Jacob Hornberger Signals Intent to Seek Libertarian Presidential Nomination

Ballot Access News:

Jacob Hornberger, founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, seems likely to seek the Libertarian Party’s 2020 presidential nomination. He is visiting many, if not all, the Libertarian Party state conventions. He also sought the Libertarian presidential nomination in 2000. On the first ballot he placed third, with 120 votes. Harry Browne received the nomination with 493 votes, and New Hampshire legislator Don Gorman placed second with 166 votes.

Hornberger’s web page is https://jacobforliberty.com. Thanks to Paul Frankel for this news.

Hornberger also ran as an independent for US Senate in Virginia in 2002.

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=hornberger

Hornberger’s Blog

https://www.amazon.com/Jacob-G.-Hornberger/e/B003TLA0MU

https://twitter.com/jacobhornberger?lang=en

https://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/jacob-hornberger

https://www.c-span.org/person/?jacobghornberger

79 thoughts on “Jacob Hornberger Signals Intent to Seek Libertarian Presidential Nomination

  1. Steven R Linnabary

    I could be really wrong, but I think Hornberger pulled out of the race a few days before the 2000 convention.

  2. paulie Post author

    He pulled out much earlier, then dropped back in at the convention to the surprise of just about everyone there.

  3. paulie Post author

    He’d be the top contender out of the current field, I think.

    You still think so if Amash drops in?

  4. Pingback: Jacob Hornberger for President? | Adam Dick

  5. paulie Post author

    Richard may have been exaggerating about “many if not all” LP state conventions. I have only seen him at Alabama’s so far, but then Tennessee was the only other one I have been at yet this year. I did understand him to say he would be going to some others, with more next year assuming he does run.

  6. NewFederalist

    I wonder if Jacob Hornberger or Arvin Vohra would consider the vice presidential spot if the convention once again goes to a GOP cast off?

  7. Robert Capozzi

    Most polished NAPist in the field, if he runs.

    I likely stay home should he be the nominee.

  8. paulie Post author

    I wonder if Jacob Hornberger or Arvin Vohra would consider the vice presidential spot if the convention once again goes to a GOP cast off?

    I don’t know if either Vohra or Hornberger wants the VP spot, but I’m pretty sure most delegates won’t want Arvin for either spot on the ticket. He got a single digit percentage for another term as the sitting vice chair seeking re-election last year. Most of the no votes fell into the “not only no but hell no” category. I have a hard time seeing that turn around into a nomination by next year. We shall see.

  9. Pingback: Jacob Hornberger for President? | The Libertarian Institute

  10. Robert Capozzi

    NF,

    Nope. Voted for GJ both times, BB, RP1, I think DB despite his extreme NAPism, and EC. Sat out the others.

  11. Andy Craig

    Pros: unapologetically open-borders, which will be good both since it’s a high-profile 2020 issue and also to keep the worst of the Rockwellites and Hoppe types at bay. Decent speaker. Familiar with libertarianism and the movement. Generally professional in demeanor and presentation. Has experience running a political non-profit, and it looks like he’s making a proper serious effort to attend state conventions. Plus he’s not entirely new to the party.

    Cons: not particularly well-known or notable outside of movement circles, so he’d struggle to get much coverage & attention. Tends to preach to the choir. Into some goofy conspiracy stuff, and a bit obsessed with JFK in particular. His position on abortion is one of those weird have-it-both-ways stances that just alienates people on both sides. And the Auburn paleo set kind of seems like they want to claim him as one of their own, and he’s friendly with them in return, even though he doesn’t appear to take any of their worst anti-libertarian positions. And his last run for the nomination was kind of weird and contentious, from what little I’ve heard about it.

    I’m not exactly excited at the prospect, but I could live with it. I think he’d beat the announced field of cranks and randos. Definitely would not beat Amash, but I don’t think anybody could. Hard to say how he’d do against other… not “big name” candidates, but sort of medium-tier movement figure potentials like himself. If we had a contest between him and two or three others who are his relative peers in notability/experience, that wouldn’t be the worst nomination contest the party’s ever had.

    I’m curious and open to the possibility, but he’s not one I would commit to until we get closer and know who else is running. Still, he’d probably be better than nominating Vermin Supreme, which is my bar that none of the other currently announced candidates can clear.

  12. paulie Post author

    Agreed with Andy C on most of that. I’m less sure that Bumper Hornberger is better than Vermin, but I hope that they both get in the race and may the best pony win!

    I also would not rule out the possibility of Kim Ruff getting the nomination. Libertarians like to pretend we are completely logic driven and immune to supporting candidates based on appearance, but in my experience it isn’t actually true. A good looking woman usually has a head start in any LP contest. Most delegates will probably again be male, and as far as I know most of them are mostly straight, so she’ll at least have their attention; it will be up to her to capitalize on that or fail to. I like what I have seen from the Ruff-Phillips ticket in terms of a mix of humor and seriousness and a real effort to campaign for the nomination. On the other hand, resume-obsessed delegates may not be impressed with Kim’s job in manufacturing.

    Where it stands now, Ruff and Supreme are the least bad announced candidates, and Bumper could well be in that tier or above depending on the quality of his campaign assuming there will be one.

  13. Andy Craig

    I wouldn’t assume they’re mostly straight. ;^)

    I’ve not been particularly impressed with Kim’s campaign so far. There’s been a bit of excessive (and counterproductive!) passive-aggressive hostility directed at other Libertarians who are skeptical, and bupkis in terms of getting any media coverage or reaching an audience outside of a handful of Libertarian micro-podcast audiences. It’s not a great look if you’ve been running for president for months and I can’t turn up a single Google News hit for an article about your candidacy. And I’m not sure how many state conventions she’s been going to personally, but I haven’t heard of any.

    But granted they have been trying to actively organize and fill out a team, and they eventually got a website put up with some issue positions. In terms of being the de-facto hardcore Radical Caucus candidacy, I bet she’ll do better than Darryl did, but not dramatically so. My best guess is in the range of ~10%, depending on what the rest of the field looks like by then. Ditto Kokesh, and those two might be competing for the same relatively small pool of votes along with Arvin.

    Stage presence and debate performance doesn’t necessarily help just because it’s a woman. I think it hurt Alicia last time; and that she came into the convention with more support than she got in the balloting. Not to knock her because she’s a very nice and friendly person, to be sure, but I don’t think her debate performance helped her.

    The wildcard in all this is McAfee. I could see him flaming out with single digits, and I could see him being the relatively serious runner-up as high as the low 30s. I lean towards the former as more likely, because he’s less popular in the party now than he was in 2016. And that he won’t even attend the convention surely won’t help. On the other hand he is probably the biggest name in terms of celebrity (even if it’s more notoriety than fame), and that’s usually a big boost. He could be the “not-[whoever]” choice people rally around in opposition to the presumptive frontrunner, whoever that ends up being. But he also has a hard ceiling likely well below 50%, so I can’t see him actually getting the nomination.

  14. Robert Capozzi

    pf: I’m less sure that Bumper Hornberger is better than Vermin….

    me: Personally, I’d prefer Vermin for the comic relief. I’ve seen no evidence that he’s a NAPist, so there’s that, too. VS would, however, establish the LP as a complete joke. Still, I could imagine him getting a fair amount of votes, say, more than Browne but less than GJ 2.0.

  15. Chuck Moulton

    Ruff has run for the LNC before. Could she be setting herself up for a lose the presidential nomination but win an LNC seat situation like Ruwart and Perry?

    I saw Hornberger frequently when I attended GMU. Seems like a good guy and solid libertarian to me based on all my interactions with him. Lark is not a fan of him though. I’m going to need to get more details on that if Hornberger seems like a contender. (He told me a few times, but that doesn’t mean I remember it well or that it’s repeatable.)

  16. Thomas Knapp

    “[Jacob Hornberger’s] last run for the nomination was kind of weird and contentious, from what little I’ve heard about it.”

    Yes, it was. He wasn’t running against the presumptive nominee, Harry Browne, on ideology. He was running against the corrupt practices of Browne’s 1996 and 2000 campaigns. Which was bound to make everyone a little uncomfortable.

  17. paulie Post author

    Ruwart, Perry, Root, and Feldman actually.

    To my knowledge none of them set out to lose for presidential nomination so as to boost LNC campaigns, rather took LNC races as a consolation prize. I can imagine Ruff would if she does not win nomination.

  18. paulie Post author

    Lark is not a fan of him though. I’m going to need to get more details on that if Hornberger seems like a contender. (He told me a few times, but that doesn’t mean I remember it well or that it’s repeatable.)

    IIRC Dr. Lark was on the Browne/Perry/Willis side of that faction dispute. Bumper also ran as an independent when the LP would not nominate him for US Senate in Virginia in 2002. I would guess it would be related to those things. If there is something else I would be curious to know as well.

  19. Thomas Knapp

    “IIRC Dr. Lark was on the Browne/Perry/Willis side of that faction dispute”

    I don’t know what “side” he was on as of the 2000 national convention, but he was elected chair that year and did a good job of getting to the bottom of it after John Famularo produced an invoice indicating that Willis had continued to secretly work for the Browne campaign after he had supposedly stopped under LNC orders to disclose any such work. That ended up with Willis “confessing” in terms that amounted to claiming he had stolen the 1996 nomination for Browne, and with the LNC passing a ban on the LP doing business with Browne or Willis (and, IIRC, possibly Cloud) for some time thereafter.

    My recollection is that in the run-up to the 2000 national convention, Hornberger made some claims that even I didn’t think the available evidence could be interpreted to prove (I was very much on the “this is some bullshit, Harry” side of the matter), and that there was a bit of a spat over that in which Lark and Hornberger were at loggerheads.

    Hornberger and LPVA in general definitely got some bad blood going during that whole time period. Which is a shame, because he’s good candidate material in terms of speaking/presentation/debate ability, etc. (and most radicals like him, although he is a bit more “constitutionalist” than the radical norm).

    I’d certainly have no problem supporting Hornberger for the LP’s presidential nomination versus anyone else in the current field.

  20. paulie Post author

    stolen the 1996 nomination for Browne

    From whom? I honestly don’t think Tompkins or Schiff would have won regardless. It’s more likely he thought he was helping Browne get a better head start at being organized for the general election campaign. OTOH, perhaps Browne would have just suspended his campaign entirely if they did not feel adequately prepared. So, perhaps in a sense you are correct.

  21. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    You’d have to ask him. And probably explain what your terms mean this week.

    I don’t think you’ll ever find him supporting aggression, but most of his issues pieces center on his views of constitutionality and American history (I often find the latter unsupportably retrospectively rosy).

  22. Thomas Knapp

    Paulie,

    Willis’s confession claims that if Willis hadn’t secretly worked for the Browne campaign while Willis was the LP’s national director, Browne’s campaign would have shut down months before the national convention. If Willis is correct in his assessment of his own impact, it follows that someone other than Browne would have been nominated if Willis hadn’t done what he did.

    Who might that someone else have been? How the hell should I know?

    We’ve had conventions which have nominated candidates who weren’t even candidates when the convention started (David Bergland 1983)

    We’ve had conventions which have nominated candidates who declared much closer to the convention than the time frame in which Willis was ordered by the LNC to stop working secretly for Browne (not to stop working for Browne — to stop working secretly for Browne — the LNC’s response to the initial claims that Willis was working for Browne was, in December 1995, to pass a rule simply requiring disclosure by LPHQ staff members of further work they did for campaigns). Bob Barr 2008 and Gary Johnson 2012 come to mind.

    It’s eminently possible that neither Tompkins nor Schiff would have been the beneficiary of a Browne campaign collapse. Perhaps Jo Jorgensen, who was running for the VP nomination, would have raised her sights. Or maybe just some other candidate who didn’t enter the race because Browne seemed to have it locked up well before the convention would have done so once Browne ran out of steam.

    I don’t know that Willis is correct in his assessment of his own effect, because I don’t know how much of Browne’s campaign depended deeply on Willis, or what would have happened if Willis had given up his LPHQ paycheck to work for Browne instead of trying to work both sides of the fence, or just disclosed as required. IMO, Willis’s concern was less that Browne’s campaign would collapse than that Willis might make less money if he only got to do the one job or had to disclose the second.

    But it remains a fact that Willis claimed (“confessed”) to have abused his position as LP national director to steal the nomination for Browne.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    TK,

    NPO = no particular order. If he views things through a Constitution lens, he’s probably more of a High NAPist, since NPO NAPists largely disregard the Constitution over a priority-less perspective. NPO NAPists always favor “aggression abatement,” while High NAPists sometimes will consider other things, like the Constitution.

  24. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    Your logic doesn’t seem to be very sound there. It would be entirely possible for a no-particular-orderist to be both a constitutionalist and a non-NAPist.

  25. paulie Post author

    Your logic doesn’t seem to be very sound there. It would be entirely possible for a no-particular-orderist to be both a constitutionalist and a non-NAPist.

    My brain shuts down trying to follow the Capozzi taxonomies but that seems to make sense. At least for the ten seconds I can understand it before something in my brain hits an override switch that forces me to forget what any of these terms are supposed to mean and how they may or may not relate to each other.

  26. paulie Post author

    Knapp @ 0659: Fair point, and you jogged my memory; I’m remembering that stuff better as you remind me.

  27. Jake Porter

    Jacob attended the Libertarian Party of Iowa convention last week. Party members and likely delegates were impressed with him. If he announces, I will likely be supporting his campaign.

  28. Thomas Knapp

    “My brain shuts down trying to follow the Capozzi taxonomies but that seems to make sense.”

    Well, it does to me anyway.

    If a constitutionalist was asked “which must we do first, recognize the full range of rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, or dissolve the Selective Service System as non-compliant with the 13th Amendment,” presumably that constitutionalist would answer “they both have to be done and I don’t care which order they get done in.”

  29. paulie Post author

    And I’m not sure how many state conventions she (Kim Ruff)’s been going to personally, but I haven’t heard of any.

    I don’t know that they have travel money at this stage, but at the Tennesee convention they had several campaign staff and a video appearance from Kim with Q & A by delegates. The technology was better managed than when I tried to do stuff like that with Kubby in 2008. The only other one I’ve been to so far this year is Alabama and we were told ahead of time absolutely no candidates seeking presidential nomination so I did not try to invite any. I was also told no additional speakers so I did not even invite potential speakers who as far as I know still live in Auburn (Roderick Long, Charles radgeek Johnson, John Sophocleus who was a delegate at the convention). Then Hornberger popped up to stump for the presidential nomination and was given a chance to address the delegates without prior notice, and later our paid banquet speaker Scott Horton also used part of his remarks to stump for Hornberger.

    I’ll be at the Arkansas convention April 13, and Jill Pyeatt is doing a CA thread this weekend, so we’ll see who is poping up at which conventions. Of course the bulk of that will be next year regardless.

  30. paulie Post author

    I wouldn’t assume they’re mostly straight. ;^)

    I don’t. I said as far as I know most are mostly straight. That leaves plenty of room for me to be wrong even about that much, and I am well aware that we have a disproportionately high LGBT contingent both out and closeted, but that would still be my guess. Of course that doesn’t necessarily help women – we also have a lot of male chauvinists, both MRAs and unselfconscious, both gay and straight. What I said is that she would have a head start on getting the room’s attention – but that can work for or against her depending on what she says and how she says it.

    Ditto Kokesh, and those two might be competing for the same relatively small pool of votes along with Arvin.

    At this point I am more favorably disposed to Ruff, Supreme and potentially Hornberger than to Kokesh or Vohra.

    The wildcard in all this is McAfee.

    I’ve personally ruled out supporting him but you are right, he is always a wild card. Amash of course is too, and would likely be a strong frontrunner if he decides to do it. Some people will oppose based on abortion position, recent Republican affiliation and/or other grounds but I think that would most likely be a minority.

    On the other hand he is probably the biggest name in terms of celebrity (even if it’s more notoriety than fame), and that’s usually a big boost.

    McAfee is probably not that well known anymore. Supreme is in the same ballpark famewise if not better at this point.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    TK,

    Yes, there are many overlapping characteristics between NPO NAPists, High NAPists, and constitutionalists. I don’t believe I’ve suggested otherwise. Have I?

    NPO non-NAPists are possible, too, although I suspect it’s a rare thing. Most of humanity recognizes that a reasonable sequence of events is an important consideration. As a matter of principle, however, the NPO NAPists like yourself (as I perceive you to be) who might say it’s “moral” to abolish the court system, say, since it’s funded by the initiation of force even if there was no transition or alternative institution prepared to take its place. In my experience, NPO NAPists are most willing to play “in a L society” thought experiments, pronouncing upon them in public, if asked and sometimes volunteering these extreme views.

    High NAPists are a bit less prone to being trapped in their fringe positions regardless of sequencing or other considerations. Not all High NAPists are constitutionalist, btw. Some are hostile to the Constitution.

  32. Thomas Knapp

    “the NPO NAPists like yourself (as I perceive you to be) who might say it’s ‘moral’ to abolish the court system, say, since it’s funded by the initiation of force even if there was no t ”

    I think the court system is a good example of where you’re wrong about there not being an “alternative institution prepared to take its place.”

    In point of fact, non-court arbitration systems are ubiquitous. I’ve never heard of an organized labor contract that didn’t specify arbitration rather than litigation. Most companies include “arbitration, not litigation” clauses in their terms of service/commerce.

    On the civil side, if the court system disappeared tomorrow, society probably wouldn’t miss a beat. And the criminal side has been a train wreck for far longer than I’ve been alive. I don’t know anyone on any side of it — prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, victims, defendants, anyone — who thinks it works well.

    Would you say that Auschwitz shouldn’t have been shut down until there was a transition or alternative institution prepared to take its place? Some things are bad enough you get rid of them whether you’ve decided what to do next or not.

  33. dL

    In point of fact, non-court arbitration systems are ubiquitous. I’ve never heard of an organized labor contract that didn’t specify arbitration rather than litigation. Most companies include “arbitration, not litigation” clauses in their terms of service/commerce.

    If you run a business by contract, you damn right you do(or at the very least, arbitration as the first resort). I would have thought Bob would know that.

  34. dL

    “My brain shuts down trying to follow the Capozzi taxonomies but that seems to make sense.”

    It used to be Napster until Bob finally caught up to 1998 with the realization that everyone on the planet associates that term with the (file sharing) music service. Napist? Already taken, too
    https://napism.org/napist-identification-clues/

    A Hi-Napist would refer to one who likes to partake of the gungi strain of the herb before embarking on an hour or two of pure sleep relaxation. On the other hand, a Low-Napist refers to the 3:00PM napper seeking rejuvenation from the work day crunch.

    Pro-top: Top and bottom are already taken, too… and I would advise refraining from querying others whether one is a top or a bottom.

  35. robert capozzi

    tk: Some things [like Auschwitz] are bad enough you get rid of them whether you’ve decided what to do next or not.

    me: I agree! What I — and virtually everyone except NAPists — don’t agree is that the court system is ANYTHING LIKE Auschwitz.

    It’s this lack of discernment and proportionality that sets NAPists far outside of the world’s political dialog, making them politically irrelevant.

    I’m aware of a fairly robust arbitration system. Whether it could step up and address society’s need for justice is dubious. Maybe it could over a long timeframe. I generally like the idea of transitioning from force to voluntaryism. For obvious reasons, I don’t think the NAPist path is likely to get us to the Promised Land.

  36. dL

    I agree! What I — and virtually everyone no one else except NAPists Conservatives — don’t agree is that the court system is ANYTHING LIKE Auschwitz.

  37. Thomas Knapp

    “It’s this lack of discernment and proportionality”

    Hmm … I see the same qualities in you. For example, you falsely discerned that I think the US court system is “like Auschwitz.”

    Auschwitz was merely an example of bad things that should be gotten rid of whether there’s a “replacement strategy” or not. And it and the other camps WERE gotten rid of, with piecemeal and ad hoc schemes for how to handle the survivors, not hand-wringing about how they needed to be kept until every one of those survivors had a good job and two-bedroom house waiting.

    No, the US court system is not as bad as Auschwitz since it is not an intentional extermination system. On the other hand, it’s had a couple of hundred years to un-fuck itself and seems to continually go in the opposite direction — and we’ve had the same period of time to build alternative institutions.

    At what point does “well, we don’t have a perfect alternative to immediately switch to” become an excuse to avoid change rather than a real reason, to keep a bad thing around?

    I’m unaware of any singular “NAPist path.”

    You tend to conflate non-aggressionism with two completely different things — abolitionism and no-particular-orderism — although you have begun distinguishing the latter at least a little bit lately.

  38. paulie Post author

    So far, Jill reports that Hornberger is at the CA convention. I don’t think anyone else who has been mentioned as a candidate for the nomination has been mentioned as being there yet, unless Sharpe runs, but as far as I remember he has put the kabosh on expectations he would after the Governor’s race.

  39. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Great, I’m glad we agree, more or less. The courts are different than Auschwitz. State-supplied court systems do largely crowd out alternatives. The courts are in part dysfunctional because the laws are dysfunctional.

    NAPists of various stripes likely would like to see courts abolished, if the option were on the table. Many/most NAPists would entertain the option. The non-NAPist lessarchist might indulge in the experiment for a moment, but recognize the fruitlessness of such an unripe idea. The NAPist seems far more willing to imagine that court-abolition can and should be on the table.

    The NAPist path entails leading with the NAP as the end-all and be-all of NAPism. There seem to be NAPist tributaries that differ slightly. What they have in common is unswerving loyalty to the NAP and its implications, however extreme.

  40. paulie Post author

    I don’t know that anyone wants to abolish all courts. Some people would ideally abolish courts which are tied to a territorial monopoly government, but that’s a reach goal which is not on the short term agenda. In the short term I’d like to curtail some of their overreach. In the medium term I’d like to confine them to dealing to crimes with actual complaining or unable to complain witnesses. The rest of it as far as I can tell sounds like noise which is doing nothing but distracting us from the task of starting to get the ball rolling in the direction we want instead of the direction we don’t want. If and when we do get a good bit of momentum in our direction it will make more sense to argue how far we should go. But then you already know this.

  41. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I suspect Montoni and possibly CAH would want to abolish courts, given that they are monopolies funded by the initiation of force.

    Low NAPists like yourself will engage in nuance, trade-offs, and ripeness.

  42. paulie Post author

    I would like to evolve towards a non-territorial monopoly system of justice. That’s a long term project. I would expect it to be chaotic if it happened suddenly. I think it will be better in the long run than the system we have now but I have more practical short term reforms that I spend more time thinking about. You seem obsessed with arguing about whether non territorial monopoly justice will ever work or not. I don’t think either side of that argument is a great use of time right now.

  43. robert capozzi

    pf,

    I think justice is highly imperfect now, and I’d like to see it more perfect. Whether at some point in the distant future it’s provided by government and taxes or entirely privately is an interesting exercise in mental masturbation. Having a long-term vision, either way, has no obvious effect in the here and now.

    I do wonder if the British jurisprudential model is itself part of reason why justice isn’t especially just. NAPists — for all their “radicalness” — seem to accept the British methodology as a given.

  44. paulie Post author

    Whether at some point in the distant future it’s provided by government and taxes or entirely privately is an interesting exercise in mental masturbation.

    So I guess you have an exhibitionism fetish.

    I do wonder if the British jurisprudential model is itself part of reason why justice isn’t especially just. NAPists — for all their “radicalness” — seem to accept the British methodology as a given.

    As opposed to what? Is it the existence of juries which bothers you?

  45. robert capozzi

    pf,

    The alternative is not obvious. I have ambivalence about juries. It involves force, after all. I despise that justice in the US is so dependent on the ability to rent lawyers.

    I say go with the current institution and reduce the number of laws, especially the most injust ones, especially the ones that disproportionately harm those without means.

  46. paulie Post author

    It involves force, after all.

    I’m in favor of people being able to opt out without penalty. It’s possible now in practice since there is no proof that jury notices were ever received. I’ve read that about half go in the trash now but can’t remember where.

  47. robert capozzi

    pf,

    If it ever became a ripe issue, of course Harlos Nonarchy Pods is the ultimate solution. Short of that, if the deal with being a full citizen involved an explicit agreement to sit on a jury, then refuseniks might lose the right to vote, for example. UE recipients might also agree to jury duty.

  48. paulie Post author

    Capozzi Archy Pods (CAPs). It’s theoretical possible to tie jury duty to voting rights or UE (unemployment?), but at present unenforceable since there is literally no proof anyone ever received their notice. To send it with signature confirmation would be a lot more expensive, albeit also theoretically possible. As far as I know, every jurisdiction I have ever been in sends theirs out by regular postal “snail” mail with no proof of receipt.

  49. dL

    if the deal with being a full citizen involved an explicit agreement to sit on a jury

    There is no such explicit agreement. And if someone wants to make one up, I’m not going to sign it.

  50. robert capozzi

    more…

    I’d probably sign, despite the fact that I vote infrequently.

  51. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Ripeness is probably the single most factor in politics, as I see it. Politics is downstream from intellectual endeavors, despite the views of some NAPists, who carry the NAP shield into battle only to be consistently slayed.

  52. paulie Post author

    Politics is downstream from intellectual endeavors

    Agreed. You’re the one who keeps laser focused on the most extreme questions of anarch0-libertarian theory, though. Pretty much to the exclusion of almost everything else.

  53. robert capozzi

    pf,

    3 reasons:

    1) The current field of L prez wanna-bes seem to’ve not received the memo. And while you may well agree, extremism is just beneath the surface if not front-and-center in public-facing L politics.

    2) NAPism is fatally flawed.

    3) I’m well positioned and reasonably well equipped to tell Emperor NAP he has no clothes. It’s a dirty job but someone’s gotta do it.

  54. paulie Post author

    The current field of L prez wanna-bes seem to’ve not received the memo

    I’m not aware of any who are running to abolish territorial monopoly courts. Even Kokesh only actually calls for dissolving the federal union (and thinks he could do it by executive order, which doesn’t seem correct to me).

    extremism is just beneath the surface

    Sounds like goalpost shifting. You keep wanting to argue about anarchy and finding excuses to do so, then complaining the public isn’t ready to talk about anarchy when the candidates are not talking about anarchy. Hornberger’s stump speech was radical libertarianism, to be sure, but within a constitutional framework, not an anarchist one.

  55. robert capozzi

    pf,

    The courts’ matter is simply an example. While anarchism is unworkable politically at this time, I’d say L abolitionism in various forms is front-and-center in this field. While a dash of abolitionism is reasonably ripe now, the current thrust of L politics entails strident abolitionism, which is a self-marginalizing approach, as I see it.

  56. Seebeck

    Hornberger is likely to be at the LPCO Convention in two weeks, with details still being sorted out as of yesterday.

    (This edit feature helps, but the clock still runs while editing!)

  57. paulie Post author

    I’ll try the other one Jared recommended. Let me know if you like that better. Will give this one a couple of days to let other people weigh in on how they like it and have a more full chance to compare.

  58. Thomas Knapp

    Hornberger’s keynote speech at the 1996 Libertarian National Convention is still pretty damn rousing today (especially when he gets to immigration). It starts at about 10 minutes into this C-SPAN convention video:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?73337-1/libertarian-party-convention-day-1-part-1

    One of the toss-arounds I see in every presidential cycle is “get the Libertarian candidate in the presidential debates.” I don’t know if that will ever happen, but I do know that if it did, Hornberger would whip the asses of, for example, Trump and Biden.

  59. robert capozzi

    tk,

    When you say “whip the asses,” are you saying that average voters are going to conclude JH won the debate? That these average voters would then vote for him? Perhaps something like JH won on points, but I think his ideas are wacky? Something else?

  60. NewFederalist

    Geez, Bobito… he meant get out a whip and beat them! Isn’t THAT obvious???

  61. robert capozzi

    NF,

    No, because I can’t imagine JH whipping DJT, JB, or even Amash. One would need to be a NAPist to see what few others do.

  62. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    When I say that he would “whip their asses,” I mean that for each proposition/question he would offer a better, more well-argued, and more attractive-sounding response (to a randomly selected television audience focus group) than any of them.

    Does that mean that he would win the election? Of course not. American elections have been both incrementally fixed by the major parties and propagandized by the mainstream media, over the course of 140 years, to preclude any such outcome.

  63. paulie Post author

    However he would do in the debates I don’t see him being let into them in the first place. Any debates he would have would be with the Green and Constitution Party candidates, et al.

  64. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Thanks for clarifying. Hope springs eternal, it seems, that the hypothetical focus group would find undiluted NAPism attractive. I’m highly skeptical it’d go that way.

  65. robert capozzi

    TK,

    I watched about 40 minutes of Bumper’s 96 speech, and I give it an A- in terms of delivery. Not too bad. Whether he’s a good debater — vs. public speaker…can’t say, but of the NAPist candidates, that’s about as good as it gets.

  66. Tony From Long Island

    TK:. . . .but I do know that if it did, Hornberger would whip the asses of, for example, Trump and Biden.

    I highly doubt that Biden will be the nominee. I predict that it will be someone who is currently in single digits in the polls.

  67. dL

    Hornberger’s keynote speech at the 1996 Libertarian National Convention

    Quaint…Clinton the Terrible now looks like Charles II next to what we got now.

  68. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    One time I watched Hornberger go up against a contest-winning debate team (I can’t remember if it was collegiate or high school) in an event using, IIRC, National Speech & Debate Association rules. He knows how to defend or attack a proposition persuasively, and he knows how to make it hard for his opponents not to like him, and show it, as he does so.

    Of course, what we think of as presidential “debates” aren’t really debates in the academic sense. They’re really just candidate forums where the contestants trot out bits of their stump speeches in response to issues questions that aren’t framed as propositions, and unload quick attacks on their opponents. I’ve seen him in situations like that, too, and he rolls right over his opponents.

    And of course, the presidential “debates” can’t be counted on to translate to votes. But to the extent that presidential elections are, at this point, basically public information activities from an LP standpoint, he’d make a good representative.

    Given the current and seemingly likely field, Hornberger looks like the best option.

    And yes, I do include Amash in that evaluation. Nothing against the guy, but it is politically and organizationally suicidal for the LP to keep nominating candidates from another party — the SAME other party — over and over. People who want to vote for a Republican will already have a Republican to vote for. They don’t need us. And we need to stop catering to a market segment that is already taken and not budging.

  69. paulie Post author

    The RC NAP narrative makes IPR almost unreadable.

    There are a select group of commenters whose comments I simply skip over because the noise to signal ratio is overwhelming. If Capozzi fits that criterion for you I would recommend skipping them to hopefully decrease your annoyance.

  70. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Yes, I’m familiar with that concern of yours. Consider the possibility that you may be too close to the situation to have an untainted view of the optics at play. I suspect the number of people who know that the LP nominated former Rs the last three cycles might be lower than Bergland’s vote totals. Most voters simply aren’t paying attention to such things.

    In many ways, DJT is not a R in any traditional sense, who himself switched parties in recent memory.

    Politics involves quite a bit of opportunism, at the risk of stirring St. Murray in his grave. A sitting congressman who bolts; is more articulate than the last 2 L nominees; and is willing to do it presents a tremendous opportunity. A “nobody” who is more fluid in presenting his take on NAPism than Bergland was is still likely to command Bergland-like attention. That tree falls in a remote forest where few are there to hear it.

    Personally, I’d like to see Supreme over JH entirely for the comic relief.

  71. Thomas Knapp

    “Consider the possibility that you may be too close to the situation to have an untainted view of the optics at play.”

    Those “optics” have been at play since long before I was in the Libertarian Party (which I joined in 1996).

    Nearly every negative reference I heard concerning libertarians from regular back then people came down to either 1) “they’re just Republicans who want to smoke pot,” or 2) they’re just stalking horses for [whichever major party the person opposes most].”

    So far as I can tell, those “optics” remain fully in play.

    When I was traveling last year to Columbus for a platform committee meeting, a fellow bus passenger struck up one of those “where you headed and why” conversations. He struck me as the “independent Democrat” type. That is, when I said “to a Libertarian Party meeting,” he bobbed his head and said something about being an independent and voting for Libertarians sometimes, but his overall self-description made me think he probably usually checks the box next to “D” candidates.

    So of course what I initially got from him was, while miming taking a big toke off a joint, hey, what’s Aleppo?

    But then he surprised me, because what I also got from him was:

    1) I voted for Harry Browne in 2000; but

    2) Bob Barr? REALLY?

Leave a Reply

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