He was at some Libertarian Party shindig recently and the comment was referring to why they should vote for him instead of Libertarian candidates (that only get ~<3% of the votes).
The Libertarian Hardliner purists are probably a lost cause.
The party is a mess and has been for years. They struggle to agree on anything aside from extremely basic policy points. And even that is a struggle some years from my observation.
Not to mention there’s a billion and half flavors of libertarian at this point. Many of whom don’t like each other and regularly accuse each other of not being libertarian over disagreements on policy.
In recent years I’ve actually met self-identified Libertarian Monarchists. Which threw me for a bit of a loop to be honest.
There is very much a reason why the party has never been able to meaningfully affect National Politics. Outside of the obvious incentives for the establishment to discredit them. They struggle to put together slates of candidates with any mainstream appeal. You can appeal to party hardliners. But Hardliners are often a fringe of a fringe of any electorate. Most of the country is fundamentally more moderate.
I wasted about 10 years in the Lolbertarian Party, Trump's first term is what drew me back. Their 2020 candidate also spouted "anti racist" nonsense made my decision to walk away even easier.
Libertarian monarchist could also be conceived of as merely owning land outright. I’m sure there’s more to the particular philosophy, but once you own land outright you are a monarch for all intents and purposes.
In another video where he was kind of getting boo'd he said "don't vote for me ... you'll get your 3% each year"
Anyone know what he's referencing about 3%?
He was at some Libertarian Party shindig recently and the comment was referring to why they should vote for him instead of Libertarian candidates (that only get ~<3% of the votes).
https://files.catbox.moe/01kn2j.png
edit: https://greatawakening.win/p/17tKeEGEXY/give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death/c/
He may persuade the moderates.
The Libertarian Hardliner purists are probably a lost cause.
The party is a mess and has been for years. They struggle to agree on anything aside from extremely basic policy points. And even that is a struggle some years from my observation.
Not to mention there’s a billion and half flavors of libertarian at this point. Many of whom don’t like each other and regularly accuse each other of not being libertarian over disagreements on policy.
In recent years I’ve actually met self-identified Libertarian Monarchists. Which threw me for a bit of a loop to be honest.
There is very much a reason why the party has never been able to meaningfully affect National Politics. Outside of the obvious incentives for the establishment to discredit them. They struggle to put together slates of candidates with any mainstream appeal. You can appeal to party hardliners. But Hardliners are often a fringe of a fringe of any electorate. Most of the country is fundamentally more moderate.
I wasted about 10 years in the Lolbertarian Party, Trump's first term is what drew me back. Their 2020 candidate also spouted "anti racist" nonsense made my decision to walk away even easier.
Libertarian monarchist could also be conceived of as merely owning land outright. I’m sure there’s more to the particular philosophy, but once you own land outright you are a monarch for all intents and purposes.