Why isn't the title of this video "Incoming Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle" instead of "Ron Paul's Giuliani Moment..." which is briefly mentioned?
@@Josh-zt4bx agreed they haven't fairly represented any of the so called controversial tweets. They've also smeared libertarians in the past and nick is one of the biggest culprits of that. He has misrepresented dave smiths views, hoppe's views and Jeremy's tweets and views. He's even repeated a false claim put out by the washington post about Walter block in a debate with him saying he is pro-slavery. Which Walter block sued the Washington post for slander and liablist and won (also in that debate DR.Walter block refused to shake nicks hand also nick lost that debate horriblely). They're so trash that an online website started by a podcaster does better reporting on libertarians than this sad excuse for a magazine does.
The US libertarian party is not just the standard bearer for american libertarians, it's the standard bearer for the global liberty movement as the most powerful libertarian party anywhere. This lady seems like she's got the right ideas, wishing her all the best.
It is important that they do not fall into a trap that makes it into a minor branch of the republican party. Some of those controversial party planks were created specifically to balance the party's appeal between Dem and Rep., at least at the time they were adopted. More difficult to find that balance now as the dems have been infected with socialists.
I am a libertarian, but we have to stop allowing crazy candidates represent us. The lunatics seem to run for office. Excellent interview, both of you. Angela, you were fantastic on TimcastIRL. Keep fighting Angela.
I looked up the Libertarian Party promises on their website in 2016, and it was nearly copy-paste of the Democrat agenda: more welfare, more taxes, wokeness, and anti-white racism.
I say let crazy candidates shoot themselves in their own foot. People will know who is "SANE" and who is crazy. As Abe Lincoln said "is better not to speak-out and be thought of as a fool than to speak-out and remove all doubt".
The fact that the LP stayed stilent while businesses were forcibly closed and citizens were obliged to cover their faces, mandated to stay in their homes and bullied into getting dubious injections tells you everything you need to know about the old leadership
Don't forget that ReasonTV and Nick's video on Amy Coney Barrett never brought up her past decisions that favored on the side of lockdowns back when she was announced as Trump's pick.
Well now they'll just be silent when it comes to liberty from social conservatism. The nice thing, I guess, is their foreign policy is still "we have no foreign policy," so my least favorite thing about the LP is still there. This lady sounds reasonable one second and then completely insane the next.
@@snakebebop if even the most known figures in the history of right libertarian thought can’t agree on the border dispute, why should the party platform specifically take a stance and risk misrepresenting The libertarian movement as a whole to a non-libertarian Who is new to libertarianism?
Voluntary segregation happens every day, Nick. Much of it is driven by minority groups themselves, not the majority. Freedom of association means freedom to associate, based on individual preferences, including preferences we don't share or like. The hardest thing for any political group is to support the rights of people not in the "in group." That might be Due Process for unsavory criminal types, Freedom of Religion when we don't like the religion, etc. "Rights only for the right-thinking people" isn't libertarianism. Libertarian principles require us to defend the rights of unsavory citizens, even as we disagree with them.
We still should be not openly support nor say racism is okay. They are allowed to to live the way they want but we should not back that way of life as it is. They do are wrong, objectively because they want to take the rights and Fredom of others.
@@UntriedGenius this is objectively false. There are people who choose to live and do business in a neighborhood where they won't be assaulted, robbed, or killed for their ethnicity. This doesn't mean they are racists, nor that they have any interest in taking the rights of others. They just don't have some suicidal ethic that says they can fix the world by sacrificing themselves and their families. There's nothing about the non-aggression principle that precludes self-preservation.
There's a difference between racism and race nationalism. Race nationalists want to take away the rights of others based on their race. Racists don't necessarily. If you think the colour orange is better than the colour pink, it doesn't mean you want to stop others from wearing pink. The rights of racists must also be defended, as distasteful as racism is.
@@DylanYoung The definition of "racism" has also been clouded. Are Chinese-Americans who live in Chinatown and only really choose to interact with other Chinese people, racists? One could have a long debate about that. Race nationalism, however, is fairly easy to define (even if it's also easy to lie about). A comprehensive definition of racism would probably include everyone to some extent. Or it might include very few people if the definition set a high bar for what's considered "racist." A race nationalist, on the other hand, will probably just tell you that they are.
That was some bs they tried to pull by trying to paint her into a corner and suggest she's a racist looking for excuses to support racism. Whenever they spring such loaded questions they are always formed under the framework of assuming whites hating blacks, yet they always fall apart if you invert that assumption. So basically to have any chance you have to be able to see the trap coming and respond with, "Are you saying that we're supposed to forcibly remove black people from their homes and make them live with white people even when they don't feel comfortable?"
I like this lady. She seems very impact driven and her messaging about creating a successful party is welcomed. Sometimes I feel like there aren't enough "doers" in politics
The LP seems to attract all the "Doers" from the movement, and consists almost entirely of nothing but. Well, that was before the takeover. We'll know the new crop by its fruit.
Authoritarianism in the U.S. is inevitable in a matter of a few years via the Christian Coalition, corporate super-PACs, and the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the freedom-loving LP is asking itself, "How can we be more vaguely like them all?" Because what's more Libertarian than Authoritarianism?! This is why the LP is still an irrelevant third in a two party system. Stand by for more irrelevance as another GOLDEN opportunity to turn the tide is squandered.
@@carlodave9 You are on the Moon regarding creeping authoritarianism. You just lived through 2 years of the biggest power-grabs, the wholesale dissolution of human liberty and the casting-off of legitimate U.S. elections, and the abandonment of even the pretense of civil institutions providing citizen protection, in modern human history. These had nothing to do with Christians, Corporate PACs (unless you're talking insurance and pharma,) or Republicans, and you're complaining about the LP finally showing some signs of trying to join the fight against the global bureaucratic Super-State? Moon man, go back to sleep.
How about Reason minimizing Angela McArdle by not putting her name in the title...or even acknowledging this is an interview with the new Chair of the LP. Sour grapes over at Reason, sour, sour grapes about the Mises Caucus takeover
In all fairness, is this Mises Caucus even libertarian if they don’t advocate for social liberty and equality? I would say no. Seems like a fringe group taking over.
@@Justanothermusicnerdxo nothing more Libertarian than forcing people to embrace 'Social Justice' ehh..... Love all the bitter people now who were mostly the same people who embraced the looting, rioting, and the lockdowns....
@@snakebebop the last libertarian candidate that had a stance on immigration and abortion got 1.2% of the vote. that was against what could easily be seen as the worst republican and democrat candidates in history. your argument is shit.
"The party has to appeal to people outside the Mises Caucus." The Mises Caucus was born because the LP did not appeal to those who most identify as libertarian. If the LP no longer appeal to libertarians, then it could no longer be considered the Libertarian party. We can move ahead only after the LP appeals to libertarians.
Why doesn't liberty appeal to we the people? The reason is: everybody wants stuff from government, everybody believes they deserve stuff from government , everybody is mad at any one who gets stuff from government. The left right paradigm has created a political environment where no one has to be responsible and at the same time has divided people by every possible means, black white gay straight male female Christian Muslim, freedom is no longer part of the conversation.
@@denpratt3596 your right not every body just about 96 percent of those that vote. About fifty five percent of our population doesn't vote. As to those that do vote you can count on .05 to 3 percent of them will vote libertarian. Freedom just isn't appealing to the voters and those that don't vote know that voting doesn't matter. As to the federal government If you think about inalienable rights and article one section eight it really shouldn't matter who is elected. Your free and the federal government should be limited very few powers. You should be able to elect Hitler or Jesus Christ and the outcome should be the same. They should have little to no power or control.
My like is for Angela’s performance in the interview, not Reason’s clear anti-Mises Caucus bias that showed through Nick’s at-times hostile questioning. You can ask tough questions and dig for truth without coming across as a dick, as Nick often did. I am one of those social conservatives who is much more likely to join the LP now that the platform has opened up to welcome me by abandoning the abortion-on-demand position.
Pushing hard on controversial decisions was once called "good journalism". There are good arguments to make for never having, for example, the language on bigotry in the party platform in the first place, but once it's there removing it sends a certain message. Like it or not, there is controversy, and not just between "Beltway cocktail party" types and "real America" types.
It isn’t so much the questions that were asked as it is the tone and way in which they were asked. Reason has made clear their disdain for the Mises caucus clear and this interview was just an extension of that.
I was active in the national LP leadership realm in the 1990s. I was part of Gene's run for the LP Chairmanship in 1996. After the grotesque corruption and incompetence I saw in 1996, I quit the party. The national LP has, for thirty years, been more harmful to the cause of liberty than good. It would be nice if the Ron Paul/Mises caucus changed that.
@@zunalter It matters though if the question is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Asking interview subjects to answer nebulous charges from "Some people are saying," is always journalism of the very lowest sort. It's activism. The question is: In service of what?
One of the main reasons for the formation of the Taxpayers -later Constitution Party was that many people who would otherwise have been right with us, couldn't get on board because of our position on abortion and immigration. Perhaps now folks will see they can support the LP now.
I've gotta say, everything I've heard from Mises Caucus members so far seems imminently reasonable. Seems like the caucus has been unfairly maligned by its critics. I am not a fan of some of the more extreme messaging from, say, the NH party, but aside from that, the caucus is clearly not racist and seems committed to libertarian issues.
She's not like every other politician in America, if libertarian candidates can run in the presidential election and when, I hope person like her will be the next president.
I'm independent, but I lean libertarian. Unfortunately, freedom is facing an existential crisis. If the US allows X to take Taiwan and P to take Ukraine, we will lose important democratic trading partners, and tyranny will be closer to the US. We know the outcome of appeasement; we saw it in WW2. The US has picked the wrong fights in the past, and now people aren't willing to participate in the good fights. If the US isolates, we will watch our allies fall one by one. When we are the last democracy and without allies or trading partners. Those with Imperial ambition will come for us. The neocons did get one thing right - fight them there or fight them here. Either way, we will have to fight. Peace can only be secured by having the biggest gun. (I apologize for the awkward phrasing. I don't want YT to shadow ban my comment again.)
Liberty is winning on many time scales and geographic scales. IMO the core battle is liberty+accountability vs regulation+immunity. IMO the left confuses immunity with liberty
The role of government is to protect our rights... such as the right to life. The government should not deprive a human being of the right to life, even if very young, even if dependent on others (such as a mother), just for the convenience of another.
I voted Libertarian for a decade, all of my local elections, and national elections. In 2020, Jo Jorgensen camapgin puts out a tweet "its not okay just being not racist, you have to be anti racist" while billion dollar worth of private properies all over the country was burnt to the ground. Thats when I knew I was gonna vote Trump just to say screw you. I am wishing to vote Libertarian again when its not cringy.
@@JimmysLittleTrucks No, it wasn’t just one cringy virtue signaling tweet by her, it was the direction the party was moving with half ass pot head libertarians like Gary Johnson and neocons like Bill Weld.
Same. lol. some people don't realize the subversive bullshit behind such a statement. You have got me fucked up if you think I'm trading one set of bullies for a worse set of bullies. Speaking on "Trumps tweets" @James Schultz 😂 holy fuck, maybe stop being a pansy ass douche and learn what is actually bad for you and what is just irritating or funny.
@@CharlesLumia I agree with you, but Donald Trump does not. That is what is so bizarre about libertarians voting for Trump. I think being anti-racist ought ought to be encouraged, but it really depends on how one defines what being anti-racist means. Because the left's definition is not the right definition. Perhaps Jo's definition is the right definition, it probably is, but without that explanation behind it, it just feels like left wing talking points.
Also, the wording assumes a lot. Libertarians are the last people to say there's "nothing to complain about." But is it bigoted to say that a particular group's complaint isn't necessarily unique? Even if this assessment were to be incorrect, is it bigoted? E.g. before BLM muddied the waters (and unfortunately used some inappropriate cases for their examples, driving many people to blindly "back the blue" despite other evidence) Libertarians were the strongest voices for police reform, and criminal justice reform. Clearly this wasn't only a black complaint. It's an American one.
@@barrydworak 100% ... reality has become a narrative battle.... apparently trying to shoot down a narrative by putting people in a position to have to question their preconceptions doesn't actually do anything but force them to expose their preconceptions and double down.
@@barrydworak I mean I remember my grandparents saying something along the lines of "if you are eating and drinking under a roof you have nothing to complain about". Obviously my grandparents had creature comforts and my grandpa would complain if you took his lazy boy but I always just took that phrase to mean be thankful for the good before you worry about the bad. I'd also point out that while what the guy said about black people was at least hyperbole, so is the notion that America is inherently racist and designed to keep black people down. Neither of these is very precise and the intention behind uttering them is not to inform or flush out the things they claim to represent. That's the issue with hyperbole it creates a hyperbola where both ends race faster and faster away forgetting that they once met in the middle.
Nick knows where all the weak points are. If the parry can't condemn bigotry it needs a positive statement on race, etc. Such as: Government cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or age.
My main opposition to the so-called “Libertarian” Party is their opposition to the liberty of citizens from the mercantilist democracies which control their survival income, and from the real estate democracies which control their residence and thus the locus of their civic involvement and speech.
One of the hugest things Ron Paul did during the debates is that when people tried to call him out for those newsletters as if he wrote them, he said "If you want to see racism, I think you need to look at our criminal justice system...." He said that shit right to Newt Gingrich's stupid face. It was amazing
Except our criminal justice system isn't racist. Paul tried to deflect and with his response he showed his preference for giving more rights to criminals rather than keeping the peace which is what government is supposed to do. You want to see a racist legal system sometime? Check out what it's like in Muslim countries who follow Sharia. Except Paul and other postmodern libertarians won't criticize them because it's their culture.
@@greenjihad3390 The US criminal justice system isn't AS racist as some places true, but to say that because some places are worse means we're not is fallacious reasoning. Further, the rights of the individual, are always supreme to the government's "keeping the peace." Quashing protests, silencing speech, disarming the populace, denying due process, all of those can be utilized to "keep the peace."
Do you support taxation? The State isn’t exactly “Letting you do you”, when they’re taking your wealth. Especially once you become wealthy, and actually capable of utilizing wealth to make change (what is it, 40% taxation for wealthy people, now?)
@@Americansikkunt sort of. But not so much on the federal level. Paying for roads and such perhaps. Taxes was one of the big reasons why we stopped belonging to Great Britain...
While, as a Libertarian, I do like most of what she said... she is pushing a hypocritical point of view when she says she wants the party to send out strong messages while making it clear the party waffles on some very important issues (like abortion and some aspects of free speech.)
I completely disagree. There is no libertarian consensus on those things. Hell, if you're in a situation like an unexpected pregnancy, you may even act in a way that disagrees with how you think others should act. I don't know what you think she waffled about free speech though.
@@herzogsbuick You are confusing what individuals want to see happen from their viewpoint and what they want to see government enforce. Libertarians may be pro-choice or pro-life, but all of them do not want government deciding for folks.
the problem with the "libertarian" party / movement has always been one big thing ... the average libertarian does not want to get into politics, in fact are usually anti-politician. therefore libertarians do not get into politics, therefore do not affect policy.
Sounds like you're describing the two bigger parties. She's very clear. Countries are going to need to defend themselves, is her answer. We wish them good luck. Since neither the Dems nor the Republicans are willing to tell China that Taiwan is independent and we'll shoot anyone who says different, I'm not sure what your complaint is.
@@libertydaddy9216 Read The Brothers by Stephen Kinzer. For 70 years the American project has included fighting wars in places only 3 Americans have heard of. China is our top frenemy. Taiwan is top semiconductor supplier in the world, a key industry to US suburban lifestyle. Altogether, not a topic to be ignored. Two years ago, only 5 Americans knew where Ukraine was.
I remember in 2016, every LP primary candidate for President was for wide open borders, even more radical than the Democrats at the time. When they were questioned on the open borders and the welfare state, the candidates basically said, “oh well let the whole thing collapse”. With total disregard for what that would look like on the streets. It’s just not serious.
The thing that bothers me is that some libertarians aren't educating about the principle, in the process of explaining how we can deal with the very real problems that exist now, as we move toward more freedom. Free markets require free movement of people. Peaceful migration is a natural right. These are fundamentally libertarian principles. We can speak and appeal to the people trapped on both establishment sides- do we believe in open borders? Yes. The left loves us. Do we think we should deal with the border and migration issues by enacting practical, principled policies that reduce crime at the border while simultaneously decreasing gov't size, control, and cost? Yes. The conservatives love us.
Libertarianism is the best way for the US to "return to normalcy". Reducing the size and influence of the federal government would solve the vast majority of our problems.
I live in Arizona where it's becoming more urgent that we address the shrinking size of our water reservoirs. Ideally, there should never have been agricultural subsidies incentivising the wasteful use of water, and the level of government control and mismanagement of water resources should never have been as high as it is. It's hardly surprising that we're on our way to a water shortage while government, rather than private businesses has been in control of things. Given that nothing has yet changed to make our civilisation in this beautiful state more sustainable, why should I not favor border controls? Don't get me wrong, I do WANT high freedom of movement, but I'm with the group of libertarians who thinks we NEED to keep some controls in place until other controls are dismantled first.
Totally agree. Out of all of her responses, she better figure out a much better response than "we don't take a position on borders". When I hear that, I hear "we don't take a position on protecting the sovereignty of our country"........which is not good at all.
@First name Last name there's a big difference between free trade and free movement of people LEGALLY and people coming and going in and out of the country when we have no idea who they are, what they are here for, they're putting themselves and their children in harms way traveling in desert conditions. If you want to talk about speeding up the process for people to travel in and out of the US, extending visas and so on- that's fine. But when people are talking about the "border crisis", they are referring to ILLEGAL travel in and out of the country. Which needs to stop. Being weak on this issue is not going to win anyone over.
@@ivankrushensky That misrepresents what she was saying. The National Party will not take a position on borders because that is a state issue. The local Arizona state government (Arizona state LP) should develop their stance and not look to a larger entity to dictate how they think about their own border. The locality should be informing that decision as well as the people that actually deal with that issue directly.
@First name Last name LEGAL free trade and movement of people. LEGAL. Libertarianism isn't a free for all for all for anyone to do whatever they want. There are still rules and laws. It's the ILLEGAL movement and "trade" that people are concerned with.
Saying welfare has to end before we open the borders is saying "government's behavior determines our principles" Libertarians support free movement regardless of welfare existing or not.
...but the one thing this party is founded on is that government's role is to protect us from harm or a reduction of our freedoms from outside forces. And that it should quit trying to do the millions of other programs and limits on our freedom. In these times do ya'll really think not protecting our borders and limiting immigration is a good thing? Seriously? We have a right to protect our home from invasion. As libertarians let's get rid of incentive programs to immigration, legalize all drugs and require sponsorship and proof immigrants will contribute like the Swiss model. Allowing a constant invasion of our country and shared resources is lunacy. As best, it's a nieve weakness in the party.
@@johnyoung1761 I don't define libertarianism. Our principles do Ludwig Von Mises paraphrased this well in his work "Liberalism" "As long as nations cling to protective tariffs, immigration barriers, compulsory education, interventionism, and statism, new conflicts capable of breaking out at any time into open warfare will continually arise to plague mankind.”
@@chaseforliberty Whatever, whoever. The video asserts that a Mises faction has claimed the LP but the leader says she's not insisting. LVM's declaratory style reminds me of the famous Mr Marx. Were they of the same era?
Good luck to you, Private Property Rights!! How do other parties get equal ballot and debates access as R's & D's give themselves? Filing a lawsuit in 2016 didn't work.
I agree that we should try to be more friendly toward the social conservatives, but so often, they want government to enforce social conservatism which goes against the main principles of the party.
I have no problem in letting LGBT adults do their consensual activities. I am pro open borders after the abolishment of the welfare state. I just can't stomach the full throated endorsement of child abuse and murder. If that makes me socially conservative, so be it.
Most people live their lives in a socially conservative way and most that call themselves “social conservatives” these days are very much live and let live (libertarian) as far as how others choose to conduct their lives. Ron Paul is a perfect example of someone that is socially conservative and a hard core philosophical libertarian.
@@Weirdomanification I think that's where I am. As a libertarian, I believe a feetis has the same rights as any person, so yeah, you can do whatever you want with your body but not with someone else's body, and that's what we're talking about here.
@@joeblow1942 I say let anyone in who wants to come, but don't let them receive any government benefits until they are a documented citizen. I think that would fix most of the problem, and some of those people coming in might be productive. Currently, people who might be hard workers, or have some experience or training we could benefit from, still come up here with nothing, so until they get a job, they have no choice but to be on government assistance. If you had no support system, you'd have to do something else. Just coming up here and expecting to be taken care of wouldn't happen, so we would see the tide of people doing that drop off to nearly zero, and those coming up here would have to have a plan. They'd have to already have connections here, have a job lined up such as in the case of people with work visas, a trade they can use to make their own money as an independent contractor, etc.
How can we not have an official take on policy issues? Will we stop having a take in economic liberty or in drug war policies? Can we be so open to have democratic socialists and tradicional conservatives? We have to have an official take on policy questions.
Im libertarian, and I love open borders, but I do have a problem with open borders with narco states. The libertarians are in denial about who actually runs mexico. They always speak ideally, and in vague terms when talking about immigration and open borders, and ignore the fact that right now its a crap show. Or they say in an ideal world where all drugs are legal, blah blah blah blah blah. Okay, but its 2022 and we don't live in ideal world. Thats how easy it is to make a rational person leave the libertarian party.
Prohibitionary wars propping up cartels ends up giving plausible deniability to powerful warmongers for the destabilizing and damaging policies they enforce. Keeping cartels in power by enabling violent gang organizations in a black market helps to keep political elites in power, from big pharma to long term administrators who write drug and gun policy. The immigration issue I’d feel is an order of operations problem. The warfare-welfare state by federal power and decision making has to be removed, even to see the opportunity of decentralized vetting processes take place. Private invitation on private estates, and open borders policy most likely in an ellis island type fashion, would have to be tried and accepted by a local residency. I’d also think that just comes down to a cultural temperament between more homogeneous rural or suburban areas and heterogeneous urban areas respectively.
California and Texas want to be their own country too. Is it hypocritical for the US to say okay Taiwan is independent but Texas and California aren't? As well as Brexit Ukraine or Catalonia
Should bigots be allowed in the Libertarian Party? Nick is asking if the Libertarian Party should allow free speech, if it should allow people to say something that might offend someone else for some reason some of the time? Quite the question...
Not really. Most libertarians would agree that you should be free to say whatever you like, but you're not exempt from the consequences of what you say. Further, most libertarians would argue that our freedom to associate with whomever we choose permits us to exclude those whom we don't wish to be associated with. It follows that the LP could (and should) be able to say "we welcome all sorts of people, but we don't want nor need bigots in our party."
@@coryb8796 And why would you not extend that ability (to disassociate) to towns, counties and states? If a state passed a law banning a certain religion (which I would obviously oppose, btw), is that not the state choosing who it wants to associate with? Could someone not argue that towns, counties and states are nothing but big HOA's?
@@massimo4307 A state cant (nor should it be able to) discriminate against individuals in it's population. There are a number of reasons why but one is that the state is the legal arbiter between citizens in it's domain, thus it cant have a bias (obviously it fails often in this endeavor, but we have been getting better).
@@coryb8796 Her answer was pretty clear. My neighborhood is chock-a-block with "hate is not welcome here" signage. I consider my neighbors bigots. So, who's defining it becomes an organizational nightmare.
@@coryb8796 That doesn't seem like a very good reason. Should private arbiters be required to be unbiased? What about HOAs? What about employers? If we apply one principle to the state, should it not also be applied to any sufficiently large organization?
Yeah, it's sad that a party of principled liberty seems so welcoming to the collectivism of bigotry. I hope one day she realizes the foolishness of welcoming such people into a political movement. It will make liberty toxic to the average voter.
@@ragnarok7976 a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Handled like a boss. I think she did a pretty good job at straddling a pretty,... all-combining libertarian view. LP's have many, many different views that are "deal breakers". Bring us all together!
If we are a political party, we have to have certain basic stands on political issues, like immigration. We cannot say that we have no opinions on that.
We don't have stands on what people should/shouldn't put in their body, or who people love or get frisky with. Immigration and abortion are super divisive, and there're good arguments all around about what stances are libertarian and which stances aren't. There aren't clear winners for everyone. Dropping those things on an official level and moving forward I think is brilliant. We're already like herding cats, make it easier!
@@paulpoenicke5642 are you serious? The one's trying to paint her and the Mises as racists or at the very least encouraging of racism. Watch the difference in this and the Amash interview. He's basically fellating him.
@@paulpoenicke5642 Blah blah blah bigot this, blah blah closed borders that, blah blah the SPLC says this. He uses progressive talking points to go after Libertarians, and that's execrable. The Progressives are shortly about to find themselves on the ropes (unless massive chicanery ensues) so using their clubs to try and take down actual libertarians is both extremely cruddy but also dumb.
"I THINK a bigot is PROBABLY somebody ....." If you have to state it's your opinion and your opinion may or may not be correct, it makes the point that it's a terrible stance to have on a platform that is suppose to represent an entire party. it was just the liberal version of leftist labeling.
On the other end, she has no boundaries on who she is permitting into the party discourse. Anyone and everyone can be a libertarian according to her. I refuse to align myself with a party that allows it’s members beliefs such as, in most radical cases, the genocide of ethnic or sexual minorities. The libertarian party has always advocated for social liberation and equality of groups, at least under law. Her stance is antithetical to this, and it is not a libertarian stance.
@@Justanothermusicnerdxo "she has no boundaries on who she is permitting into the party discourse" ... "The libertarian party has always advocated for social liberation and equality of groups" .. "I refuse to align myself with a party that allows it’s members beliefs such as" .. intersectionalism eats it's own .. you are welcome to stay .. or go .. you however do not seem to understand what it is to be a libertarian when you believe the party leader should be have an authoritarian stance on who is welcome and who is not ... gotta ask, what the hell is a sexual minority? lol
@@ModeratelyAmused If you are pro discrimination (including affirmative action), if you are pro segregation, if you are pro concentration camps in the most extreme cases, you are not a libertarian. Idc what she says. And by sexual minority I basically mean that the libertarian stance includes the immorality of legally discriminating against non-straight people. Libertarianism is not anarchism. There are some limitations, just few. One of those has always been the exclusion of social authoritarians. You must believe in something. If you say your party can believe in absolutely anything, then you effectively stand for nothing. Libertarians have always stood for a greater degree of personal freedom, both economically and socially. By encouraging beliefs that advocate for social restrictions, classes, and castes, she is not encouraging libertarianism.
@@Justanothermusicnerdxo ask yourself this .. why would a racist, white nationalist .. want to be in a party that welcomes all races, nationalities and ethnicities? it's like worrying about a nudist joining your expedition to the north pole. they will either be so uncomfortable they will see themselves out, or they will put on some clothing. there is no need for border patrol in the libertarian party.
It's a mistake to alienate left leaning libertarians. These modern left vs right fights seem to be more about culture and identity rather than actually policy or ideology.
@@tommyanomaly6193 It is not a mistake to ridicule and ignore any progressive "libertarian" who still thinks it's appropriate to point at people and whine "bbbbbut she's waaaaaycist" in 2022.
Borders: it's really simple, the country has borders and yes they should protect them. In fact, protecting the borders is one of the few roles the Feds should be handling. Now, if we want to talk about extending visas, speeding up the immigration process, making it easier to come and go legally, and all of that- sure, that makes sense. But for anyone not following the law in that regard- they should be removed from the country. The same way I'm expected to show a passport anywhere I go. This really shouldn't be a debate.
I think the libertarian party can solve a lot of its problems and say that is the role of local government, not the federal government. If local governments want to have lots of control they can and if people don't like it they just move and those fail. Would love to help with the writing and interviews you guys are not getting out enough. I'm a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints, and I think drugs are bad, and I also think Abortion is just the worst. And I think if the Libertarian movement has me they can get anyone. They just need to focus on limiting the role of government. Ron Paul was huge in Southen Utah. How does the Libertarian party feel about ranked-choice voting and the represent us movement?
I’m 55 years. This is the first time I’ve heard an interview of a libertarian leader. You should be called the Milquetoast Party. When I was younger I was a Republican. When I was 25 I became unaffiliated and remain so. Washington is like an old machine that broke a few decades after it was purchased and you can’t get parts for it anymore and everyone working on it claims to be a mechanic but obviously isn’t.
Am I allowed to be in the Libertarian Party now if I like Chicago school more than the austrian economists and if I prefer Milton Friedman over Rothbard? Am I a commie?
@@BradTrapp I love individual liberty. The state is often the biggest threat to liberty (history proves it), but it has very few functions, which is enforce the just laws and to protect liberty.
Like police reform and drug legalization? Anti-war? Those are things most republicans and conservatives fight against, and the LP is not giving up. But yes, the party not having an official stance on abortion or immigration I think is solid, because we're not going to get either side to come around. Individually LP candidates will be allowed to express their own views, how is that bad?
I thought fighting for freedom and non-intervention includes the right of sovereign states to have their own policies and not being subjected to tyranny by Russia or China, or am I wrong?
Finally a Libertarian Party leader who has guts and talks sense. Sounds like she has a firm rooting in the real world and isn't smoking some ideological crack pipe.
Actually it does not. A welfare state is more functional with more people operating with it. It just the delusion that more people would live from public welfare with open immigration, but there is no empirical record for that.
They are issues that can be concurrently addressed. And one can acknowledge the ideal without insisting that an established system be dangerously uprooted immediately. Free markets require the free movement of peaceful people. And migration is a natural right. Those are fundamental libertariens principles. We can acknowledge this and get liberals ' support. The current gov't immigration policies are expensive and ineffective. We can do x, y, and z for now to deal with the issue until the border is safer (end the war on drugs), and unconstitutional gov't incentives that attract immigrants (gov't welfare) are fixed. A minarchist libertarian option. Conservatives can get behind that.
Removing that plank painted a huge target for any future political campaigns. No one who isn't already voting libertarian is going to care about the nuance of 'define bigot,' any opponent/PAC can simply call the LP the party that decided it was ok to be a bigot.
@@odigity I am not talking about me. I understand her point about everyone calling each other bigots. Further, if a candidate runs on the LP ticket, and they aren't actual racists or other types of plain language definition bigot, then I will vote for the LP candidate. But if a candidate were to actually be influential enough to be a threat, it makes for an easy smear and the common person voter won't care for the nuance or look further. They just won't want to vote for the candidate from the 'probigotry' party. The D's and R's are not above lying to keep non-establishment candidates down. Hopefully Spike's addition will keep it clear that racists aren't actually welcome.
Authoritarianism in the U.S. is inevitable in a matter of years via the Christian Coalition, corporatists, and the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the freedom-loving LP is asking itself, "How can we be more vaguely like them all?" This is why the LP is still an irrelevant third in a two party system. Stand by for more irrelevance.
Oh of course, because it's Christians, Republicans, and "Corporations" (whoever you're talking about) that are working to eliminate Constitutional free speech, your right to defend yourself with tools, eliminate electoral representation, permanently capture the Judiciary by flooding it with Party apparatchiks, compel your children in their lunatic indoctrination centers staffed by cruel and incompetent degenerates, force you to undergo medical procedures to hold a job or travel, appropriate an enormous amount of your taxpayer money to give to Big Pharma, and give authority for your own personal health to a global bureaucracy dominated by China. Yep, darn those pesky Christians and Republicans. Also, can I have some of your Moon Cheese, Moon Man?
4:20 Anyone have a video URL for what she's referring to here? I can't find it. ...Also, what is does "Libertine" and "Minarchist" mean? P.S. This was a great interview!
"Libertine" is a social liberal to the hedonistic extreme, presumably welcome because low state intervention enables pursuit of their "philosophical goals". "Minarchist" is an individual who takes the "government which governs best governs least" idea just shy of it's logical conclusion with it's ideal typically being made up of some combination of military, police, courts, fire departments, prisons, and legislatures only.
Lets hear your or their plan to gain more female voters than can comfortably share A 12 pack of beer? How about closing the borders and mass deportation? Or correcting the now gene modded jab recipients? How about addressing the grim realities actual social science and IQ research lay bare?
Beware! It maybe getting financial backing from the DNC. There were a few elections where I thought that the DNC was funding some Libertarian candidates such as Sarvis (VA), Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.
The problem with the abortion plank is that people are mistakenly looking at it as a superfition question of woman vs fetus. The real underlying philosophical question is when does a person come into or go out of existence, which also requires defining "person", not simply human biology but "person". And that is not a scientific subject. A corpse is scientifically a human, and often the organs can continue-on when put into another person, but is said corpse a person? A slice of my skin in a petri dish can be kept alive, cell division and all, it contains human DNA and is as separate from me as an identical twin, but no one would claim it is a second person while they would consider an identical twin a second person. On the other hand somebody like Stephan Hawking is clearly a person, yet his body was kept alive for years only by machines. A human in a coma can be kept alive with only the help of nutrition through a tube, yet they are not conscious or sentient. Just what combination of traits makes one a person? It goes way deeper than the few cases I have pointed out here.
I don’t like this party at all why because having a country with more too much freedom can get you in trouble and fatal consequences and leaving NATO will also have a big fatal mistake and also having no military alliance can lead to bad things and we want to help our allies and partners to make a bigger future
@@Jekyll_Island_Creatures The impact from an agnostic US in the event of a Tiawan conflict would be catastrophic. Pax Americana is largely responsible for the safety and security of the world at large for the past 60 years
@Nova Flares Ukraine had leadership that was pro-Russia. Our elites (Obama, John Kerry, other neocons) ousted that government, essentially conducting a coup in that country and installed a pro-American government. This naturally upsets Russia and their interests in the region. They're paranoid about having US i.e. NATO encroachment on their border. Think about if the shoe was on the other foot. What if China invaded Canada and set up bases, armies, missiles right on our border. Do you think we'd be a little paranoid and have something to say about that? That's Russia's feeling on Ukraine. And the broken promise was that the US promised Russia that we wouldn't expand NATO towards their territory anymore, but yet our leaders continued to push it and discussed Ukraine joining NATO constantly.
@Nova Flares "Ukrainian protesters" Lol How many were on the CIA payroll? We did make those assurances and the US has continually meddled in Ukraine for years! If you wish to believe state department lies that's on you.
I like McArdle, and have high hopes for the LP. Have not yet joined but have been on the cusp for some time. Having said that, I do hope the Mises folks will exercise more pragmatism and less anarchism than they've shown to date. Thank God for Reason.
I think even if you don't like their destination, you can always do the whistle stop and get off along the way. The direction is good, and I think the changes McArdle's making are there to get more people on it. Not having official stances on some things, for instance. Getting together on what we agree on instead of bickering over what we don't (ancharism vs minarchism for instance)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Why isn't the title of this video "Incoming Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle" instead of "Ron Paul's Giuliani Moment..." which is briefly mentioned?
I vote title & thumbnail change.
It gets more clicks.
click bait?
because reason magazine hates ron paul and these people
@@Josh-zt4bx agreed they haven't fairly represented any of the so called controversial tweets. They've also smeared libertarians in the past and nick is one of the biggest culprits of that. He has misrepresented dave smiths views, hoppe's views and Jeremy's tweets and views. He's even repeated a false claim put out by the washington post about Walter block in a debate with him saying he is pro-slavery. Which Walter block sued the Washington post for slander and liablist and won (also in that debate DR.Walter block refused to shake nicks hand also nick lost that debate horriblely). They're so trash that an online website started by a podcaster does better reporting on libertarians than this sad excuse for a magazine does.
The US libertarian party is not just the standard bearer for american libertarians, it's the standard bearer for the global liberty movement as the most powerful libertarian party anywhere. This lady seems like she's got the right ideas, wishing her all the best.
I agree.
There is also a strong libertarian party in Argentina.
It is important that they do not fall into a trap that makes it into a minor branch of the republican party.
Some of those controversial party planks were created specifically to balance the party's appeal between Dem and Rep., at least at the time they were adopted.
More difficult to find that balance now as the dems have been infected with socialists.
I am a libertarian, but we have to stop allowing crazy candidates represent us. The lunatics seem to run for office. Excellent interview, both of you. Angela, you were fantastic on TimcastIRL. Keep fighting Angela.
We’ve absolutely hit a low point.
I looked up the Libertarian Party promises on their website in 2016, and it was nearly copy-paste of the Democrat agenda: more welfare, more taxes, wokeness, and anti-white racism.
I say let crazy candidates shoot themselves in their own foot. People will know who is "SANE" and who is crazy. As Abe Lincoln said "is better not to speak-out and be thought of as a fool than to speak-out and remove all doubt".
Yes, unlike repubs and dems, the LP should be the only party that doesn’t support lunatics.
The "crazy" candidates are the most passionate which is why they are willing to set their personal lives aside to run for office.
The fact that the LP stayed stilent while businesses were forcibly closed and citizens were obliged to cover their faces, mandated to stay in their homes and bullied into getting dubious injections tells you everything you need to know about the old leadership
There were even some libertarians trying to justify what the government was doing!
Don't forget that ReasonTV and Nick's video on Amy Coney Barrett never brought up her past decisions that favored on the side of lockdowns back when she was announced as Trump's pick.
Well now they'll just be silent when it comes to liberty from social conservatism. The nice thing, I guess, is their foreign policy is still "we have no foreign policy," so my least favorite thing about the LP is still there.
This lady sounds reasonable one second and then completely insane the next.
Agreed. The old LP leadership was just horrible
Jesus christ you guys are still bitching about vaccines.
Making the party not embarrassing is a great start dude. the old management were a bunch of fools
Hmmm, seems the blind fools are now leading
@@JB-lovin lmao no. Not at all.
@@vknight7497 not having a stance on immigration is not a good look. So the new LP is already looking like a joke.
Now if only they'd get rid of their Pride merch. It's disgustingly corporate.
@@snakebebop if even the most known figures in the history of right libertarian thought can’t agree on the border dispute, why should the party platform specifically take a stance and risk misrepresenting The libertarian movement as a whole to a non-libertarian Who is new to libertarianism?
Truth tellers is the way to go. This is refreshing.
Voluntary segregation happens every day, Nick. Much of it is driven by minority groups themselves, not the majority.
Freedom of association means freedom to associate, based on individual preferences, including preferences we don't share or like.
The hardest thing for any political group is to support the rights of people not in the "in group." That might be Due Process for unsavory criminal types, Freedom of Religion when we don't like the religion, etc.
"Rights only for the right-thinking people" isn't libertarianism. Libertarian principles require us to defend the rights of unsavory citizens, even as we disagree with them.
We still should be not openly support nor say racism is okay. They are allowed to to live the way they want but we should not back that way of life as it is. They do are wrong, objectively because they want to take the rights and Fredom of others.
@@UntriedGenius this is objectively false. There are people who choose to live and do business in a neighborhood where they won't be assaulted, robbed, or killed for their ethnicity.
This doesn't mean they are racists, nor that they have any interest in taking the rights of others. They just don't have some suicidal ethic that says they can fix the world by sacrificing themselves and their families.
There's nothing about the non-aggression principle that precludes self-preservation.
There's a difference between racism and race nationalism. Race nationalists want to take away the rights of others based on their race. Racists don't necessarily. If you think the colour orange is better than the colour pink, it doesn't mean you want to stop others from wearing pink.
The rights of racists must also be defended, as distasteful as racism is.
@@DylanYoung The definition of "racism" has also been clouded.
Are Chinese-Americans who live in Chinatown and only really choose to interact with other Chinese people, racists? One could have a long debate about that.
Race nationalism, however, is fairly easy to define (even if it's also easy to lie about).
A comprehensive definition of racism would probably include everyone to some extent. Or it might include very few people if the definition set a high bar for what's considered "racist."
A race nationalist, on the other hand, will probably just tell you that they are.
That was some bs they tried to pull by trying to paint her into a corner and suggest she's a racist looking for excuses to support racism. Whenever they spring such loaded questions they are always formed under the framework of assuming whites hating blacks, yet they always fall apart if you invert that assumption. So basically to have any chance you have to be able to see the trap coming and respond with, "Are you saying that we're supposed to forcibly remove black people from their homes and make them live with white people even when they don't feel comfortable?"
I like this lady. She seems very impact driven and her messaging about creating a successful party is welcomed. Sometimes I feel like there aren't enough "doers" in politics
The LP seems to attract all the "Doers" from the movement, and consists almost entirely of nothing but. Well, that was before the takeover. We'll know the new crop by its fruit.
@@bozimmerman it might materialize into absolutely nothing. But I have my hopes.
Authoritarianism in the U.S. is inevitable in a matter of a few years via the Christian Coalition, corporate super-PACs, and the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the freedom-loving LP is asking itself, "How can we be more vaguely like them all?" Because what's more Libertarian than Authoritarianism?!
This is why the LP is still an irrelevant third in a two party system. Stand by for more irrelevance as another GOLDEN opportunity to turn the tide is squandered.
@@carlodave9 You are on the Moon regarding creeping authoritarianism. You just lived through 2 years of the biggest power-grabs, the wholesale dissolution of human liberty and the casting-off of legitimate U.S. elections, and the abandonment of even the pretense of civil institutions providing citizen protection, in modern human history. These had nothing to do with Christians, Corporate PACs (unless you're talking insurance and pharma,) or Republicans, and you're complaining about the LP finally showing some signs of trying to join the fight against the global bureaucratic Super-State? Moon man, go back to sleep.
She's still unclear when it comes to the situation in Taiwan & China.
How about Reason minimizing Angela McArdle by not putting her name in the title...or even acknowledging this is an interview with the new Chair of the LP.
Sour grapes over at Reason, sour, sour grapes about the Mises Caucus takeover
Cause they're wacist bigots!
Reason should rebrand: Reasonably Woke
In all fairness, is this Mises Caucus even libertarian if they don’t advocate for social liberty and equality? I would say no. Seems like a fringe group taking over.
@@Justanothermusicnerdxo nothing more Libertarian than forcing people to embrace 'Social Justice' ehh..... Love all the bitter people now who were mostly the same people who embraced the looting, rioting, and the lockdowns....
Obviously. He was rude and confrontational in the most passive aggressive way in the interview
Mises and Ron Paul > Reason.
Reason is honestly more Liberal than Libertarian.
I’m glad she was able to speak. I like the idea of not having a stance on two bi-polar platforms like immigration and abortion
Well enjoy never having a libertarian as president
Is having "no illegal mass migration" as a stance really so bad?
@@snakebebop the last libertarian candidate that had a stance on immigration and abortion got 1.2% of the vote. that was against what could easily be seen as the worst republican and democrat candidates in history. your argument is shit.
Libertarians must return to the Ron Paul Revolution days!
That moment has passed.
No it hasn't. The ideas of liberty and non-aggression will spread like wildfire again if only we believe in them.
"The party has to appeal to people outside the Mises Caucus." The Mises Caucus was born because the LP did not appeal to those who most identify as libertarian. If the LP no longer appeal to libertarians, then it could no longer be considered the Libertarian party. We can move ahead only after the LP appeals to libertarians.
Why doesn't liberty appeal to we the people? The reason is: everybody wants stuff from government, everybody believes they deserve stuff from government , everybody is mad at any one who gets stuff from government. The left right paradigm has created a political environment where no one has to be responsible and at the same time has divided people by every possible means, black white gay straight male female Christian Muslim, freedom is no longer part of the conversation.
@@Derrick4Liberty "Everybody" is too broad a brush. We're collecting those few who do not and creating our own free state.
@@denpratt3596 your right not every body just about 96 percent of those that vote. About fifty five percent of our population doesn't vote. As to those that do vote you can count on .05 to 3 percent of them will vote libertarian. Freedom just isn't appealing to the voters and those that don't vote know that voting doesn't matter. As to the federal government If you think about inalienable rights and article one section eight it really shouldn't matter who is elected. Your free and the federal government should be limited very few powers. You should be able to elect Hitler or Jesus Christ and the outcome should be the same. They should have little to no power or control.
@@Derrick4Liberty "Should" but here we are.
Thanks for doing these great interviews, Nick!
Bring Ron Paul back
As cool as that would be he's getting up there in age. I'd love to have his son on board
I remember that Ron Paul moment. When he spoke of blowback. It made so much sense and still does.
I generally agree with that, but at the same time it'd be foolish to say radical Islam is hunky dory with Western values.
My like is for Angela’s performance in the interview, not Reason’s clear anti-Mises Caucus bias that showed through Nick’s at-times hostile questioning. You can ask tough questions and dig for truth without coming across as a dick, as Nick often did.
I am one of those social conservatives who is much more likely to join the LP now that the platform has opened up to welcome me by abandoning the abortion-on-demand position.
I don't think Nick is hostile. His questions here, and of Dave Smith, were reasonable and respectful.
Pushing hard on controversial decisions was once called "good journalism". There are good arguments to make for never having, for example, the language on bigotry in the party platform in the first place, but once it's there removing it sends a certain message.
Like it or not, there is controversy, and not just between "Beltway cocktail party" types and "real America" types.
It isn’t so much the questions that were asked as it is the tone and way in which they were asked. Reason has made clear their disdain for the Mises caucus clear and this interview was just an extension of that.
So the LP doesn’t believe in a sovereign nation?
I was active in the national LP leadership realm in the 1990s. I was part of Gene's run for the LP Chairmanship in 1996.
After the grotesque corruption and incompetence I saw in 1996, I quit the party.
The national LP has, for thirty years, been more harmful to the cause of liberty than good.
It would be nice if the Ron Paul/Mises caucus changed that.
Love her
While you can at times hear Nick's disdain for the mises caucus I think he does a good job of giving his interview subjects time to speak
He does, but his questions are phrased terribly to the point where it comes off as blatantly malicious.
@@23wtb the question selection is definitely where his pov shows up most strongly but he gave them plenty of room to speak
@@zunalter It matters though if the question is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Asking interview subjects to answer nebulous charges from "Some people are saying," is always journalism of the very lowest sort. It's activism. The question is: In service of what?
@@23wtb I don't disagree, it was the main driver of my comment but it wasn't CNN level so I thought I would offer a little credit.
Love Angela
One of the greatest presidential debate moments ever
One of the main reasons for the formation of the Taxpayers -later Constitution Party was that many people who would otherwise have been right with us, couldn't get on board because of our position on abortion and immigration. Perhaps now folks will see they can support the LP now.
God bless her for taking this on but man she's got quite a road ahead of her....maybe I'll come back to the LP bc of her and give her a shot....🤷♂️
i haven't financially supported the LP in 15+ years, but I'm seriously considering it with Angela in charge
Nick doesn't sound too pleased about MC taking over
I give him major credit for giving them exposure though.
Most of his questions were not so veiled jabs that show how petty he is. McArdle showed remarkable restraint.
@SolarisLunaran He's too good looking, with too good a voice. It'll never happen. Can't.
I've gotta say, everything I've heard from Mises Caucus members so far seems imminently reasonable. Seems like the caucus has been unfairly maligned by its critics. I am not a fan of some of the more extreme messaging from, say, the NH party, but aside from that, the caucus is clearly not racist and seems committed to libertarian issues.
Allowing third party candidates to win and be part of our democracy will be better for our country.
She's not like every other politician in America, if libertarian candidates can run in the presidential election and when, I hope person like her will be the next president.
I'm independent, but I lean libertarian. Unfortunately, freedom is facing an existential crisis. If the US allows X to take Taiwan and P to take Ukraine, we will lose important democratic trading partners, and tyranny will be closer to the US. We know the outcome of appeasement; we saw it in WW2. The US has picked the wrong fights in the past, and now people aren't willing to participate in the good fights. If the US isolates, we will watch our allies fall one by one. When we are the last democracy and without allies or trading partners. Those with Imperial ambition will come for us. The neocons did get one thing right - fight them there or fight them here. Either way, we will have to fight. Peace can only be secured by having the biggest gun. (I apologize for the awkward phrasing. I don't want YT to shadow ban my comment again.)
Liberty is winning on many time scales and geographic scales. IMO the core battle is liberty+accountability vs regulation+immunity. IMO the left confuses immunity with liberty
@@anonymousAJ I have no idea what point you are attempting to make. What does the "Left" have to do with my comment?
The role of government is to protect our rights... such as the right to life. The government should not deprive a human being of the right to life, even if very young, even if dependent on others (such as a mother), just for the convenience of another.
I guess the government should instead infringe on the right to one's own body, so that you can feel a little better about yourself
@@btsnake Your response has no point. At least put a little effort into it.
@@michaelfielding7723 it's still more effort than your comment. What even was that?
I voted Libertarian for a decade, all of my local elections, and national elections. In 2020, Jo Jorgensen camapgin puts out a tweet "its not okay just being not racist, you have to be anti racist" while billion dollar worth of private properies all over the country was burnt to the ground. Thats when I knew I was gonna vote Trump just to say screw you. I am wishing to vote Libertarian again when its not cringy.
One cringy tweet by Jo outweighed a thousand cringy tweets from Trump for you? Yikes.
@@JimmysLittleTrucks No, it wasn’t just one cringy virtue signaling tweet by her, it was the direction the party was moving with half ass pot head libertarians like Gary Johnson and neocons like Bill Weld.
That was ridiculous. No thanks. I'll be whatever I want to be. Everyone should.
Same. lol. some people don't realize the subversive bullshit behind such a statement. You have got me fucked up if you think I'm trading one set of bullies for a worse set of bullies. Speaking on "Trumps tweets" @James Schultz 😂
holy fuck, maybe stop being a pansy ass douche and learn what is actually bad for you and what is just irritating or funny.
@@CharlesLumia I agree with you, but Donald Trump does not. That is what is so bizarre about libertarians voting for Trump.
I think being anti-racist ought ought to be encouraged, but it really depends on how one defines what being anti-racist means. Because the left's definition is not the right definition. Perhaps Jo's definition is the right definition, it probably is, but without that explanation behind it, it just feels like left wing talking points.
10:54 - I would love to hear Nick's rationalization for assuming that implication.
Also, the wording assumes a lot.
Libertarians are the last people to say there's "nothing to complain about." But is it bigoted to say that a particular group's complaint isn't necessarily unique? Even if this assessment were to be incorrect, is it bigoted?
E.g. before BLM muddied the waters (and unfortunately used some inappropriate cases for their examples, driving many people to blindly "back the blue" despite other evidence) Libertarians were the strongest voices for police reform, and criminal justice reform. Clearly this wasn't only a black complaint. It's an American one.
@@barrydworak 100% ... reality has become a narrative battle.... apparently trying to shoot down a narrative by putting people in a position to have to question their preconceptions doesn't actually do anything but force them to expose their preconceptions and double down.
@@barrydworak I mean I remember my grandparents saying something along the lines of "if you are eating and drinking under a roof you have nothing to complain about".
Obviously my grandparents had creature comforts and my grandpa would complain if you took his lazy boy but I always just took that phrase to mean be thankful for the good before you worry about the bad.
I'd also point out that while what the guy said about black people was at least hyperbole, so is the notion that America is inherently racist and designed to keep black people down.
Neither of these is very precise and the intention behind uttering them is not to inform or flush out the things they claim to represent.
That's the issue with hyperbole it creates a hyperbola where both ends race faster and faster away forgetting that they once met in the middle.
@@ragnarok7976 I hadn't thought about hyperbole and the hyperbola. Now that picture will stay with me. It's perfect.
MLK was a rapey adulterous psycho Commie. Nick thinks we can't talk sh** about him?
Very well thought out answers, but that's what you should expect from the Mises Caucus
Nick knows where all the weak points are. If the parry can't condemn bigotry it needs a positive statement on race, etc. Such as: Government cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or age.
Libertarian Party needs real candidates
I like spike
My main opposition to the so-called “Libertarian” Party is their opposition to the liberty of citizens from the mercantilist democracies which control their survival income, and from the real estate democracies which control their residence and thus the locus of their civic involvement and speech.
One of the hugest things Ron Paul did during the debates is that when people tried to call him out for those newsletters as if he wrote them, he said "If you want to see racism, I think you need to look at our criminal justice system...." He said that shit right to Newt Gingrich's stupid face. It was amazing
Except our criminal justice system isn't racist. Paul tried to deflect and with his response he showed his preference for giving more rights to criminals rather than keeping the peace which is what government is supposed to do. You want to see a racist legal system sometime? Check out what it's like in Muslim countries who follow Sharia. Except Paul and other postmodern libertarians won't criticize them because it's their culture.
@@greenjihad3390 The US criminal justice system isn't AS racist as some places true, but to say that because some places are worse means we're not is fallacious reasoning. Further, the rights of the individual, are always supreme to the government's "keeping the peace." Quashing protests, silencing speech, disarming the populace, denying due process, all of those can be utilized to "keep the peace."
Oh...Ron Paul and his CRT.
@@greenjihad3390 Ron Paul caters to sharia law? WTF !?!?
@@lybardhoppe6961 He has sided with Hamas in Gaza and has at times condemned criticism of Islam. With this in mind, what am I supposed to think?
She will make a good leader.
This didn’t age well.
I'm 100% in favor of the Mises Caucus takeover, the LP has been an embarrassment.
I believe that I am a liberal. "Life, Liberty, and the *pursuit* of Happiness"
For the most part, you do you, let me do me
Do you support taxation? The State isn’t exactly “Letting you do you”, when they’re taking your wealth.
Especially once you become wealthy, and actually capable of utilizing wealth to make change (what is it, 40% taxation for wealthy people, now?)
yeh but liberal now means authoritarian. the woke consider themselves liberals.
@@Americansikkunt sort of. But not so much on the federal level. Paying for roads and such perhaps. Taxes was one of the big reasons why we stopped belonging to Great Britain...
I am a Democrat, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of your paycheck"
…and leave me alone to do that.
When is Angela going to be on Dr. Paul's Liberty Report?
While, as a Libertarian, I do like most of what she said... she is pushing a hypocritical point of view when she says she wants the party to send out strong messages while making it clear the party waffles on some very important issues (like abortion and some aspects of free speech.)
I completely disagree. There is no libertarian consensus on those things. Hell, if you're in a situation like an unexpected pregnancy, you may even act in a way that disagrees with how you think others should act. I don't know what you think she waffled about free speech though.
@@herzogsbuick You are confusing what individuals want to see happen from their viewpoint and what they want to see government enforce. Libertarians may be pro-choice or pro-life, but all of them do not want government deciding for folks.
the problem with the "libertarian" party / movement has always been one big thing ...
the average libertarian does not want to get into politics, in fact are usually anti-politician.
therefore libertarians do not get into politics, therefore do not affect policy.
so the libertarian position on Taiwan is confusion.
Sounds like you're describing the two bigger parties. She's very clear. Countries are going to need to defend themselves, is her answer. We wish them good luck. Since neither the Dems nor the Republicans are willing to tell China that Taiwan is independent and we'll shoot anyone who says different, I'm not sure what your complaint is.
Why is Taiwan even an issue to you? Only 3 people in the U.S. thinks about Taiwan...and apparently you are one of the three.
@@libertydaddy9216 Read The Brothers by Stephen Kinzer. For 70 years the American project has included fighting wars in places only 3 Americans have heard of. China is our top frenemy. Taiwan is top semiconductor supplier in the world, a key industry to US suburban lifestyle. Altogether, not a topic to be ignored. Two years ago, only 5 Americans knew where Ukraine was.
I remember in 2016, every LP primary candidate for President was for wide open borders, even more radical than the Democrats at the time. When they were questioned on the open borders and the welfare state, the candidates basically said, “oh well let the whole thing collapse”. With total disregard for what that would look like on the streets. It’s just not serious.
The thing that bothers me is that some libertarians aren't educating about the principle, in the process of explaining how we can deal with the very real problems that exist now, as we move toward more freedom.
Free markets require free movement of people. Peaceful migration is a natural right. These are fundamentally libertarian principles.
We can speak and appeal to the people trapped on both establishment sides- do we believe in open borders? Yes. The left loves us. Do we think we should deal with the border and migration issues by enacting practical, principled policies that reduce crime at the border while simultaneously decreasing gov't size, control, and cost? Yes. The conservatives love us.
Make Libertarianism Great Again!
I remember fondly when the Libertarian Party nominated Howard Stern for President. Now they’re complaining about the Mises wing of the party.
Libertarianism is the best way for the US to "return to normalcy". Reducing the size and influence of the federal government would solve the vast majority of our problems.
Weak on immigration will not go over well with voters in 2022
I live in Arizona where it's becoming more urgent that we address the shrinking size of our water reservoirs. Ideally, there should never have been agricultural subsidies incentivising the wasteful use of water, and the level of government control and mismanagement of water resources should never have been as high as it is. It's hardly surprising that we're on our way to a water shortage while government, rather than private businesses has been in control of things.
Given that nothing has yet changed to make our civilisation in this beautiful state more sustainable, why should I not favor border controls?
Don't get me wrong, I do WANT high freedom of movement, but I'm with the group of libertarians who thinks we NEED to keep some controls in place until other controls are dismantled first.
Totally agree. Out of all of her responses, she better figure out a much better response than "we don't take a position on borders". When I hear that, I hear "we don't take a position on protecting the sovereignty of our country"........which is not good at all.
@First name Last name there's a big difference between free trade and free movement of people LEGALLY and people coming and going in and out of the country when we have no idea who they are, what they are here for, they're putting themselves and their children in harms way traveling in desert conditions.
If you want to talk about speeding up the process for people to travel in and out of the US, extending visas and so on- that's fine. But when people are talking about the "border crisis", they are referring to ILLEGAL travel in and out of the country. Which needs to stop.
Being weak on this issue is not going to win anyone over.
@@ivankrushensky That misrepresents what she was saying. The National Party will not take a position on borders because that is a state issue. The local Arizona state government (Arizona state LP) should develop their stance and not look to a larger entity to dictate how they think about their own border. The locality should be informing that decision as well as the people that actually deal with that issue directly.
@First name Last name LEGAL free trade and movement of people. LEGAL. Libertarianism isn't a free for all for all for anyone to do whatever they want. There are still rules and laws. It's the ILLEGAL movement and "trade" that people are concerned with.
Saying welfare has to end before we open the borders is saying "government's behavior determines our principles"
Libertarians support free movement regardless of welfare existing or not.
...but the one thing this party is founded on is that government's role is to protect us from harm or a reduction of our freedoms from outside forces. And that it should quit trying to do the millions of other programs and limits on our freedom. In these times do ya'll really think not protecting our borders and limiting immigration is a good thing? Seriously? We have a right to protect our home from invasion. As libertarians let's get rid of incentive programs to immigration, legalize all drugs and require sponsorship and proof immigrants will contribute like the Swiss model.
Allowing a constant invasion of our country and shared resources is lunacy. As best, it's a nieve weakness in the party.
If you're defining libertarian, then I'm not joining.
@@johnyoung1761 I don't define libertarianism.
Our principles do
Ludwig Von Mises paraphrased this well in his work "Liberalism"
"As long as nations cling to protective tariffs, immigration barriers, compulsory education, interventionism, and statism, new conflicts capable of breaking out at any time into open warfare will continually arise to plague mankind.”
@@chaseforliberty Whatever, whoever. The video asserts that a Mises faction has claimed the LP but the leader says she's not insisting. LVM's declaratory style reminds me of the famous Mr Marx. Were they of the same era?
Good luck to you, Private Property Rights!! How do other parties get equal ballot and debates access as R's & D's give themselves? Filing a lawsuit in 2016 didn't work.
Next time you have a Ron Paul running as a Republican the LPN needs to drop and back them
I agree that we should try to be more friendly toward the social conservatives, but so often, they want government to enforce social conservatism which goes against the main principles of the party.
I have no problem in letting LGBT adults do their consensual activities. I am pro open borders after the abolishment of the welfare state. I just can't stomach the full throated endorsement of child abuse and murder. If that makes me socially conservative, so be it.
@@Weirdomanification I used to be for open borders after abolishment of the welfare state but we have enough people here already.
Most people live their lives in a socially conservative way and most that call themselves “social conservatives” these days are very much live and let live (libertarian) as far as how others choose to conduct their lives. Ron Paul is a perfect example of someone that is socially conservative and a hard core philosophical libertarian.
@@Weirdomanification I think that's where I am. As a libertarian, I believe a feetis has the same rights as any person, so yeah, you can do whatever you want with your body but not with someone else's body, and that's what we're talking about here.
@@joeblow1942 I say let anyone in who wants to come, but don't let them receive any government benefits until they are a documented citizen. I think that would fix most of the problem, and some of those people coming in might be productive.
Currently, people who might be hard workers, or have some experience or training we could benefit from, still come up here with nothing, so until they get a job, they have no choice but to be on government assistance. If you had no support system, you'd have to do something else. Just coming up here and expecting to be taken care of wouldn't happen, so we would see the tide of people doing that drop off to nearly zero, and those coming up here would have to have a plan. They'd have to already have connections here, have a job lined up such as in the case of people with work visas, a trade they can use to make their own money as an independent contractor, etc.
How can we not have an official take on policy issues? Will we stop having a take in economic liberty or in drug war policies? Can we be so open to have democratic socialists and tradicional conservatives? We have to have an official take on policy questions.
Weird that they think telling the truth is what the people want.
Im libertarian, and I love open borders, but I do have a problem with open borders with narco states. The libertarians are in denial about who actually runs mexico. They always speak ideally, and in vague terms when talking about immigration and open borders, and ignore the fact that right now its a crap show. Or they say in an ideal world where all drugs are legal, blah blah blah blah blah. Okay, but its 2022 and we don't live in ideal world. Thats how easy it is to make a rational person leave the libertarian party.
Prohibitionary wars propping up cartels ends up giving plausible deniability to powerful warmongers for the destabilizing and damaging policies they enforce.
Keeping cartels in power by enabling violent gang organizations in a black market helps to keep political elites in power, from big pharma to long term administrators who write drug and gun policy.
The immigration issue I’d feel is an order of operations problem. The warfare-welfare state by federal power and decision making has to be removed, even to see the opportunity of decentralized vetting processes take place. Private invitation on private estates, and open borders policy most likely in an ellis island type fashion, would have to be tried and accepted by a local residency. I’d also think that just comes down to a cultural temperament between more homogeneous rural or suburban areas and heterogeneous urban areas respectively.
California and Texas want to be their own country too. Is it hypocritical for the US to say okay Taiwan is independent but Texas and California aren't? As well as Brexit Ukraine or Catalonia
Taiwan ruled itself since the 1950's. The CCP never had authority over it.
Frankly I'm stunned Reason aired this completely and unedited.
How do you know it was unedited?
Reason has a strong libertarian slant.....interviewer is also libertarian.
@@bogeybichon7000 Reason magazine stopped actually being Libertarian over a decade ago.
@@bogeybichon7000 lol. Classic
@@sheldoniusRex completely agree. As I always say, much more liberal than libertarian.
I think I may have to get involved in the NE LP. She gets some things right. Thanks Nick.
Should bigots be allowed in the Libertarian Party? Nick is asking if the Libertarian Party should allow free speech, if it should allow people to say something that might offend someone else for some reason some of the time? Quite the question...
Not really. Most libertarians would agree that you should be free to say whatever you like, but you're not exempt from the consequences of what you say. Further, most libertarians would argue that our freedom to associate with whomever we choose permits us to exclude those whom we don't wish to be associated with. It follows that the LP could (and should) be able to say "we welcome all sorts of people, but we don't want nor need bigots in our party."
@@coryb8796 And why would you not extend that ability (to disassociate) to towns, counties and states? If a state passed a law banning a certain religion (which I would obviously oppose, btw), is that not the state choosing who it wants to associate with? Could someone not argue that towns, counties and states are nothing but big HOA's?
@@massimo4307 A state cant (nor should it be able to) discriminate against individuals in it's population. There are a number of reasons why but one is that the state is the legal arbiter between citizens in it's domain, thus it cant have a bias (obviously it fails often in this endeavor, but we have been getting better).
@@coryb8796 Her answer was pretty clear. My neighborhood is chock-a-block with "hate is not welcome here" signage. I consider my neighbors bigots. So, who's defining it becomes an organizational nightmare.
@@coryb8796 That doesn't seem like a very good reason. Should private arbiters be required to be unbiased? What about HOAs? What about employers? If we apply one principle to the state, should it not also be applied to any sufficiently large organization?
Bold moment: Government for sale, total privatization or nothing
"You can be a bigot and still be a member of the Libertarian Party." "Yeah, absolutely."
Yeah, it's sad that a party of principled liberty seems so welcoming to the collectivism of bigotry.
I hope one day she realizes the foolishness of welcoming such people into a political movement. It will make liberty toxic to the average voter.
What is a bigot?
@@ragnarok7976 a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
You can be a bigot and still be a member of the Democratic Party. Absolutely!
Name party that doesn't have bigots? How would a party police bigotry? The libertarian party adheres to the NAP. No other party do adheres to the NAP.
Handled like a boss. I think she did a pretty good job at straddling a pretty,... all-combining libertarian view. LP's have many, many different views that are "deal breakers". Bring us all together!
If we are a political party, we have to have certain basic stands on political issues, like immigration. We cannot say that we have no opinions on that.
We don't have stands on what people should/shouldn't put in their body, or who people love or get frisky with. Immigration and abortion are super divisive, and there're good arguments all around about what stances are libertarian and which stances aren't. There aren't clear winners for everyone. Dropping those things on an official level and moving forward I think is brilliant. We're already like herding cats, make it easier!
Little Nicky's questions betray a man who sees what little relevance he had, which was quite small, finally slip away. Excelsior Misses Caucus.
Which questions betrayed such a viewpoint?
@@paulpoenicke5642 are you serious? The one's trying to paint her and the Mises as racists or at the very least encouraging of racism. Watch the difference in this and the Amash interview. He's basically fellating him.
@@paulpoenicke5642 Blah blah blah bigot this, blah blah closed borders that, blah blah the SPLC says this. He uses progressive talking points to go after Libertarians, and that's execrable. The Progressives are shortly about to find themselves on the ropes (unless massive chicanery ensues) so using their clubs to try and take down actual libertarians is both extremely cruddy but also dumb.
"I THINK a bigot is PROBABLY somebody ....."
If you have to state it's your opinion and your opinion may or may not be correct, it makes the point that it's a terrible stance to have on a platform that is suppose to represent an entire party. it was just the liberal version of leftist labeling.
On the other end, she has no boundaries on who she is permitting into the party discourse. Anyone and everyone can be a libertarian according to her.
I refuse to align myself with a party that allows it’s members beliefs such as, in most radical cases, the genocide of ethnic or sexual minorities.
The libertarian party has always advocated for social liberation and equality of groups, at least under law.
Her stance is antithetical to this, and it is not a libertarian stance.
@@Justanothermusicnerdxo "she has no boundaries on who she is permitting into the party discourse" ... "The libertarian party has always advocated for social liberation and equality of groups" .. "I refuse to align myself with a party that allows it’s members beliefs such as" .. intersectionalism eats it's own .. you are welcome to stay .. or go .. you however do not seem to understand what it is to be a libertarian when you believe the party leader should be have an authoritarian stance on who is welcome and who is not ... gotta ask, what the hell is a sexual minority? lol
@@ModeratelyAmused
If you are pro discrimination (including affirmative action), if you are pro segregation, if you are pro concentration camps in the most extreme cases, you are not a libertarian. Idc what she says.
And by sexual minority I basically mean that the libertarian stance includes the immorality of legally discriminating against non-straight people.
Libertarianism is not anarchism. There are some limitations, just few. One of those has always been the exclusion of social authoritarians.
You must believe in something. If you say your party can believe in absolutely anything, then you effectively stand for nothing.
Libertarians have always stood for a greater degree of personal freedom, both economically and socially. By encouraging beliefs that advocate for social restrictions, classes, and castes, she is not encouraging libertarianism.
@@Justanothermusicnerdxo ask yourself this .. why would a racist, white nationalist .. want to be in a party that welcomes all races, nationalities and ethnicities? it's like worrying about a nudist joining your expedition to the north pole. they will either be so uncomfortable they will see themselves out, or they will put on some clothing. there is no need for border patrol in the libertarian party.
Our position is that we don’t have a position. Summed up the video.
A party with no stance on two of the biggest issues in politics today? Awesome.
It's perfectly appropriate given that there are libertarian arguments for both sides of both issues. We're too small a party to split.
@@PrezVeto government overreach should never be protected. Individual rights should.
Reason Tv's Left libertarian bias is showing and i glad these people are losing influence . calling people bigots is just a way to shut down debate .
It's a mistake to alienate left leaning libertarians. These modern left vs right fights seem to be more about culture and identity rather than actually policy or ideology.
@@tommyanomaly6193 It is not a mistake to ridicule and ignore any progressive "libertarian" who still thinks it's appropriate to point at people and whine "bbbbbut she's waaaaaycist" in 2022.
Nick doesn't quite hide his butthurt at a few points in this.
3:58 Discussing Ron Paul’s Rudy Giuliani moment
Borders: it's really simple, the country has borders and yes they should protect them. In fact, protecting the borders is one of the few roles the Feds should be handling. Now, if we want to talk about extending visas, speeding up the immigration process, making it easier to come and go legally, and all of that- sure, that makes sense. But for anyone not following the law in that regard- they should be removed from the country. The same way I'm expected to show a passport anywhere I go. This really shouldn't be a debate.
I think the libertarian party can solve a lot of its problems and say that is the role of local government, not the federal government. If local governments want to have lots of control they can and if people don't like it they just move and those fail.
Would love to help with the writing and interviews you guys are not getting out enough. I'm a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints, and I think drugs are bad, and I also think Abortion is just the worst. And I think if the Libertarian movement has me they can get anyone. They just need to focus on limiting the role of government. Ron Paul was huge in Southen Utah.
How does the Libertarian party feel about ranked-choice voting and the represent us movement?
I’m 55 years. This is the first time I’ve heard an interview of a libertarian leader. You should be called the Milquetoast Party. When I was younger I was a Republican. When I was 25 I became unaffiliated and remain so. Washington is like an old machine that broke a few decades after it was purchased and you can’t get parts for it anymore and everyone working on it claims to be a mechanic but obviously isn’t.
They want to privatize all land. "Milquetoast" to you means not taking a position on the culture war nonsense?
I’m fairly certain this woman isn’t milquetoast. No one in the Mises Caucus is.
Washington DC never worked. It was started as a swamp and will always be a swamp.
@@luke2041 lol like half the answers she gave was "we don't know yet." How is someone supposed to get on board with this?
I smiled reading this. Yep, you’re on to it.
I love LPMC!
Am I allowed to be in the Libertarian Party now if I like Chicago school more than the austrian economists and if I prefer Milton Friedman over Rothbard? Am I a commie?
What do you think of Andrew Yang
Do you hate the state?
As Mises said, youre a socialist.
@@michaelmichael2382 well, he is better than most politicians, but he is not by any means a libertarian, so I do not really support him.
@@BradTrapp I love individual liberty. The state is often the biggest threat to liberty (history proves it), but it has very few functions, which is enforce the just laws and to protect liberty.
So we want bold direct uncompromised messaging, but when it is something that offends conservatives we need to delete it from the platform.
Like police reform and drug legalization? Anti-war? Those are things most republicans and conservatives fight against, and the LP is not giving up. But yes, the party not having an official stance on abortion or immigration I think is solid, because we're not going to get either side to come around. Individually LP candidates will be allowed to express their own views, how is that bad?
I thought fighting for freedom and non-intervention includes the right of sovereign states to have their own policies and not being subjected to tyranny by Russia or China, or am I wrong?
We can't trust Reason TV! Their support of the old LP is one reason it was not so successful.
Finally a Libertarian Party leader who has guts and talks sense. Sounds like she has a firm rooting in the real world and isn't smoking some ideological crack pipe.
The welfare state must absolutely be ended before having open boarders. Basic logic, economics, and mathematics will show you this.
Actually it does not. A welfare state is more functional with more people operating with it. It just the delusion that more people would live from public welfare with open immigration, but there is no empirical record for that.
They are issues that can be concurrently addressed.
And one can acknowledge the ideal without insisting that an established system be dangerously uprooted immediately.
Free markets require the free movement of peaceful people. And migration is a natural right. Those are fundamental libertariens principles. We can acknowledge this and get liberals ' support.
The current gov't immigration policies are expensive and ineffective. We can do x, y, and z for now to deal with the issue until the border is safer (end the war on drugs), and unconstitutional gov't incentives that attract immigrants (gov't welfare) are fixed.
A minarchist libertarian option. Conservatives can get behind that.
@@dustinabc While I completely agree with you, in your estimation has Congress done anything that gives you hope they could do both concurrently?
The LP is finished
Your LP is, and good riddance.
Why is Nick care so much about the "bigot" question. That's the biggest question he has hammered on each interviewee.
He is pro progressive
Removing that plank painted a huge target for any future political campaigns. No one who isn't already voting libertarian is going to care about the nuance of 'define bigot,' any opponent/PAC can simply call the LP the party that decided it was ok to be a bigot.
@@weshamner694 It *IS* ok to be a "bigot", whatever that means. It's not ok to use force. That's liberty 101, dude. Perhaps you're the intolerant one.
@@weshamner694 No serious person will care about it. Maybe the hard core lefties that would never support us.
@@odigity I am not talking about me. I understand her point about everyone calling each other bigots. Further, if a candidate runs on the LP ticket, and they aren't actual racists or other types of plain language definition bigot, then I will vote for the LP candidate. But if a candidate were to actually be influential enough to be a threat, it makes for an easy smear and the common person voter won't care for the nuance or look further. They just won't want to vote for the candidate from the 'probigotry' party. The D's and R's are not above lying to keep non-establishment candidates down. Hopefully Spike's addition will keep it clear that racists aren't actually welcome.
Authoritarianism in the U.S. is inevitable in a matter of years via the Christian Coalition, corporatists, and the Republican Party. Meanwhile, the freedom-loving LP is asking itself, "How can we be more vaguely like them all?"
This is why the LP is still an irrelevant third in a two party system. Stand by for more irrelevance.
Oh of course, because it's Christians, Republicans, and "Corporations" (whoever you're talking about) that are working to eliminate Constitutional free speech, your right to defend yourself with tools, eliminate electoral representation, permanently capture the Judiciary by flooding it with Party apparatchiks, compel your children in their lunatic indoctrination centers staffed by cruel and incompetent degenerates, force you to undergo medical procedures to hold a job or travel, appropriate an enormous amount of your taxpayer money to give to Big Pharma, and give authority for your own personal health to a global bureaucracy dominated by China. Yep, darn those pesky Christians and Republicans. Also, can I have some of your Moon Cheese, Moon Man?
What people in the LP and libertarians fail to realize is people (the average normie) do not like freedom or liberty
@Carlo Dave Are you stuck in the Twilight Zone? Your Bush era Anti-Christian rant couldn't possibly be more irrelevant in 2022.
The Moral Majority comes to LP.
the interviewer looks like the boss in incredibles that got thrown through several walls
Keep it simple. Common ground, truth. No cheating, equal justice.
Nick lives in a progressive cocktail party beltway bubble.
So Nick lives in a bubble but the Mises Caucus doesn't?
@SolarisLunaran You're not winning converts
Nick Gillespie rehashes the same issues with the same people
He's doing that here because they all represent the same caucus. It does make sense why.
4:20 Anyone have a video URL for what she's referring to here? I can't find it.
...Also, what is does "Libertine" and "Minarchist" mean?
P.S. This was a great interview!
"Libertine" is a social liberal to the hedonistic extreme, presumably welcome because low state intervention enables pursuit of their "philosophical goals".
"Minarchist" is an individual who takes the "government which governs best governs least" idea just shy of it's logical conclusion with it's ideal typically being made up of some combination of military, police, courts, fire departments, prisons, and legislatures only.
ruclips.net/video/mDND5tcUFoI/видео.html at around 3:17
@@darkbringer1440 Okay, cool. Thanks for the info.
@@coryb8796 Thanks a lot... That was a great clip!
@@LAIDBACKMANNER for sure. Personally I think this one is way more important than his "Giuliani moment" ruclips.net/video/4s_IUwwGq-A/видео.html
Taiwan needs to be recognized as a country... Libertarians need to stop 🛑 taking hard stances on previous screwups our country has made.
No abortion “rights” in the libertarian party. The NAP shouldn’t allow it to be consistent.
N.A.P. ? What political party doesn't have bigots? How does a political party police bigotry? What political parties adhere to the NAP?
The Libertarian Party is back! I'm in tears.
Lets hear your or their plan to gain more female voters than can comfortably share A 12 pack of beer? How about closing the borders and mass deportation? Or correcting the now gene modded jab recipients? How about addressing the grim realities actual social science and IQ research lay bare?
Beware! It maybe getting financial backing from the DNC.
There were a few elections where I thought that the DNC was funding some Libertarian candidates such as Sarvis (VA), Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.
You bet we are!
Are you a dope head addict
The Reno Reset was successful and this party is soon going to grow larger than it ever has!
The problem with the abortion plank is that people are mistakenly looking at it as a superfition question of woman vs fetus. The real underlying philosophical question is when does a person come into or go out of existence, which also requires defining "person", not simply human biology but "person". And that is not a scientific subject.
A corpse is scientifically a human, and often the organs can continue-on when put into another person, but is said corpse a person?
A slice of my skin in a petri dish can be kept alive, cell division and all, it contains human DNA and is as separate from me as an identical twin, but no one would claim it is a second person while they would consider an identical twin a second person.
On the other hand somebody like Stephan Hawking is clearly a person, yet his body was kept alive for years only by machines.
A human in a coma can be kept alive with only the help of nutrition through a tube, yet they are not conscious or sentient.
Just what combination of traits makes one a person? It goes way deeper than the few cases I have pointed out here.
Concise, informative, articulate, and without hesitation. Seems like a good pick.
😐 RUclips is really so unprofitable now that, in only a year, they have moved from two advertisements in a row to THREE now???
I don’t like this party at all why because having a country with more too much freedom can get you in trouble and fatal consequences and leaving NATO will also have a big fatal mistake and also having no military alliance can lead to bad things and we want to help our allies and partners to make a bigger future
Being against foreign intervention in a time of unprecedented global risk is unreasonable.
It was US intervention and meddling (not to mention reneged promises) into Ukraine that led in large part to the current conflict.
@@Jekyll_Island_Creatures The impact from an agnostic US in the event of a Tiawan conflict would be catastrophic. Pax Americana is largely responsible for the safety and security of the world at large for the past 60 years
@Nova Flares Ukraine had leadership that was pro-Russia. Our elites (Obama, John Kerry, other neocons) ousted that government, essentially conducting a coup in that country and installed a pro-American government. This naturally upsets Russia and their interests in the region. They're paranoid about having US i.e. NATO encroachment on their border. Think about if the shoe was on the other foot. What if China invaded Canada and set up bases, armies, missiles right on our border. Do you think we'd be a little paranoid and have something to say about that? That's Russia's feeling on Ukraine. And the broken promise was that the US promised Russia that we wouldn't expand NATO towards their territory anymore, but yet our leaders continued to push it and discussed Ukraine joining NATO constantly.
@Nova Flares "Ukrainian protesters" Lol How many were on the CIA payroll? We did make those assurances and the US has continually meddled in Ukraine for years! If you wish to believe state department lies that's on you.
I like McArdle, and have high hopes for the LP. Have not yet joined but have been on the cusp for some time. Having said that, I do hope the Mises folks will exercise more pragmatism and less anarchism than they've shown to date. Thank God for Reason.
I think even if you don't like their destination, you can always do the whistle stop and get off along the way. The direction is good, and I think the changes McArdle's making are there to get more people on it. Not having official stances on some things, for instance. Getting together on what we agree on instead of bickering over what we don't (ancharism vs minarchism for instance)