on the legitimate resolution menu.==

    Incorrect – the Bylaws do not “provide” for resolutions, RONR does. What the Bylaws do is provide for a higher vote passage threshold for certain kinds of resolutions. So are you saying that since you believe this is not a public policy resolution it should not need 3/4 but rather a simple majority? In that case, a few folks might re-submit with different wording since there is a majority who would pass even this one if a few words were changed.

    But that is not the case – this clearly is about public policy and clearly requires 3/4 to pass. The historical setting of that bylaw provision shows it was precisely for times where the platform might be argued to sufficiently cover to discourage weekly resolutions.

    From what I have heard though there is trouble in paradise and the more outrageous statements and positions are being repudiated by some other folks in that movement, and that can only be a good thing. And is an acknowledgment that those of us concerned were correct – that advocations of violence and things wayyyyy outside of Libertarianism were on the menu.

  47. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Knapp need not apologize and I’ve made a meme of the juxtaposed statements.

    dl is correct that Ms. Harlos started the DEFACTO call for a resolution which was introduced by one of her fellow travellers/minions. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/014790.html

    And that was after post after post against socialists here: https://www.facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/

    She then encourged this line of “members complaints” thought introduced by a fellow traveller. (Complaints encouraged by herself and her buddies.) http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/014818.html

    Then started “Member praise thread” to show support for anti-socialism http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/014828.html

    Then supported another phony “Confidence in LNC restored” thread http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/014831.html Plus another ” Support from the South Carolina Libertarian Party ” (find thread yourself)

    Then Richard Longstreth introduced resolution which she supported in that and many following messages, leading up to hundreds of messages over a week or so mind fucking everyone who bothered to read them.

    Today I came up good description/acroynm for Ms. Harlos kind of entryism: “Sexually hypocritical anti-abortion Christian evangelical entryism” SHACEE (Pronounced “shaky”)

    Ms. Harlos is not the only one, I’m sure. Look at all the alleged libertarian guys whose answer to the abortion issue is “She should have kept her legs closed.” They never say “He should have kept it in his pants. Half of them are guys who can’t get sex anyway. And then there are the married guys who fool around on the side with men and women but pretend to be good Christians. But we’ve all seen those movies of the week or read it in the scandal headlines.

    Seebeck, maybe you need a vaccine so you don’t react to me. OOPS! Oh, shoot, I let the doctor give me the pneumococcal 23-variant vaccine last week and I felt like crap. Maybe that’s WHY I got chest/arm/jaw pains, ended up in the emergency and had to put off chemo a couple weeks. But those doctors always scare you into it.

  48. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Knapp need not apologize and I’ve made a meme of the juxtaposed statements.

    dl is correct that Ms. Harlos started the DEFACTO call for a resolution which was introduced by one of her fellow travellers/minions. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/014790.html

    And that was after post after post against socialists on her official LNC Facebook page: pinkflameofliberty

    She then encourged this line of “members complaints” thought introduced by a fellow traveller. (Complaints encouraged by herself and her buddies.) http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/014818.html

    Then started “Member praise thread” to show support for anti-socialism http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/014828.html

    Then supported another phony “Confidence in LNC restored” thread Plus another ” Support from the South Carolina Libertarian Party ” (reached links limit; find threads yourself)

    Then Richard Longstreth introduced resolution which she supported in that and many following messages/ A total of HUNDREDS of Harlos messages over a week or so mind fucking everyone who bothered to read them. LNC is shooting it down and some members obviously quite disgusted with her using LNC to advance her messianic political career.

    Today I came up good description/acroynm for Ms. Harlos’ kind of entryism: “Sexually hypocritical anti-abortion Christian evangelical entryism” SHACEE (Pronounced “shaky”)

    Ms. Harlos is not the only one, I’m sure. Look at all the alleged libertarian guys on FB groups whose answer to the abortion issue is “She should have kept her legs closed.” They never say “He should have kept it in his pants.” Half of them probably are guys who can’t get sex anyway. And then there are the married guys who fool around on the side with men and women but pretend to be good Christians. But we’ve all seen those movies of the week or read it in the scandal headlines.

    Seebeck, maybe you need a vaccine so you don’t react to me. OOPS! Oh, shoot, I let the doctor give me the pneumococcal 23-variant vaccine last week and I felt like crap. Maybe that’s WHY I got chest/arm/jaw pains, ended up in the emergency and had to put off chemo a couple weeks. But those doctors always scare you into it.

  49. dL

    And if one is to have gall, it should be unmitigated. Mitigated gall is about as useful as non-alcoholic beer or decaffeinated coffee. Bleh.

    I don’t disagree. But who wrote mitigated gall?

    Rent is theft is not referring to ground rent

    That’s exactly what that statement refers to.

    Ground rent is simply Georgism

    No, ground rent refers to regular or lump sum payments made by the leaseholder to the landlord as a form of economic rent. Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations, advocated a tax on ground rents to fund public governance. Georgism, in practice, is the LVT on the appraised lot value(unimproved value) in conjunction with the abolition of most regulations, tariffs, and taxes.

    And you might try to know someone before assuming they are not well-read.

    How would knowing someone personally change the meaning of what they publicly write?

  50. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===That’s exactly what that statement refers to.===

    No it’s not (at least not for the loudest proponents)- it is charging rent for someone else to use something you are not using, even essential personal property like transportation had been used as examples as has of course rent of the structure on the land, not just merely the land.

    Once again, it is not merely Georgism. But you seem like you’ve got a good head of froth worked up in the tradition of /r iamverysmart …. carry on.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    Camera One — Thomas L. Knapp: “[W]hy did [Caryn Ann Harlos] introduce a resolution …?”

    Camera Two — Caryn Ann Harlos: “Steven Nekhaila would be very surprised to learn he was really me Tom. I didn’t introduce any resolution. I didn’t write it either other than upon seeing the first draft insist that absolutely voluntary actions must be excepted.”

    Camera Three — Joshua Smith: “A few of us on the LNC, we came together to put together a resolution …”

    So who were these “few” LNC members?

  52. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    It really is hypocritical for Ms. Harlos to condemn the whole LibSoc Caucus because they hold views she disagrees with when they don’t call for state or private violence to enforce them. (A few individual members’ rants aside.)

    Meanwhile Harlos ENABLES abortion prohibitionists who want to get rid of the Abortion plank OR get rid of the “keep the govt out” language. They also want to add language against govt subsidies that will make the party SOUND anti-abortion. And after they draw in enough abortion prohibitionists they’ll make it an anti-abortion party and anti- a lot of other liberties.

  53. dL

    No it’s not (at least not for the loudest proponents)- it is charging rent for someone else to use something you are not using, even essential personal property like transportation had been used as examples as has of course rent of the structure on the land, not just merely the land.

    “Rent is theft” is a long standing term that does not refer to Hertz rental car.

    Once again, it is not merely Georgism.

    Who said it was? You said ground rent is Georgism, which it is not. Ground rent as economic rent is basic economics. It’s in every textbook. However, the justice of this form of economic rent was not a lightly debated topic in the classically liberal history. Certainly, this history had its share of prominent writers who did consider it unjust. However, not everyone thought so. I cite the noted squabbles between Henry George and Herbert Spencer, wherein George called Spencer a “sellout” and Spencer charged George to be a communist. So, “rent is theft”==communism is not a new charge.

    But you seem like you’ve got a good head of froth worked up in the tradition of /r iamverysmart …. carry on.

    That’s rich coming from you. The perpetually frothy mouth spammer who invariably retreats behind the petulant whine. It does not take a genius to read you.

  54. Jim

    TIL: In 1887 Henry George’s party, the United Labor Party, had a big problem (unsurprisingly) with socialist entryism.

    Henry George wrote that the problem “cannot be settled even by ruling out members of the Socialistic Labor Party from the ranks of the United Labor Party on the ground that they belong to another political party, but must be met by such a declaration of the state convention at Syracuse next week as shall show beyond possibility of equivocation that the united labor party is opposed to state socialism.”

  55. dL

    TIL: In 1887 Henry George’s party, the United Labor Party, had a big problem (unsurprisingly) with socialist entryism.

    Interesting. I looked that it up. Apparently, there were members of the Socialist Labor party at the time double dealing in the United Labor Party. Of course, that just demonstrates Spencer’s charge that George was a communist was groundless. However, there is no analogy of that to this. The Libertarian Socialist LP Caucus is not state socialist. The difference between the two was succinctly laid out by Benjamin Tucker in his essay, “State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ”

    http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

    Where They Agree the logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his “Wealth of Nations,” – namely, that labor is the true measure of price.

    Where they differ
    The State Socialist: the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.

    The anarchist: the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.

    See the difference?

    Personally, I think “rent is theft” is just a proxy for the real issue that some in the LP have with the Libertarian Socialist LP Caucus: It’s anti-fascist, anti-cop and pro BLM. That’s the real rub. If the issue truly was fidelity to the platform, then I would be hearing a lot more about Florida, Alaska, pro-life candidates(not merely personally pro-life, but a position that favors government involvement in the abortion issue) and controlled borders candidates. Not mention the 3 straight republicans that have been nominated, with a fourth almost certainly to follow.

  56. Andy

    dL said: “Personally, I think “rent is theft” is just a proxy for the real issue that some in the LP have with the Libertarian Socialist LP Caucus: It’s anti-fascist, anti-cop and pro BLM. That’s the real rub. If the issue truly was fidelity to the platform, then I would be hearing a lot more about Florida, Alaska, pro-life candidates(not merely personally pro-life, but a position that favors government involvement in the abortion issue) and controlled borders candidates. Not mention the 3 straight republicans that have been nominated, with a fourth almost certainly to follow.”

    Being anti-fascist is something that most people who’d call themselves libertarians would be in agreement. Supporting the people calling themselves Antifa is a different matter. Antifa are a bunch of Marxist goons who receiving funding from globalists like George Soros.

    As for being anti-cop, I think that all libertarians would agree that there are major problems with law enforcement in this country. I am pretty anti-cop myself, but even so, while the police exist, I think that they should abide by their oath of office. If the police arrest somebody for an unconstitutional gun control offense, or drug offense,, I oppose that. If the police engage in the suppression of free speech activities that are being conducted in a lawful manner, I oppose that. There are occasions when people commit legitimate crimes, say murder, or rape, or theft, or destruction of property, and in these cases, if the police arrest somebody, I’d say that they are doing what they ought to be doing. This does not mean that I do not recognize that I support the police, it just means that I recognize that we have to operate in the world as it is. My ideal world would not have any police as we know them, but we don’t live in an ideal world.

    If Black Lives Matter was just an anti-police abuse/corruption organization, I’d support them, but this is not really what they are about. BLM, like Antifa, are Marxist agitators, and they have also received funding from the likes of George Soros. Interestingly enough, if you check out my interview with Nickolas Wildstar, which is posted right here at IPR ( http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/05/andy-jacobs-interviews-nickolas-wildstar-libertarian-party-candidate-for-governor-of-california-4-29-18/ ), during the interview, he recounts how he attended some Black Lives Matter meetings, up until he was kicked out of the organization for questioning their Marxist agenda, and asking why they received funding from George Soros and the Ford Foundation.

    Libertarianism is not so much about being anti-government for the sake of opposing government, as it is about being anti-initiation of force and fraud. A common criminal can violate your person or property just as easily as people calling themselves the government can. Murder is the initiation of force. Murder would not be acceptable even in an anarcho-capitalist society. If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder, and is therefore a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Defending against, or punishing people for committing murder is something that there’d still be a demand for even in a stateless society. Given that we don’t live in a stateless society, punishment for murder is a function that has been ceded to the state. The only reason that this issue is not clearly apparent to all is because we are talking about fetus in a womb, and some people do not recognize a fetus in a womb as being a person. Political parties are made up of coalitions of people, and the Libertarian Party is certainly no different from any other group in this regard. Abortion is an issue that has long divided the Libertarian Party and movement. This is why there have always been problems with how the Libertarian Party should address the issue, and there probably always will be. I have pointed this out here before, which is that advocating that the state sanction abortion, is not really keeping the government out of the issue, as the state is providing protection for abortionists (and in some cases, the state is providing taxpayer funding for abortionists, which is something that all Libertarians should oppose). This is much like how during the days of chattel slavery, the state sanctioned and protected the activity. If abortion is the initiation of force, then there is just grounds for intervention, just as there is just grounds for intervention against other forms of initiating force or fraud, whether this intervention is from the state (since in our society, the state has a monopoly on law enforcement), or from a private actor. I don’t expect this controversy to be settled anytime soon, if ever. The general public is about as divided on the issue of abortion as is the libertarian movement. It is very difficult to enforce any laws that have less than 90% support among the public. If roughly half of the population supports abortion, then it is going to remain legal. Whether or not abortion is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle is a separate issue. The Libertarian Party’s platform is a reflection of who shows up at conventions. A majority of Libertarian Party convention delegates voted to put Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, Jim Gray, and Bill Weld on the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket. Does the fact that a majority of LP convention delegates voted to put these individuals on the presidential ticket mean that they were all the most principles libertarians available for the nominations, or that they were even libertarians at all? I would say no. So just because some people who showed up at an LP convention voted for something or someone (and note that it is pretty easy to become an LP convention delegate, too easy if anything), it does not automatically mean that every vote outcome on platform planks, party procedures, party leadership, or candidate nominations, was the most principled, or wisest course of action. Reality is that the Libertarian Party and movement, as well as the general public, is so divided on the issue of abortion, and has such a wide array of nuanced views on this issue, that there is not going to be an answer that pleases everyone.

    Immigration and border policy is another hotly debated issue in libertarian circles, and everyone who follows this site should know by now where I stand on the issue, and that is that while the state exists, it should act as a good steward of the taxpayer funded commons, part of which includes not inviting in foreign migrants who hold hostile political ideologies (Marxist, theocratic, etc…), or who are criminal thugs, or who are welfare seekers, or who carry communicable diseases, and that if these people sneak in anyway, the state should not reward them, or any offspring they have while here, with American citizenship or taxpayer funded services. If we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society, property owners would be able to regulate who comes on their property, and they’d be free to set whatever criteria for entry they want, which means that they’d be able to discriminate against people. This function is monopolized by the state in our present society. So given this situation, declaring that the state should “open” its borders to unlimited indiscriminate migration of foreigners, is not a libertarian position (I have already posted multiple links here that prove that this is an issue stance taken by far left Marxists and New World Order globalists), because it leads to forced association, not to mention the fact that it leads to more people using all of the taxpayer funded resources. There are numerous surveys that indicate that a super-majority of the public opposes mass immigration (the most recent survey I read said that 81% of the public wants to see immigration reduced), and the idea of the state forcing the borders open and allowing unlimited, unrestricted foreign migration is an even more unpopular issue, so advocating for so called “open borders” and unlimited no questions asked immigration does not reflect the will of the resident property owners in this country. Libertarianism is about property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle. Property owners do not wish to have their property opened up to everyone on the planet, and forcing this against people’s will is the initiation of force. So the real solution here for the purist libertarian should not be to advocate that the state force the borders open and allow everyone on the planet to enter the democratic welfare state in which we currently live, so they can exploit the resources, against the will of a super-majority of the existing population, but rather to eliminate the welfare state and to privatize everything in as fair a manner as possible, so that one day we can live in a society where the function of borders and migration can be regulated by property owners, as in such world coercive government no longer exists.

  57. Andy

    ” This does not mean that I do not recognize that I support the police”

    Should read, “This does not mean that I support the police..”

  58. Paul

    Carryn Ann, though perhaps whataboutism, and not saying I diverge far from your view on almost anything, but do you consider this to be far different than a resolution expanding on the abortion plank and explicitly rejecting the pro-life movement?

    I am sympathetic to your goal, as I have had problems in activist groups with socialist entryists and mission creep.

  59. Jim

    dL “Personally, I think “rent is theft” is just a proxy for the real issue that some in the LP have with the Libertarian Socialist LP Caucus: It’s anti-fascist, anti-cop and pro BLM. That’s the real rub. If the issue truly was fidelity to the platform, then I would be hearing a lot more about Florida, Alaska, pro-life candidates(not merely personally pro-life, but a position that favors government involvement in the abortion issue) and controlled borders candidates. Not mention the 3 straight republicans that have been nominated, with a fourth almost certainly to follow.”

    I disagree with them, but I tolerate some deviation from the platform, including the libsocs, the prolifers, and the anti-immigrant people, as long as people continue to support a net reduction in government. When they no longer support a net reduction in government, then I’ll take issue with them. Preferably, they themselves realize and acknowledge that they are deviating from the platform on those issues and respect the libertarian position enough to not attempt to change the platform to conform to their deviation.

    What I object to more is these dildo waving, macho flashing, fat strippers whose goal appears to be to drive people away from libertarianism and to keep the LP at sub 1% levels. I’m not even against the macho-flash tactic. It has its place. But it should be used externally to the LP, in situations where the argument is popularly thought of as a binary choice between a morally objectionable status quo and a libertarian alternative. In other words, if there is a military draft and the argument is commonly thought of as a draft vs volunteer military – burning draft cards can work to grow libertarianism. If Obama requires health insurance or to pay a fine, and you don’t have health insurance, make a public display of refusing to pay the fine.

    But these idiots are using it internally, against people already interested in moderate libertarianism or who are libertarian curios, with the purpose of driving them away because they aren’t hard core enough. They’re assholes and their idiotic antics are designed to make sure nothing ever changes.

  60. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I would have no issue with a resolution on the Party’s abortion stance.

    I defended the potential choice of pro-choice on everything for a convention theme.

    It amazes me that people have junk this is some kind of gotcha. I don’t have an existential crises because the party doesn’t affirm my every belief.

    Tom, people write things from different perspectives. Joshua probably was referrring to the fact that the co-sponsors were given an advance review. I didn’t write it (you know my writing style enough to know that) and made one requirement after it was written for me to co-sponsor.

    Exactly as I said.

  61. Jim

    dL “there is no analogy of that to this. The Libertarian Socialist LP Caucus is not state socialist.”

    The analogy wasn’t meant to be between the Libertarian Socialist Caucus and the Socialist Labor Party. I agree that those are much more different from each other than the Socialist Labor Party was to the United Labor Party, or the Libertarian Socialist Caucus is to the Libertarian Party Platform.

    The analogy was on the relationship between the United Labor Party and the infiltrators from the Socialist Labor Party versus the relationship between the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Socialist Caucus.

    Doesn’t matter, though. I just thought it interesting that a similar incident involving some of the people and ideas being discussed in this thread happened 130 years ago.

  62. Seebeck

    Thank you, CAH.

    dL has never seen my library, which includes Paine, Smith, de Vattels, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Thoreau, and similar within its seven assorted bookcases (including what was once a closet) of fiction, nonfiction, classics, med books, reference books, and cookbooks. I’ve read Marx, Mao, Hoppe, Hitler, and similar ilk as well, but those were library borrows as I wouldn’t deign to have that nonsense pollute my shelves. One of these days I might finish every book on my shelves, but I keep buying more, so that’s unlikely. Just added Jordan Peterson and a missing classic in Huxley, which goes right between de Vattels and Jefferson..

    As for Moore, there is no vaccine on the planet to cure her stupid, and she’s so stuck on it that there is no solvent in the galaxy to unstick her. And if she’s such a mental midget to inject herself with toxic poisons, well, she reaps what she sows and Karma is a b*tch. That’s why when it comes to being taken seriously, she’s in the same vein as Milnes and Carpozzi. Perhaps Milnes and Moore ought to date each other, it would a bad comedy smash on YouTube.

    Tom, you may disagree on the motion, but I find nothing embarrassing about standing up for property rights and self-ownership vs. socialist nonsense. After all, the ultimate source of property rights and individualism is self-ownership.

  63. dL

    What I object to more is these dildo waving, macho flashing, fat strippers whose goal appears to be to drive people away from libertarianism and to keep the LP at sub 1% levels.

    James did quite a bit better than sub 1% in the Livingston County Sheriff election. Double digits or close to it.

    What I object to is “net reduction in government calculations” when something like ICE is every bit the nightmarish, dystopian police state organ that I thought libertarians have been warning about for 40+ years. Now that we have to live under that, well, we can work with “libertarians” supporting it, just as long as they offset it with a call to abolish soda taxes(David Boaz’s spreadsheet crunched the NRIG index numbers and calculated a -2.07% result). Believe it or not, that is not a good look for a lot of people.

  64. Paul

    Caryn Ann,
    Thanks for your response – and entirely unsurprising. In my past experience with socialist entryists, I’ve generally only had serious issue with the statist kind, and usually blocking their mission creep / overlap has been successful at shutting them down – though perhaps at the expense of overlap and mission creep into things I cared about.

    dL,
    It is disappointing to see some Democratic circles being more open to “Abolish ICE” than some Libertarian circles. I guess some Libertarians like violent Orwellian government more than Democrats. Who knew!

  65. Paul

    Seebeck,
    When you rant about your anti-science anti-medicine conspiracy theory nonsense, you completely discredit any sort of slight you’re trying making against other people – except perhaps among other crazies who agree with you.

    All I got from your rant was: “Carol is someone that stupid crazy people can’t stand for some reason.”

  66. dL

    dL has never seen my library, which includes Paine, Smith, de Vattels, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Thoreau, and similar within its seven assorted bookcases (including what was once a closet) of fiction, nonfiction, classics, med books, reference books, and cookbooks.

    Well, if what you write implies you’ve spent more time admiring it rather than reading it, what can I say?

  67. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Caryn Ann Harlos August 23, 2018 at 05:49 wrote: “I would have no issue with a resolution on the Party’s abortion stance.
    I defended the potential choice of pro-choice on everything for a convention theme.”

    Actually I found a screen shot of a message you wrote someone sent me and sounded more like you were fed up hearing the anti-choicers wail about it when you wrote: “The wailing and gnashing of teeth is making me want to support pro choice on everything. And I’m pro-life. (sic)”

    So I think we know what your dozens of LNC email list post opinions would be. Unless you have become more politically expedient, of course.

    The resolution officially failed 10 to 6 as of 8/22 midnight. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015157.html

    Since sending it Ms. Harlos has posted 5 of the 8 emails today. So much for “resetting the tone?” http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015159.html

  68. Anthony Dlugos

    “It is disappointing to see some Democratic circles being more open to “Abolish ICE” than some Libertarian circles. I guess some Libertarians like violent Orwellian government more than Democrats. Who knew!”

    1) Abolish ICE + various selected typically Democratic platform policies = a potentially electable candidate, although probably only in some VERY left leaning to left leaning locales. I would question even that, however. Moreover, we will have hard data on this issue after the November elections. Absence of winning candidates who campaigned on a platform that included the abolishment of ICE is strong evidence that such a position has no real support.

    2) Abolish ICE + Abolish welfare + Abolish social security + Abolish government schools + providing a link to the story about Domino’s Pizza helping to repair roads to someone who responds to all those abolishments by asking about the roads = an electable candidate NOWHERE.

    Now, a NAPist can respond to this in two possible ways:

    A) The purist NAP position: “winning doesn’t matter. The message is all that matters.”

    My response: There is no way for a political party to deal with such an attitude, since there is no metric by which to gauge success. How does a political party know if said message is catching on via the work done by the party? We don’t. How does the party know where to direct support to, what particular messages work better than others? We don’t. Every decision is arbitrary. Its the electoral equivalent of removing the price function from a market. Even if something of a libertarian nature occurs in a jurisdiction where a purist NAPist(s) ran for office, there’s no way to determine if its happening via said message or some other factor aside from the political. (Maybe a good movie or a a good song changes attitudes. But that’s not because of the NAPist’s run for office. Attribute that to the movie maker or the pop artist).

    B) The pragmatic NAP: a fully compliant NAPist CAN win.

    My response: Excellent. We agree on the metric to judge various libertarian platforms. Now, go out and win some elections, or at least perform well. In the case of a contested Libertarian primary, beat the other libertarians you are competing with. (As an aside, given the extensive history of electoral contests and polling in this country, or in any country, reall, I have strong reservations that a fully compliant NAPist can win, like, Roswell UFO level skepticism, but you are welcome to try.

  69. dL

    Abolish ICE + Abolish welfare + Abolish social security + Abolish government schools + providing a link to the story about Domino’s Pizza helping to repair roads to someone who responds to all those abolishments by asking about the roads = an electable candidate NOWHERE.

    I think Dlugos would actually try to turn a group sex orgy session into a NAP debate. Seriously.

  70. dL

    Doesn’t matter, though. I just thought it interesting that a similar incident involving some of the people and ideas being discussed in this thread happened 130 years ago.

    yes, I found it interesting, too. I didn’t know about it until you brought it up. I had to look it up in the NY Times PDF archive.

  71. Jim

    dL “James did quite a bit better than sub 1% in the Livingston County Sheriff election. Double digits or close to it.”

    Nah. He got 15.7%. But only 0.7% voted for him. The other 15% voted for “not the Republican”. He only had a Republican opponent.

    There were 16 LP candidates for sheriff or constable in 2016. 8 of them, like Weeks, only had a Republican opponent. Weeks did the worst.

    30.51% Gary Rayford, Texas, Anderson County Sheriff
    22.90% Jacob Faught, Arkansas, Benton County Constable, District 5
    20.16% Randy Butler, Texas, Denton County Sheriff
    19.70% Mark Wester, Texas, Collin County Constable, Precinct 1
    19.59% Daniel St. Clair, Texas, Collin County Sheriff
    19.28% Max Koch, Texas, Tarrant County Sheriff
    18.61% Brent West, West Virginia, Wood County Sheriff
    15.69% James Weeks, Michigan, Livingston County Sheriff

    I’m surprised they were all that low. The typical result for a state legislative candidate with only a Republican opponent between 2012 and 2017 was about 24%. Local election results are usually a bit higher than state legislative results.

  72. Seebeck

    Paul,

    When you can correctly explain how the immune system actually works, including the Th immune responses and their interactive interleukin activities, then you can talk.

    Unlike most people, probably including you, I do know how that works and WHY toxic poison shots are contraindicated for it. That’s actual immune system science, not conspiracy theory nonsense. I know that’s way over your head, so enjoy the effort to learn–if you can.

    dL,

    Book are there to be read. I have read them, with what limited time I have, which is even more limited when have to deal with addressing short bus rejects like yourself, on top of being a political activist, full-time IT security SME, husband, father, fix-it-guy, grocery runner, HOA leader, and other duties that are beyond your limited comprehension.

    You can go back to your coloring books, and try to stay within the lines for a change.

    Me, I’m back to finishing up Jefferson’s America and on to an interesting read about the lifelong interactions between Adams and Jefferson. You know, stuff way over your head.

  73. dL

    Nah. He got 15.7%. But only 0.7% voted for him. The other 15% voted for “not the Republican”. He only had a Republican opponent.

    When you make a statement of sub 1%, you essentially mean automatic exclusion of any vote other than the deeply committed vote. According to you, 96% of the people that voted for Weeks did so not out of devotion but rather out of a “anyone but the other guy” motivation. So, Weeks supposed theatrics didn’t dissuade them. So, I think you actually are undermining your own contention.

  74. dL

    Book are there to be read. I have read them, with what limited time I have, which is even more limited when have to deal with addressing short bus rejects like yourself, on top of being a political activist, full-time IT security SME, husband, father, fix-it-guy, grocery runner, HOA leader, and other duties that are beyond your limited comprehension.

    Resolved. Admire more than read…

  75. Paul

    Seebeck,

    Using pseudo-scientific conspiracy theory nonsense to debunk science only works on the ignorant. Anyone even slightly familiar with toxicology knows that the dose makes the poison, and that vaccines are both safe and effective.

    So please, tell me more about how only you, Alex Jones, the occasional quack, and other internet superhero rejects are the only ones who’ve been able to figure it out through circular reasoning, fraud, junk science, and magical pretend, rather than the countless experts in the field who’ve been busy preventing deadly disease.

  76. DJ

    Feel free to ignore my comments- it will change the facts!

    I sure wish these comments had an up-vote or Thanks button and a reply button.

    In reply/response to Democrats supporting abolishing ICE- Democrats (US leftist gaining popularity as “Socialist” with their latest effort being that stupid broad from NY) support abolishing ICE ONLY because Trump is POTUS. If it were Hillary (or Obama) they would support ICE based on their history of more gov’t. Anyone who can’t see that (or excuses it or ignores it) is a fucking idiot! Anyone!

    As for the attacks on persons and their reading habits- or lack of- grow the fuck up. Make up your own minds- stop being followers. Notice the plural? Plural indicates more than one- ALL groups (plural to include political Party) are made up of more than one which by nature disrespects the Individual- the reading being complained about is, ironically, about Individual(s), (singular) not groups. It is Individual effort that creates what a group or groups “follow”- it is Individual effort that creates the greater good- it can’t be legislated or mandated since those are in fact forced (association and acceptance) as in “Totalitarian” (big gov’t politicians D and R) which is the diametric opposite of libertarian- if the reading is about groups then maybe a look at priorities is in order- and don’t ‘excuse’ it as anything other than what it is- learning through retention to use as influence- influence is not force but a subtle provocation/stimulation- actions speak louder than words- be the change you want- true leadership is for the benefit of the follower not the enrichment of the leader(s)- the only person you can change is yourself- rules are made to be broken, some people come by it naturally, some work at it and some learn to do it, but, broken they will be and used against the writer inevitably.

  77. DJ

    Feel free to ignore my comments! It will change the facts!

    Paul: Using pseudo-scientific conspiracy theory nonsense

    Me: 5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    Anti-Conspiracy Theorists in the JFK Assassination

    We are not supposed to ask any questions, for to do so would mean that we have entered the dreaded realm of “conspiracy theory.”

    That could lead down the dangerous road to being called a “conspiracy theorist.”

    But we can’t go there either. That might make us a “conspiracy theorist.”

    Don’t even think about what Bowrun and Bell said. It could make you a “conspiracy theorist.”

    Don’t go down that road! Remember: Conspiracy theory!

    Just forget their testimony. It could lead you to being considered a “conspiracy theorist.”

    Isn’t it much safer to just remain an “anti-conspiracy theorist,”

    https://www.fff.org/2018/08/24/anti-conspiracy-theorists-in-the-jfk-assassination/

  78. Paul

    Some conspiracy theories are harmless. Some literally kill people. Anti-vaccine wackados are the latter.

    “I defend your right to be crazy and get people killed.”

    But what’s the point in arguing facts with people who either make up their own or lack the cognitive skills to correctly identify one? I find mocking and ridicule to be appropriate for those who prefer dangerous falsehoods to obvious truths.

  79. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Since I’ve only been quasi-sarcastic on the vaccine issue, let me say that I think that vaccines in theory can be OK, if their medium is safe. Newer vaccines in the testing phase can be more dangerous that ones used previously on millions. Some people will react negatively to some vaccines depending on their immune systems and pre-existing conditions. As I know from personal experience. Saying all vaccines are always bad, however, is a highly questionable position.

  80. Andy

    Democrats support abolishing ICE because they know that statistically speaking, a super-majority of modern day immigrants, including those of the illegal variety, and their offspring, vote for Democratic party candidates after they become American citizens and become registered voters. More importantly, a super-majority of these foreigners and their offspring support the Marxist agenda of expanding the welfare state, and passing more gun control laws.

  81. robert capozzi

    aj: a super-majority of these foreigners and their offspring support the Marxist agenda of expanding the welfare state, and passing more gun control laws

    Me: Evidence, please.

  82. Paul

    Just a reminder that Marx hated immigrants because he thought they were lowered wages and did not support his agenda.

    Andy is going full Marx again.

  83. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 26, 2018 at 07:46
    aj: ‘a super-majority of these foreigners and their offspring support the Marxist agenda of expanding the welfare state, and passing more gun control laws”

    Me: Evidence, please.”

    Robert, do you not pay attention here, or do you have a bad memory, or what? I have already posted evidence to back up the fact that a super-majority of modern day immigrants support increasing the welfare state and passing more gun control laws, and that this is why the Democrats are so gung ho about flooding the country with people like this, on numerous occasions here on IPR. Do I have to go to the trouble to do this again?

  84. Anthony Dlugos

    You’re getting testy with someone else for not paying attention to data on immigration policy. you racist xenophobe? That’s rich.

    White Americans are frequently in supermajority support of increasing the welfare state or passing more gun control laws.

    Moreover, its white european Americans’ tendency to reflexively go after politicians who dare suggest reform to Medicare or Social Security that ensure those programs continue on their path to bankruptcy.

    If you want to start pointing fingers, then lets point them in the right direction: its white european christians who will bankrupt our government, NOT immigrants.

  85. Andy

    This is why the gun grabbers love the current mass immigration.

    The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable.
    Just look at the demographics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.073d159225c5

    From the article: “The recent deadly shooting at an Oregon community college, like so many before it, isn’t likely to lead to new federal laws designed to curb dangerous people’s access to guns. While this understandably frustrates supporters of gun safety legislation, there is reason for them to be hopeful. The National Rifle Association’s days of being a political powerhouse may be numbered.

    Why? The answer is in the numbers.

    Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA.

    The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.

    An overwhelming majority of African Americans say that gun control is more important than gun rights (72 percent to 24 percent). While the African American population shows signs of slow growth, other racial minority groups are growing more rapidly — and report even greater support for gun control.

    The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.

    Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

    Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.”

  86. Andy

    Leftists Are Planning to Rig Elections [Exposed]

    Video description from YouTube: “While people complain about Trump ‘rigging the census,’ Ari Berman of Mother Jones reveals a much more sinister plot: by using immigration from the third world, the left plans on solidifying political power and permanently changing American politics.”

  87. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anthony and Andy are both right. Over 50 white Americans want all the disability, medicaid, medicare and social security they can get, have passed laws to the effect and will raise hell to keep and even increase it. Even many “conservatives”. And then there are all those who may not favor it but will take it anyway rather than end up homeless and dead (like me). And the more the govt destroys the economy, the more people end up in that category.

    Latinos DO want a big social welfare state and as soon as they can get enough voters in there (legally or illegally) to support socialist politicians, they’ll be looking for the Big Man Socialist who will provide it for them. Since they probably also want the US to stay #1 militarily, they’ll like it even better if he’s a Socialist Generalisimo! The fact that socialist rule has failed in most of the other Latin countries doesn’t phase them.

  88. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Re: Pew Research. Yes, poor people DO have a habit of wanting more social services.

    Dealing with the underlying causes of poverty helps. It remains mostly zoning laws white people erect to keep people of color and their “low income housing” far away, even if it means those people have to commute 3 hours a day to get to the jobs in the burbs.

    Even Obama his last year in office started recognizing that as a big problem and made some non-effectual pronouncements. Not that he’s done anything about it on his long vacation since…

  89. Andy

    Yes, Virginia, Immigration Is Turning The Country Blue

    https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2017/11/15/yes-virginia-immigration-is-turning-the-country-blue-n2410060

    From the article: “Hey, Republicans! Did you enjoy Election Night last week? Get ready for a lot more nights like that as immigration turns every last corner of the country blue.

    When Ed Gillespie lost in Virginia, liberals crowed about how they’re winning the war of ideas. The country has thoroughly, emphatically rejected Trumpism!

    Republicans, being idiots, played along, arguing only about whether Gillespie’s problem was that he didn’t embrace Trump enough or embraced him too much.

    Gillespie’s campaign was fine. No cleverer arguments, community outreach or perfectly timed mailings would have changed the result. Contrary to The New York Times’ celebratory article in last Sunday’s magazine, “How the ‘Resistance’ Helped Democrats Dominate Virginia,” it wasn’t Democratic operative Kathryn Sorenson’s savvy use of Facebook, Google and Eventbrites that carried the day. “The Resistance” didn’t win.

    What happened was: Democrats brought in new voters. In 1970, only one out of every 100 Virginians was foreign-born. By 2012, one in nine Virginians was foreign-born.

    The foreign-born vote overwhelmingly, by about 80 percent, for Democrats. They always have and they always will — especially now that our immigration policies aggressively discriminate in favor of the poorest, least-educated, most unskilled people on Earth. They arrive in need of a LOT of government services.

    According to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government, compared to just over 40 percent of the general public. Even third-generation Hispanics support bigger government by 58 percent.

    Polls show that immigrants are far more likely to support Obamacare and affirmative action than the general public, and are far less likely to support gun rights and capitalism.”

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    My comment: I’m sure some libertarian out there will say something like, “Well who cares if immigrant tip elections to Republicans? I don’t like either major party, so it makes no difference to me which one wins. Maybe if Democrats win maybe they will increase some of our social freedoms.”

    I certainly agree that both major parties are bad, and I also agree that there are plenty of things wrong with Republicans, and I generally do not care for “lesser of two evils” arguments, since there frequently is not really a “lesser evil” between them, and even when there is it is usually not by that much of a difference.

    Having said this, the above data should alarm anyone who calls themselves a libertarian. Why?

    1) You have to look at why these people are voting for Democrats, as in you can’t just look at the party labels, you have to examine the issues. The data indicates that most of these people support expanding government welfare programs, expanding government involvement in healthcare, and Affirmative Action programs. A large percentage of these people also do not support free speech, as they favor laws against “hate speech” and they support “politically correct” (from a left wing view point) speech codes. While you could probably find some examples of these some people among these groups supporting some social freedoms, a disturbing percentage of these people have little to no interest in social freedoms.

    2) Politicians, even the most sociopathic and control freak among them, do look at issue polling data. Most of them don’t really care about the public, but they do care about getting elected, and they do care about what they can get away with. If a politician looks at polling data for their district and finds that putting forth a new gun control law would be very unpopular with a majority of the voters, they will be less inclined to push that issue. If a politician looks at polling data that says that a new tax or a tax increase of an existing tax is going to be very unpopular among the voters, they will be less likely to push for it.

    3) The demographics and the beliefs of the voters in a district has a direct correlation with who wins the primaries. If the demographics and attitudes among a super-majority of voters in a district are geared towards more statism, it means that the biggest statists in the primaries are the most likely win win the primary election.

    4) Ethnic block voting. It would be nice if every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, examined the issue stances and character of each candidate for political office, and voted based on this, but unfortunately, this is not what everyone does. There are in fact lots of people out there who vote predominately based on whether or not the candidate is of their race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, and/or, who will vote how the majority of people that are of the same race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin as themselves vote. These people are locked in a group think mentality, and it is extremely difficult to get any of these type of people to break out of this mentality. This turns elections not into contests over ideas, issues, philosophy, records, and character, but instead into people mindlessly voting based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. This plays right into the hands of the hands of the race baiters and the Cultural Marxists in the Democratic Party.

    5) Ballot initiatives and referendums. 24 states plus DC have a citizens initiative and/or referendum process via petition at the state wide, or in the case of DC, district/city wide level. Lots of cities/towns and counties, including a good number in states that do not have the process at the state level, also have this process. I’m pretty sure that the legislature of every state can also put an issue question on the ballot, and that the council/board of every county and city/town can as well. Voting on an issue is a more clear sign of public approval or disapproval of an issue than is voting for a politician, since people can vote for a politician for a variety of reasons, and a person may vote for a politician whom they even know that that they disagree with on some issues, plus politicians frequently lie. So voting on a ballot initiative or referendum provides a better example of public approval or disapproval of an issue. If the demographics and attitudes of people in a state or county or city/town where a ballot initiative or referendum is being voted on is more hostile to liberty on an issue, it means that the pro-liberty side of a ballot initiative or referendum vote is more likely to lose at the polls.

    6) Weighting political issues. I think that political issues should be weighted, as in that some issues ought to be regarded as more important than others. I understand that people may disagree on what issues are more important to them, but people should look at the big picture, especially if they consider themselves to be a libertarian or a constitutionalist. If you care about liberty, gun rights should be one the issues you consider to be of the utmost importance. I would weight gun rights with a 10 on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Look at the data above about demographic trends on support for gun rights. Any prospects for liberty will basically be screwed if we lose what is left of gun rights. Some people may say, “Well I won’t turn in my gun, and neither will lots of other people.” You may say that now, but what happens over the next 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years from now, as demographic trends and public opinion shifts further and further away from supporting the right to keep and bear arms? It is really easy to sit back and make a claim like that now, but it may not be so easy to make that claim in the future with the way things are going. This is just one example. Taxes and spending are examples of other issues that should be weighted heavily.

  90. Andy

    “Carol Moore/Secession.net
    August 26, 2018 at 15:02
    Anthony and Andy are both right. Over 50 white Americans want all the disability, medicaid, medicare and social security they can get, have passed laws to the effect and will raise hell to keep and even increase it. Even many “conservatives”. And then there are all those who may not favor it but will take it anyway rather than end up homeless and dead (like me). And the more the govt destroys the economy, the more people end up in that category.”

    I never said that there are not lots of white people who support big government. There clearly are. I was referring to overall statistical trends.

    “Latinos DO want a big social welfare state and as soon as they can get enough voters in there (legally or illegally) to support socialist politicians, they’ll be looking for the Big Man Socialist who will provide it for them. Since they probably also want the US to stay #1 militarily, they’ll like it even better if he’s a Socialist Generalisimo! The fact that socialist rule has failed in most of the other Latin countries doesn’t phase them.”

    Bingo! Keep in mind that a lot of these other foreigners have views that are just as bad if not worse than those held by many Hispanics (not all of course, I am once again referring to statistical trends, there are always exceptions). I have no doubt that there are lots of immigrants in this country from places in Asia and Africa who, if they could get away with it, would turn this country into an all out communist state, or a Muslim Caliphate, if they could get away with it.

  91. DJ

    Andy- you’re wasting your time though I do admire your tenacity.

    This country is an *experiment* in men governing themselves- to that end what we’re seeing is inevitable and I think the founders were smart enough to know that, but, they still believed it a worthwhile effort. It started downhill before the ink was dry on the Constitution by those very men and at this point there is no turning back, no re-do. There is even a chronology I’ve seen about which events precede other events-

    Question: Why did Davy Crockett not seek re-election and instead went to Texas?
    Answer: He couldn’t accomplish what he promised his constituents.

    There have been a few politicians who were honorable but damn few- the founders believed we’d succeed only with virtuous men at the helm- in this day and age (and for decades in the past) virtue and politician are words that should not be said in the same sentence. Your concern for the 20 or 30, 40 or 50 years in the future is not how most people look at things and haven’t for generations. Anyone remember what was a part of what was used to sell WW1? The war to end all wars- yet here we are over 100 years later still at war.

    It is the way of the world, the way of man- the best thing, IMO, one can do is leave their space a little better than they found it. Of course that means different things to different people, as it should, but, a part of that leaving your space better is passing on your knowledge- sow seeds, they will bear fruit. We are witnessing/living the seeds sown so the proof is in the puddin’. It works. Instant gratification won’t last- anything worth having is hard to achieve and takes time to cultivate but no cultivation happens if seeds aren’t sown.

    You make some valid points, but, people here (and most other message boards) would rather sling pejoratives than discuss anything they can’t claim to be superior on and denigrating others makes them feel superior- they use excuses as to why they won’t discuss, but, excuses are just that- lame attempts to justify.

  92. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Latinos are not all immigrants. Wanting bigger government is not “Marxism.”

    Try again.

  93. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 26, 2018 at 20:55
    AJ,

    Latinos are not all immigrants. Wanting bigger government is not ‘Marxism.’

    Try again.”

    Uuuuggggggg!

    I did not say that all Latinos (aka-Hispanics) are immigrants. Some are the offspring of immigrants. Some may even be third generation. Some may even have ancestors who were in the land territory that makes up this country in the early 1900’s or 1800’s or before.

    I was mostly referring the ones who are currently here who came here as immigrants. and their offspring.

    I was also referring to people who want bigger government in general, regardless of whether or not they’d be labeled as being Marxists (although a lot of them are in fact Marxists).

    The facts clearly indicate that I’m correct.

  94. Andy

    Here’s the real motivation behind the Democrats wanting to keep the so called “Dreamers” in the country. They know that most of them will be future Democrat voters.

    Leaked Memo: DREAMERS Are ‘Critical’ to Dems ‘Future Electoral Success’

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/08/leaked-memo-dreamers-are-critical-to-dems-future-electoral-success/

    From the article: “The Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund circulated a memo on Monday calling illegal immigrants brought here at a young age — so-called ‘Dreamers’ — a ‘critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.’

    The memo, co-authored by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, was sent around to allies calling on Democrats to “refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them.”

    President Donald Trump’s administration moved to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy in September, which former President Barack Obama instituted through executive order to keep immigrants who came here as children from being deported.

    Trump called on Congress to find a legislative fix for young immigrants, or “Dreamers,” facing deportation. House lawmakers recently put forward a bipartisan DACA compromise bill that also claims to address worries over chain migration. However, it’s unclear if the bill will pass

    CAP Action’s memo says protecting DACA is not only a “moral imperative” for Democrats, it also key to getting votes.

    ‘The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,’ reads Palmieri’s memo, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    ‘If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond,” reads the memo. “In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about the Democratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.’

    Fox News Host Tucker Carlson confronted Center for American Progress senior fellow Henry Fernandez on the memo. CAP Action is the 501(c)(4) political group, a sister group of the think tank where Fernandez is technically employed.”

  95. Anthony Dlugos

    Andy’s sources: Faux News, Town Hall, Tucker Carlson, Gateway Pundit, Center for Immigration Studies…and this is what passes for his “mainstream” sources.

    Look at me! I’m a libertarian!

  96. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    It’s just common sense any party wants MORE of its types of supporters to come to country and become citizens. (And even vote as non-citizens as some Dems already are promoting.)

    Plus it’s simple demographics – latinos are having the most babies, followed by blacks. Low income people and first generation immigrants tend to have more kids for a variety of reasons. And higher income people tend to avoid having too many for a variety of reasons.

    Sure, “white anglo guilt” may be part of it. But we don’t see those white Dems rushing to end the zoning laws that keep lower income people’s housing in their lily white suburbs, do we. A great point that libertarian party and candidates to hone in on if they were more organized with more resources.

  97. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Seebeck: I broke down and researched what’s in the pneumococcal 23-variant vaccine and it obviously was the phenol, the main ingredient besides the viruses, that made me feel like crap.

    My similar crappy reaction to 2017 flu shot makes me suspect they replaced the thimerasol with phenol.

    And people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome have bad reactions to phenol! (Thank heavens for internet research. Two hours looking for higher quality sources and one figures it all out. And the medical field is one place where Googles attempt to put higher quality sources near the top is appreciated! Though actually in THIS case there were a lot of lower quality sources saying it. Guess I better research some more.)

    Of course, exposure to “dead” viruses of some creepy diseases obviously seems scary and may be some people’s fear of vaccine. Let someone else be test subjects, eh?

    It’s also included to various degrees in the chemo drugs they will be giving me soon. So now we know why people in chemo feel like crap. Only one ingredient in one is likely to kill me – if I’m allergic to caster oil. So I’ll run out and buy some and see what happens, besides the known side effects.

    But looking at the various supplements that also supposedly are anti-cancer, most of them you have to take so much most people won’t do it. Like three pineapples a day. (Bromalein from pineapples also is used but as a blood thinner, one must be careful.)

    Others alternative supplements also can have toxic effects – like too much licorice root. And some of the mainstream chemo ingredients ARE natural plant materials highly concentrated.

    Also after reading the side-effects of the prescribed anti-nausea drugs, I am on the hunt for CBD oil and legal home grown in DC MJ. 🙂

    So the rooting out the details are important.

    (NOTE: one third of Americans get cancer. So pay attention. Don’t be in denial like I and my FORMER primary physician were.)

  98. Seebeck

    Paul proves my point; he hasn’t a clue about basic immunology. Note that he can’t even answer the challenge. He probably doesn’t even know what a thymus is or does.

    Of course, what do I know, having been vaccine-damaged and dealing with the aftereffects for the past 43 years, doing the research over the past 20 years to figure out what happened to me so I can accurately and precisely address the issues? Nah, I’m just a conspiracy theory quack, not an actual victim of vaccine-induced illness and encephalopathy who understands more about the immune system than most GPs…

    Sorry, Paul, but stick with that which you know, which isn’t much.

  99. dL

    who understands more about the immune system than most GPs…

    on top of being a political activist, full-time IT security SME, husband, father, fix-it-guy, grocery runner, HOA leader, and other duties that are beyond your limited comprehension.

    on top of being a clinical immunologist, political activist, full-time IT security SME, husband, father, fix-it-guy, grocery runner, HOA leader, and other duties that are beyond your limited comprehension.

    you’re approaching a Chuck Norris meme

  100. Paul

    Seebeck…or Norris?

    Pretending vaccines hurt your brain and reading fringe make believe does not research make. Hell, that doesn’t even pass muster for legitimate IT Security research. I don’t even think that passes for entry-level “I’ll see why your printer isn’t working” help desk research.

    “I’m just a conspiracy theory quack, not an actual victim of vaccine-induced illness and encephalopathy who understands more about the immune system than most GPs…”
    – Seebeck

    I’m glad we could find common ground on this crazy train.

  101. paulie

    Much to reply to here, but for starters I updated the title to include the name of the original author and clarify it is not an IPR editorial per our long standing policies.

    Also, I noticed Caryn Ann replied to Paul as paulie at least once. Paul who has been commenting here isn’t me, and I did not comment in this thread before now. In fact, I was offline for over a month and not online much the month or two before that.

    While Paul who has been commenting here and myself share a first name, we are two different people. Neither of our screen names uses our differing last names; I know what his is but won’t mention it here since he hasn’t. I don’t know if he also goes by Paulie (it’s mainly a Northeast US thing, which is where I grew up although I have not lived there in a long time). However I expect that anyone who responds to him as “Paulie” probably has us confused so I’m correcting that confusion if it does in fact exist.

Leave a Reply

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