FSP Executive Director @EricBrakey's speech (1) at the latest Liberty…

FSP Executive Director @EricBrakey's speech (1) at the latest Liberty Forum is inspiring.

I recommend that everyone read it.

However, two points galled me.

> Perhaps mass and rapid foreign immigration from non-Western nations — driven by refugee crises generated by foreign regime change wars — has degraded the sense of a unifying American identity rooted in classical liberal values.

First, what mass migration? Several countries have much higher percentages of foreign-born population than the US and are all relatively free (Dubai, Singapore, and Switzerland).

Second, classical liberals generally support freedom of movement, free trade, and property rights. [2]

If freedom of movement favored socialism, why do socialists like Bernie Sanders call open borders a "Koch brothers plot"?

If freedom of movement favors socialism, why do all communist states favor strict controls over their subjects' movement? See Cuba, the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, etc. [3]

Likewise, most of the immigration suppression laws on the books in the US were passed to placate white labor unions who did not like competing with immigrants (who were willing to work harder for less money).

Immigration suppression laws are an example of the socialist fatal conceit: that a centralized bureaucracy can make better decisions than individuals acting in their own self-interest in a free market.

> I will continue to work with any man or woman who cherishes liberty -- without litmus tests or favoritism to any single brand of libertarian thought.

Imagine that a company was trying to recruit you to move across the country.

Would you find it appealing to find out that the CEO openly called black people n*ggers? [4]

Would you find it assuring if the CFO had been caught secretly funneling company money to her boyfriend's shell companies? [5]

Would you be pleased to learn that the COO openly worked as a mafia enforcer who helps kidnap people who move into the mafia's territory without the Don's permission? [6]

Do you think that most libertarians want to associate with white nationalists, embezzlers, and kidnappers?

When you give such people long, friendly interviews on your podcasts, speaking slots at your conferences, and leadership positions in your organization, what do you think you are signaling to the undecided?

Who do you think will be attracted by such behavior?

Honest, principled libertarians who are committed to the "protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property"?

Or people who are themselves racists, thieves, and authoritarians?

When someone points out such bad behavior, should you acknowledge it, and refrain from further association from such individuals until they recant and make amends?

Or should you attack the whistleblower as a "purist" and suggest that they "build not bitch"?

The FSP has been the most successful LP political strategy to date.

But even so, only 10,000 people have moved to NH despite 20+ years of effort.

Free Staters have enough trouble attracting people to our cause to begin with.

Why make it harder by associating ourselves with thieving, white nationalist, government kidnappers?

Once you have a bad reputation, it's very hard to correct it.

In 1973, Richard Butler, an aeronautical engineer, moved with his wife Betty to Hayden Lake, Idaho.

In 1977, Butler established the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian along with the Aryan Nations.

Despite getting frequent international press coverage, the group only had about 200 members at its peak. They held a cross burning in my hometown, and there were more press people attending than Aryan Nations members.

Eventually, they were driven out when they lost a 6.3 million dollar lawsuit for harassing nearby hikers.

Despite making up a tiny percentage of the population (Idaho had about 1 million citizens at the time), and despite the fact that Butler died in 2004, Idaho has been painted as a racist enclave ever since. (3)

(Links in comments).