Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: Ron Paul Libertarians Take Control of Libertarian Party

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I don't think viability as a candidate should be a consideration. Viable third party candidates are not one of the options available to us.
    I honestly don't understand that mindset. I'm pretty sure the LP has had enough unserious (and/or compromised controlled opposition) candidates and public representatives already. From CFR members to candidates who stick their tongues out on camera to guys wearing boots on the head to stripping to undies on stage, etc. I'm rather tired of the party being (easily) painted, and therefore perceived, as a joke.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Would Smith be able to garner substantial media coverage by engaging in shenanigans?
    I don't know what you mean by "engaging in shenanigans", but it doesn't really matter, because the answer is "no" in any case.

    The only "substantial media coverage" the likes of CNN, FOX[1], the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any other Cathedral outlet will ever give to libertarians qua libertarians will be negative (assuming any coverage is given to them at all), no matter how buttoned-down and "respectable" they may be. For example, the most attention Justin Amash ever got while he was a sitting Libertarian congressmen was not for being Libertarian or for any of his libertarian policy positions, but rather for his post-election condemnations of Trump (ŕ la "Hey, look! Even those quixotic libertarians can't stand Trump! If even crackpot weirdos like them don't like Trump, then that just proves how awful he is ...").

    Fortunately, the legacy media are increasingly feeble shadows of their former selves. They no longer have the hammerlock stranglehold over narratives that they once possessed. Joe Rogan - who has had Dave Smith on a number of times, and will continue to do so (especially if he becomes the LP POTUS nominee) - routinely draws more listeners to his podcast than any show on CNN gets. And unlike CNN, Rogan will give Smith (or any other LP nominee) a fair hearing and the opportunity to speak his peace - something you'll never get from the likes of CNN, et al. And the same dynamic goes for other non-legacy venues like the shows of Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, etc. That, combined with the prevalence of social media, ensures that the message will get out despite (not because of) the legacy media.

    It just needs to be the right (and right kind of) message ...

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    I anticipate we'll be in a very bad position nationally come 2024 campaign time and it'll be no time for comic relief.
    What it will be time for - what it is already well past time for - is radical messaging. The days for polite moderation from buttoned-down and "respectable" candidates designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (and to avoid scaring away timid "normies") are over - if there ever even was such a time.

    You sneer about "comic relief", as if the only thing Dave Smith ever does is crack jokes - but this only serves to highlight your ignorance rather than Smith's supposed inadequacy. Smith is personable and uses humor when appropriate, but he is dead serious when it comes to the importance of genuinely libertarian principles and policies and the urgent need for their application. Contrary to your attempted caricature of him, he is not going to turn a campaign into a stand-up comedy tour.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Maybe Smith can clean it up and change my opinion later by integrating an appealing package of likeability, humor, seriousness and solid policy [...]
    *shrug* IMO, not only does he have the first three of those things, he has them all in spades. (On the other hand, though, the political establishment won't like him at all, or find him very funny, and will certainly not take him seriously - but those are all points in his favor).

    As for the fourth item, it depends on what one means by "solid policy".

    If by "solid policy" one means highly detailed plans and proposals that have been worked out point-by-point, but that will never actually be enacted (even in the astronomically unlikely event of electoral victory), then Smith may indeed be lacking. But so what?

    However, if by "solid policy" one means articulate stances and positions on what the government (and particularly the federal government) ought or ought not to be doing and why, then Smith is solid on that count, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    [...] but as it stands now he's not there yet as a viable candidate if finally being taken seriously as a party/movement is a goal, especially compared to Amash.
    If by "viable candidate" or "being taken seriously" you mean "has the faintest chance in hell of winning election", then neither Dave Smith nor Justin Amash are at all "viable" or "serious" candidates.

    But this is not about winning elections (certainly not at the federal level, anyway). That is just not going to happen (or even come close to happening) in the foreseeable future. The idea that it can or will is just a masturbatory pipe-dream.

    This is about recognizing and exploiting the fact that the more "abnormal" times are, the more people become susceptible to (and more willing to entertain and seriously consider) "radical" or "extreme" positions that they otherwise would have dismissed during relatively more "normal" times. This is the time for uncompromising declarations and bold "damn the torpedoes" assertiveness, not polite appeals along the lines of "Won't you please consider our point of view? You might find it agreeable ...". I like Justin Amash a lot, and he is a genuinely principled libertarian (unlike certain other LP POTUS/VPOTUS nominees from the past decade-and-a-half), but he's much more the latter kind of fellow than the former. He's exactly the kind of guy you want when chasing undecided votes while playing it safe is important - but we are nowhere near to being in the kind of situation where such a strategy can pay any lasting dividends (and we never will be unless and until the LP is in a position where it can command a near plurality of votes, which is just not the case at present - and may never be the case).

    [1] With extremely rare exceptions, such as Kennedy on the Fox Business Channel.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-14-2022 at 04:18 PM.

  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I don't know what you mean by "engaging in shenanigans", but it doesn't really matter, because the answer is "no" in any case.
    Dave Smith is a comedian who says naughty words sometimes. Shock and horror!
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post

    Inside the Mises Caucus Takeover of the Libertarian Party
    Supporters say they want to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again." Critics say they’re $#@!posting edgelords who will destroy the LP from within.
    Zach Weissmueller, Nick Gillespie & Danielle Thompson (15 June 2022)

    The Libertarian Party (L.P.) is under new management, tweeted Angela McArdle, shortly after she became the National Committee's new chair at its 2022 annual convention in Reno, Nevada, which was attended by more than 1,000 delegates from around the country.

    "We're obviously at a crossroads right now," McArdle said during a debate for the chair position. "I hate to sound like a scumbag politician…but we are going to move heaven and earth to make this [party] functional and not embarrassing for you. We are going to change the country."

    McArdle, who won her election with about 70 percent of the vote, is part of the Mises Caucus, which swept all the national leadership roles and is now in complete control of the nation's third-largest political party.

    Mises Caucus supporters say they want to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again," that it should no longer be concerned about offending progressives or Beltway types and shouldn't be afraid to reach out to the coalition that elected former President Donald Trump. McArdle says that the party faceplanted during the pandemic by failing to take a strong stance against lockdowns and vaccine mandates and that its messaging is far too tame and conventional to counter the power of the authoritarian state.

    "If something like a lockdown or a vaccine mandate happens [again], we won't whiff the ball and humiliate ourselves and alienate everyone out there," she said in her acceptance speech.

    Critics say they're $#@!posting edgelords who make controversial statements just to attract attention and that they have no interest in running viable candidates for office.

    "If Angela McArdle becomes chair of the Libertarian National Committee and makes the party welcoming to bigots, the committee she is in charge of will shrivel and die," says Nicholas Sarwark, the chair of the Libertarian Party from 2014 to 2020 and a frequent critic of the caucus.

    The Mises Caucus' namesake is the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, but its members are especially influenced by his student Murray Rothbard. Like Mises, Rothbard was a radical capitalist, who, unlike his mentor, favored the complete abolition of the state. Rothbard also advocated forming strategic political alliances with the New Left in the 1960s and then with paleoconservative figures like Pat Buchanan in the early '90s.

    Rothbard was an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul's run on the Libertarian presidential ticket in 1988. He wrote that the party had become "increasingly flaky…libertine and culturally leftist" and saw Paul's campaign as a "last desperate attempt" to save the party. But it ultimately failed, in his view, leaving the L.P. "spiraling downward into oblivion." The Mises Caucus likewise looks to Ron Paul as a political role model, pointing to his 2008 and 2012 Republican presidential campaigns (which generated huge crowds and interest in libertarianism). Paul attended a Mises Caucus event in Reno to signal his support.

    "These are the kids who came up in 2008 and 2012 inspired by Ron Paul," says Scott Horton, a popular anti-war radio host, author, and founder of the Libertarian Institute. It was Horton who officially nominated McArdle for the chair position. "Now they've been to college, grown up. They got their own lives and families and things, and they're ready to move in and take the next step."

    As examples of the kinds of bold messages the party should be sending, McArdle points to Paul's famous 2007 confrontation with Rudy Giuliani during a nationally televised Republican presidential debate over the root causes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and when Paul told a Republican audience in South Carolina that heroin shouldn't be illegal.

    "The priorities of the Mises Caucus have always been basically the priorities of the Ron Paul Revolution," says Dave Smith, comedian and host of the libertarian podcast Part of the Problem, who is also a likely contender for the party's 2024 presidential nomination. "Being anti-war…[and] with inflation raging, I think is a really good time to be sound on [Austrian economics]," he told Reason. "And then, of course, throughout the last two years, just completely opposing the rise of the COVID regime."

    But when does "bold messaging" become counterproductive trolling? It's a line that several high-profile Mises Caucus members and official Libertarian Party social media accounts have struggled to identify.

    "I think bolder messaging is important, but we don't need edgelording," former U.S. Rep. Justin Amash told Reason.

    Amash rode to office on the 2010 Tea Party wave, representing Michigan, and Politico once described him as the "new Ron Paul" in Congress because of his willingness to buck party-line votes on principle. He switched his party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian in his final term, making him the L.P.'s highest officeholder since its founding in 1971. He's not a member of the Mises Caucus but says they've brought new energy to the party and that the important task now is "channeling that energy in the right direction."

    "I don't think [Mises Caucus members] are coming here because they're nationalists or bigoted or any of that stuff," says Amash. "That's not to say that there aren't people within the Libertarian Party, just as there are within the Democratic Party and Republican Party and throughout the whole world who are bigoted and racist…And I think we should call out people like that and we should denounce those kinds of statements. But, do I think that the caucus as a whole is like that? I don't think so."

    The convention was buzzing over an article that had just been published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) titled, "Mises Caucus: Could It Sway the Libertarian Party to the Hard Right?," and McArdle gave out a mock "Failed Grifter of the Year" award to the SPLC at a Mises Caucus event.

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center, or the Soviet Poverty Lie Center as [historian] Tom DiLorenzo calls it… is the ideological enforcement arm of the regime," Tom Woods told the audience at a Mises-sponsored event at the convention. "And I would want to repel anybody who was clueless enough to treat it as a source worthy of a moment's attention."

    Sarwark booked whistleblower Edward Snowden to speak in a different room at the same time as Woods, he says, in order to give the attendees "an option."

    "I came to the conclusion that there is no magic combination of words I can ever utter that will make somebody who…would put Snowden against me [to] suddenly make him say, 'Oh, I've been wrong about you my whole life,'" Woods told Reason when asked about the double booking.

    Woods is a best-selling author, historian, and host of the immensely popular libertarian podcast, The Tom Woods Show. When asked by Reason what the biggest misconception about him was, Woods replied that it was his association with the League of the South. It's not an organization that "these days…I, nor anybody I know, would join."

    In 1994, Woods attended the group's founding meeting. He maintains that it only later became a neo-Confederate white separatist organization, one which was involved in the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally. In 1994, the League of the South was a group of "nerdy academics" like him, Woods says, and he had no idea what it would later become.

    "I've never apologized for it," says Woods. "The easiest thing in the world for me would be to say, 'I'm so sorry. I joined an organization, or I was at the founding meeting of an organization, that is outside the allowable range of opinion…I'm not sorry because I didn't do anything wrong. Yeah, it was edgy to be in that group, but we never meant any harm to anybody."

    Critics of the Mises Caucus worry that the group won't do enough to keep bigots—the sort of person that might join the present-day version of the League of the South—out of the party.

    "There is a tendency for outsider groups to attract other outsiders," says Sarwark. "That's the nature of entryism into political movements…The only way to stop entryism is to put up clear signs that say 'no bigots allowed.'"

    Dave Smith told a Mises Caucus audience in May 2021, "I speak for everyone in the Mises Caucus when I say it: We reject racism. It's collectivist, toxic garbage." But some delegates at the convention were alarmed that the caucus wanted to strike a sentence from the L.P.'s party platform condemning bigotry as "irrational and repugnant."

    "What is a bigot? No one can agree," says McArdle. "All it leads to is everybody in the party pointing fingers and calling each other a bigot. I believe in freedom of speech. I prefer when people don't say horribly racist offensive things. I think that it's not well-met. It's pointless."

    Mises Caucus founder Michael Heise defended the deletion of the language because "libertarianism isn't about wrongthink. It's about non-aggression, self-ownership, and property rights," and said he believes that the anti-bigotry condemnation fed what he calls a "woke," or "cultural Marxist" agenda.

    "What is happening nowadays with the 'wokeism' is people are using language as dialectics along cultural lines to push for collectivist ends," says Heise. "So back in the day…the Marxist revolutions, they had the dialectics of the rich versus the poor and the owner versus the worker. And they were pushing towards collectivist ends. It's the same ideology that's happening now, but they're pitting cis versus straight and male versus female and trans versus whatever."

    The delegates ultimately voted to remove the anti-bigotry statement. But on the initiative of Spike Cohen, L.P.'s former vice-presidential candidate, they added a new line stating that the party would "uphold and defend the rights of every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity."

    The Mises Caucus also succeeded in removing the party's pro-choice plank, which McArdle said was called for because abortion represents "an irreconcilable difference" within the libertarian movement.

    "We tend to push out people who are a little bit more socially conservative," says McArdle. "And I think that there's room in the party for people who are libertine and socially conservative. And I would like them to feel that way."

    Mises Caucus leadership also says it's a mistake for the Libertarian Party to take an unequivocally open-borders stance on immigration. The current platform states that the "crossing of political boundaries" should not be "unreasonably constrained by government," and that language did not change during the convention.

    "When you put open borders, plus pro-abortion in there…it kind of forms a cultural hegemony for one side that might not be indicative of the wider libertarian movement," says Heise.

    Along with Rothbard, one of the biggest influences on prominent members of the Mises Caucus is the political theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who disagreed with the pro-immigration views of Ludwig von Mises. He wrote that politicians have a perverse incentive to let in "unproductive parasites, bums, and criminals" and that "the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations." Hoppe advocates for "the Swiss model, where local assemblies, not the central government, determine who can and who cannot become a Swiss citizen." Hoppe has also suggested that "democrats and communists" will have to be "physically separated and expelled" from a libertarian society.

    "Open borders and private borders are not the same," says Heise. "But they're both libertarian canon. So…by taking a side on this [in the party platform], we're representing one side and basically pushing out another side or making them feel not represented."

    Like the Mises Caucus, Amash often talks about the decentralization of political power, but he is also insistent upon the central importance of liberalism, or the protection of individual rights even at the hyper-local level of government. He says this idea is foundational to the United States and should be one of the Libertarian Party's core messages.

    "I think that the emphasis should be on getting us back to our roots as a country," says Amash. "What do we believe in as a basic set of principles? And, really, what this country is about is liberalism in the classical sense, the idea that people should be able to free…to make their own decisions about their lives and government, to the extent possible, should just stay out of it."

    On the first day of the convention, guest speaker Snowden made a similar point.

    "Freedom from permission: That is what liberty is," said Snowden. "Just the ability to act without asking, to speak and to write, to do, and to be yourself without getting the paper stamped, without submitting yourself and the completed form alongside it to some central authority."

    While Mises Caucus–endorsed candidates swept all other leadership positions that were up for grabs, there remains a discontented minority within the party, and McArdle says that about 40 members quit after the Mises Caucus took power.

    "The party has been an embarrassment to libertarians for a very long time," says Brianna Coyle, an Ohio delegate who quit the party during the convention. She's clashed with Mises Caucus members online in the past. "I think, quite frankly, it's going to be even worse than it used to be….This is the paleo strategy happening yet again."

    Others are taking a wait-and-see approach.

    "I think it's going to be interesting," says Avens O'Brien, a California delegate who opposed the Mises Caucus' removal of the pro-choice platform language. "I welcome new membership. I welcome change…I think right now there are a lot of complicated feelings from a lot of delegates, and I'm hoping that the people who get elected are willing to work with everyone. And if they are, I think that there could be good things."

    Amash, who is both sticking around and a rumored 2024 presidential candidate, says that he hopes the energy from the Mises Caucus can be channeled in a positive direction that grows the party. He says it should prioritize supporting candidates committed to protecting individual rights.

    "It's not going to be easy to get this party on track," says Amash. "It's an uphill battle. I want to give [the new leadership] the opportunity."

    He says that if the Republican Party sticks with Trump, and the Democrats continue to bring forth disappointing national candidates, it presents "an opening" for the Libertarian Party to draw from both the right and the left.

    "This is maybe the chance of a lifetime over the next couple of years to bring people into the party," says Amash.

    Heise said that delegates disappointed by or anxious about the Mises Caucus takeover should give them a chance to show results, which should be measured not only by electoral success but by party membership growth and donations.

    "By our fruits, you'll know us," he says.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-15-2022 at 04:37 PM. Reason: replaced YouTube with Rumble

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    THREAD: LP Mises Caucus features in SPLC "Hatewatch" hit piece
    (SPLC "Hatewatch": Mises Caucus: Could It Sway the Libertarian Party to the Hard Right?)
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    A Response To The Unreasonable - Part Of The Problem #869
    On this episode of Part Of The Problem Dave and Robbie discuss the recent hit pieces on the Mises Caucus.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    [replaced Rumble with YouTube because Rumble videos won't embed more than once on a page at RPFs - OB]

    [Reason] Inside the Mises Caucus Takeover of the Libertarian Party
    Supporters say they want to "make the Libertarian Party libertarian again." Critics say they’re $#@!posting edgelords who will destroy the LP from within.
    [Dave Smith] A response to Reason on the Reno Reset

  9. #37
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  10. #38
    Timcast IRL - w/Angela McArdle (new LP national committee chair)

  11. #39

    Here's the article Malice is talking about: Ron DeSantis and the Rise of Incoherent Folk Libertarianism

    (He was wise to stop reading part way through. I read the whole thing, and I'll just say that the title's complaint of "incoherence" is ironic. The article is just a vague, rambling mess of gripes.)

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Dave Smith: Comedian, Podcaster...Presidential Candidate?

    ”We stand for repealing the entire Progressive Era,” says Smith.

    "You have this white hot culture war, and really the only people who have a solution to the culture war are libertarians," says Dave Smith, a comedian, a podcaster, and one of the most visible faces of the Mises Caucus, which took control of the Libertarian Party at its national convention in Reno this May.

    Smith gained a following in the comedy world with his seat on the raunchy Legion of Skanks podcast, which he's parlayed into a career as a political commentator who often appears on cable news and on podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience and Timcast with Tim Pool. He regularly sounds off on political issues and intra-libertarian disputes on his own show, Part of the Problem.

    Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Smith in Reno to get his take on the Mises Caucus takeover of the Libertarian Party and to discuss his status as a possible 2024 Libertarian presidential candidate.

  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    ”We stand for repealing the entire Progressive Era,” says Smith.
    He is pretty quotable. Some notes that are obvious to liberty folks but may not be obvious to the mainstream (and, therefore, deserve to be highlighted):

    - We are proponents of progress; for that reason, we oppose "progressivism" because it is the opposite of progress, as proved by a century of its fruits.

    - We are proponents of freedom and the right of the people to establish government to protect that freedom; for that reason, we oppose "democracy" because it is the opposite of freedom. We often use the word "democracy" as a synonym for "freedom" and that's just part of the vernacular (can't fight it). But what populist tyrants mean by the word "democracy" is something more like what Twitter means by "free speech" -- in reality, it's just a giant megaphone comprised of paid/kept shills that amplify the will of the despot. That's not democracy-as-in-freedom and we oppose it.

    - We are proponents of peace and for that reason we oppose the military industrial complex. This is obvious to a lot of people except to the ones to whom it's not. Bombs don't bring freedom, they bring death. It's not 1944 anymore.

    - We are proponents of general prosperity and we acknowledge that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny kleptocracy is a clear sign that the economy is being controlled by robber-barons. For this reason, we oppose socialism in all its variations because socialism is only ever a cover for more corruption and kleptocracy. We also oppose the vernacular meaning of the word "capitalism", which people generally use to refer to nepotism, cronyism, lobbying, and sweetheart protectionism. Genuine market freedom is how the little guy is most robustly protected. Commercial regulations invariably saw the bottom rungs of the small-business ladder and government small-business initiatives end up turning into a contest where the government picks winners and losers through various forms of economic favoritism. Bankruptcy and liquidation is an essential and ineradicable component of a truly free market. Laws regulating usury and repossession prevent abusive and criminal behaviors. The result of following private property and free exchange (the basic principles of free market) is that small businesses, apprentices, new competitors, etc. have the best possible chance of success against established players. The market can never provide a guarantee of success but we all realize that something is amiss when the "market" punishes more efficient competitors and rewards less efficient ones. The problem is that regulation is always used as a cover for protectionism and cronyism.

    I could add more but these are the top bullet-points that flash into my head every time I hear MC people speak. The language-gap between MC and the general public is very wide. DS is a really good communicator and he does a far better job at it than I could do. But the first step in trying to get the Austrian perspective into the mind of the public and bring the Ron Paul message to the broad American audience is to identify the language-traps that have been prepared by the Marxists over many generations. They have prepared to prevent the emergence of an MC-like political party far more meticulously than I think almost anyone dares to imagine...
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 06-28-2022 at 05:32 PM.
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  15. #42
    It appears that people at Reason are still working against the new LP party leadership. As part of a thread on Reason, this was a good reply:

    Jeremy Kauffman �� @jeremykauffman

    Fine, I'll do an effortpost on Reason magazine. Here are the facts:

    1) Anecdotally, on both social media posts and in their own comment threads, Reason is regularly attacked and ratioed by their own readers.

    2) Reason journalists support Democrats disproportionately. In 2020, Reason tallied their journalists votes. The results were:

    Jorgensen: 10
    Biden: 6
    Trump: 1

    Libertarians can always come up with a reason that one candidate is the "lesser evil", but this is way off from how libertarians voted nationwide.

    3) Reason magazine has 51,000 paying subscribers who pay $15-$20/year. At $15 for 11 copies of a print magazine, it's unclear that this is even a break-even price for distribution, let alone labor. Their 2022 tax filings report $1,043,588 in program revenues, which matches this.

    4) Reason's tax filings report $13,980,606 in contributions and grants for 2022. Reason is receiving 14 times as much in donations as it is in revenue. Libertarians understand that incentives matter. Reason is incentivized to follow donors, not readers, because that's where the money comes from.

    5) Just a few of the donors contribute outsize amounts. Across 20 years of donations, just 4 donors have contributed 62% of all revenues. DonorsTrust is #4 and excluding them wouldn't change the overall picture.

    The simplest combination of these facts is that Reason exists not to serve a libertarian audience, but for a donor class to push their preferred stories onto libertarians. This donor class is substantially more culturally progressive, egalitarian, globalist, and neoliberal than the libertarian base.

    I'm not making a claim that Reason journalists themselves are told to write certain stories, or that Reason journalists are liars. All that needs to happen is the donors pick the right editor, who then goes out and hires journalists with biases preferred by donors.

    tl;dr - Reason is out-of-touch with libertarians because it's paid to be that way.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  16. #43

    An Agorist Primer ~ Samuel Edward Konkin III (free PDF download)

    The End of All Evil ~ Jeremy Locke (free PDF download)

  17. #44
    Would be great if true.

    Tired of this Lefty bull$#@!.

  18. #45
    LPMC bringing the HEAT...

    Don't get distracted by side-issues and don't take your eye off the ball. The single most important public-policy goal for the liberation of modern America is the detonation of the central banking system. The welfare-warfare State is merely a symptom of the monetary corruption. And while END THE FED is not the finish-line, it is the starting line for real change in this country. If you want to bring back the vestiges of freedom we tasted in our youth before Clown World took over, there is only one path forward and that path lies through total demolition of the Federal Reserve and the sprawling, bureaucratic, welfare-warfare Swamp that is attached to its diseased teats...


    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-19-2016, 08:52 AM
  2. Three Ways: Libertarians Working To End Two Party Control:
    By romacox in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-31-2012, 06:20 AM
  3. Gary Johnson Leaving GOP and Joining Libertarian Party Before NH Primary; Libertarians Want Ron Paul
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-30-2011, 03:19 PM
  4. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 04-13-2011, 04:17 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts