”What Is Going on with Libertarian Party?The battle over the Libertarian Party can be viewed as a battle between entrepreneurs and bureaucrats. Objectively, the LP has failed over half a century. What should we do about it?
Bureaucrats: Do more of mostly the same thing
Entrepreneurs: Try radically different things.”
I don't think that bureaucrats vs entrepreneurs is the main cause of the conflict in the Libertarian Party (LP).
Had they won the LP primary, the Mises Caucus would've been pushing their own presidential candidate, aka the same failed strategy the LP has pursued for 50 years.
Forming a coalition with social conservatives / white nationalists is also a failed strategy, having been tried by Murray Rothbard back in the 1960's and the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul crowd in the 1990's. (And is a failed strategy today, as demonstrated by the heavy net loss of LP members / volunteers since the MC took over the national LP.)
The main causes of the conflict are:
Instead of accepting their primary loss gracefully, and rallying to help the duly elected LP candidate win, Mises Caucus leaders have badmouthed / sabotaged Chase Oliver at every turn, and are actively stumping/raising money for competing authoritarian politicians. (In contravention of their own stated principles, and LP rules at both the state and national level.)
On policy issues, whenever there's a conflict between authoritarian laws to assuage their fear of immigrants/Jews/blacks vs pro-liberty policies, the Mises Caucus partisans almost always favor authoritarian measures.
For example, Mises Caucus leaders have expressed support for:
zoning laws (the single biggest cause of high housing costs in New Hampshire)
thought police empowered to forcibly deport / shoot "socialists" ( and a very broad definition of "socialist" that includes "gay race communist" Chase Oliver )
roaming Judge Dredd-style cops empowered to summarily execute addicts / homeless people in public parks
assassination of politicians of competing ideologies
immigration suppression laws / "paper's please" police state
"physical removal" of the Jews
All the policies above violate the ethical/economic principles libertarians normally support:
property rights
freedom of trade
freedom of association
presumption of innocence
methodological individualism
habeus corpus (right to speedy trial)
equality before the law (no special privileges based on race, sex, religion, etc)
Libertarians also typically oppose:
collective guilt / punishment
central planning
warrantless surveillance
"no knock" raids
"papers, please" internal travel controls
As a New Hampshire nationalist, I wouldn't care very much, except that
many of the worst offenders live in New Hampshire
libertarians nationally are judged by the behavior of the national LP and its state affiliates.
In order for Porcupines to achieve the reforms we want in New Hampshire, we have to:
attract many more libertarians to NH
win elections
successfully guide reform legislation to passage
Yet the NH population is still overwhelmingly dominated by progresssives / conservatives, who outnumber libertarians by at least 5:1.
Therefore, to win office, we will need at least the acquiescence of the (non-libertarian) general public for the foreseeable future.
Passing legislation will also require substantial cooperation of the NH Congress, the governor's office, and the courts, all likely dominated by conservatives and progressives for the foreseeable future.
Yet when we should be presenting ourselves in the best light possible, the NH Mises Caucus is posting the political equivalent of kitten barbecuing videos.
The more libertarians who move to New Hampshire, the easier we will win.
But who wants to go through the expense of moving to New Hampshire, only to be surrounded by authoritarian white nationalists? Who wants to work side by side with obnoxious hypocrites who will backstab you if they get a chance?
The Mises Caucus behavior makes it more difficult to attract libertarians to New Hampshire, and more difficult to win office once they arrive.
IMO, the national LP should neither devolve into a white nationalist Republican Mini-me, nor repeat the failed strategies of the past.
Instead, the national LP should promote the "libertarian Switzerland" strategy, and do the following:
Push to divide the LP into two parties: the Classical Liberal Party, and the Hoppean Party. (Names are placeholders for now.)
IMO, there is insufficient trust and commonality of vision and values for Hoppeans and old school libertarians to work together any longer. We would both be better off if we divorced and went our separate ways.That way, neither the old school libertarians nor the Hoppeans are forced to collaborate with people whose values and behavior they find repugnant. The "Libertarian Party" trademark, mailing lists, Twitter accounts, and any other assets that remain could be divided up in a "you divide, I pick" fashion.
Push for free private city / canton / internal secession legislation in New Hampshire and devolve as much power to lower levels as possible. This will help NH libertarians, Hoppeans, progressives, and conservatives to be able to live together more peacefully, as people could self-assort into cities/cantons whose values and governance principles match their own.
Raise money for a national advertising campaign to educate libertarians on the rationale for the "libertarian Switzerland" strategy, and why it's the best national strategy for now
Recruit libertarians to the Free State Project
Raise money for scholarships to help young people to establish themselves in New Hampshire
Push for zoning law reforms in New Hampshire, to allow more libertarians to move
Libertarians (whether of the left, right or center variety) are far too few to waste precious time and resources squabbling with each other.
We're both overwhelming outnumbered by people who differ much more from us, than we do from each other. It's in both our interests to find ways we can peacefully collaborate on those issues where we have common ground (guns, taxes, welfare reform, etc) and stop fighting about the issues where we don't.