You’re wrong. The first amendment isn’t the freedom of speech.

Yesterday, a Donald Trump rally was called off for fears that violence would erupt after a large protest turned into a riot, with people blocking traffic and threatening violence. Stemming from that arguments about free speech and the first amendment have erupted onto social media. Included in that discourse is even someone I have deep respect for, Representative from Michigan, Justin Amash.

Let’s back track a minute and look at where this stems from.

The tweets headline says nothing inherently wrong. Threats of violence toward an individual in order to prevent them from speaking is a clear violation of the natural right to free speech. Here’s how a lot of people responded though.

As you might be able to deduce, Amash’s response and the meme are non-sequiturs. The 1st amendment is not free speech. The 1st amendment merely protects the government from infringing upon the natural right of freedom of speech. This could be written off if it was just a temporary lapse in relation to the commonality of people to use the term interchangeably. I mean honestly you’re taught in grammar school that the 1st amendment “is the freedom of speech.” Though this, as stated above, is not accurate it fits well for an elementary understanding of natural rights. Similarly claims of “constitutional rights” are wrong, they are “constitutionally protected rights.” A subtle phrasing difference conveys a completely different idea.

From there Amash received many unflattering responses from Trump supporters asking just “why isn’t this a 1st amendment issue?” One such user posed the question this way:

A fair question, but one possibly steeped in ignorance,  as this isn’t a first amendment issue, as he had stated, yet still an issue of free speech.
Amash chose to respond and doubled down on his conflation of the terms.

I’m afraid it would be a violation of your freedom of speech Mr.Amash. Natural rights can be violated by anyone but only the government can violate the constitution, as the document pertains to restrictions on government alone. As such, this laid out scenario wouldn’t be violation of the 1st amendment, as only the government can do that, but would be a violation of the natural right which the 1st amendment protects you from government infringement of. Perhaps Justin should review his Locke.

Following this, trump also doubled down and made an equally incorrect tweet to wrap up the dialogue.

 

No Mr.Trump, they didn’t violate your 1st amendment rights.
They violated your natural rights.

It appears many of our elected officials(even the smarter ones), politicians,  and general populace need a refresher on rights and the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution.

Buy a copy of it here!

The “right to travel” does not exist.

The “right to travel” is a common appeal to authority used in debates among libertarians and non libertarians alike. I think this stems from a lack of information regarding the subject or the “sovereign citizen” types in the larger libertarian community who have been known to invoke this in discussions about licensing. It has in essence become a functional misnomer, even to the extent people are saying that violating this  supposed natural right is a violation of the Non-aggression Principle.

Let’s break down the phrase “right to travel” by looking directly at the terms.

First, let’s look at what rights are. Essentially, rights are nothing more than ethical principles, which are entitlements to be left alone, that we derive from our existence. For instance, we have a right to not be killed by others, we have a right to not have our property taken away by others, and we have a right to not have our speech quelled by others. However, we do not have a right to other people’s property or labor. This is the difference between a state granted privilege and contracted or natural right. A state granted privilege or a contracted right can only come from the state or another person through force or a contract. For instance, a “right” to a cheese burger can only ever exist under a contract, or by the state forcibly taking that cheese burger from the producer and giving it to you.

Next, we should define travel. Travel is merely the journey from your current location to another over private, unowned, or state controlled property. Now allow me to break off into a tangent on this by saying in a completely private society, there would be no state property. All property would be privately controlled or unowned. With the population as it currently sits the non-existence of unowned property, at least on this planet and especially within the united states, is a forgone conclusion in a practical sense. Meaning unowned land simply does not exist today, it either comes under the purview of the state or is controlled by private interests.

So, the phrase “right to travel” implies we have a right (legal or ethical principle to be left alone) to travel across (state or privately owned) property. So do we have a right to do that? I don’t think we do. Let’s break this down to the three areas of property we can traverse, as mentioned above.

I don’t think it’s ethical to say you have an exclusive right to travel across state owned property, because that property was appropriated with money that was taken from people unjustly. So therefore that right to travel across that state controlled property would not exist if not for the state, because in a free society that property would be privately owned. Therefore, the “right to travel” across state controlled property can not be a natural right, because it can only exist as a privilege from the state.

Similarly to state controlled property, I don’t believe it would be ethical to claim and exclusive right to travel across someone else’s private property. As this would violate basic property rights which are derived from self ownership and are directly related to the Non-aggression Principle. That is unless you have a contract and since this “right to travel” across private property is a contracted right, it therefore can not be a natural right, and thus refutes the idea that the “right to travel” is a natural right in the context of private property.

Furthermore, the existence of state property naturally and continually interferes with private property. As the right to private property would  naturally include the existence of privacy and exclusivity. However, under a state this does not exist because public property such as roads and “public” thoroughfares infringe upon that. Forcing, by monopoly, the travel of others along a road that was not agreed upon by a property owner to run through, over, or adjacent to private property. This simply could not happen in a free society.

Lastly, we come to unowned property, which as described above does not currently exist on Earth. This, in contrast with the other two, I do believe to be ethical to traverse across without a contract. This unowned property constitutes an unowned resource and can be used by anyone crossing it for whatever means they feel are justifiable, as long as they are not harming anyone else in the process. So we can deduce that the only true and natural “right to travel” is across unowned property. Thus it becomes obvious that the “right to travel” can only ever exist in the context of unowned property. And the implication or enforcement of a “right to travel” across private or state controlled property, and not its inverse, is the violation of the Non-aggression Principle.

So the next time a libertarian, or anyone for that matter, says they or others have a “right to travel” ask them what kind of property they are traveling across. Since we know, for now, the answer is either going to state controlled property or private property, their argument that a natural “right to travel” exists, is now easily proven false.

 

 

Don’t blame the victim. A defense of voting.

This will be a response to Wendy McElroy’s:
Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler” Published in 1997.

I consider such a bullet to be an act of self-defense in a manner that a ballot could never be. A bullet can be narrowly aimed at a deserving target; a ballot attacks innocent third parties who must endure the consequences of the politician I have assisted into a position of power over their lives. Whoever puts a man into a position of unjust power – that is, a position of political power – must share responsibility for every right he violates thereafter.

It’s hard to know where to start. Let’s look at the broadest aspect of this first, the environment. This argument must assume that we are within a situation of consent that has lead to the voluntary interaction and thus to a non coercive decision, that has, in turn, lead to the responsibility of my vote and how it affects other people. This is of course completely false. I do not live in a free society. The environment I find myself situated within is coercive, it is threatening, it is an environment that is unjust and one that I have not consented to.

Let’s look a little “parable of the voter” I worked up.

A man with a gun has taken 10 people hostage, and for the sake of this exercise the man can not be killed in anyway. He takes the 10 people in to a room. In the middle of this room sits a lever. The lever in the middle position, means no one is harmed, but everyone remains the man’s slave. The lever in the left position kills 3 members, by stripping years of their life away for every degree the lever moves in that direction but frees the rest immediately, while giving them riches and fame. The lever in the right position frees everyone but they must remain on the island for one year away from their families and loved ones. Quickly 5 men rush to push the lever to left to escape the island immediately and be rewarded with riches and fame. The 3 men who will die rush to counter the men who want the lever pushed to the left and proceed to push the lever to the right. Two undecided men remain. Of the two remaining, 1 man joins the three pushing the others right. The final man condemns the 4 men who are trying to push the lever right because they acquiescing to the demands of their captor and trying to enslave the other 5 trying to push the lever left. The final man demands that argument and education must be used to convince the other 5 men that they are wrong and any use of the lever is aggression. The 5 men who are pushing right are talked to by the fifth man, while the other 3 men are slowly having their life stripped from them. Eventually the final man convinces one of the 5 men to stop pushing on the lever and not exert any force at all. The captor merely introduces another person who he has convinced that pushing the lever left will set him free and the process begins again. This is the state’s torment of Tantalus.

This parable I think aptly demonstrates the situation in which the state has encapsulated us all. It has, as a matter of fact, taken us hostage without our consent and afforded us only one means to preserve our lives and liberties. I do not, and would not deny that voting is force but I do deny that it is aggression in any form. What does it say about the man who refuses to help the dying men at least recapture some of their life? Is he an immoral actor? I think he is immoral, but i do not think what he has done violates anyone’s rights, the state is solely responsible for that.

Morality can not be defined by rights alone. Take for instance, a man with immense wealth eating at an outside restaurant, when a starving child crawls to him, he need only lower his food to the child but refuses. Has this man violated anyone’s rights? No, and the thought of punishing him is repugnant. However, he is immoral, and I would not wish to live in any community with such a man. Would you?

There is no doubt in my mind the quoted section above is a veiled attack on Lysander Spooner. So let’s see what he actually had to say about voting.

CbcjQJmUUAAe2ZV.jpg large
Excerpt from No Treason 
(click for full size)

 

Spooner states, that we can look at votes as bullets on a battlefield of coercion. I have not consented to tyranny I have found myself situated within, just as the drafted soldier doesn’t. However, others will use votes against me. So if other people are going to shoot votes at me, I’m going to shoot votes back at them. I’d be pretty stupid not to do so. I have a limited choice Slave or Master, the dichotomy the state has created. I refuse to be a slave to another person’s will, so I must choose to be a master.

The thing the author misses is that the person firing the round (vote) is just as much a victim as the other innocents. There is no collateral damage because all the damage is collateral damage. Coercion absolves us of complete responsibility in a coercive environment. The tools the state gives you to defend yourself aren’t your problem or responsibility, they’re what you have.

There isn’t a rational person in the world who thinks a hostage is in any way responsible for the actions a hostage taker. That’s why they’re called HOSTAGES. They’re forced to be there, making themselves heard is an act of self-defense. Not voting, not saying anything, the hostage taker always takes as tacit approval or at the very least compliance.

I can address only the reality in which I live and, in a world replete with alternatives, I would not vote for or against Hitler. Let me address a more fundamental question: What is the nature of the state? According to Max Weber, a state is an institution that claims a monopoly of force over a geographical area. It is a form of institutionalized power, and the first step in dissecting its essence is to analyze the defining terms “power” and “institution.”

Albert Jay Nock wrote of two sorts of power: social and state. By social power, he meant the amount of freedom individuals actually exercise over their lives – that is, the extent to which they can freely make such choices as where and how to live. By state power, he meant the actual amount of control the government exercises over its subjects’ lives – that is, the extent to which it determines such choices as where and how people live. There is an inverse and antagonistic relationship between social and state power. One expands only at the expense of the other.

I stress the word “actual” because the power of the state does not rest on its size – the number of laws on the books or the extent of the territory it claims. A state’s power rests on social conditions, such as whether people will obey its laws and how many resources it can command to enforce obedience. A key social condition is how legitimate the state is seen to be. For without the veil of legitimate authority, the people will not obey the state, and it will not long command the resources, such as taxes and manpower, that it needs to live.

In other words, freedom does not depend so much on repealing laws as weakening the state’s authority. It does not depend – as political strategists expediently claim on persuading enough people to vote “properly” so that libertarians can occupy seats of political power and roll back legislation. Unfortunately, this process strengthens the institutional framework that produced the unjust laws in the first place: it strengthens the structure of state power by accepting its authority as a tool of change. But state authority can never strengthen social power.

Does it really posit an unrealistic fantasy world? What options do you have to use against the state? Education, legitimacy denial, and counter economics are the only three that come to mind. The only three I can imagine have been put forth other than political action. So let’s look at those quickly as viable options. Since we don’t live in fantasy world let us dispense with hypotheticals and deal directly with realities.

Education. For every one person you educate the state educates one hundred thousand. No contest, you lose. It’s as simple as that. If you want to make education work for you, guess what you have to do? Yep, vote for people who want to return education back to communities and away from the state. Even wonderful things like Tom Woods’ liberty classroom can’t compete with the state and its’ compulsory education.

legitimacy denial. The state doesn’t care if it’s legitimate and never has. Its existence is illegitimate and it knows this. Do you think the people in North Korea think the state is legitimate? Do you think the people in the Cambodian killing fields thought the state was legitimate? Showing other people the state isn’t legitimate is nothing other than education, dressed up as a moral position. Stopping people from voting obviously would have little effect as over 50% of eligible voters in the population don’t vote as it is, and the state is still here. It would be here if, 75% or 80% or 90% of people didn’t vote.  The state takes this silence as consent, whether you like it or not. Most people don’t care about the state, even if they realized it was illegitimate. They’re too caught up in their lives and as long as the state doesn’t take drastic measures it knows it can maintain its’ hold over society and culture. Even in extreme circumstances like rounding up Japanese citizens and putting them in camps still isn’t wholly recognized by everyone as illegitimate.

Does anyone think not voting or convincing people not to vote in North Korea would change the state there? Obviously not, so why would it change it here? Clearly though, if North Korea did have the legitimate possibility of replacing its dictator that would be an avenue that they could pursue change. However, even that considers the people of Korea would do such a thing. The state’s education system would seemingly always outweigh any counter efforts. Unfortunately, the state in North Korea is under absolute control, we must recognize the distinction between dictatorship and systems in which we can have influence. Denying there is a difference between these ideas is absurd. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Eric Garner, Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq War, I could go on for hours of examples of state illegitimacy. This strategy is not based in reality.

The internet was probably the greatest innovation help to freedom that could have ever have been created and today the state is hell-bent on regulating and controlling it. Many would have us let them do it and abstain from trying to prevent it. This is a horrible idea.

Counter economics. The state doesn’t care about your counter economics, it will hunt you down and throw you in a cage if you start to threaten its hold over the economy. It has the absolute power of the monopoly on force. For all intents and purposes un-permitted lemonade stands are “counter economics” but amount to little more than simple civil disobedience. Let’s look at two of the largest examples of counter economics to ever exist.

First we’ll look at the Silk Road and its creator Ross Ulbricht. The silk road was shut down by the government, its creator put in a cage for the rest of his life. Meanwhile, this has given the state a political platform to trash Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. During the trial they took that opportunity. What did the silk road accomplish? It brought libertarianism a bad name and created a private murder market, that would in any free society be denounced by even the most radical libertarians. It is a qualified failure. The dark net continues to be raided constantly by government agents, including Dark0de, considered one of the best dark net black markets.

Second, we’ll look at Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed’s 3D printed firearm. Let me say I have immense respect for Mr.Wilson and his projects. I hope to purchase a ghost gunner myself soon. That being said, while Mr.Wilson has met with some success by introducing a file that can basically never be erased from the internet, what effect has that had on the state? It may have changed the way people see firearms but what could be the state’s response, what was the state’s response? The state shut down Mr.Wilson and required him to go through a an extensive FFL licensing process.The state shut down his site so no more innovation in the 3D gun printing market can occur. Much to his credit Mr.Wilson is taking this to court and using the only means available to him to resolve this and attempt to fight for all of our freedom however he can. Some would call him a statist for this. I call him an intelligent strategist who knows his options and knows how to pick his fights.

Beyond this, many people state Cuba’s black market as another success of counter economics. That’s nice, people aren’t starving because they do what they have to do in order to survive. You call that a success though? No, success is abolishing the state or reducing its size so far down you can barely see it. Internal counter econ has done little more than keep people alive in Cuba, and has done basically nothing to stop Castro’s tyrannical hold. What will free Cuba? External trade and the global economy. Completely different from internal anti state counter economics. No doubt, some will still  champion Cuba’s coming market upheaval as a success of counter econ. Despite the fact that after 50 years of isolation and a basically failed black market nothing has changed. I wouldn’t be so foolish as to claim this as a victory if I were you agorists.

Here’s what Rothbard has to say on strategy.

I see no other conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty than political action. Religious or philosophical conversion of each man and woman is simply not going to work; that strategy ignores the problem of power, the fact that millions of people have a vested interest in statism and are not likely to give it up. Violent revolution will not work in a democratic political system. Konkinian agorism is no answer…

Rothbard, as always, nails it. Power, it is absolute in its supremacy. As shown every strategy above fails to address it. With it you can control vast swaths of humanity, without it you are doomed to slavery. It is the very much the grail of human existence. The state will always have power and the only way to conceivably reduce that power is to wield it upon itself.

This brings up the issue of institutional analysis. People apply the word “institution” to such wide-ranging concepts as “the family,” “the free market,” “the church,” and “the state.” An institution is any stable and widely-accepted mechanism for achieving social and political goals. To a great extent, these institutions function independently of the good or bad intentions of those who use them. For example, as long as everyone respects the rules of the free market, it functions as a mechanism of exchange. The same is true of the state. As long as everyone respects its rules – voting, going through state channels, obeying the law – it functions as a mechanism of social control.

The differences between the state and the market are obvious and numerous. The state forces you to take part in its system under threat of death. The market invites you participate at your own risk and at to no threat to your personal well-being, only your capital. The market is not a tool for political and social change, political change is merely a byproduct of the market not its intent. The market itself may influence political upheaval toward a more market friendly system but it won’t change people’s opinion of the state, because the state will use the change as a justification for its own existence.

The market is self reinforcing because it brings wealth and prosperity to those who embrace it. The state brings death and destruction of personal liberties. So seemingly this is counter intuitive. If people see voting has no effect or a bad effect, if the comparison holds, the people would move away from the state, not towards it. As reality holds though, this is not the case.

F.A. Hayek popularized the notion of unintended consequences, observing that conscious acts often produce unforeseen results. This explains why good men who act through bad institutions will produce bad results. Good men acting through the state will strengthen its legitimacy and its institutional framework. They will weaken social power. Ultimately, whether or not they repeal any particular law becomes as irrelevant to producing freedom as their intentions.

This is the law of unintended consequences but this example posits something rather odd. Seemingly “good men” legitimize the state by acting in moral ways. What is moral about the state’s actions? The state is wholly immoral in its nature, its controllers morality make no difference to the outcome if they don’t wish to use the state against itself. So called “good men” would advocate lessening the state or abolishing it, thus preventing its reinforcement not encouraging it. Voting for men who will reinforce the state by using it for “good”, whatever that is, isn’t a good idea. This seems like a very well crafted straw man.

So, returning to the question of voting for Hitler: purely for the sake of argument, I’ll grant the possibility that I could morally cast a ballot. Yet even then, I would still refuse to vote against him. Why? Because the essential problem is not Hitler, but the institutional framework that allows a Hitler to grasp a monopoly on power.

This is tantamount to arguing the state is the source of all things bad about the state. Well yeah, so end the state! Yet this posits nothing to accomplish the goal other than asking other people not participate in the only semi effective means the state has provided as a counter against its’ power. Other than the fact that merely ignoring state power could sink us into more and more tyrannical government in which finally people would be being killed and would be forced to actively fight the the state. If this is the argument it is not a moral argument and I will not entertain it. I find, more often than not, the people who advocate for collapse have no idea what that collapse would entail. Not to mention nearly all of human history has seen fallen democracies replaced with absolute tyrannies.

And yes, voting has been effective in many instances from state and local repealing of bad laws and the expansion of things like medical cannabis and concealed carry to what may be a single senator preventing a war in Syria. These things can not be denied.

 

Without the state to back him up and an election to give him legitimized power, Hitler would have been, at most, the leader of some ragged thugs who mugged people in back alleys. Voting for or against Hitler would only strengthen the institutional framework that produced him – a framework that would produce another of his ilk in two seconds.

I find it hard to compare Hitler and even Barrack Obama. There is a disconnect here that is blatantly obvious in its’ hyperbolic nature. That is especially true if the end game is collapse.

Killing Hitler does less damage. But it – like voting – is an admission of utter defeat. Resorting to brute force means that all avenues of social power have been destroyed and I have been reduced to adopting the tactics of the state. Under tyranny, such violence might be justified as long as I could avoid harming innocent third parties. In these circumstances, however, voting could not be justified, because there is a third party. No one has the right to place one human being in a position of political power over another. A consistent libertarian can never authorize one human being to tax and control peaceful activities. And the state is no more than the institutionalized embodiment of this authorization.

You cannot help freedom or social power by bowing your head to Leviathan.

I admit, voting is absolutely an admission of immediate defeat, it is recognizing the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves compelled by the state to use force against others in self defense. However, it is not a proclamation of surrender. Only a person who admits they’ve lost a battle can win a war. Denial will see more people needlessly die for the sake of a moral victory. A consistent libertarian can not look to condemn the actions of others under duress, who want to further the goals of reducing or removing that state, as a mere moral justification for their own strategy. It is indeed the consistent libertarian who seeks realistic solutions to uncompromising questions about state power.

You cannot further the cause of liberty by ignoring the state.

A Look at the Libertarian Party Candidates

After Super Tuesday it seems pretty much set in stone that the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton and the Republicans will nominate Donald Trump for the presidency.

If that happens it will be the perfect opportunity in history for the Libertarian Party to go mainstream, to be an actual contender, to get that magic 5%, and become a major party. I’m not the only one who thinks so, many media outlets have talked about the idea of a serious third party emerging. This is because a big portion of conservatives and Republicans are absolutely not willing to support Trump, commentators and even Republican congressmen have stated they’d be willing to support a third party candidate if Trump wins.

The #NeverTrump crowd, or the anti-Trump Republicans are the perfect coalition for the Libertarian party to take advantage off, because realistically for these people the LP is the closest to their ideals of a small constitutional government. Now think about it, last election the Libertarian Party got over a million votes or 1% of the electorate. That’s the most votes in LP history, and I’m absolutely certain that many of them came from the Ron Paul movement. People who where tired of having to choose between candidates like Obama and Romney. That’s 1%, 1/5th of our desired 5%, and that boost likely came from Ron Paul supporters. Now imagine having Cruz supporters and Rubio supporters combined as the #NeverTrump coalition, as well as the Rand Paul Conservatarian crowd, just a small portion of those voters could get us the 5% or even more.

So with that considered, with such an opportunity the Libertarian Party can absolutely not afford to screw this up. They need a political candidate who can keep up with the 2 parties, someone who actually presents himself as a serious candidate. And so I will be comparing five Libertarian Party candidates: Gary Johnson, John McAfee, Austin Petersen, Darryl W Perry, and Marc Allan Feldman. Why these five you ask? Because those where the five that got onto the main debate of the latest Libertarian Party debate.

Gary Johnson:
Johnson is the clear front runner of the Libertarian Party and when people think about the LP and a potential third party candidate, he is the guy that comes to mind. And it’s understandable why. Out of all the candidates he is the most recognizable as a political figured, he’s the former government of New Mexico where he held a strong successful libertarian record, he got the most Libertarian votes in the party’s history. His combination of pragmatic rhetoric to bring in independents with a principled political record to make libertarians trust him makes him a juggernaut in the party.

If there would be any criticism I had to make of him it would be that he should stop talking about his athletic history during speeches. Furthermore, his pro-choice stance is something that could turn off a lot of the anti-Trump crowd so he’d have to play on his record of not supporting public funding of abortion and his record of banning late term abortion. But overall this man is a powerful contender.

John McAfee:
McAfee came along as a complete outsider of the party, formerly running as an independent on the “Cyber Party” ticket, he has decided to run on the Libertarian Party ticket due to the difficulty of getting ballot access with a new party. Despite not really having been part of the Libertarian movement, you can definitely see that he does understand what it means to be a libertarian and when you hear him speak you can feel the libertarian inside him. Rather than pushing people away by telling them that they’re filthy statists, he understands that everyone is libertarian in one way other another, they just don’t know it. McAfee genuinely wants people to know that, and that makes him endearing.

For me McAfee went from a protest candidate to a serious contender after the LP debate. However, the biggest shame, which is really a massive stab for his chances, is his history. His history is so controversial that it’s borderline criminal, if he actually became a serious contender there would be far too much dirt on him, for him to have a serious chance. That said, I would still support him whether he be the party’s candidate or a running mate.

Austin Petersen:
Petersen is probably the biggest libertarian candidate without name recognition. Though unlike the other lesser known candidates he has gotten some significant media coverage such as Fox Business and RT, but despite this many people would not likely known who he is. Despite this he believes that he can create a grand coalition to help the Libertarian Party get that 5%.
Indeed his candidacy can basically be considered a second Rand Paul run, his focus on the constitution and his pro-life views would likely give him the strongest appeal among conservatives which would be a significant ally for the LP. And he knows this as he has stated himself that he wants to create a new fusionism between all the forms of conservatives and libertarians. Furthermore he’s well experienced with social media and knows how to build up a fan-base online.

Petersen’s biggest problem however is his immaturity and poor debate skills. He has made immature remarks, such as calling Christopher Cantwell a “chubby fuck” and claiming that he “drowns in pussy.” He is very prone to stirring libertarian infighting such as exploiting child abuse stories to shame anarcho-capitalists, as well as clearly nitpicking Gary Johnson to stir a fight in the latest LP debate, which was obviously for attention. He speaks too fast, is too arrogant and his speeches often do not make sense. Despite the fact that I would not support him as LP candidate, I would not mind him being a running mate of another candidate. He would make for a strong backbone in the social media aspects of campaigning and would garner pro-lifer voters that are on the fence.

Darryl W Perry:
If you don’t know who Perry is, I don’t blame you, neither did I. Darryl Perry is a radio host who promotes Anarcho-capitalism and Voluntaryism. He is running for the Libertarian Party for one thing, not to get the 5% or for any party ambitions, but to simply spread his ideas of liberty. Darryl Perry represents the anarchist-wing of the LP, and that’s probably his biggest downfall. Not only does he hold very radical and unelectable views but really the only base that would support him are ancaps who mostly do not even vote in the first place.

I commend Perry for his principled stance, but there’s nothing more off turning than purism in political views, it pushes away moderates and makes you look fringe. He would simply not be able to bring in independents or  make people respect libertarians. He would, in all honesty, make the worst libertarian candidate.

Marc Allan Feldman:
Like with Darryl Perry, if you don’t know who this guy is I can’t blame you. Feldman is a physician who out of the minor candidates managed to get into the top 5 in the main debate. What makes Feldman most unique of the candidate is his Bernie Sanders approach of opposing big money in politics. Indeed, his campaign which is called “Votes Not For Sale” and basically only accepts five dollar donations, although you can donate more if you want to. He has said he only aims at representing those giving him small donations.

Whether this will appeal to independents, I don’t know, but this guy has a lot of problems. For one he’s kind of a goofball, as he wants Kanye West to be his running mate, despite the fact that he doesn’t get to choose his running mate, it’s decided by vote. In any case, Kanye West? Really? Second, he has almost no name recognition whatsoever. This is really important, you can’t expect the party to just carry you, it’s supposed to be the other way around. Finally, he’s a poor debater, which was especially shown when he got last place in the main debate. The best thing I can say about him is that he’s not as radical as Perry, so automatically more electable in that respect.

Those are my thoughts on the candidates, overall I think Gary Johnson is the best option for the LP to go with, building on to his already strong popularity. John McAfee and Austin Petersen would make solid running mates. Feldman and Perry however, just do not seem electable at all.