Time For A New Third Party?

[r3volution 3.0]

I'd like to be able to vote for a party which promotes laissez faire, sane foreign policy, and due process, which ignores the culture war, and which welcomes neither fat naked hippies, lunatic Evangelicals, nor people wearing tinfoil headgear. In short, I'd like there to be a libertarian/classical liberal party which Mises wouldn't be embarrassed to be associated with. Is this too much to ask? Especially in this circus of a political environment, I think a sober, policy-focused Classical Liberal Party (or whatever you might call it), which keeps well clear of who-gets-to-use-the-toilet tabloid politics, could do well and be a much more effective pressure group than the LP or CP.

[pcgame]

just support the Mises Caucus in the libertarian party:

It is a bit of a joke though that the libertarian party hasn't nominated an actual libertarian candidate since 2004 (Michael Badnarik)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNG7rwWkyY

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

[r3volution 3.0]

just support the Mises Caucus in the libertarian party:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNG7rwWkyY

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

I like these planks especially:


Plank 5 - Decorum: The discussion surrounding the proper role of government in society is one of ideas. As Mises himself pointed out, “Everything that happens in the social world in our time is the result of ideas. Good things and bad things. What is needed is to fight bad ideas.” Ludwig von Mises was a brilliant moral philosopher and an accomplished economist, but above all, he was a gentleman. We intend to conduct ourselves in a way that honors his tradition, while exhibiting the utmost decorum in the battle of hearts and minds.

Plank 6 - Lifestyle Choices: The Mises Caucus takes no stance on personal, cultural, and social preferences. One’s lifestyle is merely an extension of their self-ownership. Thus, no individual can rightfully claim jurisdiction over the lifestyle of another. We assert only that any and all lifestyle choices must accord with the Non-Aggression Principle. As Murray Rothbard once wrote, “Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles.”

Plank 7 - Identity Politics: The Mises Caucus categorically rejects all forms of identity politics as nothing more than weaponized tribal collectivism that is antithetical to individualism.



This part concerns me though:


Plank 2 - Self-Determination: The Mises Caucus recognizes that freedom of association manifests itself politically in the form of absolute right of self-determination. The Austro-libertarian tradition favors decentralization - subsidiarity, secession, nullification, localism - and reduction of government wherever possible as a means of expanding choice and competition in governance for all individuals. Mises wrote, “If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.” To this end, the Mises Caucus favors radical decentralization of, and secession from, all government and political units.

That sounds like anarcho-capitalism, which, whatever your view (I'm a minarchist) is a political non-starter. But even beyond that issue, I'm not sure that reforming the LP is the best strategy, as opposed to starting fresh. Nonetheless, this Mises Caucus is a healthy sign; at least there's some demand for the sort of politics this thread is calling for.

[phill4paul]

I think it is past time to end the party system. Period. Get rid of the low hanging fruit vote altogether. Make people become informed. Or, at the least, not create impediments to independents.
I didn't see that option.

[r3volution 3.0]

I think it is past time to end the party system. Period. Get rid of the low hanging fruit vote altogether. Make people become informed. Or, at the least, not create impediments to independents.
I didn't see that option.

How would you go about accomplishing that?

[phill4paul]

How would you go about accomplishing that?

I don't think you have my decoder ring.

[oyarde]

America has the parties it wants and deserves . I do not . Nor will I . The modern Dem party is the communist party ( about 60 percent of americans ) the mainstream GOP is the socialist party ( about 30 percent of americans ) , give or take 5 to 10 percent .

[euphemia]

just support the Mises Caucus in the libertarian party:

No. No. No. They are beholden to the rest of the party. After this past election I will never, ever support them.

[phill4paul]

No. No. No. They are beholden to the rest of the party. After this past election I will never, ever support them.

In an election that could have been ground shaking we got Gary. No. Just no.

[Champ]

Agreed with the general sentiment by the OP. The party of Johnson, Weld, and Barr is not a lover of liberty, but an opportunistic GOP lite that desperately wants to play with the big boys and seems to sell it's soul each year with these terrible choices. When all is said and done, your average Joe still thinks the LP simply stands for legalizing marijuana and supporting gay marriage. If that is the best the marketing geniuses at the LP could do, clearly it's time to either dramatically improve or find something better.

Although it seems like we need something better than the LP and obviously the GOP/Dems, I think playing the political party game is exactly where the state, corporate lobbyists, and investors want us to channel our anti-state, small government energy. If we play their game, we lose, because we are up against billion dollar industries and institutions with centuries of established footing. As both parties implode and collapse, the playing ground is slowly becoming more even, but we have a long ways to go.

If we want to win, we have to rewrite politics and make people see that their is no choice except to love and promote and live by the tenets of liberty, and anything and everything else is an excess waste of time. How exactly this is done is beyond me, although eradication of the msm and grassroots education of youth is a great start. We always seem to find a way when it is necessary to do so. In the meantime, we get to witness the shitshow.

[not.your.average.joe]

When all is said and done, your average Joe still thinks the LP simply stands for legalizing marijuana and supporting gay marriage.

That seems to be the mantra they're putting down, and that's coming from not.your.average.joe.

Well said. I think at this point 'Libertarian' has too many negative connotations with voters. It's been around long enough that the initial voter reaction is to shrug it off because a Libertarian can never win. We need a Grassroots Party, or a name that will get people excited again. The face we need to have is that of a startup breakaway movement comprised of doers fed up with the 'go with the flow' attitude of the metaphorically dead.

[dean.engelhardt]

For all the bad things said about the LP, that do stand for an immediate 20% reduction in federal spending. IMO, this single point puts them heads and shoulder above the two major parties. I'm still mad at Weld and cannot forgive him for campaigning for HRC on the LP dime.

It may not happen in my lifetime, but someday there will be a party representing fiscal restraint. The LP is the dominant third party in local government. I hope they would be the first third party to have a impact at the federal level. If another third party could break that barrier I would support them as long as they supported fiscal restraint and sane foreign policy. I could hold my nose on most other issues.

[PierzStyx]

The crazies have always been a part of party politics. I'm not sure you can get rid of them.

[Swordsmyth]

We don't get a choice, there are not enough of us and we don't have enough money, unless one or both of those change we are stuck trying to influence whichever party is closest to us and/or is close enough and has a shot at winning, when the GOP implodes we may be able to hijack one of the fragments.

I do not completely agree with the OP's idea of what the ideal party would look like but we will see what options come our way.

[r3volution 3.0]

We don't get a choice, there are not enough of us and we don't have enough money, unless one or both of those change we are stuck trying to influence whichever party is closest to us and/or is close enough and has a shot at winning, when the GOP implodes we may be able to hijack one of the fragments.

I do not completely agree with the OP's idea of what the ideal party would look like but we will see what options come our way.

A minority party the size of the LP (1%), but better managed, could have significant influence on elections without ever winning one.

That should be the initial goal. If the GOP implodes and opportunity beckons, great, but good work can be done regardless.


Agreed with the general sentiment by the OP. The party of Johnson, Weld, and Barr is not a lover of liberty, but an opportunistic GOP lite that desperately wants to play with the big boys and seems to sell it's soul each year with these terrible choices. When all is said and done, your average Joe still thinks the LP simply stands for legalizing marijuana and supporting gay marriage. If that is the best the marketing geniuses at the LP could do, clearly it's time to either dramatically improve or find something better.

Although it seems like we need something better than the LP and obviously the GOP/Dems, I think playing the political party game is exactly where the state, corporate lobbyists, and investors want us to channel our anti-state, small government energy. If we play their game, we lose, because we are up against billion dollar industries and institutions with centuries of established footing. As both parties implode and collapse, the playing ground is slowly becoming more even, but we have a long ways to go.

If we want to win, we have to rewrite politics and make people see that their is no choice except to love and promote and live by the tenets of liberty, and anything and everything else is an excess waste of time. How exactly this is done is beyond me, although eradication of the msm and grassroots education of youth is a great start. We always seem to find a way when it is necessary to do so. In the meantime, we get to witness the shitshow.

As I see it, a minority party like I described above can serve as a base for all kinds of non-political activism. What I'm envisioning is something of a cross between a party, a think-tank, and a PAC. It wouldn't just be about elections. Actually, even when it comes to elections, it might sometimes be better to endorse outside candidates than run our own, as do groups like the NRA, the ACLU, etc.


For all the bad things said about the LP, that do stand for an immediate 20% reduction in federal spending. IMO, this single point puts them heads and shoulder above the two major parties.

The LP's problem is their marketing and organization, not so much their platform.


That seems to be the mantra they're putting down, and that's coming from not.your.average.joe.

Well said. I think at this point 'Libertarian' has too many negative connotations with voters. It's been around long enough that the initial voter reaction is to shrug it off because a Libertarian can never win. We need a Grassroots Party, or a name that will get people excited again. The face we need to have is that of a startup breakaway movement comprised of doers fed up with the 'go with the flow' attitude of the metaphorically dead.

Yep


The crazies have always been a part of party politics. I'm not sure you can get rid of them.

The GOP and Dems manage to keep the crazies tucked away most of the time. There's no reason a libertarian party couldn't.

The LP made a conscious decision to give the crazies a platform as part of their edgy hipster-doofus marketing campaign.

-----------------------

A Few Other Points

1. This party should be moderate, not in the sense that it compromises its principles, but in the sense that it proposes modest steps in the right direction, rather than demanding everything all at once. For instance, on spending, most of us here would probably like trillions in cuts overnight (I know I would), but a Classical Liberal Party should be looking at something on the order of $100 billion.

2. The Party should be structured so they it's difficult/impossible for outsiders to hijack it. Not just anyone should be able to become a voting party member for purposes of setting platform, nominating candidates, etc. I'm not sure what can be done within the bounds of federal election law though, so that's something to look into further.

[specsaregood]

In an election that could have been ground shaking we got Gary. No. Just no.

To be fair, they could have nominated the guy that paid prostitutes to poop on his face.

[phill4paul]

To be fair, they could have nominated the guy that paid prostitutes to poop on his face.

In a crazy one-upmanship campaign year you go super crazy! I think he could have gotten 10%. :p But, let's be honest. There really wasn't a viable L.P. candidate and the convention was a shit show.

[The Rebel Poet]

Starting over creates its own problem set. Like building voter networks. I still think LP and CP should merge, or at least cooperate in some organized fashion. If Ron Paul had been on either party's ballot both would have supported him. That there is proof of concept that the differences are not too great.

[dannno]

How do you start a political party which promotes freedom that excludes certain people and cultures?

Secondarily, how do you start a political party which promotes freedom that excludes certain people and cultures, then claims to not care about "the culture war"?

[r3volution 3.0]

How do you start a political party which promotes freedom that excludes certain people and cultures?

There's nothing antithetical to libertarianism in choosing not to associate with certain people.


Secondarily, how do you start a political party which promotes freedom that excludes certain people and cultures, then claims to not care about "the culture war"?

The goal of the proposed party would be to focus on issues that matter, contra culture-war issues.

Hence, the party would not try to appeal to (and/or would actively exclude) people obsessed with the culture war.

[dannno]

There's nothing antithetical to libertarianism in choosing not to associate with certain people.



The goal of the proposed party would be to focus on issues that matter, contra culture-war issues.

Hence, the party would not try to appeal to (and/or would actively exclude) people obsessed with the culture war.

You did everything EXCEPT answer my questions.

I did NOT ask IF you can start a political party that promotes freedom which excludes certain cultures or individuals.

I asked HOW do you start a political party that promotes freedom which excludes certain cultures or individuals.

SECONDARILY.

If you reject "the culture war", HOW do you start a political party that promotes freedom which excludes certain cultures or individuals?

[r3volution 3.0]

You did everything EXCEPT answer my questions.

Your first question implies that there's a contradiction between advocating for freedom and not wanting to associate with certain groups.

...as I explained, there isn't.

Your second question implies that there's a contradiction between wanting to get beyond the culture war and dissociating from culture warriors.

...as I explained, there isn't.


I did NOT ask IF you can start a political party that promotes freedom which excludes certain cultures or individuals.

I asked HOW do you start a political party that promotes freedom which excludes certain cultures or individuals.

You want the mechanics of how I'd start a party?

Like, (Step #1) pick a name and draw up a platform, (Step #2) advertise a meeting....?


SECONDARILY.

If you reject "the culture war", HOW do you start a political party that promotes freedom which excludes certain cultures or individuals?

Again, if I didn't already answer your question, I don't know what you're asking.

[nikcers]

As Ron Paul would say we need a second party.

[dannno]

Your first question implies that there's a contradiction between advocating for freedom and not wanting to associate with certain groups.

...as I explained, there isn't.

That is not what my question implied. The first question was with regards to "how", aka in practice, how would you create a national political party that excludes certain cultures and individuals from participating..



Your second question implies that there's a contradiction between wanting to get beyond the culture war while simultaneously dissociating from culture warriors.

...as I explained, there isn't.

Incorrect again.. my second question implied there is a contradiction between wanting to get beyond the culture war whilst simultaneously dissociating from certain cultures..




You want the mechanics of how I'd start a party?

Like, (Step #1) pick a name and draw up a platform, (Step #2) advertise a meeting....?



Again, if I didn't already answer your question, I don't know what you're asking.

#3 Excluding people in a national political party, how do you do it?

[r3volution 3.0]

That is not what my question implied. The first question was with regards to "how", aka in practice, how would you create a national political party that excludes certain cultures and individuals from participating..

If your point is that a party which doesn't try to appeal to everyone will be smaller than a party that does, I agree.

And?


Incorrect again.. my second question implied there is a contradiction between wanting to get beyond the culture war whilst simultaneously dissociating from certain cultures..

I'm talking about dissociating from culture warriors.

If you want to call those groups "cultures," alright.

And?


#3 Excluding people in a national political party, how do you do it?

Say the Classical Liberal Party is having a meeting.

Fat naked hippy comes in yelling about pot.

Then lunatic Evangelical comes in yelling about demon rum.

How do we handle this?

We simply tell them to piss off.

...what's the mystery?

[Raginfridus]

Does there need to be a Party? I'm all for the old school teaching the new school, sharing contacts, donors, tips, whatever - there doesn't need to be a formal party.

If anything, I advocate libertarians overwhelm the current two parties from within. Keep face when needs be, and overwhelm them seat by seat. That's the only model. That's how the Trotskyists and Soviets took over the parties, and that's the only model we need to work on.

If I enter politics someday, it'd be as a Dem, but I'd work a scheme out with others for taking enough House seats in my state, and eventually the US Congress. I'd be happy to reach across party lines and "sacrifice" with fellow crypto-libertarians.

[nikcers]

Does there need to be a Party? I'd work a scheme out with others for taking enough House seats in my state, and eventually the US Congress. I'd be happy to reach across party lines and "sacrifice" with fellow crypto-libertarians.

Oh so adopt evil to beat evil then? We need political revolution and it won't be possible until both parties are gone so people stop seeing things as red or blue. We need to move beyond partisan politics, Rand Paul 2020

[r3volution 3.0]

Does there need to be a Party? I'm all for the old school teaching the new school, sharing contacts, donors, tips, whatever - there doesn't need to be a formal party.

If anything, I advocate libertarians overwhelm the current two parties from within. Keep face when needs be, and overwhelm them seat by seat. That's the only model. That's how the Trotskyists and Soviets took over the parties, and that's the only model we need to work on.

If I enter politics someday, it'd be as a Dem, but I'd work a scheme out with others for taking enough House seats in my state, and eventually the US Congress. I'd be happy to reach across party lines and "sacrifice" with fellow crypto-libertarians.

A formal and informal party can coexist.

[Raginfridus]

Oh so adopt evil to beat evil then? We need political revolution and it won't be possible until both parties are gone so people stop seeing things as red or blue. We need to move beyond partisan politics, Rand Paul 2020What evil? Sorry you misread my post.

And you really did.

[PursuePeace]

What we need is someone to figure out how to make those damn sunglasses from They Live.

[nikcers]

What evil? Sorry you misread my post.

And you really did.
You said lets fight dishonest politics with dishonest politics did you not? Sorry you think deceiving people isn't immoral or evil.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd like to be able to vote for a party which promotes laissez faire, sane foreign policy, and due process, which ignores the culture war, and which welcomes neither fat naked hippies, lunatic Evangelicals, nor people wearing tinfoil headgear. In short, I'd like there to be a libertarian/classical liberal party which Mises wouldn't be embarrassed to be associated with. Is this too much to ask? Especially in this circus of a political environment, I think a sober, policy-focused Classical Liberal Party (or whatever you might call it), which keeps well clear of who-gets-to-use-the-toilet tabloid politics, could do well and be a much more effective pressure group than the LP or CP.

Yes, it is.

You're describing a party dedicated to promoting individual and economic freedom.

Freedom is not popular.

You'd have no better luck than anybody else that's peddling freedom and liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, it is.

Evidently..


You're describing a party dedicated to promoting individual and economic freedom.

Yep


Freedom is not popular.

Yep


You'd have no better luck than anybody else that's peddling freedom and liberty.

You'd be surprised what a small group of people of the right sort can accomplish.

[nobody's_hero]

And then do we run from this party too when people start coming in that don't align 100% with the stated goals? Do we again just throw our hands up in the air and cry 'woe is me, we've been co-opted!'?

Pretty much when some of us were out distributing End the Fed flyers at Tea Party rallies, other people on these forums were whining about "Teocons" when in truth many of these average republican voters were disgusted with the GOP and ready to leave the party. It was a prime audience. The two movements now have more common ground than ever before, the enthusiasm drained from them like a Wall Street crony's corporate account before pulling the ripcord on his golden parachute.

A lot of libertarians on these forums don't seem to grasp the concept that the road to 'no government' and the road to 'smaller government' share the same stretch of asphalt for much of the way, but you won't work with anyone who doesn't land on Chance and proceed to full blown anarcho-capitalistic, collect $200.

[Anti Federalist]

You'd be surprised what a small group of people of the right sort can accomplish.

I'm tired of being one of the lone nuts on the fringe screaming warnings and dire predictions and grim forecasts.

I wanna jump on the team and come on in for the big win, just once in my life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5fkEsHKPgQ

[AZJoe]

What's needed more than a new third party, is new first and second parties.

[r3volution 3.0]

And then do we run from this party too when people start coming in that don't align 100% with the stated goals?

No, they run.


Do we again just throw our hands up in the air and cry 'woe is me, we've been co-opted!'?

See above


Pretty much when some of us were out distributing End the Fed flyers at Tea Party rallies, other people on these forums were whining about "Teocons" when in truth many of these average republican voters were disgusted with the GOP and ready to leave the party. It was a prime audience. The two movements now have more common ground than ever before, the enthusiasm drained from them like a Wall Street crony's corporate account before pulling the ripcord on his golden parachute.

The "teocons" aren't the sort we want.


A lot of libertarians on these forums don't seem to grasp the concept that the road to 'no government' and the road to 'smaller government' share the same stretch of asphalt for much of the way, but you won't work with anyone who doesn't land on Chance and proceed to full blown anarcho-capitalistic, collect $200.

If it wasn't implied, let me say that ancaps won't be welcome: at least not insofar as they promote anarchism.


I'm tired of being one of the lone nuts on the fringe screaming warnings and dire predictions and grim forecasts.

I wanna jump on the team and come on in for the big win, just once in my life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5fkEsHKPgQ

Jump on then


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRp7tYWnJJs

[r3volution 3.0]

We have so much talent.

..and it's just being wasted.

[nobody's_hero]

No, they run.
That's not the impression I get, when the solution to co-opting is to start a fresh, even more-obscure party. It very much looks like we are the ones running—infinitely divisible. That's not a problem when you are discussing secession, but when trying to build a political party with enough clout to do anything worthwhile . . .—just, NO we do not need another political party, that's my opinion, and this is a poll thread so I'm giving it.



The "teocons" aren't the sort we want.

the point is that we wrote them all off as 'teocons.' Any new recruits we might have gained were rinsed into the gutter with the real troublemakers. We basically helped the leftist media and the neocon establishment kill the Tea Party movement. it's a shame too, because there was more common ground between the libertarians and tea-partiers than any other political force out there.

[nikcers]

That's not the impression I get, when the solution to co-opting is to start a fresh, even more-obscure party. It very much looks like we are the ones running—infinitely divisible. That's not a problem when you are discussing secession, but when trying to build a political party with enough clout to do anything worthwhile . . .—just, NO we do not need another political party, that's my opinion, and this is a poll thread so I'm giving it.



the point is that we wrote them all off as 'teocons.' Any new recruits we might have gained were rinsed into the gutter with the real troublemakers. We basically helped the leftist media and the neocon establishment kill the Tea Party movement. it's a shame too, because there was more common ground between the libertarians and tea-partiers than any other political force out there.
From a libertarian standpoint its hard to say that we shouldn't start over. Last election would of been a libertarian moment, people hated the two other options, but we couldn't even pick someone who would defend the American system (capitalism) from the other candidates promising mixed economies, hell the guy that won the Republican nomination did so while praising socialist medicine, he should of been laughed off the debate stage, its hard to want to start a country with those people, they don't understand what made America great, they are just useful idiots who are no use to us. They are about to get a swift economics lesson though.

[fedupinmo]

You know, the Constitution Party is the closest one to legitimate governance under the current Constitution. One could only believe that they would be better stewards of it than the rest.

[Anti Federalist]

We have so much talent.

..and it's just being wasted.

Uh huh.

And what part of "Idiot AmeriKa" do you not understand?

They don't want what we're selling.

There is a reason that symphony orchestras go bankrupt as well.

Idiot AmeriKa wants free government goodies, passed out by scantily clad cheerleaders singing Lady Gaga songs.

[Brett85]

I support a party and/or political philosophy which advocates a government which exists for the primary purpose of defending life, liberty, and property. It's not about "avoiding culture wars" but about advocating policies which advance the cause of life, liberty, and property. We need to elect leaders at all levels of government who understand the proper role of government and will vote to uphold our basic rights to life, liberty, and property.

[Raginfridus]

We need to put crypto-libertarians in the parties, forget about third party. The two can only be removed from power if they die first. Stuff the monster parties we've got with libertarian talent who can talk the talk and give the impression they're hardcore libs and cons to all the half-wits, while appearing to reach compromise across party lines, with fellow libertarians, for the good of the Party. Play on every district like a fiddle, appeal to the masses, amass a libertarian "America First Committee" network unofficially, follow publicly with all that partisan shit voters go for -- then stick it to the Republicrats for good. Reveal ourselves to the Jedi kind of thing.

The means justify the ends; I don't see the liberty cause winning if we don't oust the monolithic party we've got from within. Republicrats are too religiously significant to Murka: as American as apple pie and fake tits. Murka's gotta think its still voting for/against the Dem/Rep parties, until they can identify and accept libertarianism w/o training whee;s.

[nobody's_hero]

We need to put crypto-libertarians in the parties, forget about third party. The two can only be removed from power if they die first. Stuff the monster parties we've got with libertarian talent who can talk the talk and give the impression they're hardcore libs and cons to all the half-wits, while appearing to reach compromise across party lines, with fellow libertarians, for the good of the Party. Play on every district like a fiddle, appeal to the masses, amass a libertarian "America First Committee" network unofficially, follow publicly with all that partisan $#@! voters go for -- then stick it to the Republicrats for good. Reveal ourselves to the Jedi kind of thing.

The means justify the ends; I don't see the liberty cause winning if we don't oust the monolithic party we've got from within. Republicrats are too religiously significant to Murka: as American as apple pie and fake tits. Murka's gotta think its still voting for/against the Dem/Rep parties, until they can identify and accept libertarianism w/o training whee;s.

I'm not above the Trojan horse strategy. I've joked before that we should take a candidate and make him out to be the most blood-thirsty foreign interventionist and drug-warrior in the Republican race. Because, once you win, your party is going to defend everything you do, and the other party is going to attack you no matter what you do. We are too polarized as a nation for that to stop happening. Once safely in office, rip off your shirt and reveal the giant L on your chest, and watch as the people who voted for you defend you even if you call all the troops home, end the Fed, stop funding the war on drugs, etc.

Voters are stupid. I say we stop trying to win them over and instead fool them into freedom.

[Swordsmyth]

We need to put crypto-libertarians in the parties, forget about third party. The two can only be removed from power if they die first. Stuff the monster parties we've got with libertarian talent who can talk the talk and give the impression they're hardcore libs and cons to all the half-wits, while appearing to reach compromise across party lines, with fellow libertarians, for the good of the Party. Play on every district like a fiddle, appeal to the masses, amass a libertarian "America First Committee" network unofficially, follow publicly with all that partisan $#@! voters go for -- then stick it to the Republicrats for good. Reveal ourselves to the Jedi kind of thing.

The means justify the ends; I don't see the liberty cause winning if we don't oust the monolithic party we've got from within. Republicrats are too religiously significant to Murka: as American as apple pie and fake tits. Murka's gotta think its still voting for/against the Dem/Rep parties, until they can identify and accept libertarianism w/o training whee;s.


I'm not above the Trojan horse strategy. I've joked before that we should take a candidate and make him out to be the most blood-thirsty foreign interventionist and drug-warrior in the Republican race. Because, once you win, your party is going to defend everything you do, and the other party is going to attack you no matter what you do. We are too polarized as a nation for that to stop happening. Once safely in office, rip off your shirt and reveal the giant L on your chest, and watch as the people who voted for you defend you even if you call all the troops home, end the Fed, stop funding the war on drugs, etc.

Voters are stupid. I say we stop trying to win them over and instead fool them into freedom.

Whatever works is fine with me but we still need to run people who promote our values and educate as many people as we can.

[osan]

Is this too much to ask?

Is this a serious question?

When musing over such issues, one must perforce and at all times bear in the center of his consciousness the statistical reality of humanity taken as a whole. It is precisely this reality that has given us the world as we know it. It is the utter corruptibility of the average man that you have to take into account when talking about political parties and so forth.

The reason the "left" has been so completely successful, whereas the "liberty" movement remains a sad little shit-stain of a joke on the seat of the world's underpants is that the former hold every advantage of human weakness working for them, whereas the latter has everything working against them.

What do lefties do? They appeal to emotion, whereas liberty people talk to reason. Lefties promise free shit. The only thing liberty people talk is freeDOM. Now bear in mind that their idea of freedom holds only the most superficial connection to that held by those who run to the left.

Proper human freedom scares the leftist überfag sheetwhite. He wants NOTHING to do with it because it demands things he is not willing to give. Personal responsibility, for one, not to mention integrity, a love of reason, and so on down the standard line.

The Weakman-überfag views freedom as being able to do anything he wants without having to account for his actions. He is überweak and therefore demands everyone around him behave as he wishes, especially that they not offend his delicate sensibilities. Freedom means being able to have sex with whomever, wherever, however they please. These are approaching the characteristics of the average man.

They are weak, fear-riddled in some manner or another, avaricious to a fault, lazy, and proudly ignorant. The links-führers exploit all of these iniquities of Weakmen such that the überfag becomes smitten and beholden to his masters. The links-führer understands that they appeal to everything filthy Weakman wants. The result: success.

Liberty-oriented leaders ask the world of prospective members. Integrity, morals, responsibility, honesty, smarts, attitude. Why would young people, for instance, go this route when they can take the left fork where the promises are for free stuff and their naughty bits being serviced by their neighbor's hamsters?

This is what liberty is up against. Proceed as you see fit.

Let me ask this: is there any way liberty-oriented people could take advantage of the same weaknesses, only turning them to liberty's advantage? I do not see it, but it cannot hurt to ask.

[osan]

I'm not above the Trojan horse strategy. I've joked before that we should take a candidate and make him out to be the most blood-thirsty foreign interventionist and drug-warrior in the Republican race. Because, once you win, your party is going to defend everything you do, and the other party is going to attack you no matter what you do. We are too polarized as a nation for that to stop happening. Once safely in office, rip off your shirt and reveal the giant L on your chest, and watch as the people who voted for you defend you even if you call all the troops home, end the Fed, stop funding the war on drugs, etc.

Voters are stupid. I say we stop trying to win them over and instead fool them into freedom.

May I take it you have not been paying attention to the little dance Trump has been doing with the GOP?

[nikcers]

May I take it you have not been paying attention to the little dance Trump has been doing with the GOP?
You mean the fake news that they put out because his poll numbers drop whenever the MSM reports that he is basically continuing the Bush foreign policy. You want to know what "they" do to opposition? They shoot at you or break your ribs.

[nobody's_hero]

May I take it you have not been paying attention to the little dance Trump has been doing with the GOP?

The voters haven't turned against Trump. I'm not talking about the Jeff Flakes and the McCains. They'll never vote for him regardless. But he's got the GOP voter base locked in. And mark my words he could do pretty much anything he wants and they'll continue to support him. Just like the GOP supported Bush until he couldn't run anymore due to term limits. Just like the democrats supported Obama until he wasn't able to run anymore. "he's our guy! defend him!"

Once you're in the white house, you get a certain degree of immunity from internal criticism and an overly-generous benefit-of-the-doubt granted by the average voter. We just gotta figure out how to get our guy in there.

[osan]

The voters haven't turned against Trump.

Agreed. I wrote "GOP", meaning the party, in case that was not clear. That is my point. Could all this Trumpery be just more theater? Could be. But what if it is not? Then Trump is what he appears and Theye are certainly doing everything in their power to put the kybosh on him.

At this point things are so jumbled, I have little confidence in any fork I might take regarding my ability in assessing how genuine Trump may be. I would like to think he is what he appears, but history demonstrates just what foolery that can be, especially in the last 75 years or so.

Regarding Trump, I would warn people against being too purist. He is a man and nothing more. He will be imperfect, same as would a Ron Paul presidency have been. If you want perfection, sit idly and wait for Jesus to pop out from behind a cloud. You may be waiting awhile. My point is that we should be glad to see even small movements in a better direction than those in which we have been taken since at least 1900. So what if Trump is more of the same shit in some respects? Would you prefer he were shit like Obama? Bushes? Clintons? Let us meter our expectations per the yardstick of positive reality and not our normative wish lists. Theye have gotten here over the course of at least 150 years of scheming and chipping away at the foundations of what stood to make this a great and unique land. Now we stand at the brink of becoming just another open-air prison. Had the good Dr. Paul ascended the throne in place of the Donald, he would have at best gotten but marginally farther than Trump, most likely not nearly as far. Ron seems a real boyscout and Congress would wish him and his all dead because of it. Trump is a brawler and Theye want even him out. That's the truth of that in which we are ensnared. The best we can hope for is the likewise chipping our way back from the edge of the abyss. I don't like Trump, but neither do I hate him. He is a damned site better than Hillary would have been. By now, you would have been surrendering your small children to the Department of Pedophilia for indoctrination and "breaking in".


But he's got the GOP voter base locked in.

It appears to be the case, and to that I provisionally say "good!" The alternatives were all complete shyte, save Rand, and he'd have been in the same boat as Trump, only worse because I don't think he has the outward menace that the Donald possesses. I believe that menace is one of the few things that will get a body as corrupt as Congress to do even the least right by the people they purport to represent.


And mark my words he could do pretty much anything he wants and they'll continue to support him.

Here I must disagree strongly. While I acknowledge Trump has latitude, it is very limited. His base mostly has a sharply defined notion of what is right and what is not. Were he, for example, to establish Hillary's Department Of Pedophilia, his base would shrink to about a dozen people in about 3 seconds. OTOH, I agree that he has great latitude in terms of prosecuting warfare, which is a damned shame. But to be honest, I'd rather he made war over there than over here because that problem is more easily corrected, IMO.


Just like the GOP supported Bush until he couldn't run anymore due to term limits.

Not following you here. Not clear on who is "GOP". Do you mean the party or the membership? Assuming the former, I see no fall away of support from GOP. They still fondly remember GWB and his father, the neocon contingent with tears of nostalgia.


Just like the democrats supported Obama until he wasn't able to run anymore. "he's our guy! defend him!"

You kidding? They're all still ready to stuff his tiny black missile in whichever orifice they think might please him. Not at all sure what you mean here. The lefties are still ready to have his babies.


Once you're in the white house, you get a certain degree of immunity from internal criticism and an overly-generous benefit-of-the-doubt granted by the average voter. We just gotta figure out how to get our guy in there.

But once again I am not talking about voters, but the party establishments; the corporations bearing the respective names. The GOP wants Trump OUT, if what we see in the news is to be even marginally believed as something better than theater. I don't know whether it is - I am not that smart.

[Anti Federalist]

And there you have it.

Nothing much more to be said.


Is this a serious question?

When musing over such issues, one must perforce and at all times bear in the center of his consciousness the statistical reality of humanity taken as a whole. It is precisely this reality that has given us the world as we know it. It is the utter corruptibility of the average man that you have to take into account when talking about political parties and so forth.

The reason the "left" has been so completely successful, whereas the "liberty" movement remains a sad little shit-stain of a joke on the seat of the world's underpants is that the former hold every advantage of human weakness working for them, whereas the latter has everything working against them.

What do lefties do? They appeal to emotion, whereas liberty people talk to reason. Lefties promise free shit. The only thing liberty people talk is freeDOM. Now bear in mind that their idea of freedom holds only the most superficial connection to that held by those who run to the left.

Proper human freedom scares the leftist überfag sheetwhite. He wants NOTHING to do with it because it demands things he is not willing to give. Personal responsibility, for one, not to mention integrity, a love of reason, and so on down the standard line.

The Weakman-überfag views freedom as being able to do anything he wants without having to account for his actions. He is überweak and therefore demands everyone around him behave as he wishes, especially that they not offend his delicate sensibilities. Freedom means being able to have sex with whomever, wherever, however they please. These are approaching the characteristics of the average man.

They are weak, fear-riddled in some manner or another, avaricious to a fault, lazy, and proudly ignorant. The links-führers exploit all of these iniquities of Weakmen such that the überfag becomes smitten and beholden to his masters. The links-führer understands that they appeal to everything filthy Weakman wants. The result: success.

Liberty-oriented leaders ask the world of prospective members. Integrity, morals, responsibility, honesty, smarts, attitude. Why would young people, for instance, go this route when they can take the left fork where the promises are for free stuff and their naughty bits being serviced by their neighbor's hamsters?

This is what liberty is up against. Proceed as you see fit.

Let me ask this: is there any way liberty-oriented people could take advantage of the same weaknesses, only turning them to liberty's advantage? I do not see it, but it cannot hurt to ask.

[euphemia]

And then do we run from this party too when people start coming in that don't align 100% with the stated goals? Do we again just throw our hands up in the air and cry 'woe is me, we've been co-opted!'?

Pretty much when some of us were out distributing End the Fed flyers at Tea Party rallies, other people on these forums were whining about "Teocons" when in truth many of these average republican voters were disgusted with the GOP and ready to leave the party. It was a prime audience. The two movements now have more common ground than ever before, the enthusiasm drained from them like a Wall Street crony's corporate account before pulling the ripcord on his golden parachute.

A lot of libertarians on these forums don't seem to grasp the concept that the road to 'no government' and the road to 'smaller government' share the same stretch of asphalt for much of the way, but you won't work with anyone who doesn't land on Chance and proceed to full blown anarcho-capitalistic, collect $200.

This ^^^ right here. If I had rep to give, I'd give it.

[angelatc]

Ron Paul said we should take over the GOP

[Lamp]

Ron Paul said we should take over the GOP


How well did that turn out?

Secession ftw.

[osan]

How well did that turn out?

Secession ftw.

But to what resolution? Anything short of the individual is, IMO, a half-measure doomed to fail.

[angelatc]

How well did that turn out?

.

Libertarians sobbed that the GOP was mean and then went home, so not well. Sorry Ron - we failed you.

[oyarde]

I'm tired of being one of the lone nuts on the fringe screaming warnings and dire predictions and grim forecasts.

I wanna jump on the team and come on in for the big win, just once in my life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5fkEsHKPgQ
I love it . Jump on the team and come on in for the big win . Just where exactly in Nam was the big win ?

[osan]

You'd be surprised what a small group of people of the right sort can accomplish.

I would not. Human cleverness and brass can be most impressive. But audacity must be of the right sort and I don't see much bent toward it as would be relevant to this discussion; at least, not for the cause of liberty. In fact, I see precious little of it. I appreciate the effort of the likes of Patriot Carrots handing out 2A information in a New Hampshire airport, rifle slung over his shoulder. Unfortunately, this will not suffice.

Sadly, nothing of the sort is occurring. This does not mean it will never happen, but I cannot get too excited about potential in the world of a species that wastes it as copiously as do humans. It is appalling - from the mere refusal to use the brains gifted to one, to the wanton destruction of the potential represented in an unborn fetus. And we do it with apparent glee. Go figger.

Might I also point out that there is a differentiating factor now present that did not exist in ages past: the current level of technology. It may now be (or not) that such small groups are no longer capable of subverting the orthodoxy... not unless they occupied lofty seats of power. The advancing technology wavefront is quickly closing all loophole opportunities for the little people. I will not say miracles are impossible, but I will say without equivocation that the likelihoods that something miraculous will happen are dropping by the minute.

Other than engaging in open slaughter of Themme and their children, the only real weapon we seem to have at this point is mass disobedience. Well alrighty then, but wait... where are all the disobedients? And there you have it.

[The Rebel Poet]

You mean the fake news that they put out because his poll numbers drop whenever the MSM reports that he is basically continuing the Bush foreign policy. You want to know what "they" do to opposition? They shoot at you or break your ribs.
This. anyone who thinks Trump is opposition (sans controlled) is either a hopeless slave of msm manipulation, or willfully deluding themselves due to the hope for change.

[osan]

This part concerns me though:


Mises wrote, “If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.”



That part?

The right isn't granted. It is inherent to what we are as individual beings, beholden to no others save that we bring no unjust harm. Autodiathism is the natural and proper state of a man.

Honestly, I am surprised that von Mises would write such a thing. Is this possibly a false attribution?

[osan]

I think it is past time to end the party system. Period. Get rid of the low hanging fruit vote altogether. Make people become informed. Or, at the least, not create impediments to independents.
I didn't see that option.

Ideally, I agree.

Real world time: not going to happen. People are too bred to the Four Necessities for actual freedom.

The tendency for people to conglomerate into ever larger blocs is overwhelming. The only thing that seems to dull the drive forward (progressivism's truer meaning?) are major cataclysms such as the Black Plague. Even those have failed to halt the net "progress" of humans. It has had its advantages, to be sure - even to the shit-prole at the bottom of the heap, but I question whether the net results have been worth the price we have paid in so many ways, not the least of which has been our individual freedoms.

[cindy25]

more important is to change ballot access laws,

[pcgame]

probably better to run as an independent than as any political party

this guy probably isn't a libertarian, but close enough (hes not part of the establishment), he recently quit the republican party to challenge elizabeth warren as an independent:

http://vashiva.com/

[Superfluous Man]

Not enough choices.

I say no.

But that doesn't mean I think LP/CP is fine.

More like LP/CP have shown us how pointless third parties are.

[nikcers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwAgM63UiqI