• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Libertarian Party Goes Crazy

You know, this is a perfect opportunity for you to show off how much you know about the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement by describing how the Mises caucus is different from other factions. Please elucidate.
They say the quiet part out loud. Not cool Mises.
You didn't answer the question.

The Mises Caucus that has taken over the National Libertarian Party wants to disolve the United States Of America into a bunch of independent nations. This is beyond batshit crazy. I am sure that this will make the New Libertarian Party under new management very popular in future elections, local and national.
Okay, lots of emotive opinions but no elaboration.

This new Libartarian Party is even crazier than the LaRouchites were back in the day Lyndon LaRouche ran for president while in federal prison.
You know people are getting desperate when they compare libertarians to a Democrat.

Wikipedia - Mises Caucus

PlatformEdit

The Mises Caucus claims in their platform that they

Yes, no more nation, no states. Anarchy.

Finally an actual answer.

You think that opposition to central banking is crazy.
You think non-interventionism is crazy
You think opposition to identity politics and opposition to collectivism and embrace of individualism is crazy.
You think property rights are crazy.
You think the concepts of decentralization and secession are crazy. Especially decentralization.

Therefore you think the Mises Caucus is crazy.

Some people think the lack of a strong central authoritarian government is anarchy. They're wrong.
 
You didn't answer the question.
Yes I did. Just because you aren't satisfied with my answer doesn't change that. Hate to break it to you, but anyone with basic reading comprehension can see my post clearly answers
describing how the Mises caucus is different from other factions.
You gave an emotive rant telling us you don't like them. You left out any positions they actually take that differentiate them from other factions. That's not answering the question.
 
Wikipedi. - Mises Caucus

In June 2021, the Mises-controlled New Hampshire affiliate made controversial tweets calling for "legalizing child labor", repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and re-opening Gitmo "so that Anthony Fauci and every governor that locked their state down can be sent there".

Nothing crazy to see here.
 
Wikipedia - Mises Caucus

PlatformEdit

The Mises Caucus claims in their platform that they

Yes, no more nation, no states. Anarchy.

"Every man a king. Every woman a queen. Every child and pet a serf."
- Church of the SubGenius

No more dollars, pesos, or loonies. Barter and live chickens as currency. The sovereign kingdom of Bubba and Karen Gump. All 1 1/2 acres of it. The more you look into all of this and think about, the funnier it gets. This either the most brain damaged political movement since the "Queen of Canada, Romana Dilulo" or the greatest political prank since Q.

It is interesting that in criticism of your post, the completely batshit crazy ideas of the Mises caucus are left out and only the more mainstream ideas are used to make them seem like Average Joes. Therefore, it is worthwhile to list out a couple of items that were cherry-picked out of the list in criticism of your post:
  • "reject ... state-issued currency ..."
  • "support ... secession ..."
In addition, I think if you go to their platform and read the elaboration of their ideas, one more is more extreme than how it was phrased and another continues the batshit crazy:
  • ... We advocate ... the abolition of all laws regulating private ownership of firearms. We advocate ... alliances with none. We advocate a precipitous reduction of nuclear weapons. ... We reject the first use of sanctions, which are a form of siege and therefore an act of war. ...
  • One’s lifestyle is merely an extension of one’s property rights.
 
Nobody on the left thinks anyone ought be deprived of individualism, only of the myth of absolute independence.

Humans are interdependent as a species and this has only become more true over the years.

This myth that any human can be ruggedly independent of the other people just needs to fucking die.

The myth of absolute independence

A Day In The Life of Joe Republican

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards.

He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too because his employer needs to offer competitive benefits to hire the best people.

Joe prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

Joe drives to work in one of the safest cars in the world because some liberal fought to raise safety standards and emission controls.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with good pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC up to $100,000 because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from greedy, unscrupulous bankers like the ones who ruined the banking system before the Republican Great Depression.

Joe needs to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican's might still be sitting in the dark!)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)

Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".
 
Wikipedi. - Mises Caucus

In June 2021, the Mises-controlled New Hampshire affiliate made controversial tweets calling for "legalizing child labor", repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and re-opening Gitmo "so that Anthony Fauci and every governor that locked their state down can be sent there".

Nothing crazy to see here.
Or ironical for so-called libertarians calling for incarceration for the non-criminal activity at the time of their action.


As with almost all isms, the underlying principles are not the problem. The issue is recognizing the limits of principle over practicality. Kneejerk preference for private markets over public action is an example. Gov't money provides ease of transactions in commercial activity - something private money does not do as well. To advocate the something so useful in everyday life indicates a real lack of understanding of the world. In today's world, private money and public money co-exist with public money providing the backstop for valuation and trade.
 
So it has been established that their calls for individual autonomy, individual liberty, political decentralization, and even secession makes them crazy according to the collectivist centralizers on this forum. Oh, and of course their support for a non-interventionist foreign policy and a free market domestically.

What makes the Mises Caucus different from the other factions?

By the way, I'll give some information on the inner activities within the Libertarian Party as well as the larger libertarian movement. When two factions are going against each other, it is a common insult for one faction to label the other faction as being too much like one of the big parties. The Raw Story article found an opposing faction saying "they're like the Republicans", and has decided that must be gospel truth and evidence of something important.

The one thing I've wondered is if anyone here has any idea what makes the Mises Caucus different from other factions within the Libertarian Party. So far I've gotten "they support individual liberty" (all the factions do that), "they support individual autonomy" (all the factions do that), "they support political decentralization" (all the factions do that), "they support the free market" (all the factions do that), "they support non-intervention" (all but one of the factions do that), and "they support secession" (most of the factions do that).

What makes them different?

No, Patooka, your emotive rant isn't an answer.
 
No, Patooka, your emotive rant isn't an answer.
Not only is it an answer, it's the right one. Reread it if you are having trouble.
Nice attempt at a derail. Your emotive rant of "they say the silent parts out loud" doesn't say what those silent parts are. You didn't give an answer of what policy positions separate the Mises Caucus from other factions.

Try facts next time.
 
No, Patooka, your emotive rant isn't an answer.
Not only is it an answer, it's the right one. Reread it if you are having trouble.
Nice attempt at a derail. Your emotive rant of "they say the silent parts out loud" doesn't say what those silent parts are. You didn't give an answer of what policy positions separate the Mises Caucus from other factions.

Try facts next time.
Oh. I thought it was fairly clear. You didn’t get it?

“Said the quiet parts out loud” usually means that someone revealed motivations that were previously hidden behind dry technical justifications that never quite resonated or seemed justified, but seemed to hint, just barely, at an implicit motivation based on less popular ideas that often include in-group/out-group goals; and the newly explicit revelations that, yah, we are hiighly motivated by in-group/out-group goals.

So when someone says that the difference between two groups is that one “says the quiet part out loud,” it’s quite clear and the facts they are pointing to are the instances of that group, indeed, saying things explicitly compared to the other group not touching those statements aloud.

So in the context of:

You know, this is a perfect opportunity for you to show off how much you know about the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement by describing how the Mises caucus is different from other factions. Please elucidate.
They say the quiet part out loud. Not cool Mises.

Are you saying that you don’t think there exist in the Mises Caucus a loud (indeed leadership-level) faction that is talking about uncomfortable topics? I highlighted in red some public discussion of this topic:

Criticism[edit]​

The Mises Caucus has been highly controversial within and outside the Libertarian Party.[6][12] The caucus has been accused of harboring racists,[12] anti-semites,[37] and transphobes,[12][28] although the caucus strongly denies this claim.[a]

In his resignation letter as LNC chair, Bishop-Henchman accused the Mises Caucus of having a "toxic culture" and "bad actors" that is "destroying and driving people away from the party".[7][12][28] In June 2021, former congressman Justin Amash criticized the Mises-controlled New Hampshire affiliate for "edgelording" and being unprofessional in their messaging.[38][39]

Former New Hampshire legislator Caleb Dryer criticized the caucus for claiming neutrality in the culture war "while picking the right-wing side", and called it disingenuous.[12]

In December 2021, Jeremy Thompson, Libertarian Party of Massachusetts Director of Operations explained to the Libertarian National Committee how the comments from Mises-controlled Libertarian Party of New Hampshire were not just "mean words" but “actual harassment”.[40]

In May 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center claimed "Members of the Libertarian Party are concerned about the Mises Caucus winning control of the party at the May 26 national convention, ushering in an era of collaboration between the U.S.'s largest third party and the hard-right movement inside Republican Party”.[41] The SPLC also claimed Caucus chair and founder Michael Heise took donations from Patrick M. Byrne and endorsed Daryl Brooks for Governor of Pennsylvania.[41] Both Byrne and Brooks promoted the alleged conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.[42][43]

I tried to link to their web page, but for some reason it won’t load on my device.


At any rate, I think Patooka‘s post was pretty clear, and it didn’t take long at all to web search and find out if, indeed, part of the Libertarian party was, indeed, upset with the Mises caucus for, indeed, saying things out loud.

What exactly is your objection to his statement?
 
Every party slightly more free market than Lenin is accused of harboring racists and anti-semites, and now transphobes. That line of attack usually gets nothing but yawns.

Patooka emotively implied crap when he said "they say the quiet parts out loud" but never actually said anything.

Of course he didn't say anything, because if he did he'd be called upon to support his statement, which he cannot do. That's why all he does is make emotional implications.
 
Of course he didn't say anything, because if he did he'd be called upon to support his statement, which he cannot do. That's why all he does is make emotional implications.
I guess it's easy being right if one just casually dismisses any argument one disagrees with.
 
Of course he didn't say anything, because if he did he'd be called upon to support his statement, which he cannot do. That's why all he does is make emotional implications.
I guess it's easy being right if one just casually dismisses any argument one disagrees with.
I've yet to see an argument to dismiss, not that you've ever provided one before.
 
Wikipedi. - Mises Caucus

In June 2021, the Mises-controlled New Hampshire affiliate made controversial tweets calling for "legalizing child labor", repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and re-opening Gitmo "so that Anthony Fauci and every governor that locked their state down can be sent there".

Nothing crazy to see here.

Why do you hate Liberty, Charlie? Shouldn't a child (or the child's owners if the child is below a certain age) have the Liberty to freely negotiate a labor contract with an employer? Leftists ignore that for centuries, the servitude of indentured servants or serfs was usually to comply with contracts that the servant/serf or his/her ancestor had entered into freely.

The Civil Rights Act was a dreadful assault on Liberty. Innkeepers no long have the Liberty to deny food or lodging to Nigras or other undesirables. That's fascism.

I'm less sure of the incarcerations at Gitmo since in Libertopia there is no central government. I suppose Americans with Guns should have the Liberty to round up Fauci and others opposed to Liberty, and deliver them to prisons or re-education camps.

THis plain nuts. I mean really nuts. Totally whacko. Millions would probably want this. Since America seems now to be filled with tin foil hat wearing whackjobs.

You'd better be sure that Libertopia allows all kinds of money. And you'd better carry all kinds with you if you're traveling. Otherwise you might go hungry looking for a restaurant that accepts either silver or ethereum, if that's all you carry. Find a money-changer and change some of your money into gold or bitcoin if that's what the locals in that town prefer.

This is high-tech Libertopia so there will be websites informing you of how much the money-changers are cheating you. Be careful though: The local WIFI operator has the Liberty to use a bogus DNS.

Libertopia won't be much different from U.S.A. You can dine at restaurants that are inspected if you choose. Just read the fine print in the contract before ordering: there's no fascist federal food inspection, so some restaurants may rely on Jane & Jill Food Inspections, others on Jill & Jane. (Not the same as the Jill & Jane Inspections seen via the bogus DNS.) If entrepreneurs are smart enough to exploit the bogus DNSes, that's Liberty and Capitalism at their finest. Caveat Emptor! Sic Semper Tyrannis!

You didn't answer the question.
Jill Biden thinks I'm a breakfast taco.
No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA
The word "know" has one silent k.
The word "knuckle" has two silent k's.
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.
Yes I did. Just because you aren't satisfied with my answer doesn't change that. Hate to break it to you, but anyone with basic reading comprehension can see my post clearly answers
describing how the Mises caucus is different from other factions.
Jill Biden thinks I'm a breakfast taco.
No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA
. . .
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.
You gave an emotive rant telling us you don't like them. You left out any positions they actually take that differentiate them from other factions. That's not answering the question.
Jill Biden thinks I'm a breakfast taco.
. . .
The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

So, as he has done consistently in the past, Jason supports "Libertarianism" without deigning to point to any specific beyond "Look in the dictionary." Can you at least answer simple questions, Jason?

* - You have the Liberty to prevent your kids from being injected with Bill Gates' nanobots; Do the saner denizens have the Liberty to keep your possibly-infected brats out of the local schools?

* - How old must the child be before it can negotiate contracts independent of its owner? And I assume the owners have the Liberty to sell their chattel to others, right?
 
It seems to me that libertarians, like anarchists, are best defined by the policies they oppose than the ones they support. Both anarchists and libertarians tend to oppose government regulations that restrict personal liberty. However, unlike anarchists, libertarians are somewhat vaguely committed to some sort of minimally necessary government regulation. They just disagree on the details of what is minimally necessary. Hence, Jason prefers to define policy positions in more positive terms--for example, support for individual autonomy, individual liberty, and political decentralization. The "quiet part" or libertarianism is what is best left unsaid about what is minimally necessary--a specific set of policies that spell out what they think being for individual autonomy, individual liberty, and political decentralization entails in real world terms. People on both the right and the left of the political spectrum can see themselves as libertarians, as long as they don't spell out the actual government policies that they oppose. So, whether one supports or opposes the Civil Rights Act should not be a barrier to joining the Libertarian Party. The problem is that the  Mises caucus does seem to spell out the real world policies that it opposes, and that does not sit well with all self-styled libertarians. It makes clearer what its version of a minimally necessary government ought to be doing, and that isn't what a lot of libertarians agree with. If you say that you oppose government regulation that protects the rights of minorities, that can piss off a lot of libertarians who think that such regulation is part of a legitimate government function.
 
Hey Swammerdami, I stated a few positions right in this thread.

The one thing I've wondered is if anyone here has any idea what makes the Mises Caucus different from other factions within the Libertarian Party. So far I've gotten "they support individual liberty" (all the factions do that), "they support individual autonomy" (all the factions do that), "they support political decentralization" (all the factions do that), "they support the free market" (all the factions do that), "they support non-intervention" (all but one of the factions do that), and "they support secession" (most of the factions do that).

Hm, I guess you missed that. Or, more likely, refused to read it because otherwise it would mean you have to acknowledge that I wrote it if you did.

No wonder you get so worked up over my signature - you think it is a personal attack on you.
 
Back
Top Bottom