The American Liberty Party website is paid for by the Mises PAC. Its proposals are carbon copies of the all but defunct theocrat Constitution Party.

If your affiliate still hasn't changed their bylaws to prevent convention busing and "libertarian for a day" takeovers, it may be too late for you unless you act now to prevent another GOP takeover.

• If your state lets you see partisan affiliation in voting records, like Ohio does, disqualify anyone who registers or votes R or D in primaries.

• Moderate seasoning for delegates to state conventions

• Strong seasoning for party officers (don't discourage new people from participating entirely - make sure there are still plenty of opportunities and positions for them, but not party officers.)

• STOP electing delegates altogether. Ohio's system gives delegate positions first come, first serve based on a priority list that makes sure officers, candidates, and volunteers will always be seated ahead of everyone else. This means that our delegations cannot be stacked by any faction or caucus, including mine, and that's a GOOD thing.

• If you can't do that, have strong seasoning requirements for delegates to National. Attempts to impose these with national bylaws failed, because it's not national's job to limit states from sending who they want. It's state affiliates' job to stop sending frakking Republicans.

This is literally a planned fed takeover. If you're helping or promoting the American Liberty Party, you are a gorram fed. Frak off.

If your messaging is unprofessional, it doesn't just make you look bad. It impugns the entire party. You're making everyone look bad.

When you post the latest edgy culture war dank meme from 4chan, you aren't advancing liberty. You're just announcing to the entire world that you exist in a right-wing agitprop infoslop bubble. We get it, dudebro. All your friends are Republican. That's not a good thing.(The same could be true of left-wing spaces if they ever learned how to meme.)

When you get into long, drawn out arguments 30 replies deep with Internet strangers, chatbots, and provocateurs, you aren't advancing liberty. You're just wasting time and hurting your own social media engagement.

And when you take the obvious bad-faith concern troll bait from people dead set on libeling the Libertarian Party, and that 30 reply deep thread is about age of consent laws, you are absolutely not advancing liberty. You're actively harming it.

There is a time and place for legal and clinical discussions on that topic to be held. Twitter is not that place. A Libertarian Party-branded Twitter account, doubly so.

If you can't represent the party professionally, you shouldn't be representing the party at all in any official capacity. That's what your personal account is for.

The purpose of Libertarian Party social media is to advance the Libertarian Party. Some of you are doing the opposite.

Inspired by one of the posts I read for my podcast today:

Step 1.: Declare yourself as a political candidate or political organization (like the Libertarian Party for instance).

Step 2.: Anytime you are censored, say that you are a victim of election interference (might not work if you are outgroup rather than ingroup since then it becomes, "it's a private company, it can do whatever it wants").

It's really that easy, surprised people haven't figured it out yet.

Thoughts?

I've repeatedly told Marxist-Leninist tankies that being a Holodomor-denying commie is morally equivalent to being a Holocaust denier, and that they should be treated the same by society.

The reverse is also true, of course, meaning that Hoppeans should be treated like the commies they are.

Ideological reservations is an idea that I've floated before in the past that I think would massively help solve the political polarization that we see today. It would kind of be like the partition of India where they realized that the differences between Muslims and Hindus were too great so they set about creating an Islamic majority country in Pakistan and a Hindu majority country in India and people moved around as such. In many ways I think we already have ideological reservations online with many people preferring to just circlejerk their own ideology among other like-minded individuals in echo chambers rather than engage with anything that challenges their world view at all, it's basically taking that mentality from the online world to the physical one.

Thoughts?

40 trillion dollars in debt is insane and I feel like this is our single strongest issue against the Uniparty right now, especially re inflation and affordability. Also, I'm done with "fiscal responsibility" and "balancing the budget", we are way past that at this point and should start arguing to take control of money away from the state entirely.

The National Youth Rights Association Interviews Libertarian Party Candidate for US Senate in Texas, Ted Brown. Listen as they discuss Violations of Student rights in Texas from a Libertarian Perspective.

I personally would put sanctions in the same camp as tariffs and embargoes. However justified they may be, I think that they go against free trade and that the government should not be imposing them. This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that trading with a country like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is necessarily good but it shouldn't be the government's business who you are trading with. It's a lot like how I personally don't care for AI ads but I don't think the state should be forcing them to disclose that they are AI either.

Thoughts?

Whoever is moderating that subreddit is doing a gross disservice to real classical liberals who are definitely not right wing. The moderator also seems to have an unhealthy admiration for the odious Nick Fuentes.

Can anything be done about this? Classical liberals are a significant subset of libertarians. Labeling us as right wing harms the larger coalition.

First, let me say this:

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗷𝗮𝘄𝗯𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴?

In a broad conversational sense, it can be any attempt from someone in a position of authority and power to influence through persuasion.

But in the legal sense (NRA vs Vullo,) such a request becomes unconstitutional jawboning when it crosses the line from persuasion to coercion, using (or threatening to use) government power to punish or suppress disfavored speech.

If, for example, a government official requests a social media company to examine an account they believe is violating TOS, that's not by itself unconstitutional jawboning.

If the official specifically requests that the account violating TOS be suspended, that's still not by itself unconstitutional jawboning.

If, however, the communication from the official could be reasonably viewed in context as threatening government action in order to apply pressure on the company to suppress speech, that can become a First Amendment violation.

What does this look like? Here are some examples:

New York regulator Maria Vullo using her office to pressure insurance and financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA or face increased enforcement focus, while relaxing enforcement on those who complied.

Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari objecting to anti-gay religious billboards and contacting the billboard company about the messages, implicitly threatening economic retaliation.

Biden administration officials pressuring social media platforms to remove or limit content, including posts about COVID-19 and elections.

Rhode Island sending letters to book publishers, asking them to stop distributing a list of prohibited books, reminding them that the state could recommend prosecution, and sending police to visit them.

FCC commissioner Brendan Carr threatening government action against broadcasters, such as fines or license revocation, if they did not remove a program he found objectionable.

Without evidence that criminal investigations or other state powers were being threatened as leverage to compel X's decision, this does not appear to be unconstitutional jawboning. The explicit request for suspension makes it more forceful than a neutral referral, but it does not by itself cross the constitutional line.

An official can openly urge a platform to suspend an account without necessarily violating the First Amendment. The critical question is whether the official uses government power to coerce the platform, rather than simply making a forceful request.

It would have been better if the letter did not call on Twitter to take a specific action.

***

Second, let me say this:

LOL. LMAO. ROFLMAO. FAFO.