Justin Amash's Vision for the Libertarian Party
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2022
- The Libertarian former congressman on the Mises Caucus takeover, his embrace of "liberalism," and political strategy.
reason.com/video/2022/06/17/j...
------------------
Subscribe to our UA-cam channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
----------------
"I think that the [Libertarian Party's] emphasis should be on getting us back to our roots as a country," says Justin Amash. "What this country is about is liberalism in the classical sense, the idea that people should be able to free…to make their own decisions about their lives, and government to the extent possible should just stay out of it."
Amash was a Republican congressman from Michigan once described by Politico as the "new Ron Paul in Congress" because of his willingness to buck party-line votes on principle. He switched his party affiliation to Libertarian in his fifth and final term, making him the party's highest officeholder since its founding in 1971. He explored a run for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in 2020 before changing his mind, paving the way for a run by longtime Libertarian Party member Jo Jorgensen.
Amash was in Reno, Nevada during the Mises Caucus takeover of the Libertarian Party. Amash is not a member of the caucus but plans to remain in the party.
Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Amash in Reno to ask him about his views of the Mises Caucus, his vision for the future of the party, and his political ambitions for 2024 and beyond.
Produced by Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller; edited by Adam Czarnecki and Danielle Thompson; camera by James Marsh and Weissmueller; sound editing by John Osterhoudt; additional graphics by Regan Taylor and Isaac Reese.
A simple Libertarian message that should be viral: Greater equal market competition with sufficient protection of life and property generally equals a better standard of living.
Yes. It's been a remarkable accomplishment of the LP's fed infiltration that such a "common sense libertarian" message hasn't taken district after district in the USA. (Of course, that fed is still running ballot access in IL even after "the Mises takeover.")
Libertarians only accept LIBERTARIANS so they’ll never find anyone with broader language to reach millions
Justin Amash getting out of the way for Jo Jorgensen was the worst fucking mistake in his political career
it was probably because he did not belief the party was able to help him enough in a campaign. Which was true. And why he know stressed that point.
@@Drumsgoon but all that does is reinforce that Nick Sarwark and the old guard are the failure the Mises caucus claims and he should be celebrating their victory. “I want to be the LP nominee, but I don’t have faith in the party to back the campaign”. WHAT!?
He saw the late entry was not in his best interest and was offending the part delegates. Respect the cycle. He can hit the ground running for '24.
@@mattusapparatus5968 Amash not running had nothing to do with Jorgensen. He didn't "get out of the way". He didn't see a clear path to victory and didn't want to spend time and money as a protest vote. That Jorgensen was nominated is on the convention delegates.
@@jonathanettinger6970 and Jorgensen did see a path to victory? The LP saw one for her? Nobody Believes that
As you can see, of the three most important issues that Amash wants to focus on, all the three require activism and changing of minds in order to be successful in pushing these principles into the larger society, as he too realizes subconsciously, even if he admits otherwise, that libertarians dont compose 33% of the country.
As long as this lack of humility regarding the number of people who have even the most basic libertarian ideology as opposed to partisan "libertarian like" leanings exist, the party will never win major elections.
The left and right also only compose about 10% of the population. The Democrats never pick the left candidate and the Republicans don't pick the right candidate. Instead, both parties always pick the candidate that is furthest from center who has the possibility of winning the election. To, win elections, the Libertarian party should copy this successful strategy.
The Mises Caucus got me to join the LP and I like this dude just fine. I’m happy he’s on our side, that being the side of liberty.
Just a little point: Amash modified the quotes in his speech a bit to apply non-libertarian positions to libertarianism in order to get exactly the contrary reaction he did. He substituted "libertarian" for "liberal" (or "classical liberal" in modern parlance) in the original. Hearing those quotes said about "liberal", most people would have been like "Ok, so?" But when he attempted to apply the non-libertarian quotes to libertarianism, a different thing and something everyone in that room holds as special, he got the understandable and exact reaction he was looking for - people rejecting the attribution of non-libertarian values onto libertarianism - in order to make it appear that they were rejecting Mises himself.
Amash: "For the _libertarian_, the state is an absolute necessity"
Mises: "For the _liberal_, the state is an absolute necessity, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped."
Not only that, but back in 1927 when Mises wrote 'Liberalism', the word 'Anarchism' was synonymous with the idealist version of stateless communism/socialism. The idea of anarcho-capitalism hadn't been constructed yet and certainly wasn't a concept that could be considered a version or part of 'anarchism'. So his criticism of 'anarchy' is really a criticism of stateless communism.
I have no doubt that Mises today would be an anarcho-capitalist. Remember that Mises was the guy that in a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society when Milton Friedman, Hayak, Hazlett, etc were all talking about the preferred method/level of taxation, stood up cursed them all saying "You're all a bunch of socialists!"
Libertarian principles are built off of the ideas of classical liberalism. What are you smoking?
@@MegaAndy93 Donnie you’re out of your element.
Skipped history class? Mises was not talking about democrats...or socialists even. What we now call Libertarianism IS classical liberalism there, hotshot.
||I have no doubt that Mises today would be an anarcho-capitalist.||
That's some truly egregious wishful thinking.
Can I borrow some of the crack you’re smoking? If you think there was any malice in Amash’s interpretation get checked.
I like Amash's open mindedness and not throwing his toys out the cot because Moses Caucus swept the floor.
I do think that he's too traditional in his politics considering his misgivings about the strategy of the Mises Caucus, who are really here for the long game and building municipal and state level presence BEFORE they go for gold.
Amash also implicitly favors your last sentence, since that's the path he himself took. That's not where the possible conflict exists, and it's sad that neither "side" recognizes that. There's more agreement than either "side" will admit....that's the nature of contrarians. Amash was right to point out possible contrarianism and "take the high road" himself: advocating cooperation with the Mises Caucus.
I came into this a bit skeptical, but Amash was much better than I expected.
I dono Amash, but I like that he is not angry and walking out just because he's not in charge. In a way the new strategy is already working, it's about accepting that we can't find a perfect libertarian, so lets find enough common ground and go from there.
I do like Amash as a person even though on policy I prefer Jorgensen.
Correct. LP now starting to do what they stopped doing in 2006, thanks to Redpath.
I've gotta say, as a Mises Caucus libertarian myself the way he used Mises to critique the Mises Caucus delegates was a world-class trolling.
He misquoted Mises by replacing "liberal" by "libertarian" and using the word "anarchist" out of context. By "anatchist" Mises meant "anarcho-communist". Who is trolling who?
@@8BlueBits Amash is still trolling in that context. It narrows the trolling to the Mises Caucus members who don't really understand Mises.
@@8BlueBits Mises, like Milgram (and R. J. Rummel after him), knew enough about politics to know that the general public would not vote for "anarchism." The few people too dumb to see this are a lead weight tied around the feet of the LP...they can be overcome...but you have to wonder what their motives are. Additionally, all the biologists and psychologists in the LP are aware that the power vacuum argument is legitimate, as Milgram describes in "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View." Mises himself favored democratic motion toward liberalism/libertarianism. (James Surowiecki's arguments in "The Wisdom of Crowds" are 100% compatible with Mises' views.)
Libertarians ("liberals") who focus on economics to the exclusion of politics, psychology, philosophy, law, and history have crippled the liberty movement. Of course, if you don't have good salesmen out selling your product (as per Morton Blackwell's advice), you can have the best philosophy in the world and never change reality in the slightest.
@@8BlueBits Anarchy is bad in any form capitalist or communist. It just yields chaos which in turn breeds authoritarianism. I support limited government, but no government is a ridiculous idea.
@@l.f.1031 its okay really, I've had been wrong in the past as a minarchist as well :)
the fact that we could even see a trump/biden rematch proves we need to have a clear vision for america. most voters are sick of the two parties despite having a third option because we cant seem to relate to the average voter
My definition of #LIBERTARIAN- a person who consistently supports the principles of liberty.
Or
A person who consistently opposes any violation of natural rights.
* property rights
Property
@Down with Corporate Amerika Yeah, your definition is dumb.
Libertarianism is based, but the libertarian party is cringe.
was cringe. have you even seen what they are tweeting now? it's very based.
Translation: people are based and politics is cringe.
@@noyb154 The Mises caucus has a chance to undo the damage that the LP has done to itself for decades.
But even that is not certain to work.
LIB party has no idea what the constitution is or means, they just want to transform the system like everyone else.
@@presidentmerkinmuffley6769 good point. I know it's motivated me to be a better libertarian and a better person. Hopefully we're all individually energized to help in whatever way we can.
And i hope people that are unhappy right now spend more time and energy building the ideas they are passionate about instead of tearing down others who agree with them on 99% of the ideas.
He is right about separating the activism from the political electoral effort of the party which is quite complex.
The activism should be a cultural effort - aimed at swaying "hearts and minds" - rather than proselytizing and doctrinaire.
And none of these two arms needs the libertarian orthodoxy.
Exactly. He doesn't need Libertarianism at all. So--why does Libertarianism need him?
Well, we have to be "orthodox" only in one sense: if we "offer" cops and judges "stomping on a human face forever" ...we offer people nothing but a losing version of what they can get from the Ds and Rs.
You can't keep repeating "they want to take out the anti-bigotry part out of the Libertarian mission statement" without giving the reason why they think it doesn't fit. Even Amash admits it's a weird thing to have included but thinks it's bad optics getting rid of...
Literally no one will care in 6 months. Just crying sore losers rn.
Optics matter. Optics confer political power. Without political power, you watch helplessly as the government murders and ruins innocent people. Those are the facts. You can use a knowledge of the facts to win, or you can "keep on losing." So far, "Libertarians" have chosen "keep on losing." ...With lots of encouragement from their federal agent infiltrator(s).
If a bigot wants to be a bigot they have that freedom under libertarian principles. So I can see a case for LP removing that language because they shouldn’t endorse nor denounce it, it’s not the party’s responsibility either way.
Plus similar drugs, the bigot is only hurting themselves in the long run. But they have that right to do so.
Great interview! Justin Amash is the person who got me to officially join the LP.
God bless you
Justin Amash is great. Dave Smith is great. Reason is great. Mises Caucus is great. Old school libertarians are great. Spike Cohen is great. Gary Johnson and Jo Jorgensen are great. Ron Paul is great! You're great!
If there is some aspect of libertarianism that is important to you, stand up for it by amplifying it. But please don't waste time tearing others down. Sure, point out valid mistakes you see, but don't focus on that, and learn to separate a poor position someone takes from the overall person. And try to build bridges.
This would be fine, but as Dave Smith said in his video yesterday, the framing of the Mises Caucus takeover Reason video was in bad faith.
Nick Sarwark, Bill Redpath, and scummy totalitarians like Jim Gray (who said libertarian jurors should drop the hammer on innocent people, rather than nullify evil laws) ...are not "great."
God bless you
This right here. Even the people on your list that I don’t personally like, I don’t hate. We need to realize who our real enemies are, and they aren’t inside the party.
I agree with everything you just said, with two exceptions: totalitarians who still advocate destroying innocent lives from a position of power (Jim Gray; Bob Barr) and federal agents, informants, or their "plausible deniability" functional equivalent (Bill Redpath; Daryl Bonner).
I think he's right on the need to focus on winning elections and marshalling people who already agree with Lib points. There's this idea that voting for the party that loses is a wasted vote, and the idea that voting '3rd party' is throwing away your vote. They need to show their base that they have the potential for real popular support in order for enough people to bandwagon and maybe get some people elected.
He has my vote.
To claim that Mises Caucus members aren’t fully familiar with libertarian philosophy is wrong. They are not newbies who have a general feeling that government is being run badly and just want to bring that energy to the LP. Massive underestimation.
Also, many of his Mises quotes were out of context and used anachronistic terms that have different meanings today.
The first paragraph you wrote is true, useful, and valid. The second is not.
@@JakeWitmer Regarding the second paragraph, why is it wrong? It seems reasonable to me that words like “liberal”, “anarchist” etc had different meanings back then. To read them as stand-alone quotes might imply different meaning than originally intended.
Really, it doesn’t matter what Mises said because we should use our own faculties to make sense of the world. Mises’ words should just be a pointer. In that vein, Justin’s message is fair: don’t be too strict with your philosophical purity tests.
Justin Amash and Ron Paul's congressional voting record align almost perfectly with libertarianism. That has to account for something. I would stand with Dave Smith or Justin Amash in 2024,
It's interesting that Justin Amash and Thomas Massie's voting record in Congress are actually even more aligned with Ron Paul than Rand Paul's voting record
Stop shilling it’s gross
Everything Amash says here is true, and it is all 100% compatible with the Mises Caucus. There are minor errors in comprehension about how best to get to the serious party he envisions. The LP should win many SL and sheriff races in 2024. If they do the bare minimum functions of a political party that is no longer controlled by one federal agent, they will do so. Amash will then have his "serious Libertarian Party."
He's a milquetoast dorkus who agrees with the most damaging of the progressive sandtraps.
I haven’t met many in the MC that strongly oppose Amash. He’s fine. I like him as a politician. I think there are better messengers out there, but I welcome him in the party and look forward to seeing what he does in the future.
I don’t understand what Amash was talking about when he said “we can’t only be a party for the purists” when one of the most well known things they did was remove parts of the party platform that exclude certain libertarian philosophies.
From Heise’s interview I rather got the impression that one of their main goals is to bring in more people from the established liberty movement, because I can tell you right now that most of us don’t identify with the party regardless of what Amash says. Votes are important, but the way previous leadership tried to acquire those votes was by alienating existing members of the movement in a way that I believe actually hurt their vote total rather than helping
@@armadillolover99 Bride’s goal is a smart one - increase membership. In theory that should all increase votes and could lead to winning elections. But we need the people and the money. Libertarianism does have an infighting problem, to Amash’s point, but I think a lot of people that never considered joining the party before will under the new Mises Caucus leadership.
@@armadillolover99 Actually, the existing LP didn't try to obtain votes. They were run by one rather savvy federal agent (or so-aligned), and they purposefully did things like blow $12 M (which I or anyone else that knows anything about politics could have used to turn ID, MT, and AK totally libertarian within two election cycles). ...The IC ("intelligence community" -Snowden's term) is pretty politically savvy, or, rather, has politically savvy compartments. They know how to elect people to office, how to grow parties, and how to scuttle parties while making it look like they're "running those parties seriously." Contrarian edge-lords in the LP, on the other hand, know less than a person chosen at random off the street about running for office and winning. (In fact, in every local area of the USA, the first question voters ask is: Who do you have elected to office? No Congressmen, No Senators, No Governors...OK, ...What about State Legislators? ...If/when the answer is "none" ...they know the LP doesn't even exist. ...For whatever reason, they know the local idiot who got elected to the SL...but "America's third-largest political party can't seem to manage it!")
The informant/IC guy/equivalent, Bill Redpath, hasn't wanted to do anything that could possibly result in won State Legislative or Sheriff races. Instead, he encouraged (for the past 21 years) every electable libertarian to run for giant, unwinnable statewide offices, even when the LP raised enough to win, as I said, several states' worth of SL races.
Libertarians are mostly missing the strategy gene. Nice to see that Heise has it.
In politics, "only the bull's-eye counts." Get close to the bull's eye and you're just "working for a fake effort, burning people's money who want you to do something serious." Sooner or later, those people get sick of donating, and leave. If you're working for the IC to make sure the central bank stays securely in power, ...Mission accomplished!
I agree with Angela that people don't agree on what "bigotry" means so having that statement in our platform was an attempt to virtue signal to the political left. I like the replacement statement much more as it isn't nearly so vague and is more universal and is more neutral in terms of left-to-right flavor.
“We do not dislike those who wear orange shirts to bed”
*why do we need to say that, we should take that down*
“SO YOU HATE THOSE WHO WEAR ORANGE SHIRTS TO BED”
@@ludwigvonsowell5347 😁
I take it you haven't picked up a dictionary?
@@DuffyLONER64 That's a bullshit response and ignores the last decade. The ultra left CRT types have been very effective in redefining things like racism as "racism = power plus privilege" or some such bullshit. Leaving that in there is absolutely a signal to woke leftists.
...so the argument goes...but now the LP is less attractive to those whose families are Lefties...and this will be exploited by the LP's enemies. ...It won't matter much, either way, though.
Reason screwed up by not calling Justin out on misquoting Ludwig Von Mises. The quote referred to libertarian as liberal and communists as anarchists. The quote didn't mean at all what he claimed it meant
Wow that's a huge context changer. Thanks for the clarification.
An-Caps unite
Source?
It's not a misquote, definitions change, "liberal" and "anarchist" meant very different things in Mises times. I don't think it'd be a good read if you just read a literal translation of The Brothers Karamazov
True, but von Mises, was very anti maxist
If one wants to regard the doctrine of the irreconcilable contradiction of class interests within a society based on private ownership of the means of production as the essential lesson of Marxism, then one would have to describe all parties that are active on the European continent today as adherents of Marxism. (Liberalismus.1927 p.60 )
They face the society of men and nations as a people intent on nothing other than consuming what others have accumulated. A people in which the ideals of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and Lenin are alive cannot produce a social bond; it can never be at peace with the world. It must revert to the state of utter barbarism and savagery.(p.134)
Swamp creature gonna swamp
So refreshing to see Justin saying the things I’ve been thinking about Libertarianism! Huge opportunities, people are sick of the status quo, lockdown hit average citizens where it hurt and woke them up to the threat that government can pose (vaccine mandates???). So many threats to liberties and people think they have to choose between two parties who just a decade or two ago took opposite positions on many issues from their positions today.
I don't agree that the MC is an activist group and from someone who was just politically lost a few years ago, them blathering on about libertarian messaging, Mises, and Rothbard is what actually got me on board. So he's wrong for at least 1 person, but I have a feeling I'm not the only one.
So I think the MC will have a very effective strategy in bringing in more people.
I'm sorry what did he lose?
@@puckrocker1818 I was lost...I had no political home and the messaging of the MC giving a crap about things I was thinking at the time and aligned with my beliefs pulled me in.
There's several million people who describe themselves as libertarian out there whereas there's only 15-20k members of the Libertarian Party. That's a disgrace if you ask me and the previous heads of the party (which the Mises Caucus just replaced thankfully) should be ashamed of their horrible track record recruiting fellow libertarians into the fold. The sky is the limit on membership now with the Mises Caucus at the helm!
@@erinwys216 You rock!! :)
Great interview! I think the LP needs a better explanation as to why the verbiage on racism was replaced with HR language because this WILL be brought up again and again by the media. Even if Amash doesn't agree with the language he should at least lay out the framework of his understanding of why it was changed. An idea might be that it was perceived as equivalent to a church hanging a 'No sinners allowed' sign on the building - we welcome all in hopes they will learn to understand that libertarian principles are not compatible with the mistreatment of a person because of their race, sex, orientation, etc.
Yes good framing
Or, as has been said repeatedly, the wording was changed from a negative (what libertarians *don't* stand for) to a positive or constructive (which requires more of a backbone because it's pretty easy to say you're "against racism" but that's like saying you're "anti-Hitler")
It’s been addressed multiple times. Libertarians don’t need to condemn things. That is performative virtue signaling. Labels like bigot are misapplied and thrown at people as an insult. The word has lost some of its meaning due to being misused. Libertarians support all individuals, regardless of any of their personal demographic information. The new language is better and isn’t just a performance for the left like old wording was.
Good one. Thanks. I'm not pro-life, but I'd vote for this guy.
I feel the same way, as one who has become much more pro-choice over the past few weeks. I can trust this pro-lifer to at least understand where I'm coming from. I was worried when he started with "I'm pro-life" (bodily autonomy is something that I now feel very very strongly about, and that only gets stronger with every criticism of my position). That makes me like him, and his skepticism of the Mises caucus helps even more.
I do have to say, I don't like the idea of wanting to emulate the two big parties on having cults of personality in order to succeed, but that's small potatoes at this point with what sure looks like a civil war looming in the party
No idea if this is good or bad, but the previous management didn't achieve squat. So instead of just accepting decades of irrelevance, at least the message is you have to deliver or get out of the way.
Exactly. "If your philosophy is good and true, you owe it to your philosophy to learn how to win." -Morton Blackwell
The LP hasn't won because of one person for the past 22 years. That person, as far as I can see, continues to decide where all funds are disbursed. He's run ballot access for the past 22 years, in such a way that all possible synergistic gains from wise use of available resources have been eliminated. The LP membership, for what it's worth, continues to be oblivious to all of the prior.
I like Amash and I think he's on the right track for the most part. Where I disagree with him is the idea that the LP should focus primarily on winning elections and leave activism to libertarian groups outside of the party. I believe that there is room for the LP to develop a means to support candidates so as to help them win races. While also focusing on issues and recruitment of new members..
I can also tell you that the energy that the Mises Caucus has brought to the party has led me to consider joining the party officially rather than just voting for their candidates and supporting their causes.
There is more than enough money in the LP to win hundreds of SL and sheriff races every election cycle. The reason this hasn't happened every election cycle has been the successful infiltration and subversion of the LP by the IC("intelligence community"). Taking over the state of Alaska would take about $1M every 2 years and be complete in about 4 to 6 years.
With one positive example, other states would follow the model, because of its benevolent results.
The Mises Caucus is what lead me to join last year. And with the recent leadership changes in Reno, I’m more interested in engaging with the LP than I ever have been before.
The recent hype around the party and shift in messaging has made me look more seriously into supporting the party. In the past I voted for a couple candidates but that was it, I’m a registered Republican in one of the few red congressional districts in NY and I’ve mostly just tried to make my primary votes count by voting for the least statist Republican. But I’m very strongly considering changing my affiliation and/or donating my time to help the local party out any way I can.
The people badmouthing then either have no idea how much this will help the party and the larger movement, or they know that it will have a positive impact and that’s why they’re so opposed to it
Libertarian values are universal, but we need to understand how phrases have meaning in non-Libertarian circles. Mises and non-Mises members should be demonstrating that America works on respectful disagreement. The Mises Caucus has created a spike in membership, and even though their members are new, the Mises Caucus is actively doing the outreach that Justin is describing. We need both evangelists and ambassadors, and there is an important place for both Justin Amash and the Mises Caucus.
I think people are sympathetic to social libertarianism and non-interventionist foreign policy, but economic libertarianism is a harder sell.
Not to people who have been abandon by the hard left shift from the republican party the last few decades.
That's somewhat correct. Ergo, sell what sells, get elected, and implement coherent policy. You're not violating voters' rights if you do what's right, and refuse to violate _anyone's_ rights.
We can start by not calling the State Administration "the government". They are our employees, not our masters.
Calling them "the government" implies they are there to govern us, so we are their subjets. We are NOT under their rule. They are simple administrators of the public places, just like the admins of a condo, we pay them for a service, but WE own the place.
"WE own the place" means public ownership, which really means government ownership. There ought not to be a "we" at all, only private ownership.
Not really. When you have shared ownership of something, let's say a condo, you have "public" ownership (we). It's public between the "citizens" of the condo, but private if you see it from outside.
Exactly the same is a country, because a country IS a condo (they have the same properties, so they are the same). The problem si that if the condo is too big, the owners' (the citizens') power gets diluted, so making it smaller (like with federalism, or removing power from the administration), makes it more manageable.
Shared ownership will probably always exist, but the less people you have to share with, the less probability of conflict you'll have.
@@santiagopuentep You're probably right, collective ownership will probably always exist. If decision-making power is diluted by a big condo, isn't it best to have no condo at all, and only have private ownership? Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" is a good read for he argument against publicly-owned government (democracy), seeing government itself as evil and privately-owned government as a lesser evil. Of course, people tend to like abdicating responsibility to others, which is why some people live in condos.
@@TheFlubber06 yeah, it's better to live in you own house with your own swimming pool than to live in an appartment and go to the shared one. The thing is that it's more expensive to maintain it alone.
Everyone lives in a condo, exept people that live alone in the jungle, because everyone lives in a places where the roads are maintained at least by the neiborhood.
The goal of libertarians should be decentralize as much as possible, but also to teach people respect and to get along better, because both reduces the need for rules, so state's size.
Our biggest enemy is authoritarianism, not sharing. Sharing (voluntarily) is a great thing. The problem is the "involuntarily" part, not the sharing part. This is what I think most libertarians get wrong, and that's why they lose against the left.
@@santiagopuentep I agree.
Finally, someone in America who uses the word liberalism correctly.
You guys changed the definition, as you do with most things, see, liberalism is not a left-wing ideology, only in America.
No, its actually a right-wing ideology(not meant as an insult), you just changed the definition of it.
Liberalism isn’t an ideology that belongs to any side of the aisle. Both the left and right are “liberal”, in the sense that they support constitutional government and the concept of “individual rights”
Liberalism as an ideology is meant in contrast with monarchism, and then later in history with socialism and fascism.
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and many Greens are liberals.
Socialists and fascists are the only non-liberal political force in America today.
@@dstinnettmusic No no, liberalism, in Europe(and i suspect most places in the world) essentially means libertarianism, but in the US its somehow used to describe left-wing ideologies.
As libertarianism is a right-wing ideology in most ways, liberalism is also a right-wing ideology.
@@et34t34fdf First paragraph is correct. Second paragraph is incorrect. The 45-degree-rotated Nolan Chart is more correct, where "literal Left maps to ideological Left" and "literal Right maps to ideological Right." The Nolan Chart shows that "Left" and "Right" are both "error clusters" derived from low human intelligence of two different-but-commonplace kinds (estrogen+dopamine paired in the womb THEN exploited by gov schools in a compatible way that encourages exploration and language) (serotonin+testosterone pair in the womb THEN exploited by gov schools in a compatible way that encourages focus and math).
Liberalism/libertarianism is "top, center" on the Nolan Chart...it is the elimination of incoherent and self-contradictory political "errors in thinking."
I think that this guy should be candidate for senator.
He could win, if he tried hard and attended a lot of meetings in Michigan.
@@JakeWitmerMichigan has an open seat coming up in 2024
His last few comments reminded me of something a friend of mine said to me 20ish years ago: "I can't figure out if your conservative or liberal, Margaret. You should check out the Libertarian Party."
I disagree with some things Amash has done, but have great respect for him. He appears respectful and dignified and value his wisdom as well. We’d do well to heed his voice.
Justin is handsome and attractive overall
30:00 Heise is 100% right that jury independence needs to be the LP's number one issue, and our activists need to be seen outside of courthouses, informing jurors and defendants of their rights so victimless crime prosecutions become impossible. Amash is right that not enough has been done to reach out to blacks and victims of police oppression. Jury independence is the great unknown "unifying issue." Save someone's child from an unjust prison sentence: you just made a voter for life! Who do we lose with this strategy? The corrupted drug warrior FOP ("fraternal order of police"). So what? They hated us anyway.
I registered about 5,000 people into the LP with the prior strategy.
@@steves1266 You do not understand the basic math of the situation. Read the final two pages of Suprynowicz's "Send In The Waco Killers" or wait for my book. Until then, read Clay Conrad. I'm one guy...I can't afford to finance everything myself. (But the sums necessary are well within what's possible.)
1:20 it should be noted that at the time Mises was active, Anarchism was associated with the communist vision. It wasn’t until Rothbard essentially created Anarchism associated with the Libertarian Vision: Anarcho-Capitalism.
In Amash's speech he replaced the word "liberalism" with the word "libertarianism." When Mises used the word liberalism he did not mean libertarianism as we broadly use it in the US at present. I don't think Mises was on-board with Rothbard's libertarianism, especially his founding of anarcho-capitalism. Had Mises lived another 10 years he may have warmed up to it because it supports his economic principles better than democracy does.
@Down with Corporate Amerika Democracy doesn't support libertarianism because "libertarianism" is infiltrated by feds. Otherwise, democracy _does_ support libertarianism, in every place where it's attempted to organize on a libertarian political message. (Almost nowhere, thanks to the feds. The Federal Reserve drives politics in the USA, and makes sure the feds have the resources and will they need to preempt liberty.) Of course, libertarianism isn't "anarchism" and the people who think it is are another reason the public doesn't support it. The public supports classical liberalism: anarchy in the market domain + "a police power to deal with extreme violators of individual rights"(Ted Bundy; John Wayne Gacy; the local wife-beater; the neighbor who refuses to turn down his music at night; people who crash their cars into other people; terrorists).
Your opposition to libertarianism seems pretty deep though. Maybe it's because you're a freedom-hating idiot.
As a Michigan voter, outside of his district,
I was never had much of an opinion about him.
But this video helped change my opinion of him. When he read the quotes about anarchism by Mises my admiration grew.
I can't stand anything about the libertarians that push anarchism.
Thanks Nick and Reason TV for airing this episode
Your views are very much in-line with the benevolent portion of the rest of America. Blessings.
Same here, anarchism is an absurd idea that will never appeal to the masses. The LP will die if it makes anarchism it’s dogma. I want minimal government, but I sure as hell don’t want no government.
On the whole I agree with Amash on most issues and the tone that he takes. We want to be more clear on libertarian principles when we run candidates for major offices like president. We also want to come up with winning strategies and not simply seek moral victories by getting 1% more than we did in the last election. We want to be aggressive about freedom while at the same time not deliberately shock people with culturally divisive statements.
Amash 2024; Decide for yourself
Gosh he’s right again about the figures in place, besides him and Ron (who’s obviously too old) they need some popular heads.
Thank you.
Listen to the 1st Mises quote; that "Anarchism ignores the nature of man and assumes a society of angels and saints". It's obvious that Mises was talking about anarcho-socialism. Not anarcho-capitalism (which probably didn't exist when Mises wrote this). Anarcho-capitalism has been designed specifically to deal with the problem of conflicting incentives, of people not being necessarily saints. It relies on private property and a market for the enforcement of individual rights. That's definitely not what Mises was talking about. So, nice rhetorical trick, Amash, but it proves absolutely nothing. Ancaps agree with Mises on what Mises actually meant about that other "anarchism", namely anarcho-socialism. Mises was not condemning pure libertarianism.
Actually, your words prove his point.
I agree. Liberalism was published in 1927. Way before Anarcho-Capitalism was formulated. However, there were market anarchist ideas before Mises but who even those anarchists such as Tucker And Spooner were still socialist at heart. This leads me to believe that what your comment says about Mises critique of Anarchism as Anarcho-socialism to be true.
So how would we punish criminals in this pipe dream society of yours? Do we auction them off to slave traders? Do we take bids on the cheapest executioner? Do we do nothing because we have no government? The markets can do a lot, but they can’t do everything. I’m absolutely a lover of liberty, but anarchy just ain’t the solution.
We the people are all connected, to one another and the earth, and the entire universe! We the people need to stop allowing ourselves to be divided and controlled! Liberty and peace are the answer to EVERYTHING!
@Down with Corporate Amerika the government creates all the problems you think they will regulate?
If Amash is such a fan of Mises he should answer what chancellor Mises worked for during the 30's.
I would write that I want to read the "libertarian" defense of Engelbert Dollfuß, but we already have Hans-Hermann Hoppe's ravings about the awesomeness of slavery under monarchy so we're good.
Let's see Dave Smith and Angela McArdle full interview!
They'll release Dave's last to keep people coming back each day. His interview will have the most views.
I have to say I’m genuinely impressed how nick let Justin talk in this interview. Mostly lol
I've considered myself Libertarian for a long time now (decades), which was prior to the term being in vogue. Now I watch as people from the Republican and Democrat Party, who feel disenfranchised by "their party" flock and put a new spin on Libertarian ideology. I have always believed in individual rights, small government, sound currency, lower taxes, freedom of personal choice, free market- BUT these all come with personal responsibility and consequences. Which means fewer government bailouts, fewer government programs, etc. Take for example the drug issue. It seems as though, suddenly, the Libertarian Party is almost pushing drug use of all kinds. Why? There's a big difference between allowing someone to make their own decisions and live with the personal consequences- not throwing them in jail so long as they are not harming anyone else, but to act like daily drug use should be welcomed??? Habitual use of nearly any substance, including alcohol, should not be promoted.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's good or should be promoted by a political party. Adultery is legal too. But it doesn't mean we need to walk around promoting it. At a certain point common decency should be a thing.
I’m not aware of a push by any libertarians to over use substances and become addicted.
We push for decriminalization of all substances though. Drugs that I would never take or recommend taking. I want nobody in jail for possession or use. But I don’t want meth sold at a store near me.
@@totesmagotes213 I agree. Unfortunately I happen to personally know some of these new "Libertarians" that actually seem to confuse something being legal with promoting its use and pretending like there is only good in and no bad. I'm sure it's different everywhere. And this is something I just started noticing in the last few years more and more.
@@ivankrushensky One of the challenges in being a libertarian is that we have to tolerate people who engage in behaviors that we don’t like. I don’t like when people abuse drugs, but I want them all decriminalized. I don’t think people should engage in prostitution, but I also don’t want that illegal. I support gun rights but am saddened when I hear about murders. To allow for liberty, we have to try to influence the societal factors around these behaviors instead of supporting legislative solutions.
@@totesmagotes213 Legislative options are still appropriate however when an action is harmful to the rest of society. This idea shouldn’t be inconsistent with libertarian beliefs. We have come to this idea that all legislative solutions are bad, which is ridiculous. Rather we should support only legislative solutions in cases where it affects all of society. For example theft impacts everyone in society, and as such there should be laws against. Homosexuality doesn’t harm everyone in society, and as such it is not something appropriate to legislate. Libertarianism needs to recognize there is a time and place for regulation when such regulation will help everyone overall enjoy freedom more.
The error is with your self-professed inability to see that promotion of drug use is not a part of any libertarian political platform. Nobody ("nobody" includes libertarians) says that the government should purchase drugs and send them to people who didn't want them. Nobody (again, "nobody" includes libertarians) says that the overuse of drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes) is healthy or ought be politically encouraged.
Your statement: "It seems as though, suddenly, the Libertarian Party is almost pushing drug use of all kinds. Why?" is false. If it "seems" that way to you, you are in error.
I only see one reason for your comment. Your comment seems to be targeted at dim-witted people who are considering whether or not they might be libertarians. As such, your comment is only really useful to the ONDCP, DEA, OCDETF, and central bank. (Even if you didn't intend it that way, and your comment is simply due to incomprehension, this is still true.)
Drug and gun prohibition is the worst anti-isonomic pseudo-law (laws that, by their design cannot be equally enforced, and place pressure on law enforcement to decide how, and _against_ _whom_ they will be selectively-enforced) in America. Pseudo-laws ("mala prohibita") that are anti-isonomic destroy individual freedom, encourage bigotry, and select "enemies of the state" that can be robbed, imprisoned, and ruined with impunity. Such laws are the natural precursor to humanity's most-destructive failure mode: totalitarianism.
I urge people to ignore your bullshit post, and do their own research, whether or not they ever choose to personally use recreational drugs. Books like "Saying Yes" seek to offset the damage caused by prohibition by pointing out that...if we want government to get off the backs of gun owners, we need to get government off the backs of drug users.
There's a place for drug use in society, and as soon as drugs are re-legalized, they will be sold to a huge market that already exists in a dangerous and impure form. Drug use is not as valuable to reinstating a free society as gun ownership and carry. ...But...if you cannot use drugs, to quote G.K. Chesterton, you are "no more a free man than a dog."
If Reason is gonna keep calling out racist language, they ought to put up or shut up. One guy said the n-word (he claimed not at anybody, and I believe him cause Reason woulda shown us) but anything else? Who are these Trump people they've met? Where are the racists? Put up or shut up.
Are you suggesting that Trump people are racist?
Nick addressed that directly with the guy who wrote it in a different video titled "Inside the Mises Caucus Takeover of the Libertarian Party"
I walked away from the LP after the embarrassing Johnson/Weld ticket that stumped for Hillary. I am still a libertarian and a registered Libertarian in my state and have a strong affinity for the party of my state but getting in bed with Weld was the final straw for me in terms of the national party.
Avoid the inter-party cat fighting and factions. How has that worked out for Oregon. Just be libertarian. I can get behind Amash or Smith or whomever the delegates select as long as the ticket is libertarian. No more Bob Barr's or Bill Weld's.
Or judges who advocate eschewing jury nullificaton and innocent drug users to long prison sentences. (Jim Gray)
I have faith in this movement. I haven’t seen so many passionate people pushing for liberty since the Ron Paul campaigns. The in-fighting sucks, but it came from the old guard that was upset about losing their power. Like Amash said in this video, let’s see what the new leaders can do.
man. I fucking live in reno. wish i coulda gone to something like that.
"Human cooperation" "Self-Ownership"; and acceptance of slavery is the problem I have with Justin, who has done some marvelous things, but cannot lead an abolitionist movement.
I agree with what you said, but I suspect I disagree with your reasons for saying it. Justin could lead an abolitionist movement, but he would need to be more radically abolitionist; "leading from the front." (Like Lilburne...or Douglass)
But he misquoted Mises by replacing "liberalism" with "libertarianism"
Do you really think they still wouldn't have booed? Mises was not an anarchist and had no problem speaking against anarchism.
The point is he misrepresented the quotes by changing a key word. But even in this interview he conflates libertarianism and liberalism, so I'm sure he thinks they are the same thing.
"To organize to win elections". We will never win elections as long as Only Vote for One is in place. OVF1 ensures that 3rd parties will always be spoilers not winners. We must work to change this. Voters should be allowed to vote yes/no for every candidate on the ballot.
This isnt the reason the LP has failed.
@@JakeWitmer Oh no doubt lots of mistakes have been made but even if you correct all the others this one will ensure your defeat in a 3 way race.
@@vipero00 "Oh no doubt lots of mistakes have been made but even if you correct all the others this one will ensure your defeat in a 3 way race." I disagree with you. You've never seen a functional LP. You don't know how fast people can be brought into the LP, face-to-face. I do, because I was paid to bring people into the LP. I was a true believer until the fed or fed ally who controlled (and still controls) the LP fired me. One man has allocated 100% of the ballot access money for the LP for 22 years. That man is Bill Redpath.
The LP doesn't win, because they send Democrats out to do the petitioning, while sidelining LP members, and claiming to do the opposite.
The facts of the matter are that the LP membership is comprised of two groups of people: (1) Federal agents and informants who know what they're doing, and (2) Dumb-asses who have no business being involved in politics, because they don't know the first thing about political strategy. (In fact, they hate people who do understand political strategy...and this hatred of "politics" is encouraged by group #1, prior.
That's the way it is. Now, couldn't people in group #2 learn the basics of an undergraduate Poli-Sci 101 course? Sure. In theory, they could. However, they don't. The continue to read Mises, when what they need to read to win is Morton Blackwell, Milgram, Cialdini, Roger Simon, and James Surowiecki. (They can split hairs to the nth degree discussing rarefied implications of the libertarian philosophy...often "specializing in what they got wrong," but they can't stop one innocent person from being prosecuted for a non-criminal drug, gun, or tax offense.
I, on the other hand, have registered over 5,000 people into the LP before Redpath called up the State Parties and had any party with a new chairman disavow their prior working relationship with me.
People vote 71% the way they're registered. I registered 1% of the voters of Alaska as Libertarian. I was paid to do this. I know how much it costs.
Gary Johnson raised and blew $12 M in 2016, on unproductive nepotism. For that figure, I could have turned Alaska, Idaho, and Montana gold.
...As could any dedicated Libertarian who knows what they're doing. (There are several like me, even if they aren't as wise in terms of recruitment and registering new members. A few are better than I was, but they left even before they were fired, when the feds caused them to be underpaid, or excessively smeared.)
The dedicated activists of the LP don't exist. (Or, they're people in the Mises Caucus who are donating their time, unpaid, while the LP heaps $150,000 per year on big-D Democrats.)
If you want to make sure you never have a political party, pay the enemy while heaping scorn and ridicule on your best activists.
Any time the LP wants to pull its head out of its ass, and stop letting Bill Redpath control ballot access, I'm easy to get in touch with. Any time they want to rehire me, they can do so...but my price now reflects years of getting fucked around by amateurs and idiots...and, honestly, I believe it's a price the LP will never pay. The FBI is going to ride the LP down into the sewer...to the effectiveness of the Kreisau Circle. From what I've seen, the LP is full of people whose nature precludes them from succeeding in politics. (Perhaps Heise is one of the rare exceptions. He says things that are at least "in the ball park" of intelligent. Then again, in politics, "only the bull's-eye matters.")
Everyone can identify the phenomenon of "a newbie" in their area of specialization. The political newbies of the LP are exceptionally weak and easy to control. The feds rarely even need to bring their "A" game. Many LP State parties are 100% fed-controlled (Arizona, Illinois, etc.).
The USA knows the current LP by their fruits: 50 years of failing to do what many talented newbie local politicians know how to do (but lack the money and patience to do).
As I said: Any time the LP wants to get serious, I'm easy to contact. (I'm not expecting a phone call.)
Reason continuing the tradition of being milk toast, progressive-friendly.
The Libertarian Party must get bold, in your face, and unrelenting to have success.
I listened to this entire, uninspiring interview and didn't come away with anything useful for this guy. He's boring as hell. Imagine this dude in a national debate. Ugh
As long as we don't fall for the true Scotsman fallacy, why not? I see the need for different marketing arms. Some would cater to the purists, some would appeal the more undecided ones. Some would take a serious tone. Others should use humor.
The LP must not cater to fascists
@@matrixman8582 - thanks Mr obvious. I'm hoping this is snarc.
@@matrixman8582 Good thing nobody is advocating for that then
The whole thing around bigotry is pretty stupid tbh. Taking that language out was a good thing.
That's such a bourgeoisie thing to say 😤
Sarcasm aside, that's the whole problem. Adopting the far left's boogiemen into the official party platform was just giving a foothold into collectivism. Like Heise said in his Reason interview, bigot is impossible to define and allows people to use that to shut down discourse by "othering" their opposition. Classism/racism/sexism/etc are all collectivist views that are incompatible with not only the libertarian philosophy, but already the already stated Libertarian Party platform.
Agreed, what they replaced it with is much better.
@@matthewj3892 Both the GOP and Dems will jump on it as evidence of concealed bigotry and the voting masses will lap it up. Libertarianism is DOA and I say that as a libertarian. Your FPTP system is dumb.
@@matthewj3892 Maybe, but it's interesting that replacing it wasn't the Mises Caucus's original goal. They intended to just remove it, a motion from the floor with language drafted by Spike Cohen was just a last second compromise. Regardless of whether the language was good or bad, I agree with Amash that the act of removing it without replacing is a bad look and was a bad idea.
@@dannyarcher6370 Then let them do that, the masses will lap it up? Half the masses believe the last election was rigged, most normal people now roll their eyes when they hear the word "racist." Those who would lap it up will never be on our side anyway, stop playing into their reality and stick to what's true and what message matters. It's about spreading the message with integrity. I don't know what FPTP system is, so apparently it's my system that you know more about than me.
Libertarianism is a philosophy NOT a pragmatic political party. It should be the "liberty" party. A liberty party can have libertarians and liberty minded people. Libertarianism is a very specific belief structure and its insane to think it will gain majority appeal. Sorry Justin.
Then why is the LP (when it's not being run by an FBI guy) able to register unlimited numbers of people into the LP, limited only by the amount they can pay their LP-member activists?
I personally registered over 5,000 people into the Libertarian Party in two western states. In one of those states, I registered over 1% of the prior election's vote total as Libertarian. ...Why did I leave? The FBI agent(s) that run the LP fired me, even though the state I was working in said they'd gladly vote me into the chairman position.
...Libertarians are inherently people who hate politics, hate political organizers, and hate electing people to office. They'd rather live under a Hitler or Stalin than achieve electoral success...they want to be philosophers and critics, not implementers.
...And they don't care how many people are hurt by their political impotence. In short, they fail to live up to Blackwell's famous quote: "If your philosophy is good and true, you owe it to your philosophy to learn how to win."
Every single election the LP should be electing 20+ state legislators. Dick Randolph showed them how to do this. If they fail to do this, it's because *they're not remotely serious about politics.*
@@JakeWitmer 100% my point. Libertarianism itself NOT about winning elections. It's a very purest political philosophy. The political party should be wider in scope so a "liberty party" with libertarians in it would fair a lot better than a party just for libertarians trying to follow a strict doctrinal philosophy.
Good point actually taking his own talking point and asking how the political machinery would make it happen if it's not grassroots level like MC is trying.
@@Matts_Smirkingrevenge No, you misunderstand when you write falsehoods like "and it's insane to think it will gain majority appeal." It can gain majority appeal if the work that yields majority appeal is put in. If that work isn't put in, then it can't gain majority appeal. It's purely dependent on the necessary viable work being done.
Granted, if the work being done is non-viable, or done wrongly, no amount of it will win over a significant number of converts necessary to win state legislative and sheriff's districts (which would mathematically allow for total nullification of unjust laws).
@@JakeWitmer You're out of your mind dude 😂😂😂 Most people do NOT agree with libertarianism whole sale. I do personally but... I'm not naive
Why doesn’t he run for governor of Michigan- that’s an election he can win in a state that’s a mess!
He'd have to be confrontational, but if he was, he could do it.
Michigan ballots have the "straight party ticket" option which makes it easy for voters but basically impossible for 3rd party candidates.
@@onseatsjc thank you. I did not know that.
You make a good point the LP spends to much time on a national pipedream instead of building up a regional base of support. Places like Alaska and New Hampshire are states where libertarians could conceivably start winning now with some effort. Then we can spread.
@@jeremiahblake3949 The construction of New Hampshire's legislature (the teensiest, tiniest legislative districts possible; an unpaid state legislature) place "all the worst incentives for edge-lord capitalist contrarians who know nothing about real political strategy" directly on the edge-lord capitalist contrarians who know nothing about real political strategy. Following these incentives, libertarians of "the Free State Project" cut their own throat. ...Especially because they're totally unprepared for the fact that federal agents are an intimately mixed into their midst, and vastly more politically savvy than they are. (To be a federal informant or "agent provocateur" does not require you to have taken an undergraduate class like "Introduction to Political Science," ...it only requires you to "be a good actor" and take orders from an IC handler who is "intimately aware of what actions are fatal to political parties.")
The Mises Caucus has not, thus far, changed the operation of the Libertarian Party. Most likely, they're psychologically incapable of doing so. If so, this would be a great tragedy, because the USA desperately needs the ideas of Ludwig von Mises (and, more importantly, the ideas of Clay Conrad, Lysander Spooner, and John Lilburne which are "the most valuable and actionable portions of Ludwig von Mises' ideas").
The Mises Caucus is sufficiently pro-gun. Their use of Maj Toure as an advisor is wise, because the black community in America has been treated like whipped dogs by the Democrat and Republican Parties. (I can almost hear the resentment...the self-defeating resentment that claims I'm with the "pragmatist" idiots and feds who continue to run the LP, even "post-takeover." ...The people who resent being called "racist" and mistakenly think I'm calling libertarians racist. ...So, let me clear this up: I'm calling the drug-war-enforcing and gun-control-enforcing police forces of the USA the great remaining racist institution. ...And I'm calling people who want the police to enforce drug prohibition and "gun control" racists... _especially_ if they're in the Democrat or Republican Parties.)
If you know who Kyle Rittenhouse is, but you don't know who Harith Augustus, Philando Castile, or Duncan Lemp are...you're "part of the reason why libertarians can't win."
But wait...aren't I focusing on emotions instead of logic, reason, and economics?
Yes. I am. Because emotions (linked with reason!) decide who wins elections.
Let me say this again, a different way: The calculated use of righteous moral outrage wins elections. (This doesn't mean shouting over people you intend to vote for you. ...It occasionally means shouting over elected tyrants and the courtesan press.)
Those who disagree with me should feel free to continue taking the advice of federal informants and edge-lord know-nothings and wasting donor money. However, they should note: In 2016 _alone,_ Gary Johnson sent enough money to Ron Nielson (et al.) to take over the state legislatures of Alaska, Idaho, and Wyoming.
If the Mises Caucus does not start paying political activists a living wage (...the horrors...the horrors! ...fine...I'll rephrase..."commission-based payments that are sufficient to live on with an initial relocation expense payment to be deducted from successful work") to engage in face-to-face political activism in those states...they are continuing the Sarwark and Redpath legacy of "jerking off with donor dollars," combined with a radioactive dose of "alienating libertarian-leaning Democrats, Republicans, and independents."
Address problems that both liberals and conservatives agree on (the PEOPLE, not the corrupt politicians), find solutions that could work and that don't necessarily rely so much on government or the gov throwing money at the problem.
-Marijuana/drug decriminalization
-Make college cheap again (make the universities cut their costs)
-Make healthcare **ing affordable (hint, we are ALREADY going to spend as much if not more money on healthcare if we were to do medicare for all, and more of that money is spent on profit, not care...). You want to ride on an ambulance?
-End the for-profit wars
-End corporate welfare
-I'd add end all welfare but it's normally a tiny cost compared to all that corporate welfare and abuse is usually the exception and not the rule. Plus it screws with people that DO actually need it.
Even if many other issues liberals and conservatives disagree on, at the very least you get MAJOR big changes everyone benefits from. Right now these major problems affecting /all/ continue to run rampant. If the people can trust you on these major issues, they probably will trust you on other more controversial issues too, or make compromises that WORK.
*MAKE* things cheap? Dude the whole point is we don't force anything, we just don't want government involved. If college tuition goes up it's not our issue if it's market related.
@@jeremiahblake3949 Sure. However, that's only true post-elimination of Pell Grants and Stafford Loans, and post-gov-accreditation-abolition. All the prior are a nightmare, outlined by Bryan Caplan in his book "The Case Against Education."
So I dont know if LP needs to appeal to the average voter because we do not yet know if appealing to hard core libertarians would work - I am a libertarian, as is my wife and a handful of our friends, and none of us likes or votes for LP. I'm not gonna vote for a socalist party calling themselves libertarian, if I do and it works I'll never see a libertarian party.
J. Amash for President & G. Johnson for V. President ✌️ Libertarian will rise in 2024
The anarchists should not be the driving force of the LP. Because society at large is not Anarchist.
I agree..it shouldn't be about Ron Paul ..it was his message that got me drawn into the liberty movement ..the Libertarian party needs an overhaul, we need to win elections ..thats how we get the movement started ..we must back solid candidates across the board , local , state and federal
I think the problem with any ideology is when it becomes deontological and an end in itself. A “free society” shouldn’t be the goal of libertarian candidates; a prosperous society with human flourishing should be the goal and freedom is the best means to reach it.
@Down with Corporate Amerika just a tip…You won’t change Americans perspective by pointing to Europe.
I really like many of the views Justin Amash espouses, and I really like what I generally hear from the Mises Caucus.
For me, it’s all about ideas and actions. Generalizing to a group of people, or even to one person, is where mistakes get made. People I disagree with regularly can have ideas I strongly agree with. People I generally agree with can have ideas I strongly disagree with. And when we generalize out to groups of people, the chances of agreeing with every thought and action made by everyone in that group become even less likely.
Debate ideas and actions, not people and groups, and you make fewer mistakes. You get better results.
Mises Caucus is toxic and is ruining Libertarianism
You're correct, assuming that you're not being governed by fed infiltrators. (Unfortunately, until MC took over, that was not a safe assumption.)
Policy over group identity! Unfortunately most people conform their policy beliefs to their group identity. We underestimate how powerful a motivator identity is in human psychology.
The downfall of the libertarian party is their total inability to get aggressive. This interview totally ignores combating the mainstream parties. What does he think is going to happen? We just gonna sing kumbaya and hope people show up? Nah. You gotta target weakness and force the public to make an uncomfortable decision.
It's not hard to make the 2 headed snake political system look broken.
@@got2kittys Which head gets to eat the tail? Ah, never mind...Joe Biden is answering that question...LOL
Preach! (FWIW: I was the aggressive part of the LP. I registered 5000 people into the AK LP in 2005 and AZ LP in 2003 and 2005. Then, I was "let go" by the AZ LP at the behest of the federal agent who controls all funds allocation for the National LP.) The very instant someone starts doing something constructive in the LP, with a basic knowledge of political science, that person is "fired by the federal agent who runs the whole show." The LP is, therefore, "fake." It's not real. It's therefore a misnomer to say the LP "isnt doing this" or "isn't doing that." ...The LP doesn't exist. Only "one federal agent" exists...and that federal agent (or federal-agent-aligned person) decides what the LP spends its money on.
The LP has enough money to take over 1 western state per 2-year election cycle. Every 2 year election cycle that goes by where this doesn't happen, you can be sure the LP is "still infiltrated, still effectively non-existent."
Thank you reason for staying yourself, even as it seems the base is moving under you. Keep up the good work!
Yep perfectly tepid
Shouldn't the LP be for libertarians and not whiny anti Trump Republicans?
It should be for libertarians who want to actually create lasting change. Deal with your loss, bud. Mises caucus is the future.
@@PurestPosition Mises is the future
How to make the LP viable: change the electoral system to a more proportional system. I'm a very big advocate for PR.
Why would those who hold power change the system that entrenches their power to one that doesn't? "The will of the people whose will you need to marshal before you obtain power"? Nobody cares if you're an advocate for PR, unless and until you're going to put it on the ballot as a citizen-sponsored initiative (1/2 of your budget), and promote it enough so that it wins(1/2 of your budget). In ND (the easiest state to put initiatives on the ballot), it costs around $30K minimum to put something on the ballot with local talent, and $100K if you want to guarantee success.
@@JakeWitmer Ranked Choice Voting was passed in Maine back in 2018, so it's certainly possible.
2:00 and what, Justin Amash, would making it 'work' look like?
Oh, I don't know, maybe "Do everything that successful political parties do, but do it in a libertarian direction." (1) register new people into the LP. (2) win state legislative and sheriff's races. (3) back libertarian I & R, using them to elect people to higher office.
I don’t think you can avoid mixing values with platform. It’s tricky. Amash says the party should speak out against bigots, but he acknowledges we can’t say the same about pro/anti abortion? Sadly people are using words and weapons and calling many normal people bigots or racist. Just side step the dumb argument and lead by example.
It's funny to see Amash talk about messaging and how changing the language on "bigotry" might send the wrong message when he voted against the Anti Lynching Bill on principle and was dragged through the mud for it. I have a ton of respect for Justin, but he seems to be missing the similarities somehow.
If a bigot wants to be a bigot they have that freedom under libertarian principles. So I can see a case for LP removing that language because they shouldn’t endorse nor denounce it, it’s not the party’s responsibility either way.
Plus similar drugs, the bigot is only hurting themselves in the long run. But they have that right to do so.
Does Amash have a caucus or is he simply part of the anti-Mises caucus?
He's not opposed to the Mises Caucus. He said he's cautiously willing to close ranks and give them a chance. ...This is a characteristic other libertarians should emulate.
What's weird is how Amash quotes Mises as if Mises himself is asserting those statements. Mises was not claiming things for himself, he is presenting the beliefs of a "liberal." That is why the book is called "Liberalism." Whether or not Mises himself actually believes this about anarchism and the nature the state is doubtful or open to dispute.
♡
“Just because we support freedom, doesnt mean we support what people do with their freedom”. Justin Amash. Good take.
I support nuclear bombs... Just not what people do with them....? I think it's a confused perspective. If complete freedom causes people to do unacceptable things... Is freedom acceptable?
@@miki09876 a nuclear bomb is a direct threat to liberty, unlike using your freedom of soeech to support racist ideas. I support free speech, even if i dont want people to say racist shit. I dont want people to have nuclear bombs, because its only purpose is to kill as many people as possible.
I don’t understand the “left leaning Mises“ quote. Did he make some? Reason seems to highlight some statements against anarcho-capitalist, which doesn’t seem like a particularly left leaning philosophy.
A great republican, a so so libertarian
Funny thing is, Mises Caucus is trying to manufacture a movement similar to Ron Paul, when the movement is behind is naturally going to Amash.
Ron Paul came from Congress, as did Amash. The energy needs to be behind Amash
I am a life time member ( the party decided i am not,way to grow ) ,
i hope he runs against Whitmer for Gov.
The LP is politically centrists which means it would be comprised of both left and right of center electors. In our current political landscape any would be LP voters would be effectively giving support to a candidate who they vehemently oppose. We would have to see a dramatic rise in the number of Independents in Congress who would not always caucus with either main party before the LP can gain any real credibility.
The ability to destroy what's weak in the party closest to you only partially favors the party furthest from you, due to the logic of terrorism expounded on by Ray Kurzweil, in "The Age of Spiritual Machines."
I dont mind Amash, but the fact that he didn't fight to be the first ELECTED libertarian, shows he's not a wartime politician. Which despite the NAP is what's needed in a high ranking candidate who believes in libertarianism.
I’m pretty sure he district was jerrymandered and he received absolutely no funding support from anyone. I don’t blame him in wasting people’s time.
@@hdn4nd agree to disagree. If you want to be a libertarian candidate, but feel like waiting until the electoral stars align, you're going to be waiting there until the sun eats the earth.
Amash was considered an outsider by the republican party (because he couldn't be told how to vote) & won a couple of his primaries against candidates the Republican machine was trying to replace him with which they could control. There is basically zero hope of winning any federal election as an L, due to the party organization being pretty much nonexistent (hopefully the Mises caucus is turning that around). To say he's not a "wartime" politician solely because he didn't win running as an L isn't accurate, if you said he's not a "wartime" politician because he's consistently voted again military action while he was in congress there's no debate there.
@@bhough410 it's not that he lost. It's that he didn't run.
He was the incumbent from a very purple state. To pretend he didn't have a decent chance is ludicrous.
And all elections are like that. If you only want a sure thing before you even campaign, okay, good luck leading from the rear.
@@natekidwell You make some good points. You clearly know some things about practical politics. I hope you're involved with the MC, because they need people like you. You should get elected to the State Legislature if you're in a western state or any state with I & R.
It'd be nice if Amash would have read the actual quotes (Mises never used the term "libertarian", but "liberal"). He should also read them in their correct context: anarchism was, at the time of writing (late 1920s), anarchocommunism
"at the time of writing (late 1920s" No, it wasn't. It was "debated and contested" ...and it still is. Thus, it makes a terrible political term...unless you think every voter is going to be "at the cutting edge of philosophy." Bachunin (who you assert is an anarcho-communist) advocated "an America-style republic in Siberia" ...he believed in voluntary redistribution of funds to help the poor survive...but that he was willing to settle for a practical version of "America" shows that he was first opposed to state power...Tucker, Spooner, etc. ...all pointed out that enforced redistribution couldn't work.
Anarchism back then simply meant "lack of a government." ...Something that may or may not be possible...but which US voters don't want, regardless of the ultimate state of reality.
Amash is sooooooo boring. I cannot even finish his interviews. I bet even Nick would acknowledge that this is a problem.
Lost me on immigration. The USA is THE best country on earth and should mean something to those who live here. An open border policy is just plain stupid. It should mean something special to immigrate and become an American, NOT just walking over our border unchecked.
This party has no chance with an open boarder policy.
If there were no handouts, the only people that would immigrate would be people you want to immigrate.
Most natives who live here did nothing to earn their citizenship (those who serve in the military are an exception). 100% luck based being born here so not sure why natives should have special priority over others who want to work and pay taxes here.
@@spraynpray Even if all government handouts are eliminated, open borders is an attack on private property rights.
Work out that idea of open borders to the full extent of the libertarian philosophy. With the elimination of the state's authority and ownership, an open border policy would refuse private property owners freedom of association. It would require private land owners to allow passage through their land (even if they do not consent). To fully support an open borders policy in a libertarian society would necessitate the erosion of self-ownership. What miles are taken from giving up that inch is up to the imagination.
A national open borders policy would require enforcement against non-compliant private citizens; a breech of the NAP.
@@ruskininja6168 You see confused or have it exactly backwards. If you had 100% property rights, then anyone can come into an area who is invited. Your restrictionist views violate the property rights of those who are invited if you intend to have government stop them. In the case of minarchism, you are conflating public and private property. No one owns public property, so no rights are violated when public property is occupied by immigrants or natives. And I'm not aware of any open border advocates who support trespass of private property.
Your opinion (I agree with it) but just know this isn't a liberal or libertarian position.
It’s so sad that Justin couldn’t turn the right into a more liberal party.
I’m a conservative libertarian and I would love someone like Justin to be the leader of the party over almost every other GOP rep.
It’s an old question but important and not addressed in this great interview. If you do build a ground work that can attract the 1/3 or 1/4 not represented by the Democrats or Republicans what prevents either or both to pivot and try to take that ground. If they do that would be great but is disadvantageous to a legitimate third party? I guess you have to assume both are so polarized that neither would bend.
What's the loss? If the Republicans or Democrats take voters away from the LP by being more like us, aren't we still getting what we want?
I suppose the question is answered by your goal. Is your goal the furtherance of the LP or the furtherance of liberty?
We need to reject the anarchists from the party. This statement is going to make some people mad, I know. But anarchy won’t work, as it never has and frankly never will work, and voters know that and will reject those who they associate with anarchy. We need to focus instead on liberty oriented policies that will appeal to the masses.
This is wise. Well-intended anarchists will still support this direction, because they'll see a reduction in government power. Ill-intended anarchists (those who are animus-possessed, delusional, self-promoting, etc.) will not support this direction...but they'll absolutely never register thousands of people into the Libertarian Party, recruit candidates, or gather significant numbers of nominating petition signatures. Why won't they? Because if they do, they'll become jury-nullification-advocating-minarchists...because they'll see that that's the pathway that most-reduces and most-quickly-reduces the abusive powers of government (while leaving untouched the few non-abusive actions of government, such as arresting serial murderers).
Reacnn is trying to pump Amash now because we was the one to take the least aggressive stance against the mises caucus, and they still need some kind of claim to being libertarian.
know any good libertarian channels?
@@patrick7842 Dave Smith, Tom Woods Show, Michael Malice
@@patrick7842 I second all those suggestions. Dave Smith's podcast is called Part of the Problem. Tom Woods just had an appearance on Viva & Barnes and it's a great introduction to who Tom is. I would also suggest Eric July, Scott Horton, Lions of Liberty, Drew Hancock, Good Morning Liberty, Break the Cycle.
The problem with the loser brigade LP was that it had been wholly rejected by small (l) libertarians. If the purpose of the LP is to collect together libertarians, it had failed.
Correct. ...It failed because of Bill Redpath. He's the "single failure point." For 20 years, he alone allocated the fungible assets of the LP. Projects that were making progress, he pulled the plug on. Projects that can't be viable, he allocated more money towards. He stopped hiring LP activists to do the petitioning, or demoted them below self-proclaimed big-D Democrats. It's unknown if he did this because he's a fed, it's just known that he did this. He still appears to be in charge of funds allocation, even with no title.
The LP membership are "a few idiots who have no idea what their own party is doing." Maybe Randy Barnett is right, and LPers should just join the GOP and try to influence who wins primaries within it. This would be sad, but it's starting to look like the only way we can overcome the feds. The IC is just too smart, and "libertarians" are just too dumb.
I say this having registered over 5,000 people into the Libertarian Party in one year -2005. (And in the same districts...so...not "spread out so as to make a wasted effort"...Redpath curtailed my work, and then wasted it even though it was well-designed. This is why I suggest the LP is incapable of overcoming federal informants...such people control the LP. If the LP "anarchists" don't care to get their heads out of their asses, nothing they do will ever matter.)
Justin wouldn't have a career if it wasn't for Ron Paul and his supporters. He owes Paul and his people.
I supported him until he put the interest of his profitable business above what is good for our country. Amash is seriously compromised. Can you say China?
This is rich coming from a guy who refused to run for re-election upon becoming a Libertarian...
Honestly, I wouldn't want to try to run for anything with the LP behind me. The LP has been conceptually and philosophically broken for my entire adult life. Even with Ron Paul, the LP couldn't stop preening in the mirror impressing themselves with their own rhetoric about 'values' long enough to stop and consider other people and what they could be doing to help people who could help them later. There is an anti-pragmatic arrogance that holds the LP back...like Thomas Paine level arrogance.
That’s because it would be basically impossible for him to win after bashing Trump in a deep red district
The man can choose his battles. That's actually a good thing.
@@josephahner3031 never fighting is NOT "choosing your battles".
@@fortusvictus8297 he is here claiming the ENTIRE PURPOSE of political parties is to get people elected though.
What do you think religions just provide an alternative to lack of faith or do they go about converting people
Do think business set up shop hope someone will come along and buy something or do they advertise
Building a grass roots movement that wins small local office that builds on that success is better then the Hail Mary approach
Not to say we should throw them but they can’t be the only thing the party does every 4 years
Huh?
This guy is a grifter. I don't want people like this anywhere near the LP. A greasy politician is all I see.
@@robinvegas4367 yeah I want the party to be open to everyone
now watch me gate keep
He got elected to office off the back of Ron Paul’s coat tails and with the support of the Ron Paul people
He acts like he is a big shot based on his own merit turning his noise up at the people who helped him achieve the success he did
The LP should be for ending fractional reserve lending and be for the Federal government creating money to fund itself instead of taxes.
So, ending the Fed.
Not a crazy narc. That's a qualifier at this point.