What is the Ideal Strategy for the Libertarian Party? A Soho Forum Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Dave Smith and Nicholas Sarwark debate the 2016 Libertarian Party ballot, what constitutes success in an election, and how to effectively share libertarian principles.
---------
Subscribe to our RUclips channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magaz. .
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
_____
"The Libertarian Party should never again put up national candidates whose views are similar to those of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld."
That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on September 10, 2019. It featured comedian and podcast host Dave Smith and Nicholas Sarwark, the chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.
It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Smith won the night by convincing 20 percent of the audience, while Sarwark convinced 16.8 percent.
Arguing for the affirmative was Dave Smith, host of the popular libertarian podcast Part of the Problem, and a co-host of Legion of Skanks.
Nicholas Sarwark argued for the negative. Sarwark is currently serving his third term as chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, which is the executive body of the Libertarian Party of the United States.
The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.
The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.
Produced by John Osterhoudt.
Photo credit: Brett Raney
The Ron Paul Revolution still lives in Dave Smith. Keep the remnant alive.
Where is this Ron Paul revolution? I'm not aware of any revolution. The guy had two Presidential runs as GOP that failed badly. Not entirely his fault, he's a good man with great ideas, but great ideas don't win elections. They are won on emotion and as bad as the Republicans are with messaging, the Libertarians are even worse. Until they learn the concept of an Overton Window and realize that even if you have superior ideas, charts and graphs of Austrian Economics just aren't going to cut it, you need to make an emotional connection with voters. Ron Paul's fatal mistake was that the Porcupine got obsessed with the Presidency early on and never built a grassroots-up structure. Recent POTUS have mostly been Governors, Vice Presidents, and Senators. If LIbertarians can't even elect people at that level, how can they make any realistic run at the Presidency? Sarwark doesn't seem to grasp this concept, or that they need to at least work with the GOP instead of fighting with and insulting their POTUS, because we have much more common cause in beating back socialism. But Sarwark and his ilk would rather die on the hill of the perfect without realizing the good that we need to accomplish to get there.
Girl-bulliers posing as libertarians
@Jordan Rogers Plan on elaborating?
@@tomservo75 If you think "winning elections" will get us out of the mess we're in, then you're indeed a fucking idiot. Those "Ron Paul failed campaigns" you mention transformed the political landscape of the country (maybe even of the whole world), and are already part of history. What do you remember of the Johnson/Weld campaign? Aleppo, maybe...
@@daveBit15 Really, cursing at me is not going to help matters, I'm merely expressing an opinion. No, I don't think that winning elections will get us out of any mess, because the mess is so big that two terms of Ron Paul and then two terms of Lew Rockwell would not be enough. However, is it better than not winning elections? The irony is, that in order to take power away from government you have to first get governmental power. Johnson/Weld was the worst-run campaign since Mitt Romney. I have great respect for Ron Paul and his son, but until the Libertarian Party starts winning elections at the state or even Congressional level, they will not be in a position to effect change. All the Tea Party rallies in the world are no substitute for working from within the government, a principle that the left has used to its advantage for the past 50+ years.
This seems like an argument between the Libertarian political party and Libertarian philosophy
DaveG Comedy yes it does. I get what the party is trying to do.
That's why the debate is happening; the Libertarian Party cares less and less about Libertarian philosophy.
*@1275638a* or in other words they’re less “libertarian” and more just “party.”
It's an argument btwn athe LP and the Antifa, CPUSA and GOP infiltrators who prefer the initiation of force.
J Henry Phillips Hi can you explain communo-fascist anarchism to me?
Dave Smith is so damn impressive. Love that we have him leading the charge and enlightening new people every week.
Zac Tidwell yea I was more or less a-political but leaned right but after his first Rogan I started looking into the philosophy and before his second appearance on jre I was full blown Ancap and had been religiously listening to POTP and reading Ron Paul and Rothbard.
@@tysonhalfacre8314 woe. Neat story. Ron Paul sent me down this road, but I wasn't Red-pilled until I started listening to Dave Smith.
Dude really missed his calling. He'd have made a hell of a lot better politician than he is a comedian
Yeah, as a former Ron Paul libertarian, Dave Smith is the first public figure that has even begun to pull me back into libertarianism. He has the most compelling libertarian arguments. He hasn't sold me completely, but his principles are sound. I just think the biggest problem with libertarianism is the same problem that communism faced. The ideas are just incompatible with most people. Communism had the state gun to fall back on, obviously that's not an option for libertarians. Dave even kinda admits this with his rebuttal to nick's marijuana/gay marriage point
@@barbarianlibertarian9200 Dave is pretty fucking funny, but why not both? He's only 37 and I think he's getting into the game, the Mises caucus is making a run on the lp and Dave is the best kown member.
The passion pouring out of Dave Smith is inspiring. Brings a tear to my eye.
Real Youth International Party oratory, another Abbie Hoffmann fer shoor. CPUSA can get back on the map.
Yah, but it's totally retarded.
seems problematic to me
I smelled it too...
Passion without substance is impotent: all flash that burns out. And, one should ask: is the passion stemming from true commitment, or from something else?
We want Robbie The Fire's warm up!
Seconded. Especially if it includes sandwich talk.
Absolutely
We could certainly do worse...
An address from the King of the Caucs is a human right
Came here just to comment this
I got chills listening to Dave Smith. Never thought I’d say that
Based Stalin?
You should be used to chills, Comrad Stalin. You live in Russia.
Dave Smith's opening argument is getting played on a loop. That was fantastic.
Agreed. That was smazing
Too bad he threw it all away in the Q&A
Should be mandatory libertarian listening.
@@opensprit Indeed
why?
I'd just like to point out that on Dave's podcast Nick literally said you should vote for Hitler if he was the LP candidate.
Nick is a toad
Yeah that was pretty crazy lmao
Have you ever been nominated for anything by a full national delegation of anything~?
It's a stupid stacked question. But I assure you a Hitler would only receive such a nomination after thorough reformation and restitution.
I don't beat my wife. And not just because I've never married.
@@LibertyFelix "would the LP nominate Hitler" and "should libertarians support Hitler for president assuming that he got the nomination" are different questions. And the lp nominated Bill Weld without him being a libertarian. According to Nick, he only became antiwar after being nominated, for example.
@@matthartley2471Weld ran on the claim of libertarian lite, justified or not, by his record as Governor.
I am only back to the Libertarian Party because of Dave Smith, Scott Horton, and the Mises Caucus. Keep up the great work.
Whoo! MiCaucs!
Same here
Same!
I'm with ya there. After Ron Paul and not seeing anyone like him but people trying to fit in to the duopoly... I was out.
Found Dave on tim pool and heard mises and was like yep.. Back to it talking about things out and about and asking if these people know Ron Paul and the fed? Cuz and you know how that goes
Don't forget Tom Woods!
Libertarian candidates got more votes AFTER Ron Paul mainstreamed Libertarianism, who da thunk it? Nah, it's totally Gary Johnson's superior political policies, said no one aside from Nick. 🙄
The Cleptocracy is committed to the initiation of deadly force. The LP isn't, so communists and fascists hate us. What else is new?
Yes, Ron Paul was great for libertarianism. But his influence lasted for 6 years from the start of 2007 to the end of 2012. After Paul retired, he stopped growing libertarianism. He stopped reaching a new audience. 99% of the people Paul's message has reached after 2012 were already aware of him before 2012. He has just been preaching to the choir since then. But Libertarianism has continued to grow. Others have carried forward the momentum that Ron Paul began. And that includes Gary Johnson. Johnson appeals to a somewhat different audience than Paul, but that is necessary for growth. Paul sold his message to his audience as well as it was going to be done. If they weren't persuaded by Paul in that 6 years, they weren't going to be persuaded. Which means a new slant on the message had to be presented in order to continue growth. People like Johnson did that.
J Henry Phillips Can you please back up some of these absurd claims you’re making on every comment?
@@MrAnarchocapitalist "He has just been preaching to the choir since then." Dream on! We are reaching more conservatives and progressives than your Sarwarkian pencil pusher could hope for. Because we have the message of liberty. Not the mealy-mouthed whimpering of today's LP.
It was definately Gary Johnson sticking his tongue out and screaming at journalists that won over the hearts and minds of Americans.
It must be unprecedented to have someone so roundly despised in charge of an organization where job number one is "don't be despised." Dave Smith is great. Libertarian Party under Sarwarkism is already dead.
For some reason, Sarwark is very attuned to all the gripes of the far left, but he’s openly hostile to any right leaning libertarians. Why? Because these are the concerns of white people- God forbid! All with an air of political neutrality, when it comes to the two major parties. Who is this man?
The Libertarian Party died in 2016 when it supported Weld as Johnson's running mate.
The LP under Sarwark has been growing like crazy by most metrics. Voter registrations have gone from roughly 370,000 to 570,000. Unique voters are way up. At least 7.4 million people voted Libertarian in 2016 vs 5.1 million in 2012. Or 4.7 million in 2018 vs 2.9 million in 2010. Inflation adjusted national party revenue is at all time highs, excluding the Unified Membership Plan era, which caused extreme distortions in membership numbers and revenue. The only key metric which is not at all time highs is the number of candidates run (and the number of candidates elected, which is just a function of the number of candidates run). But the number of candidates run, although not at an all time high, is greater under Sarwark than his predecessor.
What reason do you have for the claim that the party is dead under Sarwark?
@@MrAnarchocapitalist because it's moving away from its one principle; liberty. You can CALL it the Libertarian Party all you want. That doesn't mean it believes in LIBERTARIANISM.
Then why has Nick lost over 5000 dues paying members since he was elected to chair after 2012? We had over 20K members with the Ron Paul energy, and it's down to 15k. How is that a good metric?
Endorsing Rand Paul would’ve been LIGHTYEARS more correct than Johnson/Weld.
If you don't believe women rate rights
Not until he stands with us in more than just spirit.
Unfortunately 1. Rand plays the game his father refused to and is not very good at it and 2. He has the charisma of a brick wall. You have to inspire the herd........and by herd I mean mostly FEMALE VOTERS. Which I suspect is not a favorable demographic for Rand even compared to A womanizing serial adulterer alpha.
He was the most libertarian option of 2016.
The reality is we aren’t electing a fuckin king, thank God.. The LP really should be focusing on the states and centralizing the power balance back to the states.
This is the fastest/easiest way we can make the fed largely irrelevant. It’s where the should be placing the priority of work.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
-Barry Goldwater
So how'd that and state coathanger laws work out for Goldwater?
@@libertariantranslator1929 Jesus Harold Christ the comment wasn’t a value judgment on Barry Goldwater... it was merely a good quote that applied to this debate.
Nixon having JFK shot did nothing to help Goldwater
@@libertariantranslator1929 how did roe vs waide work out for pro baby killers?
@@nimbletimplekins7601 No content NSDAP sock
One thing I learned during this debate is I would never hire Sarwark as my attorney.
Dave's opening monologue is pure genius and one of the most beautiful manifesto monologues in the history of humankind. Dave Smith for President 2024!!! He is a freak of nature!
Nick was basically a heckler at Dave's speech.
So was Dave when Nick spoke tho.
Nick, Can you sign my "no pandering, sjw's in the LP" pledge?
yep, and i wonder if he noticed that when David Koch died despite lending funds and/or legal briefs towards helping the cause of: Gay marriage, more immigration, less incarceration for drug offenses, and more the left still danced all over his grave the minute they found out. Not all of course, but a huge amount of them all over social media. Nick can genuflect and signal all he wants, but as soon as you say something like, I think income taxes are wrong or anything else the militant left disagrees with all the things you do that they like go out the window and you might as well be a KKK member to them.
Thats hilarious 🤣🤣🤣
Interestingly, Dave sounds exactly like an SJW claiming the Trump is Hitler and the US is Nazi Germany. I'm a borderline libertarian, but that kind of rhetoric is insane and turns me off like nothing else, because it paints libertarians as extremists.
@@SteveSmith-fh6br he didn't say that. Either way best wishes in your learning
@@ea2631 He said, "We live in a Nazi police state". So yeah.
“I’m not saying you didn’t support the right issues, I’m saying it wasn’t you that got it done. And you can keep borrowing Ben Shapiro’s shitty line, but can you stop borrowing his foreign policy also?” -Dave for the win
I've listened to Dave's opening 3 times already, it's amazing
Watching Sarwark foreshadow the results of the 2022 convention is hilarious now
IM VOTING FOR DAVE AS CHAIR OF LP
"I would tell you not to quit your day job if I didn't really really want you to quit your day job." 😂😂😂😂
Leadership requires more than the ability to throw wry quips through the air. Two different types of skill and talent. Don't mistake one for the other.
Seemed to help Donald J Trump get pretty far lol
@@Historian212 "You can't insult your way to the presidency, donald" -Jeb Bush
@@Historian212 LP is laughed at nationally and have adopted Marxists ideology instead of saying that identity doesn't matter.
so funny
"could you stop borrowing his [Ben Shapiro] foreign policy"
hahhaahah
Here's the thing, we have real enemies that really do want to kill us today, unlike 2000s under Bush and early 2010's under Obama. 911 was an inside job, invading Iraq & Afghanistan were ill-advised unnecessary disasters. Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan but Pakistan who we give $Millions in foreign aid to (and yet we never invaded them). Taking out Qaddafi was a terrible move that created ISIS and destabilized region further. Ultimately, these campaigns destabilized the region and handed these territories over to our enemies, Iran in Iraq & Afghan, Russia in Syria & Libya.
Now Iran is on the offensive with backing from CCP China, & Russia. We have real threats and real allies like Israel, India, Taiwan, even the Saudis and Gulf Arab states like UAE who are threatened and that directly affects us and our liberty abroad and domestically. Can Libertarian Party prove to the American people that you can/will be willing and able to protect and defend us from enemies abroad, not just our own shitty government? Because the threats today are far more serious than a decade or two ago.
@@lawmanjed Dude who gives a fuck what Iran is doing.
@@georgea.567 - How naive.
@@lawmanjed Really, who cares? Only the CIA who arms and props up those who are territorial warlords. There’s a reason why decades ago Iran was not on conservatives weary and fearful list. The same CIA that’s involved in foreign affairs in the east also destabilized societies in central america for decades. I’m no one to think that advocating for a stay of centralized power and decision making in the hands of the military industrial complex’s planners is ever a good thing. They want to run the world the same way they run foreign regimes, when they ought to mind their own business.
@@Hibernial - A now soon-to-be nuclear-armed (thanks to Obama-Biden) Islamic fundamentalist regime in Tehran believes we USA are the "big satan" and vows to wipe us off the planet. Anyone with a brain should care. I'm not an apologist for CIA or US foreign policy particularly over the past few decades but this isn't the Iraq or Afghan wars, where NWO globalist traitors bogged US down in costly unwinnable wars with no clear objective to victory. Iran/CCP/Russia are actual threats, and they've become emboldened by the western policy makers' impossibly foolish actions. All the governments are NWO controlled. But the nationalist layer of the onion is real, and regimes like the Iranians are radical and they mean business. Iran has been fomenting terrorism via proxy for decades, but they have become a terror-proxy super power and are literally threatening world peace. You believe in free-markets? They don't and they are taking over & destabilizing the middle-east by force. That means gas prices through the roof & economy held hostage by Jihadists and free-market people and corporates alike will both have to concede more freedom to the environmentalist central planners just to turn the heat on. So when does libertarian non-interventionist philosophy clash with libertarian free-market ideals? At some point it does. Same argument with Taiwan, you have a totalitarian communist regime forcing free people & free markets into slavery. The non-aggression principle allows intervention when another is being attacked, we can and have a duty to intervene when our friends and partners are attacked. Maybe someone like myself wouldn't have supported the 1953 coup to install the Shah, but at this stage in history that's all in the past, and the situation is what it is. Iran is the aggressor in the middle-east more so than any other party at this point. It is ironic and hypocritical to accuse the west of being all about control, which I don't deny there are factions who are, particularly the globalist NWO faction referred to earlier, who are sellouts, but look at Russia, China & Iran my friend. Russia props up a butcher of his own people in Syria, an autocrat puppet in Kazakhstan and helps prop up the Iranian regime, along with China. China is one of the worst human rights abusers, makes Russia look orderly, it's like Squid Games over in CCP land. They prop up horrific totalitarian regimes like North Korea, Turkmenistan. These are regimes whose state-run media literally threaten other nations with nuclear annihilation, so much so it's considered normal. These regimes actually want to be the global authority. The NWO globalist regimes in these nations are every bit as evil as the NWO globalist regime here, if not more so, because they aren't kept in check by a well-armed freedom-loving populace like America. Freedom loving free people everywhere have a huge fight ahead against authoritarian-collectivist foreign enemy regimes and their own state farm governments in their own country. It's too late for most in most countries. I don't want war, most people do not, it is only designed to serve the global elite. Depopulation, distraction. More globalization, centralization of power will be the answer. So maybe tell that story to Russia, China, & Iran, because they are doing the NWO's bidding more than anyone.
If you haven’t checked out the Part of the Problem where they continued this discussion, you should. I think it’s better.
Did he have Sarwark as a guest?
Yes
Dave destroyed him there too.
@@snorkymn If so, then why does Dave adopt Sarwark's gradual appeal approach on a recent "Punk Rock Libertarian" episode? Something's shifted since this event took place.
New registered libertarian here watching in 2021. Really loved this. I like Dave's Ideas 💡
I’m a Mises guy and Ron Paul led me to the LP. I can’t get on board with Nick. I understand his reasoning, but his view is flawed.
Look at what Ron did and look at what Sanders is doing now. Their views forced change in their respective parties.
The LP needs that type of persona to lead the party into the future and gain that foundation. Build it over time with ideas and historical precedents.
The LP also has a terrible flaw in that the crazies come here, it’s hard to be taken seriously sometimes but that is something we will have to work through.
In a way, Sarwark's got a bit of Nassim Taleb -view on randomness and luck. People outside libertarians and some finance folks won't give a shit about the Fed. People start to vote libertarian because of random factors: jackass bailouts, votes between a douche and a turd, eminent domain by their town, state or county, or some other instance when government personally jerks them around. That's what I took from his "thirds of the LP" bit.
The question is: does that translate into forbidding certain candidates from rising through the LP nomination process or not?
Signed, a non-LP member
GOP sockpuppet infiltrators have driven away almost all female libertarians
Amazing debate and Dave killed it. *IMAGINE A LP COMMANDED BY HIM AND TOM WOODS* Now tell me they wouldn't be more successful?
Tom Woods and Dave Smith are both amazing.
Dave Smith 2024!
Imagine...
@@DavidM_603 too good
Dave smith would rather tell dick jones onstage.
I just discovered Dave... I love him.
Davey Smith!!!!
It's easier to sell people Slavery than Freedom. In a way, Slavery is easy, just do as you're told til death. With freedom, you have to work hard, Deal with responsibilities, Nothing is given to you, there are no scapegoats.
Yep personal responsibility is a bitch isnt it?
Slavery is also the norm. If independance was the norm and freedom from government, then id imagine, selling slavery would be much harder. "how about a politician makes all your decisions for you?" "how in the hell would a politician know what i want?"
57:58 "I'll give you Woods". Thank you for your generosity.
I had the same thought
“So you got Trump”
“... so did you”
Damn son.
Dave's opening statement brought tears to my eyes.
Free Helicopter Rides It was pretty badass
Sarwark should change the name of the LP to NeoCon Lite, then he is assured to get plenty of those "baby-step" votes. Dave (Ron Paul, Rothbard, Hayek etc.) personify why I am a Libertarian. Nick personifies why I'm not in the Libertarian party.
I didn't even realize that was true of myself until you just said it. And you put it so eloquently
Communist infiltrators and their GOP sockpuppets are out in force.
Yeah if he can't definitely say that he's not in favor of the party being the back-up, last-ditch effort to remain relevant in politics (Barr, Weld) then the party is just screwed.
It’s ironic that a libertarian like Dave Smith rules so hard.
“Hoppe may be a bridge too far.”
Oh my god. This guy thinks Hoppe is worse than Gary Johnson. This is telling.
GOP sockpuppet detected. Prepare depth charges
Hoppe may be a bridge too far . . . but recruiting BLM and Occupy are worth a shot.
@@CountArtha - That's sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. You want to really distance yourselves from Constitutionalists and the Ron Paul conservatives, tell people you're courting BLM & other socialists.
@@CountArtha so let's distance ourselves from our original philosophy to recruit communists who hate us, awesome idea bro.
@@lawmanjed The Libertarian party won't get 1 percent of the vote by being a right-wing party. If you want to be a Ron Paul conservative, stay in the GOP and try to take over your state party, county board, school district, and so on. If you want to do something more serious like get 1 percent of the popular vote in a presidential election, you have to build a center-left coalition with socialists in the wings. That's just common sense.
Wow, Dave’s opening statement was incredible.
Ron Paul was technically closer to becoming president of the United States in 2016.
The token libertarian-impersonator?
The 1 faithless elector?
He spoke like an old person
There's a very easy answer: Stop pandering to various political groups and start embracing rothbardian anarchism and austrian economics fully. Bring the party back to what it once was!
Imagine libertarians working together in groups...
QuercusLibera Austrian economics is great but anarchy can't win an election let alone work
LPMisesCaucus.com - MisesPAC.com
Join our group on Facebook, we're doing the damn thing!
i would consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, but i believe it requires a few innovations to work properly. basically, i am a trans-anarcho-capitalist who is currently settling for right libertarianism. i could get into the details of the problems of anarchy and how technology could help, but the problems of government are inherent to the point where it is pretty clear that our goal should be to limit the government as far as we can. unfortunately, it is government's nature to grow, and with how many people don't like either capitalism or anarchy, it is pretty obvious that it wont work democratically in our life times. my suggestion would be to either elect a full blown authoritarian and hope Hegelian dialectics works fast enough to prevent any permanent harm, or to set up a space-colony that operates like the wild west for as long as possible in order to show how well it works.
Are you perhaps referring to the same Rothbard who founded the Libertarian Party?
Now it makes sense why Ron Paul didn’t run for president on LP ticket.
He didn’t even endorse Gary Johnson
Alright bro. I'm in. You re-converted me. God Bless Ron Paul.
15:20. Right on
Faith and Force, the destroyers
Dave speaks the way, at least for me, how we all think but are unable to articulate. After hearing Nick speak on Dave's podcast, I can't understand how anyone could support Nick after that. He fell into every single trap he could have possibly fallen into on that. I'm glad Dave is unrepentant and as verbose as he is. Good on SOHO and Reason for this, thank you very much.
Sockpuppets vote too?
"Verbose: 1: containing more words than necessary...
also : impaired by wordiness" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
I agree with your assessment: Dave is verbose.
All this tells me is the LP doesn't actually believe in what it says. We are just here to win, if we get a Trump/Bernie ticket on the LP we should vote for them. Why would I vote for something I didn't care about. I held my nose and voted for Gary Johnson for the party. I wan't the party succeed BUT I actually want you to practice what you are supposed to be preaching. Give us candidates that actually give a shit.
Hopefully they get a new chairman
Quit voting for the lessor of three evils. You make a better statement by not voting.
Winning is getting spoiler votes for our original platform, not betraying it to please GOP bigots and commie anarchists
@@hooverdog1957 send in an empty ballot. Then at least you don’t look like just another bum too lazy to vote
Unfortunately, most of the electorate is more interested in free stuff than they are in freedom.
Camel totem which is why universal suffrage is bad politically
READ John Glubb - Fate of Empires (24 page PDF essay) History is repeating itself.
@@hs5312 Yes, but really it's why democracy is bad. And... government generally...
@@hs5312 Democracy: The God That Failed by Hoppe is a great book, but quite advanced
@@hs5312 It's why the state is bad period.
I'm not even 10 minutes into this and as far as I'm concerned Dave has already won! Dave Smith is amazing!!!!!
I don't hate Nick Sarwark. But I did just join the party. And I can't support him as chairman. I can't trash the leadership so much if I don't try to change it.
Jason Bracewell that’s the same reason that finally got me to join.
@@NathanPier Paid the 25 bucks yesterday lol.
Jason Bracewell don’t forget to join your state level party as well if you are wanting to get in on the convention delegate process. 👍
@@NathanPier I'm trying to find a way to get in contact with them but there's no contact info that I could see on thr website.
I'm not going to join the DSA in order to try to change it. I'm going to trash it from the outside.
Sorry Nick, you came across as a smarmy lawyer. Dave came across as a passionate ideologue. Why in the world does the LP have a slimy lawyer in charge when there are clearly brilliant, passionate libertarians who would be much better?
Kevin Smith Dave killed him in this debate
1. Sarwark is the chairman- the voting LP members who show up elected him.
2. I just finished the rebuttals. I'll wait to see if Dave challenges Sarwark's opening rebuttal "Does anyone outside the liberty movement give a shit about the Fed? Absolutely not."
I'm tuned into the substance - I don't care about ad hominem.
Slimy lawyers are the ones that show up to take over the party. Everyone in these comments that's disillusioned with the LP needs to do just that; show up. Let's take over.
Smith: There are some foundational principles of liberty on which we should not compromise.
Sarwark: How egregiously can we comprise our principles in order to get votes?
I think the winning position is clear.
Here is someone who, like motel name Smith, has not voted nor read the platform.
@@libertariantranslator1929 It's okay we will be showing up from now on. Get used to us communo-fascist anarchists.
@@resmarted Sockpuppet, the world was gleefully hanging you looters in the 1870s --libertariantranslator
@@libertariantranslator1929 I dont take my moral cues from the 1870s. Do you?
Unless we are talking about Lysander Spooner of course
Dave's opening speech was really powerful.
Nick doesn’t mind sacrificing libertarian values to gain a bigger support base. The bigger tent approach. Meanwhile the people that are actually creating a bigger tent and a bigger support base are the folks like Dave and Ole Tom Woodsy.
Ps how disingenuous for Nick to say in his closing statement that he “didn’t hear what values would qualify a candidate” after Dave repeated ten times...”end the fed, and stop the wars”
Smith is a Libertarian, Sarwack is a Politician
looking at the people Smith supports he's a conservative
Your comment/this distinction sums up this “debate”.
Let me go further...
As soon as Nick finished his opening statement I predicted the RUclips comments would be overwhelmingly in Dave’s favor, not because his points were more important or articulate, rather his impassioned style overshadowed the problem that they were debating different ideas.
From Dave’s position the libertarian party has lost its way as it has propped up unprincipled career politicians. Nick, on the other hand, didn’t debate this charge. Like a seasoned lawyer/politician, the defense for recent history was a lesson on what running campaigns in the real world actually looks like. And that not all people consider foreign wars or the fed problem as important as Dave obviously does.
When Nick offered up the scenario of a pretend Cheney candidacy with guaranteed libertarian outcomes and Dave dismissed the bargain over hatred of Cheney it became clear to me that the debate was principles for Dave and pragmatism for Nick, and while it’s fun to pretend politicians can be principled, usually their pragmatic campaign managers get them into office.
Being principled and being a politician on the national level are nearly mutually exclusive propositions; and this is why I, as a libertarian, believe that the overwhelming majority of national level office holders are villains.
The Fed? How bout abolishing 99% of the Federal government and returning that power to the states? I’m pretty sure Utah wouldn’t be helping Saudi Arabia. Every time Dave mentions the Fed I roll my eyes. Lofty ideals and principled stances are easy to make from the podcast or comedy stage, try it from campaign platform and then I’ll take you seriously.
@@robinsss Gee, maybe "conservative" is just the word that people in charge call anyone who challenges their hold on power.
@@Mr.Ogynist What has Nick Sarwark done during his tenure as LNC Chair that makes him look pragmatic? I'll take even one example.
Elpeo Puru I’m not sure you understand what pragmatic means, and I’m not saying that to insult your intelligence. So here is the first entry from google for you to reference...
prag·mat·ic
/praɡˈmadik/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
If it’s not obvious to you that Dave lives in the world of the ideal and Nicks whole focus was on the battle for real world political elections you didn’t listen to both sides trying to learn something.
Also, I’m in no way siding with Nick over Dave... I’m just observing that they were debating almost entirely different issues.
Dave killed this debate. Very impressive
Pity he's not in the Antifa party.
Except the Stalin-Hitler comparisons. That REALLY turned me off due to its sheer ignorance.
Justin Paul They were both psychopathic collectivist mass murderers. Who gives a fuck if they had a few philosophical difference?
@@justinpaul3110 which comparison
If I have to explain why its not worth my time to do so.
I’ve never seen someone come off as unlikeable as Nick. If I wasn’t such a huge Dave Smith fan I wouldn’t have watched more than a minute of this.
Did you see the podcast after? I thought that was even worse!
Sounds like you have a clear bias. They both sound perfectly likeable to me, and I think they both had very good showings here.
*@Aaron Isleman* did you hear when an audience member yelled something like “quit being a lawyer!” and then Dave repeated it? I thought that was a very fair criticism. Nick danced around a bit, trying to and at times succeeding at evading questions where his answer was not audience-friendly. In contrast, regardless of what you think about the merit or delivery of Dave’s arguments he never dodged. I think that difference between the two is why we see comments leaning more towards criticism of Nick, and not Dave.
Cheers!
@@TRIPP5_Shurikens you probably like Limp Bizkit too.
I've never heard of Joe Brown. I came to see Nick debate a cheap motel name Antifa sockpuppet. I see now the organizers thought they were getting Nick the Jacket to take a powder in the first round. Too bad.
I lol’d when nick said Gary Johnson was “hella” more anti war
Same. “Hella”? What year do you think it is, Nick, and whom are you trying to reach? “Fellow kids”? 🙄
Me too! 🤣🤣
So cringe
He also did that “response as a form of a gif”
I was introduced to Dave smith through the legion of skanks podcast, I had no idea he was so passionate and great on politics too. As a former lefty, anyone that says this movement is alt right is idiotic.
"Nooooooooo but you can't just reject egalitarianism and believe in freedom of association, then people will be racist and that is le bad! We need to make people's lives harder until they stop being racist (this definitely isn't coercion though)!"
So glad the reset happened 🙌
Step 1: Abolish the Department of Education
Step 2: Repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the IRS
Step 3: Balance the budget and end the Fed
Step 4: Kick your feet up and enjoy a tasty beverage because 1-3 are literally all we need to do to turn things around
Step 5: Buy gold, silver, guns, and ammo because there is no way in hell 1-3 will ever happen. We're too far gone. It was a good run, people.
Abolish the DEA
This aged quite well. Dave killed it, and the Mises Caucus swept.
Found him on JRE and I'm a fan. Good luck moving forward.
Dave killed it! We need a real libertarian for the libertarian party! Only way to do it
Those who would sacrifice Principle for Victory deserve neither and will receive neither.
nice purity comment
Nathan and how has the milquetoast strategy been working out?
@@magnum9987 Please tell me more about how the Kokesh campaign is going.
Victory is earning spoiler votes that make the looters repeal bad laws
Yeah, this has been the great Libertarian Party (TM) mantra for how long, and yet you can never accomplish ANYTHING, NOT A SINGLE THING, because you have NO POWER. At some point you have to WIN! This is politics. You have to be popular enough to get anything done. Your principles are nothing if they are NOT EVER put into practice. P.S. - Ron Paul was a Republican.
The problem is that we want to run a candidates that can gain a mainstream attention but also we're running candidates that pander to people instead of promoting liberty and telling people that less government would be better for the country as whole because a majority of people want the government to stay out of their lives and let them live as long as they're not hurting anyone or stealing their stuff. Personally the best way to do that is what I will term as the Larry Sharpe Route where we focus on city/town elections as well as state elections because doing so would show people that Libertarians can govern.
@Tiago Cabrita really, but also I can see his point most people really only vote based on party and not issues. With running candidates for office at the local/state levels it would build the trust among the political moderates
I was not very politically involved until the pandemic started in March 2020. I already knew who Ron Paul was, but I am not of Dave's generation and didn't experience that era of politics. I am currently a college student, and Dave Smith is basically my Ron Paul. This man is a legend.
This debate was the Paradigm shift in The Movement
"These are the 'individual rights' libertarians..." -Nicholas Sarwark 🤣
Has "woken" become a word without my knowledge?
Individual rights until you decide you don't want to associate with certain groups, then suddenly your individual rights go away. So glad sawarkism is dead, egalitarianism has no place in the american libertarian movement
@@nimbletimplekins7601 Guilt by association...what is this hell in which we find ourselves?
Nick reminds me of Gabe from the Office
Going to be sweet when the Mises caucus is the majority of the LP.
This one goes to Dave all the way through.
1:19:31
Yes I’ve seen a country that was a republic, then turned into an empire, spent itself to collapse, and tear apart. It is the Roman Empire
Roman Empire also got into homosexuality and pedophilia... coincidence?
The empire only moves. It's gotta go
I’m so glad you pissed Dave and the mises Caucus off and now you’re gone and we’re taking over the LP. Love to see it.
The next Soho Forum Debate:
Jacob Hornberger vs. Lew Rockwell on the issue of open immigration.
jeffersonianideal Hell Yes!!
@@NaderHasanMD
Beats the hell out of this pissing contest.
Bring hoof & mouth disease back into Texas!
You bet dude. That's a real divide too, and I could honestly go either way (but obviously I'm inclined towards Lew)
@@SquareNoggin Lew is amazing
If Nick would just treat Ron Paul like the packers treated the late great Bart Star. What ever he wants, invite him everywhere, treat him like a god. Get Ron to not only promote his principles but to promote joining the party and double the 15k in memberships. Work together. Ask for Ron’s and his peoples help in picking the proper people. Use him while he’s still with us. It’s like having blues music that Elvis loves but not making an Elvis record with your label but doing the opposite- putting your blues record right next to Elvis’s in the rack. Some people take both, but Elvis is still selling more records.
Ron Paul forever cost us the female vote we earned when the 1972 plank became Roe v Wade
@@libertariantranslator1929 roughly half the women are against abortion, with just the same conviction as the other half
and in fact those that support abortion are largely on the left, precisely the people that are never going to be libertarian
@@AnarchistMetalhead Observe that the communist sockpuppet fakes statistics. Meanwhile in Ireland, 2/3 of voters repealed the NSDAP-Vatican forced-reproduction Amendment.
He's right... READ John Glubb - Fate of Empires (24 page PDF essay) History is REPEATING itself. We are on a suicide mission.
I'm pretty far right but Dave Smith is really a great ambassador for libertarianism.
Dave: Lets stop putting people to sleep and wake them up!
Nick: ZZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzz
ZZzzzzZzzz ruclips.net/user/shortsW6osVODbs1A
21:30 on the facts that follow:
This is the problem with “facts”. They can be taken out of context misconstrued. The elections of 1988 and 2016 are poor analogies, for example. 1988 was the VP of a two-term president who won in landslides while 2016 was the two least popular, most polarizing, candidates in modern history.
Not to mention 1988 campaign advertising relied on appearing on the Big Three broadcasters and handing out door-to-door fliers, whereas 2016 saw social media matter more than ever (a medium Paul dominated in 2008 (RUclips, Moneybomb anybody?)).
The logical-fallacy-ridden game of “facts” is also why TRUE libertarians tend toward A PRIORI arguments.
Another thing is Donald Trump tried running in the Reform Party in 2000 and again in 2012 in the Republican primaries and failed. Would that mean Trump was never going to succeed? Clearly not since he won in 2016.
Comparing Ron Paul in 1988 compared to Ron Paul in 2008-2012 is absurd, especially since in the 1980s Reagan was already a pseudo-Libertarian in his rhetoric and was heavily influenced by Milton Friedman, there was not much differentiation between the Republicans and the Libertarians at the time. The modern Republican party is full of warhawks who are happy to expand the size of government and prior to Trump were aggressive with their Christian Theocracy bullshit and hated free speech. They veered very far away from liberty so Libertarian values had a differentiating point.
The problem now is that Trump and younger conservatives have moved them back into what some call "conservatarianism" by being more socially liberal than they were when they pandered to Evangelicals in the 90s ad 2000s. The old Republican guard of the Bush's and Bill O'Reily's were hated by young people and more young people became Libertarians, some like Milo and Trump saw this and along with the left going woke changed the Republicans from within by recruiting them. The people they brought in were potential Libertarian voters that the party fucked up influencing by putting up boring candidates that stand for nothing.
This was such a good video
The debate might have been more fair if Dave was debating another Libertarian. It was simply unfair to put Nick Sarawak the the position of trying to defend Liberty.
This Sarwack guy seems like a real snake in the grass.. I won’t support the LP as long as he’s the guy leading
Said the CPUSA lifer
his position is up for election
Spoken like an exemplary GOP infiltrator and agent
Nick's arguments can be used against himself considering he's a politician. We can't vote for Johnson, we have to save our vote for a true libertarian candidate because that's what will make the party change to be a libertarian party. Nick can only count numbers and if he's too blind to see the light we must show him the heat
Johnson's soft philosophical peddling was what it took for Kentucky to set aside it's electoral third party ballot access disparities for at least one cycle.
Eyes wide open re: Weld, the CFR plant. The Liberty Ideal has the capacity to both leverage our values and have our backs.
Dave failed to persuade that the Party is at an equal point of suicide as the empire, despite the concurrent risks.
It’s sad that Nick saying “$22 trillion in debt” really dates this debate.
22:57 Ron Paul should have been paying for more social media ad buy back in '88, I guess, right?
Also, Johnson in 12 raised less than 1/10 what Ron Paul did in '08
He should have backed the 1972 pro-choice platform.
Who the f**k cares about getting 3 percent of the vote instead of 1 percent, anyway? The purpose of a third party is to radicalize the electorate so they will demand more liberty from the big two - if winning elections is your goal, join the GOP. Gaining ground in the popular vote counts for absolutely nothing if you aren't gaining enough to win.
A revisit on this exact conversation in 2022 would be insane.
The people care about the debt, they care about the government restrictions, and they sure care about the fed now that weve printed 10T dollars!
Dave Smith's side just won. The Mises Caucus took over much of the LP.
Nick has no faith that the libertarian message can resonate with people if they hear it fully. He argues for pragmatism over principles
Playing the "long game" is also being pragmatic.
I think Dave is right. On the age of the internet, the center are losers. People are begging for authenticity and principles. They absolutely do not want "status-quo-light".
And that's not happening in the US. For example, Bolsonaro in Brazil won, despite smearing efforts by the staus quo.
What I do agree with Nick, is that there should be more participation from "actual libertarians" on the LP.
I agree. And I'd say Nick is largely to blame for not inspiring more libertarians to be engaged in the party
@@luketerry2006 As opposed to a fundamentally skewed electoral system~?
I know of no Libertarians making this claim. And if they are, they stand with no real personal accountability in the matter~!
I gave this a thumbs up today b/c I'm enjoying the whole 94 mins. I came over from the CSPAN coverage of this year's Libertarian convention coverage to hear more from Dave Smith but the debate was well- handled by both.
What I learned from this is that Nicholas Sawark thinks the LP should invite BLM and Occupy Wall Street to join the ranks, but not the Mises Institute.
. . . . Interesting.
After Reno, Dave officially won this debate.
Im upset that the CIA squandered my tax money on hiring such a low quality glow-in-the-dark as Sarwark.
This debate is basically a caricature of politics genrally. You've got the young, aggressive, fight-the-power grass-roots revolutionary vs. the older, calmer, count-the-beans pragmatist. It's bottom up vs. top down change.
The younger guy thinks that the candidate's role is to inspire and catalyze grass roots change, the older guy thinks that the candidate's role is to constrain the other parties by offering a candidate that can sap their support if they stray too far.
It's not pragmatism verses gusto, tho, it's a fight between getting power and keeping your principles. If you pragmatically sell your party as something it's not, just to have the reigns, who in their right mind thinks the party will then do what it said it believed in, a long time ago? Pragmatism that has you becoming a statist defeats the whole point of Libertarianism.
Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders proved the grassroots is the key.
Damn Dave you killed it!!!!!
Who else is here hoping for Dave Smith 2024?
He is likely running for the LP!
30:29 LMAO listening to this after the Mises takeover I'm dead 💀💀💀
Dave’s opening statement. Epic.
1:11:23 - "The NRA is busy exploding itself with corruption"
This aged like fine wine, LNC.
Damn that Nick guy is uncharismatic. Props for going into the lions den though. So many things he could have picked up on though, like this Dave guy calling himself a "soldier" or bragging about how many people he's converted. Your a lawyer who's defended real people, going against a fucking comedian for gods sake, you had a real job. Shove that in his face.
This is the best debate I've seen in a long time. Ty Reason for posting this. I am on Dave's side in this really great debate.
This debate was Dave saying Principles are of primary importance and Nick saying identity politics is of primary importance. If anything, this debate has convinced me to oppose the libertarian party.
The next resolution should be “is faking an assault and calling the cops a violation of the NAP?”
Remember in the follow up where Dave got Nicky to admit he'd vote for Hitler if Adolf slapped "LP" on his armband? Good times.
I remember it too but now I can't find it anywhere on the internet. What the hell...
Nick is the reason most people think that libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot. I'm not an ancap like Dave, but his "purity test" would be my minimum. One thing I wish Dave would have said is being anti-war: foreign and domestic. That would have shut down some of Nick's arguments.
So Yippie, Antifa and Weatherman are all Ancap? What about Patty Hearst and SLA?
Dave would make a great candidate if he ever decided to run.
This issue for that would be his stand up and things he said on LOS “which is funny “ would be used against him . Not saying it should but it would
Antifa could use some new leadership
I want to see Dave smith debate Dave Smith so it's somewhat fair.
Dave's "purity tests" happen to be at the root of all those potential converts' subjective problems. We all need to competently illustrate that to others, one enjoyable, non-confrontational conversation at a time.
To hell with reading the shortest platform out there, the one based on non-aggression!