Best candidates for Libertarian Party 2020

[dean.engelhardt]

Penn Jillette

Lets do a money bomb!

[PierzStyx]

Still trying to keep those who want smaller government divided are we?

You want someone to put a gun to my head and force me to obey your will and wear your shackles or be beaten, caged, or killed. I don't care if the list of things you want to do that to me on is big or small, you're all the same. You petty dictators are the problem, not the solution. Free men do not need to be governed.

[CaptUSA]

Depends on what you want, I suppose. Are you looking for someone who has principles but will be totally ignored? You have a wide choice (even though libertarians will never agree on what principles matter.)

Or are you looking for ratings and a tick up at the polling booth? Then, maybe Mark Cuban? The Rock??

Who knows? Does it even matter?

[Swordsmyth]

You want someone to put a gun to my head and force me to obey your will and wear your shackles or be beaten, caged, or killed. I don't care if the list of things you want to do that to me on is big or small, you're all the same. You petty dictators are the problem, not the solution. Free men do not need to be governed.

The differences between minarchists and anarchists don't make any difference until we reach minarchy and the anarchists want to go farther, but you don't want us to make any progress or even slow down the decline so you spread division and infighting and tell people not to support candidates that are far better than the alternative because the are supposedly not perfect.

[USAFCapt]

Tom Woods. PhD in History via Ivy League. He lives in Orlando (home of the LP convention?) He's short but his public speaking is 10/10.

[USAFCapt]

Lets do a money bomb!

Very well spoken, tall, and would crush in a debate. Atheist which could rally votes and wake the sheeple up.

[Thor]

We will keep vacillating on dipshits while the Dems and Repubs advance the police state. More cameras, drones, NSA, biometric markers, you know - standard fair... and then AI will take over the infrastructure they have built and $#@! us all up the ass real hard... But, hey, we are helping...




LOL... wishful dreams.

[Brian4Liberty]

Depends on what you want, I suppose. Are you looking for someone who has principles but will be totally ignored? You have a wide choice (even though libertarians will never agree on what principles matter.)

Or are you looking for ratings and a tick up at the polling booth? Then, maybe Mark Cuban? The Rock??

Who knows? Does it even matter?

The Libertarian Party usually goes for the person who hypothetically (unproven) might have the best chance of getting votes, and that means getting someone previously elected under a different Party. They want respectability.

Boehner/Flake 2020!

[PierzStyx]

The differences between minarchists and anarchists don't make any difference until we reach minarchy and the anarchists want to go farther, but you don't want us to make any progress or even slow down the decline so you spread division and infighting and tell people not to support candidates that are far better than the alternative because the are supposedly not perfect.

1. I'm not talking about anarchy. No one here is. I'm talking about libertarianism, a political philosophy founded on the idea that neither you nor the government have the right to initiate force against anyone. It is opposed to statism -the belief that you have the right to use violence to compel others to obey your orders- in all its forms, no matter whether the list of things you want to force others to do is big or small.

2. That you do not understand number one tells me two things. One, you don't understand anarchy or libertarianism. You constantly conflate the two. And two, it gives me a great deal of confidence in concluding that you do not understand minarchy either.

3. The differences between anarchy and minarchy are fundamental and foundational. Minarchists want to use violence against peaceful people in order to force them obey your orders and violate their freedom. Anarchists do not. Unlike you, anarchists have no list of demands that everyone else must obey or be beaten, caged, or killed for the "evil" of living as a free human being. Everything else flows from this truth.

In reality, there is not much difference between anarchy and libertarianism. Libertarians believe there is still some hope that a formal government can be completely voluntary and function without violating individual liberty. Anarchists are convinced otherwise. That is the only difference.

In contrast, minarchists are not different than Socialists and Fascists. All three ideologies are founded on the belief that you have the right to beat, cage, or kill others for the crime of disobeying the orders of those in power. The only different between the three is they argue over what things they should beat, cage, and kill people over. It is why minarchy is and always has been a fantasy. Once an organization can beat, cage, or kill you for disobeying it, the trend will always be towards totalitarianism. This, in short, is the history of American government, if you can say a government that holds over 5 million people in absolute slavery and uses its vast policing and military powers to compel even those opposed to slavery to support it was ever "small" or minarchist to begin with.

4. As for "supporting candidates," by now everyone with eyes should be able to see the failure of thinking somehow you'll be able to get the State to voluntarily surrender its power or that voting matters. You keep voting for evil and then act shocked when evil wins. It would be laughable if it weren't so damn sad with horrendous consequences.

5. You are not a minarchist anyway. No one who wants to expand the vast police state powers of the US government to hunt, track, beat, cage, and even kill over 11,000,000 people for a nonviolent "crime" could ever be described as minarchist. You are very much for the promotion and expansion of the powers of the State to brutalize, dominate, and steal the life, liberty, and property of private individuals. You're just another regressive Progressive.

[Swordsmyth]

1. I'm not talking about anarchy. No one here is. I'm talking about libertarianism, a political philosophy founded on the idea that neither you nor the government have the right to initiate force against anyone. It is opposed to statism -the belief that you have the right to use violence to compel others to obey your orders- in all its forms, no matter whether the list of things you want to force others to do is big or small.

2. That you do not understand number one tells me two things. One, you don't understand anarchy or libertarianism. You constantly conflate the two. And two, it gives me a great deal of confidence in concluding that you do not understand minarchy either.

3. The differences between anarchy and minarchy are fundamental and foundational. Minarchists want to use violence against peaceful people in order to force them obey your orders and violate their freedom. Anarchists do not. Unlike you, anarchists have no list of demands that everyone else must obey or be beaten, caged, or killed for the "evil" of living as a free human being. Everything else flows from this truth.

In reality, there is not much difference between anarchy and libertarianism. Libertarians believe there is still some hope that a formal government can be completely voluntary and function without violating individual liberty. Anarchists are convinced otherwise. That is the only difference.

In contrast, minarchists are not different than Socialists and Fascists. All three ideologies are founded on the belief that you have the right to beat, cage, or kill others for the crime of disobeying the orders of those in power. The only different between the three is they argue over what things they should beat, cage, and kill people over. It is why minarchy is and always has been a fantasy. Once an organization can beat, cage, or kill you for disobeying it, the trend will always be towards totalitarianism. This, in short, is the history of American government, if you can say a government that holds over 5 million people in absolute slavery and uses its vast policing and military powers to compel even those opposed to slavery to support it was ever "small" or minarchist to begin with.

4. As for "supporting candidates," by now everyone with eyes should be able to see the failure of thinking somehow you'll be able to get the State to voluntarily surrender its power or that voting matters. You keep voting for evil and then act shocked when evil wins. It would be laughable if it weren't so damn sad with horrendous consequences.

5. You are not a minarchist anyway. No one who wants to expand the vast police state powers of the US government to hunt, track, beat, cage, and even kill over 11,000,000 people for a nonviolent "crime" could ever be described as minarchist. You are very much for the promotion and expansion of the powers of the State to brutalize, dominate, and steal the life, liberty, and property of private individuals. You're just another regressive Progressive.

Your lies and twistings don't deserve a response.

You constantly demonstrate that your purpose is to make it impossible to improve things by keeping those who want to reduce government divided and by pushing utopian nonsense that will scare away anyone who might otherwise be educated to work for the reduction of government, you also consistently defend leftists who want to increase the size, scope and power of government.

[PierzStyx]

you also consistently defend leftists who want to increase the size, scope and power of government.

What are you talking about? I'm not defending you in anyway.


As to everything else, ad hominem attacks are the kind of logical fallacies people start throwing out when they've reached the intellectual limits of their arguments and know there is no response but their pride won't let them "lose" so they turn to Plan B hoping no one will notice they failed.

So I guess we really are done for today.

[USAFCapt]

Peter Schiff is a possibility. He's a good speaker, says that the Fed is printing out of control, loves gold, has authored 5+ books.

[acptulsa]

Peter Schiff is a possibility. He's a good speaker, says that the Fed is printing out of control, loves gold, has authored 5+ books.

And people have heard Adam Schiff's name just often enough. So, they'll be confused enough to look him up, and then they'll actually remember his name.

[Anti Federalist]

You want someone to put a gun to my head and force me to obey your will and wear your shackles or be beaten, caged, or killed. I don't care if the list of things you want to do that to me on is big or small, you're all the same. You petty dictators are the problem, not the solution. Free men do not need to be governed.

You enable and embolden the tyrants that wish to rob me, beat me and put me in a cage, if not outright exterminate me.

You petty Quislings are all the same, the problem, not the solution.

Free men do not need petty collaborators and apologists.

[Anti Federalist]

Mike Rowe.

[CaptUSA]

Mike Rowe.

Yeah, he’ll never do politics. And I doubt he could stomach being in a “party”. But if it were to ever happen, I’d support him regardless of banner.

[Occam's Banana]

Yeah, he’ll never do politics. And I doubt he could stomach being in a “party”. [...]

That applies to all the best answers to this particular question ... (Ron Paul being the proverbial rule-testing exception ...)

[Swordsmyth]

You enable and embolden the tyrants that wish to rob me, beat me and put me in a cage, if not outright exterminate me.

You petty Quislings are all the same, the problem, not the solution.

Free men do not need petty collaborators and apologists.

I owe you rep.

[Aratus]

Give us your thoughts on who would be the best for libertarians to run for president in 2020 and why.

I would first need a list of people willing to run before I could give an opinion.

If they're any good they should run as Republicans.

John Boehner is pro-marijuana. He is a shoe-in for Libertarian POTUS candidate.

It's William Weld's turn. He's waited paitiently. And he's the "Original Libertarian" ...

Boehner can be VP. (Or maybe Paul Ryan, since he's free now.)

Larry Sharpe should have been the VP candidate last time. He's one of the few competent people involved with "the party".

https://www.larrysharpe.com/

Adam Kokesh 2020

yep, Kokesh for the LP ticket in 2020 has my vote - because the LP needs a firebrand rather than the milquetoast they've been nominating... if a miracle of miracles happens and the LP candidate debates Trump in 2020, only a firebrand like Kokesh will be able to articulate a coherent libertarian message when faced with a barrage of nonsense.

I like Ron Paul at any age. If Ron would be will to run, he'd be a slam dunk nominee.

As far as Trump, I see issues with NAP and National Debt that would ever allow him to be the LP candidate. You can't be a LP candidate and promise a $1 trillion per year defense budget.

Oh, and "Take the guns first."

Still waiting for that Libertarian wave. Ron did well at using his role as a podium from which to espouse libertarian values from. But that neither he nor anyone even close to his positions has won is telling I think. Amash is probably the closest, but he is far from as public or famous a figure as Ron.

I like Ron at any age too but he'll be in his mid 80s by the time the next election comes around. I much prefer a Ron where I don't have to worry about him dying in office.

How about Ron/Rand ticket. Rand is no Ron, but there is a good chance Ron could be very productive into his 90s. Heck, Jimmie Carter is still kicking it around these days.

Penn Jillette

Three ideas! WELD/RYAN or JILLETTE/KOKESH or PAUL/PAUL ???

Again... depending on what message one wants or needs? Weld/Ryan cuts inroads into GOP and banks on the tax cut as it ignores the bigger national debt. RAND PAUL for POTUS has his own father being part of the loop in terms of security clearances when needing him for advice. Penn Jillette is level headed, Adam Kokesh is energetic and sincere.

[dean.engelhardt]

Three ideas! WELD/RYAN or JILLETTE/KOKESH or PAUL/PAUL ???

Again... depending on what message one wants or needs? Weld/Ryan cuts inroads into GOP and banks on the tax cut as it ignores the bigger national debt. RAND PAUL for POTUS has his own father being part of the loop in terms of security clearances when needing him for advice. Penn Jillette is level headed, Adam Kokesh is energetic and sincere.

Paul/Paul is my first choice, but probably 0% they would do it. After that I like Jillette/Kokesh or Jillette/X. Weld/Ryan has some issues. Ryan has talked of limited spending but it looks like he has been a puppet of the GOP spending machine all his career. Jillette is a name I'm most excited about. I don't know if he has any interest,

[Swordsmyth]

Three ideas! WELD/RYAN or JILLETTE/KOKESH or PAUL/PAUL ???

Again... depending on what message one wants or needs? Weld/Ryan cuts inroads into GOP and banks on the tax cut as it ignores the bigger national debt. RAND PAUL for POTUS has his own father being part of the loop in terms of security clearances when needing him for advice. Penn Jillette is level headed, Adam Kokesh is energetic and sincere.

Weld/Ryan would never get my vote, Jillette/Kokesh I don't know enough about but I would consider giving them my vote depending on who was running against them, Paul/Paul would get my vote for sure.

[milgram]

Sharpe interviewed by Dave Rubin

[trey4sports]

Newt 2020

[Sammy]

Tom Woods & Dave Smith should run...

[messana]

Second for Dave Smith.

The office of the presidency is a joke. An actual comedian would make a good fit.

[AZJoe]

[Superfluous Man]

Atheist which could rally votes and wake the sheeple up.

Uhhhh, what?

[kona]

DAVE SMITH

[USAFCapt]

DAVE SMITH

He's a great speaker and would do well in debates. Woods/Smith is sounding good. Here is Dave Smith on Ari Shaffir's podcast: