Libertarian Party Elects New Chair

[Mach]

Don't even know her [Angela McArdle], but she is supposedly, pro-Mises.

They have definitely been infiltrated with wokeness over the years, so I haven't paid them much attention.

https://reason.com/video/2022/06/21/...ngela-mcardle/

"The main function of the Libertarian Party is to try to make the United States a freer place," says Angela McArdle, who won her election for Libertarian National Committee chair with an overwhelming 70 percent of the vote at the party's national convention in Reno, Nevada, last May. "People disagree on what strategy to take to achieve that purpose. I believe there's room for both strategies: to send out strong messaging campaigns and to win elections."

McArdle had the backing of the Mises Caucus, whose candidates swept all the leadership positions at the convention. Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with her in Reno a day before she became the party's new chair to better understand what changes she wants to make to the party's messaging, political strategy, and official policies.

-----

[Swordsmyth]

Let me know when they reject open borders, unilateral free trade, abortion, Quueer "marriage" and all its resultant degeneracy, and fascism disguised as corporatism ("free market vaccine mandates etc.).

[dannno]

Let me know when they reject open borders, unilateral free trade, abortion, Quueer "marriage" and all its resultant degeneracy, and fascism disguised as corporatism ("free market vaccine mandates etc.).

Done.

The Mises Caucus is basically the Ron Paul wing of the libertarian party.

[Swordsmyth]

Done.

The Mises Caucus is basically the Ron Paul wing of the libertarian party.

I'll believe it when I see it.
And I've already seen things to the contrary.

[ClaytonB]

Let me know when they reject open borders, unilateral free trade, abortion, Quueer "marriage" and all its resultant degeneracy, and fascism disguised as corporatism ("free market vaccine mandates etc.).

All of these issues are really tactical in nature, not strategic. The abortion issue is a great example of this in action. The MC controversially removed the pro-abortion plank of the LP. Dave Smith explained it well in his interview with Gillespie -- it's an issue that is dividing the LP due to personal beliefs, just like it divides the whole country, when it's not something that actually sets the LP apart from the other two parties. The MC will not be putting a pro-life plank in the platform, either. That's not because the MC or its members are pro-choice (DS is pro-life) but because it doesn't make sense to have a plank that divides your party. DS explained in that interview that individual candidates are free to run pro-life campaigns within the umbrella of the LP, and they could even make that run at the national level, so this isn't even about saying "State but not Federal". It's about saying that the party has to have a platform that unites libertarians without opposing the principles of liberty. Which is obvious.

From a philosophical/theological perspective, pro-life can't really be separated from liberty. But there are lots of things that can't be separated from liberty in that way, but which don't make sense to be a part of the LP platform, or any political party's platform, for the simple reason that that's not what political parties are for. Getting dressed in the morning before you leave your house is a logical precondition of liberty, but anti-nudity doesn't need to be a plank in the LP platform. It just doesn't make sense. So the philosophical/theological can be separated from the political without becoming an outright pragmatist. It's a question of what sorts of things make sense to be addressed at the civil level. And that's partly a function of the views of the people, you can't just treat it as some kind of abstraction handed down from On High.

[acptulsa]

It's a question of what sorts of things make sense to be addressed at the civil level.

It's also a question of what level of civil government is best to address it, by which I mean, just how local. But in order to accept that, one has to actually have more respect for others than liberals do. Otherwise it becomes a matter of who gets to shove what down the throats of their enemies.

[ClaytonB]

It's also a question of what level of civil government is best to address it, by which I mean, just how local. But in order to accept that, one has to actually have more respect for others than liberals do. Otherwise it becomes a matter of who gets to shove what down the throats of their enemies.

Yes. But the MC's position is slightly more nuanced that just this. The GOP platform is pro-life, but at State not Federal level. It seems like a good plank but the problem is that it still divides the country. While it may be worthwhile to divide over certain issues, the whole purpose of a political party is to unite a sub-community to make effective political action possible. It doesn't benefit the LP (doesn't advance its broader political objectives) to have an abortion plank but, instead, to leave the issue to individual candidates to run on whichever side of the issue they hold to, and leave it to voters to decide. It's a fresh take and I think they have gotten it exactly right.

[devil21]

Let me know when they reject open borders, unilateral free trade, abortion, Quueer "marriage" and all its resultant degeneracy, and fascism disguised as corporatism ("free market vaccine mandates etc.).

Yeah yeah we already know you want DC to control everything instead of respecting constitutional states rights and individual property rights.

[acptulsa]

Yes. But the MC's position is slightly more nuanced that just this.

Thank God somebody's is.

Yeah yeah we already know you want DC to control everything instead of respecting constitutional states rights and individual property rights.

Rights? Only he has the right to be right.

[TheTexan]

Let me know when they reject open borders, unilateral free trade, abortion, Quueer "marriage" and all its resultant degeneracy, and fascism disguised as corporatism ("free market vaccine mandates etc.).

IMO the only libertarian plank that matters is secession. (which they support).

The policy goals you are looking for, can only be achieved via secession.

[Occam's Banana]

IMO the only libertarian plank that matters is secession. (which they support).

The policy goals you are looking for, can only be achieved via secession.

Not only do they support that plank, but they inserted it - or rather, they re-inserted it.

Apparently, there was a secession plank before, but it had been removed for some damn reason.

Probably because someone was worried it would scare some people away. And maybe it would - but so what?

Such people are much better suited to doing things like helping Cato come up with proposals for making government more "efficient"[1], anyway.



[1] Or helping Reason to defend gas taxes.

[Swordsmyth]

All of these issues are really tactical in nature, not strategic. The abortion issue is a great example of this in action. The MC controversially removed the pro-abortion plank of the LP. Dave Smith explained it well in his interview with Gillespie -- it's an issue that is dividing the LP due to personal beliefs, just like it divides the whole country, when it's not something that actually sets the LP apart from the other two parties. The MC will not be putting a pro-life plank in the platform, either. That's not because the MC or its members are pro-choice (DS is pro-life) but because it doesn't make sense to have a plank that divides your party. DS explained in that interview that individual candidates are free to run pro-life campaigns within the umbrella of the LP, and they could even make that run at the national level, so this isn't even about saying "State but not Federal". It's about saying that the party has to have a platform that unites libertarians without opposing the principles of liberty. Which is obvious.

From a philosophical/theological perspective, pro-life can't really be separated from liberty. But there are lots of things that can't be separated from liberty in that way, but which don't make sense to be a part of the LP platform, or any political party's platform, for the simple reason that that's not what political parties are for. Getting dressed in the morning before you leave your house is a logical precondition of liberty, but anti-nudity doesn't need to be a plank in the LP platform. It just doesn't make sense. So the philosophical/theological can be separated from the political without becoming an outright pragmatist. It's a question of what sorts of things make sense to be addressed at the civil level. And that's partly a function of the views of the people, you can't just treat it as some kind of abstraction handed down from On High.

I have no idea what you think is strategic but the great replacement is the ultimate physical strategic concern and the perverts and abortion are the ultimate moral strategic concern.
The others are pretty strategic as well.

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah yeah we already know you want DC to control everything instead of respecting constitutional states rights and individual property rights.

I didn't know the LP only was interested in federal office.
When did they decide that?

[Swordsmyth]

IMO the only libertarian plank that matters is secession. (which they support).

The policy goals you are looking for, can only be achieved via secession.

The Texas GOP just added a secession plank and are in a much better position to actually do something about it.

[TheTexan]

The Texas GOP just added a secession plank and are in a much better position to actually do something about it.

We'll see. I remain cautiously optimistic. Getting added to the GOP platform is one thing, getting added as a legislative priority for the next session, is a whole different thing.

[TheTexan]

We'll see. I remain cautiously optimistic. Getting added to the GOP platform is one thing, getting added as a legislative priority for the next session, is a whole different thing.

Yea... the 8 legislative priorities have been released. The secession vote wasn't even in the original list of 15 that they whittled down to 8.

It's not happening in Texas any time soon.

[vita3]

Young new female leader

Bueno Suerte

Hope she can grow party. & most importantly get people elected into position of power

Let’s face it, BS is thick w/ Libertarians lol

[ClaytonB]

I have no idea what you think is strategic but the great replacement is the ultimate physical strategic concern and the perverts and abortion are the ultimate moral strategic concern.
The others are pretty strategic as well.

Logical: Concerning truth and the relations between true things
Moral: Concerning right behavior and treatment of people and resources
Strategic: Concerning the best methods to achieve a given goal

"Ultimate" things are the great enemy of strategy, because any ultimate commitment is just a free lever that you give to your enemy. Suppose you believe it is a great sin to strike someone in the face and you get into a fight with a man who knows this about you. For him, this knowledge makes the fight a thousand times easier since he does not need to cover his face, while he can still strike yours. This is the same mistake as choosing "ultimate" values in your political strategy.

The R/D-swamp are not fighting by any rules at all, they are fighting as dirty as it is possible to fight. The conservative wing of the R-swamp has a huge PR push along the lines that they stand for "God, family and tradition" and this might even be true for those in that wing, but it is certainly not true of the R-swamp itself (quite the opposite!) Those true conservatives in the GOP who are naively working for the R-swamp do not understand that they are actively sabotaging their own goals in pretty much the most effective way possible. If they did, they would leave. The only thing of real value that a political party offers is its election/canvassing machinery (messaging + voting registration). The LP has a 80+% functioning political machine. It's not yet 100.0% functional and spit-shined like the R/D-swamp machinery. But it's mostly functioning and mostly ready-to-go.

If the LP can breathe new life through the MC and become a fully-functioning political apparatus, it could become the vehicle for completing the movement that MAGA started. Instead of aiming for 50%+1 vote, why not start aiming for super-majorities? Yes, that sounds like wishful thinking at this point in time but every dream starts that way. Which is closest to the vision of the founding Fathers -- R, D or MC? Obviously, it's the MC. Both R and D are today a bunch of warmongering, Woke CCP zombies, with few exceptions. MC wins by a country mile.

[devil21]

I didn't know the LP only was interested in federal office.
When did they decide that?

A decent deflection but we still know you're a central federal fan since you never, ever even speak on state's rights, only federal control advocacy. You're on record on RPF advocating for the destruction of the LP entirely so you should probably go find some Donald and DeSantis bootlicking threads to occupy you.

Any way, it wasn't decided. LP platform is clear that most of your gripes are state issues under the 10th and/or individual property rights decisions and the thread is about the national party and who speaks for the LP nationally.

[Swordsmyth]

A decent deflection but we still know you're a central federal fan since you never, ever even speak on state's rights

LOL

[Swordsmyth]

You're on record on RPF advocating for the destruction of the LP entirely

Darn right.
They occupy the potential 3rd party position and keep out other more viable parties while making sure to never become actual competition to the two big parties while managing to steal just enough votes from the Rs (including the good ones like Bevin) to help pull things to the left.
That could change if they make the changes I laid out but the MC isn't going to make them.
The MC will continue to be irrelevant assistant Demoncrats.
I'd love to be proven wrong but I doubt it.

If the MC doesn't make the necessary changes it would have been better for the leftarians to have retained control and destroyed the party so something much better could become the potential 3rd party.

[TheTexan]

Darn right.
They occupy the potential 3rd party position and keep out other more viable parties while making sure to never become actual competition to the two big parties while managing to steal just enough votes from the Rs (including the good ones like Bevin) to help pull things to the left.
That could change if they make the changes I laid out but the MC isn't going to make them.
The MC will continue to be irrelevant assistant Demoncrats.
I'd love to be proven wrong but I doubt it.

If the MC doesn't make the necessary changes it would have been better for the leftarians to have retained control and destroyed the party so something much better could become the potential 3rd party.

What would be the point? Your ideal 3rd party would never win, or even get close. And I say that as someone who would be rooting for your 3rd party to win.

The only way you can build the society you want is via secession. And for that to happen, secession has to become mainstream and common.

Even if Texas seceded tomorrow, that's just one secession. It brings you barely closer to your goals.

The LP on the other hand, advocates for secession in a general sense, as a political tool to create societies such as the one you envision.

The LP strives to give you the freedom to build the society that you want.

No other political party offers you that.

[devil21]

LOL

And still nothing about state's rights and property rights. Even your follow up post is about some replacement 3rd party whose only goal is apparently just to beat those pesky Dems, as if elections really matter anymore. 90% of federal Republican candidates are bought-and-paid-for-Dem-lite-WEF-lackeys.

It's also strange how you simultaneously accuse the LP of being unbearably left on social issues (while refusing to acknowledge that they are 10th Amendment positions only) but also claim the LP steals winning vote margins from the right. Seems there's either some very confused right voters....or that you're writing whatever nonsense you can think up to bash the LP.

[Swordsmyth]

What would be the point? Your ideal 3rd party would never win, or even get close. And I say that as someone who would be rooting for your 3rd party to win.

The only way you can build the society you want is via secession. And for that to happen, secession has to become mainstream and common.

Even if Texas seceded tomorrow, that's just one secession. It brings you barely closer to your goals.

The LP on the other hand, advocates for secession in a general sense, as a political tool to create societies such as the one you envision.

The LP strives to give you the freedom to build the society that you want.

No other political party offers you that.

The replacement would offer just as much or more than the LP.
Everything you say about a replacement 3rd party applies as much or more to the LP.
The Texas GOP is the current best chance for anything worth more than a bag of air to happen about secession and a replacement 3rd party would be as much or more pro-secession than the LP.

[Swordsmyth]

And still nothing about state's rights and property rights. Even your follow up post is about some replacement 3rd party whose only goal is apparently just to beat those pesky Dems, as if elections really matter anymore. 90% of federal Republican candidates are bought-and-paid-for-Dem-lite-WEF-lackeys.

It's also strange how you simultaneously accuse the LP of being unbearably left on social issues (while refusing to acknowledge that they are 10th Amendment positions only) but also claim the LP steals winning vote margins from the right. Seems there's either some very confused right voters....or that you're writing whatever nonsense you can think up to bash the LP.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[unknown]

Yah the national LP along with Reason are going to $#@!.

Some state and local chapters are still legit.