I could tell stories for days of my parents’ selfless generosity. My upbringing was unconventional. Many people who needed a place to live came and went on the 80 acres I grew up on in Southwest Missouri. Some lived in a tiny cottage that came with the property, some lived in mobile homes, and some even created a home in the old hog barn. There was no judgment – if it was within our ability to help neighbor or stranger, we did. 

Although we did not celebrate some of the traditional holidays, we did celebrate Mother’s and Father’s Day. But there was always a hint of rebellion at the idea of honoring parents just because the government said we should. (Those of you who know me will begin to see where I get my libertarian bent.)  As I grew older, I decided to honor my father and mother on the day they became my parents – my birth date. It made more sense to give back to them on the day they gave life to me. For a long time, I tended to resist some of the holidays because they have become so commercialized, laden with material expectation, obligation, and guilt.

I was wrong.

As a country, we are bonded with our fellow citizens by shared national ideals and values. Holidays of remembrance, honor and celebration are vital to our unity – especially given our uniquely American foundation of fierce individual rights and liberty. In today’s culture where there are those determined to usurp and devalue the role of women as mothers, honoring motherhood and elevating the traits a mother should possess while celebrating their differences is more important than ever.

 A couple of weeks ago, I texted my daughters to remind them that I did not expect and did not need anything for Mother’s Day. They show their love for me in a thousand ways any given day of the year. They lol’d and said okay. No expectations. No obligation. No guilt. 

When I woke up on this second Sunday in May, my older daughter was already gone to work and I walked into the kitchen to find flowers, homemade cookies, and gift bags for both me and my mother. I was not surprised. This is how she expresses her love. When the younger returned home that afternoon from a weekend with her dad, she helped me prep Mother’s Day dinner for my parents with some of my mother’s favorite dishes. And then she went the extra mile and did additional tasks without being asked. This was her gift, just as meaningful as flowers and sweets.

A friend texted that morning, wishing me a Happy Mother’s Day, and I asked, “What was your favorite thing about your mother?” He immediately replied, “Her patience, her ability to take a joke when we all made fun of her, the sense of overwhelming unconditional love.”

Something about that seemingly simple, yet profound description struck a deep emotional chord. Isn’t that what all mothers should strive for? Aren’t those among the qualities we all need from our mothers? If my daughters can say only that about me, I could ask for nothing more.

Throughout the day on social media, I read story after story of how mothers shape the lives of their children, and messages from moms encouraging other moms. In the minutiae of the day-to-day, we often don’t consider the long term impact of what we do for our children. We just do what needs to be done in that moment. 

But there are moments in history when mothers doing what needs to be done changes the course of a nation.

There is no greater recent example of this than the movement we saw come out of the covid lockdown of schools. There was an awakening across the country as parents’ eyes were opened to what was happening in their schools and what their children were being taught – and not taught. For many, their trust in the public education system was destroyed. 

In Florida, Moms for Liberty formed in 2021 to push back against covid mandates in schools. They grew to hundreds of groups in 45 states by 2023. In Missouri, there were mothers (and fathers) who suddenly became involved in politics out of the necessity of doing what needed to be done for their children in that moment. They showed up at school board meetings, they ran for those school boards, they formed coalitions in their communities, went to the Capitol, got involved in political campaigns, and filed lawsuits against the education bureaucracy that was actively doing harm to their kids.

Shannon, one of those Missouri moms who stepped up to lead, shared this in a Facebook group:

“…Those years taught me how to stand up for my children and my liberties. I fought for all my children but none more than Max. He was a Freshman in high school at the time. It was him who came to me and begged me to help get school in person. He was struggling emotionally and mentally aside from starting to fail academically.  He was the reason I even got involved at all. I didn’t know how to get the school’s attention, what avenues I needed to take. I just knew my child was pleading to me with tears in his eyes to help. You know that feeling. You remember that feeling with your own children.

Last year, in Max’s machine tooling class, they made metal hearts with “Happy Mothers Day” on them. He told me he wanted to say something different, more meaningful so he inscribed “thanks for saving the world”.  This is probably the most treasured Mother’s Day gift any of my kids have ever gotten me.

No one person can save the world. That’s not what he meant, but I do believe I helped save his little world. Through this group, through our advocacy and our determination and my family’s decision to move, I in some small way helped save his world. I am sure I could say the same thing about you and your children would agree. You helped save their world.”

Early attempts to establish holidays for mothers included a committee to establish a “Mother’s Friendship Day,” organized by Ann Jarvis in 1868. The purpose of Ann’s holiday was “to reunite families that had been divided during the Civil War.” Many women’s peace groups had organized similarly in the 19th century with the common theme of mothers coming together whose sons had fought or died on opposite sides of the war. 

Mother’s Day is rooted in peace, forgiveness, unity, and finding common ground.

Of course, there are bad mothers. There are mediocre mothers. There are mothers lauded as the epitome of maternal virtue. None of us are perfect mothers. Our shortcomings are ingrained into our children along with our strengths. When a child is rude or misbehaves, how many times have you heard, “Didn’t your mother teach you any manners?” (Or does anyone still actually say that???)

In our highly polarized and tribalistic political culture, I often wonder where we went wrong. I think of all the old sayings our mothers and grandmothers used to repeat: “You catch more flies with honey.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Life’s not fair.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And so many more, including one that was a constant in my childhood, “What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.”

If you’ve paid much attention to politics in Missouri (or wherever you are, no doubt) at all lately, you’d think a whole lot of adults either missed out on some of these lessons or have forgotten them entirely. And if you’re paying attention, you will also notice that conservatives and libertarians are losing the war for the principles and values that have made these United States of America a “shining city on a hill.” We have a “supermajority” of Republicans in our state, yet we are increasingly divided as purism breeds contempt and disharmony.

We lack legacy thinking. The gains for liberty we saw in the unified grassroots pushback against covid tyranny have already begun to wane as we are consumed by infighting. We have short memories, forgetting so quickly the lessons we learned. Our “solutions” tend to be stopgap measures that get social media clicks, but sweep the problems under the rug of the next generation. Our mothers should be disappointed in us. I can almost hear them saying, “Just wait ‘til your Founding Fathers get home!”

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

 If we’re not persuading, we’re losing. Our words matter. Our rhetoric matters. Even when we fall short of them – especially when we fall short of them. You might have heard the admonition to “let your speech always be with grace…” Perhaps we should spend more time listening to understand so that our words will likewise be heard and considered. After all, “God gave you two ears and one mouth so you can listen more than you speak.” 

When I think of my mother, I think of how she is always singing or humming, her penchant for practical jokes, her unerring belief that I can do anything I put my mind to, her unending generosity, and her unconditional love even when I am sure I have disappointed her. To this day, I want her to be proud of me. And I want to take the lessons that I learned late and teach them to my children early. I want to leave a legacy they can build on. I want to save their world.

Mother’s first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow—
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Looking ahead to the second Sunday of 2025, I believe the best way we can collectively honor our mothers is to honor the Mother’s Day holiday legacy of peace and reconciliation. Working together, finding common ground, being patient with each other, and treating each other well even when we disagree. And above all, keeping a sense of humor. Are there gifts greater than these?

The post The Hand That Rocks the Cradle: A Mother’s Day Retrospective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

by John Murphy

According to Congressman Andrew Ogles (R-TN)’s interview with The Epoch Times‘ Roger L. Simon, we know McCarthy made these concessions to win over his opposition:

1. Jeffersonian Motion – It takes only one congressperson to bring a vote on the removal of the McCarthy as Speaker. This was the policy in place before Nancy Pelosi removed it. 
2. A Church Committee to investigate possible overreach in surveillance by the FBI and other government organizations.

If there is one thing libertarians can be optimistic about, it is the appointment of a congressman that was not one of the 20 “Never-Kevins”: Part of the concessions to the Freedom Caucus was to appoint Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) as head of the Church Committee. 

This will give Massie the ability to investigate and bring light to waste in any area of the federal government.  After the revelations made in the past by Snowden and others, as well as Elon Musk recently, finally many mainstream Republicans in the party are ready for investigations into potential overreach.  

1. Bills presented to Congress will be single subject, not omnibus, with all the attendant earmarks, and there will be a 72-hour minimum period to read them.

2. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress. From The Hill: “The four-pronged plan aims to ‘Complete Physical Border Infrastructure,’ ‘Fix Border Enforcement Policies,’ ‘Enforce our Laws in the Interior’ and ‘Target Cartels & Criminal Organizations.’”

3. COVID mandates will be ended as well as all funding for them including “emergency funding.”

4. Budget bills would stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling and hold the Senate accountable for the same.

By now libertarians know to set low expectations when it comes to the Republican Party and spending, but with a split government, it sounds like they are comfortable again back to at least talking a good game in regards to COVID funding and the debt ceiling.

We also know from Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-CO) comments that

1. A vote on term limits will be a priority

Inevitably there are rumors of the existence of other concessions that have not been made public.  Could there be something related to January 6th?  A Dr. Fauci investigation?  Or a Biden impeachment vote?  Perhaps these are the insider details that we will never know.  

The last four days has shown the establishment running up and down the aisles of Congress in disbelief that they were facing such a struggle with a vote that they expected to be purely procedural.  Some libertarians may have also taken enjoyment in the fact that during the process Congress has been at a legislative standstill.

It will be interesting to see where McCarthy finds “compromise” between the different parts of the modern day GOP. Could this division be a foreshadow of more challenge for the party to find common ground between the establishment and the various groups passionately fighting to define conservatism? And could this be the start of Republicans realizing that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism and that it’s also good politically?

People respect principled politicians and since COVID a whole lot of people have been hoping for a real alternative to the status quo. Freedom is exactly what the people need. And as much as they try to vilify people that think like Massie, in his new position he will be able to be a libertarian voice that represents freedom well. It will be one more step towards convincing non political types that a free society is not only what is morally right but also what generates the most prosperity for everybody. 

The post Libertarians Win With McCarthy’s Concessions For Speaker appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

But we can’t deny it any longer. Irrefutable evidence stares us in the face when we turn on the news and log onto social media. It’s time we libertarians accept the truth as everyone else already has. Libertarians are the most powerful force for political and societal change this continent has ever seen!The political opposition expose their belief in this all the time. Remember when Ronald Reagan claimed the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism? Republicans, in response, wasted no time dragging conservatism away from limited government and free market principles. That was just too radical an idea for them, and we needed to be marginalized for the GOP to retain their control. You wouldn’t react like that to an irrelevant group that barely registers as a minor nuisance, would you?

When libertarians got involved in the Tea Party movement, the Obama administration pressured the IRS to harass affiliated groups and organizations. FreedomWorks, which had libertarians working within, was a target. Democrats wouldn’t stand for any societal change they didn’t engineer, and moved quickly to suppress libertarian influence before it expanded. Likewise, GOP cronies couldn’t sit idly by and used their resources and influence to sabotage the movement.

But that didn’t stop us! Instead, we’ve since moved the needle even further to the point that Tucker Carlson admitted libertarians (unbeknownst to us) practically own and operate Washington, DC. Most recently, we’ve even earned vitriol from a former CIA spook who claims “even libertarians” are part of an “unholy alliance!”

Last but not least, the mother of all proofs which demonstrate the raw power we command—libertarians are solely responsible for the outcome of every major election! For decades, our voter base (arguably the smallest demographic in the nation) has held the keys to the Oval Office, where just a simple nod or frown from us has the power to vault a major candidate to victory or devastate a campaign and lay it to waste.

So I’ve decided to drop denial like a bad habit, and accept our rightful place as rulers of the political galaxy. Fear us. Hate us. Or simply bow before us. Just know that we now know what you have already accepted— Libertarians run this show!

The post Libertarians: Movers, Shakers and Kingmakers in American Politics appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

As discussed in a few previous pieces, libertarians aren’t a huge percentage of the United States population. And not all those libertarians are even in the Libertarian Party. And regardless of what party we are in (if we are in one at all,) we tend to squabble and fight with each other incessantly to the point that people generally don’t like us and we often don’t even like each other.

Part of the reason for this chaos within the liberty movement is that we are, by definition, individualists. We are not monolithic. The one thing we all share is a serious distrust (if not outright hostility) to government at all levels. But how we go about distrusting that government, or being hostile to it, is hardly a settled question.

There are a dizzying number of subgroups within libertarianism. Let’s talk about some of them. (This is not an exhaustive list; I’m sure I’m going to miss someone’s favorite sliver of liberty.)

Anarchists

I know, anarchy is not the same thing as libertarianism. But they are definitely related; perhaps kissing cousins. The philosophies are quite similar once you get past the argument over whether one should have no government at all or just a tiny one.

At face value, anarchy means the total lack of a government. But wait, there’s more!

As it turns out, there are many subgroups within anarchist philosophy. Perhaps the best depictions of these subgroups are in the various Anarchyball cartoons. In them, you will find:

Anarcho-primitivism

If anarchy has an Amish flavor, this is it. These folks reject industrialization, civilization, domestication of animals, and maybe even the wearing of clothes. (!) Henry David Thoreau is commonly associated with this line of thought.

You just thought of Thoreau buck naked, didn’t you? You’re welcome.

Anarcho-capitalism

The closest anarchy variant to mainstream libertarianism, this philosophy values property rights and individual rights above all, along with fairly strict adherence to the non aggression principle (“NAP.”) The father (and heaviest hitter) of this philosophical strain was Murray Rothbard.

Anarcho-communism

While “anarcho” and “communism” may seem contradictory, it’s a real thing. In fact, it’s the philosophical end goal of most modern communist states. The problem is, in real life, those states always get stuck in the “dictatorship of the proletariat” stage. They never reach their truly stateless (and property-less) nirvana.

Anarcho-transhumanism

This one’s a little out there, but the gist of it is that human beings can perfect themselves through science and technology and thus become more free. I, for one, look forward to becoming a cyborg. This is closely related to the concept of libertarian transhumanism and technolibertarianism (see below.)

(Sarah Connor unavailable for comment.)

Crypto-anarchism

This particular brand of anarchy advocates the use of computer technology and cryptography to ensure privacy in communications and transactions, thus (hopefully) making the state unnecessary. Or, at least, keep most important things under the state’s radar and thus rendering the state superfluous.

Agorism

 A newer kid on the block, this school of thought originated in the 1970’s and is closely related to Voluntaryism (see more about that below.) It encourages counter-economics, voluntary acts and associations, and frowns upon intellectual properties.

Anarcho-pacifism

This is similar to several of the other flavors listed above, but with an explicit underlying reliance on non-violence. Big names here include Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi.

There are several other varieties of anarchism out there, including anarcha-feminism, queer anarchism, anarcho-mutualism, ego anarchism, and even red market anarchism. (You have to read up on that last one if you want your mind blown for a few minutes; you can wipe your ass with the NAP. Among other things. Somewhere, Anton Chigurh is smiling.)

Libertarians

Left libertarians

Broadly, these are folks who focus more on the “social” part of libertarianism than the “economic” part. If you have a lot of libertarian friends and acquaintances, then you know some of these; they tend to come off as SJW’s (social justice warriors) sometimes.

Right libertarians

Conversely, these folks tend to focus more on the “economic” side of libertarianism than the social. This seems to more common.

Voluntaryists

Similar to Agorism noted above, except that under this system, pretty much anything goes once everyone consents to it. Things can go left, they can go right, nobody knows, but at least it’s all voluntary.

Minarchism

Proponents of a small “night watchman” state that does the bare minimum (military, police, courts); the majority of American libertarians probably fall into this category. They are aware of the slippery slope that this entails, but tend to ignore it, or just hope for the best.

Technolibertarianism

Closely related to crypto-anarchy, focusing on a free/libre internet (free of cost and censorship.) Julian Assange falls into this category.

Libertarian socialism

Another seemingly contradiction in terms, this is a cousin of anarcho-communism. Perhaps best described as “left libertarianism on steroids”, this flavor eschews government and capitalism in favor of direct democracy and labor unions. It’s a bit of a hot mess. The primary name associated with this bunch is Noam Chomsky, which tells you pretty much all you need to know.

Georgism and/or geolibertarianism

This one goes way down the rabbit hole. Also known as the “single tax movement”, these folks believe (in a nutshell) that land and natural resources are commonly owned (or “unowned”) and persons should pay tax for the “rental” value of whatever land they are occupying or improving. The downside: this sounds pretty pinko to me. The upside: that’s the only taxes anyone pays, and otherwise you’re free from government nosiness.

Even within the Libertarian Party, there are several divisions:

Mises Caucus

For what it’s worth, this is probably the most influential organized group within the party. As the name suggests, they are fans of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics. This puts them fairly close to an anarcho-capitalist alignment.

Radical Caucus

I don’t even know if these cats are still around, but they were fun when they were. They advocate a harder line approach to core libertarian values and downplay the idea of incrementalism.

Libertine Caucus

LPedia says this caucus exists, but the links provided are dead. Which is a shame, because I would totally join this if it was still around. (In fact, the working title for this weekly column before it got underway was The Libertine Republic. Which still has a nice ring to it sometimes.)

Nihilist Caucus

As far as I can tell, this “caucus” exists only as a tongue-in-cheek Facebook page. Which is a shame. But it doesn’t matter.

Where do I fall within this kaleidoscope? I’m just your garden variety right-libertarian minarchist with anarcho-capitalist sympathies, who also has interests in anarcho-transhumanism, crypto-anarchism, and technolibertarianism.

Y’know, pretty boring stuff.

The post Potpourri of Liberty: The Many Weird and (Mostly) Wonderful Flavors of Freedom appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

-H.L. Mencken

Libertarians are sometimes described as being “conservative on economic issues” and “liberal on social issues.”  Sometimes we even describe ourselves that way.

I’ve never been really comfortable with this, for several reasons:

1. There is often a fine line between an “economic” issue and a “social” issue.
2. Your social issue becomes my economic issue when you start asking the government to subsidize your life choices (or the consequences thereof.)
3. There may be issues that are neither economic nor social. Or, maybe they’re both. (Think slavery, for an extreme example.)
4. By using the language of our opposition, we are allowing them (in a way) to define us.

When trying to explain libertarianism to the “liberty-curious,” I have even sometimes used the “economic” and “social” model myself. But I always found it lacking.

Instead, I’ve started describing libertarianism in a different way.

First I ask a person to split the world up into two very broad groups: the government and consenting adults. Then ask two (also broad) questions:

Should the government be allowed to do “A,” “B,” or “C?”

We say: mostly no.

Should consenting adults allowed to do “X,” “Y”, or “Z?”

We say: Yeah, sure. Who gives a shit?

Easy peasy, right? If you believe the government shouldn’t be involved in much of anything, that more or less puts you on the liberal side of social issues and the conservative side of economic issues. Without having to use that terminology.

One could argue that as long as the government is taking well over 25% of your livelihood, economic issues are the only issues that matter. I tend to agree with that assessment.

I’ve never given a rat’s ass about social issues. I don’t care where strangers put their genitals, who or what they pray to, or what substances they put in their bodies. I was raised with a “MYOFB” (mind your own f*cking business) mindset. One thing often heard around my childhood home: “Who cares what so-and-so is doing, as long as they’re not hurting anyone?”

I was also raised to believe that everyone should work and pay their own way in life (if they are able.) Freeloaders and moochers were considered to be the absolute lowest scum of the Earth, above maybe only child molesters and televangelists.

Put “MYOFB” and “pay your own way” together. If that doesn’t distill libertarianism right down to the basics, I’ll kiss your arse.

Unfortunately, many people still get very fired up over social issues. The religious right comes immediately to mind, but also many rank and file working class folks in flyover country. Republicans have picked up on this and used it to their advantage time and again.

Think back to the presidential election of 1988. Vice President Bush was somehow in a tight race with the robotic Gov. Michael Dukakis, despite Bush having served as second in command under a very popular president and also benefiting from a roaring economy. (Poppy Bush’s less than magnetic personality probably had something to do with this.)

Fear not: Bush released the Kraken. A Kraken otherwise known as Lee Atwater, his campaign manager, who proceeded to lay waste to Dukakis in one of the more memorable negative campaigns in history. (Dubya’s “swiftboating” of Sen. John Kerry sixteen years later was also quite memorable.)

Atwater and Bush used a slew of attacks that were largely social in nature:

Attacking Dukakis for being a “card carrying member of the ACLU”

Railing against flag burning

Advocating for the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools

Criticizing Dukakis for the Willie Horton furlough

Three of those four attack points are largely smoke and mirrors. The only one that had any real world relevance was the Horton furlough; “law and order” is a powerful issue, perhaps even more so today. The rest were shallow, feel-good appeals to the latent jingoism lurking in many Americans.

Yet it was this shallow, feel-good, jingoistic campaign that managed to turn “liberal” into a dirty word. And it worked; Bush won forty states and 426 electoral votes. Bob’s your uncle. (Bush did not fare so well four years later against not one, but two more formidable opponents.)

Republicans have been going back to social issues to gin up their base in every election since. Economic issues often take a back seat. The GOP often rides a wave of “God, guns, and abortion” into office while ignoring lots of other things.

The thing is—Republicans often rail against these various social issues, yet when elected, prove powerless to stop their momentum. Think of all the things social conservatives were against twenty years ago that are no big deal now: LGBTQ rights. Same-sex marriage. Drug legalization (cannabis now, other things later). Immigration. Languages that aren’t English. Republicans keep fighting against social change, but social change keeps happening anyway.

Here we are in 2020.  Yet, abortion is still quite legal in all fifty states, you can still burn flags (assuming it’s in fact your flag; otherwise it could be considered property damage), and the Pledge of Allegiance is still a no-show in public schools. Not to mention all those gay marriages going on out there that have completely wrecked our country. Or not.

Combine this GOP near-total failure on social issues with their profligate spending when in office (which has been, in many cases, actually worse than that of the Democrats), and you may find yourself asking— why is the Republican Party even still around?

You could even make an argument that libertarians wishing to be in one of the two major parties would be better off in the Democratic Party. At least with the Democrats, you’ll win (eventually) on social issues. With Republicans, you’re going to lose the social issues and most of the economic ones.

President Trump is the new poster child for this social issue warfare.  His two campaigns have leaned heavily on such things. He lashed out against immigrants on literally the first day of his campaign. Later, he he went off on “shithole countries”, most pointedly Haiti, which is (spoiler alert) a decidedly non-white nation. He demonized Muslims. He portrayed himself as a champion of the Christian right while at the same time being quite poorly versed on Christianity itself. It almost goes without saying that he has a morally checkered past (and present) that should give holy rollers considerable pause. As recently as this past June, he was talking about flag burning, an issue almost no one has cared about since Bush vs. Dukakis.

Still, his supporters buy all this hook, line, and sinker. If a Manhattan billionaire somehow manages to become the patron saint of Joe and Jane Sixpack, that’s what we call in my business a “red flag.” It probably has something to do with how well he measures the pulse of middle America on hot button issues.

America will never return to the good old days of Leave it to Beaver, The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, or Happy Days.  And truth be told, those good old days weren’t good for everyone. America is a weirder, more colorful place now. (“Colorful” literally and figuratively.)

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I enjoy the weirdness. Honestly, I don’t really dig diversity because of any high minded devotion to egalitarianism; I just find diversity interesting. Plus diversity brings us so many interesting restaurants. Typical selfish libertarian, I know.

If America is going downhill—and I’m not convinced that it is—I have resolved to just buckle up and enjoy the ride.

In the words of Savoy Brown:

You know some people are different
Now ain’t that a crying shame
Now wouldn’t be a real drag if we were all the same?

But now I wonder: if I ever run for office again, do you think “YEAH, SURE. WHO GIVES A SHIT?” would fit on a red baseball cap?

The post I don’t give a rat’s ass about “social issues.” And neither should you. appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

-Gov. Gary Johnson, 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Party presidential nominee,  when asked about the Libertarian National Convention

Libertarians, whether they are in the Libertarian Party or skulking about the fringes of the Republican Party, are a notoriously difficult bunch to deal with.  I would compare it to herding cats, but that might be insulting to cats.  (Plus I like cats; I can’t say the same for all libertarians.)  It stands to reason that a group of people who value individuality and free thinking might have trouble playing nice with others.

(For the purposes of this column, I will mostly be referring to “Big L” Libertarians, i.e., actual members of the Libertarian Party.)

Democrats hate us because we aren’t entirely liberal (or as they say, “you fascist!”)  Republicans hate us because we aren’t entirely conservative—plus they think the Libertarian Party is stealing votes that rightfully belong to them.  Independent or “undecided” voters (if there are such things anymore) don’t necessarily hate us, but they are often put off by our antics.

But most of all— Libertarians hate each other.  To that point, there is a well known meme based on “The Simpsons” that has been making the rounds the last several years:

Groundskeeper Willie:  “Brothers and sisters are natural enemies.  Like progressives and libertarians!  Or communists and libertarians!  Or an-caps and libertarians!  Or libertarians and other libertarians!  They ruined libertarianism!”  

Principal Skinner:  “You libertarians sure are a contentious people.”

Groundskeeper Willie:  “You’ve just made an enemy for life!”

Why are we like this, with the general public and with each other?  I have a few thoughts on the matter:

(real or perceived) extreme political views

The Libertarian Party platform doesn’t pull any punches.  It wants to legalize all drugs.  It wants to pull all troops out of all countries.  It wants to eliminate pretty much every social program.  It wants to throw open our national borders and also throw open the legs of sex workers.

Some Libertarian edgelords even argue in favor of personal ownership of recreational nuclear weapons (“McNukes”)…and they’re probably not joking. 2004 LP presidential nominee Michael Badnarik, hardly an edgelord (at least intentionally), held a similar viewpoint.

Most of these are noble ideas to the party faithful and the keepers of the flame.   But these stances can be hard to swallow for the great unwashed.  Plus, they are electoral suicide—at least when presented at face value with no nuance or serious plan on how to ease into these things.  Walk into a nursing home and tell people you’re going to take away their Social Security and their Medicare tomorrow and see how many votes you get from them, no matter how awesome the rest of your platform is.

(Y’know what, with COVID-19 still going around, just avoid nursing homes for now.  Especially if you’re carrying a concealed McNuke.  But you get the idea.)

electoral futility

Humans are social animals.  (Even Libertarians, presuming we are in fact human.)  We love to belong to teams. And a large part of being on a team is working together to win.  America is full of “front runner” and bandwagon fans.  Everyone loves a winner.  Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is abysmal at winning.

I don’t need to go into great detail on this, because the win/loss numbers are what they are.  We are good at finding candidates and decent at getting on ballots.  Funding a campaign, running a campaign, and winning over voters…well, not so much.   We are the Washington Generals of political parties, forever getting dunked on by the big boys.

wacky characters

We are…how you say…full of offbeat personalities.  We have Vermin Supreme and we had (for a while) Chief Wana Dubie (R.I.P.)  We had the Rubenesque hirsute gentleman at the 2016 convention doing the notorious “watch those votes disappear” boogie on C-SPAN.  We have John McAfee when he’s not on the run from various authorities.

Even our less offensive rank and file adherents often have certain characteristics:  whiteness, maleness, social awkwardness, and pedantry.  (Not to be confused with pederasty, but we’ll get to that.)  We also have more than a few neckbearded virgin incel types living in their mothers’ basement—guys who like to condescend and emphatically use the word “actually.”   They are sometimes touched with wee bits of Asperger Syndrome, Tourette Syndrome, or maybe a little “Rain Man” kind of vibe.   (I have never personally been diagnosed with any of those things besides whiteness and maleness, though I may be adjacent to a few.  Whatever you choose to call me, just make sure you preface it with “high functioning.”)

Free from the burden of winning elections or, you know, governing, we can be as crazy as we want to be.  And boy, are we ever.  During my own quixotic run for Missouri Secretary of State in 2016, I made lots of new Libertarian friends.  Unfortunately, I was stunned to learn how many of them were Flat Earthers.

Cavorting with lunatics can be fun.  It’s a lot more fun if you’re winning.  (That would actually explain a lot of President Trump’s appeal.)

Even St. Ayn of Rand hated us.  Let that sink in.

Fixation on “age of consent” and other esoteric issues

Libertarians tend to be seen as radical on “big picture” issues, such as the non-aggression principle (“NAP”) or the menace of public roads.  But don’t worry, we also aren’t afraid to get deep into the weeds on minor things.  And by “minor” things, I don’t mean like arguing over the need for stop signs.  (Though we argue about that, too.)

I mean literal minors, as in underage persons, and whether they can give consent to be diddled.  If you thought having vending machines for machine guns or allowing drive-thru abortions were political “third rails”, wait until certain Libertarians start talking about age of consent.

This is a strangely pervasive thing that keeps popping up in our circles, whether it be former Libertarian National Committee Vice-Chair/presidential candidate Arvin Vohra, Missouri’s own Cecil Ince, or some others.  (I am not accusing any person of any illegal or otherwise improper activities.)

It goes without saying that making these arguments, even in supposed good faith, isn’t a good look for anybody.  Especially in the post-Epstein era, where increasing attention is being rightfully paid to these very serious issues.  Just…no.

(I was going to say any such discussion of this issue must be handled with kid gloves, but even I can’t live with a pun that awful.)

America’s hostility to third parties in general

Third parties just don’t win in America.  The last third party to go big time was the Republican Party in 1860, but people tend to forget that they more or less replaced the imploding Whig Party as the second major party.

Sure, we suck at winning, but the Green Party and Constitution Party folks are in the same boat.  (Or is it a bus?  Perhaps a…short one?)  Misery loves company.

Americans have been trained for centuries to expect two serious candidates in November.  And only two.  They see the major party primaries as the “playoffs” with the general election as the “championship”, right or wrong.  It’s hard to beat that mindset.

Donald Trump ran a very third party-ish campaign, but managed to do it from inside one of the two big parties.  Even then, he barely won.

One might think that for a liberty candidate to win, they might need to do so from inside the GOP.  Or, long term, have the GOP collapse and be replaced by the Libertarian Party.  Of those, the former seems much more doable than the latter.  (More on that in a future piece.)

hostility to newcomers

Libertarians are sometimes very hard on new Libertarians.  Or, as you might say, the “liberty-curious.”  The internet has not helped us to improve our social graces.  In fact, the internet is where the vast majority of Libertarian-on-Libertarian violence occurs.

Imagine a fresh-faced young freedom lover joining a Libertarian message board or discussion group seeking information.  He (or she… screw it, it’s almost always a “he”) asks a question about the Libertarian catechism.  Just the act of asking the question can call down a rain of thunder from the party stalwarts.  The Aspies and neckbeards descend from above and pick the meat off the bones of people who do things like…question selling heroin to five year olds.

purity tests

This is closely related to the previous point.  Libertarians are notorious for holding pissing matches over who is the most libertarian.  We are constantly trying to out-John Galt each other, prove that we are the one and true Grandmaster of Rand Fu, or to show that we are the Kwisatz Haderach of liberty.  According to most libertarians, he (or she… but again it’s probably he) is the only real libertarian and the rest of us are just pretenders.  Stray one iota from the dogma and you are labeled a “socialist” or a “statist.”

The only purity test current Republicans have is loyalty to Trump.  The only purity test Democrats seem to have anymore is being pro-choice on abortion.  Our purity test is more like a state bar exam being proctored by angry dyspeptic nuns.

A few nice things

Having said all these things about Libertarians, let me close with some positives.

I think that we have a lot of smart people, even if it’s often “book smarts” as opposed to “street smarts.”  Most of our people are true believers, sometimes to the point of pie-in-the-sky naivete.  And unlike the two major parties, who are willing to break all of their own rules (and even gaslight themselves) if it means winning, we are much more consistent and persistent in our core beliefs.

Our presidential nominee bucks the party stereotype by being a delightful, well-informed lady.  She notably does not suffer from dementia, mental infirmity, malignant narcissism, or megalomaniacal tendencies.  (Unlike some other candidates out there who shall remain unnamed.)

I also think we are right on most issues, which is ultimately the most important thing, and the reason I’m still around.  A Libertarian world would be a just and free world.  Not to mention an endlessly entertaining one.

When you meet a Democrat, you know that they love government and hate Trump.  When you meet a Republican, you know that they dislike government (at least on paper) and love Trump.

When you meet a Libertarian, you know that they sincerely hate government even if they sincerely hate each other.  Win or lose (mostly lose), that is true all the way to the edges of the flat Earth.

The post Why people hate Libertarians (and we hate each other) appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

At least that is what one of his latest trolls had to say.

“Austin, do you ever feel like your followers lack the ability to intellectually challenge you? Is it difficult posting news stories knowing your followers can only understand fifty percent of the words contained in it?”, a profile known as “Poor Choice of Words” tweeted Saturday in response to an article Austin tweeted out concerning two cops in Wisconsin who recently threatened a mother because her child violated a stay at home order by playing outside with a neighboring friend.

Austin retweeted his troll, putting this person’s ignorance on full display to his Twitter followers.

“He’s saying you’re stupid. Yes, you, the person reading this right now”, Petersen said, captioning his retweet.

I’ve been a supporter of Austin since his attempt to secure the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination in 2016 and a full-time staff writer for his website The Libertarian Republic since November of 2018. I don’t know that I am capable of the mental gymnastics it would require to determine what category I fall into.

On the one hand, I am a friend and supporter of Austin, and on the other, I am a writer for his website. That means I am one of the fine folks who has produced a sizeable chunk of the content he shares on both Facebook and Twitter. By the logic of this Twitter troll, I must be in a special category as I am not able to comprehend the words I have written.

If this troll were to spend a bit of his or her time reading the actual content we produce at The Libertarian Republic instead of spending time hurling baseless accusations and making insults to people they haven’t taken the time to interact with it would be crystal clear that those of us who consider ourselves of the man known as “The Freedom Ninja” are far from mindless zombies who do the biding of our leader swallowing anything he throws at us drinking his unique mixture of Kool-Aid.

On the contrary, we libertarians pride ourselves on being free-thinking individuals who value reason, logical thinking, and independence over the easy but dangerous road of political groupthink and collectivism.
I remember when I started as a writer at TLR, I was taught how to write in a way to garner the attention of an audience and how to make whatever I wanted to say relevant to current events and the cause of liberty. I was then turned loose to write about whatever my heart desired because it is our goal to be a cut above the rest of media in today’s market, and to articulate the ideas of personal and economic liberty in a unique and engaging way.

While all of Austin’s supporters have a high respect for his courage and fearlessness when it comes to defending the ideas which made America the greatest nation the world has ever seen, none of us are afraid to call him out if we feel he is misguided in one area or another. My coworker Gary Doan even published a piece called “Austin Petersen Is Wrong. Here’s Why”, in which he explains why he believed Austin was wrong for temporarily considering voting to re-elect President Donald Trump.

It is also worth pointing out that Austin’s supporters are a diverse group of people who do not fall clearly into any category, except we all love and cherish liberty and want to be left the hell alone by the government. If this person would like to get to know #TeamLiberty I would encourage him or her to reach out and take some time to get to know Austin and his supporters instead of opening their mouth and removing any doubt of their foolishness.

The post Are Austin Petersen’s Supporters Stupid? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Ron Paul – doctor or liberty recruiter?

Maloney tells me that it all began in 2010 when he was a politically apathetic freshman in college and he started watching YouTube videos of Dr. Paul, “After watching a bunch of videos, I applied for an internship in Ron Paul’s office and I got hired in 2011.”

After Paul’s presidential campaign ended in 2012, the youth campaign became YAL, “In 2012, I was a chapter president. In 2013, I was the Pennsylvania State-Chair. Then in 2015, I got hired to be Rand Paul’s national youth director”, Maloney says. After Rand dropped out of the race in 2016, he got what he calls “the dream job offer” to run YAL and he has been doing that ever since.

After clarifying that he has two degrees: one in math education and one in theater, I asked if the theatrical elements of some of YAL’s activism is intentional. “So, when we do campus activism, some people will call it street theater; one thing that you can count on at YAL is that we’re not partisan hacks. We’re not all in for one candidate. We’re all in for the principles of liberty.”

Maloney explains that the organization uses theatrical activism to get a principled message of liberty across to students. You’ll find YAL students rolling over-sized beach balls around campuses across this country to promote free-speech, giving away “pot brownies”, and raffling off AR-15s.

Operation Win at the Door

YAL is expanding into more traditional politics off of the college campus. They launched Operation Win at the Door (OWD) in 2018 with the intent to “take the students and the energy and passion we have on campus and use it to endorse politicians running for office.”

Maloney makes it clear that YAL is not leaving student activism and college campuses behind. He says that YAL is harnessing the students’ energy into something that makes them extremely impactful in the community. “If we can elect 250 Rand Pauls by the end of 2022 across the country –that’s 5% of the State House seats in America– there is your revolution.”

He goes on to explain that OWD is “the first measurable plan for the liberty movement in the past couple decades… We are focused on having tangible results of building a bench of liberty legislators.”

YAL is only knocking doors for Legislators in State Houses across the country and YAL is not getting involved with any other political campaigns. But Maloney adds, with a twinkle in his eye, “talk to me after we elect 250 State Legislators.”

103 of the 107 candidates that YAL has endorsed were registered Republicans. The other four were members of the Libertarian Party. However, Maloney insists that he does not have allegiance to any one party, “All I care about is getting people with a libertarian philosophy elected to office” and he wants to ensure that they are committed to liberty principles and have a viable chance of winning.

Of the candidates they have endorsed, 56 have won and they are all Republicans. Maloney argues that proves the best vehicle to realistically further the liberty revolution is through the Republican Party, at the moment. But he is devoted to principle not party, “I will pour resources into a race if they [the candidates] are principled and viable.”

Maloney closely watches his flock of liberty-leaning candidates and is not scared to renounce YAL’s endorsement if necessary. However, he feels confident that they have chosen the good ones. Of the 90 legislators that are in their principled liberty coalition, they have only had to remove one over a vote for an unprincipled tax increase.

Recently, YAL sent a cease and desist letter to democratic socialist Bernie Sanders’ campaign about Operation Win at the Door. Weeks ago, his campaign sent out a text message asking people to join a pro-Sanders door knocking campaign and called it Operation Win at the Door.

YAL didn’t want their donors, students, and activists to think they are connected with Bernie Sanders. But Maloney slightly smirks while he adds, “Was it a fun opportunity to lecture Bernie about stealing and how that’s kind of comparable to socialism? Sure, and we took that opportunity.” They have not heard back from the Sanders’ campaign, but if Bernie continues to use YAL’s branding, legal action will be taken.

What Is a Conservative?

Maloney questions if a conservative believes in lower taxes, less regulation, less spending, and smaller government. If so, he declares, “sign me up.” But if conservatives end up gaining power and then using the corrupt system to enrich themselves while growing deficits a trillion dollars every year,  “I have no interest in it.”

He is unsure what direction the Republican Party in the swamp is going, but he is focusing on building a liberty bench in State Houses around the country. Maloney praises the YAL activists who are building and activating liberty supporters and putting in the “sweat equity” to make the world a little freer.

“The real impact in this country is from people who are on the ground engaging and mobilizing voters – there is your revolution.” – Cliff Maloney

Image: Gage Skidmore

The post Young Americans for Liberty’s Cliff Maloney: “There is your revolution” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

I do take issue with the strategy of those in the LP. I generally agree with the reasons Austin laid out in this publication more than a year ago about why the party won’t achieve long-term success, so I’ll try not to reproduce his arguments here. 

I see at least three major obstacles to the LP’s viability.

1) Human nature. The 2016 presidential election gave us two of the worst major party candidates in modern American history. Yet, Governor Gary Johnson won less than 4 percent of the popular vote. Critics like to claim he lost because he was insufficiently libertarian. But his platform included a promise to eliminate practically any federal agency. He was by far the best candidate to advance liberty as president.

The governor also drew criticism because of his inability to properly articulate libertarian principles, with many citing this as a reason for his struggles. But one of the most articulate LP candidates in history, Harry Browne, also ran an unsuccessful presidential campaign. And our current president has a style few would describe as articulate. 

The real intractable problem for Gov. Johnson was tribalism. The vast majority of voters are of the mindset that “their guy” has to win and a vote for any other person is a vote for the other major party. If there were ever an election when the LP candidate had a chance to upend this mentality, 2016 was the year. 

2.) Power resides with the major parties and the media. The two major parties have the power to crush their competition. This power was on display in New York after an unelected commission approved an increase in the number of votes needed for third parties to gain ballot access. This decision came after Larry Sharpe received enough votes in his 2018 gubernatorial bid to gain ballot access for the Libertarian Party under the old standard. Unfortunately, if the commission’s decision stands, Libertarians will need to reach an even higher threshold in future elections. And since they won’t be in power anytime soon, it’s conceivable the threshold changes again, threatening to further relegate the LP to permanent minority status in New York. Given this terrible precedent, it’s not difficult to imagine the major parties colluding to make it more difficult for third parties to gain ballot access in other states.

The political advantages enjoyed by the major parties gives them a platform in the media by default. They can avail themselves of free air time via interviews, debates and coverage of events. In contrast, Libertarians have difficultly getting anyone to pay attention to their campaigns. Those libertarians that have been successful in advancing and bringing more people to liberty are usually registered Republicans. Ron Paul, Justin Amash and Gary Johnson are three prominent examples. 

3.) Change is hard. If history is any guide, mass movements to fundamentally change society are rare. This historical truth means the liberty movement needs to minimize the number of barriers to success. Libertarians are employing the opposite approach. 

They’ve created new barriers, starting with their own party’s internal politics, which is playing out right now with the Tom Woods faction taking on the left libertarian and “establishment” contingent. Even if one dismisses the intraparty squabble as minor, the LP still needs to recruit candidates to run across the country against major party candidates that have more money, power and influence. LP candidates have the unenviable task of convincing voters they have a viable chance to win despite their disadvantages. 

If an LP candidate were to win at the local, state or national level, their ability to affect change would be limited, as Libertarians would need to reproduce dozens or hundreds of improbable wins to have a shot at a libertarian majority in government at any level. Such a feat is unlikely.

That raises the question: What is the solution?

Revitalize the Republican Party by winning hearts and minds.

I can hear the collective sighs. Many feel the GOP is a lost cause. But here’s my question: if Libertarians need to win people over to their cause to be successful, why should they put themselves at a disadvantage by doing so as a third party? It’s a strategic blunder. Libertarians should take advantage of the apparatus already in place (financial support, partisan voters, media coverage) for GOP candidates and use it to their advantage.

There is a positive lesson we can take away from Donald Trump’s election: People are willing to line up behind someone because they’re willing to fight and are in a position of power.

Yes, this is unsettling. But it also illuminates a path to liberty if Libertarians can capture the GOP. Liberty advocates need to lead because people will follow.

The post The Libertarian Party’s Impossible Challenge appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Skeptics may quickly reply that people can be good without believing in God. Absolutely true. Atheists and agnostics can act morally; people of faith can act immorally. That’s not the real issue. The relevant question is who or what is the source of objective morality.

For many libertarians, the non-aggression principle (NAP) is paramount, and serves as the moral basis for their beliefs. I realize there are libertarians who take issue with the NAP, but even consequentialists order their beliefs to promote human flourishing, which itself presupposes an objective morality. 

If libertarians agree that the initiation of force against another is immoral or that it is immoral to promote policies antithetical to human flourishing, is there good reason to ground these beliefs in something other than God?

I argue no. Secular libertarians would defend their views by appealing to human nature. People are intrinsically valuable because they are human. They have the ability to think, feel, reason, plan, love, and sacrifice. And because human beings stand equal in relation to each other, no person or government has the right to initiate or threaten the use of force against another innocent person.

While this conclusion is admirable, such reasoning lacks objectivity. Any attempt to justify a moral standard apart from God will inevitably end in defending the standard using subjective reasoning. Take the libertarian argument about human nature as an example. This argument’s weakness is that it can’t answer the question of why our human nature or equality is grounds for opposing the initiation of force against another person. The libertarian grounds his belief on his subjective view of the importance of our humanity and equality.

But without God, human traits are just accidents of the universe. And equality is meaningless. If we’re all just the product of evolutionary processes that have unfolded over time, then any action is permissible because human beings don’t have any intrinsic value. How could we have inherent value from a mindless product of chance? The only value that could be present is the value ascribed to us by others. And in this framework, it’s usually the people with the most political power that get to determine who is and is not of value. 

With God, the story is different. We have intrinsic worth because God created us in His image and likeness and with a purpose—to know and love Him and to love others. We aren’t the product of cosmic chance. We are sons and daughters of God—the source of all that is good. There is no moral standard higher than this. 

Our actions do have eternal consequences if God exists. They aren’t a footnote in a history that will ultimately be meaningless after the heat death of the universe. 

So if people have intrinsic value not because of biological happenstance but because of who created us, then we have a non-arbitrary stopping point for morality—the God of the universe.

Many libertarians are understandably skeptical of God and religion because of how people wield both as a weapon to impose their will on others. I’m sympathetic to that view, but I see belief in God and a proper understanding of religion as strengthening the libertarian’s case for the NAP, which can ultimately lead to freedom from government and even from sin. 

The alternative is a life without any objective moral standard and eternal purpose. And that’s just absurd.

The post Why Libertarians Need God appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.