Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Some Libertarians have turned into race-baiting leftists

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnCifelli1 View Post
    The frustrating part is it feels like left-lib is the dominant "wing" right now. Big L sucks bad. The NJ Libertarian Party is the worst. left lib leaning organization that tries to meme on FB and sucks badly at it.
    Dave Smith and Tom Woods are trying to change that, via the Mises Caucus.
    Recent video (two days ago) from the LP Mises Caucus:
    - Michael Heise is a co-founder of the Mises Caucus
    - Caryn Ann Harlos is secretary of the LP national committee
    - Dave Smith is part of the problem

    Video proper starts @ 3:15

    On "The Takeover"
    "Oh No! The Mises Caucus is taking over! They must be stopped!". The topic of the takeover has become a hot button issue both in an out of the Mises Caucus. Whats it all about? Why are so many people entering the party off of that message? Is it the best idea to message this way? Talk about it with us with Michael Heise, Dave Smith and Caryn Ann Harlos.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjUZ5aOwJZw
    THREAD: Dave Smith considers seeking the 2024 LP POTUS nomination
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-27-2021 at 07:17 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    ^^^^Someone's got a serious crush on Smith....

    If he's any real threat to the establishment he won't be allowed the nomination. The national LP will give it to whoever is lukewarm, ineffectual and unlikely to gain traction. They proved it last election (as one example) by stealing the nomination from Hornberger and handing it to Jorgenson. Hornberger kicked her ass in practically every nominating contest held across the country but since Hornberger openly talks about topics like the CFR (Deep State, collectively), he wasn't allowed the nomination. She was handed it and did exactly what she was supposed to. Not much of anything.
    "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



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    ^^^^Someone's got a serious crush on Smith....
    Damn right, I do!

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    If he's any real threat to the establishment he won't be allowed the nomination. The national LP will give it to whoever is lukewarm, ineffectual and unlikely to gain traction. They proved it last election (as one example) by stealing the nomination from Hornberger and handing it to Jorgenson. Hornberger kicked her ass in practically every nominating contest held across the country but since Hornberger openly talks about topics like the CFR (Deep State, collectively), he wasn't allowed the nomination. She was handed it and did exactly what she was supposed to. Not much of anything.
    Putting an end to the milquetoastery of the LP "establishment" is one of the main reasons the LP Mises Caucus was formed in the first place.

    Another reason is to put emphasis on state and local races and give greater support to the candidates in those races - all while using the (otherwise irrelevant, IMO) POTUS race as a platform from which to marshal greater support for the ideas of liberty by breathing fire on relevant topical issues (lockdowns, wars, police abuses, gun rights, etc.), instead of indulging in the lukewarm rhetoric, Woke-pandering and "respectability"-seeking exhibited by Johnson, Sarwark, et al.

    I quit the LP back in the '90s (and the Perry Willis scandal that ensued thereafter only served to confirm to me that I had made the right decision) - but now I'm joining again as part of the Mises Caucus.

    And it's all because of Dave Smith (), Tom Woods, et al. ... (YMMV, and that's okay, too ...)

    ETA 1: Also, the executive committee of the Mises Caucus unanimously endorsed Jacob Hornberger.

    ETA 2: Hornberger is also on the advisory board of the Mises Caucus.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-27-2021 at 06:48 PM.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    LOL , What if I told you most of them were always leftarians ? I have libertarian fatigue .Bring on the anarchists see if there is an improvement , LOL
    Thanks for adding reputation to this user. May you be lucky enough to receive the same Reputation back in turn.

  7. #35

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Hornberger might have been the purest libertarian in the race. But if IIRC, during the LP debate, Hornberger opened up with the full uncontrolled, mass immigration position. IMHO, all of the candidates jumped on the open borders train, apparently in an attempt to outdo each other in catering to the woke “no borders, no wall” leftist crowd.

    I don't know where Smith stands on that issue.
    "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-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.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Hornberger might have been the purest libertarian in the race. But if IIRC, during the LP debate, Hornberger opened up with the full uncontrolled, mass immigration position. IMHO, all of the candidates jumped on the open borders train, apparently in an attempt to outdo each other in catering to the woke “no borders, no wall” leftist crowd.

    I don't know where Smith stands on that issue.
    Dave Smith’s Part of the Problem – Ep. 578 – Immigration With Jen Monroe
    webpage: https://namelyliberty.com/dave-smith...th-jen-monroe/
    mp3 file: https://rss.art19.com/episodes/caa56...05e36ea004.mp3

    Smith @ 13:50: "... I think that as long as government is controlling the borders, immigration is more or less a government program, whether it's open borders or closed borders, or what we have now, which is a disastrous combination of the two. [...] To me, I think it is no more libertarian or less libertarian to want open borders or closed borders. [...] That doesn't mean I support either. I hate government programs in general. I'd rather see them abolished ..."

    Also @ 36:40: " ... This is probably, of all the issues, the one I get the most heat from, from libertarians and from my own audience, which is very divided on this issue. And I manage to piss both [...] sides of them off whenever I talk about immigration ..."

    Based on this, I suspect that Smith might at least broadly agree with my own position on the immigration issue, which is as follows:

    I refuse to support any "public" immigration policy (whether "open" or "closed"). There is nothing in libertarian theory that supports any such policy. Ideally, all property would be private, and such matters would be settled by (1) property owners deciding for themselves how "open" or "closed" they want their property to be, and (2) whatever system of easements, rights-of-way, etc. organically evolves out of those decisions. Sadly, though, we don't live in an ideal world. As is so often demonstrated, the state only truly excels at preventing optimal solutions from being implemented, leaving everyone to squabble hatefully with each other over whatever suboptimal pick-your-poison "solutions" the state is willing to entertain. So if the state is going to interfere in such matters, it should at least be confined to doing so only on the most local and decentralized scale possible. Regardless of what government-enforced policy one might prefer - "open", "closed", or "mixed" - it is just insanely absurd for places as different (demographically, economically, environmentally, etc.) as Montana and Florida to be subjected to "One Immigration Policy to Rule Them All."

    https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/s...76282947551233


    https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/s...95149501939712

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Dave Smith’s Part of the Problem – Ep. 578 – Immigration With Jen Monroe
    webpage: https://namelyliberty.com/dave-smith...th-jen-monroe/
    mp3 file: https://rss.art19.com/episodes/caa56...05e36ea004.mp3

    Smith @ 13:50: "... I think that as long as government is controlling the borders, immigration is more or less a government program, whether it's open borders or closed borders, or what we have now, which is a disastrous combination of the two. [...] To me, I think it is no more libertarian or less libertarian to want open borders or closed borders. [...] That doesn't mean I support either. I hate government programs in general. I'd rather see them abolished ..."

    Also @ 36:40: " ... This is probably, of all the issues, the one I get the most heat from, from libertarians and from my own audience, which is very divided on this issue. And I manage to piss both [...] sides of them off whenever I talk about immigration ..."

    Based on this, I suspect that Smith might at least broadly agree with my own position on the immigration issue, which is as follows:

    I refuse to support any "public" immigration policy (whether "open" or "closed"). There is nothing in libertarian theory that supports any such policy. Ideally, all property would be private, and such matters would be settled by (1) property owners deciding for themselves how "open" or "closed" they want their property to be, and (2) whatever system of easements, rights-of-way, etc. organically evolves out of those decisions. Sadly, though, we don't live in an ideal world. As is so often demonstrated, the state only truly excels at preventing optimal solutions from being implemented, leaving everyone to squabble hatefully with each other over whatever suboptimal pick-your-poison "solutions" the state is willing to entertain. So if the state is going to interfere in such matters, it should at least be confined to doing so only on the most local and decentralized scale possible. Regardless of what government-enforced policy one might prefer - "open", "closed", or "mixed" - it is just insanely absurd for places as different (demographically, economically, environmentally, etc.) as Montana and Florida to be subjected to "One Immigration Policy to Rule Them All."

    https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/s...76282947551233


    https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/s...95149501939712
    Based on this, I suspect that Smith might at least broadly agree with my own position on the immigration issue
    Based on the Tweets, I suspect he agrees with my more traditional libertarian take on immigration, which is that the welfare state and open immigration are incompatible. Immigration can not be looked at in isolation. It is part of a complex system. There are times when it is appropriate, there are times when it is inappropriate. As long as we have a welfare state, we can not have unlimited immigration. And that is not the only concern. Capacity is also an issue. Politics and culture is another separate concern.
    "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-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.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Based on the Tweets, I suspect he agrees with my more traditional libertarian take on immigration, which is that the welfare state and open immigration are incompatible. Immigration can not be looked at in isolation. It is part of a complex system. There are times when it is appropriate, there are times when it is inappropriate. As long as we have a welfare state, we can not have unlimited immigration. And that is not the only concern. Capacity is also an issue. Politics and culture is another separate concern.
    I agree with all of that. The sentiments Dave expressed in his tweets are entirely compatible with everything he said during his discussion with Monroe (including the statements I quoted), as well as with everything I said in my own comments on the issue. And something else Dave said during the interview with Monroe - something with which I also agree completely - was that whichever policy one might prefer on this issue, the one thing you can be certain of is that the (federal) government will $#@! it up badly.

    Deciding upon which variety of "public" immigration policy ("open", "closed", or "mixed") is to be artificially imposed upon everyone is a "pick your poison" scenario. It comes down to a matter of which poison one regards as being least deadly. This is ultimately a subjective evaluation of the respective pros and cons of each variety - but this fact is only problematic because of the public nature of the issue. So long as the issue remains one of public (rather than private) immigration, the problem will persist, regardless of which variety happens to be in effect at any given moment. (In previous discussions on this topic at RPFs, I have pointed out that exactly the same dynamic manifested in the controversies over teaching creationism vs. evolution in public schools. It is instructive to note that, in relative comparison, private schools were blessedly undisturbed by such disputes.)

    "Public" immigration policy is an issue over which libertarians can reasonably disagree while still remaining libertarians. This is why the Mises Caucus platform does not take any position on the issue - and why Smith, despite his own reservations, could endorse Hornberger for LP POTUS nominee in 2020 even though Hornberger is solidly in the "open borders" camp.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-28-2021 at 09:16 PM.
    https://i.imgur.com/BwU46s8.png

    Libertarian Party Mises Caucus
    "The libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party."

    Platform Our Actions

    Mises PAC
    (Libertarian Party membership not required)

    #TakeHumanAction Donate Merchandise


    HOME Facebook Twitter YouTube

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. MSNBC Race Baiting Super Fail on Trump!
    By YoBabyYoBabyYo in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-01-2016, 10:26 AM
  2. Race Baiting 101
    By phill4paul in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-09-2015, 10:53 AM
  3. Obama, Sharpton Race Baiting is Backfiring
    By donnay in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 09:08 PM
  4. msnbc race baiting
    By Tecla in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 05:24 PM

Posting Permissions

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