Tom Woods, Matt Welch, and Michael Malice Discuss Libertarian Infighting

80 thoughts on “Tom Woods, Matt Welch, and Michael Malice Discuss Libertarian Infighting

  1. Anon-Tipper Post author

    Some discussion on the chairman race, Mises Caucus, infighting. I’m currently in the middle of listening to this.

  2. Andy

    I just stumbled upon this myself, and I was thinking about posting this here, but since my article posting status was downgraded for bogus reasons (see my comments in the current Open Comments thread about the Austin Petersen interview I posted in the fall of last year) that do not stand up to intellectual scrutiny by my “friends” here at IPR, my news articles have been placed in a state of limbo. I have four news articles that have (unnecessarily) been in pending status for several weeks. There have been more news articles that I wanted to post, including tbe one above, but I have not bothered, due to 4 news articles I tried to post weeks ago being stuck in pending status.

    Why are Anon-Tipper’s articles posting immediately and mine are not? Who is Anon-Tipper anyway? Multiple regular posters at IPR have met me in person, and there are videos and pictures with me in them right here on IPR. So it is not lime I am hiding, or my identity is a secret. I have asked Anon-Tipper who they are, what state LP they are a member of, and Anon-Tipper has not responded with this information. Anon-Tipper seems to have a great interest in what goes on in tbe LP, so am I correct to assume that Anon-Tipper is an LP member? Does anyone here know Anon-Tipper in person, and if so, from where do you know Anon-Tipper? Is Anon-Tipper a male or a female? Who is this mystery person, and why is it that this mystery person’s articles are posting immediately while mine are stuck in limbo?

    Also, why was William Saturn’s article posting status downgraded? I do not know William Saturn either, and I do not think that anyone here has ever met him in person, so he is a bit of a mystery person like Anon-Tipper, but even so, no explanation was ever given as to why his article posting status was downgraded. Why is mystery person Anon-Tipper being held above mystery person William Saturn? It seems that some mystery posters are “more equal” than others.

  3. Libertydave

    Did the people who post here forget how to write? I thought YouTube was for sharing videos.

    I can read in 12 minutes what it takes someone an hour to say. It is a waste of my time to watch talking heads to find out if I would be interested in what they’re talking about.

    Unless there is some description of what they’re talking about I won’t bother watching the video. Libertarians are always infighting, this title is not enough info to waste time with this video.

  4. Libertydave

    Andy,

    Your comment here show why you were downgraded. You refuse to follow the rules of this privately owned website and spam all the threads with your fear mongering and complaining.

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    Thanks for posting.

    Woods whitewashing of the Mises Caucus’ and MIses Institute’s flirtations with and outright connections to racism and racists shows his credibility is below zero.

  6. robert capozzi

    Malice is a phenomenon. Very articulate.

    Welch did a fine job, as usual. Perhaps a bit too nuanced for those who’ve not lived inside the Beltway.

    I’ve always felt that Woods was the most articulate of the LvMI crew. He’s been better, but also did a fine job. His most interesting point is that he will speak in public with cosmotarians but they won’t reciprocate. On the surface, that sounds like a fair point. Unfortunately, hard-core NAPists are very often like communicating with Marxists (not my original thought.) In my experience, communicating with them is really just — in their minds, apparently — an opportunity to them to either convert you to their view, or to employ red-herrings to tear non-NAPists down. And, of course, to avoid the numerous flaws with the NAP as a governing principle (as opposed to a nice sentiment.)

    That there have been SO MANY instances of paleo-NAPists making bigoted statements. If they were sincere, they would answer the question of Why that’s so. Bob Wallace, the NewsletterGates, North, Hoppe, Rockwell himself, Cantwell, etc.

    iirc, Longite TK has suggested it’s motivated by fundraising concerns. Dole out the thinly-veiled haterade, and the haters will support you. There’s just not enough non-hater paleo-NAPists to support their greater effort to smash the State in their long game of building committed cadre into a critical mass that will — when the time is right — abolish the State.

    There are, to be fair, instances where cosmotarians have sold out to statist causes, surely. Perhaps the paleo-NAPists see statism as just as bad as bigotry. That may be the difference, because for me we first must recognize our mutual humanity before entering into civil society. Bigotry is more dysfunctional than statism, as I see it, especially when we recognize that the State will be with us for the foreseeable future. Bigotry can be dropped right now, as a matter of individual free will.

    Welch was a bit disingenuous to say that fringy theorizing and practical politics can work cooperatively. Wondering out loud about the scalability of the Zomia model is fringe, but it’s so obviously an academic exercise, I don’t see it as a political impediment in the intermediate term. Wondering out loud about adults having sex with children; legalizing driving drunk with no speed limits; or excluding people from immigrating to the US because they hail from a nation with low median IQs and because they subscribe to Sharia — these are radioactive concepts.

    I suspect Welch sees the difference.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    Great post, RC. Agree with just about all of it.

    I listened to the whole podcast. Unfortunately it was generally insipid, whilst periodically interesting. And the reason for that is that Malice didn’t have opposing viewpoints on; he had someone from the hard right/paleo crew (Woods), and a journalist who is maybe trying to see both sides. (Welch, someone who I think comes from the right and has a soft spot for the R3VOLUTION and the Pauls. This is based on his writings and a conversation I had with him in Cleveland at the GOP convention in 2016.)

    Is Welch being disingenuous, as you say, or does he really think fringy theorizing and practical politics can work together? I’m not so sure. My working theory has been that the “We need both the dogmatics and the pragmatics” people have gotten so used to blurring the distinction between the Libertarian Party and libertarianism that they don’t realize anymore the inherent impossibility of such an organization being effective.

    Or, someone (and I wish I remember who) on Facebook once put it: too many Libertarians look at the LP as a “member services organization” (i.e., a private club), rather than an outreach organization that needs to meet people where they are at, philosophically speaking. (which means, yes, our customers and potential customers help mold the product)

    Maybe Malice tried to get someone (not Sarwark) on who was more adamantly opposed to the Mises/paleo incursion. It would have been more lively. Such a person would have been more apt to point out the lengthy history of the catastrophic paleo mistakes (or maybe they aren’t mistakes).

  8. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, there can be a difference between “civility” and “enabling.” Perhaps Welch is a bit of an enabler in not calling out the crypto-Hate-brigade. Palmer or Boaz might have been the better guests for this one. It’s not easy, but one can be civil and also challenge the severe dysfunctional thinking emanating from Auburn.

    TK and other Longites seem to recognize that the bigotry holds liberty back, but they seem to believe that the fringy positioning is the path toward Anarchotopia. This is why they seem more in line with the Auburners than the cosmotarians, coupled with a slavishly loyal and literal interpretation of the NAP. And, yes, they want a member-services organization, it seems, plus they seem to relish parliamentary games. “Divide the question!” is a term I heard far too many times at the few LP conventions I attended.

  9. dL

    There have been more news articles that I wanted to post, including tbe one above, but I have not bothered, due to 4 news articles I tried to post weeks ago being stuck in pending status.

    You can always post them at your own website, iprx.
    https://iprx.wordpress.com/

  10. dL

    I can read in 12 minutes what it takes someone an hour to say. It is a waste of my time to watch talking heads to find out if I would be interested in what they’re talking about.

    Yeah, I can read in one minute what i takes someone an hour to say in a podcast. Sometimes it’s worth it, sometimes it’s not. This one is not. There is a better podcast from a year ago on a similar topic that’s worth it.
    https://jasonstapleton.com/646-nick-sarwark-talks-about-the-lp-white-nationalism-and-tom-woods/

  11. Anthony Dlugos

    “Perhaps Welch is a bit of an enabler in not calling out the crypto-Hate-brigade. Palmer or Boaz might have been the better guests for this one.”

    I don’t necessarily blame Welch. He is not on the Libertarian Party playing field, so to speak, trying to direct the future of the party the way Woods is actively doing. Palmer and Boaz would certainly be better guests, and create more drama-producing friction, but again, they are not as actively attempting to direct the party, certainly not to the extent that Woods is.

    It is illuminating, though, that the host feels that Welch is somehow part of the partisan pragmatic wing of the LP, when he really isn’t, But, as you have noted, anyone 1% short of full-on NAPism is considered part of the “beltway libertarians,” I guess.

  12. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Makes sense. TW is new to direct LP action, if I understand the sitch. I’m not aware of an LPer who non-NAPist of high profile. NS might have been more interesting, but I peg him as a Longite.

    If you were producing YOUR WELCOME, who would the guests have been?

  13. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’m not aware of an LPer who non-NAPist of high profile…If you were producing YOUR WELCOME, who would the guests have been?”

    I don’t know, because I think you are right: I’m not aware of any. The pragmatic, non-NAPists are either too high-profile to waste their time appearing on this podcast with Woods (Weld, Johnson, the smattering of libertarian-leaning elected republicans), or not high-profile enough.

    The depth charges you speak of, in other words, have so far had one of their intended effects: keeps the party a small, philosophical debating club. Inside those walls, the NAPists have the upper hand. IMHO

  14. robert capozzi

    AD,

    For the record, I used to use the term “booby traps” in the bylaws. CAH was on the TW show maybe 2 years ago, and she used the term “depth charges,” which I adopted, even though I believe “booby trap” is more accurate. The part that somewhat surprised me is she seemed quite pleased that the Founders deployed depth charges to protect that handiwork. My sense is that most of humanity would be ashamed of such an act, and would use nicey-nice language to describe such a move.

    NAPism is really well-outside civil society’s thought system. Admirable, on one level, since civil society is shot-through with dysfunction. Still, Shakespeare seemed spot on when he suggested, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” I’d amend that to say, in form. In content, be a radical seeker of truth, wherever it can be found.

  15. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    I think Woods and some other pod/video casters do it because the more analytical people do NOT want to have to listen to and transcribe everything they say to critique it.

    Of course, doing a quick search of “program to transcribe video words to text” I found this. https://qz.com/work/1087765/how-to-transcribe-audio-fast-and-for-free-using-google-docs-voice-typing/

    Maybe I’ll have to try it. Play the video, walk away, and VOILA one hour later when your return.

    Will read other’s analysis later when/if have time.

  16. ATBAFT

    “The depth charges you speak of, in other words, have so far had one of their intended effects: keeps the party a small, philosophical debating club. Inside those walls, the NAPists have the upper hand. IMHO”

    If they so chose, 51% of the LNC could lock NAP in the attic like a crazy Uncle Murray. But that would, of course, split the LP into warring camps (and probably two parties). So we need to continue with NAP while allowing the more serious candidates to depart from the principle in proposing “If elected, I will do…” to the voters.

  17. paulie

    Andy, as you have been told in past comment threads, your article posting status was downgraded, belatedly, after numerous warnings and requests to add blurbs to your articles (usually just videos with no accompanying text) to explain how they are relevant to IPR in case when some of our readers don’t immediately see the relevance. It was also after we got many, many requests both public and private to remove you completely, not just as an article writer but even as a commenter on this site. After asking, over and over, that you add blurbs to various articles and receiving either no response or arguments instead of a blurb being added, and issuing repeated warnings, I finally downgraded it so your articles have to get approval from an IPR editor before going live.

    None of this is new since I explained it on several past threads.

    The fact that you got to post articles here at all, and that you were not removed much sooner or much more completely, is only because we were friends for many years and because you helped me out personally for years. Otherwise you would not be welcome here at all, and perhaps you should not be, as you certainly take away a lot more from this site than you add and drive many people away – lately, myself included.

  18. paulie

    I have four news articles that have (unnecessarily) been in pending status for several weeks.

    I guess no one bothers to approve them when I am not around. That alone should tell you something. I wasn’t around due to being busy with work and the fact that my computer was broken, until today. But even well before then your endlessly repetitive, redundantly disproven, illogical, heartless, long winded, obsessive, repulsive and bigoted drivel that sucks the life out of every IPR comment thread day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year was killing every last bit of enthusiasm I had for posting articles and comments alike here. I expect you will drive me away again soon enough. I’ve had many, many people, including many of the ones that posted the most articles and intelligent comments here in the past, tell me that you are why they no longer participate here or why they participate a lot less than they used to.

  19. paulie

    There have been more news articles that I wanted to post, including tbe one above, but I have not bothered, due to 4 news articles I tried to post weeks ago being stuck in pending status.

    So by driving me away with the garbage you post endlessly in IPR comments you are driving away the only person who even cares enough to approve your articles. LOL. If it was anyone else behaving here as you do they would have been banned from the site completely a looooooong time ago. Others have been banned for less.

  20. paulie

    Why are Anon-Tipper’s articles posting immediately and mine are not?

    Because Anon-Tipper whoever he or she is posts good, useful articles, does not make him or herself a constant nuisance, doesn’t fuck up the comment section discussion that is the real life blood of IPR and doesn’t argue but every single thing endlessly.

    Also, because unlike you, Anon-Tipper does not have a long history of ignoring requests to follow the site’s rules no matter how many times those requests are made. I showed a lot of patience with you given our history but everything has its limits.

  21. paulie

    Who is Anon-Tipper anyway?

    Don’t know. Don’t care. Anonymous or pseudonymous posting is a right here at IPR for both commenters and article posters. There are lots of legitimate reasons for people to do so ranging from avoiding ad hominem arguments to avoiding personal threats to avoiding stalkers to business and personal reasons to being able to speak freely by people who are party “insiders” to…well, you name it. There are many other reasons I did not mention. One good one is simply flexing your rights: you have the right to post anonymously or pseudonymously here and even if you have no personal reason to do so it’s useful to exercise that right out of solidarity with those who do and just as a way of celebrating and preserving the fact that such a right exists.

    Many people throughout history pamphleteered, published opinions etc anonymously or pseudonymously. They included many of the great orators or Rome, revolutionaries throughout world history including many of the USA’s founders who published many of the opinions that swayed public opinion to their cause leading up to the American revolution, and many others. One of the first things tyrannical governments do is take away the right to speak anonymously or pseudonymously.

    IPR’s founding editor used an alias at the time the site was created. I used an alias or a variant of my fist name without a last time for years here without allowing my real last name to be published here, and at preceding sites; it was only after I became an alternate on LNC in 2012 that I relaxed that standard, and I still post under a variant of just my first name as my screen name to this day even though my real legal name is no longer a secret.

    You also started out not wanting anything except your first name to be public, and even recently screamed at me just for wishing you a happy birthday in writing. You may be a big Eric Dondero style advocate of forcing everyone to reveal their full legal name to be allowed to speak – and you are becoming more and more like him in many other respects – but that’s not how you operated yourself for many years and even today you use just your first name, not your full name, as your screen name, even though your last name is not a secret.

    But lots of people have posted under pseudonyms and screen names, both comments and articles, for the ten years plus IPR has existed and on many preceding sites. Lots of our news tips and many of the most interesting comments have been anonymous or pseudonymous. Journalists have always used sources who spoke on conditions of anonymity.

  22. paulie

    Multiple regular posters at IPR have met me in person, and there are videos and pictures with me in them right here on IPR. So it is not lime I am hiding, or my identity is a secret.

    That’s a choice you make. Others are free to make a different choice. Respect that choice or find some other place with different rules. Here at IPR we value people’s right to be anonymous or pseudonymous, and those who don’t respect that right are not welcome to be part of this online community. To be as clear about this as I can, if you don’t like the rules here please find some places with rules more to your liking or create one. It’s easy to do.

    One of IPR’s long standing rules is not to out people who choose to remain anonymous or pseudonymous. Those who show no respect for such a rule, or for IPR rules in general, should not have access to the dashboard, as it may be abused by such people to use IP addresses, email addresses etc to find out who people really are and then to out them regardless of consequences. That’s one of the reasons your status was demoted and may be demoted further; I am not sure you can be trusted to not reveal who people are should you somehow figure it out regardless of their wishes on the matter.

  23. paulie

    I have asked Anon-Tipper who they are, what state LP they are a member of, and Anon-Tipper has not responded with this information.

    Then he or she must not want you to know, so please just move on. There’s probably a reason, even if that reason is only that it is none of your business. It’s OK to ask, but it’s not OK to harass. Your inquiry is obviously not welcome. Anonymity is a cherished right here. If someone wants to be anonymous, harassing them about it is not OK here. If you keep doing it, that’s one very good reason to remove your access to the dashboard completely.

    If you keep abusing your privilege of being allowed to post comments at IPR to harass people into revealing their meatspace identity when they don’t want to, your ability to post comments can and at some point will be taken away as well. Enough is enough, and your jihad about not tolerating anonymous/pseudonymous posting has passed that point some time ago. The fact that you are still here is only because of our personal history but as with your articles going live, keep up the bullshit and eventually at some point even I have to say enough is enough already.

  24. paulie

    Anon-Tipper seems to have a great interest in what goes on in tbe LP, so am I correct to assume that Anon-Tipper is an LP member?

    Dunno. Don’t care. If he or she does not want to tell you it is none of your business, period. Stop asking, or go somewhere else. Also, I take a lot of interest in some organizations I am not a member of and I know for a fact that you do as well. And the party membership roster is secret with good reason. It is absolutely 100% none of your business who is on it and who isn’t unless that person chooses to tell you. If you ask more than once and don’t get an answer, stop asking, as it is none of your fucking business, period.

    Does anyone here know Anon-Tipper in person, and if so, from where do you know Anon-Tipper? Is Anon-Tipper a male or a female? Who is this mystery person, and why is it that this mystery person’s articles are posting immediately while mine are stuck in limbo?

    I don’t know the answer to any of these questions except the last one. Asking people to out someone who chooses to be anonymous and does not respond to your repeated harassment to reveal their true identity is absolutely not OK here. If you keep doing it you are not welcome here at all. I hope that is clear.

    As for why one person’s articles go live without prior approval: one person follows the site rules. The other one doesn’t. The person who follows site rules does not get demoted here. The person who constantly ignores requests, argues about and ignores rules: well, you know. Revealing your legal name to post articles or comments here is not one of the site rules. Respecting the privacy of those who choose not to IS one of the rules here. Is that clear? (However: This rule is waived for trolls who attack this site repeatedly under multiple identities).

  25. paulie

    Also, why was William Saturn’s article posting status downgraded?

    Site owners don’t want a lot of people with too much access, so lots of people got downgraded from Editor to Author. Editors have the ability to change other people’s articles and comments and not just their own. There are also other things editors can do and site owners don’t really want a lot of those, particularly people neither the site owners nor myself really know.

    I do not know William Saturn either, and I do not think that anyone here has ever met him in person,

    I have no idea. For all I know William Saturn could be an alternate persona for someone many of us know. It’s hard to say.

    no explanation was ever given as to why his article posting status was downgraded.

    I think it was site owners security concerns. They downgraded a lot of people from Editor to Author.

    Why is mystery person Anon-Tipper being held above mystery person William Saturn? It seems that some mystery posters are “more equal” than others.

    IPR posting status has nothing to do with being or not being a mystery person. Also the premise of your question is false. Both William Saturn and Anon-Tipper have the exact same status of Author. That means they can post articles live but not edit the work of others. Yours was downgraded a level below that to Contributor which means that you can save an article but an editor has to approve it. That was because on article after article you ignored repeated requests to add a blurb, again and again, or argued about it instead of just doing it; because you did not do minimal amounts of work to fix article headlines before they went live; and because we kept getting tons of complaints about you.

  26. paulie

    Did the people who post here forget how to write? I thought YouTube was for sharing videos.

    I can read in 12 minutes what it takes someone an hour to say. It is a waste of my time to watch talking heads to find out if I would be interested in what they’re talking about.

    Unless there is some description of what they’re talking about I won’t bother watching the video. Libertarians are always infighting, this title is not enough info to waste time with this video.

    YMMV.

    Your position is an understandable one and one many others have, but some of our readers to like to watch and some comment on videos. Since IPR posting is an unpaid position it’s not the best idea to demand that those who post here do extra work to suit your preferences or not post at all because not post at all is likely to be the result, and other people who do like to watch the videos will miss out as a result.

    Personally I am much more likely to watch music or porn videos than political ones but sometimes I do watch political ones, usually but not exclusively if they are short.

    Also, if you open the youtube link in a separate window or tab (that is directly on the youtube page) you can see a video description that may have info that the person cross-posting it to IPR does not copy over. A lot of times that description may give you additional information that will help you decide whether it’s worth watching the video or not. There may also be discussion in youtube comments that in some cases may be of interest to you or may help you decide whether a video is worth watching.

    There are still, as far as I know, other IPR articles that are not just videos so if you want to ignore the video articles and just read the written ones that is a perfectly acceptable choice.

    I do however agree with you that written descriptions should be added to articles that just cross post a video, even if it’s just copying over the youtube description. Not everyone knows how to follow videos back to find it on their own. We have always had some videos posted to IPR whether as comments or articles. Some people watch them more than others.

  27. paulie

    Andy,

    Your comment here show why you were downgraded. You refuse to follow the rules of this privately owned website and spam all the threads with your fear mongering and complaining.

    Exactly.

  28. paulie

    Woods whitewashing of the Mises Caucus’ and MIses Institute’s flirtations with and outright connections to racism and racists shows his credibility is below zero.

    Agreed.

  29. paulie

    That there have been SO MANY instances of paleo-NAPists making bigoted statements. If they were sincere, they would answer the question of Why that’s so. Bob Wallace, the NewsletterGates, North, Hoppe, Rockwell himself, Cantwell, etc.

    Yep.

  30. paulie

    TK has suggested it’s motivated by fundraising concerns.

    That’s part of it. Part of it is macho flash. They know it offends people and that in itself is a reason to do it and gain some sort of thrill. Part of it is the in-group camraderie that comes from condemning outsiders. Part of it is boys club mentality; by being exclusionary they intensify their feeling of belonging with each other. Part of it comes from over-reaction to rejection (by women and others) and over-reaction to social changes that challenge the status of some people at the perceived top of the social heap and their sense of entitlement to same. Part of it is conspiracy-mongering. Part of it is actual genuine bigotry. There are several other aspects.

  31. paulie

    Palmer or Boaz might have been the better guests for this one. It’s not easy, but one can be civil and also challenge the severe dysfunctional thinking emanating from Auburn.

    TK and other Longites seem to recognize that the bigotry holds liberty back, but they seem to believe that the fringy positioning is the path toward Anarchotopia. This is why they seem more in line with the Auburners than the cosmotarian….

    One problem with using Auburn as shorthand for Rockwellians is that Roderick Long (at least of the last time I checked) also lives in Auburn, Alabama; Charles (radgeek) Johnson also hails from there and at least at one point moved back (haven’t kept up as to whether he is still there currently). The Molinari Institute to the extent it has a physical base is also based in Auburn, Alabama. I also lived there for a while and I was a lot friendlier to Rockwellianism at the time, I was introduced to what you call Longism there. My most recent state ID still lists my Auburn address, although it’s been over 10 years since that ID expired and 16 years since I lived at that address …but that’s still the one I have. It’s where I opened the bank account I still have.

    As for choosing between Rockwellians and cosmotarians, I prefer cosmotarians. I’m an immigrant. I’ve been a minority all of my life in one way or another. I’m of mostly Jewish ancestry, but multi-racial, and have a multi-racial family. Some of my ancestry is Asian and my nephews are considered black. If I have biological children they are of all the different so called races. I have lived in different countries on different continents and been to many others. I’ve lived in many different kinds of neighborhoods with many different kinds of people. I enjoy variety in all things and hate bigotry. I grew up secular and have attended many different kinds of religious ceremonies with various friends, roommates, exes, etc. So I’m pretty damn cosmotarian myself.

    I also come from the political left; almost everyone in my family is either a Democrat or further left if they are political at all. The right wing still irks me more than the left, and more so in the era of Trump, the alt right and the Hoppean hostile takeover attempt of the LP. All the more so since they have attacked me personally.

    So in your taxonomy I guess I am a mix of Longite (the Other Auburner?), cosmotarian, prog and prag – after all I do have a long history of working in real world practical politics with many different organizations and groups in a wide variety of capacities – and apostate Rockwellian. I’m more and more repulsed by the paleo and alt right and its conflation with libertarianism on one hand (and increasing incursion directly into the LP) and authoritarian-nationalist Drumpf populism on the other. Fascism and libertarianism should never be mixed together.

    As for parliamentary games…sorry, but my eyes just glaze over. I have an instinctive aversion to bureaucracy and red tape as well as an ideological one.

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    “That’s [fundraising concerns] part of it. Part of it is macho flash. They know it offends people and that in itself is a reason to do it and gain some sort of thrill. Part of it is the in-group camaraderie that comes from condemning outsiders. Part of it is boys club mentality; by being exclusionary they intensify their feeling of belonging with each other. Part of it comes from over-reaction to rejection (by women and others) and over-reaction to social changes that challenge the status of some people at the perceived top of the social heap and their sense of entitlement to same. Part of it is conspiracy-mongering. Part of it is actual genuine bigotry. There are several other aspects.”

    That’s a good paragraph summing up the motivations.

    The loss of social status is a significant part of it. Mario Vargas Llosa spoke at Cato some time ago regarding Latin American fascism and fascism in general, and said his studies pointed to two common factors in every fascist/nationalist movement:

    1) a sense that political corruption in a particular society has become pandemic.
    2) the perception of the loss of social status by the majority ethnicity/race.

    And I thought, damn, that’s a pretty concise and comprehensive observation.

    He pointed out that the loss of social status is what makes nationalism so pernicious: at its most virulent, it infects all organizations, public or private.

    In short, if ‘white” people in this country decide en masse that Trump is right, we’re all in big trouble, and there is no way the Libertarian Party will be safe from the infestation.

    That’s why paulie has been spot-on sounding the alarm with the white nationalist incursion into the LP. I don’t think we are done with it yet.

    Regarding the fundraising angle, I don’t think its as much a cold, calculating decision to go after white nationalist money, as much as it is what the political scientist say about political donations: the money doesn’t change the way a politician thinks, the money just flows to the politicians who already feel the way the donors do.

    In other words, these people were already racists/nationalists.

  33. Andy

    Paul said: :As for choosing between Rockwellians and cosmotarians, I prefer cosmotarians. I’m an immigrant. I’ve been a minority all of my life in one way or another. I’m of mostly Jewish ancestry, but multi-racial, and have a multi-racial family. Some of my ancestry is Asian and my nephews are considered black.”

    What does any of this personal anecdotal stuff have to do with whether or not one supports legitimate libertarianism? You either support property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle or you do not.

    Also, the Mises Institute is not a “whites only” organization. That is a complete bullshit notion to imply. A person’s race, ethnicity, or national origin are irrelevant to the principles espoused by the Mises Institute.

  34. Andy

    Jefferson Kim is a Korean American, and he’s also a hardcore Mises Institute/LewRockwell.com/Tom Woods/Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Stefan Molyneux fan.

    My answer to Jefferson Kim’s question below: No, Real libertarianism is not dead, and I say this in spite of the left wing “PC” SJW’s, the Gary Johnson/Bill Weld phonies, and the people who are more interested in justifying their libertine lifestyle than they are in property rights and the NAP.

    Jefferson Kim: Libertarianism is Dead? Right-Libertarians a Minority? SJW Left-Libertarians Have Taken Over?

  35. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “I try to be charitable.”

    Some of the people from the paleo side of things have long since lost the benefit of the doubt in terms of just chalking their behavior up to dimwittedness or a brute money grab.

    Just to be clear, being personally charitable is perfectly acceptable. The Libertarian Party itself has no such option at this point, given that it has a brand image to protect.

  36. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    In case you missed it, Ms. Harlos is trying to stir up more libertarian infighting through her LNC positions.
    http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/014790.html

    And lots of posts on her personal FB page, if you aren’t blocked there. With, I’m happy to say, push back by people who thought she was cool and now are beginning to see the dark underbelly others of us have seen for a couple years.

    Between the manic grin and the “shut up if you don’t agree with me” attitude, she reminds me of Wayne Root.

    Yes, a few of the libertarian socialists, especially Matt, were obnoxious or said stupid things. Just like some of the Mises Caucus people seemed bent on purge of everyone who was a tad outside their philosophy and strategy.

    But macho flash infighting among males and females who use it to bolster their power base so they can achieve their messianic goals is not the answer.

  37. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Ooops, not her personal page or I couldn’t read it…

    Her OFFICIAL LNC public page, which is why I could read it. (And I’m sure there’s more of the same and worse on her private member group supporting her moves as secretary. What an operator!!)

    https://www.facebook.com/pinkflameofliberty/

  38. Andy

    “Jefferson Kim is a Korean American, and he’s also a hardcore Mises Institute/LewRockwell.com/Tom Woods/Hans-Hermann Hoppe/Stefan Molyneux fan.”

    Just to clarify, Stefan Molyneux has never been a part of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, although he has been a guest on The Tom Woods Show several times (The Tom Woods Show is not officially a part of the Mises Institute, but Tom Woods is obviously affiliated with the Mises Institute as he is a Senior Fellow there), and Tom Woods has been a guest on Molyneux’s Freedomain Radio several times.

  39. Anthony Dlugos

    “Just to clarify, Stefan Molyneux has never been a part of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, although he has been a guest on The Tom Woods Show several times…”

    oh, thank god. Now I can sleep at night.

  40. Andy

    “The Mises Institute has more diversity than the Libertarian National Committee.

    https://www.lp.org/libertarian-national-committee/

    When I posted this above, I noticed that I accidentally posted the link to the Libertarian National Committee members twice, when I meant to post that link, and the link to the Libertarian National Committee’s office staff.

    The Mises Institute also has more diversity than the Libertarian National Committee’s office staff.

    https://www.lp.org/staff/

  41. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Also, Joshua Smith seems to be working closely with Harlos. He’s even trying to get on the Young Turks podcast by saying he’ll denounce socialists in the LP if they put him on.

    I left a description of what I should tell young Turks I’m willing to discuss. Do libertarians think it’s OK to give blow jobs to get votes. Actually I don’t know. Maybe I’ll start a poll. ha ha ha

  42. DJ

    In fighting? In a group? Color me shocked- any place where people gather as a “group” with an agenda will have “in fighting”- to wit: This web site. Or any web site for that matter- it’s a group with ‘some’ like mindedness then find their opinion doesn’t matter to the “group” or someone else in the “group” can shout louder or more academically- it’s called ego. Yet people want to join a group- it makes no sense when the evidence is overwhelming that groups disrespect the Individual- yet, the individual is the one History remembers- but, but, but- the “group”- LOL

  43. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “Just to be clear, being personally charitable is perfectly acceptable. The Libertarian Party itself has no such option at this point, given that it has a brand image to protect.”

    You didn’t seem very interested in protecting the LP’s brand and imagine when Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were pissing all over the party’s platform, coming off as goofy and unprepared, and gushing over Hillary Clinton, during their campaign.

  44. Anthony Dlugos

    Protect the brand image against the best result in party history? lol.

    Nobody “gushed” about Hilary Clinton. At most, J-W pointed out that she was not the devil the hard right makes her out to be, and she would likely be a less dangerous president than Trump turned out to be.

    Although the counterfactual does not exist, Trump’s trampling of the constitution and his populist ranting lends credence to the theory. Hillary would almost certainly have been a better president.

    Goofy and unprepared is the motley crew of also-rans Johnson and Weld defeated, none of whom had ever held office before.

  45. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    August 13, 2018 at 11:39
    Protect the brand image against the best result in party history? lol.”

    It really wasn’t that great of a result when you dig beneath the surface. Johnson/Weld got a lot of protest votes in an election where there was the highest level of discontent with the major party candidates since the LP has been in existence, and where there was no higher profile minor party or independent candidate in race, or which even made the ballot in all 50 states plus DC, Johnson/Weld got 3.27% of the vote. Given the dynamics of the 2016 election, they under-performed in vote totals if anything.

    It is not like they got elected (which is a good thing, since if they had, they would have permanently discredited the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism in general). So they got 3.27% of the vote in an election where voter discontent was at an all time high since the LP has been in existence, and where they did not have to run against any higher profile minor party or independent candidates, like John Anderson or Ross Perot or Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan. Johnson/Weld failed to grow the Libertarian Party. LP membership went up a little bit in 2016, but then it dropped like a rock in 2017 down to around 14,500, which is about what it was in the mid 1990’s (and note that US population has increase since then). Like I have said here before, I heard from two people who did fundraising last year off of the Johnson/Weld donor list that said that a lot of the people they called off of it told them that they had no interest in the Libertarian Party, or in libertarianism, and that they only donated because they were trying to influence the result of the presidential election. The general consensus that I have gotten from the public while talking to tens of thousands of people in multiple states during ballot access drives, is that the LP screwed up by nominating Johnson/Weld, because they lacked principles, and/or because they came off as goofy and unprepared, and that even out of the people who voted for them, most of them have said that it was more of a protest vote than anything else because they did not like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and I have gotten this same feedback from every other petition circulator whom I have spoken to who has gathered signatures during this same time period, both of the actual libertarian and the non-libertarian mercenary variety.

    It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the Libertarian Party that Johnson/Weld ran against the LP’s platform on multiple fronts, and that they severely watered down the platform when they weren’t outright running against it. Running a campaign like they did is not in the best interests of the Libertarian Party, or liberty in general.

  46. Andy

    If just getting votes for the sake of getting votes is the goal, should the Libertarian Party court say Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz for President in 2020? They could potentially get a lot more votes than Gary Johnson got.

  47. Andy

    Let’s say that the Libertarian Party continues on its dysfunctional course, and it does nominate Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz for President, and let’s say that they run on a platform that is even less libertarian than the one on which Johnson ran, but let’s say that they ended up getting double or triple the votes of Johnson 2016. Would this be a great victory for the advancement of the Libertarian Party and the overall cause of liberty?

    I would say no.

    If principles get thrown out the window then votes no longer really matter. The entire point of running as a Libertarian is not to get votes for the sake of getting votes, but rather to advance the platform of the party. This does not mean that every candidate has to run on the most radically libertarian platform possible, but they should at least offer a platform that makes big steps to move society in the direction of the party’s platform, and they should not run a campaign that flat out goes against the party’s platform on multiple issues like Johnson/Weld did.

  48. DJ

    Anybody who believes hillary would have been a better POTUS really should take a long hard look at their priorities which are promoting arguably the most vile and blatantly corrupt person in the political arena. And if it comes down to personality, which ultimately it does trump still wins.

  49. Anthony Dlugos

    Hillary almost certainly would have been a better president than Trump. She’s a terrible campaigner, but the leaps and bounds that the state has grown and will grow under an authoritarian like Trump would put a moderate like Hillary to shame. Its not even close.

    Corruption is one thing. That we’ve had. Trump authoritarian inclinations….we haven’t seen that since Nixon, and maybe not since FDR.

    As if Trump is corruption free.

    Anyone who doesn’t believe that probably hates the left more than the love liberty.

  50. Libertydave

    Come on people, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are two sides of the same coin. Saying one is better that the other is just wishful thinking. The only difference between the two would be which of the rich and powerful would get the most money from the government.

  51. Anthony Dlugos

    I realize we are talking about the difference between a douche and a turd sandwich, and that we are never going to know what WOULD HAVE happened if Hillary was elected. I can also appreciate the argument that one does not see a dime’s worth of difference between Trump and Clinton.

    On the other hand, the paleos, Mises nationalists, and various hard-righters hiding behind the AnCap label continue to trot out this shibboleth that J-W were shilling for/gushing about/endorsing Hillary for president, with the implication that that is a bridge too far for Libertarians. Never hear them say that about Libertarians who did/are doing something similar for Trump, or various other republicans lo’ these many years.

    Their hypocrisy in this area belies their true predilections.

    Personally, I think this country would have been much better off with Hillary as president and a Republican Congress, as opposed to what we have now. See the spiraling Trump deficits and the recent announcement of his sprawling defense budget. Where are those Libertarians now who were arguing that Trump’s position on foreign policy made him worth supporting?

    But Hillary is the vile and corrupt one we had to be worried about?

    Bull. You can always tell the Libertarians who get their news from hard rights sources like Faux News…or worse, places like Infowars. They’ve never stopped excoriating especially Weld for what is a reasonable position: as bad as Hillary was, she was not the threat to individual liberty that an authoritarian like Trump represented. Not only was that position reasonable at the time, its been borne out by subsequent Trump actions.

    Bottom line is, if Ranked Choice Voting existed in 2016, I would have put J-W #1, Hillary #2, and left the rest of the ballot (for president) blank.

  52. DJ

    SMH- evil is evil and “the left” represents it well- and “the left” includes politicians from “the right”- they are ALL authoritarians whose only difference is the rhetoric they use to sell their bullshit- as for where news is gotten from, if you’re referring to me, I get “news” from many different sources- fox and info wars is not on my list- I pay very little attention to ‘sources’ I look at the story and make my decisions based on what “I” believe and where we are as a country, the results speak for themselves- my beliefs are founded in the Individuals ability to put forth effort creates the greater good, Naturally- I despise gov’t intervention in ALL civilian endeavors, foreign and domestic- I despise media manipulation and know it has been going on longer than we are old- I don’t need the media to tell me what to think I do it quite well on my own and I don’t deal well with “authoritarians” no matter what their title (including message board posters)- in this particular forum “the left” seems to have the upper hand and call themselves “true/real” Libertarians- well, I’m “a” libertarian whose score on the Nolan Chart is slightly to the right- SLIGHTLY- that means I disagree with “the left”- though not entirely, capisce?! And ANY one (yes I’m talking to you AD) that believes hillary would have been any better really needs to look at their priorities- she’s had 30 years in the lime light to expose her evil ways and succeeded- and for the record I didn’t/don’t support trump- I didn’t/don’t support Johnson or Weld- and BTW, I’m pragmatic by nature, and utilitarian with a strong analytical personality combined with failure analysis training which requires looking at ALL the evidence available to ascertain the cause of the failure- this country started failing long before trump- it could be argued “the left” has been the most egregious (beginning 1913), but, I’d go back even further and say before the ink was dry on the constitution they ALL started abusing it with rare exceptions along the way- over-simplifying political personality’s is still the cult of personality- hillary’s sucks. She’s a phony condescending old hag with more baggage than the Kardashians and the media covers her in the same fucking way- as though her shit doesn’t stink- speaking of sources- maybe you should listen to fox and infowars- at least you’d get a different perspective than the lame bullshit the big ones put out.

  53. ATBAFT

    Anthony, would not Hillary have threatened individual liberty through her two (so far) picks for lifetime Supreme Court justices, plus two more (Ginsburg, Breyer) who would probably step down if she were president? I think a 6-3 SCOTUS majority would be the end of the second amendment, much of the first, and far worse for America than any of the shenanigans Trump has tried.

  54. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DJ wrote: “evil is evil and “the left” represents it well- and “the left” includes politicians from “the right”-” Hear hear.

    We just have to make people think in terms of libertarian to authoritarian spectrum. But instead of the box which is insufficiently delineated, why not a points system, 0 being anarchist, 10 being authoritarian and THEN rate by points WHICH issues they are most statist on: social, economic, political/military. Then you have both the overall average and a breakdown of what issues they are most statist on.

  55. Anthony Dlugos

    ATBAFT.

    That’s (the supreme court angle) a decent argument.

    I am willing to listen to the thoughtful argument that counters my assertion that Hillary would have been the better president.

    I’m even willing to hear out the argument of someone like DJ who (I think) is basically taking the “pox on all your houses” position.

    What I don’t accept is the reflexive right-wing thinking that hates the state more than they love liberty, and thus overestimates the danger from the left whilst underestimating the danger from the right.

    They are paleoconservatives in libertarian clothing.

  56. dL

    Anthony, would not Hillary have threatened individual liberty through her two (so far) picks for lifetime Supreme Court justices

    If SCOTUS is your primary criterion, then the Dem picks objectively have been better. They came down right on internet sales tax, cake bakers, and cell phone privacy. The Repub selections for the most part did not.

  57. Jim

    Depends on the issue. The dissent in Kelo was O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas – a Bush 1 appointee and 3 Reagan and appointees.

  58. dL

    Depends on the issue. The dissent in Kelo was O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas – a Bush 1 appointee and 3 Reagan and appointees.

    That you are having to reach back to 13 years ago with the Rehnquist court is sort of making my point. The cases I’m referring to were on this year’s docket.

  59. Andy

    I unfortunately have had dealings with ingrates, some of whom are people who have posted here at IPR over the years.

    Socialists and Other Grotesque Ingrates | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

  60. Bondurant

    Hillary is not a “moderate”. She’s a totalitarian stooge just like Trump.

    No Weld 2020.

  61. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “Although the counterfactual does not exist, Trump’s trampling of the constitution and his populist ranting lends credence to the theory. Hillary would almost certainly have been a better president.”

    I see absolutely no evidence of this. Hillary was terrible, and even in the extremely remote chance that she was less destructive than Trump (my guess is that she’d be as bad or worse), the job of the LP’s presidential ticket is not to gush over your opponents, or to play the lesser of two evils game with your opponents, it is to promote the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian message. If Johnson/Weld thought that Hillary was so “wonderful”, why did they bother running? They should have not run themselves and just voted for Hillary Clinton.

    I think that the truth of the matter is that although Trump is still an establishment guy at the end of the day, he’s not as tight with the establishment as Hillary is, so the establishment fears that they have less control over him than they typically have over politicians. This is probably why elements within the Deep State have been attacking Trump, and it is also likely why some of the infiltrators in the Libertarian Party – like Bill Weld – have attacked Donald Trump while handling Hillary Clinton with kid gloves.

  62. Andy

    Tom Woods demolishes the lie put out by some that the Mises Institute supports Hitler and/or fascism.

    Hitler and Economics | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

  63. Anthony Dlugos

    Paleos have regularly, and continue to regularly, “gush” over various Republicans…and worse…and also regularly play the lesser of two evils game, the only difference is that their “lesser of two evils” candidate tends to be a right-wing authoritarian/moralist.

    The irony is that Andy, in his last paragraph, goes right into a lesser of two evils argument vis a vi Trump.

    Which is fine. I don’t mind a discussion over who would have been the lesser of two evils, from a Libertarian perspective, between Trump and Hillary.

    What I do mind is hard right paleos sanctimoniously arguing that they are the only “true” libertarians, who would never deign to make a lesser two evils argument, who regularly give hard right politicians a pass.

    And Hillary is definitely a moderate. Her whole problem is that she was too moderate for the Democratic Party and didn’t want to admit it. She tried to play both sides of the fence and it came off disingenuous.

    If she would have campaigned as her husband did and just ignored the progressive wing of her party, she probably would have won the election.

  64. Anthony Dlugos

    From the Grain of Salt File:

    Richard Nixon, “I am not a crook!”

    Tom Woods, “I am not a white nationalist!”

  65. Jim

    dL “That you are having to reach back to 13 years ago with the Rehnquist court is sort of making my point. The cases I’m referring to were on this year’s docket.”

    I picked Kelo because it’s the one that always sticks in my mind. I was about 40 miles away from the Kelo house when the decision was announced on the radio.

    But if you want this year,

    Labor union dues – the four in opposition were Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Breyer – all four Democratic appointments.

    Gambling – the two in opposition were Sotomayor and Ginsberg – 2 of the 4 Democratic appointments.

    The cake baker – the two in opposition were Sotomayor and Ginsberg (odd that you would think this one was correctly decided because of Democratic appointees when the majority had all 5 Republican appointees and the 4 Democratic appointees were evenly split.)

  66. Jim

    Does anyone actually accuse the Mises Institute of supporting fascism? Some have been accused of supporting white nationalism, but I don’t think I’ve heard anyone at Mises accused of being a fascist.

  67. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “On the other hand, the paleos, Mises nationalists, and various hard-righters hiding behind the AnCap label continue to trot out this shibboleth that J-W were shilling for/gushing about/endorsing Hillary for president, with the implication that that is a bridge too far for Libertarians. Never hear them say that about Libertarians who did/are doing something similar for Trump, or various other republicans lo’ these many years.”

    There is a big difference between somebody who is considered to be a part of the libertarian or constitutionalist movement saying something good about, or even outright supporting, Donald Trump, and the officially nominated candidates for President and Vice President of the Libertarian Party gushing over Hillary Clinton. That difference is that the individuals who are considered to be a part of the liberty movement who said good things about, or even outright endorsed, Donald Trump, did not do so as official representatives of the Libertarian Party. The fact that Johnson/Weld, in their official capacity as candidates for the highest office in the country, gushed over one of their opponents, in Hillary Clinton, is disgusting, and went against the very interests of the party whom they were nominated to represent.

    I did not agree with those in the liberty community who endorsed Trump, but at least they were not in positions where they were acting as official representatives of the Libertarian Party.

    “On the other hand, the paleos, Mises nationalists, and various hard-righters hiding behind the AnCap label continue to trot out this shibboleth that J-W were shilling for/gushing about/endorsing Hillary for president,”

    They were. They even called her, “a wonderful public servant.” Anyone who believes this is not a libertarian, and has no business being a candidate for the Libertarian Party.

    “with the implication that that is a bridge too far for Libertarians.”

    Given what a corrupt, lying, big government lover Hillary Clinton is, I’d say that it is a bridge that Libertarians should not cross.

    “Never hear them say that about Libertarians who did/are doing something similar for Trump, or various other republicans lo’ these many years.”

    I have criticized self identified libertarians who have gushed over undeserving Republicans for many years. Remember Libertarians for Bush, and Libertarians for Giuliani? I vehemently criticized those. I have criticized those who supported Trump as well.

    The bad thing about the 2016 election was that the Libertarian Party nominated a ticket that I doubt was really even any kind of big improvement over the D and R tickets, if they were any better at all. There was a lack of options on people’s ballots that was decent in the 2016 presidential election, and given how terrible Hillary Clinton is, and given that Donald Trump at least appeared to be an outsider and a maverick, some in the liberty and alternative politics community decided to get behind Trump. Was this a bad decision? Maybe so, but I can see why some people did it. I’m not saying I agree with this choice, but given the lack of options, and given that it was blatantly apparent from Hillary’s time in office, and behind the scenes when her husband held political office, I understand why some people who usually do not get behind major party candidates said, “Screw it, I’m backing Donald Trump.”

    The Libertarian Party had a great opportunity to offer people a good choice in the 2016 presidential election, and the Libertarian Party screwed up by nominating Johnson/Weld.

    “Their hypocrisy in this area belies their true predilections.”

    There’s no hypocrisy from me.

    “See the spiraling Trump deficits and the recent announcement of his sprawling defense budget. Where are those Libertarians now who were arguing that Trump’s position on foreign policy made him worth supporting?”

    I have criticized Trump, and I am frankly not surprised. Even some of those in the liberty community who got behind Trump have criticized these actions, as well as some other things he’s done.

    “But Hillary is the vile and corrupt one we had to be worried about?”

    Hillary is vile and corrupt and there were very legitimate reasons to be worried about her becoming President.

    Were there reasons to be concerned about a Trump presidency as well? Sure, but given that we already knew what Hillary was like in office, as well as behind the scenes in her husband’s administrations, there were very real reasons to fear her winning the White House.

    “Bull. You can always tell the Libertarians who get their news from hard rights sources like Faux News…or worse, places like Infowars. They’ve never stopped excoriating especially Weld for what is a reasonable position: as bad as Hillary was, she was not the threat to individual liberty that an authoritarian like Trump represented. Not only was that position reasonable at the time, its been borne out by subsequent Trump actions.”

    There was nothing reasonable about Bill Weld’s position. Hillary Clinton is a corrupt hardcore statist. Bill Weld was supposed to be representing the Libertarian Party as the party’s candidate for Vice President. His job was to promote the Libertarian Party and philosophy, not to gush over one of his opponents, or play “the lesser of two evils” between his opponents, and there is simply no excuse for a Libertarian Party candidate to gush over Hillary Clinton.

    I have spoken to many libertarians of all varieties from all over the country, both in person and online, over the years, and I have never met one libertarian who had anything good to say about Hillary Clinton.

    “Bottom line is, if Ranked Choice Voting existed in 2016, I would have put J-W #1, Hillary #2, and left the rest of the ballot (for president) blank.”

    If there had been ranked choice voting in 2016, I would have voted for the Constitution Party’s candidate of Darrell Castle as my #1 pick (which is who I did vote for in 2016; note that I did vote for the Libertarian Party candidates who appeared on my ballot in down ticket races), and for #2, I might have voted for the Green Party’s candidate, Jill Stein, or more likely, I would have written in None Of The Above, or written in Darryl W. Perry, or perhaps I’d have written in Perry at #2 and None Of The Above at #3, or vice versa.

    Why wouldn’t I have voted for Johnson/Weld as my #2 choice, or as any choice? Because I think that they are a couple of charlatans. Bill Weld is a Deep State plant as he is an open Council on Foreign Relations members, which is where Hillary Clinton admits she gets her marching orders. You don’t get in the Council on Foreign Relations unless you are committed to the ruling political establishment. Gary Johnson is probably in on it as well, and if he is not, he’s a dupe, or perhaps he’s in on it to an extent, and he’s a dupe as well. I am still a member and a supporters of the Libertarian Party (like I said above, I did vote for the Libertarian Party candidates who were on my ballot for other offices), but I put principle over party, and I am not going to vote for a presidential ticket that was as unprincipled as Gary Johnson/Bill Weld were even if thought they had the Libertarian Party label next to their name. The party screwed up at that 2016 convention in Orlando, and I am not going to reward the party when it screws up. If I had voted for Johnson/Weld, the message that I would have sent would be that it is OK for the party to nominate a couple of unprincipled screw ups like Johnson/Weld, and this would just give my OK for the party to keep screwing up like this in the future. I just could not in good conscience do that, because if this is the way that LP members operate, the party will end up as being no better than the Democrats and Republicans, and the party might as well change its name to the LINO Party, as in the Libertarian In Name Only Party.

    I don’t think that candidates have to be perfect, nor do they have to agree with me on every detail of everything in order for me to support them, but even so, some standards have to be met, and Gary Johnson and Bill Weld fell far outside of what I’d say are a reasonable set of standards. Any combination of the candidates who made the main stage in Orlando would have been better than Johnson/Weld.

  68. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “The irony is that Andy, in his last paragraph, goes right into a lesser of two evils argument vis a vi Trump.”

    You must have misinterpreted what I said. I do not know who the lesser evil is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I can see why some would say that Hillary Clinton is a greater evil than Donald Trump, but I really have no way of knowing for sure.

    I think that it is generally a waste of time to play the lesser of two evils game.

    If solid evidence can be shown that one politician is significantly worse than another politician, then I can see engaging in such a discussion, but when the politicians in question are both so bad that it is difficult to say, then there really is not much point in playing this game. A lot of the time, it should should be pretty clear that there is no lesser of two evils between the D and the R.

    If we were talking about Rand Paul vs Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I’d take Rand over either of them.

  69. Anthony Dlugos

    “Bill Weld is a Deep State plant as he is an open Council on Foreign Relations members, which is where Hillary Clinton admits she gets her marching orders. You don’t get in the Council on Foreign Relations unless you are committed to the ruling political establishment. Gary Johnson is probably in on it as well…”

    lol.

    You sounded less crazy when you were arguing that you’ve seen no convincing evidence that the Ickes reptilian theory is true, but you keep an open mind.

    “…but even so, some standards have to be met, and Gary Johnson and Bill Weld fell far outside of what I’d say are a reasonable set of standards.”

    I’d agree. Anything sane probably falls outside your “reasonable set of standards,” and anyone with any sort of stable work history and decent resume is probably a “screw-up” to you. Good luck getting your felon elected president in order to abolish the federal government on day one.

  70. robert capozzi

    AD,

    To defend AJ for a moment, he strikes me as quite committed to the cause of liberty. He is in some ways emblematic of the dangers of unquestioning NAPism. When his thought system is challenged, he seems unwilling to engage in radical thought, and instead doubles down with a shaky string of non-sequiturs and dogmatic mantras.

    In a sense, he may serve other NAPsters by laying bare the many holes in that thought system. Although, so far, I’ve yet to see any of them step back in off the ledge. And, yet, hope springs eternal!

  71. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    I just wonder if he has the opposite effect on the more level-headed NAPists: he’s so far out there, they can draw a distinction that, from an electoral politics/public policy perspective, really doesn’t exist.

    It’s like the shady used car salesman saying, “well, at least I’m not Amway,” when, from the public’s perspective, its a distinction without a difference. Which could explain why you haven’t seen any of them “step back off the ledge.”

    (I don’t mean to imply that the more rational NAPists are shady con men. just that, from the perspective of the general public, they’d no more vote for/support a rational NAPist than they would a birch society/9/11 troofer/full blown anarcho-capitalist.)

  72. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Very possibly. There may be a kind of pecking order in the sanitarium. The seemingly saner bi-polar cases might feel sane by comparison with the severe paranoid schizophrenic.

  73. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Since you guys are interested in WELD tales, here’s something Romney/Weld related that just popped up on LNC discussion list:
    If LNC can try to deal with with a couple loudmouthed impoverish socialists (resolution I mentioned above that got shot down), you would think they would want to deal with this. ANY IDEAS WHO is up to no good in Utah??

    Quote in part from Craig Bowden, LP Senate Candidate Utah:
    ….It has come to my attention that there is an element within our party
    that is actively working to recruit Mitt Romney to the Libertarian
    Party. That we are seeking him out during an election in which there is
    a Libertarian candidate facing him, and he is one of the least
    Libertarian politicians out there right now.

    I was informed this was one of the reasons why Bill Weld would not
    endorse my candidacy. Because we had to be “politically correct” and not
    rock that boat.

    I find this beyond disturbing and I am not going to stay silent on this
    any longer. Screw the boat. It is going to get rocked…..

    See all at: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/015043.html

Leave a Reply

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