9/4/2017: Updated with articles mentioned during the discussion (listed below listener questions).
Just wrapped an hour with Dr. Walter Block. He defends the undefendable, the Libertarian Party!
The article that promoted this discussion:
Here is the slide deck from the video:
Jason Stapleton stapling Sarwark to the wall:
Here is the show on Idiocracy that we did with Adam Kokesh:
Here are the questions we tried to cover that were submitted from the Tom Woods Facebook Group, the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus Facebook Group, and our very own Actual Anarchy Cadre – An Island of Sanity in the Facebook Asylum which you can join by supporting on via Patreon:
Is Sarwark really a genius? He’s rallying the troops to the LP to quash is insane accusations against LvMI, Rockwell, Woods, Murphy, Deist.
Re: the store appearing at Jack, it appears they are trying to legitimize Weld as a Libertarian. Clearly he is not, whether he is a card carrying party member or not. They are probably posting articles like this to come across as Libertarians.
Joe G. Sir, do you realize this was posted on a Weld/Johnson shill site? Do you think the LP should allow those who clearly do not hold the principles of Liberty (like Weld) to run for President/Vice President?
Mike C. The problem is that the primary people driving people to leave the LP just so happen to be… the leadership of the LP. We need the LP to stop attacking libertarians.
We need well-read people of intelligence, honesty and integrity at the head of the LP, and sadly, at the moment, we don’t have that.
Matt B. What type of qualities should an LP Chairman have?
Luke E. “By what standard would you call Johnson/Weld getting 3% a ‘sterling accomplishment’, especially in the context of the promises made, the repulsiveness of the major candidates, and comparable gains by other third-party candidates?”
Joe M. Does he regret voting for Trump? Joe M. Fine, does he regret endorsing Trump?
Joey D. How’s that trump vote working out for you ?!
Brody R. “Always keep in mind the non-aggression principle and private property rights based on homesteading and legitimate (voluntary) title transfer. These are the bedrocks of our beloved philosophy. Let us all become Rothbardians and Ron Paulians now.”
What needs to happen for the LP to be the Rothbardian and Ron Paulian version of libertarianism? Brody R. Especially considering some members of the LP don’t accept private property norms. Think rent is theft, capitalism is evil, etc.
Ken B. How is his position on abortion not like inviting someone to live with you and then shooting them for trespass?
Jeff C. Yeah. Ask him if he still holds to this position:
“Would it ever be possible, under libertarian law, for a baby to be abandoned by its parents… and the baby be relegated to death? Yes.”
Walter Block, “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” 281.
Keith T. I realize I’m a newbie to the LPMC, but we should be rallying behind the LP to support it not driving people to leave.
For those who feel changes are needed in the LP, the surest way is to make that change happen through positive action, not withholding support or negative attacks.
The LP gets enough negative attacks on a daily basis and we have a thick skin. That’s not the way we better the Party.
If you think we should have better marketing, step up and volunteer at Design for Liberty.
If you think the website needs to be better, volunteer to be on the I.T. committee – they need people badly.
If you think the LNC needs different representation, run for the LNC or at the very least contact your regional or at-large rep about it where something can be done.
If you think the LP should field better Presidential candidates, court people to run. Be a delegate. Get involved. The LP is primarily volunteer driven; that’s one of the best things about the Party. If you want change, you can make it happen. The same cannot be said for the old parties.
Josh F. Does anyone else think the elite (political elite not Tom Woods elite) use the left right paradigm to keep us divided and therefore easier to rule over us? I’m very frustrated that this is leaking into the libertarian movement. It is tearing us apart and not helpful. I’m all for debated what liberty or anarchy looks like, or should look like, but how about we work together to dismantle government before we start arguing with each other about the minutia.
Patrick D. Direct quote from Nicholas Sarwark during his discussion/debate on JSP, “Part of the reason they [white supremacists] like Tom Woods libertarianism and The Mises Institute libertarianism because it follows a Hoppian line that says that we can exclude people that are not like us from our communities or from our property and people who want to set up a white ethno state like it if your movement says, “Yup, that’s totally ok and fits into libertarianism”.”
My take, the L.P. Chair just negated the idea that you don’t have property rights. How can we have this? Is he suggesting the L.P. stands for a hand interfering saying an institution can negate this? If that is the case, where does that “protective” government hand stop in accordance to Sarwark’s ideology? Sounds very Marxist to me.
Actually, after Sarwark’s pathetic showing on JSP, I think it might be time to create a libertarian right alternative to the L.P. for people that are followers of Tom, Jason, and Dave Smith to join since Sarwark made it very obvious many of us aren’t members, and Jason made the point that it’s because it doesn’t reflect a lot of our values anymore. What would be a good party alternative name that keeps a libertarian theme to it to be marketable to people who may not have yet been exposed to our complete ideals but know of some of our pillars in the political main stream? The Taxation is Theft Party? The Libertarian Bull Elk Party? I’m curious.
Mark D. It’s time to rally behind the truth that politics is the sham belief that power protects liberty. Nothing is more disingenuous than that type of claim.
America was indeed a conception of liberty. As many conceptions go, the execution fails to live up to the promise.
Democracy is soft #Collectivism and the additional concept that we are condemned to live as prisoners of a failed ruse on the part of the Founders using the illegitimate concept of Social Contract is as irksome as scabes. The only thing contracted was an infection of Police Statism, the original Social Disease.
Ryan M. Ask him about his certainty concerning the downward sloping demand curve for labor. That’s awesome that he’s coming on for an interview!
Russ L. One thing that gnawed at me about Sarwark’s focus on votes as a metric of success: if all the LP focused on was becoming a lite version of either the Republicans or Democrats, who the hell cares how many votes it got? Can Sarwark point to any impact the LP had on the national debate? Did either Clinton or Trump have to address any libertarian/NAP points because either Johnson or Weld forced them to? Absolutely not. If anything, Weld did more harm than good by giving more positive press to Clinton than to his freaking running mate! Which makes his focus on the intellectual leaders of the libertarian movement that much more infuriating. He’s far more interested in getting numbers than making sure people understand the libertarian message. In other words, he’s just another politico. Why bother working with a tiny political party if it’s going to fail on the very metric it’s going to use as a measure of success?
UPDATE: Monday, September 4th, 2017
Articles mentioned during the discussion:
Block, Walter E. and Nathan Fryzek. 2017. “Poverty Inc. An Economic and Ethical Analysis.” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics; Vol. XIX, No. 2, pp. 431-456
Block, Walter E. 2012. “Thymology, praxeology, demand curves, Giffen goods and diminishing marginal utility” Studia Humana; Volume 1:2, pp. 3—11 http://studiahumana.com/pliki/wydania/Thymology,%20praxeology,%20demand%20curves,%20Giffen%20goods%20and%20diminishing%20marginal%20utility.pdf
Block, Walter E. and William Barnett, II. 2012. “Giffen Goods, Backward Bending Supply Curves, Price Controls and Praxeology; or, Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Boogie Man of Giffen Goods and Backward Bending Supply Curves? Not Us.” Revista Procesos de Mercado, Vol. IX, No. 1, Spring, pp. 353-373
Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2010. “Mises never used demand curves; was he wrong? Ignorant? No: The Antimathematicality of Demand Curves.” Dialogue, Vol. 1, pp. 23-31, March; http://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/title.asp?lang=en&title=101
Block, Walter E. and William Barnett. 2009. “Monopsony Theory.” American Review of Political Economy June/December, Vol. 7(1/2), pp. 67-109; http://www.arpejournal.com/ARPEvolume7number1-2/Block-Barnett.pdf; http://www.arpejournal.com/
For the history you didn’t learn in school, check out Liberty Classroom: