The June 2024 Libertarian presidential primary in New Mexico will only list Lars Mapstead.
Comments
New Mexico Libertarian Presidential Primary Will Only List Lars Mapstead — 46 Comments
This is another fake party, if I’m not mistaken.
I don’t know if they are talking about the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, but it’s possible he could be talking about the Free Libertarian Party of New Mexico (which is the new LNC Affiliate for New Mexico after the original Libertarian Party of New Mexico disaffiliated in 2022)
The first one, which is the false party, because it is a statist party recognized by the state, and not a libertarian party recognized by the LP. Because it’s a fake libertarian statist party recognized by the state, it has access to state run primaries. The real libertarian party still has to petition for ballot access, if it pleases the crown.
These fake libertarian fraud parties deserve a special place in hell !!!
The Free New Mexico Party does not have ballot access, but it might get it next year. So this is the Libertarian Party of New Mexico which is not affiliated with the LNC.
LOL @ Andy typo
Sorry , no Andy typo, it was my misread
“Free Mexico party”
Hopefully it will indeed please the crown and the real libertarian party gets ballot access next year. Better yet if the impostors also lose theirs.
A true Libertarian would want to allow voters to vote for anyone they wish, so a true Libertarian would wish that every active party should be on the ballot, even if the true Libertarian doesn’t support its ideas.
HMM
ALSO 3RD PARTY RIGGED PREZ PRIMARY BALLOTS ???
—-
MORE REASONS TO ABOLISH THE MINORITY RULE EC
HOW SOON BEFORE A CA WALL ??? – KEEP CA R TAX SLAVES LOCKED IN–
UNDER CONTROL BY CA D COMMIES
Hi Richard, I think I am a true Libertarian, too.
@RW,
A true libertarian would not want the state regulating political parties including recognizing parties as being “qualified”
Richard Winger, I am not a libertarian, true or otherwise. I’ve voted for them at times. Other times not so much. Currently I am more Republican, and think the GOP will keep moving in my direction. If it doesn’t, I might consider the libertarians again, depending on how they evolve in the interim.
I think I understand libertarianism well enough to disagree with your contention.correct me if I’m wrong.
Allowing voters to vote for anything and anyone is majoritarianism , not libertarianism. The Russian word for majoritarian is Bolshevik.
Suppose for example that voters want to vote for something like Russian Bolsheviks or even more extreme in that direction. Is this something libertarians would want? Maybe if it’s preferable to having them express their opinion through violence, but it’s not either or for them – look up diversity of tactics if your not already well acquainted with it.
What if they might actually win, should libertarians want them on the ballot? Maybe, but I would hope only if they would not be easier to defeat by other means. Do you disagree?
You might counter that Bolsheviks would never win at the ballot. Maybe not overnight, or maybe not until a major crisis, but they can, do, and have chipped away at the opposition both through democratic and various other means relentlessly.
Consider how many ways the US and other countries are already more like Bolshevik Russia than 200, 100, 50, 25, 10 years ago. Bolsheviks and other totalitarians have won democratically in other countries. How can we know for sure what the future holds?
Is this what those of you who consider yourselves true libertarians really want? Should it be?
Again – I’m more conservative or traditionalist or reactionary than libertarian, but very libertarian leaning in many ways. I’m easily libertarian quintile on your oversimplified quiz or chart. Definitely not 100 / 100. I’ve read and correspondent with many libertarians at various lengths at times and still do.
But maybe I’m wrong. If so please explain how and why.
I would think the highest value of libertarians, like the highest value of conservatives or Bolsheviks etc, should be the advancement of their philosophy or directional goals.
I can assure you that Bolsheviks and the much more common fabians, gradualist or dishonest undercover Bolsheviks pay lip service to voting for whoever you want only if, when and how long it suits their actual end goal. If they tell you otherwise, they are lying. The same is true of their commitment to any other civil right or liberty.
Libertarians, at least if they’re smart, should take the same diversity of tactics approach to minimizing government as totalitarians take to maximize it.
I’ve read and talked to many libertarians who agree. Some even look at public choice theory, Infowars theory, randian theory etc to see why excessive democracy has a long term totalitarian leaning bias. If you’re not familiar with why I’ll explain it. If you disagree please explain why they are wrong.
Having said all that, I generally do under present circumstances support all kinds of parties being on the ballot.
Impostor parties like the fake libertarians are about the only practical exception to that right now.
AZ Spam trolling idiocy is tiresome to answer a million times over. How about a once per article discussion reminder to everyone else , if you care why I think he’s wrong, go ahead and ask.
George Whitfield, maybe you are. Maybe not. Please expound further. And or reply to that same post addressed to Mr. Winger.
It’s really @ anyone who agree with his unqualified categorical statement. If that’s really what you think all true libertarians do and should always believe, please explain why, in terms of your stated end goals.
Mr. Riley, are you a true libertarian? I wasn’t under that impression. If I had to guess I would guess maybe “centrist” or pre Trump mainstream establishment Republican or conservative. I could be way off. Maybe you don’t label your beliefs. Feel free to explain what you would call them and why or not as you see fit.
Regardless, you don’t have to be a libertarian to have an understanding of what libertarians should or should not necessarily agree on.
I have a lot of overlap with them, but significant enough difference that I don’t call myself one right now. YMMV. Libertarians, or at least a lot of them, love few things in life as much as arguing about who is or isn’t a libertarian. That in itself may be a significant reason why there aren’t more of them.
In any case since you clearly gave an Opinion on what true libertarians would want. Please explain why you hold that opinion.
Before you go down the rabbit hole of what the mythical true libertarians should or should not want:
Unlike a true or fake libertarian, it’s easy enough to spot a fake Libertarian Party. Like any other organization, a local affiliate is either recognized as genuine by its national organization or not. Imposter LPs are those at odds with the national organization.
State recognition as the one true arbiter is generally statism, which tends to be at odds with libertarians or libertarianism, at least overall. Recognition by the national libertarian party would seem like the more libertarian standard, a would it not?
And generally speaking, I’d think it would be the more logical standard as far as any party, regardless of ideology.
Otherwise a hostile state government can just recognize any faction of malicious imposters at odds with the national party or parties they dislike as their state recognized affiliate. Texas Republicans could create a fake Texas Democrat Party and make them the state recognized affiliate. California Democrats could do the same in reverse to Republicans and so on. Both could screw any and all Minor parties as much as they please in this manner. And why wouldn’t they?
It seems like recognition by the national party of the same name, at the very least if they field presidential candidates, would be a logical standard we should agree with? If not, why not?
I don’t know if true libertarians exist or who they are. But stupid is as stupid does and by their fruits ye shall know them.
It seems true libertarians would want to minimize government, maximize liberty.
Does letting any party on the ballot, including imposter parties intentionally created to muddy waters and confuse voters , and or totalitarian parties whose sole purpose is the polar opposite of libertarian ALWAYS do that?
Seems counterintuitive to me. But if it does, why is that so?
Let’s say I want voters to vote for any active party they wish. Who should be voters is a separate question (yes I know the AZ answer. No I do not remotely agree with it. If anyone who is not Azz cares why, just ask).
Would this purpose be better served by
A) government printed ballots where we have to continuously persuade most voters and or their elected representatives to agree (how’s that working out?)
B) voters showing up in person on election night and standing with the party of their choice, making speeches or other presentations to persuade others to join them – then at a set cut off point say after 2 or 3 hours, each group is counted off on video, so there is a record if there are any questions. Then the winning party caucuses to fill offices.
I say B. WHAT say those of ye who are not AZ? RICHARD WINGER? George Whitfield? Jim Riley? Anyone else who is not an AZhole?
If anyone wants to know why I’m NOT asking him, and you’re not him (or it), just ask.
Forgot to add?
If you’re not AZ and want to know why I say B please ask. If you say A pleas say why you say A. Unless your AZZ.
Jim Riley,
1.Please define “true libertarian” (bottomless rabbit hole question in my experience such as it is )
2. Please explain why you think these rainbow unicorns do or should want whatever it is that you think they do or should want,
Same for anyone else who can discuss rather than yell – condescend – ignore questions – shout slogans and jargon only – etc etc.
It’s not that I have anything against Mr. Jones, it’s that his long term pattern of engagement with ideas he disagrees with is incorrigible and unproductive to the point it’s hard for those on the other end of his abuse to resist the temptation to answer in kind.
Even when he can be answered politely or ignored despite lack of reciprocating in either regard, experience shows its almost never worth the time and effort.
I seem to recall that there’s a guy from Texas , fairly young fellow ..Clayton something maybe? Who claims to be the one and only true libertarian.
I don’t think he’s the only one though. A search for the term came up with Vermin Supreme (who since then left the libertarians because they became more libertarian) and a bunch of crap I’m either not allowed to look at or would take too long to wade through.
So I guess there’s a bunch of people who think they’re the only one. Or maybe they are just making fun of other people. Idk.
Hmmm Idk
Truest libertarians are probably the folks who would never join, and especially stay in, any group that would allow them in (or even any group period)?
But if they comprise they principals and reluctantly band together to fight totalitarian like me..I say smite them with great fury and might, and rest assured, I will and shall! Believe me now or believe me later.
In my opinion parties should always be the one recognized by the State. Of course I’m a proud statist. But I’m glad so called true libertarians agree. That will make it easier for us totalitarian to conquer them even more easily.
Ultimately ballots and election should and will be abolished and I will rule the universe as dictator.
In the meantime, let’s let states make ballots and decide who is on them because the state is always mightier and wiser than individuals and private voluntary association. Especially if their libertarians!
Let the state count these secret ballots in secret so it’s easier to cheat. Like my good friend Joe Jurgashvili “Stalin” (man of steel) said. Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count votes decide everything. As it should be! Smart dude!
While we totalitarian can’t yet win openly outright. Let’s win incremental. Including using the stupidity of letting all parties run until it no longer suits us *when we have enough power *
Meanwhile we gather strength.
Let’s have complicated voting system which makes it easier for us to befuddle voter’s and anyone who tries to catch us cheating. Good luck with that LOL.
Even if you did, who would believe you? It’s not what you know it’s what you can prove. And who you could prove it to. Just like its not who you know it’s how well you know them.
Let’s allow impostor parties so voters who are not politics experts are hopeless confused .
Max plan? No way! Max plan bad. Go way opposite direction. Most AZ PLANS sound great to me. At least until we are strong enough to reveal what we really want and those of us who don’t like it can not stop us.
Lets keep libertarians circle jerking and circle fire squad about true libertarians. That way they have less time to resist the relentless and inevitable fight to victory of totalitarian. Fake libertarian parties are a huge help. Divide and conquer, I always say.
I also like the idea of not listing parties just candidates. That way it’s just a hot or not looks and popularity contest like students election in preschool for morons. The cool and popular kids can get together and either not allow the other ones on the ballot or put on a bunch of nobodies whose name nobody even knows.
A bunch of random names is always great. A few nerds might actually take time to find out who they are and why they run. But really 99% of kids aren’t nerds. That’s why nerds are called nerds. Because they exist to be humiliated. That’s their purpose.
If you’re not one of the cool cool kids you don’t run, or you’re completely delusional and get nothing accomplished by running except putting more meaningless to 99% names on the list. I love that proposal. Very chic and totalitarian- trendy.
Thank you for agreeing. True libertarian suckers!
PS LET’S also get lots of totalitarian and totalitarian lite parties on too.
Us totalitarian are not running to win elections. Not yet. We know that if voting really changed anything important it would already be illegal.
The purpose of elections is to spread ideas and fight the information and propaganda war.
So we run a bunch of moderate (for now ) totalitarian who pretend to not like each other.
They win different office and spend a lot of time fighting or pretending to fight. It helps distract suckers so they don’t so much pay attention to everything slowly or sometimes not so slowly becoming more totalitarian regardless who wins what or how much us winners actually all agree .
You weak, stupid fools. Another reason you need and deserve totalitarian masters like me. Your so gullible!
Of course I’m the ultimate totalitarian master, but don’t tell the other inferior totalitarian masters I said that. Let them think they are equal or greater. When I say divide and conquer I don’t mean us!
Let’s also run a wide variety of different totalitarian wannabe losers. 31 or 57 or more flavours, varieties and degrees.
Their purpose is to find different supporters of different flavors and varieties and levels of totalitarian ideas and relentless push the envelope in multiple pressure points ever more totalitarian.
Makes totalitarian ideas more and more popular over time or as they say boil you frogs slowly. Give you false choices. Like jumping from frying pan to fire. Pit and pendulum,that sort of thing. As we keep going. Your choices get worse and worse.
That’s what we call winning!
Pps Reading and thinking bad. Orange man bad. F that guy.
As Chair of the Bylaws Committee at the founding convention in Denver in 1972, let me summarize our intent about the relationship of state parties to the national LP organization. The intended function of the national LP was to select a presidential ticket and to facilitate cooperation and sharing resources among the state affiliated parties. The purpose of the national party was to preserve a definition of libertarianism by a Statement of Principles which was durable and difficult to merge with the duopoly parties.
Following the pattern of federalism in the Constitution, the state parties were autonomous entities and the national organization was their joint venture. All other elective offices except President were the exclusive jurisdiction of the state parties. The institution of presidential electors makes it necessary for state parties to agree to select and support two individuals for President and Vice President.
Time constraints at the founding convention did not allow us to consider the implications of state ballot access laws. We soon became aware of their oppressive effects.
Today, Libertarians have become too accustomed to complying with ballot access censorship by fees and petitions created by the duopoly parties to suppress dissent. Richard Winger has blown the cover off ballot access laws. I have endeavored to show a way to restore voter control of elected officials and break the grip of the duopoly parties which have become de facto fascist parties.
Until the state affiliate parties agree on a joint candidacy at the national LP convention ALL persons seeking the LP nomination are legitimate regardless of their policy agendas. National LP convention delegates are free to ignore state ballot access laws that dictate censorship of candidates in state primary elections. Do not be distracted by state (duopoly) censorship.
Fundamentally, all state parties are free to disaffiliate and associate among themselves. The LNC is a shell organization for the states to direct.
Some may think such radical decentralization handicaps the advance of libertarian ideas and influence. I have observed the increasing centralization in the LP over fifty years has been a handicap.
Mr. Robinson, cool story, sir. But if you can remember, did y’all consider the question of disputed state parties? If so how did y’all intent for that to be resolved? Or did that possibility never occur to you idealistic, then young folks?
How can a national party faciliate cooperation and resources sharing among state parties if a bunch of states have competing organizations claiming to be state parties? Must it always defer to the likely hostile decision of state governments? What if state governments refuse to decide, or drag their feet?
What if LP haters form fake LPs just to screw with the LP and tie it in knots about this stuff?
What if statist leftards take over the LP or make a run at it and run gun grabbers, Hillary Clinton supporters, forced association enthusiasts, forced social distancing and experimental alleged vaccine poison jab mandate and forced shutdown and lockdown and quarantine totalitarians, pro world war and military industry complex and foreign intervention and welfare state globalist elitists, etc etc as LP candidates? What if there are state by state fights and state government side with statist fake libertarians?
How would you all have resolved that?
Think back to 1972. Imagine you could see the future. What would be your solution?
How do you select and seat your president delegates and pick and facilitate your ticket under such circumstances. What would have been your answer then? What is it now?
Suppose you knew the oppressive state ballot laws in 1972. How would your answers have changed, or would they?
For all your and Mr. Wingers efforts over the years, ballot access laws remain a fact. What’s more , in the last few years they are actually overall getting more not less oppressive and restrictive. There are plenty of exceptions but the overall trend is clear.
I respectfully disagree with the contentious that Republicans are de facto fascists. Democrap certainly are. Republicans largely were before Trump. Some still are, but for the most part the leader ship of GOP is now antifascist, like Trump. Antifascist not antifa which was originally short for antifascist but is in fact very very very fascist in every respect. And GOP IS GETTING BETTER!
In many ways we are now more libertarian than L.P., certainly that was true on Covid response and I can get into other issues later if u want. But clearly Trump was more libertarian than his l.p. Opponents in the last two general presidential elections . We can go issue by issue if you don’t agree.
Sorry, that’s actually distraction from the main point.
Until state parties agree. But if those are disputed who decides who those are and how? National party or state government or who? Which group picks those conventions delegates? Which group decides who is seated?
You can ignore state ballot laws, or not. You can only be on state ballots if you do not ignore them. But that skirts the question of who decides which group is a state l.p. When multiple groups make such claim. I guess it doesn’t matter if you don’t care whether your president ticket gets on the ballot, or if it’s not important?
So, maybe you won’t have ballot access and you’ll have multiple state l.p. In each state with multiple national affiliations which won’t be on the ballot.
Sounds hella libertarian but my hunch is that they would spend a lot of time and money and efforts chasing a diminishing number of active members, financial supporters, and other limited resources kinda like all the different tiny Marxist parties today. Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe not. But that’s my prediction on such scenarios.
And then you still have the issue that you will have at least some of those factions who won’t hesitate to use government courts and government ballots access. Ooh boy will that be a mess. Good thing y’all tend to be well armed, at least?
Your statement of principles is super poetic but how effective is it at keeping your president tickets, national and state boards, various local candidates and competing state parties , etc etc from doing and saying whatever they want? See examples above and I can bring up many others if you want. Try to unbake that cake!
Besides if you have a bunch of competing state and national lps they are not bound at all by your statement. Anyone who doesn’t in whole or in part can just start their own l.p., why not? Everyone is doing it after all.
So to wrap this up for now Sir.
Your clarification actually raised more questions than it answered. I hope you’ll find time to follow up and provide additional follow up to consider these extant real world as well as hypothetical issues.
1. HOW MUCH OF THE LP BYLAWS WERE COPIED FROM THE GOP BYLAWS ???
2. HOW MANY VON MISES FACTION TYRANTS ARE N-O-W IN CONTROL OF THE NATL LP ???
3. LP GOING THE WAY OF THE MANY FACTIONS IN THE OLDE SOCIALIST PARTIES ???
4. HOW MANY LP STATE PARTIES CONTROLLED BY UNDER O-N-E PERCENT OF PARTY MEMBERS [ FOLKS WHO HAVE THE TIME AND MONEY TO SHOW UP IN PERSON AT RIGGED STATE/LOCAL CONVENTIONS] ???
5. HOW MANY LP STATE PARTIES BEING PURGED OUT OF EXISTANCE BY MISES FACTION NATL LP TYRANTS ???
6. AGAIN EU 1989 —
PUBLIC LAWS RE NOMINATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICES VS INTERNAL CLUBBY STUFF
7. ALL MORE REASONS TO ABOLISH THE EC AND NATL PARTIES NOMINATING USA PREZ/VP CANDIDATES.
8. PREZ/VP NOMINATIONS AND ALL NATL / STATE / LOCAL PARTY OFFICER ELECTIONS BY A-L-L PARTY MEMBERS VIA MAIL BALLOTS.
—
ALSO IN ALL POLITICAL PARTIES —
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
True Libertarians smoke dope, play video games, and do anything they can to not get elected or appointed to public office. That is what the history of the LP has demonstrated.
AZ once again making zero sense.
I would like to know what each of the contenders for the LP presidential nomination did to defy their state’s Covid lockdown orders. As we faced the most egregious assault on individual freedom during our lifetime, the national LP did nothing. Did these men who are seeking the LP nomination do anything on their own to defy government tyranny? Or did they choose to comply with the authorities?
@Allen (and others),
Having national parties recognize state parties does nothing but putting Congress in charge of party recognition. Or perhaps the UN could be in charge, deciding which Liberal Democrat party is official, the Russian, Australian, or British party.
We might as well grant power to the possessor of the conch.
Once the state gets involved in recognizing political parties the state and party become hopelessly entangled. Party members in government seek to increase the influence of their party and make it harder for other parties to compete.
The only solution is to eliminate formal party nominations. If folks want to collectively support candidates they are free to do so they may do so.
AZ clearly never been to l.p. Local, state or national meetings and has not the least clue about how many active members there are, who shows up to what or what it costs. When other people who actually know these things from personal experience try to clue him in he ignores it and just keeps repeating the same ignorance misconceptions endlessly. It’s how he is about anything and everything. That’s why he’s a troll moron.
I thought the two letter troll moron believes states were sovereign nation’s.
Now he wants the fedgub dictatorship of all l.p. Internal affairs contrary to what libertarians want for total totalitarian statist control by fraud through statist snail mail of any and all anti totalitarian resistance while killing all trees.
The two letter troll moron doesn’t know how not to contradict itself on anything.
Jim Riley,
Huh? Congress and un how? Lnc is not fedgov, states determine ballot access but l.p. Determines who its affiliates are.
If they have to fight for ballot access again because prior ballot access stolen by a fraudulent statist fake affiliate working together with antilibertarian statist state bureaucrats and politicians, that’s a shame, but better than having those same enemies of liberty in a position to tell the party who its affiliates are.
Gov regimes are not friends of liberty. Having them in a position to foist fake statist state affiliates and take over l.p. State by state Is a conflict of interest. There is no l.p. If that is allowed to happen, it’s a statist party under a false label.
State bureaucrats, not national or international control ballot access. Your analogy doesn’t work . Congress has nothing to do with who’s on LNC Much less UN. LNC is picked by delegates of state parties.
The real solution is in person vote by party with the winning party picking office holders. No level of government picks parties ; the voters who show up and stand with a party are that party .
Your “solution” further tilts the playing field in the direction it’s already tilted in for reasons beaten to death on Many other article discussions and directly above.
@Sam,
Who decides if the “LNC” is a legitimate organization and why does it decide which faction in Michigan is “qualified” to make nominations?
If it is decided at the national level, the Congress will get involved.
It is better to let individual candidates qualify for the ballot. If an ad hoc group wants to place your name on the ballot, they could. If a group of voters want to organize and make a collective decision as to which candidate or candidates they support they may.
@Sam,
Who organizes these meetings where the voters show up? How would a meeting with several million participants work?
If the winning party can choose the officers, why can’t they determine the offices as well. There is no reason police officers, school teachers, postal workers, plumbers, farmers, etc. couldn’t be political offices.
Voters have the right to choose among all candidates who present themselves whatever party affiliation a candidate may claim. At the founding we adopted the non-aggression pledge and the Statement of Principles to assist voters in distinguishing which candidates were seeking to advance our ideals if the voter shares those values. The voter must make the judgement which, if any, of the candidate offering themself is “most” libertarian.
In other words, we endeavored to establish a standard like a grade of motor oil, but there can be many brands which meet a standard.
Citizens have the right at any time to associate and disassociate freely to promote candidates. In other countries there are multiple parties with similar brand names and voters there are able to sort them as the voter sees fit.
Those countries have different elections laws. It’s very questionable that those lead to better outcomes , but that’s a separate question. Even if they do, it’s not like they’re about to change, any time soon if ever.
What value does your statement of principles have if imposter parties don’t have it or don’t adhere to it or alter it any which way? They’re not bound by your 7/8 rule or any other guardrail or bylaw you created.
They can sell counterfeit motor oil under any brand they want, including yours. Your brand will have zero value. It could be your motor oil that fell off the back of a truck. It could be a knock off. It could be horse urine. It could be Pepsi. It could be rainwater or they may have pumped their sewer.
Most voters have no reason to care what candidates are more libertarian. To the extent any do, it’s because the libertarians against great odds and a very tilted playing field, as you well know, have established a brand in some voters minds, for better or worse.
If you turn libertarian into yet another meaningless label through the process I described, there is no reason for any voters to care which candidates are more zmohoerph because all labels are equally meaningless.
Again, exactly how do you think your statement of principles will maintain value under those rules?
Who decides if LNC is legitimate ? Delegates in convention sent by state parties. If there’s conflict over delegates or delegations, there’s a credentials committee. Rejected delegates or delegations can appeal to the body.
In between convention’s the national committee serves as the stand in or caretaker body for delegates in convention and serves that same role. That includes deciding who the legitimate affiliate is if there’s any dispute.
How does it decide who is qualified? That’s its job, same as any national committee or organization.
Congress has never been involved in deciding the disputed leadership of national parties.
Who organizes elections? The same people who organize them now, at least in function. Only the voting method would change . Instead of showing up throughout the day for a few minutes, voters show up all at the same time for several hours in the evening. It’s already being done, known as caucuses. There’s nothing mysterious here.
Jim Riley: government has no business doing anything except military defense and police/courts/criminal punishment. All those other things are better done outside of government.
There has to be an ultimate arbiter on who’s in the right in cases of unsolvable conflict and defense against outside attack. That’s the only thing government is good for.
No, it’s not better to qualify candidates. I already mentioned the reasons why, or at least some of them.
@Sam,
That is your own personal political philosophy about the role of government. Others may disagree.
If their party wins they have the right to appoint whatever offices they want.
To the victors go the spoils.
Not if the system of government is intelligently designed. For one thing, it should be very difficult to change laws.
This is another fake party, if I’m not mistaken.
I don’t know if they are talking about the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, but it’s possible he could be talking about the Free Libertarian Party of New Mexico (which is the new LNC Affiliate for New Mexico after the original Libertarian Party of New Mexico disaffiliated in 2022)
The first one, which is the false party, because it is a statist party recognized by the state, and not a libertarian party recognized by the LP. Because it’s a fake libertarian statist party recognized by the state, it has access to state run primaries. The real libertarian party still has to petition for ballot access, if it pleases the crown.
These fake libertarian fraud parties deserve a special place in hell !!!
The Free New Mexico Party does not have ballot access, but it might get it next year. So this is the Libertarian Party of New Mexico which is not affiliated with the LNC.
LOL @ Andy typo
Sorry , no Andy typo, it was my misread
“Free Mexico party”
Hopefully it will indeed please the crown and the real libertarian party gets ballot access next year. Better yet if the impostors also lose theirs.
A true Libertarian would want to allow voters to vote for anyone they wish, so a true Libertarian would wish that every active party should be on the ballot, even if the true Libertarian doesn’t support its ideas.
HMM
ALSO 3RD PARTY RIGGED PREZ PRIMARY BALLOTS ???
—-
MORE REASONS TO ABOLISH THE MINORITY RULE EC
https://www.yahoo.com/news/people-leaving-california-moving-record-000544037.html
HOW SOON BEFORE A CA WALL ??? – KEEP CA R TAX SLAVES LOCKED IN–
UNDER CONTROL BY CA D COMMIES
Hi Richard, I think I am a true Libertarian, too.
@RW,
A true libertarian would not want the state regulating political parties including recognizing parties as being “qualified”
Richard Winger, I am not a libertarian, true or otherwise. I’ve voted for them at times. Other times not so much. Currently I am more Republican, and think the GOP will keep moving in my direction. If it doesn’t, I might consider the libertarians again, depending on how they evolve in the interim.
I think I understand libertarianism well enough to disagree with your contention.correct me if I’m wrong.
Allowing voters to vote for anything and anyone is majoritarianism , not libertarianism. The Russian word for majoritarian is Bolshevik.
Suppose for example that voters want to vote for something like Russian Bolsheviks or even more extreme in that direction. Is this something libertarians would want? Maybe if it’s preferable to having them express their opinion through violence, but it’s not either or for them – look up diversity of tactics if your not already well acquainted with it.
What if they might actually win, should libertarians want them on the ballot? Maybe, but I would hope only if they would not be easier to defeat by other means. Do you disagree?
You might counter that Bolsheviks would never win at the ballot. Maybe not overnight, or maybe not until a major crisis, but they can, do, and have chipped away at the opposition both through democratic and various other means relentlessly.
Consider how many ways the US and other countries are already more like Bolshevik Russia than 200, 100, 50, 25, 10 years ago. Bolsheviks and other totalitarians have won democratically in other countries. How can we know for sure what the future holds?
Is this what those of you who consider yourselves true libertarians really want? Should it be?
Again – I’m more conservative or traditionalist or reactionary than libertarian, but very libertarian leaning in many ways. I’m easily libertarian quintile on your oversimplified quiz or chart. Definitely not 100 / 100. I’ve read and correspondent with many libertarians at various lengths at times and still do.
But maybe I’m wrong. If so please explain how and why.
I would think the highest value of libertarians, like the highest value of conservatives or Bolsheviks etc, should be the advancement of their philosophy or directional goals.
I can assure you that Bolsheviks and the much more common fabians, gradualist or dishonest undercover Bolsheviks pay lip service to voting for whoever you want only if, when and how long it suits their actual end goal. If they tell you otherwise, they are lying. The same is true of their commitment to any other civil right or liberty.
Libertarians, at least if they’re smart, should take the same diversity of tactics approach to minimizing government as totalitarians take to maximize it.
I’ve read and talked to many libertarians who agree. Some even look at public choice theory, Infowars theory, randian theory etc to see why excessive democracy has a long term totalitarian leaning bias. If you’re not familiar with why I’ll explain it. If you disagree please explain why they are wrong.
Having said all that, I generally do under present circumstances support all kinds of parties being on the ballot.
Impostor parties like the fake libertarians are about the only practical exception to that right now.
AZ Spam trolling idiocy is tiresome to answer a million times over. How about a once per article discussion reminder to everyone else , if you care why I think he’s wrong, go ahead and ask.
George Whitfield, maybe you are. Maybe not. Please expound further. And or reply to that same post addressed to Mr. Winger.
It’s really @ anyone who agree with his unqualified categorical statement. If that’s really what you think all true libertarians do and should always believe, please explain why, in terms of your stated end goals.
Mr. Riley, are you a true libertarian? I wasn’t under that impression. If I had to guess I would guess maybe “centrist” or pre Trump mainstream establishment Republican or conservative. I could be way off. Maybe you don’t label your beliefs. Feel free to explain what you would call them and why or not as you see fit.
Regardless, you don’t have to be a libertarian to have an understanding of what libertarians should or should not necessarily agree on.
I have a lot of overlap with them, but significant enough difference that I don’t call myself one right now. YMMV. Libertarians, or at least a lot of them, love few things in life as much as arguing about who is or isn’t a libertarian. That in itself may be a significant reason why there aren’t more of them.
In any case since you clearly gave an Opinion on what true libertarians would want. Please explain why you hold that opinion.
Before you go down the rabbit hole of what the mythical true libertarians should or should not want:
Unlike a true or fake libertarian, it’s easy enough to spot a fake Libertarian Party. Like any other organization, a local affiliate is either recognized as genuine by its national organization or not. Imposter LPs are those at odds with the national organization.
State recognition as the one true arbiter is generally statism, which tends to be at odds with libertarians or libertarianism, at least overall. Recognition by the national libertarian party would seem like the more libertarian standard, a would it not?
And generally speaking, I’d think it would be the more logical standard as far as any party, regardless of ideology.
Otherwise a hostile state government can just recognize any faction of malicious imposters at odds with the national party or parties they dislike as their state recognized affiliate. Texas Republicans could create a fake Texas Democrat Party and make them the state recognized affiliate. California Democrats could do the same in reverse to Republicans and so on. Both could screw any and all Minor parties as much as they please in this manner. And why wouldn’t they?
It seems like recognition by the national party of the same name, at the very least if they field presidential candidates, would be a logical standard we should agree with? If not, why not?
I don’t know if true libertarians exist or who they are. But stupid is as stupid does and by their fruits ye shall know them.
It seems true libertarians would want to minimize government, maximize liberty.
Does letting any party on the ballot, including imposter parties intentionally created to muddy waters and confuse voters , and or totalitarian parties whose sole purpose is the polar opposite of libertarian ALWAYS do that?
Seems counterintuitive to me. But if it does, why is that so?
Let’s say I want voters to vote for any active party they wish. Who should be voters is a separate question (yes I know the AZ answer. No I do not remotely agree with it. If anyone who is not Azz cares why, just ask).
Would this purpose be better served by
A) government printed ballots where we have to continuously persuade most voters and or their elected representatives to agree (how’s that working out?)
B) voters showing up in person on election night and standing with the party of their choice, making speeches or other presentations to persuade others to join them – then at a set cut off point say after 2 or 3 hours, each group is counted off on video, so there is a record if there are any questions. Then the winning party caucuses to fill offices.
I say B. WHAT say those of ye who are not AZ? RICHARD WINGER? George Whitfield? Jim Riley? Anyone else who is not an AZhole?
If anyone wants to know why I’m NOT asking him, and you’re not him (or it), just ask.
Forgot to add?
If you’re not AZ and want to know why I say B please ask. If you say A pleas say why you say A. Unless your AZZ.
Jim Riley,
1.Please define “true libertarian” (bottomless rabbit hole question in my experience such as it is )
2. Please explain why you think these rainbow unicorns do or should want whatever it is that you think they do or should want,
Same for anyone else who can discuss rather than yell – condescend – ignore questions – shout slogans and jargon only – etc etc.
It’s not that I have anything against Mr. Jones, it’s that his long term pattern of engagement with ideas he disagrees with is incorrigible and unproductive to the point it’s hard for those on the other end of his abuse to resist the temptation to answer in kind.
Even when he can be answered politely or ignored despite lack of reciprocating in either regard, experience shows its almost never worth the time and effort.
I seem to recall that there’s a guy from Texas , fairly young fellow ..Clayton something maybe? Who claims to be the one and only true libertarian.
I don’t think he’s the only one though. A search for the term came up with Vermin Supreme (who since then left the libertarians because they became more libertarian) and a bunch of crap I’m either not allowed to look at or would take too long to wade through.
So I guess there’s a bunch of people who think they’re the only one. Or maybe they are just making fun of other people. Idk.
Hmmm Idk
Truest libertarians are probably the folks who would never join, and especially stay in, any group that would allow them in (or even any group period)?
But if they comprise they principals and reluctantly band together to fight totalitarian like me..I say smite them with great fury and might, and rest assured, I will and shall! Believe me now or believe me later.
In my opinion parties should always be the one recognized by the State. Of course I’m a proud statist. But I’m glad so called true libertarians agree. That will make it easier for us totalitarian to conquer them even more easily.
Ultimately ballots and election should and will be abolished and I will rule the universe as dictator.
In the meantime, let’s let states make ballots and decide who is on them because the state is always mightier and wiser than individuals and private voluntary association. Especially if their libertarians!
Let the state count these secret ballots in secret so it’s easier to cheat. Like my good friend Joe Jurgashvili “Stalin” (man of steel) said. Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count votes decide everything. As it should be! Smart dude!
While we totalitarian can’t yet win openly outright. Let’s win incremental. Including using the stupidity of letting all parties run until it no longer suits us *when we have enough power *
Meanwhile we gather strength.
Let’s have complicated voting system which makes it easier for us to befuddle voter’s and anyone who tries to catch us cheating. Good luck with that LOL.
Even if you did, who would believe you? It’s not what you know it’s what you can prove. And who you could prove it to. Just like its not who you know it’s how well you know them.
Let’s allow impostor parties so voters who are not politics experts are hopeless confused .
Max plan? No way! Max plan bad. Go way opposite direction. Most AZ PLANS sound great to me. At least until we are strong enough to reveal what we really want and those of us who don’t like it can not stop us.
Lets keep libertarians circle jerking and circle fire squad about true libertarians. That way they have less time to resist the relentless and inevitable fight to victory of totalitarian. Fake libertarian parties are a huge help. Divide and conquer, I always say.
I also like the idea of not listing parties just candidates. That way it’s just a hot or not looks and popularity contest like students election in preschool for morons. The cool and popular kids can get together and either not allow the other ones on the ballot or put on a bunch of nobodies whose name nobody even knows.
A bunch of random names is always great. A few nerds might actually take time to find out who they are and why they run. But really 99% of kids aren’t nerds. That’s why nerds are called nerds. Because they exist to be humiliated. That’s their purpose.
If you’re not one of the cool cool kids you don’t run, or you’re completely delusional and get nothing accomplished by running except putting more meaningless to 99% names on the list. I love that proposal. Very chic and totalitarian- trendy.
Thank you for agreeing. True libertarian suckers!
PS LET’S also get lots of totalitarian and totalitarian lite parties on too.
Us totalitarian are not running to win elections. Not yet. We know that if voting really changed anything important it would already be illegal.
The purpose of elections is to spread ideas and fight the information and propaganda war.
So we run a bunch of moderate (for now ) totalitarian who pretend to not like each other.
They win different office and spend a lot of time fighting or pretending to fight. It helps distract suckers so they don’t so much pay attention to everything slowly or sometimes not so slowly becoming more totalitarian regardless who wins what or how much us winners actually all agree .
You weak, stupid fools. Another reason you need and deserve totalitarian masters like me. Your so gullible!
Of course I’m the ultimate totalitarian master, but don’t tell the other inferior totalitarian masters I said that. Let them think they are equal or greater. When I say divide and conquer I don’t mean us!
Let’s also run a wide variety of different totalitarian wannabe losers. 31 or 57 or more flavours, varieties and degrees.
Their purpose is to find different supporters of different flavors and varieties and levels of totalitarian ideas and relentless push the envelope in multiple pressure points ever more totalitarian.
Makes totalitarian ideas more and more popular over time or as they say boil you frogs slowly. Give you false choices. Like jumping from frying pan to fire. Pit and pendulum,that sort of thing. As we keep going. Your choices get worse and worse.
That’s what we call winning!
Pps Reading and thinking bad. Orange man bad. F that guy.
As Chair of the Bylaws Committee at the founding convention in Denver in 1972, let me summarize our intent about the relationship of state parties to the national LP organization. The intended function of the national LP was to select a presidential ticket and to facilitate cooperation and sharing resources among the state affiliated parties. The purpose of the national party was to preserve a definition of libertarianism by a Statement of Principles which was durable and difficult to merge with the duopoly parties.
Following the pattern of federalism in the Constitution, the state parties were autonomous entities and the national organization was their joint venture. All other elective offices except President were the exclusive jurisdiction of the state parties. The institution of presidential electors makes it necessary for state parties to agree to select and support two individuals for President and Vice President.
Time constraints at the founding convention did not allow us to consider the implications of state ballot access laws. We soon became aware of their oppressive effects.
Today, Libertarians have become too accustomed to complying with ballot access censorship by fees and petitions created by the duopoly parties to suppress dissent. Richard Winger has blown the cover off ballot access laws. I have endeavored to show a way to restore voter control of elected officials and break the grip of the duopoly parties which have become de facto fascist parties.
Until the state affiliate parties agree on a joint candidacy at the national LP convention ALL persons seeking the LP nomination are legitimate regardless of their policy agendas. National LP convention delegates are free to ignore state ballot access laws that dictate censorship of candidates in state primary elections. Do not be distracted by state (duopoly) censorship.
Fundamentally, all state parties are free to disaffiliate and associate among themselves. The LNC is a shell organization for the states to direct.
Some may think such radical decentralization handicaps the advance of libertarian ideas and influence. I have observed the increasing centralization in the LP over fifty years has been a handicap.
Mr. Robinson, cool story, sir. But if you can remember, did y’all consider the question of disputed state parties? If so how did y’all intent for that to be resolved? Or did that possibility never occur to you idealistic, then young folks?
How can a national party faciliate cooperation and resources sharing among state parties if a bunch of states have competing organizations claiming to be state parties? Must it always defer to the likely hostile decision of state governments? What if state governments refuse to decide, or drag their feet?
What if LP haters form fake LPs just to screw with the LP and tie it in knots about this stuff?
What if statist leftards take over the LP or make a run at it and run gun grabbers, Hillary Clinton supporters, forced association enthusiasts, forced social distancing and experimental alleged vaccine poison jab mandate and forced shutdown and lockdown and quarantine totalitarians, pro world war and military industry complex and foreign intervention and welfare state globalist elitists, etc etc as LP candidates? What if there are state by state fights and state government side with statist fake libertarians?
How would you all have resolved that?
Think back to 1972. Imagine you could see the future. What would be your solution?
How do you select and seat your president delegates and pick and facilitate your ticket under such circumstances. What would have been your answer then? What is it now?
Suppose you knew the oppressive state ballot laws in 1972. How would your answers have changed, or would they?
For all your and Mr. Wingers efforts over the years, ballot access laws remain a fact. What’s more , in the last few years they are actually overall getting more not less oppressive and restrictive. There are plenty of exceptions but the overall trend is clear.
I respectfully disagree with the contentious that Republicans are de facto fascists. Democrap certainly are. Republicans largely were before Trump. Some still are, but for the most part the leader ship of GOP is now antifascist, like Trump. Antifascist not antifa which was originally short for antifascist but is in fact very very very fascist in every respect. And GOP IS GETTING BETTER!
In many ways we are now more libertarian than L.P., certainly that was true on Covid response and I can get into other issues later if u want. But clearly Trump was more libertarian than his l.p. Opponents in the last two general presidential elections . We can go issue by issue if you don’t agree.
Sorry, that’s actually distraction from the main point.
Until state parties agree. But if those are disputed who decides who those are and how? National party or state government or who? Which group picks those conventions delegates? Which group decides who is seated?
You can ignore state ballot laws, or not. You can only be on state ballots if you do not ignore them. But that skirts the question of who decides which group is a state l.p. When multiple groups make such claim. I guess it doesn’t matter if you don’t care whether your president ticket gets on the ballot, or if it’s not important?
So, maybe you won’t have ballot access and you’ll have multiple state l.p. In each state with multiple national affiliations which won’t be on the ballot.
Sounds hella libertarian but my hunch is that they would spend a lot of time and money and efforts chasing a diminishing number of active members, financial supporters, and other limited resources kinda like all the different tiny Marxist parties today. Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe not. But that’s my prediction on such scenarios.
And then you still have the issue that you will have at least some of those factions who won’t hesitate to use government courts and government ballots access. Ooh boy will that be a mess. Good thing y’all tend to be well armed, at least?
Your statement of principles is super poetic but how effective is it at keeping your president tickets, national and state boards, various local candidates and competing state parties , etc etc from doing and saying whatever they want? See examples above and I can bring up many others if you want. Try to unbake that cake!
Besides if you have a bunch of competing state and national lps they are not bound at all by your statement. Anyone who doesn’t in whole or in part can just start their own l.p., why not? Everyone is doing it after all.
So to wrap this up for now Sir.
Your clarification actually raised more questions than it answered. I hope you’ll find time to follow up and provide additional follow up to consider these extant real world as well as hypothetical issues.
1. HOW MUCH OF THE LP BYLAWS WERE COPIED FROM THE GOP BYLAWS ???
2. HOW MANY VON MISES FACTION TYRANTS ARE N-O-W IN CONTROL OF THE NATL LP ???
3. LP GOING THE WAY OF THE MANY FACTIONS IN THE OLDE SOCIALIST PARTIES ???
4. HOW MANY LP STATE PARTIES CONTROLLED BY UNDER O-N-E PERCENT OF PARTY MEMBERS [ FOLKS WHO HAVE THE TIME AND MONEY TO SHOW UP IN PERSON AT RIGGED STATE/LOCAL CONVENTIONS] ???
5. HOW MANY LP STATE PARTIES BEING PURGED OUT OF EXISTANCE BY MISES FACTION NATL LP TYRANTS ???
6. AGAIN EU 1989 —
PUBLIC LAWS RE NOMINATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICES VS INTERNAL CLUBBY STUFF
7. ALL MORE REASONS TO ABOLISH THE EC AND NATL PARTIES NOMINATING USA PREZ/VP CANDIDATES.
8. PREZ/VP NOMINATIONS AND ALL NATL / STATE / LOCAL PARTY OFFICER ELECTIONS BY A-L-L PARTY MEMBERS VIA MAIL BALLOTS.
—
ALSO IN ALL POLITICAL PARTIES —
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
True Libertarians smoke dope, play video games, and do anything they can to not get elected or appointed to public office. That is what the history of the LP has demonstrated.
AZ once again making zero sense.
I would like to know what each of the contenders for the LP presidential nomination did to defy their state’s Covid lockdown orders. As we faced the most egregious assault on individual freedom during our lifetime, the national LP did nothing. Did these men who are seeking the LP nomination do anything on their own to defy government tyranny? Or did they choose to comply with the authorities?
@Allen (and others),
Having national parties recognize state parties does nothing but putting Congress in charge of party recognition. Or perhaps the UN could be in charge, deciding which Liberal Democrat party is official, the Russian, Australian, or British party.
We might as well grant power to the possessor of the conch.
Once the state gets involved in recognizing political parties the state and party become hopelessly entangled. Party members in government seek to increase the influence of their party and make it harder for other parties to compete.
The only solution is to eliminate formal party nominations. If folks want to collectively support candidates they are free to do so they may do so.
AZ clearly never been to l.p. Local, state or national meetings and has not the least clue about how many active members there are, who shows up to what or what it costs. When other people who actually know these things from personal experience try to clue him in he ignores it and just keeps repeating the same ignorance misconceptions endlessly. It’s how he is about anything and everything. That’s why he’s a troll moron.
I thought the two letter troll moron believes states were sovereign nation’s.
Now he wants the fedgub dictatorship of all l.p. Internal affairs contrary to what libertarians want for total totalitarian statist control by fraud through statist snail mail of any and all anti totalitarian resistance while killing all trees.
The two letter troll moron doesn’t know how not to contradict itself on anything.
Jim Riley,
Huh? Congress and un how? Lnc is not fedgov, states determine ballot access but l.p. Determines who its affiliates are.
If they have to fight for ballot access again because prior ballot access stolen by a fraudulent statist fake affiliate working together with antilibertarian statist state bureaucrats and politicians, that’s a shame, but better than having those same enemies of liberty in a position to tell the party who its affiliates are.
Gov regimes are not friends of liberty. Having them in a position to foist fake statist state affiliates and take over l.p. State by state Is a conflict of interest. There is no l.p. If that is allowed to happen, it’s a statist party under a false label.
State bureaucrats, not national or international control ballot access. Your analogy doesn’t work . Congress has nothing to do with who’s on LNC Much less UN. LNC is picked by delegates of state parties.
The real solution is in person vote by party with the winning party picking office holders. No level of government picks parties ; the voters who show up and stand with a party are that party .
Your “solution” further tilts the playing field in the direction it’s already tilted in for reasons beaten to death on Many other article discussions and directly above.
@Sam,
Who decides if the “LNC” is a legitimate organization and why does it decide which faction in Michigan is “qualified” to make nominations?
If it is decided at the national level, the Congress will get involved.
It is better to let individual candidates qualify for the ballot. If an ad hoc group wants to place your name on the ballot, they could. If a group of voters want to organize and make a collective decision as to which candidate or candidates they support they may.
@Sam,
Who organizes these meetings where the voters show up? How would a meeting with several million participants work?
If the winning party can choose the officers, why can’t they determine the offices as well. There is no reason police officers, school teachers, postal workers, plumbers, farmers, etc. couldn’t be political offices.
Voters have the right to choose among all candidates who present themselves whatever party affiliation a candidate may claim. At the founding we adopted the non-aggression pledge and the Statement of Principles to assist voters in distinguishing which candidates were seeking to advance our ideals if the voter shares those values. The voter must make the judgement which, if any, of the candidate offering themself is “most” libertarian.
In other words, we endeavored to establish a standard like a grade of motor oil, but there can be many brands which meet a standard.
Citizens have the right at any time to associate and disassociate freely to promote candidates. In other countries there are multiple parties with similar brand names and voters there are able to sort them as the voter sees fit.
Those countries have different elections laws. It’s very questionable that those lead to better outcomes , but that’s a separate question. Even if they do, it’s not like they’re about to change, any time soon if ever.
What value does your statement of principles have if imposter parties don’t have it or don’t adhere to it or alter it any which way? They’re not bound by your 7/8 rule or any other guardrail or bylaw you created.
They can sell counterfeit motor oil under any brand they want, including yours. Your brand will have zero value. It could be your motor oil that fell off the back of a truck. It could be a knock off. It could be horse urine. It could be Pepsi. It could be rainwater or they may have pumped their sewer.
Most voters have no reason to care what candidates are more libertarian. To the extent any do, it’s because the libertarians against great odds and a very tilted playing field, as you well know, have established a brand in some voters minds, for better or worse.
If you turn libertarian into yet another meaningless label through the process I described, there is no reason for any voters to care which candidates are more zmohoerph because all labels are equally meaningless.
Again, exactly how do you think your statement of principles will maintain value under those rules?
Who decides if LNC is legitimate ? Delegates in convention sent by state parties. If there’s conflict over delegates or delegations, there’s a credentials committee. Rejected delegates or delegations can appeal to the body.
In between convention’s the national committee serves as the stand in or caretaker body for delegates in convention and serves that same role. That includes deciding who the legitimate affiliate is if there’s any dispute.
How does it decide who is qualified? That’s its job, same as any national committee or organization.
Congress has never been involved in deciding the disputed leadership of national parties.
Who organizes elections? The same people who organize them now, at least in function. Only the voting method would change . Instead of showing up throughout the day for a few minutes, voters show up all at the same time for several hours in the evening. It’s already being done, known as caucuses. There’s nothing mysterious here.
Jim Riley: government has no business doing anything except military defense and police/courts/criminal punishment. All those other things are better done outside of government.
There has to be an ultimate arbiter on who’s in the right in cases of unsolvable conflict and defense against outside attack. That’s the only thing government is good for.
No, it’s not better to qualify candidates. I already mentioned the reasons why, or at least some of them.
@Sam,
That is your own personal political philosophy about the role of government. Others may disagree.
If their party wins they have the right to appoint whatever offices they want.
To the victors go the spoils.
Not if the system of government is intelligently designed. For one thing, it should be very difficult to change laws.