Ron Paul Libertarians Take Control of Libertarian Party

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul Libertarians Take Control of Libertarian Party

Michael Heise of the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus joins me today to discuss the clean sweep his libertarian caucus made at the recent Libertarian National Convention in Reno.

 

[jmdrake]

Great! Now we just need to find a way to get a libertarian candidate in the 2024 presidential debates. Not an easy task, but not impossible.

 

[Invisible Man]

Great! Now we just need to find a way to get a libertarian candidate in the 2024 presidential debates. Not an easy task, but not impossible.

I keep seeing comments from Mises Caucus folks to the effect that Dave Smith will be their pick for the LP candidate, and thus a front runner for the LP nomination. I don't know anything about him other than the fact that I see libertarians linking to his stuff a lot.

 

[CaptUSA]

Great! Now we just need to find a way to get a libertarian candidate in the 2024 presidential debates. Not an easy task, but not impossible.

I'm not sure that's even necessary anymore. We'll see. But it seems like alternative media is capturing a much larger and more enthusiastic audience. I mean, the debates would be great, but being excluded from the debates may win even more attention. And really, the purpose of a Presidential run for the Libertarian party isn't necessarily to win - it's to trigger a change in the social conversation. The MC is pushing hard for Dave Smith. As a podcaster, he could really cause a stir that can't be ignored by the corporate press.

 

[CaptUSA]

I keep seeing comments from Mises Caucus folks to the effect that Dave Smith will be their pick for the LP candidate, and thus a front runner for the LP nomination. I don't know anything about him other than the fact that I see libertarians linking to his stuff a lot.

I wouldn't say I've "followed" him, but I have seen a few of his podcasts and visits to other shows... He's a severely flawed candidate, but he's a shitstirrer. And seeing what has happened in this country over the last decade, a shitstirrer with solid Ron Paul libertarian views may just be a perfect match.

In any case, this IS the next extension of the Ron Paul movement and those at RPF should embrace it - whoever the candidate may be that they select.

 

[ClaytonB]

Ron Paul's speech at the LPMC bash in Reno:

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/LPNational/status/1532802789184872448

https://twitter.com/jeremykauffman/status/1532817388751704065

 

[ClaytonB]

I hope the irony is not lost on people...

 

[ClaytonB]

I'm not sure that's even necessary anymore. We'll see. But it seems like alternative media is capturing a much larger and more enthusiastic audience. I mean, the debates would be great, but being excluded from the debates may win even more attention. And really, the purpose of a Presidential run for the Libertarian party isn't necessarily to win - it's to trigger a change in the social conversation. The MC is pushing hard for Dave Smith. As a podcaster, he could really cause a stir that can't be ignored by the corporate press.

The Establishment does not understand that even a "god king" can bleed...

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not sure that's even necessary anymore. We'll see. But it seems like alternative media is capturing a much larger and more enthusiastic audience. I mean, the debates would be great, but being excluded from the debates may win even more attention. And really, the purpose of a Presidential run for the Libertarian party isn't necessarily to win - it's to trigger a change in the social conversation. The MC is pushing hard for Dave Smith. As a podcaster, he could really cause a stir that can't be ignored by the corporate press.

I wouldn't say I've "followed" him, but I have seen a few of his podcasts and visits to other shows... He's a severely flawed candidate, but he's a shitstirrer. And seeing what has happened in this country over the last decade, a shitstirrer with solid Ron Paul libertarian views may just be a perfect match.

In any case, this IS the next extension of the Ron Paul movement and those at RPF should embrace it - whoever the candidate may be that they select.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptUSA again.

Dave Smith is absolutely a "severely flawed candidate" - and I am sure he would be among the first to agree with that assessment (for just one of many things, he's one-third of a group of comedians who refer to their joint podcast - titled "Legion of Skanks" - as "the most offensive podcast on Earth").

Unlike Bob Barr or William Weld (or even Gary Johnson, who I suppose could be considered a "libertarian" of some sort, at least nominally), he certainly won't be a buttoned-down and "respectable" don't-scare-the-normies candidate. (But then, what even is a "normie" anymore?) He's intelligent, articulate, and when it comes to properly-understood libertarian principle and ideology, he knows his shit. He'll be a provocative fire-breather on all the issues for which we need more provocation and fire-breathing.

What he won't do is be a namby-pamby "don't rock the boat" milquetoast - or a soft-spoken academic type who says correct things from a libertarian perspective, but who never ventures out of the realm of abstract theory[1] and into the concrete muck of the "current year" real-world - or some washed-up, attention-seeking Republican looking to become a "big fish in a little pond" and use the LP as a publicity vehicle for one last hurrrah.

And regarding that last item: consider the fact that neither Barr nor Weld - nor even Johnson - had or wanted to have anything to do with the LP before or after their candidacies. They did nothing to promote the LP (or even just small-"l" libertarianism) except for the duration of their candidacies (and in some cases, not even then), Dave Smith was actively and effectively promoting solidly libertarian positions since before he ever even joined the Mises Caucus and got active in the LP, and he'll continue doing so for a long time to come - even if he never even becomes the LP POTUS nominee. The POTUS nomination will just give him a larger platform for what he is already doing, and doing well. And that is exactly what we all need more of (even those of us who otherwise have no interest in or use for the Libertarian Party).



[1] Don't get me wrong here: I love me some abstract theory - but as critically important as it is, candidate platforms are not the proper venue for it.

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[CaptUSA]

And regarding that last item: consider the fact that neither Barr nor Weld - nor even Johnson - had or wanted to have anything to do with the LP before or after their candidacies. They did nothing to promote the LP (or even just small-"l" libertarianism) except for the duration of their candidacies (and in some cases, not even then), Dave Smith was actively and effectively promoting solidly libertarian positions since before he ever even joined the Mises Caucus and got active in the LP, and he'll continue doing so for a long time to come - even if he never even becomes the LP POTUS nominee. The POTUS nomination will just give him a larger platform for what he is already doing, and doing well. And that is exactly what we all need more of (even those of us who otherwise have no interest in or use for the Libertarian Party).

+ rep!

I'm all on board with the MC after watching the energy in this takeover! If Dave is the right guy, fantastic! I think he'll do great. But to me, it's the momentum and energy in the entire movement that is encouraging. Reminds me of the old Ron Paul days. I'm trusting the movement here to pick whoever they want. They look like they're all on the same page, philosophically. He better be careful, though... He just might end up becoming President.

(Ha - if you think they pulled shenanigans with Ron Paul, just wait to see what Dave is in for!)

 

[Occam's Banana]

+ rep!

I'm all on board with the MC after watching the energy in this takeover! If Dave is the right guy, fantastic! I think he'll do great. But to me, it's the momentum and energy in the entire movement that is encouraging. Reminds me of the old Ron Paul days. I'm trusting the movement here to pick whoever they want. They look like they're all on the same page, philosophically. He better be careful, though... He just might end up becoming President.

(Ha - if you think they pulled shenanigans with Ron Paul, just wait to see what Dave is in for!)

Agreed on all points.

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1532864391590424576

In fact, I have decided to rejoin the LP as a dues-paying member (for the first time in over two decades),

And judging by the flood of lifetime and annual memberships that have rolled in during and since the convention ($400K+), I'm not the only one.

 

[ClaytonB]

In fact, I have decided to rejoin the LP as a dues-paying member (for the first time in over two decades),

And judging by the flood of lifetime and annual memberships that have rolled in during and since the convention ($400K+), I'm not the only one.

I'm contemplating the possibility. I am planning to join my state/local LP and MC. I guess I should do it before we get into summer and things start heating up for the mid-terms.

PS: Yes, it's weird to think of LP in any kind of positive terms. An MC-driven LP is a real threat to the establishment and especially the Fed. Nuke 'em from orbit... (figuratively, obviously)

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[Occam's Banana]

Dave Smith for POTUS 2024

Maj Toure for VPOTUS 2024

(And Michael Malice for White House Press Secretary.)

 

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: LP Mises Caucus features in SPLC "Hatewatch" hit piece

(SPLC "Hatewatch": Mises Caucus: Could It Sway the Libertarian Party to the Hard Right?)​

THREAD: LP Mises Caucus takeover features in WaPo newsletter

 

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: LP Mises Caucus features in SPLC "Hatewatch" hit piece

(SPLC "Hatewatch": Mises Caucus: Could It Sway the Libertarian Party to the Hard Right?)​

THREAD: LP Mises Caucus takeover features in WaPo newsletter

THREAD: The Nation: "The Libertarian Party Goes Alt-Right"

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[ClaytonB]

Mises Institute: The Path to Victory

06/07/2022 -- Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

The Mises Institute was founded as a research center based on classically liberal ideas that have always been under fire: the ideas of Mises and the tradition of thought he represents. That means a focus on the Austrian School of economics, and, in political philosophy, individual liberty and the need to prevent the State and its interests from crushing it, as all States everywhere are inclined to do.

The first priority of such an institute is to keep a body of ideas alive. Great ideas have no inherent life of their own, especially not those that are opposed by the powers that be. They must circulate and be a part of the academic and public mind in order to avoid extinction.

And yet we must do more than merely keep a body of thought alive. We don’t just want our ideas to live; we want them to grow and develop, advance within the culture and public debate, become a force to be reckoned with among intellectuals, be constantly employed toward the end of explaining history and current reality, and eventually win in the great ideological battles of our times.

What is the best means of achieving such victory? This is a subject that is rarely discussed on the free-market right. Murray Rothbard pointed out that strategy is a huge part of the scholarship of the left. Once having settled on the doctrine, the left works very hard at honing the message and finding ways to push it. This is a major explanation for the left’s success.

Our side, on the other hand, doesn’t discuss this subject much. But since some sort of strategy is unavoidable, let me just list a few tactics that I do not believe work. The following, I’m quite sure, will fail for various reasons:

Quietism

Faced with the incredible odds against success, there is a tendency among believers in liberty to despair and find solace in being around their friends and talking only to each other. This is understandable, of course, even fruitful at times, but it is also irresponsible and rather selfish. Yes, we may always be a minority, but we are always either growing or shrinking. If we shrink enough, we disappear. If we grow enough, we win. That is why we must never give up the battle for young minds and for changing older minds. Our message has tremendous explanatory power. We must never hide our light under a bushel.

Retreat

One mark of the liberal tradition is its intellectual rigor. It contains more than enough intellectual substance to occupy the academic mind for several lifetimes. There is a tendency, then, to believe that retreating into academia and eschewing public life is the correct path. The idea is that we should just use our knowledge to pen journal articles and otherwise keep to ourselves, in the hopes that someday this path will pay off in terms of academic respectability. But this has not been the path of brilliant minds from Turgot and Jefferson, Bastiat and Constant, Mises and Hayek, Rothbard and the adjunct scholars of the Mises Institute. They are all engaged at some level in public debate. They believed that too much is at stake to retreat solely to private study. We cannot afford that luxury.

Holding Chairs in the Ivy League

I’ve seen this related error take a real toll on otherwise good minds. A young person can start out with real commitments, but he may fear the marginalization that comes with holding unpopular ideas. He tries to pass himself off as a conventional scholar, while sneaking in libertarian thoughts along the way. He may intend to reveal his true colors eventually, but then there are the demands of tenure and promotion, and social pressures to boot. Eventually, in short, he comes to sell out.

Convincing the Politicians

Another type of problem stems from the belief that political organizing is the answer. But this can only lead to despondency, as effort after effort fails to yield fruit. Despite what you hear, the political class is not interested in ideas for their own sake. They are interested in subsidizing their friends, protecting their territory, and getting reelected. Political ideology for them is, at best, a hobby. It is only useful insofar as it provides a cover for what they would do otherwise. I’m generalizing here, and yes, exceptions are possible. In fact, I can think of one in our century: Ron Paul.

Placing High Profile Articles

I know think-tank people who would do just about anything to get in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. This is a snare and delusion. Once you put a priority on the medium over the message—and this is inevitable once you begin to think this way—you are forgetting why you got in this business to begin with. If these venues come to you and ask you to offer an opinion you hold, by all means do so. But that is not the way it works.
Getting on TV

The same applies here. I know people who were once dedicated to the ideas of liberty who developed a hankering for media attention, and eventually forgot why they got into the ideas business in the first place.

Starting More Think Tanks

I know this sounds silly but some people on our side of the fence believe that the more nonprofit organizations there are, the more likely we are to win the battle of ideas. To me, this amounts to confusing the success that franchising represents in the commercial marketplace with ideological success, which is not guaranteed by the proliferation of websites and institutes. Indeed, ideology is not solely a commercial enterprise. We are a nonprofit research institute for a reason. What we do pays huge returns for civilization but not in the form of accounting profits. Our reward comes in other ways.

Building an Immense Endowment and Hiring a Huge Staff

Funding and staff alone will solve nothing. Funding is crucial and heaven knows the Mises Institute needs more of it. Staffing is great, so long as the people are dedicated and competent. But neither is an end in itself. The crucial question is whether the passion for ideas is there, not just the financial means. Amazing things are possible on small budgets, as I think the success of the Mises Institute shows.

Wait for the Collapse

We know that socialism and interventionism cannot work. We know they fail, and we suspect that they might finally fail in a catastrophic manner. This may be true, but we are mistaken if we believe that the ideas of liberty will naturally emerge in such a setting. Crisis can present opportunities but no guarantees.

Finding errors such as these is easy, and I could list a dozen more. Let me offer a few points I think we should remember.

Our ideas are unpopular. We are in the minority. Our views are not welcome by the regime. They often fall on the deaf ears of an indifferent public. Big newspapers don’t often care what we think. In fact, they want to keep us out of their pages. Politicians will always find us impractical at best, and threatening at worst.

In short, we fight an uphill battle. We must recognize this at the outset. We are what Albert Jay Nock called the remnant, a small band of brothers who have special knowledge of theory and history, and a concern for the well-being of civilization. What we do with that knowledge and concern is up to us. We can retreat or sell out, or we can use it as our battle cry and go forward through history to face the enemy.

Let me offer just a quick outline of some principles I use:

Educate Every Student

Engage everyone who is interested in what we do. Never neglect anyone. One never knows where the next Mises or Rothbard or Hayek or Hazlitt is going to come from.

Encourage Proliferation of Talents

Some people are great writers. Others are great teachers. Still others have a talent for research. There are other abilities too, like public speaking and technological competence. It takes all these abilities to make up the great freedom movement of our time. There is no need to insist on a single model; rather, we should make use of the division of labor.

Use Every Medium

Use everything we can to advance our ideas, from the smallest newsletter to the largest Website. Never believe that a medium is beneath you, or above you. We must be in the academic journals and we must be in the pages of the local newspaper. Along these lines, the Web has solved the major problem we faced throughout history, namely finding a medium to communicate our ideas in a way that makes them available to everyone who is interested. But it never happens automatically.

It requires tremendous effort and creativity to bring about change.

Adhere to What is True

This means avoiding fancy ways of pitching your ideas in keeping with current trends. It’s fine to be attentive to sales techniques. But never let this concern swamp your message.

Say What Is True

Never underestimate the power of just stating things plainly and openly. Whatever the topic, the ideas of liberty have something to add that is missing from public debate. It is our job to make that addition.

Don't Neglect Academia

Yes, colleges and universities are corrupt. But they are where the ideas that rule civilization come from. We must not neglect them. We must publish journals, sponsor colloquia, help faculty and students. Never let academia believe it has the luxury of forgetting about our ideas. This is why the Mises Institute holds seminars for professors and students, as well as financial professionals and interested people of every sort.

Don't Neglect Popular Culture

Yes, popular culture is corrupt, but not entirely. We must not neglect it because it has a huge impact on the way people see themselves and learn about their world.

Use Your Minority Status to Your Own Benefit

There is no sense in duplicating what others already do. If you publish, publish something radical and surprising. If you produce a book, make it a book that will change people’s minds. If you hold a seminar, say things that are worth saying. Never fear the unconventional. It is possible to be conventional in form and radical in content.

Remember that Influence Can Be Indirect

The effect of ideas on a civilization is like waves on water. By the time they reach the shore, no one remembers or knows for sure where they came from. Our job is to stick to the task. We should use every means at our disposal to get the ideas out there; what happens after that is as unpredictable as the future always is.

Success Can Take Many Forms

I am often asked how we can think we are succeeding even as the government keeps growing. To me, this poses no great quandary. All governments want total control. What stops them, primarily, is ideological opposition. Without it, the government would grow much quicker and civilization would be doomed in short order. To what extent has the circulation of the ideas of liberty slowed down the growth of the State? How much worse off might we be?

Change Can Happen quickly

The ideological foundations of statism weaken in ways that are not always detectable. Change can happen overnight, after which all becomes clear in retrospect. If you had told the average Russian in 1985 that in five years, the Soviet Union would be defunct, you would have been dismissed as a madman. It’s my opinion that statism in America may have run its course. We should all do our best to speed up the process.

In the history of warfare, there have always been armies that are ruled by the center and emphasize drills, lines, and discipline. They tend to treat their soldiers as expendable. They can win but at a huge price.

The other model is guerrilla warfare, usually undertaken by the underdog in the battle. Guerrilla armies usually consist of volunteers; every soldier is considered valuable. Their tactics are unpredictable. They are not ruled by the center but rather exploit the creativity of each member. Such armies have proven remarkably effective in the history of warfare. I believe that the guerrilla model is what suits us best—a campaign of ideological guerrilla warfare conducted by the remnant.

This is no guarantee of success but it is the best guarantee against failure that I know. Our journals circulate like never before, in academia and public culture. Our books have changed history in so many ways. The key to our success, I believe, is that the Mises Institute is all about being attached to principle and truth before anything else. We’ve never traded short-term attention for building for the long term. Mises did not either, and he paid a personal price. But his ideas are changing the world. We must all follow his lead, never giving in, never giving up, fighting for truth until our last breath. We have the passion and energy. Most importantly, we have truth on our side. I believe we can have the victory.

I'll add one more to his list of things to do:

- Beware of mistakenly repeating false information. Just because a fact is convenient for you, and appears to be true, is not reason enough to repeat it. The more thoroughly our movement commits to checking each fact (in the true sense, not the propaganda-"fact checking" sense) before repeating it, the more reliable our collective voice will be. The public can lose trust in a movement quickly if the movement is given to baseless speculations and easily repeats rumors and fake news planted by the opposition to make them look bad. Even something as simple as giving full-disclosure that you're simply repeating an unverified fact helps, because the next link in the chain might be able to verify/falsify that fact. But honesty and transparency is the key. The enemy's entire platform is built on lies from the ground-up, they can never go toe-to-toe with us on the facts, anyway, so never give in to the temptation to fudge them!