Why do Republicans seem to think they are owed support from Libertarians?

[Saint Milei]

While I don’t disagree , I will point out Reagan was the most libertarian president we have had economically since the 1920s. He pretty much replaced the old economic consensus with a far more libertarian friendly consensus called “neoliberalism”

Most hardcore libertarians would not agree with this. Trump did more for the liberty movement than Reagan

[Saint Milei]

I don't think this thread is relevant. I don't see the GOP really caring for the Libertarian Party the way they did a decade ago or even 5-6 years ago. Most libertarians, if they vote, are in the GOP at this point for a variety of reasons. I would also argue the current LP is barely libertarian outside the Mises Caucus which really does nothing besides edgelording on twitter and ranting about the GOP-Trump era not being as good as it is.


As for your specific points.
1. Trump is the least War on Terror president we've had and arguably the best foreign policy president since Eisenhower.

2. Mises Caucus exists so this isn't true. The LP has no unity on cultural issues and if we are being honest, the people in power are closer to pat buchanan culturally than an idiot like gary johnson.

3. The LP really can't make up its mind on this. Either be a purist and advocate for it outright or make some concessions. If you do the latter, I don't see a reason to hate the GOP. Local republicans are doing a lot on drug policy and there's better infrastructure in the GOP to actually get things done. I also don't get why the LP makes drug legalization a big issue. Yes, i know the wod is bad, but a lot of the LP's concerns are more about being degenerates and less about getting people out of prison. That's an issue.

4. I don't know if this is worth discussing.

5. This is true.


This seems more like a complaint about why you aren't supposed to automatically vote for the gop, not your average lp member.







I really don't care much for LP voters now anyway. The Mises Caucus is decent due to some of the prominent figures, but overall, the LP is closer to being a dem party that's slightly good on economics when they aren't advocating for COVID restrictions. I rarely vote and I'm still pretty much a doomer but I tell everyone who's a libertarian, if you do vote, it makes zero sense to not vote for the GOP.

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

2. It's not a debate which party is less likely to get involved in a war. Trump killed neoconservatism and took a knife to liberal internationalism. He didn't start a war (he certainly wasn't ron paul on fopo) and he made the GOP more accepting of a ron paul foreign policy. This is like the first time since the 1940s where a republican running for congress can run on an antiwar message and not get booed by 90% of the base. That's huge for a libertarian voter, especially if you came from the RP revolution which was pretty much a revolt against the War on Terror. You can't ignore the hawkishness of dems and even the stupidity of some beltway libertarians promoting more aggression now. It's obvious being against trump is more important than principle for a lot.

3. It's easier to convey libertarian ideas when you are apart of the GOP. We are tribal now. There's no way around it. Dems and Repubs are just gangs and you have to pick a side. Having an L by your name just alienates half the country that might actually listen to you if you had an R. Republican voters are increasingly willing to support some libertarian solutions: abolish/defund the fbi, police reform, attacking public schools, etc. In fact, this is the best time to advance libertarian goals due to trump's impact on politics.

[Saint Milei]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

[Saint Milei]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

Do Josh Hawley and JD Vance support:

- Medicare for All

- A Wealth Tax

They are definitely close to it imo.

[Saint Milei]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

Do Josh Hawley and JD Vance support:

- Medicare for All

- A Wealth Tax

They are definitely close to it imo.

[Mod deleted].

Lmao where are the mods

[Saint Milei]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

None of that is worse than Biden trying to push us to piss Russia off more and the COVID regime was more than just mask-wearing. And Jan 6th was nothing compared to the left encouraging the burning of cities in 2020. Let's not forget Dems spied on trump, weaponized the IRS against the right, and used big tech to censor half the nation. At the end of the day, it's obvious what states people are flocking too and it's certainly not the ones that were more supportive of Biden in 2020.

[Saint Milei]

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

The last Republican president and current party leader openly asked an authoritarian regime to hack the opposing party, attempted to strongarm local elections officials into fabricating votes in his favor, withheld congressionally mandated aid from a foreign nation in order to get them to dig up dirt on his opponent, and orchestrated a violent riot that culminated in the country's highest elected officials fleeing for their lives through tunnels while their building was occupied by fascist homunculi in shaman costumes.

But the Democrats made you wear a piece of fabric on your face I'm sorry you had to go through that. poor baby

None of that is worse than Biden trying to push us to piss Russia off more and the COVID regime was more than just mask-wearing. And Jan 6th was nothing compared to the left encouraging the burning of cities in 2020. Let's not forget Dems spied on trump, weaponized the IRS against the right, and used big tech to censor half the nation. At the end of the day, it's obvious what states people are flocking too and it's certainly not the ones that were more supportive of Biden in 2020.

What a ridiculous post.

1. How exactly did Biden "try to piss off Russia?" By not giving them the thumbs-up and saying everything was hunky dory when they began their brutal ethnic cleansing campaign? Biden's response to the Ukraine invasion has been one of the best parts of his presidency. His approach was clear from the beginning, he clearly had all the right intelligence on the invasion, and he has led an appropriate NATO response without embroiling us in the conflict. It is hard to imagine a better approach, and it is impossible to imagine Trump doing the same thing.

2. The Democrats spied on Trump because he was and continues to be a national security threat. I wish they'd done a better job of surveilling him, because then they might've realized he was in possession of illegal nuclear documents sooner and we could've avoided one of the biggest security leaks in our nation's history. Morons need looking after.

3. When has any Democratic politician "used big tech" to censor anyone? You are talking about private companies, and they are free to deplatform anyone they choose. The only people who care about this are extremely online alt-righters who think that private companies should be required to provide them with a service, which is essentially socialism.

4. I agree there is no comparison between a disorganized mob attacking a Racine, WI tire store and a sitting president ordering rioters to attack the seat of American democracy. The latter is clearly worse than the former and only an utter ignoramus would think otherwise.

1, Sending aid + supporting Ukraine joining Nato = provoking conflict. Better approach? No aid and no NATO bid.
2. Doing something illegal because of your delusion doesn't make something right. Regardless, I don't give a sh**t what the justification is. It's wrong and not legal.
3. Private companies being weaponized as an arm of the regime and democrats supporting censorship is clearly an issue. The altright is dead lmao nobody even talks about that in real life but they do talk about censorship and it isn't just "altrighters" complaining.
4. Yes, Trump texted people to attack the capital and burn everything down. And yet none of this happen. But what did happen in 2020 was the burning down of cities that Dems absolutely encouraged.

[Saint Milei]

You speak as if the law is something that exists upon people instead of among them.

If we're talking about literally *99% of people wanting you dead or something, it's happening.  The "law" only has effect because it's broadly consistent with consensus (or at least majoritarian) standards and beliefs.  Whether or not something is "legal" is immaterial - no judge or police officer has the balls (or even the ability) to enforce something over the objections of 99% of everyone else.   

The mob can always take my freedoms with force if it comes to that. I just don't want them having any illusions about being able to do this "within the system."

1, Sending aid + supporting Ukraine joining Nato = provoking conflict. Better approach? No aid and no NATO bid.

Not going to read any further than this. Isolationism is even stupider than neocon interventionism, and anyone who thinks Russia should be allowed to pave through Ukraine without any hinderance from US foreign policy is a lover of oppression and totalitarianism. Biden has struck an excellent middle ground in his approach.

No this is wrong given they are given section 230 protections so yes companies who censor no longer should get them

This makes no sense.

What's the point of making a thread about Libertarians when you aren't even with Libertarians on their biggest issue?

[Saint Milei]

1. I oppose Libertarian foreign policy but a core of libertarianism is isolationism or at most paleo-conservatism so if you oppose that I don't see how you can really call your self Libertarian Dule. I also think isolationism is stupid but thats why I am not a libertarian

What's the point of making a thread about Libertarians when you aren't even with Libertarians on their biggest issue?

"I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott, I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both of those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life." -Ayn Rand, the mother of libertarianism

Biden is using a more moderate version of this approach in his handling of modern Russia, and it is working. This might come as a shock to you guys, but libertarians generally don't love dictators and repressive authoritarian regimes!

Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian.

[Saint Milei]

This thread confirms the death of the libertarian wing on atlas. Only 3 exist

[Saint Milei]

I don't think this thread is relevant. I don't see the GOP really caring for the Libertarian Party the way they did a decade ago or even 5-6 years ago. Most libertarians, if they vote, are in the GOP at this point for a variety of reasons. I would also argue the current LP is barely libertarian outside the Mises Caucus which really does nothing besides edgelording on twitter and ranting about the GOP-Trump era not being as good as it is.


As for your specific points.
1. Trump is the least War on Terror president we've had and arguably the best foreign policy president since Eisenhower.

2. Mises Caucus exists so this isn't true. The LP has no unity on cultural issues and if we are being honest, the people in power are closer to pat buchanan culturally than an idiot like gary johnson.

3. The LP really can't make up its mind on this. Either be a purist and advocate for it outright or make some concessions. If you do the latter, I don't see a reason to hate the GOP. Local republicans are doing a lot on drug policy and there's better infrastructure in the GOP to actually get things done. I also don't get why the LP makes drug legalization a big issue. Yes, i know the wod is bad, but a lot of the LP's concerns are more about being degenerates and less about getting people out of prison. That's an issue.

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

Dem politicians are a bunch of moronic losers who are constantly fighting and feuding with each other.

The GOP, on the other hand, has an active plan and actions to back it up with regards to banning abortion and curtailing gay rights, which are things that Libertarians mostly support.

the gop feuds internally more than dems.


Anyone that thinks abortion rights are a libertarian cause doesn't know much about the libertarian movement. There is no active assault on gay people right now. Additionally, most libertarians don't use the expression "gay rights" and think government shouldn't be involved in marriage

[Saint Milei]

This thread confirms the death of the libertarian wing on atlas. Only 3 exist

Who are they?

jaichind, dead0man, and idk the 3rd

[Saint Milei]

This thread confirms the death of the libertarian wing on atlas. Only 3 exist

Who are they?

jaichind, dead0man, and idk the 3rd

dead0man recommended Dule’s thread though.

To my knowledge, dead0man isn't invoking ayn rand to support biden's policy towards ukraine/russia

[Saint Milei]

This thread confirms the death of the libertarian wing on atlas. Only 3 exist

Who are they?

jaichind, dead0man, and idk the 3rd

dead0man recommended Dule’s thread though.

To my knowledge, dead0man isn't invoking ayn rand to support biden's policy towards ukraine/russia

Do you have some kind of attention deficit disorder? You implied that libertarianism necessarily entailed a completely isolationist foreign policy, so I pointed out that the intellectual progenitors of libertarianism (including but not limited to Rand and Goldwater) endorsed much more hawkish approaches to foreign policy than I do. This completely disproves your point and if you had any self-awareness you would’ve dropped the subject by now.

Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian. Goldwater's son even said Goldwater was a foreign policy dove and when Goldwater ran for president, he wasn't a libertarian. Using statements from people that aren't libertarian to make a libertarian case for being a warhawk is idiotic and you should know this. It's obvious you don't have much exposure to the libertarian movement or are best a regime libertarian which is pretty much the cringe dorks on twitter masquerading as competent republicans with some affection for democrats

[Saint Milei]

Lmao anyone invoking Ayn Rand or Barry Goldwater to discuss libertarianism in 2022 isn't a libertarian. If Jaichind made it, this might have gone better.

[Saint Milei]

Lmao anyone invoking Ayn Rand or Barry Goldwater to discuss libertarianism in 2022 isn't a libertarian. If Jaichind made it, this might have gone better.

I’m trying to think of someone less qualified than you to be the arbiter of libertarianism, and I’m coming up dry. You are weirdly limiting your definition to modern Darryl Perryesque tea partiers while discussing a diverse ideology with intellectual roots that reach through several centuries. Libertarian thought did not spring into existence in 2009.

Water is wet. Please tell the class more about Ayn Rand