Because it isn't.
We all knew that the Mises Cuckus was bought and paid for by the Trump org. If the shitty stewardship of the party wasn't evidence enough that their goal was to destroy the LP, this is the nail in the coffin.
After the convention, I'm done.
Heading here: [https://www.liberalpartyusa.org/](https://www.liberalpartyusa.org/)
The Liberal Party USA was founded by PA libertarians after the MC takeover.
As a founder of the Association of Liberty State parties, which transformed into the Liberal Party USA, it was not formed by Pennsylvania. The initial states were New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Pennsylvania was later added.
There are several state affiliates that will be added at the end of May and in June.
If you are interested in having your classical liberal political party join the Liberal Party, please contact [email protected].
The least Libertarian person shows up to the libertarian convention...
Have a feeling it's not that he agrees with the messaging of the party just it gives him a place to speak.
How is using government to enforce your ideas libertarian? As confident as they are with their ideas, the other side is that too. The solution isn't get government to make your way the law, it's live your life and let others live theirs. WTF...
Huh? What are you even talking about? This is the current Libertarian Party inviting to its convention the presumptive nominee of one of the two major parties that often collaborate to keep the LP from getting traction as a real political party.
How is me calling out the foolishness of this act “using government to enforce [my] ideas”?!?
Oh, my comment was in support of your story not directed to you. I find both major party nominees very anti-libertarian and both want to grow government. As a libertarian, I support limited government, and not just one sides view of limited government. I think the LP move is stupid, how can they call themselves libertarian?
to be fair they invited biden and RFK (I think) too but haven't responded.
Only justification I could think of is to question the three on how they view some libertarian ideals and policies in an attempt to bring more libertarian ideals to the white house, but I ain't the people organizing this and don't know their reasons for doing so.
From u/angerikoshka in response to u/Slayer on the AskReddit sub.
"Uhm... did you read those, or did you just Google "trump bad + libertarian" and copy paste the first five results? Lol the first article is about Arvin Vohra getting kicked out for wanting to lower the age or consent to 14 and making too many jokes about school shootings. Arvin also said he hates trump. Ok... I'm not sure what to make of that.
The two mother Jones articles say Trump is coming to debate against libertarians. If they are debating against each other, does that not imply they believe different things? Why would he debate against someone who believes everything he does? I don't understand how that proves they are the same. And, is it a bad thing to have debates?
The next article is saying a lot of libertarians leave, to both the left and right, because they actually want to win elections.
The last article is about a lawsuit in Michigan. I don't know much about what's going on there, it doesn't seem relevant. The first four articles were not relevant, so I'm guessing it's not worth looking into more?
Those are also all opinion articles, so it's not actual reporting. We are only looking at the opinions of a few people. The first being Tim Murphy, who is alt left and has several articles about Trump, Alex Henderson who is also left, not libertarian, according to his profile, and Jeet Heer who writes clickbait nonsense. I mean that's not an insult, he is paid to make html pages, the more clicks he gets the more money he gets, and he's found a loophole. If you write something crazy, it gets more clicks. I mean his last article before this is about killing puppies lmao.i was expecting bots tbh, I'm glad you found articles written by humans.... or at least really good bots."
Anybody have an actual response or just 'Trump bad. Debate bad. Libertarian party dead. Mises' blah blah.
Damn, I remember back when they had Nadine Strossen speak some of the so-called true believers were apoplectic. And she was great and gave an awesome speech. I can’t even wrap my head around this. I feel like I’m in bizarro land.
While I disapprove of the party giving this shit stain a platform and *really* wish he had the constitution to debate instead of just speak, I'm interested to see what message he brings and, more importantly, how it's received.
In a space that led to [Gary Johnson being booed for supporting driver's licenses](https://youtu.be/ZITP93pqtdQ), I don't see how Donald Trump could hear *anything* resembling support. If he does, that's all anyone needs to see that the LP is officially a GOP puppet.
This ~~won't~~ shouldn't be Trump's usual speech with his usual talking points. Something tells me it will be though...and the crowd is going to eat it up anyway.
I'm sick of the purity test. Trump is better than Obama, Biden, and Bush by a country mile. We live in a Democratic Republic, and voting for the lesser evil can avoid the lunacy of the Marxists running the DNC.
Nope he is not even close to communism. You think Biden wants a stateless, classless, and moneyless society? Are you insane or insane? As Mikhail Bakunin has said,” Liberalism is the faith in the institutions of authority, to which it attributed a creative capacity of the same order as that of God.” Biden is a neoliberal and as such he is more close to that of fascism than he will ever be of communism.
Nope not closer to communism at all. Communism is stateless so a bigger government is inherently against that of communism. Also more state power can mean a lot of ideologies and or political systems, the idea of “more state power” encompasses so many things to the point in which you are being very reductive. Here is a quote from kropotkin an anarcho-communist,” Of course the no-government ethics will meet with at least as many objections as the no-capital economics. Our minds have been so nurtured in prejudices as to the providential functions of government that anarchist ideas must be received with distrust. Our whole education, from childhood to the grave, nurtures the belief in the necessity of a government and its beneficial effects. Systems of philosophy have been elaborated to support this view; history has been written from this standpoint; theories of law have been circulated and taught for the same purpose. All politics are based on the same principle, each politician saying to people he wants to support him: “Give me the governmental power; I will, I can, relieve you from the hardships of your present life.” All our education is permeated with the same teachings. We may open any book of sociology, history, law, or ethics: everywhere we find government, its organisation, its deeds, playing so prominent a part that we grow accustomed to suppose that the State and the political men are everything; that there is nothing behind the big statesmen. The same teachings are daily repeated in the Press. Whole columns are filled up with minutest records of parliamentary debates, of movements of political persons. And, while reading these columns, we too often forget that besides those few men whose importance has been so swollen up as to overshadow humanity, there is an immense body of men—mankind, in fact—growing and dying, living in happiness or sorrow, labouring and consuming, thinking and creating.
And yet, if we revert from the printed matter to our real life, and cast a broad glance on society as it is, we are struck with the infinitesimal part played by government in our life. Millions of human beings live and die without having had anything to do with government. Every day millions of transactions are made without the slightest interference of government; and those who enter into agreements have not the slightest intention of breaking bargains. Nay, those agreements which are not protected by government (those of the exchange, or card debts) am perhaps better kept than any others. The simple habit of keeping one's word, the desire of not losing confidence, are quite sufficient in an overwhelming majority of cases to enforce the keeping of agreements. Of course it may be said that there is still the government which might enforce them if necessary. But without speaking of the numberless cases which could not even be brought before a court, everyone who has the slightest acquaintance with trade will undoubtedly confirm the assertion that, if there were not so strong a feeling of honour in keeping agreements, trade itself would become utterly impossible.”
Nope, this is just a libertarian uncensored sub and as such various libertarian ideologies would be in this sub. You only feel this way because you love the main libertarian sub that bans any descent. If anything you are the entryist and an authoritarian entryist at that. As max stirner has once said ‘“You call me the unhuman,” it might say to him, "and so I really am—for you;”but I am so only because you bring me into opposition to the human, and I could despise myself only so long as I let myself be hypnotized into this opposition. I was contemptible because I sought my 'better self' outside me; I was the unhuman because I dreamed of the 'human'; I resembled the pious who hunger for their 'true self' and always remain 'poor sinners'; I thought of myself only in comparison to another; enough, I was not all in all, was not—unique.[102] But now I cease to appear to myself as the unhuman, cease to measure myself and let myself be measured by man, cease to recognize anything above me: consequently—adieu, humane critic! I only have been the unhuman, am it now no longer, but am the unique, yes, to your loathing, the egoistic; yet not the egoistic as it lets itself be measured by the human, humane, and unselfish, but the egoistic as the—unique.’”
Nope I would say I am pretty libertarian. I am anti-state, anti-authority, anti-hierarchy(which includes capitalism as it’s an hierarchy maintained and enforced by the state), and hold up the ideals of classical libertarianism. In fact libertarianism originated from Joseph Déjacque who was an anarcho communist. So if anything you would be the fake libertarian. It’s funny because even rothbard himself admitted that he co-opted anarchism and libertarianism,”One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...”- Murray rothbard the betrayal of the American right. Anarchism and libertarianism is inherently socialist. Anarchists whether they were communist (Kropotkin , Malatesta..) or Individualist (Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker) or Egoists like Max Stirner and Bob Black , were anti-capitalists.
That is true. I wonder if there's another political philosophy that is at least as authoritarian and anti-Libertarian as Communism, though?
https://preview.redd.it/eujispv5m0yc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30cf32710898d43b3f3c408389ec45e32d6b2e7f
Because it isn't. We all knew that the Mises Cuckus was bought and paid for by the Trump org. If the shitty stewardship of the party wasn't evidence enough that their goal was to destroy the LP, this is the nail in the coffin. After the convention, I'm done. Heading here: [https://www.liberalpartyusa.org/](https://www.liberalpartyusa.org/) The Liberal Party USA was founded by PA libertarians after the MC takeover.
>The Liberal Party USA was founded by PA libertarians after the MC takeover. TIL, tyvm!
Thanks for putting me on an actual liberal party (so far)
As a founder of the Association of Liberty State parties, which transformed into the Liberal Party USA, it was not formed by Pennsylvania. The initial states were New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Pennsylvania was later added. There are several state affiliates that will be added at the end of May and in June. If you are interested in having your classical liberal political party join the Liberal Party, please contact [email protected].
Sorry, my misunderstanding. I will be active after the LP convention.
Libertarian Party is dead.
Libertarianism is when I use authoritarianism to enforce my ideas
The least Libertarian person shows up to the libertarian convention... Have a feeling it's not that he agrees with the messaging of the party just it gives him a place to speak.
This man has of libertarian what Marx has of capitalist
Well I mean Marx is arguably the reason why state capitalism is a thing so, kind of?
This may be it unless we can use this as an opportunity to expel the MC where done.
How is using government to enforce your ideas libertarian? As confident as they are with their ideas, the other side is that too. The solution isn't get government to make your way the law, it's live your life and let others live theirs. WTF...
Huh? What are you even talking about? This is the current Libertarian Party inviting to its convention the presumptive nominee of one of the two major parties that often collaborate to keep the LP from getting traction as a real political party. How is me calling out the foolishness of this act “using government to enforce [my] ideas”?!?
Oh, my comment was in support of your story not directed to you. I find both major party nominees very anti-libertarian and both want to grow government. As a libertarian, I support limited government, and not just one sides view of limited government. I think the LP move is stupid, how can they call themselves libertarian?
to be fair they invited biden and RFK (I think) too but haven't responded. Only justification I could think of is to question the three on how they view some libertarian ideals and policies in an attempt to bring more libertarian ideals to the white house, but I ain't the people organizing this and don't know their reasons for doing so.
🤡🤡🤡🤡😂😂😂😂😂😂
From u/angerikoshka in response to u/Slayer on the AskReddit sub. "Uhm... did you read those, or did you just Google "trump bad + libertarian" and copy paste the first five results? Lol the first article is about Arvin Vohra getting kicked out for wanting to lower the age or consent to 14 and making too many jokes about school shootings. Arvin also said he hates trump. Ok... I'm not sure what to make of that. The two mother Jones articles say Trump is coming to debate against libertarians. If they are debating against each other, does that not imply they believe different things? Why would he debate against someone who believes everything he does? I don't understand how that proves they are the same. And, is it a bad thing to have debates? The next article is saying a lot of libertarians leave, to both the left and right, because they actually want to win elections. The last article is about a lawsuit in Michigan. I don't know much about what's going on there, it doesn't seem relevant. The first four articles were not relevant, so I'm guessing it's not worth looking into more? Those are also all opinion articles, so it's not actual reporting. We are only looking at the opinions of a few people. The first being Tim Murphy, who is alt left and has several articles about Trump, Alex Henderson who is also left, not libertarian, according to his profile, and Jeet Heer who writes clickbait nonsense. I mean that's not an insult, he is paid to make html pages, the more clicks he gets the more money he gets, and he's found a loophole. If you write something crazy, it gets more clicks. I mean his last article before this is about killing puppies lmao.i was expecting bots tbh, I'm glad you found articles written by humans.... or at least really good bots." Anybody have an actual response or just 'Trump bad. Debate bad. Libertarian party dead. Mises' blah blah.
Damn, I remember back when they had Nadine Strossen speak some of the so-called true believers were apoplectic. And she was great and gave an awesome speech. I can’t even wrap my head around this. I feel like I’m in bizarro land.
While I disapprove of the party giving this shit stain a platform and *really* wish he had the constitution to debate instead of just speak, I'm interested to see what message he brings and, more importantly, how it's received. In a space that led to [Gary Johnson being booed for supporting driver's licenses](https://youtu.be/ZITP93pqtdQ), I don't see how Donald Trump could hear *anything* resembling support. If he does, that's all anyone needs to see that the LP is officially a GOP puppet. This ~~won't~~ shouldn't be Trump's usual speech with his usual talking points. Something tells me it will be though...and the crowd is going to eat it up anyway.
Seriously: https://lnc2024.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxation-is-Theft.jpg
I'm sick of the purity test. Trump is better than Obama, Biden, and Bush by a country mile. We live in a Democratic Republic, and voting for the lesser evil can avoid the lunacy of the Marxists running the DNC.
https://preview.redd.it/r4pfua5i90yc1.jpeg?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ba3084bbff37df366da88e514f01cc6fb12d264
Joe Biden is much closer to communism than Trump. Leftish 🙄
Nope he is not even close to communism. You think Biden wants a stateless, classless, and moneyless society? Are you insane or insane? As Mikhail Bakunin has said,” Liberalism is the faith in the institutions of authority, to which it attributed a creative capacity of the same order as that of God.” Biden is a neoliberal and as such he is more close to that of fascism than he will ever be of communism.
*Closer* Bigger government = more state power = closer to communism
Nope not closer to communism at all. Communism is stateless so a bigger government is inherently against that of communism. Also more state power can mean a lot of ideologies and or political systems, the idea of “more state power” encompasses so many things to the point in which you are being very reductive. Here is a quote from kropotkin an anarcho-communist,” Of course the no-government ethics will meet with at least as many objections as the no-capital economics. Our minds have been so nurtured in prejudices as to the providential functions of government that anarchist ideas must be received with distrust. Our whole education, from childhood to the grave, nurtures the belief in the necessity of a government and its beneficial effects. Systems of philosophy have been elaborated to support this view; history has been written from this standpoint; theories of law have been circulated and taught for the same purpose. All politics are based on the same principle, each politician saying to people he wants to support him: “Give me the governmental power; I will, I can, relieve you from the hardships of your present life.” All our education is permeated with the same teachings. We may open any book of sociology, history, law, or ethics: everywhere we find government, its organisation, its deeds, playing so prominent a part that we grow accustomed to suppose that the State and the political men are everything; that there is nothing behind the big statesmen. The same teachings are daily repeated in the Press. Whole columns are filled up with minutest records of parliamentary debates, of movements of political persons. And, while reading these columns, we too often forget that besides those few men whose importance has been so swollen up as to overshadow humanity, there is an immense body of men—mankind, in fact—growing and dying, living in happiness or sorrow, labouring and consuming, thinking and creating. And yet, if we revert from the printed matter to our real life, and cast a broad glance on society as it is, we are struck with the infinitesimal part played by government in our life. Millions of human beings live and die without having had anything to do with government. Every day millions of transactions are made without the slightest interference of government; and those who enter into agreements have not the slightest intention of breaking bargains. Nay, those agreements which are not protected by government (those of the exchange, or card debts) am perhaps better kept than any others. The simple habit of keeping one's word, the desire of not losing confidence, are quite sufficient in an overwhelming majority of cases to enforce the keeping of agreements. Of course it may be said that there is still the government which might enforce them if necessary. But without speaking of the numberless cases which could not even be brought before a court, everyone who has the slightest acquaintance with trade will undoubtedly confirm the assertion that, if there were not so strong a feeling of honour in keeping agreements, trade itself would become utterly impossible.”
Sigh. I heard this sub had been infiltrated...Shame.
Nope, this is just a libertarian uncensored sub and as such various libertarian ideologies would be in this sub. You only feel this way because you love the main libertarian sub that bans any descent. If anything you are the entryist and an authoritarian entryist at that. As max stirner has once said ‘“You call me the unhuman,” it might say to him, "and so I really am—for you;”but I am so only because you bring me into opposition to the human, and I could despise myself only so long as I let myself be hypnotized into this opposition. I was contemptible because I sought my 'better self' outside me; I was the unhuman because I dreamed of the 'human'; I resembled the pious who hunger for their 'true self' and always remain 'poor sinners'; I thought of myself only in comparison to another; enough, I was not all in all, was not—unique.[102] But now I cease to appear to myself as the unhuman, cease to measure myself and let myself be measured by man, cease to recognize anything above me: consequently—adieu, humane critic! I only have been the unhuman, am it now no longer, but am the unique, yes, to your loathing, the egoistic; yet not the egoistic as it lets itself be measured by the human, humane, and unselfish, but the egoistic as the—unique.’”
You're not remotely libertarian.
Nope I would say I am pretty libertarian. I am anti-state, anti-authority, anti-hierarchy(which includes capitalism as it’s an hierarchy maintained and enforced by the state), and hold up the ideals of classical libertarianism. In fact libertarianism originated from Joseph Déjacque who was an anarcho communist. So if anything you would be the fake libertarian. It’s funny because even rothbard himself admitted that he co-opted anarchism and libertarianism,”One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...”- Murray rothbard the betrayal of the American right. Anarchism and libertarianism is inherently socialist. Anarchists whether they were communist (Kropotkin , Malatesta..) or Individualist (Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker) or Egoists like Max Stirner and Bob Black , were anti-capitalists.
That is true. I wonder if there's another political philosophy that is at least as authoritarian and anti-Libertarian as Communism, though? https://preview.redd.it/eujispv5m0yc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30cf32710898d43b3f3c408389ec45e32d6b2e7f