Skip to content

Category: Libertarian Party

Jacob Hornberger Announces Libertarian Party Run for President

It appears that Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger has announced a run for President as a Libertarian. I wrote about that recently, but now he has formally announced. It sure would be a good thing to get someone who articulates the principles of liberty as the Libertarian Party candidate. Not another Gary Johnson or Bob Barr, please. I intend to write more on his candidacy over the coming months, as I did with Ron Paul during the 2011-2012 Presidential campaign.

Jacob Hornberger believes strongly in the non-aggression principle, and supports non-interventionism in foreign affairs and non-interventionism in domestic life. No more militarism and empire overseas. He supports ending the drug war, abolishing the IRS and the income tax and letting the people keep and do whatever they want with their own money.

Without the institutional theft of involuntary taxation, the government can’t carry out all its criminal destruction abroad and at home, because no one in his right mind would voluntarily pay for the evil and criminality the government commits on a daily basis.

I linked to this terrific interview of Hornberger by Ernest Hancock a few weeks ago, and there it is again.

Here are his positions on the issues on his campaign website, Jacob for Liberty.

Here is his latest post on what to do with Medicare. He compares his answer to the answers of other announced Libertarian Party presidential candidates.

Jacob Hornberger’s background, from his website:

1950: born in Laredo, Texas, and raised on a farm on the Rio Grande.

1968-1972: Virginia Military Institute; B.A. in economics; elected class valedictorian: commissioned 2nd Lt., U.S. Army Reserves.

1972-1975: Law school at University of Texas at Austin; J.D. degree.

1973: Infantry school, Fort Benning, Georgia.

1972-1980: U.S. Army Reserves.

1974: Infantry school at Ft. Benning, Georgia.

1975-1983: Trial attorney in Laredo, Texas; licensed to practice in Texas, U.S. District Court, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court.

1983-1987: Trial attorney in Dallas, Texas; one semester as adjunct professor of law and economics at University of Dallas.

1987-1989: Program director at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York.

1991-1996: Three terms on Libertarian Party platform committee; keynote speaker at 1996 national party convention; awarded Thomas Paine Award for outstanding communication of libertarian principles.

2002: Independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia.

1989-present: Founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF), a non-profit libertarian educational foundation; author/editor of 12 books, including Jacob’s newest book, My Passion for Liberty.

2019-2020: Libertarian Party candidate for president.

Here is his official announcement:

More News and Commentary

Lee Friday asks, What if the majority voted for “None of the Above”?

Jim Davies on voting, the Libertarian Party, and Adam Kokesh.

Jeff Deist says that politics drops its pretenses.

Brendan O’Neill on the Spanish rulers and Britain’s Remainer elite’s contempt for democracy, treating voters like criminals.

Richard Ebeling says that progressivism is an imposter.

Robert Wenzel on Mark Zuckerberg’s defense of Fakebook censorship while defending freedom of speech.

Andrew Kern on why the State can’t claim our “implied consent.”

Kerry McDonald comments on education “equity.”

Veronique de Rugy says that on trade, both Trump and Warren get a fail.

Zero Hedge with an article on corrupt apparatchik Adam Schiffty kicking a Republican congressman out of a congressional hearing.

Jonathan Turley discusses Joe Biden’s attempt to silence news media reports on Biden family corruption.

Zero Hedge with an article on CIA “whistleblower” being assisted by James Clapper associate.

Charles Burris on the deep state and the anti-Trump coup.

Thomas Luongo on the plan for Hong Kong.

Dr. Mercola discusses psychiatric drugs and violence.

Jon Rappoport on the basics of a staged bioterror attack.

And Neville Raymond questions the official purpose for vaccination programs.

Democrats and Republicans (i.e. the “Government Party”) vs. the Libertarian Party

The Democrats had another debate this week. Here is a summary:

  • We want to steal more of your money.
  • We want to impose more regulations, restrictions, prohibitions, confiscations, mandates, requirements and intrusions into your lives, enforced at government gunpoint.

And that’s it. In other words, they are no different from the Republicans. Both the Rethugs and Demtards are just two parts of the one Government Party, in Warshington and all the smaller territories within good ol’ USA.

It’s the same thing election after election, year after year, with the Establishment parties, the one Government Party. It will never get better, only worse.

I know, a lot of conservatives and libertarians are fooled by the con man in the White House. His individual tax cuts expire in just a few years and he did that just to give you enough crumbs so you will vote for him next year. And Trump’s trade idiocy is causing uncertainty. The problem at the border, the drug addiction crisis and other societal problems have their roots in government interventionism, which Trump loves. He’s a central planning-loving kind of guy.

And the Republicans and Democrats are entrenched and enmeshed with the government. They make laws that protect their power and restrict other parties from competing and getting their foot in the door. The “news” media are all with that. So this is really a racket, and I mean a genuinely well-organized “legal” protection racket, a literally criminal organization, which is why the leaders of both Establishment parties need to be forced, maybe by a court and a decent judge if there are any in good ol’ USA, to change the laws to remove any and all restrictions on third parties’ rights to get names and candidates on ballots. If they don’t make such changes then those in control should be charged with racketeering, just like the organized crimesters they are.

And for all those reasons we need to take another look at the Libertarian Party. (I can’t believe I’m saying that.) And I don’t mean the Gary Johnson-Bill Weld Libertarian Party, but the Ron Paul-Harry Browne Libertarian Party. The “party of principle.”

And just recently I wrote a post referring to Jacob Hornberger who is contemplating a run for President as a Libertarian Party candidate. I don’t know if he necessarily agrees with my assertions about the Democrat-Republican criminal racket, but he is someone who does promote freedom, which is what the U.S. used to be all about.

In his speeches at recent state LP conventions, Hornberger included this statement:

We are not Republicans, and we are not Democrats. We are also not Republican-lites, and we are not Democrat-lites. We are not “socially liberal and economically conservative.” We are libertarians, and we need to fight as libertarians!

We live in a dysfunctional society, one in which there are soaring suicide rates, especially among young people, massive alcoholism and drug addiction, and mass killings for unexplainable reasons.

That shouldn’t surprise anyone, given the dysfunctional welfare-warfare state way of life that Republicans and Democrats have foisted upon our land. Republicans and Democrats both need to be taken to account for what they have done to our country with their system of mandated socialist charity, massive taxation, immoral and racially bigoted drug war, forever foreign wars, undeclared wars, wars of aggression and endless occupations, war on terrorism, torture, assassination, secret mass surveillance, national-security statism, interventionism, imperialism, monetary debasement, infringements on civil liberties, intrusions on privacy, trade wars, sanctions, embargoes, alliances with dictatorial regimes, foreign aid (i.e., bribery), coups, war on immigrants, managed and regulated economy, and out-of-control federal spending and debt, all which have brought death, suffering, economic and financial harm, and destruction of liberty to our land as well as to people in other parts of the world.

If we Libertarians continue adhering to principle, we have the potential of leading America out of the statist morass into which Republicans and Democrats have plunged our nation. By adhering to principle, we have the chance to lead our nation, and indirectly the world, to the highest reaches of freedom, peace, prosperity, harmony, and morality that mankind has ever seen.

In fact, Jacob Hornberger’s latest columns on non-interventionism are very good, too. In this column, he succinctly explains why interventionists won’t help the Kurds, and today he explains empire and interventionism vs. republic and non-interventionism.

A Possible Libertarian Party Candidate for President

Occasionally I have been looking at Jacob Hornberger’s Jacob for Liberty website to see if there are any updates. He is contemplating a run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. And I see that he has visited several state LP conventions this year, in Georgia, Alabama, Iowa, California, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Massachusetts.

What? Massachusetts? Where the fascist Gov. Charlie Half-Baker rules? There’s a “Libertarian” Party in Massachusetts? I can’t believe it.

Anyway, the Libertarian Party national convention is next May, I believe.

And there is a terrific and informative interview of Jacob Hornberger by Ernest Hancock of Freedom’s Phoenix. It was a lively hour-long conversation. Hornberger recalled his previous presidential run, in the year 2000 in which he had exposed some possible ethical violations with the Harry Browne campaign. And apparently he doesn’t like the schmoozing aspects of trying to get the various factions of the Party together, such as the conservatives, the “leftist” libertarians, the anarchists and the minarchists, etc. But he does want to convince people to join him in attempting to bring the country back to its freedom roots, in which there were no income tax and no IRS, no Federal Reserve, no drug war, no welfare state, no warfare state, no “national security” state, etc. For over 100 years the U.S. was without those awful totalitarian things and there was much more freedom and the fastest rise in the standard of living in history.

On Ernest Hancock’s Freedom’s Phoenix website bio, by the way, there is this quote that I like:

“There are two types of people in the world,… Those who wish to be left alone and those who just won’t leave them alone. What type are you?”

Exactly.

Now, with the imposition of the income tax over 100 years ago, we have seen how that has enabled the crooks and fraudsters to use the U.S. government as their own personal apparatus of enrichment at the expense of the workers and producers of America. And the Federal Reserve has enabled the banksters to do the same.

Without the income tax and Federal Reserve we probably could not have had all the entries of U.S. government/military into foreign wars that were instigated by false flags or otherwise deception. Trillions of dollars could not have been wasted and squandered on social programs, research grants, forced welfare redistribution, a “war on drugs” and a war on immigration and the current police state we have now.

With the income tax-theft as the biggest enabler of criminality ever in world history, getting rid of it would be the best thing not only for our freedom but our prosperity.

But the Democrats and Republicans don’t want to do that. They are two sides of the same statist/totalitarian coin.

Even the Libertarian Party in recent years has been pathologically wishy-washy on not just the income tax but all the other totalitarian fascist and socialist schemes that have been imposed on Americans for 100 years. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have been the worst of the worst (so far), in my view.

The truth is, Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle, self-ownership, private property, freedom of contract and voluntary association. Nothing about “social justice,” climate change, gay rights, whether people go to church or not, preventing drug addiction, saving the Middle East from its own repression, nope, none of that.

Libertarianism is about freedom. Just note the Freedom’s Phoenix quote above.

Libertarians and Trump; And the Communist Nature of the Progressive Tax

Laurence Vance has some comments to make about libertarians and Trump. Dr. Vance says he doesn’t vote and hasn’t voted for a Libertarian Party candidate, and, he says, “I would have probably clamped my nose in a vice and voted for Donald Trump before I would have voted for the pathetic 2016 Libertarian Party ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld.” That cracked me up. Of course, the last Libertarian Partly candidate I voted for was Andre Marrou in 1992. Now THAT’s a case of “holding my nose.” Marrou was awful. Anyway, Vance goes on to express his views on Donald Trump’s presidency and record so far.

And also today, Laurence Vance has a terrific article at the Future of Freedom Foundation website on the specter of communism haunting Illinois, in its changing from flat to progressive tax rates. Dr. Vance explains the communist and Marxist nature of the progressive tax, of Illinois and the whole U.S. as well.

Justin Raimondo Has Died

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com has died. I have linked to many, many of his articles on this blog. He might be best known for the website he founded, Antiwar.com. He was only 67 and had lung cancer.

Antiwar.com’s obituary of Justin Raimondo.

Kelley Vlahos’s tribute, How Justin Raimondo Made Me a Braver Writer.

And Lew Rockwell’s tribute to Justin.

(Edited): I’ll have more to say about this in the next few days weeks.

David Bergland Has Died. Was Libertarian Party’s 1984 Presidential Candidate

David Bergland, the 1984 Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. President, has died, just a day before his 84th birthday. He was the author of Libertarianism in One Lesson: Why Libertarianism Is the Best Hope for America’s Future. He was also a business attorney and law professor, and a martial arts expert.

Sharon Harris at the Zero Aggression Project has this obit. And Brian Doherty at Reason.

In 2020, Can the Libertarian Party Nominate a Truth-Teller for President?

In my recent post on some of the prospective Libertarian Party candidates for President of the United State, I mentioned Jacob Hornberger, who is the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation. I think he has not yet made a formal announcement on a run for President. But he does have a campaign website.

Unlike Gary Johnson and Bob Barr, Jacob Hornberger is not afraid to tell the truth about the evil of American militarism and criminal military invasions abroad, the evil drug war, and the evil of taxation and welfare redistributionism, all of which have contributed to America’s downfall.

For instance, Hornberger has a post on his campaign blog, unafraid to tell the truth about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Congressman Seth Moulton, two Democrat war veterans running for President.

In the blog post, Hornberger mentions Moulton and Buttigieg’s experiences in the U.S. military as invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively. And that this week both candidates have criticized Donald Trump for “faking a disability” to get out of a military enslavement to kill innocent people in Vietnam. Yet, as Hornberger points out, neither Moulton nor Buttigieg has any criticism for the criminal wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan that George W. Bush started and that were carried out by the U.S. military.

The two Democrat candidates clearly do not see the forest for the trees. They are criticizing someone for not invading another country for no good reason, and for not bombing and murdering their people.

While Hornberger doesn’t mention this in that particular blog post, we can get an idea of Buttigieg and Moulton’s warped kind of thinking from their views on domestic policies. They are clearly kooks, just like their fellow Democrat brethren and sistren Democrats for President.

Both Buttigieg and Moulton support the “Green New Deal,” because they are either total ignoramuses or they are just a couple of sniveling dishonest weasels who know that the society couldn’t possibly get rid of cars, trucks, planes and cows and doing so would end up impoverishing and wiping out just about the entire society. So, given that both are quite intelligent people, supposedly, I think they’re just “playing along” with the other Democrats on that issue.

Mayor Pete supports “Medicare for All” because he doesn’t understand why, like ObamaCare, that won’t work in the real world. (Hornberger, by the way, had a recent post on his regular blog describing why Medicare and Medicaid have been the root cause of America’s health care crisis.)

However, Seth Moulton does not support “Medicare for All,” and instead supports the so-called “public option.” In my view, this is probably because Moulton is a slithering, slimy sleazebag who really does want “single payer” i.e. SovietCare but would impose it though the back door.

With a “public option,” we can have our private health insurance if we want it but at the same time a government-run health care program would be available as an “option.” Here, government doesn’t have to worry about the voluntary participation of consumers and instead gets its funding through taxation, which is involuntary, i.e. coercive. So, while the government-run “public option” health care program wouldn’t have to worry about profit and loss and the bottom line to remain functioning, the private sector insurers would still have those extra pressures of competition. Thus, the government-run program will drive the private insurers out of business. There is nothing optional about a “public option.” Eventually the government will be the only insurer. i.e. SovietCare.

So given their dishonest positions on those issues, I am not surprised that both Buttigieg and Moulton have no criticism for the criminal wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and instead criticize Donald Trump for avoiding Vietnam, which people should have avoided, either out of moral conscience or to save themselves from being unjustly crippled for life, psychologically traumatized or killed for no good reason.

How many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan did Buttigieg and Moulton murder? They were the invaders of those other countries, not the other way around. The inhabitants of those lands had every right to shoot back to defend their homes and families from slaughter by the invading U.S. government marauders.

Now, Jacob Hornberger’s saying and writing truthful things about the crimes of government and bureaucracy might not go over too well with many people who have been bamboozled with the religion of American Exceptionalism.

Even in 2020, I don’t know whether the American people are ready to hear the truth about such things. It’s not just a population indoctrinated from their 12 years of government schools, but much of the indoctrination since 9/11 is due to the constant 24-7 propaganda from the goddamned mainstream media! The warmongering “liberal” media! If we look at the NFL and other sports games and their military tributes and America’s churches and their sickening un-Christian military worship, as well as that in pop culture in Amerika, I think it would take a lot of convincing speeches and truth-telling to get people to consider deprogramming themselves after years of obedience and deference to the almighty Amerikan State.

And given how the Libertarian Party convention in 2016 seemed to consist of so many statist sheeple in their nominating of Gary Johnson the pothead, I don’t even know whether it’s possible that the Libertarian Party can return to their being the “Party of Principle” ever again, i.e. the party of Ron Paul and Harry Browne.

Anyway, Jacob Hornberger also has a thing or two to say about “Tariff Man,” Donald Trump. And of course, abolishing the FBI. Yay!

An Initial Look at Some of the 2020 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates

In May of 2016 I wrote my article on some of the then Libertarian Party candidates of President, with some references to some past candidates and how the LP has changed (for the worse) over the years. That article was at the time of the LP convention for the 2016 election. But now I want to write about some of the official candidates and some unofficial candidates for 2020.

In 2012 and 2016 the LP chose statist Gary Johnson the pothead to be the “Libertarian” Party Presidential nominee. Ugh. And in 2016 Bill Weld was the LP’s VP nominee. Among other naive or incoherent things, Johnson said that Barack Obama was a “good guy,” and that Hillary Clinton is a “a wonderful public servant.”

And I responded to that by writing, “Obama’s war on journalists and government whistleblowers, his war on medical marijuana, his assassinations of non-convicted suspects without charges, his drone murders and other warmongering, his medical care intrusions and other acts of criminality, show that no, Barack Obama is not a ‘good guy.’ He is a ‘bad guy.'”

And I also wrote, “Besides being a corrupt sleazebag and a degenerate, Hillary is a real criminal. And not just from the Clinton Foundation racket and the email server criminality but a real war criminal as well, even going back to her days as first lady, aiding and abetting her criminal husband in his ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and his continuing bombing and sanctions against Iraq throughout the 1990s, as she urged and supported Bill Clinton to continue doing those horrible things.”

And on Weld, “And Bill Weld wants a ‘thousand-person FBI task force treating ISIS as a gigantic organized crime family’? No, the real libertarian answer to that is to abolish the FBI, because it is the government that should be treated as a ‘gigantic organized crime family’!”

So I wanted to see just who is now running to be the LP’s nominee for President this time, in 2020. As I wrote in my article in 2016 Darryl Perry was the only candidate at that time who had the right, actual libertarian views on the issues. Certainly not Johnson, John McAfee, or Austin Peterson.

For the 2020 declared and potential LP candidates there are so many names now on Politics1.com’s list, it’s really too much for me now. But this is only May of 2019 and it’s a whole year to go until the LP’s national Presidential convention.

Anyway, to begin, there’s Adam Kokesh, who has been in the military in Iraq and has a history of confrontations with police at protests or demonstrations. I wrote a little about his debate with Larken Rose, who said that an anarchist such as Kokesh running for President is legitimizing an illegitimate system of coercion and force.

There is one thing that bothers me. On Kokesh’s campaign website, in the photo of him he is giving a military salute. Are you kidding me? I know, there are a lot of military worshipers out there, who praise the military for their invading and bombing other countries and murdering millions of innocents. I’m not saying that Kokesh is endorsing that, but WHY is he giving a military salute?!!

On the home page, he writes, “My name is Adam Kokesh and I’m running for Not-President of the United States with the Libertarian Party on the platform of the peaceful, responsible dissolution of the entire federal government.” Okay, that’s good. (That’s similar to what Darryl Perry wrote in 2016, “that the United States government, as it exists today, should be abolished!”) Kokesh writes on the Platform page on how he would dismantle the U.S. government.

Now, I agree with that, because centralization of government is what takes the society to ruin. The more decentralized the society, the more freedom there will be, and the better able people are to vote with their feet.

Another candidate is Dan “Taxation Is Theft” Behrman, who writes on his campaign website, “Taxation Is Theft,” “Fire the IRS,” “End the Fed,” “Erase the Debt,” “It’s time to free healthcare…by simply giving back our freedom to choose” (Video with Dan “Taxation Is Theft” Behrman explaining that.)…”Pardon the Innocent,” and other libertarian statements. (And he wears a funny hat.)

On William Hurst‘s campaign website, his slogan is “E Pluribus Unum Possumus – Of Many We Can Be One!” Huh? What do you mean we can be one? But I don’t want to be a part of a whole collective of people I don’t know, and be “one.” I just want freedom.

Under “My Goals,” Hurst writes, “If our children are to have a future, we need to address climate change now.” Huh? How do we address climate change which has been a natural occurrence on Earth for hundreds of millions of years that human activity has had nothing to do with, despite what the junk science fraudsters have brainwashed millions of people to believe?

And, “All citizens should be afforded quality education and a basic degree.” Huh? So what are you saying, that the gubmint should be providing education? Who defines “quality education,” the NEA? Betsy DeVos? And what about those who don’t want a “basic degree”?

In this interview, Hurst was asked if he supports Medicare for All, and his response: “Yes, if it doesn’t lend a hand to furthered abuses of the current healthcare system, I am all for it. This is one of the generally non-libertarian stances that you referred to earlier. I argue that it should be. You can’t enjoy freedom of you’re dead and the for-profit style of medicine has become a means of oppression.” Apparently, Hurst hasn’t read these articles. The “for-profit style of medicine” was working in America, and it was providing the best quality health care for most people and it wasn’t too expensive. Until Medicare was shoved down our throats, and then the quality of medical care declined and the costs went up!

Back to Hurst’s website, he writes about immigration (with my comments in brackets): “If it remains necessary to halt the illegal traffic across our border, to aid the efforts of our border patrol [“Our border patrol”? You mean our government border patrol, the police state?], we have the technology available that will allow for a nearly invisible barrier. This barrier will allow our guards [What, government guards? the border gestapo, “Your papers, please?” No thanks!] to effectively see and handle any potential threat while maintaining the ability of wildlife to traverse our expansive borders.”

On Ben Leder‘s campaign website, he proposes a Civilian Defense Act: “The Civilian Defense Act shall Repeal and Replace all Federal Gun Control Laws to include but not limited to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the National Firearms Act of 1938, the Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and reaffirm the Second Amendment of the US Constitution by creating an Online Government Auction for US Military Surplus.  All US Military Surplus shall be sold at auction to the highest bidder amongst the United States Civilian Market.  The US Civilian Market shall have the first right of refusal on all US Military Surplus, and all US Military Surplus Exports shall be sold at action to the highest bidder only after failing to be liquidated to the Civilian Marketplace.    Financing Options shall be made available to the US Civilian Market on US Military Surplus Equipment to include but not limited to Aircraft, Ships, Boats, in addition to Amphibious, Armored,  Wheeled, and Tracked Vehicles.” Hmmm.

And a Felony Forgiveness Act. “The Felony Forgiveness Act shall retroactively expunge all convictions for offenses no longer deemed illegal, to include but not limited to Drug Offenses, Firearms Offenses, and Tax Offenses….” Good.

Kimberly Ruff has a campaign website with an already chosen running mate, John Phillips.

On immigration reform, Ruff concludes, “We therefore call for the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and would declare, when elected, a full pardon for all otherwise innocent people who are in the country without government permission. We oppose the false conflation of government welfare with ‘illegal’ immigration, as those claims are unsupported by empirical study, and irrelevant to matters of natural rights. We oppose border walls as antithetical to the principles of freedom and liberty.” Good.

However, on his Positions on National Issues page, Kimberly Ruff’s VP running mate John Phillips states: “Immigration reform.  I am not a fully open borders with no restrictions person, though close.  I am however for MUCH easier immigration, work permits, and border crossing.  Once we correct our current welfare system I would be willing to look at making it even easier than I think we should now.” Work permits? You mean that people need to get a gubmint bureaucrat’s permission to work? “Correct our current welfare system”? I hope you mean “abolish” our current welfare system!

Now, I see on the Wikipedia page for the LP 2020 Presidential primaries that the Kimberly Ruff/John Phillips ticket has been endorsed by Darryl Perry, with a footnote link to this tweet. To me, that sure has a lot of weight, given how consistently libertarian and voluntaryist Darryl Perry is in his views.

And finally, someone who has a campaign website but hasn’t formally declared a candidacy for President is Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation. He has quite an impressive background and résumé, and has been involved for many years in advancing liberty.

On Taxation, Hornberger states: “Abolish the federal income tax and the IRS. People have the fundamental, God-given right to keep everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with it — spend, save, donate, or invest. The right to keep and dispose of the fruits of one’s earnings is a necessary prerequisite to a free society.”

On Healthcare, Hornberger states: “There is but one solution to what Democrats and Republicans have done to destroy what was once the greatest health-care system in the world: a total separation of health care and the state, just as our ancestors separated church and state. That necessarily means the repeal, not the reform, of Medicare, Medicaid, occupational licensure, and healthcare and tax regulations, all of which are nothing more than a cancer on the body politic.”

In fact, just this week he has some proposals for Constitutional amendments on his regular blog at FFF, such as: “No law shall be enacted by either the federal or the state governments respecting the regulation of commerce or abridging the free exercise thereof.” And, “No law shall be enacted by either the federal or state governments regarding the establishment of education or abridging the free exercise thereof.” (Well, I am not sure whether the inclusion of “state governments” might violate the Tenth Amendment, but whatever.)

On his campaign website, Hornberger has this video, A Political Message to Americans:

And he has it in Spanish as well.

Hornberger doesn’t agree with Adam Kokesh and Darryl Perry (and me) that we need to abolish the federal government, at the very least. But Hornberger does believe that the U.S. government needs to have most of what it is today dismantled, its police state given a dishonorable discharge and so on. As Hornberger wrote n 2013, permanently lay off the parasitic sector. Yup.

But in my view, the U.S. needs to decentralize, just as the old Soviet Union did. This entire territory is just too damn big to be all one single country and a single “culture.” Murray Rothbard wrote about how best to decentralize, and Lew Rockwell also envisioned how he’d like to see that done.

But, as long as this is one single country and ruled over by a single regime in Washington, we should have someone there who will veto just about everything, pardon peaceful non-criminals who are being harassed by government tyrants, and make use of the power of the executive branch to dismantle as much as possible that criminal racket in Washington, and liberate the people!

While I’m not endorsing anyone here, if the LP were to have its nominating convention today, I would be shocked if they didn’t nominate Jacob Hornberger, given his years of experience in advancing the cause of liberty, and his qualifications.

Why Hasn’t the Libertarian Party Been Successful?

In a tweet linking to Ben Shapiro, Justin Raimondo says that the reasons why the Libertarian Party isn’t more successful have more to do with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld than John McAfee. Shapiro asked why the LP isn’t more successful, after he linked to a vulgar tweet by former LP Presidential candidate John McAfee.

The truth is that the Libertarian Party just has not been successful (except for little pockets here and there with some LP elected state officials) since it began as an official political party in 1971, because generations of Americans have been brainwashed to believe that statism and government are supreme, freedom not so much.

According to Wikipedia, the 1972 LP Presidential nominee John Hospers received only 3,674 votes, but he did receive one Electoral vote. By 1980, Ed Clark received almost 1 million votes. But it went downhill from there, and then up again. In 1988 Ron Paul received a little more than 400,000 and it remained roughly around that number until Gary Johnson in 2012 with 1.2 million and Johnson in 2016 with 4.4 million. I’m not sure I believe that last number. Bob Barr and Gary Johnson de-libertarianized the Libertarian Party more than anyone could ever dream of doing.

So, the real reason for the LP’s lack of success since it began is the fact that, when there has been an opportunity to bring the principles of the so-called Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into the federal government in Washington, most people among the masses reject such principles.

Accepting those principles of those founding documents requires dismantling the empire and the warfare state by closing down ALL foreign U.S. military bases overseas and bringing all the U.S. troops back to the U.S. (and ultimately putting them to honest work in the private sector), end all U.S. tax-funded foreign aid and let private Americans and groups donate to foreigners if they want to, and end all U.S. government collusions with foreign regimes (a.k.a. foreign entanglements). Most Americans are ignorant, gullible sheeple and they believe the propaganda of the Washington warmongers. In the early 1970s, despite the truth telling of the Pentagon Papers, the American people still voted for war criminal Nixon by a landslide. Most Americans would not have been able to tell you what the Pentagon Papers actually revealed. They would not have even believed that their own government officials in Washington knew during the 1960s that the Vietnam War could not be won but continued to send troops there to die for no good reason anyway. And in 1990-91 the American people again believed all the propaganda of George H.W. Bush and approved his starting a new war of aggression, now against Iraq, for no good reason.

And accepting the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights also requires dismantling the welfare state, including Social Security, Medicare, and all private property-trespassing laws and policies that the Founders would never have approved of. It would mean repealing all income tax laws, because those involve transactions that are involuntary and intrusions into the privacy and personal lives of the people. It would also means repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and ending that bureaucracy, ending the federal money monopoly and declaring separation of money and State and separation of economy and State. But the sheeple would never stand for all those things, which the Libertarian Party platform has endorsed since the beginning of the Party.

The sheeple are brainwashed to believe that dependence on government and the police state is a given, a fact of life that is inherent in society. No, it is not. And I am sorry if some people are offended by my use of the words, “sheeple” and “brainwashed.” I calls it like I sees it. If the shoe fits….

So that is mostly why the Libertarian Party hasn’t been successful. One other minor reason is the elitists of the mainstream media who look upon libertarians as “tinfoil hat-wearers,” and refuse to cover them as they cover the total clowns of the two major parties, Republicrat and Demopublican. Clowns, corrupt criminals, morons and misfits. THOSE are the ones who get free coverage by the mainstream media elitists. And look who they helped get elected President with such free coverage.

The Libertarian Party Needs to Rediscover Private Property Rights

Already the Libertarian Party, and Gary Johnson in particular, are showing that they are clueless politically. I know, politics is not the moral or practical way to spread the word of liberty. In fact it is the opposite. But if you are going to use the political process and the political system, then you need to at least play the game in some way, if you’re serious toward the goal of getting elected, or at least getting more than 200,000 votes nationally.

For instance, Gary Johnson, if he is to be the LP nominee for President, should want to attract all those disillusioned Republican conservatives out there who will not vote for Donald Trump because they know Trump is a left-liberal progressive who wants nationalized health care-single payer, and so on. And Johnson should want to attract social conservatives. Now, Johnson is not a social conservative. He not only supports LGBT “Civil Rights,” and thinks the Christian baker should be forced to have to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, but he really believes that a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a Nazi wedding cake. So picking a fellow like-minded social liberal like Bill Weld for VP will not get those conservatives to his side.

And it isn’t just that Weld wants to punish discrimination against people based on color, race, ethnicity or sex. No, Weld thinks it should also be based on people’s lifestyles, as well. According to Ontheissues.org, Weld stated in 1996, “I think it’s very important that we not have discrimination in housing, employment against people who may be of any, any particular, particular lifestyle.”

Additionally, as far as political “strategy” is concerned, Gary Johnson already is a governor, he doesn’t need a second governor on the same ticket. So if he is the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President, he would do better by picking a social conservative and perhaps someone with the kind of legislative experience that Ron Paul has.

Wait a minute! There’s an idea. How about Ron Paul for VP, if Gary Johnson (or anyone else) is the LP nominee? With the Libertarian Party, however, the delegates to the convention have a separate nominating process for Vice President. I don’t think that Ron Paul would actively run for that. But they should consider him as a possibility.

But one thing that the Libertarian Party needs to work on — and they need a LOT of work in this area — is communicating the actual principles of libertarianism. After all, the LP has boasted all these years as “The Party of Principle.” But in recent years they have shown utter abandonment of libertarian principles.

Among the important principles of libertarianism are private property, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. These are concepts the ACLU still does not get, which is why they back LGBT “Civil Rights” laws. While part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is good in that it forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of race, color, sex, etc., it is bad because it forbids private people from discriminating, it empowers particular groups of people to enter the private property of others without the others’ consent, and it imposes violations of individuals’ freedom of thought and conscience. If you are going to say that someone’s reasons for banishing certain others from one’s property should be forbidden, then you are talking about thought crimes. No, private property owners have the absolute right of freedom of association to determine for themselves with whom to associate or not associate, and the right of freedom of thought and conscience to have any damn reason they want to exercise that control.

And by the way, by “private property,” that includes one’s person, one’s mind, one’s labor, as well as one’s home, land or business.

And private property owners have the private property right to control who goes onto or into their property, whether it is residential or commercial. Commercial property is no less private property than residential regardless of its being commercial. Why do liberals or progressives, the NAACP, ACLU, LGBT activists not insist that Civil Rights laws also cover the private residential property of others? Why should people be allowed to discriminate and prevent certain groups of people from entering their homes as well as their businesses? As Jacob Hornberger wrote a few years ago,

How would things have turned out if businesses had been left free to discriminate? Well, does anyone today get into an uproar over the fact that people are free to discriminate in their homes? And yes, people get into an uproar over a Nazi march in Skokie, just as they get upset over the periodic burning of the flag, but how many people lose sleep over the fact that people have such rights?

Freedom necessarily entails the right to make choices that other people find offensive, abhorrent, unpopular, and irresponsible. If people are free only to make the correct choices, then they are not truly free.

Liberals understand this principle, but only up to a point. That’s why they support the right of homeowners and Nazi sympathizers to discriminate. But they steadfastly refuse to extend their principles to private businesses.

Why?

I suspect that the answer lies in the long-time, deep antipathy that liberals have to the free market — to free enterprise — to capitalism — to profit. This of course raises the ugly head of socialism, the economic philosophy that has long attracted the liberal community.

Now, it isn’t just free enterprise which is why the people on the Left want to intrude and impose into private businesses, it’s also a cultural matter as we are seeing with the transgender restroom and locker room issues now. But the people on the Left are using the cultural and social intrusions as a way to aid them in further bringing about their beloved socialism.

Thomas DiLorenzo recently quoted Ludwig von Mises in this post, What the (Anti-) Cultural Marxists Are Up To:

Same thing that all varieties of Marxists are (and have been) up to, as explained by Ludwig von Mises:

“Socialist policy employs two methods to accomplish its purposes: the first aims directly at converting society to Socialism; the second aims only indirectly at this conversion by destroying the social order which is based on private ownership . . . . the second is the weapon of revolutionary Socialism” and “sabotage.”

“Thus the beginning and end of the socialist policy, which has dominated the world for decades, is destruction . . . .  Our whole life is so given over to destructionism that one can name hardly a field which it has not penetrated.  ‘Social’ art preaches it, schools teach it, the churches disseminate it.”

–Ludwig von Mises, Socialism (first published in 1922), pp. 424-425

Now, I know many in the Libertarian Party wants to be socially “liberal,” but they have to find a way to reintroduce the actual principles of private property and freedom of thought and freedom of association into the Party. The society is in desperate need to restore freedom. These principles, by the way, are not at all understood by the conservatives, as their rationale for opposing the transgender laws is “religious liberty.” That is not at all the case, because their religious liberty is not at issue. The rights being threatened involve private property, mainly.

People who want to advance the case for liberty will have difficulty considering a statist Gary Johnson or a statist Bill Weld, or most of the other statist LP candidates, just as we wouldn’t think of considering ultra-statists Bernie, Hillary or Donald.

The Libertarian Party, “The Party of Principle,” needs to stop compromising those important principles of liberty.

Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party

Here is my latest article on LewRockwell.com, Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party

Now that Mary Matalin and the mainstream media have mentioned the Libertarian Party as a possible alternative to the Republicrat Party, already there is misinformation about what libertarianism actually is.

For starters, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s apparent choice for Vice President is former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld. People are actually referring to Weld as a “libertarian” because he is supposedly a “fiscal conservative/social liberal.”

Sorry, folks. But “fiscal conservative/social liberal” means “Let’s make the existing intrusive governmental apparatus more efficient (which is close to impossible), and let’s expand private property-destroying, freedom of association-destroying Civil Rights laws even further.”

Libertarianism, on the other hand, includes the non-aggression principle, self-ownership and self-determination and the right to self-defense, private property rights, voluntary association and freedom of non-association, free markets and voluntary exchange. You know, “Live and let live.”

So libertarianism is about liberty, liberating the people from government’s intrusions, its coercion, threats and criminal violence. As Murray Rothbard wrote in The Anatomy of the State:

The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.

This is why true libertarians would want to liberate the people from the State’s criminality, not make reforms to the criminal State or merely rearrange the deck chairs on an inherently flawed centralized bureaucracy.

Alas, since Ron Paul’s 1988 LP campaign for President, the Libertarian Party seems to have lost touch with its actual libertarian roots, and has been stuck in the quagmire of statism.

A problem that the current top-polling Libertarian Party candidates for President have is that they seem to assume that the State and specifically the centralized federal government is a given, like it is some natural institution that has always existed. Not only that but they seem to have the assumption that taxation exists, therefore it is moral and legitimate. Bureaucracies exist, therefore they should continue to exist, but should be “reformed” or “trimmed” and so on.

Nope. The libertarian view is that if an institution such as the U.S. government has power and authority over you and it isn’t a voluntary arrangement, then it is an illegitimate institution.

For instance, consumers choose voluntarily to patronize various businesses, and they voluntarily establish mutually beneficial contracts. However, if one party uses some kind of coercion or threats against the other, we would call that something of a criminal nature.

Libertarians believe in voluntary associations, relationships and contracts. If something is involuntary or coerced, then it is not only illegitimate but it is criminal. Libertarians believe in non-aggression. Obviously it would take the initiation of aggression to force someone to obey the bureaucrats’ authority.

Did you voluntarily consent to some various people or agency having some kind of artificial authority over your life? Did you actually ponder the legitimacy of some politicians making up new laws or rules that you must obey or prohibitions that you must avoid, whether you agree with it or not?

I know, a lot of people really believe that such a system of involuntary submission to the will of artificial elites is a legitimate system, because they were indoctrinated to believe that during their 12 or 16 years of government-controlled schooling, and from heavy influence of their parents and pop culture.

If the people are not ready to consider voluntaryism or libertarianism, then given their current dissatisfaction with the Republicrat Party, perhaps they could give the Libertarian Party a try. I know, I myself have looked upon the LP with contempt, and rightfully so, but I’m willing to be flexible these days.

Murray Rothbard was influential in the Libertarian Party during its first decade of existence. The 1984 LP platform was extremely libertarian in its principles and statements. Very pro-private property and freedom of association, pro-due process and endorsing of self-ownership and voluntaryism, as was the 1988 LP platform that coincided with Ron Paul’s LP candidacy. But you can see how in the LP’s 2005 clueless Iraq “exit strategy” and then in the 2012 LP platform the Party’s principles have been whittled away somewhat, particularly regarding foreign policy. Shameful. Gary Johnson was the nominee that year.

Ron Paul in 1988 was very thorough and consistent in his recognition of libertarian principles of non-interventionism in both foreign and domestic affairs, the rights of self-defense and freedom of speech and religion, due process and so on.

Dr. Paul remained consistent in his 2008 and 2012 Republican Presidential campaigns. Close down all U.S. foreign military bases and bring all the troops home. And good riddance to the unconstitutional CIA, FBI, NSA, FTC, FCC, the Fed, and all the rest.

However, Dr. Paul is not for totally dismantling the entire federal government, as I am. (I know, some people think that would be crazy. That’s because they apparently never thought to question the whole system of central planning. For if they did, they would see how central planning doesn’t work, is immoral and destroying America and the lives of millions of its inhabitants, and will eventually crash and collapse on its own weight, like the Soviet Union did.)

Now, the three top-polling Libertarian Party candidates for President in 2016 are good with some libertarian rhetoric, but are inconsistent in their views and, in the end, are statists. They are Gary Johnson, who wants to cut “43%” from the defense budget but not close down all the hundreds of foreign U.S. military bases which shouldn’t be there overseas; Austin Petersen, who clearly doesn’t understand Ron Paul’s criticism of the blowback of U.S. military invasions and occupations overseas, who disagrees with the non-aggression principle, and who wants to make a mere 1% cut to federal programs rather than eliminating them completely; and security software entrepreneur John McAfee.

But there are other candidates who will be considered at the party’s national convention May 26-30.

Among some of lesser-polling Libertarian Party candidates for President, there’s Marc Allan Feldman, a Cleveland anesthesiologist. In his “Progressive plan to shrink the federal government,” Dr. Feldman states: “I will declare a National Fiscal Emergency and, by executive order, direct every government agency to apply (strict) controls to limit spending to available revenue.”

Sorry, Dr. Feldman. Instead of directing every government agency to limit spending, the true libertarian act would be to dismantle every one of those damned government agencies! Or just about every one, as most of the federal governmental apparatus as it currently exists is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution and, more important, doesn’t have the moral authority to exist and exert power over the people compulsorily.

Dr. Feldman writes, “For every agency and every federal law, objective measurable survey instruments will be used to give evidence whether they are working, making people safer, more secure, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, or sheltering the homeless.”

Huh? Are you serious? The government “feeding the hungry, healing the sick, or sheltering the homeless”? What’s this guy doing in the “Libertarian” Party?

Dr. Feldman also wants to make Kanye West be his Vice President. (I am not. Making. This. Up.)

And Derrick Michael Reid seems to have an understanding of the criminality of the State especially the federal government, but still seems to have this “Restore American Greatness” thing (sounding like Donald Trump).

But I just want our freedom restored. “Freedom First” is my motto, not “America First.” But that’s just me. And this Reid quotes the Pledge of Allegiance (to the flag, etc., etc.) on his website. The Pledge of Allegiance is really a Pledge of Obedience to the government, as far as I’m concerned. And why is his campaign website domain “Totalitariandemocracy.com”?

Jack B. Robinson, Jr. wants to “end poverty and provide healthcare for all Americans; and then worldwide,” and “protect Social Security and Medicare, strengthen our military, transform the poorest of countries with infrastructure, healthcare.” Not particularly libertarian, this guy. Are you sure you are on the right planet, Mr. Robinson?

But one candidate in particular, Darryl Perry, is clearly the most libertarian of the candidates. He states:

I believe
that all coercive forms of taxation should be eliminated, and government programs should be funded voluntarily.
that people should be allowed to travel freely without government interference; this includes the right of individuals to choose where they decide to live.
in the right of self-determination; that is the right of “determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status.”
that every person and/or group of people should be allowed to decide for themselves if and/or how they will be governed.
that men do not need leaders, we are all capable of leading ourselves. Governments only get in the way of allowing this to happen.
that the United States government, as it exists today, should be abolished!

Hey! Perry is the one candidate here who actually distinguishes between voluntary contracts and forced, coerced or compelled contracts. And he also believes that the U.S. government should be abolished.

But as America stands right now, I don’t think that the masses have any understanding of what damage the U.S. government has done to the country and that it needs to be dismantled forthwith. The masses mainly believe the propaganda dished out by government officials as repeated by their lapdogs in the mainstream media. Thus, they flock to Trump, Hillary, Bernie, and Ted Scruz. The masses really believe that the central planners of the Regime will protect them from foreign aggression, or that they will actually be protected from those very central planners’ aggressions.

So, it is unlikely that Perry could make sense to those people no matter how well he might communicate such important ideas.

Unlike the other “Libertarians,” Perry has a clear understanding of libertarianism. He also states: “All peaceful prisoners should be released, so long as their offense does not have a victim. Police should no longer arrest or ticket people for offenses with no victim, and such crimes should be eliminated from federal statutes, state statutes and local ordinances.”

And, “I oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, transport, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, or any other tool that could be used for self-defense. Additionally, I oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition, and oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of other self-defensive tools, including (but not limited to) pepper spray, stun guns, tear gas (mace). I further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition.”

But in the end, I don’t know whether Perry’s hard-core libertarian message is what today’s American sheeple are ready for, even though that is exactly what they need to restore their freedom.

Perhaps a compromise could consist of the LP drafting Ron Paul to be its nominee, especially given that so many people really did vote for him and he received many Republican delegates in 2012. Dr. Paul’s message of peace and freedom resonates with millions. And while voluntaryist libertarians such as myself disagree, Dr. Paul does believe that the federal government should continue to exist. It’s just that he would cut most of it away as not authorized by the Constitution — definitely a plus.

In any event, some people see America as headed toward a real, terrible collapse. Like Venezuela is experiencing right now. But we can avoid that at the very least by abolishing Leviathan. So, in the event that we ever do see the actual dismantling of the U.S. federal government, thus bringing about the largest period of human liberation, economic growth and prosperity in World History, Murray Rothbard has some important advice on how to go about the desocializing process.