On November 1, Jacob G. Hornberger declared for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination. He is better known than the other declared candidates for that nomination. In 2000 he sought the party’s presidential nomination, losing to Harry Browne. For many decades he has headed the Future of Freedom Foundation. Thanks to Eric Garris for this news.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Good luck to Mr. Hornberger.
My only objection to Jacob Hornberger is that he’s a self professed minarchist who supports unlimited, unrestricted immigration, which is essentially supporting forced association and an assault on the property rights of Americans. Really foolish, anti-liberty position, especially for a minarchist to support. So Hornberger thinks the state should exist, although in a limited manner, but it should manage the public commons in a manner that invites unlimited trespass of foreign nationals, thus creating more conflict over scarce public resourses, and since he does not favor any ideological screening, and has not proposed anything to prevent these massive waves of foreign nationals from becoming citizens and voting, his policy would actually lead to more non-libertarians on the voter rolls, thereby further diluting the pro-liberty vote in this country, which, ironically, would go against everything else in which Hornberger claims to support.
I also question Mr. Hornberger’s level of courage in his convictions, because I am currently trying to line up a Libertarian immigration and border policy debate, and I got an agreement from Stefan Molyneux to participate. Mr. Hornberger is one of the people I contacted to debate the other side, and he declined the invitation! I have also contacted several others who are among the loudest voices for “open borders” and unlimited, unrestricted immigration, such as Bryan Caplan, and Alex Nowrasteh, among others, and so far all of them have chickened out.
My attitude on political debate is that I will debate anyone on any issue related to politics/philosophy. I lose respect for people who take a position and refuse to defend it in a debate.
Having said this, in spite of this flaw, I do think that Hornberger is better than Gary Johnson or Bill Weld, or anyone else who has been on the LP’s presidential ticket since 2004. He would not be among my top choices, but he’d still be an improvement over Gary Johnson.
Go Bumper, go!
Glad Hornberger turned down that debate invitation. He’s under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to debate Molyneux or whatever other white supremacists you were trying to promote. The people who turned down the invite didn’t “chicken out”, they just don’t want to associate with you. They’re exercising the coorect version of the “no forced association”, not the messed up version you’ve stated in this line:
“essentially supporting forced association and an assault on the property rights of Americans.”
That’s got problems on multiple levels. (1) Immigration isn’t any more “forcing” association than your mother “forced” me to associate with you by giving birth without asking my permission. Either way it’s another person. (2) Anyway, you can leave if you don’t like the company. (3) And if we’re talking about property rights, I’m an American, it’s my property, and I don’t need a white supremacist CANADIAN like Molyneux telling me who I can have on it.
What percentage of legal/illegal immigrants are PRO-Democracy folks ???
What percentage of legal/illegal immigrants are LOOTER folks – get more income from govts than pay to govts ???
Thus – the PRO-Democracy / NON-Looter pct = PDNL ??? Solve for PDNL.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
Andy’s big government wishes supporting the state control of migration is laughable since he is one who always ridicules others for not being “Libertarian” enough. Here’s a good book: https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960
“He is better known than the other declared candidates for that nomination.”
Love and appreciate you Richard, but I’m calling bullshit. Never heard of this guy, but Vermin Supreme has been featured on mainstream media outlets.
I meant Hornberger is better known inside the libertarian movement, not by the general public. His 2000 run for the nomination was a major effort. Also the Future of Freedom organization has been a mainstay for many decades.
Ditto what Jeremy Siple said – although both have been featured on mainstream media outlets, Vermin Supreme is also the subject of two documentary films and is probably better known than Jacob Hornberger.
Vermin and I did a little impromptu campaigning earlier this year when he visited San Francisco, and he was actually recognized by random strangers. I don’t think the same would have been true of Jacob Hornberger, however much of a mainstay he is in libertarian circles.
* * *
In response to Andy, just because someone enters the political jurisdiction in which you happen to reside, does not mean you are forced to associate with them. There are grounds on which open borders can be criticized – certainly some Nevadans are unhappy with the fact that anyone from California can just move to the state whenever they please – but calling a position “anti-liberty” which is clearly pro-liberty looks rather silly.
Andy also knows (because I’ve told him) that I’m willing to debate Stephen Molyneux on the issue of migration. If he’s going to publicly shame the freedom of movement advocates who’ve rejected his debate invitation, I think he should simultaneously publicly acknowledge those who’ve accepted.
While he hasn’t told me no, his response to me has been that he is hoping to find someone more well-known than I am before accepting my offer. But it may likewise be that the people who’ve turned him down are hoping to be invited by a debate organizer who is more well-known than Andy himself is!
It therefore seems that he is unfairly besmirching those individuals by branding them as “chickening out”. It would be like me assuming that Andy is “chickening out” by not accepting my offer to debate because he’s afraid that I might come across as more persuasive on the issue than the better-known Molyneux with his white supremacist baggage.
I am glad Hornberger has thrown his hat in the ring. He has my support for the nomination.
I think that the Libertarian Party should be called the Loonytarian party. However, the party is organized enough to get on the ballot on all, or most, states. No small feet.
Maxi govt = Donkeys/Elephants – esp WARS, Deficits, Debt, NET tax LOOTERS
Mini govt = LP – none of above
NOT that difficult to understand.
https://www.fff.org/
WEBSITE – COMPARE WITH THE NONSTOP COMMUNISM/FASCISM OF THE DONKEYS/ELEPHANTS
Mike Bauler- I was not aware that the Libertarian Party had small feet! 😉
I would imagine that the Looneytarian Party has feet of all different shapes and sizes
A feat of Mother Nature that there are so many political juveniles with 2 or more feet and ZERO brain cells in their 1 or more rock heads about the USA ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander regimes —
1/2 or less [plurality] votes x 1/2 [bare majority] rigged packed / cracked gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL
= ANTI-Democracy MINORITY RULE O-L-I-G-A-R-C-H-Y
with TYRANT MONARCHS – STALINS / HITLERS.
—
2019-2020 USA GOVT MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER MATH, 7 MAY 2019 V2
GERRYMANDER LOWLITES MINI SUMMARY —
A. 30.3 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED 218 D USA REPS OF 435 TOTAL IN 2018.
B. 19.2 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED 50 R USA SENATORS OF 100 TOTAL IN 2014-2018. [R VP]
C. 25.7 PERCENT OF THE VOTERS ELECTED R PREZ TRUMP IN 2016 – 270 of 538 ECV – 28 STATES + MECD2.
—
The 9 math MORONS IN SCOTUS [with their about 6+6+6 = 18 feet) have set the stage for Civil WAR II in Rucho v Common Cause, 18-422 (27 JUNE 2019) – Blank check to have rigged political concentration camp gerrymander districts.
See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) plus 1860 gerrymanders – stage set for 1861-1865 Civil WAR I – about 750,000 DEAD (2011 estimate).
—
PR and Appv and TOTSOP
Brandon, a purist libertarian society, that is an anarcho-capitalist society, would NOT have open borders, it would have PRIVATE PROPERTY borders, and property owners would be free to discriminate against anyone, for any reason. The anarcho-capitalist society would have no anti-discrimination laws, no welfare state, and no state elections, since there would be no state.
What those who push for open state borders, and unlimited indiscriminate immigration are pushing for has NOTHING to do with actual libertarianism (which is based on property rights), it is a leftist/socialist globalist agenda, whether they realize it or not, and that is why this view is also espoused by far left Marxists, and New World Order globalists, like the people you’ll find in ruling establishment groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, of which Bill Weld is a member, and given that Brandon is a Bill Weld supporter, it is not surprising to see that he supports the globalist agenda of “open borders” and mass migration, as pushed by the likes of George Soros.
Saying that the state, while it exists, should manage immigration in a way that a) does not invite destructive people into the country, and b) it should not invite in such a large number of foreigners that they displace the existing population, does NOT violate any libertarian principles, and it does in fact reflect libertarian property norms (as in it mirrors how property owners would manage their own property).
Wow Demo Rep… that sounds serious whatever it means. Do you have the iPhone 11 yet?
eeyn, people who take a political position and make it known to the public, but who refuse to defend that position, are intellectual cowards.
A person should be willing to defend their positions against ANYONE. You claimed that Stefan Molyneux is a “white supremist,” and therefore he should not be debated. I disagree with your assertion that Stefan Molyneux is a “white supremist,” but even if this was true, this would not be a valid argument for refusing to debate somebody.
Like I said above, I am willing to debate anyone on anything related to politics or philosophy, and I in fact do so on a regular basis. I prefer it if candidates for political office have that same debate anyone attitude.
eeyn says it is acceptable for people who take political positions in public, including those running for political office, to dodge debates if the person whom they avoid debate can have a nasty sounding label attached to them, never mind whether or not the nasty sounding label is even true. So given that this is eeyn’s stance, eeyn must also think that it will be acceptable for Donald Trump, and whoever the Democrats come up with as a candidate, to avoid debating the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President, be it Jacob Hornberger, or somebody else, if somebody attaches a negative sounding label to the Libertarian Party candidate, such as “wacko,” or “extremist,” or “delusional,” “loser,” or dangerous,” or “lunatic fringe,” or whatever, and that Donald Trump, or whoever the Democratic nominee is, will just be rightfully excercising their freedom of association by not debating such a candidate.
How dare a presidential candidate refuse to debate a white nationalist in an event set up by a random internet person
-Andy
How many invasions of regimes since Adam and Eve –
starting with reported murder of Abel by Cain ???
How many of those *PRIVATE* anarcho-capitalist societies so far in world history [esp – that survived ANY invasion] ???
How many of those Unam regimes in world history in which ALL folks agree on ALL laws A to Z [esp – that survived ANY invasion] ???
—
For the sane and rational —
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
The rest can look at their belly buttons and dream about having more feets in regimes having NO elections and NO ballot access problems.
I will admit that I did not know who this candidate was. I do not follow Libertarian Party internal affairs (beyond what I read here).
As far as a presidential candidate like Trump refusing to debate, you (Andy) may possibly have forgotten that the objective of major party candidates is to win. It’s a simple matter of deciding whether having someone like Hornberger on the stage is to his advantage. Cowardice or lack thereof doesn’t have a lot to do with it.
As far as Hornberger debating Molyneux, there’s no point and it would be a dumb idea. First, Molyneux isn’t a worthy opponent. There’s nothing to be gained by “beating” him in a debate, and to Hornberger’s credit he doesn’t even want to win the votes of the type of people likely to be in the audience.
Your whole narrative is silly. Like a high school kid who came in 3rd in the school boxing competition, issuing a Twitter challenge to a professional heavyweight champ, and then prancing about and saying “coward” when the pro declines.
I HAVE heard of Hornberger, and am glad that he is running. A pro-liberal immigration candidate would be ideal for the Libertarian Party in 2020. If he gets the nomination, he has my support.
https://reason.com
for newer folks with some brain cells.
Likely a story about JH in the next few months.
ALL State legislatures and many larger local govts have the same minority rule as in USA H Reps above —
about 30 pct — bit worse in top 2 primary States due to more non-votes if DD or RR choices.
Much much much worse primary math – communist/fascist nominees by the c/f gangs – who later get elected.
See 2019 USA Congress – full of gerrymander c/f MONSTER HACKS
— akin to 1860 gerrymander hacks re slavery — lead to 750,000 DEAD in Civil WAR I in 1861-1866 AND 13-14-15 Amdts in 1865-1870.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
I disagree that Jacob Hornberger is the best known out of the current list of declared candidates for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination. Adam Kokesh has over 70.9 million views on his YouTube channel, and he’s been viewed millions more times on other YouTube channels. He is easily more well known than Jacob Hornberger.
Also, I don’t know if John McAfee is still considered to be a candidate for the LP presidential nomination, but if he is, he is more well known that Kokesh and Hornberger combined.
Chafee is probably more well known too, except the fact he’s not even close to a libertarian.
Hornberger is better known than Ruff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries
wikis for all sorts of stuff
I do not think Lincoln Chafee is officially in the race, and I hope he does not jump into it, because like you said, he’s not a libertarian.
Jacob Hornberger may also be more well known than Arvin Vohara.
What about Vermin Supreme? He has announced, and he is more well known than Ruff and Vohara, and maybe even Hornberger, but Supreme is more of a joke candidate, and probably not really a libertarian.
Hornberger is the closest thing to a libertarian to have a shot at the LP nomination since 2004. Since this is going to be the most important presidential election EVER the wasted vote syndrome is going to be on full throttle. The media will drown out all coverage of everyone but Emperor Trump and the Anointed Successor. Go with a libertarian for a change. It’s not going to matter anyway.
How does Hornberger have a better shot than Kokesh?
Hasn’t every election been called the most important EVER?
How many *important* elections cause WARS – domestic and/or foreign ???
1860 *important* election >>> 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866.
“Hasn’t every election been called the most important EVER?” – me
Yep. I was being sarcastic. I guess I should have used an imoge. My point being that we get all this BS about this being the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER and it just serves to polarize the situation even more. In that environment I agree with Darcy Richardson’s assessment that minor party vote totals are likely going to be suppressed in 2020 so why NOT go with a real libertarian?
“How does Hornberger have a better shot than Kokesh?” – Andy
More accomplished, more mature and more presentable. Just my $0.02 worth.
Casual Observer, that is your opinion, but in terms of name recognition, Kokesh is a lot more known than Hornberger. I don’t think anyone can accuse Kokesh of not being “libertarian enough,” when he’s a self described anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist whose platform is to start an orderly shutdown and dismantling of the federal government. If anything, he is more libertarian than Hornberger.
I disagree with Kokesh’s interim immigration stance, as his position is basically the same as that of Hornberger, however, given that Kokesh wants to completely dismantle the federal government, his platform ultimately pushes all issues back to the states, so once the federal government was shut down, state governments could restrict immigration. Kokesh would like to shut down state and local governments as well, and bring all issues down to property rights, which I agree with him, but given that he is running for a federal office, and not a state or local office, that is beyond the scope of his campaign.
I am sure that Hornberger wants to eliminate the welfare state, which is great, and this would certainly go a long way toward fixing the problems associated with immigration, but Hornberger is a self described minarchist, and I have been aware of him since the 1990’s, and I have never heard of him calling for more restrictions on who can be an American citizen, or on voting, plus he puts out a bunch of whiny leftist sounding rhetoric about the “rights” (there is no right to trespass onto land, and/or to immigrate to another country) of poor “immigrants” (some can more accurately be described as invaders) to flood into the country in unlimited numbers, and he completely ignores cultural differences/cultural clashes, mindless ethnic block voting (of which many people engage), etc…, and he acts as though the public commons paid for by the American taxpayers is not just for use of the American taxpayers and lawful guests, but for everyone on the planet to exploit. He also completely ignores the Marxist/globalist agenda at play behind the current mass immigration agenda.
I have been aware of Mr. Hornberger for a long time, and I actually like and agree with most of his work, so it is not like I am completely opposed to the guy, I’d just prefer it if the LP ran a candidate who does not sound like a whiny leftist on immigration, and who put forth more realistic (not that any LP candidate for President stands a realistic chance of being elected President) immigration stance, based on property rights (which includes the right to discriminate/exclude), and reciprocity (as in that relationships must be reciprocal, as if not, the result is conflict), and which also best reflected the general views of the American population on the issue (as in most people do not mind some immigrants, but most people do not like parasitic immigrants, or immigrants who are hostile to their culture, and most people also do not want such a large volume of immigrants that they face demographic replacement).
Like you said, Andy… that is my opinion. I am also a minarchist. I am a constitutional libertarian federalist in the true meaning of all those terms.
I am not necessarily opposed to a hardcore minarchist/constitutionalist, I just don’t think that position is really consistent with open borders and unlimited, unrestricted immigration, as in one is saying that the state should exist, yet it should have a policy that allows anyone to enter, which means that if enough late commers enter who do not subscribe to the small government philosophy, they can change that small government into a big government. I fail to see the point of having a state if that state is not going to defend its citizens and land against foreign aggressors.
*modern* state = olde TRIBE
see book –
Outline of History by HG Wells – olde editions on internet – esp WW I pages.
I support and will send money to advance the virtues in the face of the vile corruption being exposed in wars costing thousands of lives daily. We need a sharp turn to justice, respect, kindness, empathy, compassion, prudence; all of which would deliver terrific diplomacy. Libertarians have the virtues. There is no more powerful force in the face of lies, corruption, rip offs, long term plans to chain people forever in expensive interest payments on money spent long ago.