Libertarian Party support spiked during the 2016 presidential election, when they ran a pragmatic ticket with name and media recognition. 2020 was a disappointment with both LP and presidential candidate, but still outperformed 2008 and 2012. As a party, the liberatarians are still looking for their next Ron Paul, and having difficulty finding such a candidate. As a reason subscriber and viewer, I am more concerened with the reach of libertarian philosophy than the donor dollar level of the Libertarian party.
That's true. You don't win elections to have influence but you do have to get information out there to the public which forces candidates to compete for the public.
The people who chose the pragmatic candidates were putting the cart before the horse. They only worried about the votes and funding rather than sowing the seeds to reap the harvest later. To get the votes we need. We need the LP philosophy to spread and take root in as many places as possible. It's a numbers game.
It spiked because democrats started pumping in money to give Republicans something to vote if they didn't like Trump. The media was promoting Gary Johnson hard back then, but with all manufactured support it died down after the elections. And since Gary Johnson and the leadership was stupid, they thought if we become the democratic party that money and support will come back but it didn't. Reason is basically more left than YT at this point.
Sounds more like a Reddit issue rathen than a libertarian one. I honestly have no idea if the party is losing support. I'm not a libertarian. I feel like it's important to listen to as many sides as possible to understand what's going on.
That's more or less the comment I was gonna write, only I'd replace dinosaurs with unicorns. LP is a joke, and it has always been. And this video itself is a proof of that. I mean, if when asked to name any redeeming value of their current party administration the guy says "they are not afraid to say stupid shit and they don't compromise", it's like a literal wtf moment. In what kind of world inability to compromise is a good thing for a politician? So there's no wonder the political achievements of LP are roughly nil throughout its history.
I don't think the libertarian party will ever go truly extinct, at least for the foreseeable future. Will probably continue to just be that fringe 3rd party that only a few percent of people vote for every year unless some drastic happens.
The libertarian party can only win if they support voting method reform such as approval or star voting. Rank choice voting does not produce third-party victories that is a fair vote talking point that has been disproven from groups like Equal vote coalition and center for election science. I encourage everyone to look those websites up learn approval and star and get involved.
I live in SoCal organizing Spanish speaking conservatives, I can't get LP to even show up and state their positions. I went to an LP ice cream social, I was the only one to show, not even the organizer showed up.
Yeah, I supported the Libertarian Party in the past, but it has failed to be a serious party. It's somewhere between an intellectual exercise and a game to so many people. Not only that, most libertarian PEOPLE have now shifted into the Republican party over concerns about the Democrat party becoming more than a little authoritarian (despite their attempts at painting the Republicans with that brush instead), and the view of how dangerous it is for "the other side" to win because of us voting third party has convinced most people to abandon the LP as long as it continues to be a joke.
"It's somewhere between an intellectual excercise and a game to so many people" This was pretty much my conclusion when I dropped the LP ~15 years ago. Unserious and incompetent
@@Justin_Beaver564 Probably is lots of PEOPLE are now authoritarian. But only two parties are realistically going to win, no matter what we want. And one of those is actively throwing political opponents in jail (and trying to more) and trying to flex government arm twisting of private corporations to shut down the public square and prevent the arena of ideas from playing out. And take people's guns away, too. All while doing what dictatorships do - say they're doing it for safety and even to defend democracy (Hitler used this exact same phrase after the Reichstag Fire). I consider that the greater threat.
I don't understand the Mises Caucus's desire to get involved in the culture war stuff. Maybe it's generational. Through out most of the post war era the political divide was mostly economic. This culture war divide didn't really begin until the 80's and so maybe for the younger generation that's all they know.
I always voted predominately Libertarian, voted for Gary Johnson. The party is ridiculous and people like Vermin Supreme make the party look like joke. Just can’t even take the party seriously anymore.
I was a member of the LP for many years. To understand why the LP is failing, it is enough to go to a few local County LP meetings. The utter disconnect from reality is mind melting. I once watched an hour long meeting where people were trying to set the agenda going forward, and discussions about nuclear-free zones interspersed with never ending cries "Legalize pot!" The leadership of the LP may have interesting ideas, but it does not trickle down to the rank and file, and in the end all politics is local. If I had to choose between that cluster and Trump, I will take the latter in a heartbeat.
Sometimes I think our messages to the outside political world are nothing more than shock value for the purpose of getting attention. I think the LP's message should be that our party is the the party of liberty, maximized. It's a simple message that doesn't require shock-value exclamations. Despite the current state of discombobulation among certain circles of the LP, my vote still stands with the only party that gives a damn about about it.
Yeah, I supported the Libertarian Party in the past, but it has failed to be a serious party. It's somewhere between an intellectual exercise and a game to so many people. Not only that, most libertarian PEOPLE have now shifted into the Republican party over concerns about the Democrat party becoming more than a little authoritarian (despite their attempts at painting the Republicans with that brush instead), and the view of how dangerous it is for "the other side" to win because of us voting third party has convinced most people to abandon the LP as long as it continues to be a joke.
Um... So you think trump supporters have some type solid grassroots action... I doubt it. I'm no longer involved in the LP because there are better ways to insulate yourself and your family from what's coming then by trying to stop it via politics. But to say you'd choose trump over them, why? Trump threw his own supporters under the bus after January 6th and caved to the deep state while president. And by the deep state, I mean every executive dept and congressional lobby with any real political sway in his own party (apac) You can vote as hard as you want but the outer party (Republicans) always lose in the long run. You can be white pilled and not have delusions about the direction of the US regime... All democracies devolve into oligarchy and all oligarchies move perpetually to the left forever until a regime change occurs
"Libertarians" who vote for the republican or the democrat because they they have concerns about "the other party" are, in my opinion, fair-weather libertarians and only believe in freedom when it suits them. They only detract from the cause, so let the other parties have them. @@SubduedRadical
And six MC-affiliated members of the LNC have either resigned or has passed. Four seats previously held by MC incels are back in the hands of sane people.
A Mises candidate literally just won the Presidency of Argentina. Do we want Javier Milei or Gary Johnson. The Mises Caucus is what serious libertarianism looks like in America 2024.
Start countless parties with libertarian policies. No need to invest in only one. The point is only to take power away from the authoritarian Democratic & Republican Parties. Until they don’t have it any more.
This is why I dropped the libertarian label and have been calling myself a Classical Liberal for some time. I think there is too many Anarchist and anarcho capitalists in control of the movement. No movement can survive at the extremes of their logical conclusions.
But you do admit that is the logical conclusion. Should we water down the message into a weak tea version of it? Or should we actually stand for something?
@@mikevanroy9356 By all means, stand for something or fall for nothing, and all that. Unfortunately, however, what matters in life are results. If sticking to the unpalatable extreme end of ideas means those ideas never produce any meaningful results, or worse, are never even tried in any meaningful way, then my friend, what’s the point? Being libertarian shouldn’t mean being so stubborn that you are incapable of compromise to at least give some version of our ideas a chance. Incremental gains for a possible better end result is a more noble pursuit than good ideas dying in obscurity.
I definitely ain't an expert on the libertarian party, but the way I see it, their messaging is getting way too much into the weeds instead of having a broad, general direction to go towards. All libertarians should agree that we need to reduce the size of the federal governments. We may disagree on exactly how much it should be reduced, but we all agree it needs to be reduced. Let's start there, and then when some parts of party start to think we are going too far, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Also being pro-small business I think will greatly help as well. There's a misconception that some people have that libertarians are just mega corporation shills, but of course that is not true and we have to show them it is not true. People love an underdog, anti-elite, stick it to the man narrative, and that's exactly what being pro-small business is. Each party has their primary base, and I think that is what our primary base should be. The LP is really the only party that has policy positions that would benefit them. A broad anti-government spending, pro-small business platform, I think, would really grow the party. There's no need to get into the intricacies of McNukes and the NAP and whatnot at this point. That would come much later.
That unfortunate. Always enjoy the Libertarian Party in America and their discussions and viewpoints. I have no stake in the game as an European and Classical Liberal, but i would miss the Libertarian Party. So get you're act together. 🙂
Not really sure "just asking questions" is a very informative podcast. Dave who, in the beginning said he knows nothing about anything proceeds to talk about stuff he knows nothing about. The number of Libertarians elected to office the November before the "Reno Reset," in Pennsylvania made PA home to more elected Libertarians than the rest of the nation combined. Post "Reno Reset" saw elected (and other registered) Libertarians leaving the party and changing their voter registrations. The downward spiral of revenue /membership that was mentioned, the lack of interest in other party activities offers some insight into the trouble the party is in. Also, after the "reset," the lackluster performance in elections offers a clear insight into level of importance the current LNC places on elections. Finally, the statement about forging vaccine records to get into restaurants in NYC during a respiratory pandemic where millions of people died? Flies in the face of the personal responsibility portion of the Libertarian philosophy. IF people do not like a specific restaurant's policy, then boycott that restaurant. Instead, go to a restaurant where people don't care about such things. (Platform Plank 1.0 addresses this) There are reasons people left and are not donating.
Abolish the LP and run libertarian candidates in republican primaries. The closest we've ever gotten to a libertarian president was Ron Paul. How do people not see this?
Ron Paul didn’t get anywhere close to winning. And duping Republicans into supporting a Libertarian won’t work because they’re not supporting libertarianism. It’s not going to bring about more liberty. The ideas supported by the masses have to be changed. Ron Paul says this as well.
@@fortusvictus8297 He didn't get a single electoral college vote. The duopoly has made it impossible to run third party candidates. All Perot did was hand Clinton a win.
I have some libertarian leanings but in my opinion the problem with third parties in general is how the system is baked for two party voting, where in voting, one is faced with voting their conscience and potentually participate in third party election spoiling, or one compromise to play within the two party system to avoid splitting the vote between two popular but mostly similar candidates causing the least favored candidate to win. If we have presedential run off elections, we can alwase vote our truest conscience, as in this is my first choice, but if they are droped then this is my second choice. If only there were a way to intigrate that into an electoral collage system.
Rank choice voting would solve this problem. You rank your candidates who you support rather than simply casting a single 'YES' vote. If the person you rank #1 does not meet enough votes, then your vote moves to whoever you ranked #2. Your vote isn't "wasted" by casting it to a third party candidate, and it would encourage more people to vote outside the two major parties, while reserving their ability to "fall back" to the major party candidate they would prefer if push comes to shove.
@@austincummins7712 my point was our current system encourages voters to stay within two parties. And the point is was making is that rank choice voting would encourage more third parties voting. It's third party voting within our current system that causes a least favored candidate like Bill Clinton to win against two arguably more similar candidates like Gorge Bush senior and Ross Perot than they were to Bill clinton. Maybe run off elections would work with states and city office elections. but unfortunately, I find it hard to see how it would work well with states electing their electors in an electoral college system. And I find the benifit of an electoral collage beneficial in keeping smaller states relevant in presidential elections. Mob rule by large states isn't atractive to me. So I'm not ready to give up on our electoral collage.
@@austincummins7712rank choice voting doesn’t elect third party. That Fairvote talking point has been disproven from other voting method reform groups like Equal vote and Center for election science. Check the groups out and learn more about approval and Star voting
I supported the Libertarians both nationally and Texes state level with monthly contributions for 30 years until they decided to adopt too much of Socialist and woke philosophy. So I left and canceled my contributions.
Dave Smith is in denial. His "What do you mean [by the 'inflation']?" is an clear indication that this 'revolutionary' is either ignorant in basics of economy or just playing a fool
In my county, the membership was not notified of the past two officer elections, the bylaws committee was dismissed and their months of work thrown out, and outsiders took over, all in violation of county and state bylaws. The new county chair became the state chair so by the time the judicial committee considered the violations they were rubber stamping what the the state chair wanted. Basically, the bylaws don’t apply to those who have taken control, members who pay dues don’t have to be notified that an election for officers is coming up at county level (which also used to serve as a reminder to pay annual dues so you can vote and perhaps become a delegate). They deliberately disenfranchised all the donors who paid annul dues and trashed those who provided their time and support. These (lapsed?) members are voting with their feet and their dollars and supporting organizations like the FLCCC and others engaged in decentralizing power. It was a takeover without any wisdom or common sense using all the tactics of true aggregators of centralized power. The star systems are slipping right through their grasp. Not gone. Not defeated. Stacking silver. Keeping powder dry.
Well, it may be useful to have context compared to donations of other parties, large and small. Like sure, inflation is a thing, but how has that affected others. Are the large parties donations still growing at the same rate? Are smaller parties across the board worse off? By what percent? The LP is in a sort of unique position in a way being the largest third party in the US. But I think more context would help.
@@TheGuyWhoGamesAlot1 You can’t compare it to a business like Dave did. Foolish. Businesses exist to make a profit. Political parties exist to receive donations and then spend all that money. Bu adjusting for inflation, you’re comparing the purchasing power of the political party to do things from years to year. Buy signs, advertise, etc. etc.
@@craiglittle7367 Well yeah, a political party is a non-profit. But even non-profits need to run at a net positive. If they don't, they won't be a non-profit for long (cease to exist). Also, non-profits do compete, as in for donors, donations, volunteering. If people do not like how a non-profit is run, they will take their value elsewhere. Yes, a non-profit should try to utilize as much of their capital for their goal as possible, but they should be efficient with the money. In the ideal sense, to achieve their goal, but if you are being more practical, it is to make their donators feel like they are spending their money well (which usually is achieving the organizations goal).
Yeah, but that's a double edged sword. On the one hand, inflation means people have less money to donate. But on the other, it means dues (that haven't increased with inflation) are cheaper relative to what they were before. If dues were $12 a year, say ($1 a month) and inflation causes prices of everything to double, those dues are now only $6/$0.50 by comparison vs everything else that has gone up in price.
@@TheGuyWhoGamesAlot1 The point is, a business measures profit from year to year to gauge its success. No need to adjust for inflation when measuring profit. A non-profit political party does not exist to generate a profit. To gauge the success of a political party you measuring how much stuff you can buy from year to year with their donations. You’re measuring purchasing power of those donations, hence, you must adjust for inflation. A billboard in 2023 costs way more than a billboard in 1975. You’re measuring how many billboards one can buy.
The LP has some fundamental problems both internal and external that are impossible to overcome.... Internally, a good percentage of their party just wants to educate, or be a book club. Or they want to focus on esoteric type of issues that have no mainstream appeal. A lot of members don't want to win an election or even less, do the work it takes to win an election and thus gain political power. Externally, it is practically impossible for the LP to ever elect someone to a partisan race except in the most rare and extreme circumstances. That isn't their fault, but it is just the political environment in the US. But the LP can do 2 things to leverage as much of their efforts to maximize their political power. 1 - attempt to elect Libertarians into non-partisan elections across the country. Many local races are non-partisan and with some effort many of these races can be won with little money and a lot of political effort. Hell, some can even be won by dumb luck. 2- They need to run a credible candidate for President, who does nothing but camp out in the swing states and take shots at both the R and D nominees. In this way, the LP can potentially decide the outcome of any given Presidential election. If they do this successfully, they gain enormous power and you'll see both R and D parties start to adopt more libertarian policies in order to neutralize the LP.
Third parties will never have any influence until we have some kind of Ranked Choice Voting or instant run-off voting. My energy has switched from supporting the LP to supporting RCV. I believe it's the only reform that can give voters real choice.
Honestly the first things libertarians need to do is to take over school boards. How can we expect to win elections when evey school teaches that government power and authority is good?
Collapsing? What did it ever accomplish? You act like the stakes are high here with making drastic changes. I could care less if donations are lower because the Libertarian Party isn’t presenting themselves as some sort of milquetoast moderates.
To be clear, im not a believer in libertarianism applied to politics but the people going on about donations being down.... Of course they are down when the lp bent over backward for years to try to pander to people dont believe in any of their principles and took donations from large orgs that dont believe in their principles either because they were willing to compromise. No washington insiders left, no 25 year old millionaires with suspicious amounts of personal wealth when they were involved in politics their whole adult life. Reno was a complete tear down. They would have to be in charge for at least a decade to build the infrastructure back.
I remember being at the gathering of the juggalos in a reason was there and they were nice people they were doing interviews, I said hello to them and everything and then jokingly asked them what's Aleppo? And they busted up laughing
I'm still very enthusiastic about the LP. I've voted for the Libertarian candidate for President every year since I voted for Andre Marrou back in '92. I've run for office as a Libertarian five times. I've been a county party Chair, and a State Party vice-Chair. If we stay on target, in the long run, we win.
Right now, there are over 300 elected Libertarians holding office in the US. Also, we are the ONLY third party with 50 State ballot access. The Green Party has a lot, but not 50 states. "(2020) is the fifth time that the Libertarian Party has succeeded in placing its presidential ticket on the ballot in every state, having done so in 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2016. No other alternative party has achieved universal ballot access in over 20 years." NCPA Staff. The LP is on track to gaining 50 state ballot access for the 2024 presidential election. There are state affiliate parties in all 50 States. No third party is growing faster. If you want a viable 3rd party, no other party comes close.
4:53 "I'm not sure they would know the first thing about what to do with it or how to craft any sort of policy." Despite having voted Libertarian many times, this is 100% the reason why I would NEVER vote for a Mises candidate. When your only policy positions are "woke bad, Federal government bad, State government less bad" you're fail at everything except handing power over to billionaires and actual deep state actors who will be MORE than happy to privatize it and set about creating an oligarchy on par with the modern Russian Federation. History shows that liberating society is extremely risky, and without care you're more likely to swap one tyrant for another than actually liberate anyone.
We need a new party that has libertarian philosophy at its core but puts a high premium on pragmatism over idealism. As long as the LP is run by idealists it will go nowhere. The LP as it now stands is two things: 1) Right, and 2) Irrelevant.
It depends on who corporations are talking to. They will of course play up their profits for stockholders, but when in the boardroom they will of course be measuring their money based on inflation to see if they are actually more money than prior years.
Putting aside the political system largely hampering the LP, the party has been mismanaged for decades, culminating in near silence at least in terms of messaging during massive govt overreach of the Cooties 19 period. It's going to take more time than one election cycle before any strategy shift reliably shows a result trend, positive or negative. The LP caucus fractures aren't helping spread the ideas of liberty, which for now and for decades before today, is about the best the LP can hope for on the national stage. As far as politcal solutions go, the 'Decentralized Revolution' model takes advantage of missing roadblocks in many local races that exist on the national level, like not having ballot access and not getting on national news outlets. It's a long game, grass roots strategy that should have started in earnest decades ago and should be continued by whomever chairs and staffs the top of the party in the future, regardless of caucus. Staffing from the ground up is exactly how elements of the radical left have infiltrated nearly every institution and a lesson the LP would do well to embrace.
At one point RFK JR was considering running under the Libertarian ticket after he left the Dems....THAT would have been a way to grow the Libertarian base even IF you had to compromise on some points in order to attract RFK JR as he would actually give attention, money and some credibility to the party. ....but instead Liz Wolfe chose to do a hit piece on him.
@@arkansaslibertarian5051 yes, RFK is running as an independent but when he initially left the Dems he had talks with the Libertarians about running under their ticket as it would ensure that he had ballot access in all 50 states.....but no agreement was reached, so he went independent
Well, they had a former US House member become the Presidential nominee in 2008 with a former US Senate member running against him. In 2012 they had a former Governor as the Presidential nominee with a former federal judge as his running mate. In 2016 that governor ran again with another former Governor as his running mate. And in 2020 a former US House member sought the nomination along with a former Governor and US Senator. So, yeah. Some people used to take the party seriously.
Ron Paul definitely helped spark the libertarian movement, however I remembered when Rand Paul ended up endorsing Romney, I feel like that was probably where it was beginning of the end of that movement. It really sucks because, despite some of my views having gotten more progressive since then (mainly being pro-lgbt and anti-interventional), I still kinda miss that era. I just wish people like Alex Jones weren't involved.
You know this interview has no credibility when they choose to interview someone who isn't even a member of the Libertarian Party. Try asking anyone who's been in this goddamn party for 20 years or more.
The LP should be a coalition party, but the culture the LPMC has created is one in which Neo-Austrian anarcho-capitalism is considered the only legitimate, or at least the purest, form of libertarianism, and newcomers who aren't either Rothbardians or on their Rothbardian journey aren't made to feel welcome.
As much as I dislike the Mises Caucus black and white nonsense and shit arguments, these interviewers were super hostile and not very reasonable. Liz especially, kinda tried to stop him everywhere she could to insert her point, ussually in an unhinged manner.
OK, I did the 70's wall paper the first time around. We realized it was a bad idea about 2 years later. Apparently, parents are not teaching their children what to not do. We are doomed!
Officially, there were two platform changes. First they shifted the platform to be open to pro-lifers where it used to be pro-choice for the entirety of the party's history up to that point. That was a result of influence by social conservative Republicans. And they also removed some language from the platform condemning bigotry as irrational and repugnant with the stated purpose of making the party more welcoming to people who would not otherwise be involved in the party. Unofficially policy has shifted via social media messaging. That is where the bulk of the changes have occurred. They've adapted a lot of Putin's rhetoric regarding Ukraine and will do things like tweet comparisons between Zelinski and Hitler. They've said that if 1,000 trans people were m*rd*r*d every year in exchange for getting rid of the income tax, the world would be a substantially more moral place. The former Vice Chair, now running for President, said he wanted to repeal women's right to vote. There's too much of that sort of stuff to list. And then there is the edge lording without any discernible policy. Some black congresswoman tweeted that insulin should be free and they replied that she should be picking crops for free. They tweeted that South Africa was better off under Apartheid. There's just so much completely pointless flirting with racism and antisemitism that it is clearly a deliberate strategy to attract those sorts of people and drive away everyone else. And then there's the conspiracy theories. So, so many conspiracy theories, especially around the Covid vaccines.
@@MrAnarchocapitalist Thanks so much, this is excellent info for me and everyone. Love your username btw. In your first paragraph you say social conservative. It’s much more accurate to say social _authoritarian._ There’s two types of authoritarianism: economic and social/cultural. Why didn’t anyone think that more authoritarian policies and rhetoric was better for the Libertarian Party? This is horrible… Time to create and promote a vast number of other _genuinely_ libertarian parties. I look forward to seeing it.
@@user-wl2xl5hm7k Yeah, I agree that social conservative is a bad description for them, that's just what's in common use. They're technically right wing progressives. A progressive is someone who wants to use the government to fix society's problems; the problems they see are that people are too free to not follow their preferred lifestyle. Privately I refer to them as Cultural Nationalists and put them adjacent to the other types of nationalists: ethno-nationalists (people who support government enforced racial supremacy or racial exclusion), economic nationalists (people who support high tariffs on imports and subsidies for domestic producers), civic nationalists (the most libertarianish of the nationalists - basically just people who support a process to gain citizenship), and authoritarian nationalists (aka fascists). Cultural nationalists take their preferred culture and try to use the government to impose it on everyone. The Mises Caucus didn't take over every state party. They just got control of enough states, including the big one, California, that they had enough delegates to the 2022 national convention to elect nearly all of their people. Some of that was done by shady tactics. Like, they would bring Mises people in from New Hampshire on busses to vote in Pennsylvania's state convention, which is how they won delegates from PA. A half dozen states have since disbanded or disaffiliated in protest (New Mexico, Virginia, Massachusetts, etc), which has had the effect of allowing the Mises Caucus to set up new affiliate parties in those states and allowed them to increase their control. And since the Mises Caucus keeps expanding their control and ruining whatever reputation the party had, more and more people who oppose them are simply quitting the party, which allows them to further consolidate control. So, the party is stuck in a doom-loop until something breaks. Probably that will be a catastrophic loss of ballot access because revenue has fallen off a cliff. But, that will take several years to play out. It won't be a crisis situation until maybe 2028.
@@MrAnarchocapitalist Interesting info about the Mises movement. But I believe you’re wrong about two important points here: Progressive- In the vast majority of cases progressive directly implies _no_ government coercion. So progressive usually just means human progress. Humanism is another name for it. It’s a good thing. Libertarians are always progressive. Nationalism- This also can imply no government coercion. If a nation of people have no punitive-state: no taxes, no criminal laws, no prisons; then nationalism as applied to that people has absolutely no authoritarianism with it. This type of nationalism is just appreciation and praise of that nation of people.
@@user-wl2xl5hm7k Progressivism definitionally involves government coercion. I'm not sure where you're getting your definition. The Prohibition Party was the original right wing progressive party. It saw alcohol consumption as a problem for society and sought to use the government to correct that problem by banning it. Social conservatives are the political descendants of the Prohibition Party. They more or less just swapped alcohol for drugs and tacked on abortion over the years. A nation can exist outside of a political context. It could just be like a club, organization, or grouping of people with similar characteristics. The "ism" makes it political and indicates the nation's desire to enforce its values on society through the government. It isn't possible to have an anarchic, nationalist society.
We have to change the minds of the people. Having libertarians run as republicans and call themselves “constitutional conservatives” is a waste of time. It doesn’t change anything because the people weren’t voting for them because of their libertarian views.
Many have tried that from within and failed terribly. Look at Republicans calling themselves Consrvatives and who they nominated in 2016. A former Clinton Supporter? Give me a break. Best group of Republican candidates ever, one of which was Rand Paul. They chose Trump and when he left office he had out spent every previous administration, left a bigger government and did not close any bases or get rid of even one 3 letter agency. Plus during the beginning of the Lockdown Epidemic Dr Fauci was not fired and lockdowns were allowed to proceed. I'm not supporting or voting for that type of total failure.
well for now, and I do think the Mises caucus is to blame. But I am not sure if it is warranted, but the Caucus has made statements that make me feel as a non-caucus member unwelcome. As such I have a membership, for now, time will tell if I keep my membership in the LP active or not. But I do agree with the idea that when the caucus came in quite a few active LP members rank and file either went away or just stopped being active.
My online interactions with MC-members have been abominable, it's like trying to talk with pre-schoolers. I've quit trying, and will probably not vote for the LP candidate in 2024, for the first time in 44 years. Dave Smith and the other senior members of the MC are fooling themselves that they're not destroying the party. The best thing they could do would be to quit the LP and go form their own Trumper-like party, and let the LP come back from its deathbed.
Their's already a party like that called the Constitution Party which is basically a paleo conservative party. I've suggested they join that. They only come to the LP because it's the only third party with wide ballot access. We need a dozen or more viable parties under an instant run-off system.
So you're not going to be voting Libertarian if the nominee has zero ties to the Trumpist caucus? There's two that have zero ties to LPMC: Chase Oliver and Lars Mapstead. Everyone else running for the nomination is a Mises Caucus incel.
Really peeved me when you had the woke lady in charge. My state party has a untenable pledge you have to make if you want to run under the Libertarian flag, they have no interest in changing it. I get it, as a third party you have to stand out but I swear you have been captured by the ideologs when you really need more pragmatists. Instead of abolishing the fed let's nationalize it. I'm find with more private schools but less fine with private prisons and am quite opposed to privatizing public roads. Open boarders is a joke. Used to be more for legalizing all drugs but Portland has changed my mind on that, try things out in smaller scales and use evidence to guide governance.
I'm a political libertarian. But I'm also a social conservative, so the LP is not attractive to me. I don't support trying to make dangerous drugs somehow acceptable and denying the destructiveness of drugs so they can be legalized, or decriminalizing an industry that uses human trafficking as a supply model.
So what you are saying is that you support human trafficking and destructiveness of drugs which is why you want them kept illegal so they they remain profitable for criminals and so the legal entities can’t offer treatment and support for addicts? You’re kind of a horrible person… (but you said that using the words social conservative already)
You're not a libertarian and this is the exact reason I'm against Dave's appeal to conservatives. I see libertarianism as a form of liberalism, not conservatism. I see myself as a liberal as did most libertarians up until recently.
Theirs an aspect of priority that has to come into play here. Legalising drugs while providing welfare checks to those taking the drugs is bad. In some cases that’s why Reason is bad. Their brand of libertarianism seems to prioritise legalising drugs over removing welfare. IMO. Im actually more in favor of legalising all drugs to eliminate the power doctors and pharmaceutical companies etc… get from having that power. And I think anti-psych drugs are far scarier than say meth. But SSI check would flow without other changes.
I used to be a member. Left after the party was taken over by democrats. Thought about coming back when the perverts and communists lost to the MC, but decided to stay away because of people like you.
@@camanarchy6591 You people are alt right. The fact that you bring your garbage to a party that never considered itself left or right to begin with proves this.
Because the LP has been a joke since you decided to bring in Gary Johnson. 2020 didnt change much. Ron Paul is what put LP on the map. Open borders position is helping now. I'm libertarian, Ron Paul libertarian.
It's been a joke since 2022. Even Vermin Supreme is more principled than the four mentally challenged clowns the Mises Caucus are promoting for the nomination, none of which are really campaigning.
I joined because of the mises cacus and am a monthly donor now because of it. why have you all done nothing but run basically hit pieces the last few days?
When is someone going to mention how much of the LP funding was coming from the PACs of the Big 2? The LP and Green party are paid participants in the 2 party system.
David Smith is one of the worst libertarians out there. Anarchist shouldn't be calling themselves libertarians, that makes it confusing and prevents anyone (including myself) from supporting Libertarianism.
Good on Dave for correcting Zach’s disingenuous attack about adjusting for inflation. Every single corporations and organization report their finances in nominal terms. If you want new leadership you can organize and get delegates to the convention.
To be fair, Trump was an outsider to government who didn't know what he was doing and Biden has dementia and doesn't know what he's doing anyway. So...Trump and Biden are both examples of someone in there who doesn't know what they're doing. XD
Have you considered that people could be switching their giving to the Mises caucus or state LP instead of national? That would be consistent with the decentralization principle.
I've checked about 20 states. There was no unusual revenue pattern. Mises PAC raised $170,000 in the first six months of this year. The LNC is on pace to be short $1 Million vs the previous several years. The database problem mentioned by Dave Smith can only be a portion of the problem as the revenue slide started before the change to the new system.
Libertarian Party support spiked during the 2016 presidential election, when they ran a pragmatic ticket with name and media recognition. 2020 was a disappointment with both LP and presidential candidate, but still outperformed 2008 and 2012. As a party, the liberatarians are still looking for their next Ron Paul, and having difficulty finding such a candidate.
As a reason subscriber and viewer, I am more concerened with the reach of libertarian philosophy than the donor dollar level of the Libertarian party.
That's true. You don't win elections to have influence but you do have to get information out there to the public which forces candidates to compete for the public.
Lol they ran complete idiots. Pragmatic? Are you nuts?
The people who chose the pragmatic candidates were putting the cart before the horse. They only worried about the votes and funding rather than sowing the seeds to reap the harvest later. To get the votes we need. We need the LP philosophy to spread and take root in as many places as possible. It's a numbers game.
It spiked because democrats started pumping in money to give Republicans something to vote if they didn't like Trump. The media was promoting Gary Johnson hard back then, but with all manufactured support it died down after the elections. And since Gary Johnson and the leadership was stupid, they thought if we become the democratic party that money and support will come back but it didn't. Reason is basically more left than YT at this point.
Pragmatism and watering yourself down is why we have a uniparty.
The LP cannot move forward without serious candidates. No more boots on heads. No more weak messaging. Local elections is where the focus needs to be.
Still waiting for the strip show!
You saw who they picked to represent them in 2024? It is OVER. The LP is nuts.
r/libertarian randomly banning people without reason doesn’t help either.
Sounds more like a Reddit issue rathen than a libertarian one. I honestly have no idea if the party is losing support. I'm not a libertarian. I feel like it's important to listen to as many sides as possible to understand what's going on.
@@ZeriocTheTank it’s an issue for libertarians if the biggest libertarian subreddit acts like that.
They are doing a great job. The fake libertarian marxists need to be shown the door.
not really Reddit is a cesspool, all the mods of large sudreddits are npc types @@HelloFellowRUclipsrs
That subred is horribly authoritarian & anti free speech. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Use libertarian uncensored instead.
excuses, excuses, excuses.
Revenue is down as well as membership.
All historic lows.
Asking whether the Libertarian party is collapsing is like asking if the dinosaurs are going extinct.
Yeah. Hasn't been much of anything for years. They have a good opportunity coming up though to maybe turn it around.
There's nothing left still standing lol
That's more or less the comment I was gonna write, only I'd replace dinosaurs with unicorns. LP is a joke, and it has always been. And this video itself is a proof of that. I mean, if when asked to name any redeeming value of their current party administration the guy says "they are not afraid to say stupid shit and they don't compromise", it's like a literal wtf moment. In what kind of world inability to compromise is a good thing for a politician? So there's no wonder the political achievements of LP are roughly nil throughout its history.
LOL
I don't think the libertarian party will ever go truly extinct, at least for the foreseeable future. Will probably continue to just be that fringe 3rd party that only a few percent of people vote for every year unless some drastic happens.
The libertarian party can only win if they support voting method reform such as approval or star voting. Rank choice voting does not produce third-party victories that is a fair vote talking point that has been disproven from groups like Equal vote coalition and center for election science. I encourage everyone to look those websites up learn approval and star and get involved.
I live in SoCal organizing Spanish speaking conservatives, I can't get LP to even show up and state their positions. I went to an LP ice cream social, I was the only one to show, not even the organizer showed up.
She has good points. LP candidates need a better track record but at the same time we can't say "no one takes Mises caucus seriously". Some do.
The implication was that no one outside of the Mises Caucus takes the Mises Caucus seriously.
Misuses caucus makes me want to change from republican to libertarian
Yeah, I supported the Libertarian Party in the past, but it has failed to be a serious party. It's somewhere between an intellectual exercise and a game to so many people. Not only that, most libertarian PEOPLE have now shifted into the Republican party over concerns about the Democrat party becoming more than a little authoritarian (despite their attempts at painting the Republicans with that brush instead), and the view of how dangerous it is for "the other side" to win because of us voting third party has convinced most people to abandon the LP as long as it continues to be a joke.
Problem is both parties are authoritarian. Just neither side wants to admit it.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Last LP presidential candidate supported BLM so... all three are authoritarian.
"It's somewhere between an intellectual excercise and a game to so many people"
This was pretty much my conclusion when I dropped the LP ~15 years ago. Unserious and incompetent
@@Justin_Beaver564 Probably is lots of PEOPLE are now authoritarian.
But only two parties are realistically going to win, no matter what we want.
And one of those is actively throwing political opponents in jail (and trying to more) and trying to flex government arm twisting of private corporations to shut down the public square and prevent the arena of ideas from playing out. And take people's guns away, too. All while doing what dictatorships do - say they're doing it for safety and even to defend democracy (Hitler used this exact same phrase after the Reichstag Fire).
I consider that the greater threat.
I don't understand the Mises Caucus's desire to get involved in the culture war stuff. Maybe it's generational. Through out most of the post war era the political divide was mostly economic. This culture war divide didn't really begin until the 80's and so maybe for the younger generation that's all they know.
I always voted predominately Libertarian, voted for Gary Johnson. The party is ridiculous and people like Vermin Supreme make the party look like joke. Just can’t even take the party seriously anymore.
Gary Johnson looked like a complete fool in 16
I was a member of the LP for many years. To understand why the LP is failing, it is enough to go to a few local County LP meetings. The utter disconnect from reality is mind melting. I once watched an hour long meeting where people were trying to set the agenda going forward, and discussions about nuclear-free zones interspersed with never ending cries "Legalize pot!"
The leadership of the LP may have interesting ideas, but it does not trickle down to the rank and file, and in the end all politics is local. If I had to choose between that cluster and Trump, I will take the latter in a heartbeat.
Sometimes I think our messages to the outside political world are nothing more than shock value for the purpose of getting attention. I think the LP's message should be that our party is the the party of liberty, maximized. It's a simple message that doesn't require shock-value exclamations.
Despite the current state of discombobulation among certain circles of the LP, my vote still stands with the only party that gives a damn about about it.
Yeah, I supported the Libertarian Party in the past, but it has failed to be a serious party. It's somewhere between an intellectual exercise and a game to so many people. Not only that, most libertarian PEOPLE have now shifted into the Republican party over concerns about the Democrat party becoming more than a little authoritarian (despite their attempts at painting the Republicans with that brush instead), and the view of how dangerous it is for "the other side" to win because of us voting third party has convinced most people to abandon the LP as long as it continues to be a joke.
Um... So you think trump supporters have some type solid grassroots action... I doubt it.
I'm no longer involved in the LP because there are better ways to insulate yourself and your family from what's coming then by trying to stop it via politics.
But to say you'd choose trump over them, why?
Trump threw his own supporters under the bus after January 6th and caved to the deep state while president. And by the deep state, I mean every executive dept and congressional lobby with any real political sway in his own party (apac)
You can vote as hard as you want but the outer party (Republicans) always lose in the long run.
You can be white pilled and not have delusions about the direction of the US regime... All democracies devolve into oligarchy and all oligarchies move perpetually to the left forever until a regime change occurs
"Libertarians" who vote for the republican or the democrat because they they have concerns about "the other party" are, in my opinion, fair-weather libertarians and only believe in freedom when it suits them. They only detract from the cause, so let the other parties have them. @@SubduedRadical
I'm baffled by how Trump can be your second choice
1 of 3 members have left after takeover.
I saw a video of one who's like a commie who got lost into the party.
And six MC-affiliated members of the LNC have either resigned or has passed. Four seats previously held by MC incels are back in the hands of sane people.
hardly anyone is a member. The LP is successful when they recruit non members to vote for them.
A Mises candidate literally just won the Presidency of Argentina. Do we want Javier Milei or Gary Johnson. The Mises Caucus is what serious libertarianism looks like in America 2024.
Have fun when the MC gets 0.003% of the national vote. Let's see how strong the party is with only the radicals
Start countless parties with libertarian policies. No need to invest in only one. The point is only to take power away from the authoritarian Democratic & Republican Parties. Until they don’t have it any more.
This is why I dropped the libertarian label and have been calling myself a Classical Liberal for some time. I think there is too many Anarchist and anarcho capitalists in control of the movement. No movement can survive at the extremes of their logical conclusions.
But you do admit that is the logical conclusion. Should we water down the message into a weak tea version of it? Or should we actually stand for something?
@@mikevanroy9356possible @@mikevanroy9356
@@mikevanroy9356 By all means, stand for something or fall for nothing, and all that. Unfortunately, however, what matters in life are results. If sticking to the unpalatable extreme end of ideas means those ideas never produce any meaningful results, or worse, are never even tried in any meaningful way, then my friend, what’s the point? Being libertarian shouldn’t mean being so stubborn that you are incapable of compromise to at least give some version of our ideas a chance. Incremental gains for a possible better end result is a more noble pursuit than good ideas dying in obscurity.
@garbonomics As an anarchist, I can say Facism has more support in 2024.
I was a registered Libertarian. I have dropped my membership and I am switching my party ID to independent. The LP has been horribly disappointing.
I definitely ain't an expert on the libertarian party, but the way I see it, their messaging is getting way too much into the weeds instead of having a broad, general direction to go towards. All libertarians should agree that we need to reduce the size of the federal governments. We may disagree on exactly how much it should be reduced, but we all agree it needs to be reduced. Let's start there, and then when some parts of party start to think we are going too far, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Also being pro-small business I think will greatly help as well. There's a misconception that some people have that libertarians are just mega corporation shills, but of course that is not true and we have to show them it is not true. People love an underdog, anti-elite, stick it to the man narrative, and that's exactly what being pro-small business is. Each party has their primary base, and I think that is what our primary base should be. The LP is really the only party that has policy positions that would benefit them.
A broad anti-government spending, pro-small business platform, I think, would really grow the party. There's no need to get into the intricacies of McNukes and the NAP and whatnot at this point. That would come much later.
That unfortunate. Always enjoy the Libertarian Party in America and their discussions and viewpoints. I have no stake in the game as an European and Classical Liberal, but i would miss the Libertarian Party. So get you're act together. 🙂
It’s down because like it or not the winning team was nick sarwark and Gary Johnson
That was more of a rejection of Clinton and Trump if we're being honest.
Does Dave not understand that adjusting for inflation is standard?
Not really sure "just asking questions" is a very informative podcast.
Dave who, in the beginning said he knows nothing about anything proceeds to talk about stuff he knows nothing about.
The number of Libertarians elected to office the November before the "Reno Reset," in Pennsylvania made PA home to more elected Libertarians than the rest of the nation combined. Post "Reno Reset" saw elected (and other registered) Libertarians leaving the party and changing their voter registrations. The downward spiral of revenue /membership that was mentioned, the lack of interest in other party activities offers some insight into the trouble the party is in.
Also, after the "reset," the lackluster performance in elections offers a clear insight into level of importance the current LNC places on elections.
Finally, the statement about forging vaccine records to get into restaurants in NYC during a respiratory pandemic where millions of people died? Flies in the face of the personal responsibility portion of the Libertarian philosophy. IF people do not like a specific restaurant's policy, then boycott that restaurant. Instead, go to a restaurant where people don't care about such things. (Platform Plank 1.0 addresses this) There are reasons people left and are not donating.
Abolish the LP and run libertarian candidates in republican primaries. The closest we've ever gotten to a libertarian president was Ron Paul. How do people not see this?
Or, perhaps Ross Perot.
Ron Paul didn’t get anywhere close to winning. And duping Republicans into supporting a Libertarian won’t work because they’re not supporting libertarianism. It’s not going to bring about more liberty. The ideas supported by the masses have to be changed. Ron Paul says this as well.
@@fortusvictus8297 He didn't get a single electoral college vote. The duopoly has made it impossible to run third party candidates. All Perot did was hand Clinton a win.
All you're doing is outing yourself as a Republican
I have some libertarian leanings but in my opinion the problem with third parties in general is how the system is baked for two party voting, where in voting, one is faced with voting their conscience and potentually participate in third party election spoiling, or one compromise to play within the two party system to avoid splitting the vote between two popular but mostly similar candidates causing the least favored candidate to win. If we have presedential run off elections, we can alwase vote our truest conscience, as in this is my first choice, but if they are droped then this is my second choice. If only there were a way to intigrate that into an electoral collage system.
Rank choice voting would solve this problem. You rank your candidates who you support rather than simply casting a single 'YES' vote. If the person you rank #1 does not meet enough votes, then your vote moves to whoever you ranked #2. Your vote isn't "wasted" by casting it to a third party candidate, and it would encourage more people to vote outside the two major parties, while reserving their ability to "fall back" to the major party candidate they would prefer if push comes to shove.
@@austincummins7712 my point was our current system encourages voters to stay within two parties. And the point is was making is that rank choice voting would encourage more third parties voting.
It's third party voting within our current system that causes a least favored candidate like Bill Clinton to win against two arguably more similar candidates like Gorge Bush senior and Ross Perot than they were to Bill clinton.
Maybe run off elections would work with states and city office elections. but unfortunately, I find it hard to see how it would work well with states electing their electors in an electoral college system. And I find the benifit of an electoral collage beneficial in keeping smaller states relevant in presidential elections. Mob rule by large states isn't atractive to me. So I'm not ready to give up on our electoral collage.
@@austincummins7712rank choice voting doesn’t elect third party. That Fairvote talking point has been disproven from other voting method reform groups like Equal vote and Center for election science. Check the groups out and learn more about approval and Star voting
I supported the Libertarians both nationally and Texes state level with monthly contributions for 30 years until they decided to adopt too much of Socialist and woke philosophy. So I left and canceled my contributions.
People like you are the problem
it already collapsed and now MiCaucs are applying chest compressions.
And could very well bankrupt the party. The national convention in D.C. might not even happen.
It was dying and now the MC has obliterated it
I was an active LP member for years. I’m done now.
Dave Smith is in denial. His "What do you mean [by the 'inflation']?" is an clear indication that this 'revolutionary' is either ignorant in basics of economy or just playing a fool
“The takeover is turing into a disaster”.
-Angela McArdle
Y'all still believe in open borders? "Yup" the party was DOA.
it was the Libertarian Party's stance on open immigration that made everyone leave
In my county, the membership was not notified of the past two officer elections, the bylaws committee was dismissed and their months of work thrown out, and outsiders took over, all in violation of county and state bylaws. The new county chair became the state chair so by the time the judicial committee considered the violations they were rubber stamping what the the state chair wanted. Basically, the bylaws don’t apply to those who have taken control, members who pay dues don’t have to be notified that an election for officers is coming up at county level (which also used to serve as a reminder to pay annual dues so you can vote and perhaps become a delegate). They deliberately disenfranchised all the donors who paid annul dues and trashed those who provided their time and support. These (lapsed?) members are voting with their feet and their dollars and supporting organizations like the FLCCC and others engaged in decentralizing power. It was a takeover without any wisdom or common sense using all the tactics of true aggregators of centralized power. The star systems are slipping right through their grasp. Not gone. Not defeated. Stacking silver. Keeping powder dry.
Heard similar things about the Green Party, their former candidate Howie Hawkins was a infiltrator
Apparently the cosmotarians were a large funding source
How can something collapse that was never in good standing. The LP had a golden opportuntiy for a decade to make change and never did.
You have to adjust for inflation when measuring purchasing power of donations from year to year.
Dave is wrong.
He’s wrong a lot.
Well, it may be useful to have context compared to donations of other parties, large and small. Like sure, inflation is a thing, but how has that affected others.
Are the large parties donations still growing at the same rate? Are smaller parties across the board worse off? By what percent?
The LP is in a sort of unique position in a way being the largest third party in the US. But I think more context would help.
@@TheGuyWhoGamesAlot1
You can’t compare it to a business like Dave did.
Foolish.
Businesses exist to make a profit.
Political parties exist to receive donations and then spend all that money.
Bu adjusting for inflation, you’re comparing the purchasing power of the political party to do things from years to year.
Buy signs, advertise, etc. etc.
@@craiglittle7367 Well yeah, a political party is a non-profit. But even non-profits need to run at a net positive. If they don't, they won't be a non-profit for long (cease to exist).
Also, non-profits do compete, as in for donors, donations, volunteering. If people do not like how a non-profit is run, they will take their value elsewhere.
Yes, a non-profit should try to utilize as much of their capital for their goal as possible, but they should be efficient with the money. In the ideal sense, to achieve their goal, but if you are being more practical, it is to make their donators feel like they are spending their money well (which usually is achieving the organizations goal).
Yeah, but that's a double edged sword.
On the one hand, inflation means people have less money to donate. But on the other, it means dues (that haven't increased with inflation) are cheaper relative to what they were before.
If dues were $12 a year, say ($1 a month) and inflation causes prices of everything to double, those dues are now only $6/$0.50 by comparison vs everything else that has gone up in price.
@@TheGuyWhoGamesAlot1
The point is, a business measures profit from year to year to gauge its success.
No need to adjust for inflation when measuring profit.
A non-profit political party does not exist to generate a profit.
To gauge the success of a political party you measuring how much stuff you can buy from year to year with their donations.
You’re measuring purchasing power of those donations, hence, you must adjust for inflation.
A billboard in 2023 costs way more than a billboard in 1975.
You’re measuring how many billboards one can buy.
Due to inflation, the buying power of contributions is down relative to prior time periods.
A real Libertarian is a "Classic Liberal" or a "Constitutional Conservative". Same - Same.
Both lose to democrats...
The LP has some fundamental problems both internal and external that are impossible to overcome....
Internally, a good percentage of their party just wants to educate, or be a book club. Or they want to focus on esoteric type of issues that have no mainstream appeal. A lot of members don't want to win an election or even less, do the work it takes to win an election and thus gain political power.
Externally, it is practically impossible for the LP to ever elect someone to a partisan race except in the most rare and extreme circumstances. That isn't their fault, but it is just the political environment in the US.
But the LP can do 2 things to leverage as much of their efforts to maximize their political power. 1 - attempt to elect Libertarians into non-partisan elections across the country. Many local races are non-partisan and with some effort many of these races can be won with little money and a lot of political effort. Hell, some can even be won by dumb luck. 2- They need to run a credible candidate for President, who does nothing but camp out in the swing states and take shots at both the R and D nominees. In this way, the LP can potentially decide the outcome of any given Presidential election. If they do this successfully, they gain enormous power and you'll see both R and D parties start to adopt more libertarian policies in order to neutralize the LP.
Third parties will never have any influence until we have some kind of Ranked Choice Voting or instant run-off voting. My energy has switched from supporting the LP to supporting RCV. I believe it's the only reform that can give voters real choice.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Ranked Choice voting is bait-and-switch. No.
@@freethebirds3578 WTF does that even mean?
Honestly the first things libertarians need to do is to take over school boards. How can we expect to win elections when evey school teaches that government power and authority is good?
You’re using old numbers from April from the opposing caucus.
Still not going well.
Collapsing? What did it ever accomplish? You act like the stakes are high here with making drastic changes. I could care less if donations are lower because the Libertarian Party isn’t presenting themselves as some sort of milquetoast moderates.
It died a long time ago. They have some many polices that are incomplete and even based on pipe dreams.
To be clear, im not a believer in libertarianism applied to politics but the people going on about donations being down.... Of course they are down when the lp bent over backward for years to try to pander to people dont believe in any of their principles and took donations from large orgs that dont believe in their principles either because they were willing to compromise. No washington insiders left, no 25 year old millionaires with suspicious amounts of personal wealth when they were involved in politics their whole adult life.
Reno was a complete tear down. They would have to be in charge for at least a decade to build the infrastructure back.
What large organizations donated to the LNC and what principles did the LNC compromise on prior to Reno?
I remember being at the gathering of the juggalos in a reason was there and they were nice people they were doing interviews, I said hello to them and everything and then jokingly asked them what's Aleppo? And they busted up laughing
I'm still very enthusiastic about the LP. I've voted for the Libertarian candidate for President every year since I voted for Andre Marrou back in '92. I've run for office as a Libertarian five times. I've been a county party Chair, and a State Party vice-Chair. If we stay on target, in the long run, we win.
Right now, there are over 300 elected Libertarians holding office in the US. Also, we are the ONLY third party with 50 State ballot access. The Green Party has a lot, but not 50 states. "(2020) is the fifth time that the Libertarian Party has succeeded in placing its presidential ticket on the ballot in every state, having done so in 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2016. No other alternative party has achieved universal ballot access in over 20 years." NCPA Staff. The LP is on track to gaining 50 state ballot access for the 2024 presidential election. There are state affiliate parties in all 50 States. No third party is growing faster. If you want a viable 3rd party, no other party comes close.
In 2021/2022, the LNC raised $4.3 million. Will the LNC even raise $3.5 million by the end of 2024?
Removing the bigotry message was dumb.
4:53 "I'm not sure they would know the first thing about what to do with it or how to craft any sort of policy." Despite having voted Libertarian many times, this is 100% the reason why I would NEVER vote for a Mises candidate. When your only policy positions are "woke bad, Federal government bad, State government less bad" you're fail at everything except handing power over to billionaires and actual deep state actors who will be MORE than happy to privatize it and set about creating an oligarchy on par with the modern Russian Federation.
History shows that liberating society is extremely risky, and without care you're more likely to swap one tyrant for another than actually liberate anyone.
Chase Oliver 2024.
The libertarian party is collapsing?! In other news, grass is green, birds fly, and bees buzz...
We need a new party that has libertarian philosophy at its core but puts a high premium on pragmatism over idealism. As long as the LP is run by idealists it will go nowhere. The LP as it now stands is two things: 1) Right, and 2) Irrelevant.
Reps and Dems aren’t better off. But the LP needs to do a better job at uniting its various factions.
It depends on who corporations are talking to. They will of course play up their profits for stockholders, but when in the boardroom they will of course be measuring their money based on inflation to see if they are actually more money than prior years.
Putting aside the political system largely hampering the LP, the party has been mismanaged for decades, culminating in near silence at least in terms of messaging during massive govt overreach of the Cooties 19 period.
It's going to take more time than one election cycle before any strategy shift reliably shows a result trend, positive or negative.
The LP caucus fractures aren't helping spread the ideas of liberty, which for now and for decades before today, is about the best the LP can hope for on the national stage.
As far as politcal solutions go, the 'Decentralized Revolution' model takes advantage of missing roadblocks in many local races that exist on the national level, like not having ballot access and not getting on national news outlets. It's a long game, grass roots strategy that should have started in earnest decades ago and should be continued by whomever chairs and staffs the top of the party in the future, regardless of caucus.
Staffing from the ground up is exactly how elements of the radical left have infiltrated nearly every institution and a lesson the LP would do well to embrace.
I'm stealing cooties 19 as a fellow anarchist.
At one point RFK JR was considering running under the Libertarian ticket after he left the Dems....THAT would have been a way to grow the Libertarian base even IF you had to compromise on some points in order to attract RFK JR as he would actually give attention, money and some credibility to the party.
....but instead Liz Wolfe chose to do a hit piece on him.
Thought he was running Independent?
@@arkansaslibertarian5051He is. He is running as an independent.
@@arkansaslibertarian5051 yes, RFK is running as an independent but when he initially left the Dems he had talks with the Libertarians about running under their ticket as it would ensure that he had ballot access in all 50 states.....but no agreement was reached, so he went independent
She had to do a hit piece on him. Too many m-r-ns these days don't know what libertarianism is or was.
RFK is socialist and anything but a libertarian. He still preaches wokeness, which even half of Democrats don't even like.
"Nobody takes the libertarian party seriously!" Did they take them seriously before mises take over?
Well, they had a former US House member become the Presidential nominee in 2008 with a former US Senate member running against him. In 2012 they had a former Governor as the Presidential nominee with a former federal judge as his running mate. In 2016 that governor ran again with another former Governor as his running mate. And in 2020 a former US House member sought the nomination along with a former Governor and US Senator. So, yeah. Some people used to take the party seriously.
Ron Paul definitely helped spark the libertarian movement, however I remembered when Rand Paul ended up endorsing Romney, I feel like that was probably where it was beginning of the end of that movement. It really sucks because, despite some of my views having gotten more progressive since then (mainly being pro-lgbt and anti-interventional), I still kinda miss that era. I just wish people like Alex Jones weren't involved.
You know this interview has no credibility when they choose to interview someone who isn't even a member of the Libertarian Party. Try asking anyone who's been in this goddamn party for 20 years or more.
That was actually nice to watch oddly...
Liz Wolfe said the "F' WORD. I'm going to subscribe to her channel.
The LP should be a coalition party, but the culture the LPMC has created is one in which Neo-Austrian anarcho-capitalism is considered the only legitimate, or at least the purest, form of libertarianism, and newcomers who aren't either Rothbardians or on their Rothbardian journey aren't made to feel welcome.
As much as I dislike the Mises Caucus black and white nonsense and shit arguments, these interviewers were super hostile and not very reasonable. Liz especially, kinda tried to stop him everywhere she could to insert her point, ussually in an unhinged manner.
OK, I did the 70's wall paper the first time around. We realized it was a bad idea about 2 years later. Apparently, parents are not teaching their children what to not do. We are doomed!
What were the policy changes that the Mises Caucus made to the LP?
Officially, there were two platform changes. First they shifted the platform to be open to pro-lifers where it used to be pro-choice for the entirety of the party's history up to that point. That was a result of influence by social conservative Republicans. And they also removed some language from the platform condemning bigotry as irrational and repugnant with the stated purpose of making the party more welcoming to people who would not otherwise be involved in the party.
Unofficially policy has shifted via social media messaging. That is where the bulk of the changes have occurred. They've adapted a lot of Putin's rhetoric regarding Ukraine and will do things like tweet comparisons between Zelinski and Hitler. They've said that if 1,000 trans people were m*rd*r*d every year in exchange for getting rid of the income tax, the world would be a substantially more moral place. The former Vice Chair, now running for President, said he wanted to repeal women's right to vote. There's too much of that sort of stuff to list. And then there is the edge lording without any discernible policy. Some black congresswoman tweeted that insulin should be free and they replied that she should be picking crops for free. They tweeted that South Africa was better off under Apartheid. There's just so much completely pointless flirting with racism and antisemitism that it is clearly a deliberate strategy to attract those sorts of people and drive away everyone else. And then there's the conspiracy theories. So, so many conspiracy theories, especially around the Covid vaccines.
@@MrAnarchocapitalist Thanks so much, this is excellent info for me and everyone. Love your username btw.
In your first paragraph you say social conservative. It’s much more accurate to say social _authoritarian._ There’s two types of authoritarianism: economic and social/cultural.
Why didn’t anyone think that more authoritarian policies and rhetoric was better for the Libertarian Party? This is horrible…
Time to create and promote a vast number of other _genuinely_ libertarian parties. I look forward to seeing it.
@@user-wl2xl5hm7k Yeah, I agree that social conservative is a bad description for them, that's just what's in common use. They're technically right wing progressives. A progressive is someone who wants to use the government to fix society's problems; the problems they see are that people are too free to not follow their preferred lifestyle. Privately I refer to them as Cultural Nationalists and put them adjacent to the other types of nationalists: ethno-nationalists (people who support government enforced racial supremacy or racial exclusion), economic nationalists (people who support high tariffs on imports and subsidies for domestic producers), civic nationalists (the most libertarianish of the nationalists - basically just people who support a process to gain citizenship), and authoritarian nationalists (aka fascists). Cultural nationalists take their preferred culture and try to use the government to impose it on everyone.
The Mises Caucus didn't take over every state party. They just got control of enough states, including the big one, California, that they had enough delegates to the 2022 national convention to elect nearly all of their people. Some of that was done by shady tactics. Like, they would bring Mises people in from New Hampshire on busses to vote in Pennsylvania's state convention, which is how they won delegates from PA. A half dozen states have since disbanded or disaffiliated in protest (New Mexico, Virginia, Massachusetts, etc), which has had the effect of allowing the Mises Caucus to set up new affiliate parties in those states and allowed them to increase their control. And since the Mises Caucus keeps expanding their control and ruining whatever reputation the party had, more and more people who oppose them are simply quitting the party, which allows them to further consolidate control.
So, the party is stuck in a doom-loop until something breaks. Probably that will be a catastrophic loss of ballot access because revenue has fallen off a cliff. But, that will take several years to play out. It won't be a crisis situation until maybe 2028.
@@MrAnarchocapitalist Interesting info about the Mises movement. But I believe you’re wrong about two important points here:
Progressive- In the vast majority of cases progressive directly implies _no_ government coercion. So progressive usually just means human progress. Humanism is another name for it. It’s a good thing. Libertarians are always progressive.
Nationalism- This also can imply no government coercion. If a nation of people have no punitive-state: no taxes, no criminal laws, no prisons; then nationalism as applied to that people has absolutely no authoritarianism with it. This type of nationalism is just appreciation and praise of that nation of people.
@@user-wl2xl5hm7k Progressivism definitionally involves government coercion. I'm not sure where you're getting your definition. The Prohibition Party was the original right wing progressive party. It saw alcohol consumption as a problem for society and sought to use the government to correct that problem by banning it. Social conservatives are the political descendants of the Prohibition Party. They more or less just swapped alcohol for drugs and tacked on abortion over the years.
A nation can exist outside of a political context. It could just be like a club, organization, or grouping of people with similar characteristics. The "ism" makes it political and indicates the nation's desire to enforce its values on society through the government. It isn't possible to have an anarchic, nationalist society.
collapsing from what? Their position of total and sustained irrelevance?
Collapsing? It’s never been relevant to begin with. It’s more effective to be a libertarian in the Republican Party.
You mean the party that has a platform against pornography? Really?
That means less competition for votes. How is that supposed to improve things?
We have to change the minds of the people. Having libertarians run as republicans and call themselves “constitutional conservatives” is a waste of time. It doesn’t change anything because the people weren’t voting for them because of their libertarian views.
Well this is the attitude that kills the support.
Many have tried that from within and failed terribly. Look at Republicans calling themselves Consrvatives and who they nominated in 2016. A former Clinton Supporter? Give me a break. Best group of Republican candidates ever, one of which was Rand Paul. They chose Trump and when he left office he had out spent every previous administration, left a bigger government and did not close any bases or get rid of even one 3 letter agency. Plus during the beginning of the Lockdown Epidemic Dr Fauci was not fired and lockdowns were allowed to proceed. I'm not supporting or voting for that type of total failure.
well for now, and I do think the Mises caucus is to blame. But I am not sure if it is warranted, but the Caucus has made statements that make me feel as a non-caucus member unwelcome. As such I have a membership, for now, time will tell if I keep my membership in the LP active or not. But I do agree with the idea that when the caucus came in quite a few active LP members rank and file either went away or just stopped being active.
My online interactions with MC-members have been abominable, it's like trying to talk with pre-schoolers. I've quit trying, and will probably not vote for the LP candidate in 2024, for the first time in 44 years. Dave Smith and the other senior members of the MC are fooling themselves that they're not destroying the party. The best thing they could do would be to quit the LP and go form their own Trumper-like party, and let the LP come back from its deathbed.
Their's already a party like that called the Constitution Party which is basically a paleo conservative party. I've suggested they join that. They only come to the LP because it's the only third party with wide ballot access. We need a dozen or more viable parties under an instant run-off system.
So you're not going to be voting Libertarian if the nominee has zero ties to the Trumpist caucus? There's two that have zero ties to LPMC: Chase Oliver and Lars Mapstead. Everyone else running for the nomination is a Mises Caucus incel.
Local election wins Eridan All Time Low under the current board as well
The 1960s called and they want their wallpaper back
It cannot die, that which does not live.
Really peeved me when you had the woke lady in charge. My state party has a untenable pledge you have to make if you want to run under the Libertarian flag, they have no interest in changing it. I get it, as a third party you have to stand out but I swear you have been captured by the ideologs when you really need more pragmatists. Instead of abolishing the fed let's nationalize it. I'm find with more private schools but less fine with private prisons and am quite opposed to privatizing public roads. Open boarders is a joke. Used to be more for legalizing all drugs but Portland has changed my mind on that, try things out in smaller scales and use evidence to guide governance.
More freedom- do no harm. - party leadership, well,they dont get it.
Implement some libertarian principles with conservatives
Rather than none by stubbornly sticking 100% to rigid idealogies
I'm a political libertarian. But I'm also a social conservative, so the LP is not attractive to me.
I don't support trying to make dangerous drugs somehow acceptable and denying the destructiveness of drugs so they can be legalized, or decriminalizing an industry that uses human trafficking as a supply model.
Some of their policies are ridiculous and not practical at all.
Do you know what the words you are using mean?
So what you are saying is that you support human trafficking and destructiveness of drugs which is why you want them kept illegal so they they remain profitable for criminals and so the legal entities can’t offer treatment and support for addicts? You’re kind of a horrible person… (but you said that using the words social conservative already)
You're not a libertarian and this is the exact reason I'm against Dave's appeal to conservatives. I see libertarianism as a form of liberalism, not conservatism. I see myself as a liberal as did most libertarians up until recently.
Theirs an aspect of priority that has to come into play here. Legalising drugs while providing welfare checks to those taking the drugs is bad. In some cases that’s why Reason is bad. Their brand of libertarianism seems to prioritise legalising drugs over removing welfare. IMO. Im actually more in favor of legalising all drugs to eliminate the power doctors and pharmaceutical companies etc… get from having that power. And I think anti-psych drugs are far scarier than say meth. But SSI check would flow without other changes.
I, like many, was very happy to see the Mises folks restore some spine to the Libertarian party.
I use to be a member. Left after the party was taken over by republicans
I used to be a member. Left after the party was taken over by democrats. Thought about coming back when the perverts and communists lost to the MC, but decided to stay away because of people like you.
to leftists everyone to the right of them is the same. rothbardian libertarians took over the party and you think its republicans.
@@camanarchy6591 You people are alt right. The fact that you bring your garbage to a party that never considered itself left or right to begin with proves this.
@@camanarchy6591Ron Paul had way more in common with Gary Johnson than he does with LP New Hampshire (MC)
I mean, the libertarian platform of “Do what you want as long as you’re not hurting me.” has got us to where we are today…
“Legalize freedom.”
“Taxation is theft”
🙄
Because the LP has been a joke since you decided to bring in Gary Johnson. 2020 didnt change much. Ron Paul is what put LP on the map. Open borders position is helping now. I'm libertarian, Ron Paul libertarian.
Ron Paul isn't even a libertarian
It's been a joke since 2022. Even Vermin Supreme is more principled than the four mentally challenged clowns the Mises Caucus are promoting for the nomination, none of which are really campaigning.
was it ever standing?
Last I checked Dave doesn't even attend LNC meetings. How is it possible Reason thinks this is a person to ask for analysis?
The Mises Caucus has got to go.
No.
That's a trick question.
There's no such thing as a "libertarian".
Just a twelve year old 40 year old.
They winning in Argentina
I joined because of the mises cacus and am a monthly donor now because of it. why have you all done nothing but run basically hit pieces the last few days?
When is someone going to mention how much of the LP funding was coming from the PACs of the Big 2? The LP and Green party are paid participants in the 2 party system.
The LP was never anything worth writing home about to start with.
She’s correct.
David Smith is one of the worst libertarians out there. Anarchist shouldn't be calling themselves libertarians, that makes it confusing and prevents anyone (including myself) from supporting Libertarianism.
Good on Dave for correcting Zach’s disingenuous attack about adjusting for inflation. Every single corporations and organization report their finances in nominal terms. If you want new leadership you can organize and get delegates to the convention.
Dave didn’t run for LP POTUS because the Libertarian Party is failing.
He claims it’s because of family, but that’s another excuse.
It’s a political fantasy
nah it's just libertarians finally coming to their senses and becoming anarchists
It's a joke of a party.
Has been since 2022.
Liz is a 70s Liberal Democrat
RFK
Being feckless and weak..
Hell, maybe it would be a GOOD thing to get someone in there who doesn't know what they're doing. Would still be better than Trump and Biden. 😂
To be fair, Trump was an outsider to government who didn't know what he was doing and Biden has dementia and doesn't know what he's doing anyway. So...Trump and Biden are both examples of someone in there who doesn't know what they're doing. XD
Have you considered that people could be switching their giving to the Mises caucus or state LP instead of national? That would be consistent with the decentralization principle.
I've checked about 20 states. There was no unusual revenue pattern. Mises PAC raised $170,000 in the first six months of this year. The LNC is on pace to be short $1 Million vs the previous several years. The database problem mentioned by Dave Smith can only be a portion of the problem as the revenue slide started before the change to the new system.