Max Abramson No Longer a Libertarian Party Member, Not Running for President

New Hampshire Representative Max Abramson is no longer running for President and apparently has left the Libertarian Party as well. Thanks to sparkey for the link.

On March 2, Abramson wrote on Facebook:

Friends, after 25 years in the Libertarian Party, I am now leaving and am removing the LP party designation on my legislative page. My reason is simple: the abusiveness and bullying that I’ve seen from some activists, trolls, and antifa thugs who now claim to speak for all Libertarians has reached a point where we cannot recruit and keep people in the LP. I now have more friends who consider themselves to be libertarian than members of the Libertarian Party. It’s the abusiveness and nastiness toward voters, donors, activists, and other members that cannot stand.

In the comments, Abramson confirmed he was no longer running for president.

Libertarian Party Chairman Nick Sarwark wished Abramson “the best of luck in your future endeavors.”

2016 presidential candidate Darryl Perry told Abramson he felt Abramson’s platform was more in line with the Republican Party than the Libertarian Party.

Despite his withdrawal, as of this writing, Abramson remains on the LP.org list of candidates.

21 thoughts on “Max Abramson No Longer a Libertarian Party Member, Not Running for President

  1. Kevin

    Understandable and commendable action. The weirdness emanating from the LP arises from a different kind of swamp, that is encouraged by physical conventions that most normal people don’t go to. Because of the cost and time, and abusiveness from hardcore anti-interventionists and the blame-America-first crowd.

  2. Jonny Stryder

    With reluctance, I am reaching the same conclusion myself. I can no longer lend any support to what the Party has become, or suggest to friends that they join. I will be investing my time and energy elsewhere, looking to support those who understand that liberty means respecting the rights of others, and resolving conflicts by good-faith dialog, not coercion and fraud.

    I wish the Libertarian Party good fortune in healing itself, but do not expect it to happen.

  3. Thomas Knapp

    I don’t particularly dislike Mr. Abramson, but he’s not a libertarian and isn’t a good fit with a libertarian political party on several important issues.

    He’s not a great fit for the NSGOP on some other issues either, but they’re big enough and have enough power that they feel like they can be a little more tolerant of their fringe. The LP is small enough that a non-libertarian fringe negatively affects our branding in a bigger way.

  4. Fred Stein

    I don’t see this at The New Jersey Libertarian Party. We are good friends and play nice. Maybe all Libertarians should move to New Jersey……. Only two bad things about New Jersey it is almost impossible to get a gun , carry one, and even have one. The other bad thing you have to pay to get on the beach. Oops there is a third the average property tax is 9000 per year i.I can go on about the bad government , but the people are nice. Born to run……..Bruce Springsteen, is a bright spot.

  5. Jake Leonard

    Oh, that is just rich.

    ***the abusiveness and bullying***
    If anyone has been abusive and being a bully, it’s been Abramson.

    ***Antifa thugs***
    Last I checked, Antifa was authoritarian FAR LEFT. Nowhere close to left-libertarian.

    ***has reached a paint where we cannot recruit and keep people in the LP***
    Speak for yourself, Max. The Libertarian Party of Illinois is still growing by leaps and bounds. There are plenty of people who will join the state party for free and still be civil and NOT join the national party.

    ***I now have more friends who consider themselves to be libertarian than members of the Libertarian Party***
    Only because you kiss ass so much with the Republican Party…and that you’re an elected Republican who constantly flip-flops. At least other former Republican legislators stuck to their permanent change to Libertarian. Your former colleagues, Joseph Stallcop, Caleb Dyer and Brandon Phinney have made their choices permanent and STILL choose to do great things for the Libertarian Party. Whether you like it or not.

    As far as Abramson’s platform, I can’t say I disagree with Darryl’s assessment, because he is correct.

  6. ele

    Libertarians have become too organized as a “party”. And I don’t think that’s what we are.

  7. Jake Leonard

    @Fred Stein
    There are a select few who like to cause some dysfunction in the Libertarian Party of Illinois, but that’s ultimately quashed after a while.

    There were people who disagreed with me on some issues, mostly internal party issues, but they still supported me when it came to the two volunteer promotions I had in 2019: candidate recruitment director in March 2019 and then promoted to Political Director in November.

    Yes, Libertarians bump heads with other Libertarians and disagree on occasion, but I think in most state affiliates, they put those issues aside and get shit done.

  8. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Kevin: abusiveness from hardcore anti-interventionists

    What is a “hardcore anti-interventionist”? Someone who’s consistent?

    Both Democrats and Republicans are moderately anti-interventionist, in that neither wants to invade every country in the world. So if you’re looking for that, you already have two choices.

  9. Robert Hansen

    Agree with Mr. Knapp on Rep. Abramson. I glanced over his Issues page and some of his FB posts and quickly realized this guy is no Libertarian. Using “Antifa” is pretty much a dog-whistle belonging to the far right, not Libertarians.

    IMHO, Kevin’s comment on “physical conventions that most normal people don’t go to” is odd. Most people (heck, even most activists) don’t ever go to a national convention, no matter what the party; the LP is no different. It’s those who go, though, who set the path and tone for the party. That’s a good thing.

  10. Paulie

    Everyone I know in LPNH tells me he never was a libertarian, and has always been a Republican who periodically dishonestly claims to be a libertarian before predictably going again and again back to NSGOP.

  11. Kevin

    Root’s teeth said:
    “What is a “hardcore anti-interventionist”? Someone who’s consistent?”
    Yes. “Intervention” means a third party sides with one side or the other, in a conflict.
    Siding with the victim of force-initiation is not aggression. Siding with the force-initiator is aggression.

    If interventions were consistently prohibited, there are at least two problems.
    1. prohibiting intervention would itself require intervention
    2. without the possibility of intervention, every person would be a self-defense island,
    unable to defend himself/herself or call upon others for help in defense.

    Without the possibility of organizing defensive/retaliatory force to resist initiatory force,
    those who initiate force would organize into gangs, and commit aggression against lone individuals.
    Life under such a bizarro world, would tend to be nasty, brutish, and short.

    Quoth Root’s teeth

    “Both Democrats and Republicans are moderately anti-interventionist, in that neither wants to invade every country in the world. So if you’re looking for that, you already have two choices.”

    True. But not all interventions are equivalent, in both practical and moral terms.
    Further, “anarcho-capitalism” would have agencies of defensive-retaliatory force,
    and these agencies would intervene and constitute “government” de facto, if not in name.

  12. paulie

    Last I checked, Antifa was authoritarian FAR LEFT. Nowhere close to left-libertarian.

    Not exclusively. Antifa is a broad based movement, not an organization per se. It does include some authoritarians and thugs, but also includes some libertarians and those who disapprove of authoritarian and thug tactics. As a concept it just means taking concrete action to expose and confront fascism, by whatever means, including non-violent and non-coercive ones, as opposed to joining the fascists, making excuses for them, or ignoring them and/or the danger they pose.

  13. William Saturn Post author

    Max Abramson comments at Ballot Access News:

    “My campaign was placed in the top third of candidates in most online polls, but never reached first place, as far as I know. After 25 years in the Libertarian Party, I have seen the writing on the wall and have already posted what I think is going wrong with the party.

    I am now working with other people to see if it’s possible to build another third party or movement that will actually work to get pro-liberty people elected to office to protect our rights.”

    http://ballot-access.org/2020/03/22/max-abramson-withdraws-from-libertarian-presidential-race/#comment-758069

  14. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Kevin: Siding with the victim of force-initiation is not aggression. Siding with the force-initiator is aggression.

    1. It’s often hard to determine which nation is the aggressor. We don’t know what skullduggery, false flags, secret diplomacy, economic pressures, threats, bribes, covert actions, etc. occurred behind the scenes. Governments release lies and disinformation, filtered through lying, biased, or incompetent journalists. The Lusitania was illegally carrying armaments in 1915, something disputed by the British, but now widely acknowledged by historians.

    2. And the issue is not “aggression” but “intervention.” Even if the aggressor nation is obvious, the libertarian position is one of non-intervention — not one of “siding with the victim.”

    3. And what does it mean to “side with”? You’re free to travel to a foreign land, and volunteer in their military. But if you want to order in the U.S. military — it is aggression to force American taxpayers to fund military operations they don’t approve of.

    If a military is a “necessary evil” for national self-defense, then at least we can minimize that evil by using the military only for national self-defense, and not for intervening in foreign conflicts, even if you do consider one side or the other to be the “victim.”

  15. paulie

    “My campaign was placed in the top third of candidates in most online polls,

    Not from what I’ve seen.

    After 25 years in the Libertarian Party, I have seen the writing on the wall and have already posted what I think is going wrong with the party.

    I realize he’s made sporadic and dishonest forays into the LP over the years in some form or fashion while always keeping a foot in the Republican Party. It may or may not be true that this duplicity has been going on for 25 years. In no way is it true that he has been continuously involved with the LP as his sole or primary party for 25 years. That’s just a lie.

    I am now working with other people to see if it’s possible to build another third party or movement that will actually work to get pro-liberty people elected to office to protect our rights.

    Yeah…good luck with that.

  16. Max Abramson

    I never stated that I’d suspended my presidential campaign, and there is no link nor statement to contest. I am still in the running, but have left the Libertarian Party. It is certainly not the group that I joined in the 1990’s.

  17. Kevin

    Quoth Root’s teeth:

    “1. It’s often hard to determine which nation is the aggressor. ”

    The same could be said of any organization of force intended to be defensive/retaliatory. Problems of fact-gathering are always present because humans are not all-knowing. Even if the suspect confesses, the confession might be false. If defensive/retaliatory force were prohibited, those who organize initiatory force would face no opposition, and much more aggression would occur.

    “2. And the issue is not “aggression” but “intervention.” Even if the aggressor nation is obvious, the libertarian position is one of non-intervention — not one of “siding with the victim.””

    Aggression = force-initiation, not intervention. The liberty principle is, no initiation of force. This principle is not plucked out of thin air, but resulted from long evolution under the common law system (those laws in common to all governments, must approximate natural justice). Every government prohibits private murder, theft, and other common law crimes, reserving force-initiation for those in government.

    If a victim of force-initiation could never be rightly defended, every lone individual would be a self-defense island, unable to call for help in defense, and prohibited from defending others. Babies would be kidnapped with no one to defend them, young girls raped, and elderly robbed. Life would be nasty, brutish, and short.

    “3. And what does it mean to “side with”? You’re free to travel to a foreign land, and volunteer in their military. But if you want to order in the U.S. military — it is aggression to force American taxpayers to fund military operations they don’t approve of. … “If a military is a “necessary evil” for national self-defense, then at least we can minimize that evil by using the military only for national self-defense, and not for intervening in foreign conflicts, even if you do consider one side or the other to be the “victim.”’

    Kevin: The problem of tax-funding of government is still at issue, even if US forces were restricted to within US borders. Keeping them stateside would dramatically increase costs; because then, they would have to defend every possible target of terrorism within the US, all the time. Instead of attacking the foreign sources and centers of power of threats, at a time/place of our choosing.

    Without allies, the US would be deprived of their user fees, which can and should be increased to cover the full cost of protecting wealthy but weak allies, plus a profit margin. And, we would not have access to the airbases and hospitals of allies, thus increasing US costs in blood and treasure when confronting a foreign adversary.

    Thus, tax-funding of government is not necessary. Rothbard admitted as much, but tried to distort the language by claiming his agencies of defensive/retaliatory force would not in fact be governments.

Leave a Reply

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