Mises Caucus Coup D’Etat

[A Son of Liberty]

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What is a "thick" or "thin" libertarian?

A thin libertarian is a person for whom libertarianism is simply the theory of individual liberty.

A thick libertarian is someone who tries to append some other content (generally relating to cultural preferences) to that theory.

For instance, when thick libertarians get excited about gay marriage, from whichever perspective, thin libertarians roll their eyes.

N.B. This is not to say that thin libertarians have no cultural preferences; they just refrain from incorporating them into the theory.

A "thin" libertarian is one who thinks that libertarian theory should be kept as minimal (and hence, as "thin") as possible. This is to be done by restricting the body of libertarian theory itself to the most basic and fewest necessary axioms, along with the "theorems" (such as the Non-Aggression Principle) which can be derived from that minimal set of basic axioms.

A "thick" libertarian, on the other hand, is one who thinks that libertarian theory should be expanded (and hence, "thickened") to formally include things like opposition to racism and support for "equality" (whatever that might mean).

For example, a "thin" libertarian may hate and denounce racism and will, of course, oppose racist policies that violate the NAP. But as a libertarian, he will oppose such racist policies as "unlibertarian" because they violate the NAP - not because they are racist. He might also oppose racist policies that do not violate the NAP because they are racist, but he will consider his opposition to them to be separate from his identity as a libertarian. He is willing to consider NAP-supporting racists to be libertarians, despite the fact that they are racists.

A "thick" libertarian, on the other hand, will insist that in order to be libertarian one must always hate and denounce racism and racist ideas and attitudes. As a libertarian, he will oppose any and all racist policies as "unlibertarian" regardless of whether they violate the NAP - because they are racist. He will consider his opposition to them to be part of his identity as a libertarian. He is not willing to consider NAP-supporting racists to be libertarians, because of the fact that they are racists.

"Thick" libertarians tend to be of the leftist variety, and some of them even support things like "universal basic income" in the name of "equality."

Well said

However, I'd argue that culture-right thinking has become dominant among today's thick libertarians.

Pre-Trump, they leaned more heavily to the cultural-left.

Then again, this may better describe the universe of libertarian-ish people than LP members proper.

I don't know to what extent the "thin" vs. "thick" angle plays into this, but my impression is that the "insurgents" (the Mises Caucus, Dave Smith, Tom Woods, et al.) are motivated by impatience with the LP's attempts to win acceptance from the Cathedral (and the dubious "respectability" that comes with that acceptance). They want more of no-holds-barred, fire-breathing opposition to lockdowns, the police state, wars & foreign aid/entanglements, etc. - and less of simping milquetoastery, bland and inoffensive appeals to lowest common denominators, and the playing of footsie with things like identity politics. (Given the latter, "thick" libertarians don't seem likely to be enthused by their program, for whatever that might be worth.)

Since Tom has been one of the most prominent thick (and culture-right) libertarians of recent years, color me skeptical about that.

Are they really upset about the LP playing footsie with identity politics, or do they just want to shift attention from left to right foot?

 

[The Northbreather]

//

 

[The Northbreather]

I just had a phone conversation on Friday with a well-known LP activist who told me about the plan for 2024. He did ask that I not breathe a word of what I was told and I will honor that. In the past couple of weeks I have bought memberships in both the national and state LP as well as joined and donated to the Mises Caucus. I would recommend that anyone interested in libertarianism do the same.

Any hints then...?

 

[RJB]

I'm definitely the furthest thing from a leftarian, at least within libertarian circles.

What is it that you think constitutes a "leftarian"? I wonder if your answer may prove the point I made above.

I am not ignoring you. I am going to start a thread in the next day or two and approach it more respectfully than I did in my post that you quoted. It will be more from a philosophical perspective than accusatory.

Overall I think the divide on this forum comes down to those who want to be left alone at any cost vs those who stick to principles at any cost.

 

[trey4sports]

Any hints then...?

Well, there is nothing that crazy about the plan. If you really want to know what the 2024 plan is join the LPMC group on Facebook and ask leadership. I don't know exactly how much strategic information I should divulge but we are going to take over the party from the Loser Brigade and restart the Ron Paul Revolution.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I am not ignoring you. I am going to start a thread in the next day or two and approach it more respectfully than I did in my post that you quoted. It will be more from a philosophical perspective than accusatory.

Overall I think the divide on this forum comes down to those who want to be left alone at any cost vs those who stick to principles at any cost.

Consider me pre-subscribed.

 

[PAF]

Overall I think the divide on this forum comes down to those who want to be left alone at any cost vs those who stick to principles at any cost.

And folks like me who want both.

 

[Okie RP fan]

If anyone is still having issues figuring out what some posters are meaning "thick" vs "thin" libertarians, I'll hearken back to how we used to detail the big "L" libertarians vs. the small "l" libertarians. It's easy to grasp when considering the big L types were very much "party first" and willing to play the games. Many within that sphere weren't exactly trusted by the rest of us (majority) small "l" types who put liberty and principles over everything.

I think there may be some learning both sides can offer each other. But that comes after purging leftists out of the libertarian spheres. We are at that point, people. It's time to accept it. Marxists have been corrupting everything for decades and their fruits are beginning to show: mass laziness, ignorance, obedience, envy etc.

We don't have time now (never had it to begin with) nor the resources to try and convert or "work with" leftists. Their intent is to destroy everything an rebuild it all in their sick and warped images. We need a vision, we need people to drive it. You either get on board or get out of our way.

Conservatives and Constitutionalists will be the occasional allies as they always have been, but I don't know even after 2020 if there can be a permanent alliance between us and those two factions. I do think it's important that our ties with those groups bond stronger than ever before so we can fight against the common enemy.



Long story short, I'm ready to double down but I need to know there's a plan. Sitting on the sidelines did us nothing. I'm willing to fight even if it's too late. At least it'll give me some additional purpose in life. There needs to be a Fellowship convened within all appropriate levels. If Dave Smith and/or Tom Woods want to start driving, I'll support them but they need to figure it out and get things going if they think they have a plan the rest of us can get behind.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

At risk of repeating myself, the root divide in the LP and in the liberty movement is the same divide that goes right through America. It's globalism vs. anti-globalism.

I don't know to what extent the "thin" vs. "thick" angle plays into this, but my impression is that the "insurgents" (the Mises Caucus, Dave Smith, Tom Woods, et al.) are motivated by impatience with the LP's attempts to win acceptance from the Cathedral (and the dubious "respectability" that comes with that acceptance). They want more of no-holds-barred, fire-breathing opposition to lockdowns, the police state, wars & foreign aid/entanglements, etc. ...

And there we have a key indicator. The anti-globalists will stubbornly stick to the non-intervention, anti-war, anti-foreign aid principles. The globalists see many exceptions to that "principle".

- and less of simping milquetoastery, bland and inoffensive appeals to lowest common denominators, and the playing of footsie with things like identity politics. (Given the latter, "thick" libertarians don't seem likely to be enthused by their program, for whatever that might be worth.)

Here, a globalist sees the world as a single entity, "we are the world", and despises any "tribes" (with the usual exception of what they consider their own tribe). Any tribalism, groupings or nations is a threat to globalism. "Playing footsie" with identity politics is an attempt at erasing all boundaries, and supporting globalism. A noble cause (principle) in a theoretical vacuum. But it means aligning with people who are very tribal, and their identity politics are about viciously battling other tribes (and implementing Marxism to boot).

An anti-globalist sees many exceptions to the "we are the world" principle.

For example, a "thin" libertarian may hate and denounce racism and will, of course, oppose racist policies that violate the NAP. But as a libertarian, he will oppose such racist policies as "unlibertarian" because they violate the NAP - not because they are racist. He might also oppose racist policies that do not violate the NAP because they are racist, but he will consider his opposition to them to be separate from his identity as a libertarian. He is willing to consider NAP-supporting racists to be libertarians, despite the fact that they are racists.

A "thick" libertarian, on the other hand, will insist that in order to be libertarian one must always hate and denounce racism and racist ideas and attitudes. As a libertarian, he will oppose any and all racist policies as "unlibertarian" regardless of whether they violate the NAP - because they are racist. He will consider his opposition to them to be part of his identity as a libertarian. He is not willing to consider NAP-supporting racists to be libertarians, because of the fact that they are racists.

"Thick" libertarians tend to be of the leftist variety, and some of them even support things like "universal basic income" in the name of "equality."

Racism is a terribly charged subject, and is a subset of the bigger picture. It is boiled down to "you are a racist" if you do not agree with every last agenda item of someone else, usually a left activist. Now it has been perverted to the point that "you were a racist when you were born, and you can never not be a racist". It's simply a smear tactic at this point.

It is the common charge against anti-globalists. You are a racist if you are not a globalist. An apple vs. orange false dichotomy. While a globalist or anti-globalist may be racist, it has no more bearing on the subject of globalism (or any specific elements of globalism), than whether a person eats carrots or refuses to eat carrots.

Globalism vs. anti-globalism. Everything else is derivative or a distraction.

 

[Occam's Banana]

There’s rumblings about a takeover of the L.P. by the Mises Caucus/Ron Paul types. Many of the people with large followings and influence are talking about starting up the Ron Paul Revolution 2.0.

They seem to be tired of the LP pandering to the left and trying to win influence by adapting to the current system. They’re all about purging the so called “left libertarians” and restoring an idealistic plank. They haven’t said exactly what the plan is but have mentioned that something big is in the works.

End the lockdowns
End the Fed
End all corporate Welfare
End the warfare state etc

Dave Smith is in,
Pete Quinones
Eric July
Angela McArdle

I’m guessing Tom Woods and Jeff Diest are advising as well?

If anybody has more info on who or what is going on please clue us in and I’ll add the info to this post.

THREAD: Dave Smith considers seeking the 2024 LP POTUS nomination

 

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: Support the Mises Caucus

 

[Occam's Banana]

There’s rumblings about a takeover of the L.P. by the Mises Caucus/Ron Paul types. Many of the people with large followings and influence are talking about starting up the Ron Paul Revolution 2.0.

They seem to be tired of the LP pandering to the left and trying to win influence by adapting to the current system. They’re all about purging the so called “left libertarians” and restoring an idealistic plank. They haven’t said exactly what the plan is but have mentioned that something big is in the works.

[...]

If anybody has more info on who or what is going on please clue us in and I’ll add the info to this post.

The LP Mises Caucus "goons" have taken over the Nevada LP:

https://twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus/status/1388645510752477191

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1388635013479026690 https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1388633526451507208

THREAD: Support the Mises Caucus

Here's a sample of the sort of messaging (coming from the Nevada LP prior to the state convention) Dave was talking about in his tweet:

https://twitter.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1388612472895164420

 

[The Northbreather]

Nicccccce. Time to speak some truth!!!!!!

 

[Occam's Banana]

The State Of The LP w/ Michael Heise - Part Of The Problem #730
On this episode of Part Of The Problem Dave Smith is joined by Mises Caucus founder Michael Heise to discuss the state of the Libertarian Party and what you can do to help the cause!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLowuJXaYc

 

[Okie RP fan]

Lots of drama this past week with the LNC, LPNH, and basically the entire LP.
LNC Chair has resigned and decided to use woke terms and tactics by calling the people he doesn't agree with "toxic."

The Mises Caucus appears to be taking some names in their bid to try and steer the LP in a stronger direction and cut out some of the filth we saw with Jorgensen and the greater party pandering to BLM, etc.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Shenanigans in Pennsylvania:

The Fight Has Just Begun - A Mises Caucus Documentary

"The Fight Has Just Begun" is a Mises Caucus production about the events surrounding the 2021 LPPA Convention where 140 members of the state party, most of whom were Mises members, were stopped from voting in their own state party convention for the first time in the history of the state party.

The next LPPA Convention is taking place March 4-6 2022 in Williamsport, PA. #TakeHumanaction with us by joining the LPPA at lppa.org/join

Sign up to the Mises Caucus at TakeHumanAction.com Sign up by September 5th.

Get involved with the PA Mises Caucus: https://www.cognitoforms.com/Mises1/StepsForLPPAConvention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b01qnZYQJE

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Mises Caucus is trying to take over the LP and make it a vehicle for continuing the Ron Paul Revolution - and they have the blessing of Ron Paul himself.

And ironically, they're getting the same kind of pushback and shenanigans from the LP establishment that Ron Paul supporters got from the Republicans - denunciations from "woke" leftarians and "libertarian socialists", resistance and dirty tricks from the "big fish in a little pond" types, and so forth. (I might start a thread cataloging these if there is enough interest and I can find the time.)

I quit the LP in the '90s, too, and for much the same reason (the Perry Willis scandal was the straw that broke my camel's back).

The situation now. though, is very different from (and much more dire than) the situation in the '90s.

The Libertarian Party is just a subset of libertarians. The majority of libertarians never have been and never will be members. And there's nothing wrong with that. But for better or worse, the Libertarian Party is one of the chief "public faces" of libertarianism, and given the present situation, we simply cannot afford to allow such a venue to be run by leftarians, self-styled "libertarian socialists", and the likes of those who are intent on pandering to and seeking to win a never-to-be-granted acceptance from SJWs and progressives. These are not the kind of people who should (or even can) be "unified" with: https://i.imgur.com/jtoNmNI.jpg

(They were routed by the "goons" in a clean sweep, by the way. The Mises Caucus won every elected position and now controls the Nevada state party.)

Given the opportunities afforded by COVID tyranny, rampant wokeness, regnant inflation, looming economic disaster, etc., the lackadaisical, milquetoast, Gary-Johnson-esque messaging and bland appeals to the "lowest common denominator" historically favored by the LP are simply unconscionable. The Ron Paul Revolution has been slowly fizzling out ever since 2012, and if someone doesn't actually do something about it, it's apt to die once and for all, without even a whimper. The Mises Caucus is resolved to prevent that from happening, and whatever its chances may be, with members and spokesmen like Tom Woods, Scott Horton, Michael Boldin, and Dave Smith, those chances are at least as good as any other opportunity we have available.

In other words, the Ron Paul Revolution needs to "take over" the LP, and if the other factions and caucuses can't accept and come to terms with that, then they are useless ballast that should be dumped - and good riddance! The LP needs to stop being a philosopher-heavy social club for do-nothings who want to jealously guard their "big fish in a little pond" status, and it needs to start being an active vehicle for keeping the ideas and ideals of the Ron Paul Revolution alive. Everyone should be welcome in the party - except those who wish to obstruct or interfere with that purpose. And if that means a smaller[1] and more focused Libertarian Party ... well, then, so much the better.



[1] And it doesn't necessarily mean that at all. In fact, it seems that quite the opposite is the case. One of the reasons the Nevada "takeover" was so successful was that so many new people joined the Nevada LP via the Mises Caucus, as a direct result of the obnoxiousness of the Nevada party establishment. This lesson was well-learned by the Pennsylvania party's establishment when later, at their own state convention, they had to pull shenanigans in order to prevent the Mises Caucus from "taking over" there, as well. After crowing proudly about all the new members who joined the PA state party (as a result of the Mises Caucus' recruitment efforts, no less), they had the gall to then prevent those new members from voting at the state convention (contrary to long-established custom), thereby forestalling their doom until next year's convention.

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1462543860614283265

(continued)

 

[Occam's Banana]

The nutbags are getting desperate:

https://twitter.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1467259206411567106

Same person (h/t Connecticut Mises Caucus):

 

[The Northbreather]

Have to admit I’m loving this….