The Libertarian clown show

I’ve never voted for a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate. But that may end in 2024, as the Libertarian Party has recently been taken over by a bunch of far right wackos. Hopefully they regain their senses and nominate someone respectable in 2024. If not, I will likely hold my nose and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate, or the Republican in the unlikely event the GOP nominates Mitt Romney.

Reason magazine has a very revealing video, including interviews with some members of the “Mises Caucus”, which despite its name has little to do with the views of Ludwig von Mises. They seem to have two main points:

1. The previous Gary Johnson version of the party was too unwilling to stand up for edgy libertarian views that the public might see as being extremist. They want to get rid of the pragmatists and return to a smaller party of true believers.

2. They want to abandon traditional Libertarian Party views on issues like abortion and immigration for pragmatic reasons, to attract more Trump voters.

In other words, they are completely incoherent. The Reason interviews with various Mises Caucus members are simply embarrassing. (Only Justin Amash comes off well.) They also want to adopt the far right approach to politics, with lots of trolling:

It is Kauffman who Bishop-Henchman referred to, not by name, in his June 14 letter to the LNC when he writes of “an individual who does things like tweet about how black people have lower IQs and murdering trans people would be a good trade-off for lower taxes.” Those ideas were tweeted on Kauffman’s personal account, not the party’s. (Kauffman and his fans stress that he specifically was talking about the superior morality of no taxes to 1,000 murdered transpeople, not just the “lower taxes” Bishop-Henchman wrote.***)

As of today, I’m still a libertarian. But until the party dumps the Mises Caucus, I’m no longer a Libertarian.

PS. Over at Econlog I have one of my annual “everything is going to hell” posts. I could have included this.



39 Responses to “The Libertarian clown show”

  1. Gravatar of John Hall John Hall
    16. June 2022 at 11:21

    I recognized very few people in that Reason article. Tom Woods has been around for along time (though I wasn’t quite sure what he was getting at with respect to Snowden) and there’s a mention of Hoppe toward the end. I suppose I just never got that interested in the LP as the electoral system in the US just isn’t set up for it to matter.

  2. Gravatar of MSS1914 MSS1914
    16. June 2022 at 12:51

    This looks to me like simple power grab by people with no real convictions. Given their beliefs, they should just go and become Trumpian Republicans. However, I suppose they would just be one of many within the Republican party. In the Libertarian Party, they see the opportunity of taking control of a party and, despite ever so slight chances, getting political power too. They may have espoused Libertarian beliefs in the past, but their true belief was getting power however they could.

    This reminds me of what Victor Orban did in Hungry. After the fall of Communism, there were plenty of self-proclaimed liberal democrats running around, Orban among them. But he was one of many and not getting into power as such. So, he became a right-wing nationalist to stand out from the crowd and it worked. He still holds to liberal views when it suits him (not often) and nationalist views when it they suit him (very often).

    These “Mises Caucus” people just wanted control of the party and are willing to say whatever they need to get that power – no matter how stupid/incoherent.

    Or, they really are just dumb and this is one more data point that the movie “Idiocracy” is becoming a reality.

  3. Gravatar of bb bb
    16. June 2022 at 13:00

    Are you saying that you voted third party in 2000- Iraq War and Abu Dabi, 2004- More Iraq War and apparently torture is OK, 2016- most corrupt presidency in the modern era and an attempted coup, and 2020?
    I know you haven’t lived in a swing state, but the popular vote still matters for legitimacy’s sake.

  4. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    16. June 2022 at 13:33

    bb, Yes, I’ve always voted for the Libertarian candidate.

    “the popular vote still matters for legitimacy’s sake.”

    If only it were so.

  5. Gravatar of MIchael Sandifer MIchael Sandifer
    16. June 2022 at 14:43

    Obviously, you’ve stuck with the Libertarian Party for reasons of principle, since it’s never made a bit of sense from a practical perspective, other than sending the message to the other two parties that they don’t represent your view enough to win your vote.

    It seems to me that Gary Johnson potentially missed a big opportunity in 2016 to try to get himself and Weld into the Presidential debates, by being extraordinarily ignorant on foreign policy issues, for example, when given questions during interviews. Who will take a Presidential candidate seriously who didn’t know who the combatants in Syria were at the time? By the way, William Weld should have been on the top of that ticket, as he’s a serious Presidential contender in terms of qualifications. I would be very tempted for vote for Weld, if I weren’t in a swing state.

    The Libertarian Party has always been one of mostly kooks. You’re a rare exception.

    I dislike more about the Democratic Party than I like, but I’m a life-long Democrat, because I live in Florida and see no other option.

  6. Gravatar of agrippa postumus agrippa postumus
    16. June 2022 at 17:28

    if one can’t fail spectacularly enough at economics, run a diversion through political pontificating.

  7. Gravatar of Stephen Stephen
    16. June 2022 at 19:13

    Thoughts on 75bp hike? Obviously fed behind the curve, but seems like they’re at least willing to adjust after jpow practically boxed himself into a corner with the may meeting. Seems like they’re getting more aggressive which I like.

    My second question is what the risk is to rate hikes of 1%? Seemed in April/may everyone knew they were behind the curve. Is there a risk to hiking 1% or even 1.25 to catch up?

  8. Gravatar of Sarah Sarah
    16. June 2022 at 19:19

    Every libertarian, regardless if they are Jeffersonian or Rothbardian, supports the right to life. I don’t know the answer to when the right to life begins, but anyone who claims the right to life begins at birth, that no debate is needed, that everyone who believes differently is a “hard right wacko”, and that every state, every community, every individual must be forced to subscribe to their view — well, that person is certaintly NOT a libertarian. I suppose Susan B. Anthony was a “hard right wacko”. Who would have guessed.

    Traditional libertarians were enlightenment thinkers, such as Grotius, Locke, and Kant. Others sought to bring practical application to those enlightenment ideas such as Jefferson, Bastiat, Rose Wilder Lane, Rand, Garett, Henry, Paine, Burke — to some extent Mill, and many others.

    The incredible hatred and arrogance that you are expressing, seems to be directed at anarcho-capitalists and anarcho syndicalists (i.e, murray, chomsky and rocker). It is true that generally speaking, Rockwell and Hoppe prefer Rothbard over Locke and Kant. Rothbard deviated from the initial conception of libertarianism, and yes, he certainly had different ideas, although its a bit arrogant to call someone a “wacko” simply because they disagree with you. That is what people call “intolerance”.

    Nevertheless, the federalist papers, and a nightwatchmen state, ARE the initial conception of libertarian governance in practical form. If Franklin was a hard right wacko, then…well, you clearly would not have supported independence. And you would not have been alone. There were many who wanted to stay loyal to the throne, and many both before and after who wanted to implement a top down approach to governance.

    Traditional libertarians did not believe in “open borders”. Open borders is not a sustainable concept. It would destroy wages and cultures, and create tremendous division as millions of people with wildly different values traveled to high income countries. People died for these values, and to destroy a country because you have some immature, naive, utopian conception, far removed from reality, is not a smart approach to governance. Global governance and global digital currency would be a dystopian nightmare. If that is your conception of a utopia, and if that is your end game, then you need to pickup a history book. It won’t end well.

  9. Gravatar of Ricardo Ricardo
    16. June 2022 at 20:35

    People give Chomsky a hard time, but at least he believes in limited government. And Rocker’s version of anarcho-syndicalism already exists. Mondragan is a good example.

    Rothbard was too utopian. I don’t think you can reach 100% privitization. It seems like a return to the state of nature.

    But any form of limited govt is better than what we have right now. Incessent wars. Funny money. People like Scott yelling and screaming at private companies to increase output.


    I was hoping blockchain would speed up decentralization, but with CBDC launching soon I have a feeling the coercion will continue.

  10. Gravatar of Sarah Sarah
    16. June 2022 at 21:31

    I don’t think Chomsky necessarily believes in limited government; if I’m not mistaken, his views are almost identical to Rocker. Therefore, he believes that communities should democratize industry and governance through “direct action”. There wouldn’t be a difference between the two, because the latter would be a direct representative of the organic community units, and actually live and work in those units. In other words, the political rep from a particular community would also have a stake in the industry of that community. In theory, that could involve smaller government, but it could also involve a much larger government with domestic or international scope. Although, Rocker and Bakunin were totally opposed to communist centralization.

    Capitalism doesn’t prohibit cooperatives from forming, so I don’t think one needs a revolution to achieve Chomsky’s dream. If that is what people really want, they will naturally gravitate towards it. The fact they haven’t already, suggests they don’t.

    But I agree, I would much rather have anarcho-syndicalism than Schwab’s taxation without representation, or Sumner’s one-world-NATO or whatever it is that’s going on in that mind of his…

  11. Gravatar of Starchild Starchild
    17. June 2022 at 02:38

    Militarized borders are a modern practice that has arisen with the growth of nationalism and the expansion of the scope of government.

    Capable of being used to keep people *in* as well as out, and requiring the expense of maintenance and enforcement – inevitably funded with stolen tax money – border controls are inherently anti-liberty. Restricting the ability of people to move around freely without government permission is a step *toward* global government, not away from it. It is natural and right for libertarians to oppose such restrictions.

    Indeed, not just Libertarians but *most* Americans tend to support open borders, usually without even realizing it. Ask them whether they favor setting up government border controls around the city, county, or state they live in, and the vast majority will say no. Across the vast majority of the U.S. today, borders are open, not closed. Despite the vast differences in values, culture, and levels of economic prosperity between, say, south central Los Angeles and rural Vermont, one can freely travel between these places and many others whose differences from each other are no less stark, without being detained at any border. In most places, there is scarcely any visible sign you are crossing a border. And this is how it should be.

    This system of open borders has existed for hundreds of years, even when the states were independent countries or colonies. It prevailed even at borders like the one between California and Mexico, where generations of people formerly crossed back and forth freely to work, shop, visit family and friends, and sometimes settle for the long term, without significant problems.

    That lack of significant problems can still be seen at virtually every open border between cities, state, and counties in the U.S., no matter how different many of the people in other parts of the country may be from people in these open border jurisdictions. Isn’t it interesting that the only border about which we constantly hear of problems today – people dying in the desert trying to cross, kids being separated from their families and housed in cages, etc. – is the extensively walled and militarized border between the southwestern states and Mexico?

    This militarization not only violates the liberty of people on both sides of the border to move freely and enjoy freedom of association with their neighbors on the other side, but costs American taxpayers billions of dollars a year. It is a system well-suited to the Big Government agenda of dividing, controlling and extorting money from people, but it is a system fundamentally incompatible with the freedom for which America at its best has traditionally stood.

  12. Gravatar of John S John S
    17. June 2022 at 04:45

    What do you think are the primary causes of “everything going to hell” in the 21st century?

  13. Gravatar of Student Student
    17. June 2022 at 05:18

    John S, I’d also like to hear that explanation… is it media bubbles? Is deep recessions? Why do we see the main waves where authoritarians get on the March followed by movements to classical liberalism and then back again? It’s a mystery. But I am with Scott, we do seem to live in an era where nativism, mercantilism, and authoritarianism are on the march.

  14. Gravatar of Mark Cancellieri Mark Cancellieri
    17. June 2022 at 05:47

    I’m a libertarian, but I gave up on voting for the Libertarian Party (or any party for that matter) long ago.

    Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party insists on a party platform that guarantees that they will never come even close to being successful at getting their candidate elected President.

    The Libertarian Party would rather lose on an idealistic platform that the public doesn’t want than win on a less ideal platform. This just ensures that they will never become President and be able to do any good for the cause of liberty.

  15. Gravatar of steve steve
    17. June 2022 at 06:29

    The realm of politics is the realm of waste.

  16. Gravatar of Spencer Bradley Hall Spencer Bradley Hall
    17. June 2022 at 06:32

    re: “Thoughts on 75bp hike?”

    Under Reg. Q ceilings the banks weren’t allowed to outbid the nonbanks. Now the situation is reversed. Disintermediation is a term that only applies to the nonbanks since 1933.

    Under the remuneration of interbank demand deposits, the savings->investment process is destroyed quicker. So, velocity falls faster. Powell is going to overtighten.

  17. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    17. June 2022 at 07:58

    Michael, You said:

    “It seems to me that Gary Johnson potentially missed a big opportunity in 2016 to try to get himself and Weld into the Presidential debates, by being extraordinarily ignorant on foreign policy issues,”

    That’s a silly claim. He knew 10 times more about foreign policy than Trump did, and probably as much as Biden. They simply didn’t want him in the debates.

    Stephen, Interest rates are a sideshow. The real problem is the Fed’s policy regime.

    John and Student, I don’t think it’s deep recessions alone, as 1981-82 was followed by some good decades. The zeitgeist is very mysterious. What went wrong in 1900-45? Who knows?

  18. Gravatar of David S David S
    17. June 2022 at 08:14

    There’s always Jill Stein….

  19. Gravatar of MIchael Sandifer MIchael Sandifer
    17. June 2022 at 08:57


    I thought I remembered that the threshold for participating in the Presidential debates in 2016 was 5%, but it was actually 15%, having just looked it up. So, my comment was closer to “silly” than I’d like, because there was no reason to think Johnson would poll close to 15%. He did reach 7% in qualifying polls.

    Of course third party candidates aren’t wanted in debates, but Ross Perot showed that it’s possible to be popular enough not to be ignored.

    Knowing more about foreign policy than Trump is a meaningless statement, since Trump probably has much more misinformation and disinformation than information in the first place. He’s effectively likely knows less than nothing about foreign policy.

    Johnson knowing as much as Biden on foreign policy? I won’t call that “silly”, since I at least try to avoid insults. I will say it doesn’t seem plausible, given how long Biden was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including being its Chairman at times. My guess is, Biden had and has tremendously more knowledge about foreign policy than Johnson, the latter of whom fell on his face when asked even the simplest questions about foreign affairs when running for President in 2016. Note, that’s not the same thing as saying Biden has good foreign policy ideas.

    Weld was much better informed on foreign policy than Johnson, and as I mentioned, should have been on top of the ticket. Johnson wasn’t qualified to be on a Presidential ticket, in my opinion. That’s not the same thing as saying he wasn’t intelligent enough, but he disqualified himself by being so ill-informed on foreign policy. He apparently didn’t take himself very seriously as a candidate.

    The Libertarian Party has never seemed to take itself very seriously as a party. I won’t link to the video again of the scene of one of the losers of the party nomination doing a strip tease during the convention again, but as I mentioned, it always seemed to me to be primarily a party of kooks.

  20. Gravatar of Spencer Bradley Hall Spencer Bradley Hall
    17. June 2022 at 09:58

    Fed chair Powell: “Policy will need to be restrictive but we don’t know how restrictive”

    How does that square with : “We need to make sure the public has confidence we have the tools to fight inflation”

    Esther George, in my District, was the only one voting for a .50 bp hike. If Atlanta’s GDPnow is right, then N-gDp growth is now, about right.

  21. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    17. June 2022 at 11:35

    By “kooks”, I’m not referring to all Libertarians, as there have always been serious members of the party who are actually libertarian, but revelations in recent years seem to confirm what many of us always thought was true. That is, that most Libertarians weren’t libertarians, but were a hodgepodge of kooks of various kinds, including white or Christian nationalists.

  22. Gravatar of Student Student
    17. June 2022 at 13:50

    Leading into the period 1900-1945 is the U.S., you have the panic of 1893, 1896, and 1907, with recessions in 1899, 1902, and 1910. So there was a lot of upheaval leading into and during the early part of that period.

  23. Gravatar of Bob Bob
    17. June 2022 at 17:59

    This sure isn’t all that new among libertarian party voters: Your typical party member just wants major freedoms about their one pet feature, whether it’s weed, guns, polygamy, or refusing service to people of the wrong race. This was true in the 2012 party convention, and is still true now. A libertarian like you, which looks at second order effects a little, just never had a home there, even though the candidates might not have always appear to be kooks.

    Still, I personally favor this Mises caucus’ ascendancy, as the more votes the anti-democracy caucus of the Republican Party loses, the better.

    Either way, I suspect that the discerning political students looking around the world would notice that what has done the most damage here is a system that makes most marginal voters irrelevant at almost every level. I’d be surprised if my district, for any federal or state level election, had a competitive battle anywhere in this decade.

  24. Gravatar of Trying to Learn Trying to Learn
    17. June 2022 at 22:13

    Not related to libertarians, but of relevance to this blog: why is the Fed moving too slowly? I get that they’ve caused the excess inflation, but why would they have an assymetric FAIT policy, and why not act quickly?

    I’d assume initially:
    1) recency bias to try to avoid the mistakes of the Great Recession,
    2) some pressure (implicitly? since the Fed is supposed to be independent) from the Biden administration to keep monetary policy loose as a way to quickly recover from the COVID downturn and increase employment.

    Now that employment is strong and we’re overshooting on NGDP though, why keep the asymmetric FAIT and slow pace of adjustment? Doesn’t seem like it would benefit anyone at the Fed or in the administration, so I don’t really get it.

  25. Gravatar of Ricardo Ricardo
    18. June 2022 at 06:36

    Could you imagine if 5M New Yorkers moved to Seoul or Singapore, where the crime rate is almost non existent, and where the salaries are better and the standard of living is higher?

    Only the hard-left dreams about open borders. Take for example Koreans: they love you, but not that much. Their idea of fun is not to eat 10 hotdogs, four hamburgers, 30 chicken wings, and burp and fart their way through Sunday football. It’s just not their cup of tea.

    Same for any Middleeastern or South American country. Please come visit. Cool. We love it. But you also need to know when to go home. It’s like the neighbor who just won’t leave.

    Westerners who propogate this nonsense usually have good intentions They like to imagine a world where there is no immigration, and everyone lives wherever they want happily ever after. But our cultures are just WAY WAY WAY too different. Two days with a gringo is enough. We always welcome you with open arms. Mi casa, tu casa. Come have coffee. Come hang out. But we have a hard enough time accomodating Venezuelan refugees, and they share a similar — but not identical culture — so if we cannot handle them, then we definetly cannot handle millions of gringos.

    The borders on this side will remained closed. You can do as you wish with yours. But I don’t think that policy will make your country better off.

  26. Gravatar of Student Student
    18. June 2022 at 09:05

    Ricardo, open borders as a policy developed from scientific theory via the same stream of thought where free trade came from. If anything, it’s been a right wing idea traditionally… after being an enlightenment critique of mercantilism.

    But as the influence of that line of thinking faded on the right, and has been supplanted by an unscientific belief in restricting trade and flows of people (via big gov style regulations), you start assuming open borders to be a lefty idea because u are aware it’s not a right wing idea now, so it must be leftist…

    Looking at the arc of history, it seems to me the classical enlightenment thinkers were right all along, more free trade and more open borders are better… even if 100% is not practically possible for various fallen-human reasons.

    If 5M NYers moved to Seoul, there GDP would go up, and ours would go down. They could have a slightly larger military (all else =) and we could have a slightly smaller one. They would have slightly more new ideas emerging in any given year and we (USA) would have slightly less.

    But there would be a lot more white people living in Seoul… the humanity!

  27. Gravatar of Johnny Johnny
    18. June 2022 at 21:32

    Mises Caucus is the best thing to happen to the LP in a long time.

  28. Gravatar of Spencer Bradley Hall Spencer Bradley Hall
    19. June 2022 at 06:28

    re: “why is the Fed moving too slowly?”

    Powell: “The connection between monetary aggregates and either growth or inflation was very strong for a long, long time, which ended about 40 years ago”.

    Powell also eliminated the 6 withdrawal restrictions on savings accounts, which isolated money intended for spending, from the money held as savings.

    Interest rates are the price of credit, the price of money is the reciprocal of the price level. The money stock can never be properly managed by any attempt to peg the cost of credit.

  29. Gravatar of Kester Pembroke Kester Pembroke
    19. June 2022 at 09:22

    The libertarian argument is that *externalities* do exist but are less important than individual choice, therefore collective action is unjustified. Someone described it as the “fiat libertas, ruat caelum” point of view, that absolute liberty is more important than good outcomes. If someone without a mask results in your illness, you should have taken personal responsibility and not exposed yourself to that risk.

    Some libertarians argue also that the outcomes of externalities should be dealt with *individually*, by suing those imposing them: if someone without a mask results in your illness, sue them for damages. This is an argument not that externalities are less important than individual liberty, but that preventive measures to restrict liberty should not be imposed merely because of the possibility of externalities.

    Some more sophisticated (often explicitly darwinist) libertarians add that actually in the long run not taking into account externalities or not preventing bad outcomes related to externalities actually works out better overall than collective or individual preventive action against externalities.

    I think that all these positions have big flaws, but they are not as stupid as “denying the existence of collective action problems”.

    BTW in the 19th century “libertarians” argued powerfully against raising taxes to build acqueducts and sewers in cities, because of the argument that some people wanted the liberty to wallow in filth and of risking getting cholera and other plagues.
    An argument that was actually propertarian (the richer taxpayers had private acqueducts and sewers or resided in country mansions).
    That despite conservative propertarians like the romans building 2,000 years earlier acqueducts and sewers (and public saunas and baths) as a matter of course using public funds, simply as a measure of civilization. But such is the savagery of the english tory mentality.

  30. Gravatar of Kester Pembroke Kester Pembroke
    19. June 2022 at 09:24

    Both Marxists and libertarians/objectivists believe that society is divided in classes depending on their economics role, that there is a class of parasites that exploit the producer class, stealing its surplus using the power of the state, and that the government is the managerial committee of the exploiter class.

    Both believe in “false conscience” of the exploited; both want to end the exploitation of the productive class by ending the power of the parasite-controlled state apparatus that enables it; both believe in socialism defined as “the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it” as K Marx himself defined it, and Lenin expressed as “an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor” plus “he who does not work, neither shall he eat”. Plus many if not most libertarians/objectivists subscribe to a leninist political theory, where the party of the exploited is the vanguard of the producers, the leader of a popular front of the oppressed workers.

    The most important difference is that libertarians/objectivists think that the exploiters who live in a grand lifestyle on benefits and the wages of state enforced intimidation and violence are the parasitical working and non working poor, while the exploited class who sees most of their added values stolen, are the productive, property owning, deserving rich; and that the popular front is for libertarians/objectivists composed of the parties representing the productive businessmen and property owners of the rich and upper middle class businessmen and professionals, while for the
    marxists it is of the parties representing the interests of workers in the working class and underclass and the lower middle class employees and skilled wage earners.

    The other minor difference is that while both marxists and libertarians/objectivists want to achieve a socialist system of income distribution based on “to each according to their contribution”, marxists but not objectivists/libertarians want that to eventually become “to each according to their needs”.

    I Dzhugashvili, V Ulianov’s successor, wrote “socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”.

    Similarly former USA Senator P Gramm wrote: “In economics, we define labor exploitation as paying people less than their marginal value product.
    I recently told Ed Whitacre [former CEO of AT&T, who retired with a $158 million pay package] he was probably the most exploited worker in American history because he took Southwestern Bell, which was the smallest of the former Bell companies, and he turned it into the dominant phone company on earth. His severance package should have been billions.”

  31. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    19. June 2022 at 11:03

    Thank you Kester for explaining that when people say they want a smaller, more competent, less intrusive state, they are secretly Leninists.

  32. Gravatar of Nicholas Nicholas
    19. June 2022 at 16:43

    Mitt Romney?

    You mean the oligarch; the vulture who obtained his wealth buying up companies, laying off workers, and selling their assets to the highest bidder? You mean the guy who has a love affair with supranationals, and is another war hawk that never served his country?

    And btw, I highly doubt that the Mises organization cares about Trump. The guy who runs that now, I believe its Rockwell, loves Rothbard. Rothbard would not have been a Trump fan.

    To you everything revolves around Trump. Trump this. Trump that. Trump Trump Trump. The man is not even in office. My gosh.

    We all know you hate Trump. You’ve expressed that emotion clearly. How about posting something of substance now. This blog is becoming a broken record.

  33. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    19. June 2022 at 19:30

    Trying to learn, A combination of dovish bias and simply making a mistake.

    Nicholas, Do you recall during the 2012 campaign when Romney warned that Putin was dangerous, and Obama sort of laughed it off? Or when he was the only GOP senator with the guts to vote to convict Trump twice? (Most would have voted to convict in a secret ballot, but they are a bunch of cowards.)

  34. Gravatar of Nicholas Nicholas
    19. June 2022 at 22:00

    With a debt-to-gdp ratio of 140%, and high-inflation, one hopes you are as focused on economics as calling those who disagree with you cowards and Nazi’s.

    I am afraid Elon is right. People like you need to be confronted. So here it goes.

    Obama laughed at Romney, because he’s part of an old school of cold war power politics that does more harm than good. Russia doesn’t have a 20 trillion dollar economy. They pose no risk. And policing everyone creates more enemies and isolates America. Obama understood that winning friends could help America, and that a bipolar world would weaken her.

    Also, Romney didn’t predict Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Donbas didn’t separate until 2014, and Putin didn’t make his move until 2022, which is eight years after failed negotiations. Romney could not have known of those events in 2012. Romney a relic of the cold war. The virgin Mary could be the president of Russia, and people like you and Romney would call for sanctions and trillions in defense spending.

    And I’m sorry to be the one to inform you, but Trump, Kavanaugh, Rothbard, Mises, Robert Malone, and the others you slander on a daily basis are not that fascist right wingers. Abortion laws being decided by state legislators instead of the Federal Government is not fascist. I mean, just listen to yourself. You are telling the libertarian party to denounce the Mises organization, a small think tank, because you think their libertarian views are attractive to Trump supporters? Does that not strike you as a bit undemocratic. It’s bizarre behavior.

    I don’t what happened to you over the years, but you are now in the world of borderline conspiracy.

    Moderates also don’t support using impeachment for political purposes. As Dershowitz said at the trial, “thought crimes are not impeachable”. If they were, we could impeach Biden right now for Hunter’s email’s which “sort of” reference his father’s involvement. Impeachment is a high bar. It requires hard evidence, not hatred.

    And please don’t tell me that Dershowitz is some hard right Nazi. Don’t go that far down the rabbit hole. I beg you. You’ve embarrassed yourself enough.

  35. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    20. June 2022 at 08:17

    Nicholas, So you defend Trump (who tried to abolish American democracy) and tell me that Russia is no threat (after invading multiple European countries)? Have a nice day.

  36. Gravatar of Ricardo Ricardo
    20. June 2022 at 17:54

    More good news! The horribly corrupt, but moderate Clintons are finally coming around.

    “Democrats seem to be going out of their way to lose elections by elevating activist causes, notably the transgender debate, which are relevant only to a small minority. What sense does it make to depict JK Rowling as a fascist?” — Hillary Clinton

    What sense, indeed. Unarmed civilians are now a “coup”. First time in history such a coup ever occured. You’d think they would bring AR-15 to their coup — but no, these unarmed union supporting, blue collar workers decided to wave their American flags inside the senate building. What a bunch of moderate hitlers. They must be stopped!

    Apparently Kavanaugh is a fascist because he wants to return power to the states. What a horrible human being. We should all stand outside his house, yelling and screaming, and threaten to kill him. Oh wait, yeah that is already happening.

    Rowling is Hitler. I’m hitler — hell, we are all Hitler according to people like Sumner. Those so-called “hard-right” losers who want freedom and liberty are a “threat” to democracy.

    Romney and Cheney are globalists! They have businesses benefiting from the globalist status quo. Its not surprising they’d vote against anyone who proposed changes. Those two don’t care about Americans. They care about lining their pocket.

  37. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    21. June 2022 at 05:03

    I’d seen plenty of “libertarians” who were actually fascists, but today’s the first time I’ve heard of libertarian adoption of Marxist class theory. LOL I remember when libertarians used to at least pretend to like free markets.

  38. Gravatar of Starchild Starchild
    24. June 2022 at 17:11

    “What do you think are the primary causes of ‘everything going to hell’ in the 21st century?”

    I’m not sure whether this comment is responding to someone or not, but personally I don’t think everything IS going to hell in the 21st century. Not only do I think we tend to under-appreciate the progress that’s been made, but I think that on the whole, at the macro level, things continue to be getting better. There remain dangerous problems to be sure, but there always have been.

  39. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    25. June 2022 at 07:44

    Starchild, Everything political is going to hell. Technology continues to progress.

Leave a Reply