Roundtable: Tom Woods, Jason Stapleton, Dave Smith, Mance Rayder, and Marc Clair on Why We Joined the Libertarian Party

228 thoughts on “Roundtable: Tom Woods, Jason Stapleton, Dave Smith, Mance Rayder, and Marc Clair on Why We Joined the Libertarian Party

  1. Andy

    It is great news that these guys all joined the Libertarian Party. I just wish they had done it before this year’s national convention, or even better, before the 2016 national convention.

  2. Andy

    So you think having big names in the liberty community like Tom Woods, Jason Stapleton, and Dave Smith, become active in the Libertarian Party is a bad thing? You must not be very serious about making the party more successful.

  3. paulie

    Since when are you so gaga over big names? I thought you were the one who can’t stop pissing and moaning that “big names” like Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are involved in the LP.

    Personally, my view is that our biggest untapped constituency is on our left flank, and the more we recruit from the right – especially the bigoted and bigot-friendly far right – the more we shoot ourselves in the foot.

  4. Anthony Dlugos

    “So you think having big names in the liberty community like Tom Woods, Jason Stapleton, and Dave Smith…”

    Big names?

    lol

    Funny pic, though.

  5. DJ

    paulie: Personally, my view is that our biggest untapped constituency is on our left flank, and the more we recruit from the right – especially the bigoted and bigot-friendly far right – the more we shoot ourselves in the foot.

    Me: You’re confusing politicians with voters- imagine that.

    Voters on the right are more into less gov’t than voters on the left. But, I understand. Anyone the width of a period to the right of US Leftist are evil incarnate- the devil, so to speak. But Hillary and Bernie had all the answers- and that dumb broad in NY, not to mention Pelosi, Feinstein, Booker, et al- the face of the US Left.

  6. Andy

    The biggest potential constituency for libertarians is not on the left, and it is not on the right either. It is independents and non-voters.

    Having said this, when Ron Paul ran, he brought in a lot of independents and non-voters, and he also brought in a lot of people from the left, and he did this as a guy who is largely identified as being on the right side of the libertarian movement. He did also have a lot of support from people who were already identifying as libertarians, and he also got support from some Republicans (although many Republican rejected him), as well as lots of paleo-conservatives and Constitution Party types. I find it to be ironic that Ron Paul was more effective in doing outreach to the left than any left-libertarian of whom I am aware.

  7. Andy

    Anthony, the liberty movement has not reached mainstream success to the point where it is even close to the Democrats or Republicans, so in this small pond, people like Tom Woods and Jason Stapleton and Dave Smith are big names. These guys are also far better spokesman for the party than Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are.

  8. Andy

    I like big names if they have good principles. I would love to see Andrew Napolitano get active in the Libertarian Party.

  9. paulie

    The biggest potential constituency for libertarians is not on the left

    I disagree, and I have explained why in many past threads.

    I find it to be ironic that Ron Paul was more effective in doing outreach to the left than any left-libertarian of whom I am aware.

    Not ironic, he got a bigger national platform by being included in the NSGOP national debates which most libertarians never get that kind of national stage. Being strongly antiwar gave him that appeal. The old, ugly ties to racist newsletters took it away. He succeeded despite, not because of, his right wing lean. Imagine how much better a libertarian without the racist baggage could have done.

    Ed Clark and Gary Johnson vastly outperformed other LP nominees before and in between, and both emphasized a lot of left leaning social/civil liberties issues, unlike other past LP tickets which leaned more heavily conservative. It’s too bad Johnson shot himself in the foot so much in his second run.

    I think the potential is definitely there and we haven’t even barely tapped the tip of that iceberg. But the connection to racists and bigotry is the achilles heel. We need to burn that bridge and dynamite everything for miles around it, then salt the earth.

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    “Voters on the right are more into less gov’t than voters on the left.”

    They’re really not. It’s just that, in this country, the retrograde social order the right wants to reimpose on society happens to coincide with an era when government was smaller.

    They have no problem with an expansive, big spending government, just so long as it “Makes American Great Again.” (Hence the states’ rights fetish among many of them, especially the paleoconservatives that the LP and libertarianism is infected with.)

    The left’s heart is in the right place. They just need a little economics education.

  11. Anthony Dlugos

    “Anthony, the liberty movement has not reached mainstream success to the point where it is even close to the Democrats or Republicans, so in this small pond, people like Tom Woods and Jason Stapleton and Dave Smith are big names. These guys are also far better spokesman for the party than Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are.”

    With people like Tom “League of the South” Woods in charge, it would stay a small pond, populated by a lot of retrograde moralists, misogynists, xenophobes and racists, people whose superficial professions of liberty hide the reality of that they see individual liberty as their (wink…wink) license to indulge in those frailties.

  12. paulie

    “Voters on the right are more into less gov’t than voters on the left.”

    LOL, who said that?

    They’re really not. It’s just that, in this country, the retrograde social order the right wants to reimpose on society happens to coincide with an era when government was smaller.

    They have no problem with an expansive, big spending government, just so long as it “Makes American Great Again.” (Hence the states’ rights fetish among many of them, especially the paleoconservatives that the LP and libertarianism is infected with.)

    The left’s heart is in the right place. They just need a little economics education.

    Agreed. The right only pays more lip service to smaller government in one of three broader policy areas, economic, and increasingly not even that. The left is marginally better on two areas, peace/foreign policy and civil liberties issues, but their leaders betray them on those constantly. The biggest issues animating the right nowadays are pushes for bigger government – building a wall, nationalizing social media platforms, rounding up and deporting people on a mass scale, reimposing government control over women’s wombs and sexuality, bathroom discrimination, sucking up to the police when they abuse and kill people, fetishizing the military, war with Islam, locking more people up, and increasingly hostility to free trade as well. They are ever more authoritarian and there’s a cult like worship of Trump that goes way past the scale of past president-worship in the US rising to Hitler, Stalin or Kim levels of adulation.

    Ivan Eland’s research shows that on a libertarian peace, freedom and prosperity scale, government has grown faster under recent Republican presidents than recent Democratic ones; debt and incarceration certainly have.

    Furthermore the people I am talking about are not all voters. Many of them are non-voters. They identify more with the left but they may not see a reason to vote given that Democrats are not really doing anything for them either, but if and when they do vote it usually ends up being for Democrats, Greens or Socialists of some kind. Sometimes some Republicans like Ron Paul or Trump might appeal to them on the basis of being anti-establishment but they are just as likely to fall for a Nader or Sanders. A lot of them are young people who don’t know or care as much about economic issues yet and could be very ripe for libertarian outreach if libertarians made a real effort and learned how to talk to them. Many are people who feel disenfranchised by the major party establishment politicians but don’t see a minor party vote as a good use of time.

    When I did a lot of OPH quiz booths I found the biggest cluster on campuses was left-center-libertarian. To me that seems to be the biggest population we could be bringing in, but so far failing to.

    Surveys have shown that non-whites are just as or more likely to take libertarian issue stances, but the LP is overwhelmingly white. We have generally had white, male libertarians coming primarily from the right dominate the party and thus drive away most of the other people who have explored it, or could have. It gets much worse when they are obnoxious, argumentative right wingers who exhibit various forms of bigotry.

  13. paulie

    The other thing is that the LP/LM focuses so much of its meager outreach efforts on the right, and the low hanging fruit has already been picked there. On the left there is a lot more opportunity simply because the effort hardly ever even gets made.

  14. paulie

    And I should point out again as I have many times before, conservatives also tend to be more temperamentally conservative as well. They are the least likely people to change anything, including their party, even when they agree with libertarians on most issues. All the demographic factors that make someone more likely to be right wing or conservative – white, male, native born, straight, economically comfortable or well off, etc – also make someone least prone to change. And we’ve already tried endlessly to bend over forwards and backwards and tie ourselves in knots to appeal to such people, in the process driving away the much larger and more available audiences to our left on the diamond chart.

  15. paulie

    With people like Tom “League of the South” Woods in charge, it would stay a small pond, populated by a lot of retrograde moralists, misogynists, xenophobes and racists, people whose superficial professions of liberty hide the reality of that they see individual liberty as their (wink…wink) license to indulge in those frailties.

    True.

  16. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “With people like Tom “League of the South” Woods in charge, it would stay a small pond, populated by a lot of retrograde moralists, misogynists, xenophobes and racists, people whose superficial professions of liberty hide the reality of that they see individual liberty as their (wink…wink) license to indulge in those frailties.”

    Anthony, people like you said the same type of stuff about Ron Paul, and you were proven to be dead wrong.

  17. paulie

    Anthony, people like you said the same type of stuff about Ron Paul, and you were proven to be dead wrong.

    Ron Paul’s association with racists and bigots crashed the potential shown by his campaigns. He could have done a lot better without that baggage.

  18. Andy

    Some people like Anthony keep making these accusations against Tom Woods, trying to paint him as this terrible guy who hates black people, etc…

    Here is Tom Woods hanging out and joking around with libertarian rapper/singer, Eric July, with whom he is on very friendly terms, and both have a great deal of respect for each other.

    Tom Woods/Eric July Dad Joke Competition

  19. paulie

    Having said that, however, as a doctor and politician, Ron Paul knew how to show a lot more empathy than, say, Tom Woods, who just doubles down in full troll mode when charges of bigotry come up.

  20. paulie

    Here is Tom Woods hanging out and joking around with libertarian rapper/singer, Eric July

    The same Eric July who said nazis can be libertarian. You are just making our point for us. Hitler had whole African and other non-white units fighting for him, as you should know because it was posted in many past threads. I guess he wasn’t a bigot either?

  21. Andy

    Here’s another reason why Tom Woods deserves a very high level of respect. He helped Ron Paul develop the Ron Paul Curriculum home schooling program, which is helping parents provide their children with an excellent, low cost, and pro-liberty, alternative to the government school system.

    Here’s a link to the Ron Paul Curriculum:

    https://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/

    Tom Woods also started Liberty Classroom, which is an excellent resource for those looking to become more educated in the history, philosophy, and economics of liberty, and is a great tool for people seeking to run for political office.

    Here’s a link to Liberty Classroom:

    https://www.libertyclassroom.com/

  22. Andy

    The work that Tom Woods has done on the Ron Paul Curriculum and Liberty Classroom alone puts him far ahead of the majority of people in the libertarian movement.

    What have those of you who criticize Tom Woods accomplished? Most of you people have done jack squat.

    Even the few of you who are criticizing Woods have have done some things, your accomplishments are far below those of Tom Woods.

  23. robert capozzi

    pf: my view is that our biggest untapped constituency is on our left flank

    me: It depends on who one means by “our.” My sense is that NAPists’s largest constituency is the angry. The angrier, the more likely to convertible to a simplistic worldview that channels their rage in what they might THINK is a productive path.

    My guess is that lessarchism’s target audience might best be characterized as open-minded and balanced. I’d venture to say those would mostly draw from the edges of the center. That’s also where large percentages of the population reside.

  24. Andy

    “paulie
    ‘September 18, 2018 at 21:46
    With people like Tom “League of the South” Woods in charge, it would stay a small pond, populated by a lot of retrograde moralists, misogynists, xenophobes and racists, people whose superficial professions of liberty hide the reality of that they see individual liberty as their (wink…wink) license to indulge in those frailties.’

    True.”

    Yeah, and I remember back in late 2006-early 2007, when Ron Paul was in the early stages of jumping in the presidential race, Paul said that he did not think that it was going to go anywhere, and that Ron Paul would be an insignificant blip on the radar screen.

    He also thought that Steve Kubby was going to blow up as a candidate and capture the LP’s presidential nomination and bring in good results for the LP.

    He of course ended up being dead wrong on both counts (I have nothing against Kubby, but his campaign crashed and burned as he had little impact on the race and he could not capture the LP’s nomination, and he did not even make it to final ballot, as out of 5 rounds of voting, I think he got eliminated in the 3rd round).

  25. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    September 18, 2018 at 22:36
    ‘pf: my view is that our biggest untapped constituency is on our left flank’

    me: It depends on who one means by “our.” My sense is that NAPists’s largest constituency is the angry. The angrier, the more likely to convertible to a simplistic worldview that channels their rage in what they might THINK is a productive path.

    My guess is that lessarchism’s target audience might best be characterized as open-minded and balanced. I’d venture to say those would mostly draw from the edges of the center. That’s also where large percentages of the population reside.”

    I think that it is possible to convert some people from the left over to libertarianism, but it is not as fertile ground for recruitment as are independents and non-voters.

  26. paulie

    Even the few of you who are criticizing Woods have have done some things, your accomplishments are far below those of Tom Woods.

    His association with and refusal to dissociate from bigots does far more harm to the movement than whatever good he has done.

  27. paulie

    It depends on who one means by “our.”

    libertarian.

    My guess is that lessarchism’s target audience might best be characterized as open-minded and balanced. I’d venture to say those would mostly draw from the edges of the center. That’s also where large percentages of the population reside.

    Not everyone in the population is equally reachable. Young people are more open minded on average, not yet stuck in a lifelong pattern of voting for one of the duopoly parties or seeing themselves as part of the red or blue team, still learning new things. Immigrants are least likely to have a US party they are long associated with, and are likely to be seeking economic opportunity, greater social liberty or both, vis a vis where they came from. People who are from impoverished communities and disproportionately targeted by the drug war and criminal injustice system are more likely to feel that the system is not working for them and may be more willing to explore radical alternatives and outside the box approaches. Libertarians generally fail to connect with these audiences, but I think it’s because libertarianism is marketed incorrectly. The alt right turn and prior ugly history of the paleo “libertarians” only exacerbates this problem.

  28. paulie

    Yeah, and I remember back in late 2006-early 2007, when Ron Paul was in the early stages of jumping in the presidential race, Paul said that he did not think that it was going to go anywhere, and that Ron Paul would be an insignificant blip on the radar screen.

    He probably would have been if it wasn’t for that moment he took on Giuliani on the debate stage.

    He also thought that Steve Kubby was going to blow up as a candidate and capture the LP’s presidential nomination and bring in good results for the LP.

    I thought it was possible, and still think it could have been, but we did not manage the campaign very well. I think if my ideas about how to run it had been adopted maybe the result would have been different.

    Certain things also didn’t break well for us, such as Steve just learning to use the teleprompter and having a prolonged flu at the worst possible time.

  29. paulie

    I think that it is possible to convert some people from the left over to libertarianism, but it is not as fertile ground for recruitment as are independents and non-voters.

    The people I think are most recruitable, but only with a large scale effort that sells libertarianism in more compassionate terms, are not firmly implanted leftist ideologues or political activists. Rather they do tend to be independent or non voters who tend to be more susceptible to appeals from the left, but could also be susceptible to libertarian appeals if correctly marketed.

  30. paulie

    My sense is that NAPists’s largest constituency is the angry. The angrier, the more likely to convertible to a simplistic worldview that channels their rage in what they might THINK is a productive path.

    If true, that may be good news for “NAPists”. Much of Trump’s appeal is based in anger. The same may be said of Sanders voters, who like Trump voters were deeply dissatisfied with the establishment status quo. Sanders probably would have had the nomination and perhaps would have beaten Trump if Clinton hadn’t cheated her ass off to get the nomination. Considering that in a fair contest both major party presidential nominations may have been captured by angry anti-establishment voters, that seems to suggest fertile soil for other radical appeals.

  31. Paul

    I find it sad, hilarious and telling when people who draw the line at welfare for the poor are completely cool with police-state violence and deportation.

    Anyway, I hope Libertarian Party folks proudly welcome Florida’s latest League of the South founder to their ranks.

  32. Andy

    “Paul
    September 19, 2018 at 00:09
    I find it sad, hilarious and telling when people who draw the line at welfare for the poor are completely cool with police-state violence and deportation.”

    I am not cool with police state violence. I am cool with deportation in some cases (which is not the initiation of force, because the act of aggression is initiated by the trespasser, the process of deportation is a defensive act against trespassing, as foreigners have no property claim to the land or infrastructure, they are latecomers), but that is only for foreign trespassers, foreigner criminal thugs, foreign welfare leeches, or foreigners with communicable diseases. This would be no different than if we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, and people trespassed on private property, or engaged in some other act that violated property rights, or violated a contract, which would lead to them being “physically removed” from said property.

    Reality is that the world is arranged into coercive government, and that the function of regulating borders and the migration of foreigners across international borders been ceded to government. Just because a function is being monopolized by government, it does not automatically invalidate the function. If the government arrests and prosecutes a murder or a rapist or a thief, that’s a good thing. If the government puts out a fire, that’s a good thing. If the government fixes the potholes on the roads, or fixes a broken traffic light., that’s a good thing. Sure, it would be better if these things were handled in a voluntary fashion, and if coercive government did not exist, but we have to operate in the world as it currently exists. not in far off fantasy land. There’d still be a demand for regulating borders and who can come on what property and under what terms, in a stateless free market society, it would just be handled by private property owners, who could hire private security guards, and have private walls or private fences, instead of by state agents.

  33. Andy

    Those of you who think that immigration and border enforcement should be immediately abolished, regardless of what other conditions are in place, as in never mind that we live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property/infrastructure and have a relatively easy path to citizenship (especially under the current insane and idiotic interpretation of Birthright citizenship). how about if we apply this same line of thinking to other current functions of the state.

    Say without changing anything else, Libertarians advocate for:

    Abolishing elections departments and voting. We don’t eliminate government. We just keep the people who are in office now, and they become dictators for life. Hey, we’d be eliminating a deportment of government, and we’d save lots of money that are currently spent on elections, and people would not be subjected to those annoying campaign commercials anymore. Think of all of the money Libertarians would save on campaigns if elections were eliminated.

    Release everyone from prison, which would be great for the people who are in for victilmless crimes, or who were falsely convicted, but say we also release all of the legitimate murderers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, and other legitimate criminals. Maybe we could even release them into the neighborhoods where you live.

    Immediately eliminate Social Security, and have no plan to pay off anyone who is currently relying on the program. Just let them fend for themselves or starve.

    Call for the immediate abolition of the US military, and abandon all military forces who are stationed in other countries, as in just cut them off and leave them, and leave of the military equipment in these foreign bases. If any dangerous foreigners get a hold of any WMD’s from the former US military,
    oh well, shit happens. Announce to the world that the USA no longer has a military, and get rid of the Reserves and National Guard as well. Also, cut off pension payments to all military veterans, and close all VA hospitals. If any veterans go into poverty, or die, oh well, tough break.

    Wait until there is a big fire, and then call for the immediate repeal of government fire departments. If a bunch of people’s houses are on fire, call them statists and lecture them about how “Taxation is theft” while their houses are burning down.

    If you support any of these policy positions in isolation, under present conditions, including ripping the US borders completely open and calling for unlimited, unrestricted, no questions asked immigration, without getting rid of the welfare state or changing any other policies, you are what I’d call a stupid or irrational libertarian, if you are even really a libertarian at all.

  34. robert capozzi

    pf: that may be good news for “NAPists”. Much of Trump’s appeal is based in anger. The same may be said of Sanders voters, who like Trump voters were deeply dissatisfied with the establishment status quo.

    me: Yes, it MAY be. Unfortunately, NAPism doesn’t promise goodies. It appeals to the angry with a simplistic worldview like Trump and Sanders did, but DJT offered mostly white victims to take away their greatest triggers: “Mexicans,” who are frequently rapists and murderers. BS offered all SORTS of free shit.

    Yes, NAPism’s boogeyman is the government, which steals from the angry and everyone else. But it’s far more abstract to suggest that if there were NO state, the angry would no longer be victimized. This is a MUCH tougher sell.

  35. William T. Forrest

    “This would be no different than if we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, and people trespassed on private property”

    This would only be true if the whole country is the private property of the government. Otherwise, it is government which is trespasser when it uses force to break up homes, families and relationships, remove tenants and employees from willing landlords and employers, etc.

    The police state mechanism required for this purpose isn’t exactly cheap or non-intrusive either. It’s a government war like the war on drugs, war on terror etc with massive destruction of individual property rights, domestic civil liberties and economic liberty involved in its enforcement. By clogging up law enforcement resources it takes them away from enforcing laws against real violent and property crimes. It further desensetizes the population to police state measures which are deemed necessary to enforce immigration control but spill over into many other areas. It institutionalizes racial profiling and non-governmental bigotry against people who “look like” or “sound like” foreigners. It destroys friendship with neighboring countries and may in the long run lead to war with them, with all the attending destruction of life, liberty, property, civil liberty and prosperity that creates.

    Deportation doesn’t just come in isolation. It means more stop and frisk or stop and search against everyone, including those born here. In some cases it means people’s citizenship is questioned and people who were actually born here, and many others who don’t even remember any other country, get deported. It means employers, teachers and others have to participate in tracking and spying on people for the government to try to route out those who are deemed illegal. It fosters a widespread culture of snitching and fear, and leaves entire populations at the mercy of criminals because they are afraid to seek help from law enforcement. It creates widespread bullying and violence even outside of government.

    If you think millions of people can be rounded up and deported without massive costs, and further massive costs to the economy and civil liberties, you are beyond delusional.

    Some states have already had crops rotting in fields when they tightened enforcement against so-called illegal aliens, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg of what mass deportation will do to the economy. What about the millions of native born or legal immigrant US citizens who are married to or in relationships with so-called illegal aliens and all of their US born or legal immigrant children? I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

    What exactly about the government’s arbitrary, kafkaesque bureaucratic rules for who can enter or stay legally resembles any kind of natural property rights?

  36. William T. Forrest

    “But it’s far more abstract to suggest that if there were NO state, the angry would no longer be victimized. This is a MUCH tougher sell.”

    It becomes easier every day as government victimizes people more and more.

  37. William T. Forrest

    “Those of you who think that immigration and border enforcement should be immediately abolished, regardless of what other conditions are in place…”

    That seems extremely unlikely, short of a government collapse. It’s far more reasonable to expect incremental changes in government policy than some wild overnight swing in one policy area in isolation from all others.

    You can likewise say the same for any one area of government policy. If all drugs were immediately legalized some people envision massive costs to the health care and welfare systems. If all gun restrictions were removed overnight but the drug war remained in place some people think we would have a massive increase of shootouts in the streets. In reality though, people already obtain drugs and guns illegally just like people already find ways to cross the border illegally.

    There’s virtually no policy of big government, if any, which can’t be defended along the same lines you are using here. For example, you could say that the US government should in theory stop interfering in the Middle East and creating blowback, but since it already has, we need to increase not decrease domestic spying to prevent terrorism. If your immigration argument made sense so would that one.

    You could say that since government has already destroyed many people’s economic opportunities by occupational licensing laws, red tape which prevents small businesses from getting off the ground, criminal records which they have as a result of the drug war, etc, etc, therefore we must have a welfare state. That’s the same sort of bad logic as your immigration argument that we have to get rid of other parts of government first. Using that logic we can’t get rid of any part of government ever since they are all inter-related.

  38. William T. Forrest

    ” do you have a list of problems you have with Tom Woods other than League of the South-isms?”

    We could start with his defense of “blood and soil” fascism, many ties to dog whistle bigotry, longing for a return to a womb control state a la Handmaid’s Tale, pining for feudalism and theocracy, and all the rotten baggage of the paleo and alt right movement which came home to roost in Charlottesville for starters. Let’s just say it’s what we need less, not more of in the movement and in the party alike.

  39. Anthony Dlugos

    “do you have a list of problems you have with Tom Woods other than League of the South-isms?”

    There are so many more instances of his problematic behavior than just that.

    He has long since lost the benefit of the doubt, as has his alt-right/paleoconservative brethren, going all the way back to the RP newsletters.

    How many examples are enough before we can call a spade a spade?

  40. robert capozzi

    wtf: It becomes easier every day as government victimizes people more and more.

    me: On what evidence do you conclude this? I’ve not seen the numbers of nonarchists swelling?

  41. William T. Forrest

    “but that is only for foreign trespassers, foreigner criminal thugs, foreign welfare leeches, or foreigners with communicable diseases. ”

    If you think government does or can do a decent job of separating those out from other people who either crossed a government line in the sand without a permission slip or get falsely accused of doing so you are delusional. Of course if you define everyone who didn’t comply with the byzantine immigration control bureaucracy as a trespasser it doesn’t matter whether they are criminals, on welfare or have diseases, you just use these age old know nothing emotional arguments used by bigots and xenophobes since before history began for emotional effect.

    In reality the statistical evidence shows the opposite: immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or remain on welfare long term than native born US citizens, and more likely to work hard, embrace economic opportunity and help both themselves and the economy as a whole improve. You should be thanking immigrants for making the difficult journey and transition, not spreading unwarranted fearmongering, cherrypicked examples of people behaving horribly (as if any population of millions of people won’t have plenty of those) and fearmongering based in garbage statistics from known bigoted sources to try to justify your excuses for using government force to round up and deport people.

    Even if you weren’t dead wrong on statistics, your arguments fail libertarianism 101 from a natural rights standpoint.

    Your oft repeated white genocide conspiracy shibboleths about long term immigrant voting patterns is equally wrong. As immigrant populations assimilate and become prosperous over a generation or two their voting patterns and issue positions become indistinguishable from the rest of the population.

    Your problem is that you don’t examine the evidence that contradicts your opinion which has been posted in these comments many times in the past, but instead keep reinforcing your error by continuously reading, watching to, listening and repeating the same bad arguments knowingly deployed by bigots for propaganda purposes. You have put yourself in an information bubble, surrounded yourself with confirmation bias, internalize and reinforce their bad arguments continuously and have become a propagandist for them yourself.

  42. William T. Forrest

    ” On what evidence do you conclude this? I’ve not seen the numbers of nonarchists swelling?”

    Then you haven’t paid attention. The libertarian movement, including anarcho-libertarianism, have grown by leaps and bounds, and will keep growing. Just because it’s still tiny compared to the rest of the population does not mean that growth is not happening. In fact it is happening and accelerating. And the conditions for critical mass are ever more ripe.

  43. robert capozzi

    wtf,

    The ranks of nonarchists might be growing, but I don’t know how you’d measure this. How do you? There certainly is a fringe element and it’s probably bigger than it was in, say, 1970. It feels like wild speculation to suggest it’s reaching critical mass.

    I suspect that after some time, the NAPist realizes that his or her dogma is unworkable, and his or her interest in politics wanes, as it’s quite obvious that their personal views will not come to fruition. Futile efforts are rarely sustainable.

  44. William T. Forrest

    How do you measure a diffuse phenomenon? There are many more anarchist and libertarian online communities, many more participants in them, many more people at anarchist and libertarian conferences than there used to be. More people are voting for non-anarchist libertarians and while that is a soft entry point into libertarianism over time some of those people get involved in the party or the movement and some harden into anarcho-libertarians. While not all anarchists remain anarchists, many do and convert others. Not all anarchists remain involved in political activity, but many do. Over time it grows.

    Your sense of how close we may be to critical mass is different from mine. I think the conditions are ever more ripe, not that we are reaching it yet.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    I personally like Tom Woods and Jason Stapleton. I have disagreements with them (Woods gets prickly when, having once explained his former association with the League of the South long ago, it gets brought up again; Stapleton has precisely zero grasp of how a political party works, as he showed when he tried to take on Nick Sarwark and got figuratively dragged down the hall and given a swirlie; etc.), but if there’s a political party they belong in, it’s the LP.

    That said:

    Libertarianism is the far left fringe of the political spectrum. ANY recruitment the libertarian movement and Libertarian Party does will be from its right, because there’s nothing TO the left of it to recruit from.

    But it seems to me that we’re more likely to do well with the people closest to us (what passes for a “left” in American politics outside the libertarian movement) rather than the people farthest from us (the center- to far-right Democratic and Republican parties).

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    Does anyone else get an occasional screen full of PHP errors when commenting? I’ve had it happen twice now in the last couple of days. When I go back, the comment is there.

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    “Does anyone else get an occasional screen full of PHP errors when commenting?”

    Actually, every time I post that happens.

  48. Anthony Dlugos

    “I personally like Tom Woods and Jason Stapleton.”

    I don’t know much about Stapleton, but I start from a position of wariness with anyone who publicly admits to preferring the traditional Latin catholic mass, which Woods did in that podcast that was posted here a couple months that included Matt Welch as well.

    There’s a whole lot of Mel Gibson nastiness potentially lurking behind that admission.

    Woods various dog whistle moments lo’ these many years converts that wariness into a conviction that we need to “burn that bridge and dynamite everything for miles around it, then salt the earth” as paulie posted at 20:26 last night.

  49. Andy

    Notice how “William T. Forrest” has a writing style that is similar to other posters who have popped up here over the years?

    I suspect the is another troll posting under a fake name.

    Tell us a little about yourself and show some proof that you are who you say you are if you want to prove me wrong.

  50. Libertydave

    Typical of Andy.

    Instead of addressing the points about immigration in someones comments, he accuses them of being a troll.

    Next Andy will repeat a bunch of comments he posted before, telling us why we should be afraid of immigrants and give up our freedoms to keep them out.

  51. Anthony Dlugos

    “Notice how “William T. Forrest” has a writing style that is similar to other posters who have popped up here over the years?”

    You mean excellent, insightful, and eviscerating of your conspiracy theory-laded xenophobic rants?

    I agree. Pity that it will probably fall on your deaf ears.

  52. Andy

    “Liberty” Dave, I have not had time to do that much typing, I have already made these points here many times before. Also, given that there has been a long history of trolls here on IPR, and given that the writing style of “William T. Forrest” seems eerily familiar, and given that I have never heard of this person, I would say that my questioning if they are another troll posting under a fake name is a reasonable question to ask.

  53. Anthony Dlugos

    “Did not happen to me. What OS and browsers are you using?”

    I’m using Google Chrome and Windows 10 Pro.

  54. robert capozzi

    wtf: immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or remain on welfare long term than native born US citizens,

    me: Non sequitur. Stipulating that there is a criminal element among US citizens, it doesn’t follow that US taxpayers SHOULD take on the prospective burden of allowing MORE criminals or tax consumers into the country. Why should we?

    As you are new here (assuming you are not a pseudonym for a sitting member of the commentariat), thus far none of the “open/no borders” advocates have refuted my point that framing the matter as “welfare” vs “tax consumers, including ‘free’ education and healthcare” is disingenuous. If you have all-inclusive data to the contrary, please do share it.

    btw, I support border checks and some mechanism, like a posted bond, to ensure that most immigrants do NOT become tax consumers. I’m pro-immigration, but so long as taxpayers and citizens are reasonably protected from undesirable entrants to our fair nation.

    I just don’t buy the nonarchist argument that national lines are illegitimate, meaning that anyone can go anywhere any time. Borders are, instead, demarcations for differing rules of law, which are necessary for a civil society to survive and thrive.

  55. Andy

    Foreigners have no property claim to any of the land or infrastructure in this country. Their ancestors did not found or build this country. Their ancestors were not lawful immigrants here. They were not born here. They did not pay taxes to build or maintain infrastructure here. They can’t legally vote in elections here. They can’t legally serve on juries here. They can’t legally hold political office here, unless they are accepted as immigrants and go through the naturalization process, and even then, they can not ever legally hold the office of President.

    Foreign latecomers can only gain use of the land and infrastructure here as lawful tourists or lawful guest workers or lawful immigrants. If a foreign latecomer wants to be accepted as an immigrant, and have a chance at gaining citizenship, they must do so in a lawful manner, which means going through the legal immigration and naturalization process, which includes swearing an oath to support the US Constitution (which means no gun grabbers or Marxists allowed).

    The world is presently arranged into governments, and there is no country in the world where you can waltz in with no questions asked and expect to be accepted as though you are a citizen. You can lament the fact that the world is not arranged under the principles of volunteerism, but this does not change anything, and even if the world were arranged under the principles of volunteerism, property owners would still have the right to exclude people.

  56. William T. Forrest

    Andy, what about my views is “trolling”?

    According to Wikipedia:

    In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

    —–

    I submit that if one of us is closer than the other to this definition of a troll, it would be you, and I see no reason to have to prove anything to you since nothing I have said relies on whether you know who I am or not. You either have logical responses to what I’ve said or you don’t. If all you can muster is an ad hominem argument you thereby admit you have no better response.

    Note that the definition of a troll, above, has nothing to do with whether someone is a troll or not. While there is of course some overlap between being a troll and being anonymous they are two different things entirely. People posting under real, verifiable names can be trolls, since nothing in the above definition of a troll requires anonymity. Anonymous posters don’t have to be trolls, either. There are many reasons people choose to be anonymous online, some legitimate and some not. Many notable writings have been published anonymously including great works of fiction and nonfiction, important revolutionary pamphlets, and most recently the widely discussed NY Times editorial piece by an anonymous Trump administration whistleblower.

    Of course, 4chan nazis also post anonymous messages for the lulz, but not all of them are anonymous. For example, Anglin of the Daily Stormer infamy is a troll, but not anonymous.

    I submit that your posts, being inflammatory in nature and avoiding rational arguments, are closer to trolling than mine, regardless of whether I am using my real name or not, which I consider to be none of your business and not germane to anything I have said here. Nothing I have said relies on whether I am using my real name. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. You on the other hand have yet to prove that you can make a logical case against anything I have said here. You can either make such a case or keep waving your hands about my offline identity despite the fact that it’s completely irrelevant.

    Do you have any reason to believe that my real views are different from what I have said here? Even if they are, so what? What I am saying is either correct or it isn’t. You can either demonstrate that something I said is incorrect or you can’t. Which one is it?

  57. William T. Forrest

    “Does anyone else get an occasional screen full of PHP errors when commenting?”

    I’m frequently getting error pages. They don’t say PHP although that may be what they are. Using opera and linux.

  58. William T. Forrest

    “Typical of Andy.

    Instead of addressing the points about immigration in someones comments, he accuses them of being a troll.

    Next Andy will repeat a bunch of comments he posted before, telling us why we should be afraid of immigrants and give up our freedoms to keep them out.”

    That’s why I say that Andy is closer to being a troll himself. It has nothing to do with whether he is anonymous or not. It’s all in his attitude.

  59. William T. Forrest

    “You mean excellent, insightful, and eviscerating of your conspiracy theory-laded xenophobic rants?

    I agree. Pity that it will probably fall on your deaf ears.”

    Thank you.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Foreigners have no property claim to any of the land or infrastructure in this country. ”

    Neither does the US government. Neither does any non-foreigner who hasn’t legitimately homesteaded the specific piece of property in question. And if the “foreigner” does such homesteading, his claim is as good as any others.

  61. Andy

    That is bullshit about crime and welfare. I have done a tremendous amount of research on this subject. Some immigrant groups have higher crime rates than others, just as you can breakdown crime statistics of the already existing population and find differences in crime rates between different groups. Also, the proponents of today’s mass immigration conviently leave the offspring of immigrants out of their statistics, and if you include their offspring in the statistics, the welfare and other taxpayer funded services picture looks a whole lot worse.

    Another factor that gets conveniently ignored is demographic voting patterns and political ideology. There are numerous studies that indicate that a super-majority of modern day immigrants and their offspring hold anti-American points of view, as in they do not support the right to keep and bear arms or free speech, and they also support Marxist wealth redistribution, as well as other views which are repugnant to the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.

    Numerous surveys indicate that the vast majority of Americans want to see immigration reduced. The most recent survey I saw was from Harvard and Northeastern University (certainly not right wing organizations), and it said that 81% of Americans want to see immigration reduced.

  62. robert capozzi

    tk: legitimately homesteaded

    me: According to whom, or what’s written down somewhere by someone?

  63. William T. Forrest

    “Stipulating that there is a criminal element among US citizens, it doesn’t follow that US taxpayers SHOULD take on the prospective burden of allowing MORE criminals or tax consumers into the country. Why should we?”

    If immigration is bringing in more productive people and non-criminals vis a vis childbirth, and it is, which one should the government regulate more? I submit neither, but if you stipulate that the regulation of how more people come to be in a country is the proper role of government, based on how many tax consumers and criminals thus join the population, it would follow from the preponderance of available statistical evidence that government should have more of a role in deciding who should be allowed to have children, how many and when then it does in policing immigration. If you disagree, why?

    Furthermore, if your logic is correct, why stop at immigration between nation-states? Wouldn’t this also apply to immigration between states, counties, cities, and so on?

    ” If you have all-inclusive data to the contrary, please do share it.”

    Check out Bryan Caplan’s work, and much that has been published at Reason and Cato over the years for starters.

    ” I support border checks and some mechanism, like a posted bond, to ensure that most immigrants do NOT become tax consumers. I’m pro-immigration, but so long as taxpayers and citizens are reasonably protected from undesirable entrants to our fair nation.”

    Do you apply this same standard to childbirth? If not, why not? How about to immigration between states, cities, counties, neighborhoods etc? Should we seek immigration permission slips every time we leave the house and walk down the street? How many border checkpoints and border guards do we need? Every few hundred feet? Should anyone engaging in potentially reproductive sex also have to obtain government permission to do so as well?

    “I just don’t buy the nonarchist argument that national lines are illegitimate, meaning that anyone can go anywhere any time. Borders are, instead, demarcations for differing rules of law, which are necessary for a civil society to survive and thrive.”

    If we are to stipulate that your supposition here is correct, there are also borders between states, cities, counties, boroughs, and so forth; should they be more stringently enforced?

  64. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Stipulating that there is a criminal element among US citizens, it doesn’t follow that US taxpayers SHOULD take on the prospective burden of allowing MORE criminals or tax consumers into the country. Why should we?”

    Under the logic you generally use — “net reduction of aggression” — the answer would be “we should if doing so will reduce net per capita tax consumption and incidence of crime.”

    Which, as it happens, seems to be the case.

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Numerous surveys indicate that the vast majority of Americans want to see immigration reduced.”

    Great. Their option, if they don’t like immigration, is to not immigrate.

    I want to see my weight reduced. That doesn’t mean I get to tell you what to eat.

  66. William T. Forrest

    “Foreigners have no property claim to any of the land or infrastructure in this country. Their ancestors did not found or build this country. ”

    Government has no property claim to any land or infrastructure either, at least not if you follow libertarian theory. But if only people whose ancestors were here generations ago have any property claim where does that leave immigrants who follow the regime’s bizarre byzantine loops of immigration regulations? Do you wish to restrict people from buying property in other countries? Do you also apply this same “logic” to states, cities, etc? If your ancestors lived in Massachusetts and you move to Oregon does that make your property rights any less valid than those who ancestors arrived there in 19th century wagons? Who has more property rights in the Southwestern USA, Anglos or Latinos many of whom had ancestors there before it was part of the US? Do both have fewer property rights than Native Americans from that area?

    “Foreigners have no property claim to any of the land or infrastructure in this country. Their ancestors did not found or build this country. ”

    That just means they didn’t follow the dictates of government paperwork. Have you ever violated any government laws? Do you think all government laws are legitimate? If you haven’t followed every government regulation about where you go and how you get there, does that make your property illegitimate? After all if you violate any traffic laws when you drive across country you’ve broken government regulations just like when you cross a government border without permission. The objective fact that someone violated a government regulation says nothing about whether such a regulation should exist or is justifiable from a libertarian perspective.

    “They did not pay taxes to build or maintain infrastructure here. ”

    That’s false. Immigrants, documented or not, pay lots of taxes and often don’t get the services they pay into. Are you saying that what rights people have should depend on how much they have paid in taxes? Does that mean that poor native born citizens should have fewer rights than the wealthy?

    “They can’t legally vote in elections here. They can’t legally serve on juries here. They can’t legally hold political office here, unless they are accepted as immigrants and go through the naturalization process, and even then, they can not ever legally hold the office of President.”

    The same is true of someone who has been disenfranchised for, for example, a drug conviction or a false arrest and conviction for any crime legitimate or not. Does that mean they have no right to be in the country or own property for the rest of their lives?

    “Foreign latecomers can only gain use of the land and infrastructure here as lawful tourists or lawful guest workers or lawful immigrants. If a foreign latecomer wants to be accepted as an immigrant, and have a chance at gaining citizenship, they must do so in a lawful manner, which means going through the legal immigration and naturalization process,”

    You appear to have confused following the dictates of politicians and bureaucrats with rights violations. Is it your position that all government laws and regulations are legitimate? If not, what makes immigration laws and regulations any more legitimate than others? You seem to think that there’s some kind of collective property in the nation state of which the existing government is a legitimate property manager, but accepting such a premise throws just about every libertarian principle out the window and leads to all sorts of absurdly authoritarian conclusions.

    “The world is presently arranged into governments, and there is no country in the world where you can waltz in with no questions asked and expect to be accepted as though you are a citizen. You can lament the fact that the world is not arranged under the principles of volunteerism, but this does not change anything, and even if the world were arranged under the principles of volunteerism, property owners would still have the right to exclude people.”

    There is no country in the world where some tyrant doesn’t attempt to collect some form of tax, enforce some petty regulation, restrict use of some substances or means of self-defense, etc. That doesn’t make such government activities legitimate from a libertarian perspective, and saying “that doesn’t change anything” doesn’t help us determine what’s right or wrong. It’s no different with immigration restrictions. Excluding those who you don’t want from your own property presumably should include government border enforcement thugs, and isn’t comparable with immigration restrictions unless you believe the whole country belongs to the government as its property.

  67. robert capozzi

    wtf: If immigration is bringing in more productive people and non-criminals vis a vis childbirth, and it is, which one should the government regulate more? I submit neither, but if you stipulate that the regulation of how more people come to be in a country is the proper role of government, based on how many tax consumers and criminals thus join the population, it would follow from the preponderance of available statistical evidence that government should have more of a role in deciding who should be allowed to have children, how many and when then it does in policing immigration. If you disagree, why?

    Me: Yes, immigrants probably add tons of value to the commonwealth, by all indications. Screening those who don’t, and having the option to draw down a bond or deport those who don’t work out allows for optimizing the productivity of the new additions. Citizens — under our rule of law — have the liberty to choose whether and how many kids they have.

    wtf: Furthermore, if your logic is correct, why stop at immigration between nation-states? Wouldn’t this also apply to immigration between states, counties, cities, and so on?

    me: Because that’s not how our federal rule of law works. I’d need to hear a compelling reason to change it to consider such an extreme reform.

    wtf: Check out Bryan Caplan’s work, and much that has been published at Reason and Cato over the years for starters.

    Me: I have. They are not all-inclusive.

    wtf: Should we seek immigration permission slips every time we leave the house and walk down the street?

    me: No.

    wtf: How many border checkpoints and border guards do we need? Every few hundred feet?

    me: Above my pay grade, but every few hundred feet strikes me as absurd. Is that what you’re going for? 🙂

    I believe I’ve answered your oft-repeated questions.

  68. William T. Forrest

    “That is bullshit about crime and welfare. I have done a tremendous amount of research on this subject.”

    Unfortunately, you’ve confused with endlessly repeating circular repetition of the same notoriously bad and bigoted sources and ignoring contradicting evidence with research. Get out of your confirmation bias information bubble.

    “Another factor that gets conveniently ignored is demographic voting patterns and political ideology. There are numerous studies that indicate that a super-majority of modern day immigrants and their offspring hold anti-American points of view, as in they do not support the right to keep and bear arms or free speech, and they also support Marxist wealth redistribution, as well as other views which are repugnant to the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.”

    Repeating this lie does not make it true. Voting and ideological patterns converge after a generation or two.

    “Numerous surveys indicate that the vast majority of Americans want to see immigration reduced. The most recent survey I saw was from Harvard and Northeastern University (certainly not right wing organizations), and it said that 81% of Americans want to see immigration reduced.”

    Many other surveys show otherwise, but it’s irrelevant to what is or is not legitimate from a libertarian perspective since many surveys also show that many tyrannical government policies have overwhelming popular support. If a given government law is popular does that always make it legitimate in your opinion? If not, why is immigration law different?

  69. robert capozzi

    tk,

    The net incidence of crime is, iirc, going down. But the net incidence of tax consumption? Last I checked, it marches northward.

  70. William T. Forrest

    “Citizens — under our rule of law — have the liberty to choose whether and how many kids they have.”

    ” Because that’s not how our federal rule of law works.”

    That’s the way it is therefore that’s the way it should remain is not a libertarian argument, it’s a conservative or traditionalist one. I’m trying to follow the logic by which you claim immigration restrictions are a good idea. Applying that same logic to childbirth and immigration between smaller political units within the nation-state seems to indicate that restrictions on these things would be justified on the same basis on which you try to justify immigration restriction between nation states. If your only argument is preserving the status quo, I don’t think that should be convincing to libertarians.

  71. William T. Forrest

    “The net incidence of crime is, iirc, going down. But the net incidence of tax consumption? Last I checked, it marches northward.”

    The question wasn’t whether it’s going up or down overall, it’s whether restricting immigration increases or decreases it.

  72. robert capozzi

    wtf,

    If you mean by “libertarians” you mean NAPists, you’re probably right, my arguments on any one point may not be persuasive (although I note that some NAPists have a far stricter view on immigration than I do, e.g., the LvMI crowd). That’s why I challenge NAPism at its core, for I find it to be a well-meaning but deeply dysfunctional thought system.

    One of the tenets of TAAAList lessarchism is to assess the areas where there’s less resistance to rolling back the State, and to emphasize those areas, and tabling more grandiose questions for another day. So, while I’m willing to consider more foundational reforms like splitting the US into 50 nations, my assessment is that that has a 10 degree of difficulty. Exiting NATO might be an 8. Legalizing weed might be a 4. Etc.

    Do you see the difference between my stance and traditionalism? If not, I can elaborate.

    You seem confused about immigration, like it’s an all-or-nothing thing: Either we have completely open borders OR we have command posts every 100 feet. This sort of excess is something I detect from many a NAPist, and of course I was prone to such black-and-white thinking when I was of that school of thought.

    I’m not concerned about the QUANTITY of immigrants, just the QUALITY. No criminal record and post a bond? Come on in, I say! The more, the merrier.

  73. William T. Forrest

    “You seem confused about immigration, like it’s an all-or-nothing thing: Either we have completely open borders OR we have command posts every 100 feet. ”

    I’m not. I’m all for incrementally rolling back the immigration control regime, and in fact, that’s probably better than ending it overnight, because any change that massive would produce chaos and quite possibly an overreaction in response. That doesn’t mean I want to leave it at present levels or make it more restricted or more heavily enforced.

    For users of some addictive drugs such as benzodiazapenes and heavy alcohol users, quitting cold turkey can actually be fatal. However, continued addiction is also very dangerous and becomes fatal before long. Harmful government policies probably are best addressed with gradual withdrawal, not immediate cold turkey withdrawal, just as with such highly addictive and dangerous drugs.

    But first we have to agree as to which government policies are harmful. The only rational basis, other than “that’s how it already is,” that you have provided as a justification for immigration restrictions seems to apply just as much to childbirth restrictions and intra-national immigration restrictions. Your answer as to why those aren’t likewise a good idea is “well, that’s not the current law.” You claim, if I understand correctly, to be a radical in the sense of questioning fundamental assumptions. If so, “well that’s not the current law” isn’t a good answer regardless of whether you are a “NAPist” or “TAAList”. Indeed it’s not a good answer if your bedrock principle is anything other than “might makes right” or “tradition makes right.”

    I propose that the fewer immigration restrictions nation-states impose the better off we will be, but that doesn’t mean we can expect or even that we should necessarily hope for zero such restrictions overnight. Again, if that were to happen, it would probably happen as part of a larger government collapse that would necessarily entail massive social displacement. I would hope for a softer landing if at all possible, even if we end up better off in the long run.

  74. robert capozzi

    wtf: But first we have to agree as to which government policies are harmful.

    me: Good luck with that! I see the process of social change to be far more complicated than you apparently do. Gaining unanimity or even 75% agreement in any group is rare.

    wtf: The only rational basis, other than “that’s how it already is,” that you have provided as a justification for immigration restrictions seems to apply just as much to childbirth restrictions and intra-national immigration restrictions.

    me: No, my justification is that there’s no “right” to go anywhere anytime, and that taxpayers and citizens have an interest in limiting their financial exposure, within reason.

    wtf: Your answer as to why those aren’t likewise a good idea is “well, that’s not the current law.”

    me: As a first level of analysis, yes. I do believe I’m correct about that, yes?

    wtf: You claim, if I understand correctly, to be a radical in the sense of questioning fundamental assumptions. If so, “well that’s not the current law” isn’t a good answer regardless of whether you are a “NAPist” or “TAAList”.

    me: Right! When it’s appropriate to question fundamental assumptions, I’m all about that. When it’s seeking creative ways to turn the civil society away from morearchism toward lessarchism, I’m open to shifting some governmental powers, reforming some, undoing some, and abolishing some. The NAPist seems unwilling to even consider this. Instead, they attempt — using their construct — to divine the “right” ideal setup, and then either abolish or gradually move in that direction.

    Unlike the NAPist, who seems to believe that their answer is RIGHT, I make no such claim. Perhaps bonding immigrants is unworkable for some reason that hasn’t occurred to me, for example.

    wtf: Indeed it’s not a good answer if your bedrock principle is anything other than “might makes right” or “tradition makes right.”

    me: It’s not. My principle is more like: What will make tomorrow more peaceful and freer? If that’s successful, tomorrow I will ask the same question.

  75. William T. Forrest

    Good luck with that! I see the process of social change to be far more complicated than you apparently do. Gaining unanimity or even 75% agreement in any group is rare.

    Of course it is. And I wasn’t suggesting anything as grandiose as general societal agreement. I meant you and me, and perhaps a few others here today. I’m not even suggesting we’ll achieve any such consensus on such a smaller scale, only that positing that we should move in a given direction is a separate question from how quick such a move should be.

  76. William T. Forrest

    No, my justification is that there’s no “right” to go anywhere anytime, and that taxpayers and citizens have an interest in limiting their financial exposure, within reason.

    If taxpayers and citizens have an interest in limiting their financial exposure, why other than “that’s the way the law is now” doesn’t it apply to childbirth or to immigration from other states, cities, or sides of town? Certainly that involves financial exposure for citizens. So does, for example, other people’s drug use, potentially. Or overeating. The list goes on and on.

  77. William T. Forrest

    As a first level of analysis, yes. I do believe I’m correct about that, yes?

    I don’t see why it’s relevant. What the law is now doesn’t tell us anything about what it should be, unless you believe that the very existence of a government law, regulation or policy is self-justifying just by virtue of its existence.

  78. William T. Forrest

    Unlike the NAPist, who seems to believe that their answer is RIGHT, I make no such claim. Perhaps bonding immigrants is unworkable for some reason that hasn’t occurred to me, for example.

    Is bonding childbirth unworkable? How about immigrants from different parts of the nation? Aside from current law, which isn’t the question.

  79. William T. Forrest

    What will make tomorrow more peaceful and freer? If that’s successful, tomorrow I will ask the same question.

    I’m suggesting fewer restriction on immigration and less enforcement of existing ones will make tomorrow more peaceful and freer, and more restrictions and enforcement will make tomorrow less peaceful and less free. I haven’t heard you make a good case why I am wrong, if in fact you think I am.

  80. robert capozzi

    wtf: If taxpayers and citizens have an interest in limiting their financial exposure, why other than “that’s the way the law is now” doesn’t it apply to childbirth or to immigration from other states, cities, or sides of town?

    me: Because it can’t be sold, and because it’s directionally incorrect. Warhol once said, “Art is anything you can get away with.” Politics is similar. But that’s only half of the equation. The other half is: does it feel right?

  81. robert capozzi

    wtf: unless you believe that the very existence of a government law, regulation or policy is self-justifying just by virtue of its existence.

    me: I don’t. Virtue is emergent. At any given moment, it will look like the status quo, but hopefully improved. Virtue is also subjective.

    Were I God, I’d be making a lot of wholesale changes, probably in phases. But I’m not God, and I know I’m not, so while I dabble in what I think the “ideal” world might look like, I don’t take those fantasies very seriously.

  82. robert capozzi

    wtf: I’m suggesting fewer restriction on immigration and less enforcement of existing ones will make tomorrow more peaceful and freer

    me: Right, Caplan I think makes the empirical case that immigration is a slight net economic positive, but his calcs don’t include the cost of “free” education and “free” emergency room healthcare. I don’t know and it’s above my pay grade, but that sounds like it may well be neutral to slightly negative, net net.

    If correct, then what you advocate runs the risk of worsening the situation.

    It might be possible, alternatively, to allow for more immigration with better checks and easier means to monitor the economic impact of immigrants on taxpayers.

  83. Andy

    The children of American citizens have a right of inheritance to the land and infrastructure of the country. The Preamble to the US Constitution says that it is, “for ourselves, and for our posterity.” It does not say that it is for any foreigner who waltzes across the border, and the Constitution does in fact delegate the function of regulating borders and migration and immigration and naturalization to the federal government. See the Law of Nations (the Law of Nations included regulating immigration and naturalization) part, as well as the part mentioning the naturalization of foreigners, and the part about repelling invasions. One of the first laws passed after the country was formed was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which said that American citizenship was only to be offered to, “free white persons of good character.” Before anyone starts calling the Founding Fathers “racists” or “xenophobes,” keep in mind that every country in the world has discriminatory immigration policies, and a lot of them are far more discriminatory than any policy the USA ever had.

    Regardless of what you think the laws ought to be, under the system under which we presently live, this function has been ceded to the federal government, and the fact of the matter is that a super-majority of the public favors limiting immigration and not offering citizenship to just anyone. Like I pointed out above, a recent survey said that 81% of Americans want to see immigration reduced, and even out of the 19% who do not, only some of them want to see it increased. Since we do not live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, everyone can’t get what they want, so compromise is in order. Since 81% of Americans want to see immigration reduced, that is the direction policy ought to go. This does not mean eliminate immigration, but it does mean decreasing it. The majority of people do not like immigrants sucking up welfare money and other taxpayer funded services. Cutting this out, or at least reducing it, is far more likely to pass, than is eliminating government welfare and taxpayer funded services for everyone.

    Now as far as American citizens traveling around and moving to different parts of the USA, this is covered by the US Constitution. Those of us known as American citizens live under the same system of laws and have similar cultural norms.

  84. Andy

    I disagree with Caplan, and I think that he is quite disingenuous on this issue. He has admitted that as a Jew, he feels uncomfortable living in a white Christian majority country, and that part of his motivation in pushing for “open borders” and mass immigration is so society can be “mixed up” more so Jews do not stick out ad much as a minority. He also admitted that he does not support open borders for Israel, and when he was asked to take the Open Borders for Israel Challenge, which is to write articles touting the benefits to opening Israel up to mass indiscriminate immigration, he ran away from the challenge like an intellectual coward and hypocrite.

  85. paulie

    OK, so you are now officially an anti-semite (Judaeophobe if you want to quibble) as well as a racist. OK, done reading your comments. Someone alert me if Andy says anything I need to know about in the future. I’ll be advising everyone else to ignore Andy from this point forward.

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Now as far as American citizens traveling around and moving to different parts of the USA, this is covered by the US Constitution.”

    So is immigration. The Constitution includes NO federal power to regulate immigration and in fact forbade even creating such a power by amendment for its first 20 years.

  87. robert capozzi

    tk,

    IF the Constitution were viewed as saying that immigration cannot be checked, I’m sure as I can be that we’d see an amendment pretty quickly. Do you really want to pull that arrow from your quiver?

  88. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    It’s just an historical fact.

    At the time the Constitution was proposed, the southern states wouldn’t ratify it if it interfered with the slave trade, and Pennsylvania wouldn’t ratify it if it interfered with immigration. Article I, Section 9 was a compromise, sort of like the “slave is 3/5ths of a person for apportionment purposes” bit. It said “we’ll put this subject off for 20 years, no such powers until after 1808.”

    After 1808, Congress used its power to regulate commerce to interfere with the slave trade, but understood that it had no enumerated power that allowed it to control immigration, and didn’t attempt to until 1882 (by treaty with China, even though there was an 1875 SCOTUS case, Chy Lung v. Freeman, in which SCOTUS miracled up such a power out of its imagination).

    The SCOTUS-created fiction that such a power exists has now gone on for much longer, but probably about as damagingly, as Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson did. I don’t see any reason to pretend that that fiction is truth. And I don’t think a constitutional amendment creating the power would be ratified at this point (because I don’t think that ANY constitutional amendment would be ratified at this point).

  89. Anthony Dlugos

    “OK, so you are now officially an anti-semite (Judaeophobe if you want to quibble) as well as a racist. OK, done reading your comments. Someone alert me if Andy says anything I need to know about in the future. I’ll be advising everyone else to ignore Andy from this point forward.”

    Was that really Andy posting that crap?

    Usually, his xenophobic/racist rants are cartoonishly garish, sort of in a Tarantino sense.

    The post you are referring to is disturbingly pointed.

  90. robert capozzi

    tk: And I don’t think a constitutional amendment creating the power would be ratified at this point (because I don’t think that ANY constitutional amendment would be ratified at this point).

    me: Now that may be true. It’d be difficult. Achieving 3/4ths of the states doesn’t strike me as that difficult, but 2/3rds of both the House and Senate might be a severe challenge. If it was well-worded, I suspect many Ds would sign-off, though. I don’t think there are many, other than a subset of NAPists and perhaps some extreme progressives, who are for COMPLETELY open borders.

    Of course, it won’t come to that, since we’ve learned that the literalistic interpretation of the Constitution only gets tiny support. The “Constitution” = the Constitution + case law. RP1 made the case for originalism, and while he got some traction with that argument, it just doesn’t resonate widely among the legal community or the general public. Stare decisis is just too ingrained in the law at this point to see a wild reversal.

    If an aggrieved victim of ICE brought a case up to the Supremes, the chances of abolishing all immigration laws are in the single digits.

  91. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I tend to skim or skip AJ’s posts, but I’m curious why you think 17:10 is anti-Semitic? His use of the word “admitted”? Is it untrue that BC is for open borders for the US but not Israel?

    Israel is in an area that can easily be characterized as war-torn. The US isn’t. So, it might not be “disingenuous,” but a practical exception to the open-borders-are-better rule. Dunno.

    Do you think Israel should have open borders, PF? AD? TK?

  92. Anthony Dlugos

    “He has admitted that as a Jew, he feels uncomfortable living in a white Christian majority country…”

    As bad as some of Andy’s inane, idiotic, and farcical posts have been, I thought that was as illuminating and disturbing a statement as anything he has ever posted, probably due to how serious and offhanded the phrase came out of him.

    This is one of the more serious aspects of the alt-right/white nationalist incursion into the LP that paulie has well documented and is rightly concerned about: these people feed off each other’s dark side, they feel the constant need to signal to each other that they “get it” and how do you do that without constantly raising the hate ante. And the disease in our body politic gets worse.

    paulie is right: the bridge needs to be burned and everything dynamited for miles around it, then salt the earth.

  93. robert capozzi

    AD,

    To be clear, I’d not highlight BC’s statement. But, to be fair, did BC say that, or not?

    I definitely agree with you and PF that these alt-right haters should be repudiated.

    And, do you believe Israel should have open borders?

  94. Anthony Dlugos

    I believe the sooner Israel starts moving to an open society, the better the chances are for the long-term survival of the state of Israel.

    As an aside, this “Open Borders for Israel Challenge” appears to be run by the sort of lowlifes you’d expect a guy like Andy to be touting. Look at the popular tags noted on the left side:

    https://radicalcapitalist.org/2018/01/21/the-open-borders-for-israel-challenge/

    Somehow, I think such people’s concerns for the state of Israel and its people are…limited. Limited, that is to the extent that the Jewish people and their potential policy choices can be used to advocate for a white ethnostate here in the USA.

  95. paulie

    Robert,

    I’m not in a mood to parse it. You can only repeat every single talking point of the white nationalist movement long enough before you lose the benefit of the doubt, and Andy has crossed that line for me. It was just the last straw and enough is enough, I don’t care to revisit it.

    Since you asked, I don’t support any nation state regime so ultimately I’m not in favor of border control in any country, but there’s only one reason some people who are not Israelis and don’t have family there (I do) obsess about Israel and not, say, Belarus, Nepal or Ghana.

    The overwhelming hostility of much larger numbers of neighbors makes Israel a particularly hard case in this regard, and hard cases make bad law. The Zionist movement, while I do understand the reasons that led to it, put Jews in Israel in a rather hostile garrison condition.

    I choose not to live there for a reason, and I prefer to let the people who do live there figure out how to solve their own problems. We have enough to worry about of our own. My sole real interest in the situation there is to have the US regime butt out of it and led them figure it out for themselves.

    I am not interested in pursuing this tangent any further.

  96. paulie

    Was that really Andy posting that crap?

    Unfortunately, yes. But I don’t know why I would be surprised, since he’s already essentially been posting white genocide conspiracy theory and slightly reworded versions of the Bob Whitaker racist mantra among other things, apparently completely unironically.

  97. Anthony Dlugos

    “…since he’s already essentially been posting white genocide conspiracy theory and slightly reworded versions of the Bob Whitaker racist mantra among other things…”

    Hate/xenophobia/racism is like an opiate to these people. The dose has got to be hotter and hotter in order to get the same rush.

    That’s how you end up here, all the potential in the world flushed down the toilet for the next hit:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/395176-ron-paul-tweets-racist-cartoon-faces-backlash

  98. robert capozzi

    ad: I believe the sooner Israel starts moving to an open society, the better the chances are for the long-term survival of the state of Israel.

    Me: I’m more inclined to PF’s view: Let them sort it out.

    Some time ago, I threw out the possibility of exiting Iraq and Afghanistan, but making a formal treaty with Israel. While I ultimately advocate for a treat-iless world, the only way I can see the US exiting the Middle East cauldron is to assure Israel’s survival.

    This is a violation of no-particular-order NAPism. So be it.

  99. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’m more inclined to PF’s view: Let them sort it out”

    Don’t get me wrong, I am with paulie there too. My statement was more of a John Lennon-style Imagine-induced dream.

    Also, it quite nicely evades the xenophobic, nationalist “trap” set by the perpetrators of this Open Borders for Israel “challenge.” A trap that doesn’t hide itself very well given the mindset of those who set it.

  100. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “I believe the sooner Israel starts moving to an open society, the better the chances are for the long-term survival of the state of Israel.”

    I see no evidence of this happening.

    It should be pretty obvious what would happen if Israel declared “open borders” and they took down their border wall, eliminated their DNA test back Jews only immigration policy, and allowed unrestricted, unlimited immigration, and if they set up an easy process for immigrants to become Israeli citizens. If this were to happen, Israel would end up no longer being a Jewish state. They know this, which is exactly why they don’t do it.

    Hypocritically, many of these same people push for the exact opposite policy when it comes to the USA, or any other European based country where they have influence. It is an admitted “divide and conquer” strategy.

    Israel Passes The Jewish Nation State Law | Jewish Only Bill Passed

  101. Anthony Dlugos

    So, your anti-Semitic until you get to use their immigration policy to argue for a European ethnostate here?

    That’s like a teetotaler mainlining alcohol in order to get to the tremors.

  102. Andy

    The Jewish lobby pushes for taxpayer funding and military aid for the Jewish ethno-state of Israel, while at the same time pushing for “open borders” and indiscriminate mass immigration into the USA (and other European based countries). The video below documents how it was the Jewish lobby that came up with the “melting pot” and “Nation of Immigrants” catchphrases/myths (they also invented the “No Human Being Is Illegal” catchphrase, which, when you consider the source, it would be more accurate for them to say, “No Human Being Is Illegal, Unless It Is A Non-Jewish Immigrant To Israel”), and who also pushed for the 1965 Immigration Act, which is what opened the USA up to mass immigration from third world countries.

    Can anyone look at this and not see the astounding level of hypocrisy present? If this is such a wonderful policy, why isn’t the Jewish lobby pushing this same policy for Israel? Could it be that this is a part of an admitted “divide and conquer” strategy, and that the people pushing it know that they can use the immigrants as voting block to further their political interests?

    America is not a Nation of Immigrants or a Melting Pot | The Truth About Immigration into America

  103. Andy

    Now in all fairness, I should point out that there are usually exceptions to every rule, and the situation with the Jewish lobby having an hypocritical set of standards on immigration is no exception to this. While I think that it is fair and accurate to point out that a super-majority of Jewish people do in fact hold the hypocritical stance on immigration, as in they advocate for a strict DNA text back Jews only immigration policy for Israel, while at the same time advocating for “open borders” and mass indiscriminate immigration into the USA and other European based countries where they have influence, but there are of course some people who are Jewish who dissent from this hypocritical double standard. One such Jewish dissenter was the late great libertarian, Murray N. Rothbard.

    I have posted this here before, but since it is such a great and appropriate article, I am posting it again, especially for anyone clicking this thread who may have missed it previously.

    “This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.
    Full quote & context below.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL
    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a ‘second-best’ solution that most people might be willing to live with.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s ‘The Camp of the Saints’ that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

  104. William T. Forrest

    Wow, Andy sounds more and more like Christopher “the weeping nazi” Cantwell with every day. Come to think of it has anyone ever seen them both in the same room at the same time? Can we be sure they are not actually both the same person?

    I don’t think I really have to point out the irony of Andy calling anyone else a troll anymore, do I? His rants sound like they came straight out of the pages of the Daily Stormer, but that’s only probably because they did.

  105. Anthony Dlugos

    “Andy sounds more and more like Christopher “the weeping nazi” Cantwell with every day.”

    yes, he does.

  106. robert capozzi

    It really shouldn’t be surprising that NAPists like Cantwell go off the rails. Anger is a volatile state.

  107. William T. Forrest

    Anyone want to take bets on how long before Andy starts seig heiling and goes full 14/88? The poor guy sounds like he is having one of those psychotic breaks like Chris Lesiak has sometimes.

  108. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Come to think of it has anyone ever seen [Andy Jacobs and Christopher Cantwell] in the same room at the same time? Can we be sure they are not actually both the same person?”

    I’ve seen Andy Jacobs in person at a time when Christopher Cantwell was supposedly in jail.

    Of course, that isn’t dispositive insofar as Cantwell is an admitted FBI informer and quite possibly a cop, while the evidence says that if there are any government COINTELPRO infiltrators in the LP, Andy is the most likely suspect. So it’s possible that Cantwell wasn’t really in jail and is really Andy.

  109. Chuck Moulton

    WTF has put on a clinic on reasoned immigration debate with citations to actual evidence here. Meanwhile, Andy continues with his usual crazy bigoted nonsense, icing the cake with “if X is friends with a minority, he can’t be rascist” “logic” and anti-semetic rants. Yeah… I used to think Andy was just a little loopy and very misinformed, but this looks more and more like a slow car wreck transformation to Cantwellism.

  110. paulie

    The hypocrisy, dogmatism and intolerance of the statist nominal left coupled with the repulsive authoritarian ethno-nationalism of the populist right would actually provide a great opportunity for libertarians but we tie ourselves in a knot trying to appeal to a mix of establishment conservatives and far right bigots and cut ourselves off from the vast majority of what should be our natural base in the process.

  111. Jill Pyeatt

    I think people in the #WalkAway campaign are good candidates for our party. I don’t think I know anyone here in CA who’s leaving the Democrats, but there seem to be plenty on Facebook.

    I expect that to increase.

  112. William t. Forrest

    Andy Jacobs is an Alex Jones mini me. Deplatforming both of these airbags is tough, fair, overdue and necessary. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Sandy hook surviving family members thank you among many others.

  113. robert capozzi

    fwiw, I find it kind of sad that AJ’s been blocked. I almost always disagreed with him on the issues we discussed, but I prefer open dialog even with those I disagree with. He did push things, though, so WR’s decision is completely understandable.

  114. William T. Forrest

    You can find lots of dialogue with people who think like him in places such as Stormfront and 4Chan /pol/ . I haven’t kept up with the latest on whether the other Andrew (Anglin) has found a new host for the Daily Stormer. There’s lot of others like that.

  115. Paul

    Thane, forgive me if I’m mistaken, but haven’t you said that about other alt-right libertarian types in the past, too?

  116. DJ

    This Democrat hiding behind Libertarian label forum will be less interesting w/o Andy.
    Capozzi is the only one here who debates with reason, except when Knapp or Eichnauer chime in, and I have, in the past seen reasoned responses from dl though not recently, which they don’t do often enough- the rest of you are a bunch of Democrat snow flakes who cry and start slinging mud or make declarative (I don’t want to say this again like paulie’s crying above) when things don’t go your way- and now you’ve gotten the only interesting poster here banned. Good job hypocrites.

    I’ve been visiting here for quite a while and I’ve yet to see one thought bashing Democrats but I have seen many, many thoughts(?) trouncing alt-reich, which I find funny because the one who uses it the most claims alt-left doesn’t exist because they don’t call themselves that- yet I’ve never heard the word alt-reich anywhere but here- from a Russian jew (how weird is that? A jew speaking in German) double standard hypocrisy- typical of leftist Democrats.

    Fear not, girls, I’ll pop in occasionally to mouth off about your double standard hypocrisy.

  117. Paul

    DJ,

    Are you being a snow flake crying and slinging mud while complaining about snow flakes and hypocrites? That’s some pretty impressive projection you’ve got going on there.

  118. William Saturn

    “and now you’ve gotten the only interesting poster here banned”

    100% correct.

    And I believe the silent majority of readers/posters disagree with this decision to ban a long-time contributor. This will have a major chilling effect on the discussion here. Anyone desiring to post anything outside the prevailing left libertarian perspective will be less likely to do so. If the aim is to create an echo chamber and slow discussion on this site, you will succeed on this path.

  119. Anthony Dlugos

    “and now you’ve gotten the only interesting poster here banned.”

    The only interesting poster? Are you mad?

    He recently posted what looked like a betamax tape of a harry browne appearance on the Larry King show from like, 30 years ago.

    I will say this: his articles were not nearly as bad as his comments, which of course ranged from the xenophobic/racists to the nuttiest of conspiracy theories, and a good 40% of them were way too long to boot.

    Periodically, he would post a mildly interesting and/or timely interview.

    Then he’d follow it up with some nobody ancap getting interviewed on insignificant issues.

    Leaving aside his xenophobia and looking at it objectively, he just far too fringy to have any clue what might appeal to the great mass of non-dinosaur party voters.

  120. William t. Forrest

    Some other thread it was mentioned that Andy is now over at the American third position report. I think those who are complaining about him being finally booted here should stop complaining and just join him there instead. Then we can see which news forum and discussion community proves to be more successful over time instead of just guessing.

  121. William t. Forrest

    I thought ipr’s owner already made that clear, I’m just trying to help those still pissing and moaning about it.

  122. dL

    I’ve been visiting here for quite a while and I’ve yet to see one thought bashing Democrats

    I’m sure if Clinton had been elected, you would be seeing plenty of democratic bashing here. But as it stands now, Repubs have POTUS, both legislatures, a majority of governorships, and a slim majority on SCOTUS, so a predominate GOP bashing should be expected. Speaking truth to out-of-power would be weak sauce for a site ostensibly dedicated to 3rd party politics.

  123. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ve been visiting here for quite a while and I’ve yet to see one thought bashing Democrats

    Visit my Twitter page, and you’ll see plenty of Democrat bashing.

  124. DJ

    JP: Visit my Twitter page, and you’ll see plenty of Democrat bashing.

    Me: I’ve been visiting *here* for quite a while and I’ve yet to see one thought bashing Democrats-

    and I saw your other post about recruiting disgruntled democrats from Ca into the Libertarian Party- would those be the same people who voted Democrat for Brown? Pelosi? Waters? Can I point out w/o Paul trying to be cute that Democrats are historically in favor of more gov’t?

    dl: I’m sure if Clinton had been elected, you would be seeing plenty of democratic bashing here.

    Me: I doubt it. There is plenty to bash democrats on, always has been always will be as they are the face of more gov’t intrusion- yet, here we are apparently hoping that ignoring me (paulie) will change the facts- this forum is made up of democrats hiding behind the Libertarian label in that anything, anyone the width of a period to the right is evil- see paulie’s posts as evidence- and Paul who can’t see the irony of calling me out for what y’all are guilty of, me, a non-joiner of ANY group, me who expresses a disdain for such at every opportunity who doesn’t care about the Party, any Party, who came here thinking I would be engaged with like minded people (libertarians) who is disillusioned at the permeation, the preaching, the zealotry of left. The US left who has no connection to the European original the US left who is the face of more gov’t. And, excuses are just that. Attempt to justify, often lame.
    Then the gall of complaining about the Party not increasing in members and pointing fingers at whatever/whoever the width of a period to the right- failing to realize there are 3 other fingers pointed back- typical political “group” zealotry.

    AD: The only interesting poster? Are you mad?

    Me: Are you? I’m not the one that wants to ban opposition from posting.

    I believe one man’s trash is another man’s treasure- I don’t believe censoring will change anything-

    You, dl, have in the past, posted with reason. Not recently. Capozzi always posts with reason. Knapp and Eichnauer do sometimes- William Saturn has on this thread- not often enough. Andy posted interesting observations with evidence to support his beliefs- and the reactions from y’all were disappointing- rhetorical, get ready Paul, pejorative mud slinging, hardly considered opposing evidence of anything other than, get ready for it Paul- bigotry and refusal to “engage”- and I don’t care how many times paulie countered in the past- this is NOW- post counter evidence, argue merits- personality is immaterial.

    Banning Andy is childish. He didn’t drive people away. Over bearing, erudite arrogance is what drives people off- it’s elitist and reeks to high heaven- alt- REICH doesn’t exist (except to a Russian Jew leftist) Drumpf is not a person (excerpt to a Russian Jew leftist) THAT is what drives people away since ‘most’ right leaning voters align with, get ready, the right and coincidentally they prefer LESS gov’t not more like, get ready, the US Left- and they have a political home- The Democrat Party.

    But, hey, y’all keep doing what you do- alienate- it’s a wonderful way to grow- LOL

  125. William t. Forrest

    Good lord. So much typing, so little sense. I can see why frankel does not bother reading your comments.

  126. Anthony Dlugos

    “There is plenty to bash democrats on, always has been always will be as they are the face of more gov’t intrusion…”

    And god knows, the republicans are the face of limited government, fiscal sanity, individual liberty!!

    By all means, lets keep bashing the democrats, a bunch of Marxists who are the greatest threat to the republic since FDR! So says the John Birch Society and Faux News.

    Its important the populace understands that the LP wants to be known as “republicans who want to smoke pot.” So much winning from that messaging.

  127. robert capozzi

    Ls position themselves as challengers of the cult of the omnipotent state, for that every-person flare.

  128. paulie

    Nah. I haven’t seen that theme in too many campaigns. About as many people read the preamble to the LP platform as read the preambles to the D and R platforms, if they have preambles. And the fact that a political junkie like myself has no idea whether they do or not should be some indicator of how many that is.

  129. dL

    Interesting that “William t. Forrest,” who just started posting here a few days ago, is trying to say who belongs here and who doesn’t.

    Uninteresting why an unabashed Trumpist is bothering to post on a 3rd party politics site…obviously, it’s just to stir up shit

  130. Paul

    True fact: I didn’t know Paulie was a Russian Jew until DJ’s “Russian Jew Leftist” rant. (At least I’m assuming he’s referring to Paulie.)

    DJ, you should probably apologize.

  131. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Positioning is different from sloganeering. “Pot-smoking Rs” is also not explicitly stated by L candidates or officials.

  132. paulie

    Paul,

    No need for DJ to apologize to me, especially since I don’t read his comments and recommend others not read them either (and especially not respond). My background is in fact primarily Jewish along with a lot of other ethnicities in smaller proportion, and I lived in Siberia from birth til age 7. I do consider myself a leftist, but not in the sense of supporting big government or opposing property rights in any way; actually I’m an incrementalist free market anarchist.

    More about my background from 2012 when I ran unsuccessfully for LNC at large – I did serve as a regional alternate: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/paul-frankels-candidate-statement-re-libertarian-national-committees-open-at-large-position/

    The sense in which I describe myself as a leftist is explained here: https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later Unfortunately I’m not aware of any other site where it’s published.

    For whatever reason, some people who obsess about Jews and neo-McCarthyite conspiracy theories, immigration, etc, love the current president, or some combination of all of these, also consider themselves to be libertarians and/or insist on commenting at IPR regardless of any suggestions that they may feel more at home somewhere else. In most cases I just either boot these people as garden variety trolls or, as in the case of DJ, just stop reading their comments and advise everyone else not to read them either.

    Andy’s case was a bit harder because he was a personal friend and business/travel partner for many years, has commented here since 2008 (originally following me over here as he had to several preceding blogs), made so many comments on so many articles, and does real world work for the LP and other alt parties/independents. Eventually, however, I could no longer stand in the way of a growing consensus among our writers/editors, the site owner, and way too many current and former readers to count as far as Andy goes. Honestly, he was making it unpleasant for me to be here as well, and that’s been the case for a long time now.

    As far as DJ goes, the biggest problem with his comments is lack of coherence, especially when one tries to have any kind of discussion with him. After more rounds than I should have given him I decided it was just not a good use of my time.

  133. paulie

    Positioning is different from sloganeering. “Pot-smoking Rs” is also not explicitly stated by L candidates or officials.

    I don’t see many LP candidates positioning themselves as fighting the cult of the omnipotent state. Most, including the presidential ticket, seem to suggest much more modest directional changes in government. The tone is a lot different than it was 20-something years ago when I first got involved in the party. As Matthew Schutter alludes to here:

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/09/harry-browne-libertarian-for-president-national-convention-1996/#comment-1891484

    Perhaps it’s still not milquetoast enough for you, but in that case just be patient, as it seems to be headed in that direction.

  134. robert capozzi

    Quixote was for me “milquetoast.” Tilting at non-existent windmills = conjuring up ethereal constructs and braying against them assures irrelevant weakness.

  135. Anthony Dlugos

    RC: Ls position themselves as challengers of the cult of the omnipotent state, for that every-person flare.

    paulie: Nah. I haven’t seen that theme in too many campaigns. About as many people read the preamble to the LP platform as read the preambles to the D and R platforms…I don’t see many LP candidates positioning themselves as fighting the cult of the omnipotent state.

    Do L’s explicitly position themselves as “challengers of the cult of the omnipotent state?”

    I’d agree with paulie: almost never. A radical here or there, maybe.

    But does such a mindset trickle down into the typical themes that animate Libertarian campaigns? Most assuredly.

    That’s how you end up with a campaign for Governor of New York with a 30-second tv ad mentioning bitcoin and restructuring public schools so that they are only K-10.

    The LP as a party has not yet come to grips with how far outside the mainstream what we consider reasonable really is.

    As a heuristic, I would suggest that, as a libertarian candidate approaches a possibly electable platform. the convulsion emanating from the party faithful will reach seizure level. Think Governor Weld, multiplied by 1000. He’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    We’d probably crucify on stage the first truly electable presidential candidate.

  136. paulie

    I understand you want to run Mitt Romney as a LP presidential nominee. LP Senatorial candidate Craig Bowden in Utah reports that Weld wouldn’t endorse him because he is supporting his friend Romney who is running against Bowden. He further reports that he has heard that some people – presumably Weld, Nielson and others in their orbit – are in fact trying to recruit Romney to the LP. If that’s your idea of what the LP should become, I have to say I’m not that interested. A third establishment party is just not that interesting to me. Somewhere in between running an Augustus Invictus and running a Mitt Romney maybe we can run some LP candidates who move the acceptable political conversation in the direction we want. It worked out pretty well for the socialists a century ago, although they never actually came close to having a truly electable presidential candidate… almost all of the platform they ran on at that time is now not just law but bipartisan political consensus. Those were radical ideas back then, well outside the mainstream.

    On the other hand, you have a good point about Sharpe. The LP needs a lot more training for its candidates on things like focusing a political ad and hammering home simple, easy to digest soundbites. And many other such “101” basics of nuts and bolts politics. Wax on, wax off.

  137. DJ

    WtF: Good lord. So much typing, so little sense. I can see why frankel does not bother reading your comments.

    Me: Feel free to refute what I “typed”. Oh, be sure you check with paulie to get permission to think for yourself.

  138. DJ

    dl: DJ, I think you would might find the below forum more apropos to your apparent proclivities
    https://www.stormfront.org/forum/index.php

    Sincerely,
    smug, erudite, dirty leftist cuck, dL

    Me: Why? Because I don’t submit to leftist ideology? Because I call a spade a spade? I really thought you could do better dl, I guess the echo chamber is alive and well.

  139. William t. Forrest

    Dj, I don’t need anyone’s permission. If you ever manage to type something which merits a serious response I’ll be sure to let you know. In the meantime you get the response you deserve.

  140. DJ

    AD:

    “There is plenty to bash democrats on, always has been always will be as they are the face of more gov’t intrusion…”

    And god knows, the republicans are the face of limited government, fiscal sanity, individual liberty!!

    By all means, lets keep bashing the democrats, a bunch of Marxists who are the greatest threat to the republic since FDR! So says the John Birch Society and Faux News.

    Its important the populace understands that the LP wants to be known as “republicans who want to smoke pot.” So much winning from that messaging.

    Me: LOL- the US left is the face of more gov’t. I don’t smoke pot, or drink alcohol and I’m a former Republican, who, after opening my eyes determined I am a libertarian who despises groups, especially political and religious- I read all kinds of “news” and make up my own mind- my reading list includes WaPo and Huffpo. The Houston Chronicle, LA Times, a lot of stories/articles on yahoo, bing etc. The only news I ‘watch’ is the local Fox in the AM- they have a really cute Indian reporter 😉 But hey- good leftist try to discredit (attack the poster) and ignore the message.

  141. William t. Forrest

    “Build the wall” and “back the blue” isn’t the face of huge government? Wake the hell up.

  142. William t. Forrest

    That’s literally the biggest theme on the right now. That and round up and deport all the brown people here and bomb and occupy the shit out of them everywhere else.

    Oh yeah, occasionally they still pay lip service to lower taxes, but then they run up the debt even faster than the democrats do. Limited government? Mass incarceration skyrockets with them and they literally openly call for cops to rough people up extrajudicially. More like unlimited tyranny.

  143. Seebeck

    Do L’s explicitly position themselves as “challengers of the cult of the omnipotent state?”

    I’d agree with paulie: almost never. A radical here or there, maybe.

    In all my years, I have rarely if ever heard any L candidate at any level either position themselves that way or use that phrase. As someone who was a candidate and absolutely hates that phrase and supports removing it from the SoP, as unlikely as that is to happen, I never used it. “Cult” is one of those hyper-dog whistles that draw critics like buzzards to a carcass, and in that case, the carcass is the remains of whatever campaign that was.

    But does such a mindset trickle down into the typical themes that animate Libertarian campaigns? Most assuredly.

    Most naturally, because that is what those candidates believe in.

    The LP as a party has not yet come to grips with how far outside the mainstream what we consider reasonable really is.

    One could also say the mainstream is unreasonable. It’s a matter of perspective and framing the argument, and then especially applying it to electoral politics. It’s not difficult, but it seems to a lot of L candidates like the Impossible Dream.

    As a heuristic, I would suggest that, as a libertarian candidate approaches a possibly electable platform, the convulsion emanating from the party faithful will reach seizure level.

    That depends on the race. The Presidential candidate will of course be under a huge microscope because of their visibility, and that scrutiny is naturally proportional to the office level and visibility. A county commissioner candidate, for example, will get far less scrutiny from inside the party than a governor’s candidate or a Presidential candidate.

    Speaking from my own experience, in my last race (for state legislature) I ran on three things: 1. Getting the state government the ability to regulate perfluorocarbons in drinking water (which was a very hot issue in my district, and a long story behind it), 2. Improving the local infrastructure through public-private partnerships (most notably with the railroads), and 3. focusing on actually representing the district instead of sticking my nose into everywhere else as the incumbent was doing. Now, none of those issue are very libertarian (Hell, the first one isn’t at all, but the people wanted action on protecting their health!), but they were designed to address real district issues with solutions that benefited the people in real manners with minimal government. I figured that if I won (longshot) I could get those things done and everything else would become a lot easier to deal with. The net result was a 31% vote total, not winning the race, but bringing those issues to focus and getting them (slowly) addressed. But my message the whole time was one of properly-focused, smaller, efficient government, and it seemed to resonate somewhat, else I wouldn’t have gotten the numbers I did.

    The whole point of that was that the message L candidates present can certainly be libertarian in ideology and still be presented in reasonable terms, but far too many L candidates simply don’t understand how to do that. I’m not sure I understand all of it myself. But I have seen plenty of cases where when the libertarian message is presented in a positive, common-sense, practical, and above all, personally relatable manner, then good things happen.

  144. Anthony Dlugos

    That’s a good post, seebeck, and based on what you campaigned on, I’m not surprised you got 31%.

    The only quibble I have is your suggestion that “It’s [all] a matter of perspective and framing the argument…”

    surely, if a policy position or platform is far enough outside the mainstream, no amount of framing is gonna matter.

    me and paulie agree 100% about who we need to go after and who we need to dispose of. I’d say we just disagree about what it’s going to take do accomplish those goals.

  145. DJ

    WtF: Dj, I don’t need anyone’s permission. If you ever manage to type something which merits a serious response I’ll be sure to let you know. In the meantime you get the response you deserve.

    Me: LOL- my apologies. I’ve had several people tell me I do a pretty good job of explaining myself- but. I admit I do go beyond a 4th grade level when writing. I had a newspaper editor tell me that one must write at a 4th grade level for people to comprehend. I also have seen that most people’s retention level is about 10%- paulie, and now you prove those. paulie doesn’t like me because I called him out about Charlottesville- you, on the other hand have no excuse, other than being desirous of an echo chamber- which seems what most of you want as opposed to learning or considering learning there are different ways of looking at everything- including politics.

    paulie: Eventually, however, I could no longer stand in the way of a growing consensus among our writers/editors, the site owner, and way too many current and former readers to count as far as Andy goes. Honestly, he was making it unpleasant for me to be here as well, and that’s been the case for a long time now.

    Me: Andy had some valid points, even in his immigration stance, (which you’d not know about since you don’t read what I type) I disagreed with him and so stated- if, as you say, ‘others’ had a strong influence on your decision to help ban him that says more about your lack of strength of character than anything else- of course the conversations from the others are privileged, right?

    It’s apparent y’all want only an echo chamber- sorry, I won’t oblige.

  146. robert capozzi

    S: One could also say the mainstream is unreasonable. It’s a matter of perspective and framing the argument, and then especially applying it to electoral politics. It’s not difficult, but it seems to a lot of L candidates like the Impossible Dream.

    me: Yes! The mainstream IS unreasonable. And, yet, that’s what we have to work with. Would it be an easier task if 90% of the population have read Hayek? Sure. But that’s not gonna happen.

    When one attends a football game, and instead they get THE NUTCRACKER ballet, what are the attendees likely to do? Leave and demand their money back.

  147. Hmmm …

    When one attends a Jonestown kool aid party and one gets someone telling them it’s poison, what are the attendees likely to do? ….

  148. Seebeck

    surely, if a policy position or platform is far enough outside the mainstream, no amount of framing is gonna matter.

    That’s where the framing comes in. A policy position of legalizing prostitution, for example, may not necessarily fly with voters if stated explicitly, but if it is framed in proper terms of privacy and self-ownership in context with other things, it becomes palatable. That and knowing both the audience and the office being sought. Legalization in this example is not in scope for an executive or judicial race, but it might be for a legislative race.

    To go back to my campaign, I framed the PFC problem as a matter of individual health as part of people’s right to life and that the lack of proper regulation on the utility to be detrimental to that right, and that the government, who created the problem (USAF) was responsible to clean it up, but the appropriate authority to do that had no jurisdiction to do so. The framing was to use government to actually protect individual rights.

    The infrastructure problem was simple: too many railroad crossings that weren’t grade separations were literally dividing three town’s economic and residential areas with way too many trains. I proposed a public-private joint solution with the towns and the railroads to try to get those grade separations put in (the railroads did no siding business or deliveries anywhere in those towns–all trains simply passed through to elsewhere, but two separate lines merged into one to create massive train jams, and by extension, massive traffic jams!). Not pure libertarian, but better than pure government, and focused on improving individual prosperity.

    Critics would claim that I’m shell-gaming things, spinning non-libertarian positions with libertarian rhetoric. They might have a point, but that is part of the political game that has to be played to win elections, and it can be done without abandoning libertarian principles, and doing so in a way that makes those principles in real-world application acceptable to the voters is how we win. Look at what Nick is doing in Phoenix as another example.

  149. Seebeck

    When one attends a football game, and instead they get THE NUTCRACKER ballet, what are the attendees likely to do? Leave and demand their money back.

    Sometimes the only difference between the two is the pads and helmets. 😛

    In my case, I would toss a football on the stage and see what happens. I actually enjoy both the ballet and football.

  150. Seebeck

    When one attends a Jonestown kool aid party and one gets someone telling them it’s poison, what are the attendees likely to do? ….

    Depends on the person, but if they’re in that situation, they’re gonna kill themselves anyway, and no big loss.

    Kind of a large non sequitur for a political discussion, though.

  151. robert capozzi

    Re: Kool Aid

    MS nails it. Hmm’s non sequitur should have been abundantly obvious prior to pressing Enter. While things are degenerating politically, for 4.5 decades the Boy Crying Wolf L routine has been hysterical catastrophizing. Life keeps going on, despite creeping statism.

  152. Hmmm …

    For how long, assuming no course correction? If the only acceptable options are to discuss which areas of government will grow the fastest how sustainable will our society be? If the only “libertarian” alternative is suggesting yet a different way to praise the emperor’s new clothes how are we helping in any way? It’s socially unacceptable to tell the emperor he is naked and politically suicidal to suggest actual non-trivial cuts in government as opposed to incremental reduction in rate of government growth, substituting debt and inflation for taxes, or eliminating alphabet agencies while giving their powers to new ones. But should being popular and accepted be our real goal, especially if we are in fact on a suicidal path, even if it’s a slow one?

  153. robert capozzi

    Hmm,

    False choice there, surely you see that?! Under a lessarchist model, we wouldn’t tell the Emperor he has NO clothes, since in fact he is disheveled, shoeless, and under-dressed, not naked. The lessarchist would make the case that government is too big, and we should reverse course. But the lessarchist realizes that wholesale abolition is both unsellable and untenable, reckless even.

    Yes, we live in dangerous times, but then they’ve been so for at least 7 decades. OTOH, the tailwinds of freedom continue to generally improve life despite the headwinds of statism. NAPists tend to fixate on the headwinds and discount the tailwinds, leading to a hyperbolically pessimistic worldview that tends to produce unwarranted anxiety and fear.

  154. Paul

    It’s funny that guys like Sharpe need candidate training, when people literally pay money for Sharpe to give them candidate training.

  155. robert capozzi

    P,

    Not my understanding. LS does corporate training, methinks, which is different. But even if he were a candidate trainer, anyone — including trainers — can improve their communication and persuasive abilities.

  156. paulie

    Adam Bates
    11 hrs
    From a year ago, still true.

    As long as I’ve been involved in libertarian activism, I’ve been told that we can’t work with the left because their worship of the state is too ingrained to be challenged.

    But they’re not the ones seething with rage at the mere thought of someone refusing to honor the government at a football game, are they?

    If we’re comparing pathologies of state worship, I’d bump this conservative freakout to the very top of the list. Right next to their worship of the military, border patrol, and police.

    If libertarians are engaged in deciding who is a lost cause and who isn’t, I say we start with the people who not only worship the most murderous manifestations of government, but demand that we prostrate ourselves before the icons of that authoritarian dominance as well.

  157. Paul

    RC, it’s the “Libertarian Leadership Academy.”

    Paulie, Adam Bates speaks a lot of truth often.

  158. dL

    If libertarians are engaged in deciding who is a lost cause and who isn’t, I say we start with the people who not only worship the most murderous manifestations of government, but demand that we prostrate ourselves before the icons of that authoritarian dominance as well.

    Did Adam send that memo to the Cato brass?

  159. robert capozzi

    P,

    LLA looks thin. It’s not real obvious how much money LS gets from LLA, how long it’s been around, etc.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but LS’s main source of income is corporate training work.

    Regardless, my assessment stands that even trainers could use training, even the most self-aware ones. Do you disagree? Do you think the Roves and Axelrods of the world don’t have their own handlers?

  160. paulie

    realizes that wholesale abolition is both unsellable and untenable, reckless even.

    I tend to agree that immediate wholesale abolition would be very messy and chaotic on a grand scale, and that we won’t convince mass numbers of people that even eventual abolition could possibly be worth considering until we’re already well down that road. So from that standpoint there’s not much to argue about here. But on the other hand if that leads us to patently absurd conclusions along the lines of taking the entire Bush/Romney wing of the Republican Party and rebranding it as libertarian, without changing the stances of that party on everything from mass incarceration to the “war on terror” … well, there we would part company.

    hyperbolically pessimistic worldview that tends to produce unwarranted anxiety and fear.

    Sometimes I do feel that way but other times I don’t.

  161. Anthony Dlugos

    “It’s funny that guys like Sharpe need candidate training, when people literally pay money for Sharpe to give them candidate training.”

    Mr. Sharpe has a great personal story, a relatable political journey, and a speaking style light years ahead of any other Libertarian I am aware of. He doesn’t need candidate training so much as he needs to avoid taking campaign training/advice from Libertarians or, frankly, associating with Libertarians in any way. He has all the understanding of libertarian philosophy he needs in order to improve the lives of millions of New Yorker, and any time spent around us just increases the likelihood that he starts thinking, “yes, I want white nationalists in the LP! See how much I believe in freedom of association?” Don’t make me get a 1488 tattoo in order to prove it!”

    Run away, Larry! Run away from us very fast and surround yourself with normal people!

  162. robert capozzi

    pf: …patently absurd conclusions along the lines of taking the entire Bush/Romney wing of the Republican Party and rebranding it as libertarian, without changing the stances of that party on everything from mass incarceration to the “war on terror” … well, there we would part company.

    me: Who’s suggesting THAT?

    I’d like to see more GJs make the switch. I see WW being another model. He was an L leaner before, with many plumbline violations. Now he has fewer of them. RP2, Amash, and possibly Massie could be others down the road, and I’m not sure they are Bush/Romney wingers.

  163. paulie

    Who’s suggesting THAT?

    Dlugos for one. You at times, as I have seen you suggest that the entire country club Republican set could be peeled off. Then we have this….

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

    “….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.

    It is part of why I have felt resentful toward others because I do not
    know who to trust. I do not know who this individual(s) is trying to go
    behind the back of a Libertarian candidacy, but it would have to be
    someone at a higher level doing the negotiating to try to bring him in.

    Part of trust is that I also need to communicate with people who are on
    the same team, so that is what I am doing today.

    I apologize if I have offended anyone in the wake of trying to deal with
    this.

    Respectfully,
    Craig Bowden
    Region 1 Alternate”

  164. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Yes, it’d be GREAT if there were 20 WWs running as Ls. I’d hope that they do so with some contemplation, losing their vestigial morearchist tendencies and becoming much more consistent lessarchists. I don’t expect them to sound like Harlos, Hogarth, and Montoni on Day One, and in fact I don’t think they would likely be viable as NAPist candidates even years after switching parties.

  165. William t. Forrest

    If Romney switches to l.p. Chances are he won’t change much else. Even if he feigns an ideological conversion in the nomination stage look for him to revert to form in the general election campaign.

  166. robert capozzi

    WTF, ,

    Yes, BB evolved, iirc. Like RP1, he did go back to the Rs. MR fears seem like a pipedream to me. Why fret about it?

  167. Anthony Dlugos

    “I’d hope that they do so with some contemplation, losing their vestigial morearchist tendencies and becoming much more consistent lessarchists.”

    Right.

    Everyone has problematic positions in their past.

    The Mitt Romney…or any other politician, for that matter…who would switch parties to the LP would likely not be the same person as the Mitt Romney that exists today.

    Certainly not a perfect NAPist, but quite possibly a new ally.

    Should we vet such a “conversion?” Sure.

    But the attitude of a lot of Libertarians seems to be that some people get a scarlet “S,” for “statist” pinned on their chest, and they can never take it off.

    That says more about the townsfolk gathered for the public humiliation than it does about the penitent.

    If you’re having trouble accepting the sins of potential converts, remember its not about us and a fantasyland dream of Libertopia. If someone is willing to help us, say, end Trump’s Zero Tolerance border policy, I’m willing to accept their help, even if they fall short of flinging the doors open and walking away.

  168. William t. Forrest

    So how did Barr evolve? He kept raising money for non libertarian republicans the whole time he was on the lnc, praised plan Colombia in 2008, praised Jesse helms as the l.p. Nominee, went back to defending doma as the l.p. Nominee among other things. Contrary to subsequent narratives he was not pushed out afterwards but welcomed as the keynote speaker in 2010. It was Barr, not anyone else, who decided he should be a republican again, and back people like Gingrich who don’t even support his return to congress. He did not have to change any views to return to the gop either.

    Wayne root did not go through any ideological conversion when he went l.p. Or when he went back. No one forced him off the lnc even after he said his mission was to change libertarianism and after he essentially endorsed Romney and called the l.p. “your party” while sitting on the national board. Johnson even spoke up at the convention and asked root be given a second lnc term, and it was not until root himself chose to resign that he left.

    Weld for his part went back on his supposed conversion on the gun issue as the l.p. Nominee and more or less openly endorsed Clinton and now is reported to be backing Romney against an l.p. Opponent.

    So just how sincere are any of these conversions? Is the l.p. In fact a party separate and distinct from all others as its mission statement claims?

  169. robert capozzi

    https://reason.com/blog/2009/01/05/bob-barr-recants-doma-very-pub

    I vaguely recall that he made other shifts, too, but I’m not interested in defending BB. I did vote for him, for he ran as a lessarchist and was not taking fringe positions.

    As for the sincerity of what you call “conversions,” — a NAPist way of looking at politics, i.e., like a religion — I surely can’t know since I’m not a mind reader. Becoming a L isn’t generally something that one does opportunistically I wouldn’t think, since there’s no money in it and it ain’t exactly a prestigious gig.

  170. paulie

    It can be done opportunistically. Barr saw that Ron Paul made more headway in the Republican Party by virtue of having grown his national list through his LP run, followed by a return to congress as a Republican, and wanted to follow the same path. I’m not sure what led him to switch to the LP in the first place, but perhaps some degree of seeking revenge for the LP’s exaggerated claim to have caused his removal from congress – the main reason was actually that Linder was more popular in the district they both got redistricted into and Gingrich and the powers that be in the Georgia NSGOP didn’t like Barr all that much. And to some degree it was revenge on those powers that be in the NSGOP for backing Linder over him. He essentially killed two birds with one stone by making a strategic temporary switch to the LP.

    To give him credit, some of it was sincere – he was on the ACLU board around that same time, iirc, and troubled by W-era national security state civil rights violation overreach.

    Root’s conversion was certainly opportunistic, as it gave him an angle to market his media appearances; to this day he uses his title of “former LP VP nominee” as his main credential to book media appearances , ten years after the fact and six years after he left the party in a huff. But to give him some degree of credit, he probably was somewhat disgruntled with the Republicans for not being fully immediately captivated by their Tea Party wing and later at the Libertarians for not doing the same.

    Johnson’s conversion was partly opportunistic; he didn’t realize that Ron Paul was going to run again in 2012, and/or thought there was room for more than one libertarian Republican in the presidential primaries, and it turned out there was not. He clearly wanted to be part of the national conversation and the LP was a consolation prize. But again to give him credit, he was a LP member in the 1980s and 1990s and had been called a libertarian even back when he was governor.

    Weld’s conversion certainly had elements of opportunism, more than once. In 2006 he used and dumped LPNY as a booster rocket hoping to get the Republican nomination for Governor, and in 2016 he couldn’t have put himself in a position to get such a prominent spot in the media to push his perspective any more easily.

    Conversion can be a religious term but it can also be an ideological one. For example, I converted from being a Democrat to being a Libertarian 26 years ago and this involved some evolution on issues as well. That’s not particularly unusual for a 20 year old, as I was at the time, and I had already had an instinctive libertarian aversion to red tape in real life (as opposed to theory) before then, as well as both a practical and theoretical divergence from left-liberal orthodoxy on the gun issue (that is, I used guns for both hunting and self defense in real life and believed in gun rights even back when I was a Democrat).

    If instead you want to think of party politics as solely a team sport or corporate brand competition it makes no sense to speak of conversions. One does not experience a conversion from Giants to Falcons fandom, nor a conversion from Coke to Pepsi. But hopefully the LP is more than the equivalent of a gang color, corporate brand or sports team. We have an ideological difference with other political parties, and changing parties should involve some evolution of views and issue positions, not just putting on different colors. That’s not to say that it’s the same as a religious conversion but it does have some of those elements or at least should to some degree.

  171. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Some revisionism here. BB was drafted iirc and entered the nomination fight late, as many hoped RP1 would bolt in 08.

    As for WW, you must not recall or you missed that the LP made the overture to WW. It was, in fact, my idea. I suggested it to my Mom, who was LPNY vice chair and she suggested it to the state committee, and THEY agreed it sounded like a good idea.

    So, if that makes me an infidel among the NAPist College of Cardinals, OK. I’m good with being an infidel, at least in this case! 😉

    Yes, I suspect GJ wanted to be in the conversation. That sounds sincere to me! You? I don’t think he did it in 12 for money or power, certainly.

    Root does look like a textbook case of an opportunist, though.

  172. Anthony Dlugos

    as usual, paulie has an even-handed approach delivered with equanimity.

    But let me rephrase for the tl; dr set:

    EVERYONE has self-interested, self-aggrandizing motivations to run for office. The only ones I don’t trust are the ones who deny that they do.

    Everyone looks for angles. The radical who runs for president based on “principle” does so for pragmatic, angling reason; they have no record to run on. Of course they are going to stand on “principle.” Its the most pragmatic thing they can do.

  173. paulie

    BB was drafted iirc and entered the nomination fight late

    Supposedly he was drafted, but many of us suspected he was angling for a presidential run from the time it was announced he was joining the LP and the LNC at the same time, despite repeated denials, and ultimately he did in fact run. Whether he planned it all along is as yet unknown, and may remain that way.

    As for WW, you must not recall or you missed that the LP made the overture to WW. It was, in fact, my idea. I suggested it to my Mom, who was LPNY vice chair and she suggested it to the state committee, and THEY agreed it sounded like a good idea.

    No doubt, but it remains a fact that he specifically promised to pursue the LP run whether or not he got the NSGOP nomination, and after he failed to get that left the LP by the side of the road and having to scramble to start from scratch. I’m not sure whether that was after petition signatures had already been gathered but either way the LP was damaged by having to scramble to catch up with a new nominee.

  174. robert capozzi

    AD,

    We may have a definitional problem here. If someone believes that they have something to say, to share, and that they have the background and skills to — in this case — run for prez, is that “self interest” and “self-aggrandizement”? They may well “get a charge” out of sharing ideas that they feel are right and true.

    I’d say that’s the case with WW, in all likelihood. My hypothesis is that, yes, he digs the limelight and the media praising his awesome articulateness, but he also thinks (I’m sensing) that the Rs and Ds are pretty much clueless at this stage. I suspect if he runs in 20, he thinks his odds of winning are very, very low. But the 6-lane highway is about right, and being a vessel for a change in the gestalt would start to feel like a kind of calling. Ls in the actual mix COULD make a difference. NAPists? Obviously, I’m not seeing it.

  175. robert capozzi

    pf,

    It was uncool of WW to do that. He’s apologized for it. I see no evidence that there was any significant damage, as they iirc had a candidate and he had the typical vote totals.

    On the upside, it got WAY more press than the LPNY usually gets. And — since you are so interested in distancing Ls from conservatives — WW accomplished that! He was vetoed by the Conservative Party, as he’s pro-choice and they ain’t.

  176. paulie

    Everyone looks for angles. The radical who runs for president based on “principle” does so for pragmatic, angling reason; they have no record to run on. Of course they are going to stand on “principle.” Its the most pragmatic thing they can do.

    Not necessarily a problem. Harry Browne spent a career urging people to stay away from politics and voting, and practiced what he preached. Late in life he opportunistically embraced two presidential runs as a new angle to sell books, book media appearances, and help him continue to pull down a six figure income, fund travel and employ staff. But aside from the question of whether or not one should vote or be involved in political activity his ideas remained the same, and he did a good job of presenting them and getting more people involved in the LP as well as opening more minds to libertarian ideas that would have never paid attention to them otherwise. So I think it was a win-win-win for him, for the party and for the movement as a whole.

  177. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, I was trying a tl; dr thing.

    Lets just say I think there is always some amount of self-interest involved in running for any office, and like paulie said, I don’t see it as necessarily a problem.

    There could obviously be some level of wanting to make the world a better place too.

  178. Anthony Dlugos

    Also, I think, as ambivalent about Barr-Root as I was:

    No Barr-Root —> No Johnson-Gray—>No Johnson-Weld.

  179. paulie

    No Barr-Root —> No Johnson-Gray

    Why not? Ron Paul had already demonstrated that the LP would be willing to nominate a former elected Republican politician well before Barr. Ron Paul’s higher than expected level of success in 2008 is most likely what caused Johnson to believe he might have a shot in the Republican primaries in 2012, and Ron Paul continuing to suck up most of what oxygen existed for a libertarian-leaning candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 was what caused Johnson to defect to the LP. So if anyone is to thank or blame for Johnson’s LP runs it’s Ron Paul, not Bob Barr.

  180. robert capozzi

    AD,

    “No” seems overstated, but I agree. There’s been a progression of more and more credible tickets and away from fringe, esoteric ones.

  181. robert capozzi

    pf,

    As for RP1’s effect on GJ, yer prolly right. GJ may have THOUGHT there was an opening. Where he really miscalculated was to think that the R pro-life requirement is not plumbline. It is a bright-line test at the national level.

  182. Anthony Dlugos

    paulie,

    I wouldn’t quibble with you if you wanted to argue that Ron Paul started the “trailblazing” process between the dinosaur parties and the LP.

    paulie/RC,

    Maybe my “No” argument is overstated.

    On the other hand, let’s realize that there were multiple presidential nominations between Ron Paul and Gary Johnson I and II. Review the slate of candidates in 2008. I don’t want to rehash the 2008 Convention, but obviously I feel the good Doctor Ruwart would have been a potential catastrophe. How long did the ’84 Convention results drive away the big money/political heavyweights, RC? Is anyone going to argue that 2008 Ruwart didn’t have the capacity to make the LP radioactive for a couple decades? I think she did.

  183. paulie

    If Barr hadn’t run, I imagine most of his eventual votes would have either accrued to Root or not been at the convention, so it’s hard to say what the result would have been. My best guess is Root, but that’s just a guess.

  184. Anthony Dlugos

    perhaps, paulie, re: Root.

    Getting back to the issue at hand, what William t. Forrest posted on September 26 at 14:42:

    I guess I am personally not surprised that the “conversions” WTF refers to might not have been fully genuine from some Libertarians’ perspective.

    1) If our platform is considered extreme/dogmatic, I’d say, “of course a conversion is likely to not be genuine.”

    2) as I noted, everyone is at least a little bit self-interested. If you want to make it likely that conversion are genuine and likely to stick, then make the Libertarian label something worth having, and thus something self-interested politicians are reticent to give up. And that means moving our platform in a more moderate direction, where the great mass of voters are.

  185. Shawn Levasseur

    If Barr hadn’t run, I’d think there would have been a bunch of candidates who didn’t run, be in the race, changing the entire dynamic.

    Also, Mary Ruwart may not have been in the race if Barr was absent, as I suspected that she only ran as there were no serious challengers to Barr without her (I never felt she was prepared to take the campaign beyond the convention, to the general election).

    I doubt Root would have taken it. Steve Kubby would have been a likely winner in that scenario (a Barr and Ruwart-less nomination race)

  186. robert capozzi

    AD: How long did the ’84 Convention results drive away the big money/political heavyweights, RC?

    ME: Big money? Permanently.

  187. William Saturn

    dL: “Uninteresting why an unabashed Trumpist is bothering to post on a 3rd party politics site…obviously, it’s just to stir up shit”

    I wonder why dL is here. He contributes no articles, holds an animus for third parties on the right, and constantly swings insults (which is easy when one uses a fake two character moniker).

  188. paulie

    I wonder why dL is here. He contributes no articles, holds an animus for third parties on the right, and constantly swings insults (which is easy when one uses a fake two character moniker).

    dL has contributed 4 articles, many intelligent comments, and has helped police troll activity. He’s not the only one with an animus for the far right and he doesn’t support any duopolists as far as I know. Also as far as I know you both use screen names, so I don’t see why it is relevant that one is longer than the other.

    I have no opposition to screen names, and in fact contributed my first thousand plus articles and ten thousand plus comments here under a screen name (which I still use on facebook, but only out of inertia). I’ve continued to use a variant of my first name as my screen name, although I’ve stopped trying to conceal my real life last name here since 2012, but did from 2008-2012.

    To be fair to both of them, Saturn has also contributed many articles and comments here over the years, and even the site logo, so I wouldn’t say he does not belong here, despite his man-crush on the Cheeto Benito and his affection for the alt right.

  189. paulie

    If Barr hadn’t run, I’d think there would have been a bunch of candidates who didn’t run, be in the race, changing the entire dynamic.

    Possibly. I’m pretty sure the people who were most involved in getting Barr to run asked other people too, and were not having much luck.

    Also, Mary Ruwart may not have been in the race if Barr was absent, as I suspected that she only ran as there were no serious challengers to Barr without her

    She was persuaded to run, ironically by some of the same people that urged Barr to run also, before she knew Barr was going to run also. The precipitating event was the LSLA/LNC in Vegas, where many were unhappy with the performance of the entire field of candidates then in the race (who did not yet include Barr or Ruwart), iirc February or perhaps January 2008.

    I doubt Root would have taken it. Steve Kubby would have been a likely winner in that scenario (a Barr and Ruwart-less nomination race)

    Possibly. We had terrible timing, Steve was just learning to use a teleprompter and had a 2 or 3 week long flu right at that crucial time with the CA and NV/LSLA/LNC conventions. Many were concerned he may have been having more serious health problems than he was, even including myself. There were still lingering concerns about his legal situation and ability to travel, which were also unfortunately not fully cleared up until it was too late. And the same oppo research which ended up being unleashed on Ruwart was also loaded and ready to go against Kubby, in his case having to do with a passage in his book about taking LSD with his then 16 year old son.

    I never felt she was prepared to take the campaign beyond the convention, to the general election

    Badnarik seemed less ready to take the campaign beyond the nomination, yet had no problems doing so. I think she would have done fine, as would Kubby. Badnarik also demonstrated that the things which some LP delegates think will be used to destroy us if a candidate they deem embarrassing wins the nomination don’t matter much after the nomination; his status as a tax protester and non-licensed driver were basically ignored outside the LP. I suspect the pedo smears against Ruwart would also have had minimal traction post-nomination and she would have done fine, as would have Kubby. I don’t think they would have ended up with fewer votes than Barr, and certainly not by much if they had.

  190. paulie

    I guess I am personally not surprised that the “conversions” WTF refers to might not have been fully genuine from some Libertarians’ perspective.

    1) If our platform is considered extreme/dogmatic, I’d say, “of course a conversion is likely to not be genuine.”

    2) as I noted, everyone is at least a little bit self-interested. If you want to make it likely that conversion are genuine and likely to stick, then make the Libertarian label something worth having, and thus something self-interested politicians are reticent to give up. And that means moving our platform in a more moderate direction, where the great mass of voters are.

    So following that logic, not only is it not possible to have a party with a platform that is meaningfully different from the duopoly, but any such party should not just expect but embrace gradual encroachment and eventual hostile takeover by disgruntled duopolists who are hostile to its core principles.

  191. paulie

    Therefore, instead of maintaining some ideals which we can hope we will push the establishment parties to adopt so they can persuade voters at the margin to vote for them rather than us – the historically proven effective way in which smaller parties implement real changes in the direction they want without actually winning office per se – we should expect to do all that hard work just so we can create yet another virtually indistinguishable vehicle for the egos of the same old politicians to jockey for office and carry out the same old disastrous and destructive policies. Got it.

  192. dL

    which is easy when one uses a fake two character moniker

    oh, I would say it right to your face.

    this is me

    and for the IQ challenged, a reminder that the screen name can link to an external resource, which in my case, links to my blog that dates back to 2010. Before that, I was an contributor,/administrator for the old libertarian democrat blog, Freedom Democrats.

  193. Anthony Dlugos

    “…but any such party should not just expect but embrace gradual encroachment and eventual hostile takeover by disgruntled duopolists who are hostile to its core principles.“

    Yes, but think of the convention parties! I’d bet we could even get the pros from Vegas to show up.

  194. William Saturn

    I’m sure that’s all true dL and that that is really you in the Twitter photo. Personally I am 6’10, 240 lbs and bench press 300. Believe that?

  195. paulie

    I believe both of you, and I think it’s really hot that you are comparing how many inches you have, your poundage and what you can lift. I may as well join in on the fun myself. I’m 5’8, 320 pounds of pure unadulterated sexiness, and have no trouble at all mouthpressing a handle of Stoli. I like to take slow, short walks on the beach and then sit down because I’m all out of breath. After waking up on the beach with a pounding hangover looking like a washed up lobster I enjoy rubbing lotion over every part of my body which I can reach, which is not very many. I like pleasure mixed with pain and music is my aeroplane. Looking forward to meeting you guys in person as soon as possible.

  196. paulie

    Yes, but think of the convention parties! I’d bet we could even get the pros from Vegas to show up.

    If that’s what you’re after just go to the establishment party conventions, or better yet AVN. Tell them you’re a producer.

  197. dL

    I’m sure that’s all true dL and that that is really you in the Twitter photo. Personally I am 6’10, 240 lbs and bench press 300. Believe that?

    nah, I’m a bit too vain to be faking my own avatar, even when I’m years past my prime…but thanx for the compliment, tho

  198. Anthony Dlugos

    “If that’s what you’re after just go to the establishment party conventions, or better yet AVN. Tell them you’re a producer.”

    haha, maybe I’ll try that.

    In all seriousness, we agree on the direction the party should take and who we should be going after. We just disagree on the messaging that feasible in the electoral political arena. It’s much more circumscribed than you think, in my opinion.

    In other words, no amount of appealing to left-leaning sensibilities is going to overcome a “privatize social security” message. Nor is a more coy message of, say, giving young people a chance to invest some portion of the social security funds privately WITHOUT explicitly indicating we aren’t arguing for an end to social security.

  199. paulie

    I think there is room for a left-leaning appeal on social, cultural and foreign policy/military spending issues which is at the same time realistic about the SS ponzi scheme and the prospects of younger people with that system while at the same time compassionate to those who have already paid into it for many years.

Leave a Reply

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