Nick Freitas 2018 | Liberty Rising in Virginia

[notsure]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And tomorrow is the Primary...

 

[Anti-Neocon]

He probably lost to Stewart by a very small amount.

Bright is looking like he may not even make the runoff, by a small amount too if that happens.

This is all people falling for Trump's bullshit, that's the difference maker.

 

[jeffro97]

Sadly, Nick didn't make it. 100% in and 5,000 votes between Stewart and Freitas.

https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/virginia/

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Sadly, Nick didn't make it. 100% in and 5,000 votes between Stewart and Freitas.

https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/virginia/

Well I guess the silver lining is he didn't have much of a chance anyway. Virginia is generally seen as a safe Democratic seat. Maybe he can run for something else in 2020 that he can actually win now that he's generally built a positive profile.

 

[thoughtomator]

Anti-nationalist "liberty" people have no serious electoral prospects. They are too small and isolated a group, without any political allies with which to form a coalition. Guaranteed failure.

There is something sociopathic about this new strain of alleged libertarians that discomforts me greatly. "Libertarians" who are intentionally unresponsive to the crying needs of the people in favor of too-rigid ideology, yet bid to represent them - there is a big mismatch there, morally and intellectually this is not consistent behavior.

The people know, for example, that immigration has had catastrophic outcomes for citizens. It is not a matter in dispute for serious people. It does not matter how many figures, charts, and arguments one may have to the contrary; the known reality is baked in from decades of firsthand experience.

Likewise for our trade deals. The known reality is that we're not getting the benefits of free trade. Yet the wailing about (counter-)tariffs assumes and pretends that they are violating some existing state of free trade, a state of affairs that is completely insulting to those who have watched these deals unfold over time and seen the destruction wrought by them.

Represent, or get the hell out of the way. That's the message of this election.

 

[AuH20]

Freitas deserved to lose when he went into the gutter. You expect those type of vile attacks from the left. It sounded like the SPLC was running his campaign at one point.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Anti-nationalist "liberty" people have no serious electoral prospects. They are too small and isolated a group, without any political allies with which to form a coalition. Guaranteed failure.

There is something sociopathic about this new strain of alleged libertarians that discomforts me greatly. "Libertarians" who are intentionally unresponsive to the crying needs of the people in favor of too-rigid ideology, yet bid to represent them - there is a big mismatch there, morally and intellectually this is not consistent behavior.

The people know, for example, that immigration has had catastrophic outcomes for citizens. It is not a matter in dispute for serious people. It does not matter how many figures, charts, and arguments one may have to the contrary; the known reality is baked in from decades of firsthand experience.

Likewise for our trade deals. The known reality is that we're not getting the benefits of free trade. Yet the wailing about (counter-)tariffs assumes and pretends that they are violating some existing state of free trade, a state of affairs that is completely insulting to those who have watched these deals unfold over time and seen the destruction wrought by them.

Represent, or get the hell out of the way. That's the message of this election.

Liberaltarians are guilty of the same dissociation from reality as their statist brethren, they pretend that all people are good and the same and that groups don't exist, even if groups could be eliminated (they can't, they are part of human nature) they exist right now and must be dealt with until they don't exist. (never)

 

[AuH20]

Liberaltarians are guilty of the same dissociation from reality as their statist brethren, they pretend that all people are good and the same and that groups don't exist, even if groups could be eliminated (they can't, they are part of human nature) they exist right now and must be dealt with until they don't exist. (never)

They are still playing checkers. Dumb fuckers. It doesn't matter who started the war. It's here.

 

[Swordsmyth]

They are still playing checkers. Dumb $#@!ers. It doesn't matter who started the war. It's here.

Their worst problem is that they think they can change the whole world all at once, those who don't think that think that people will automatically be converted to their philosophy just by coming in contact with it, those who realize that neither one is possible would rather let the whole world go to the devil than enforce any rules or take control of any area since they consider those to be cardinal sins.

It doesn't matter if they are sincere useful idiots or pied pipers, both drive ordinary people away from small government and into the arms of one side or the other of the big government spectrum.

 

[AuH20]

Their worst problem is that they think they can change the whole world all at once, those who don't think that think that people will automatically be converted to their philosophy just by coming in contact with it, those who realize that neither one is possible would rather let the whole world go to the devil than enforce any rules or take control of any area since they consider those to be cardinal sins.

It doesn't matter if they are sincere useful idiots or pied pipers, both drive ordinary people away from small government and into the arms of one side or the other of the big government spectrum.

Imagine a relatively watertight room filling up with water. Libertarians want to claw through the concrete walls with their bare fingernails, rather than to attempt shut off the accessible valve.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Freitas deserved to lose when he went into the gutter. You expect those type of vile attacks from the left. It sounded like the SPLC was running his campaign at one point.

What did he do?

 

[AuH20]

What did he do?

He basically labeled Stewart a Nazi. Really low blows.

 

[thoughtomator]

Their worst problem is that they think they can change the whole world all at once, those who don't think that think that people will automatically be converted to their philosophy just by coming in contact with it, those who realize that neither one is possible would rather let the whole world go to the devil than enforce any rules or take control of any area since they consider those to be cardinal sins.

It doesn't matter if they are sincere useful idiots or pied pipers, both drive ordinary people away from small government and into the arms of one side or the other of the big government spectrum.

Anti-nationalist liberaltarianism is fundamentally based on the false premise that all people given liberty, will respect the liberty of others - or at least enough will to keep the situation from devolving into all-out liberty-destroying chaos.

But that's not true. Understanding liberty requires a cultural context most of the world doesn't have, and the cultures of much of the world's population forbids the respect of liberty in others. These cultures are not compatible with the liberty of free peoples. Mixing them in doesn't extend the reach of liberty - it removes it from the people who are left unprotected by the guardians set up to ensure their security.

 

[not.your.average.joe]

Their worst problem is that they think they can change the whole world all at once, those who don't think that think that people will automatically be converted to their philosophy just by coming in contact with it, those who realize that neither one is possible would rather let the whole world go to the devil than enforce any rules or take control of any area since they consider those to be cardinal sins.

It doesn't matter if they are sincere useful idiots or pied pipers, both drive ordinary people away from small government and into the arms of one side or the other of the big government spectrum.

Ever since the first time I watched the For Liberty documentary, I guess I've thought that people will join the movement because it just makes sense- the whole thing, the ideology, the grassroots, the values. And in my experience, people my age have been receptive, or at least tolerant and understanding. People older than me tend to laugh it off (don't steal- funny, right?) or shut me off. Obviously most people are not going to be converted on contact, but it's really all I know how to do. What am I doing wrong/missing and what is the answer?

 

[Matt Collins]

Anti-nationalist "liberty" people have no serious electoral prospects. They are too small and isolated a group, without any political allies with which to form a coalition. Guaranteed failure.

Like Rand, Ron, Massie, Justin, and the hundreds around the country in lower offices


Now if they make anti-nationalism their entire platform during the election, then yeah, they are probably going to lose. But that is why the smart ones don't make that their central focus.

There is something sociopathic about this new strain of alleged libertarians that discomforts me greatly. "Libertarians" who are intentionally unresponsive to the crying needs of the people in favor of too-rigid ideology, yet bid to represent them - there is a big mismatch there, morally and intellectually this is not consistent behavior.

No, not at all. It isn't the government's job to respond to "the crying needs of the people" but the trick is politically to still care without making it into policy.

Likewise for our trade deals. The known reality is that we're not getting the benefits of free trade. Yet the wailing about (counter-)tariffs assumes and pretends that they are violating some existing state of free trade, a state of affairs that is completely insulting to those who have watched these deals unfold over time and seen the destruction wrought by them.

And there is the problem. Free trade doesn't require "deals" or treaties that are 30,000 pages long. Free trade is the unrestricted ability for people to do commerce with whomever they like, so long as they aren't harming others. And tariffs = taxation which is always bad and should always be opposed.

 

[thoughtomator]

Matt, a protection of the states from foreign invasion is written in black and white as a fundamental duty of this government.

Ron voted for border security measures himself, as a Congressman. I'm pretty sure if I checked the others all but perhaps Amash would be similarly on the record as voting in support of such measures. On the record, these are, or were while in office, nationalist libertarians.

This is a function so fundamental that if you stripped government all the way down to doing only one single thing, this would be that one thing.

Anyone who can't deal with enough government to establish sovereignty is de facto an anarcho-communist at this point. A real an-cap would take advantage of any of the vast, all but completely lawless places on this planet to do their thing, so I ain't buying the virtue signal from any of them.

It is grossly irresponsible to expose Americans to the real risks and extreme costs that come from large scale third world immigration. One can't make a "oh you really can't keep government small, minarchists!" argument and then fight tooth and nail all the things needed to make that happen, and be credible.

Everybody thinks they know it all but when we look at examples of these high-minded theories playing out in real life, it turns out that there are always way more variables than comfortable philosophers predicted.

 

[fisharmor]

I am one of those potential 5,000 votes, and all anyone is doing here is trying to piss me off and make me continue not to participate.
I, and people like me, are the demographic that will make the difference in these elections. We are either a bigger factor than you realize, or we're a bigger factor than you want to admit. At some point, if winning is your goal - and let's face it, winning is the only thing you've ever cared about - you need to recognize that my voting block is kind of holding the keys here, so it's well past time to STFU with your statist nonsense and listen.

Anti-nationalist liberaltarianism is fundamentally based on the false premise that all people given liberty, will respect the liberty of others - or at least enough will to keep the situation from devolving into all-out liberty-destroying chaos.

Or, maybe what we've been saying ever since Rand left the fold is true. Maybe the problem we've been screaming for 6 years is that we HAD someone we would have voted for (Ron), who was willing to take a second away from pushing things we didn't agree with (like unconstitutional and fascist immigration policy) to TEACH people why they should support the things we DO agree with (like almost everything else he said).

Maybe we're right when we tell you, ad nauseum, that the reason nobody supports liberty is because nobody is running on it. Don't give me that Rand bullshit - the man spent 17 hours bleating about how if we're going to extrajudicially murder citizens on US soil we need to fill out some paperwork, and this is what you're calling a liberty-loving candidate.

When we get another candidate who says "cut five cabinet level departments immediately" we'll come out of hiding and canvas and call and do all of that stuff. Until then, you're always going to be 5000 votes short.

But that's not true. Understanding liberty requires a cultural context most of the world doesn't have, and the cultures of much of the world's population forbids the respect of liberty in others. These cultures are not compatible with the liberty of free peoples. Mixing them in doesn't extend the reach of liberty - it removes it from the people who are left unprotected by the guardians set up to ensure their security.

I voted for Ron, so I'm willing to bend on the immigration thing in the short term, provided it's kept free of the cultural superiority bullshit like in this quote. Leaving aside that I already pointed out you're not making any attempt to educate anyone and that's the root of the problem, let's move on to the point that only a remnant of Americans have any concept of liberty to begin with. Are you seriously claiming that Americans are culturally more free? Do you seriously not know that America hasn't been in the top 5 of any meaningful measure of freedom in over a decade?

There might be little to work with in an immigrant, but there's objectively more there to work with in a man who actively sought to escape his situation, than there is in an inner city baby momma who flunked out of the 9th grade, or the corn fed school bully in a blue uniform who is groping strangers at the airport.

 

[fisharmor]

Matt, a protection of the states from foreign invasion is written in black and white as a fundamental duty of this government.

And when you can produce evidence of a foreign invasion, you won't get any argument here.
Invasion has three definitions:

• an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
• the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
• entrance as if to take possession or overrun

There is no army, so it doesn't fit definition 1.
You cannot show a concerted effort to overrun, so it doesn't fit definition 3.
All you have is definition 2 - which means you consider these people a disease.
That's not at all surprising since it fits with all the other anti-immigration rhetoric: They don't have rights, they aren't citizens, they aren't people.

Just cut the fucking foreplay and call for their extermination. It's what you really want. It gets rid of the ones that are here, and if that won't prove to be an effective deterrent to future immigration, nothing will.

Anyone who can't deal with enough government to establish sovereignty is de facto an anarcho-communist at this point. A real an-cap would take advantage of any of the vast, all but completely lawless places on this planet to do their thing, so I ain't buying the virtue signal from any of them.

Right, here we have the classic "if you don't like it you can leave" argument, but explicitly calling for us to move to Antarctica. Real solution-minded of you.

I do also love the implication that if we're not in favor of your particular brand of fascist government, we must be in favor of a form of government that demonstrably can't exist, because it presumes both total state control and also no state.
You guys do a pretty good job making me think I've gone insane, you know. I mean, one hallmark of insanity is recognizing something as real which isn't really... but the problem you have is that other people show up here periodically and agree with my assessment that you're talking nonsense, so either they got into the same blotter sheet as I did, or we're right, and you're not making any sense.

It is grossly irresponsible to expose Americans to the real risks and extreme costs that come from large scale third world immigration.

I know, I mean, I got my entire kitchen remodeled for under $5000, we can't have that happening!

One can't make a "oh you really can't keep government small, minarchists!" argument and then fight tooth and nail all the things needed to make that happen, and be credible.

You can't make a "we have to kick 20 million people out and secure thousands of miles of open border" argument and not explode the budget light years beyond the gigantic, uncontrollable problem we have right now.
You can't keep the government small because you are actively shilling for making it exponentially larger.

 

[fisharmor]

Before we switch to Islamic immigration in Europe, I'd like to point out that large-scale third-world immigration has been happening in this country for at least 40 years, so whatever risks come with that, we're already exposed.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss Islam as a problem, and I'm willing to go farther than any of you anti-immigration types in decrying it, so if you want to have that discussion, let's. But don't wrap an anti-Islam position in an anti-immigration blanket.