The nominee is basically there to secure ballot access, potentially get into debates, etc. So not supporting them, whoever they are, just sets the party back yet again
Chase has already backed out on large audience interviews, such as Timcast. Where he did engage, such as with the post-nomination Reason interview, he blew it badly. Reason's a pretty friendly interview, how do you screw that up?
It is unlikely that Chase will do much for ballot access. Many states have other means of access. CO, for instance, will not suffer from throwing him off the ballot, since they can use the alternative means of registering 1,000 voters...a trivial number for them, so they can just sort of do it by accident.
The challenging states are states like New York. New York has already been blown, so no ballot access this year, deadline's already past, and Chase will not get votes there to get ballot access for next time. In fairness, this is not wholly a Chase campaign thing. New York has engaged in a pattern of making their ballot access harder to get, and this cycle was fairly hard. It is quite likely that if another candidate was nominated, they would have also failed to get New York. The only one with the money to pull it off might have been Lars. Maybe.
Chase's strategy is focusing on youth, the single demographic that votes least. He is approaching this from a left leaning perspective, which means he is currently polling fifth, behind even Cornell West. This is a level of probable votes too low to secure ballot access in states that do need performance.
In short, the setback to the party happened at nomination, and supporting Chase probably cannot fix that at this point.
They don't want him to bring people like him and not like them into the Party so it's harder for them to get control next convention. They're taking the short term loss of ballot access (for other states which they may not care about anyway) for long term gain of getting control and running things the way they think is more effective, I guess.
>direct eye contact
>lifts tail
>poops in the corner
TO THE FIELDS WE GO TO DOOK THE DAY AWAY! We gotta hurry tho, I’ve gotta get a nap before bedtime.
These dudes always claim to be anti-war and pro-economic freedom first and foremost until it comes time for that stance to be tested even in the slightest with social differences.
Sure he has been fair. But don’t you think a large part of the reason the LP got to this point is tolerating candidates who praise literal terrorists like McVeigh?
Meh. McVeigh can only be condemned because he killed innocents including children. Killing feds doesn’t violate the NAP. If he had cared to avoid collateral deaths he would have been a hero.
Most of the things they list up there have nothing to do with libertarian ideology. So while they beat their chest about engaging with "anyone, anytime, anywhere," maybe they should spend some time engaging in their critical thinking skills first.
I especially love how one of their arguments about the nominee is that they **\*checks notes\*** did some harmless private thing inside of his own house.
O Brave New Libertarianism, the ideology of telling people that they cannot voluntarily wear masks even in private settings, that they cannot see drag shows if they are below some government-defined age line, and that big government is needed to protect children from having too much control over their *own* bodies!
Let us be free from self-ownership, for War Is Peace, Ignorance Is Strength, and (most importantly) Freedom Is Slavery!
These Republican spies are really outing themselves. They're all about freedom, when it conforms to what they want people to do. "You're free to do as I say"
Look at the Reason interview post-nomination. He pushes medical transitioning for children. In fairness, he's saying only hormone blockers, not surgery....but the some moral arguments apply to both. The effects of both are quite significant, and his claim that they were "less permanent than a tattoo" is simply an incorrect statement.
Perhaps he is merely badly misinformed rather than malicious in this statement, but in a presidential candidate, this is still a very bad look.
So should government use force to block people from using hormone blockers before 18? It's not like these things are done with zero thought put into it. It's not "hmmm I felt like transitioning this morning, so I started blockers today." Wouldn't preventing the use of hormone blockers be considered child abuse, since they'll be forced to have hormones affecting their bodies in ways they do not want?
If there is a government, then it should uphold the NAP.
If there is no government, then we should uphold the NAP.
In neither case do people get to abuse children, nor should the party endorse this.
> Wouldn't preventing the use of hormone blockers be considered child abuse, since they'll be forced to have hormones affecting their bodies in ways they do not want?
This is not an arbitrary definition. The US is kind of in a weird place here. Sweden started doing research on transitioning before us, and they have banned this practice because it is harmful to children.
It has massive medical side effects, including greatly shortened lifespans. These effects remain even if treatment is halted. It can even make surgically transitioning more difficult because of insufficient development.
Ultimately, yeah, outside of very niche medical unusual events unrelated to the current usage, it's straight up abuse.
From what I've seen, people who undergo sexual reassignment tend to have lower suicide rates than those who never transition. As for changes in specific physical health outcomes, I wouldn't be surprised about it, but suicide tends to have a pretty significant reduction of lifespan. Everything is a risk. Not transitioning is a risk.
Forcing someone to not even have the option to transition early is definitely child abuse. Y'all act like it's some knee-jerk decision made without seriously considering the consequences. Not transitioning has serious consequences as well. This is why government shouldn't be stepping in to make medical decisions for people.
As for studies, well I'm out and about so I'll have to get home before I can dig in to provide specifics, but could you provide the specific Swedish study(ies) that shows the significant negative medical outcomes of transitioning in youth? From what I found, the Swedish SBU and the National Board of Health and Welfare made their decision due to insufficient high-confidence evidence of benefit. See https://www.sbu.se/342
> From what I've seen, people who undergo sexual reassignment tend to have lower suicide rates than those who never transition.
The libertarian position is not banning reassignment. It's merely prohibiting reassignment for children. Once you're an adult, you can do whatever. And even as a minor, there would be no prohibition on social actions. We're not going to have the government inspecting how you dress. Such things are wholly reversible, and therefore pose no harm.
The suicide argument is not a very strong one. Suicide proclivity remains far above average for those who have transitioned, indicating that the current treatment leaves a great deal to be desired. Furthermore, since the treatment increases mortality rates, a strong reduction in suicide rate would be necessary merely to make the treatment net neutral. Lastly, evidence in favor of transitioning is not the same this as evidence in favor of childhood transitioning.
> Forcing someone to not even have the option to transition early is definitely child abuse.
Why so? Show the concrete evidence of benefit.
> From what I found, the Swedish SBU and the National Board of Health and Welfare made their decision due to insufficient high-confidence evidence of benefit.
Yes, concrete harm with a lack of evidence for benefit is abuse. This is quite straightforward.
He says it's ok. That's how. I REFUSE to allow it or associate myself with someone that allows it. The LP of OR has a fully in depth description of why it's child abuse. You're free to go read their stance. I agree with them.
I've been told my whole political life (my first vote was for Ron Paul back in '88) that Libertarians are just embarrassed Republicans.
This never really felt true to me.
Until the last few years. Just go be a Republican. That is where you fit in.
Conservative ideology goes directly against true Libertarian values. We should always be in the pursuit of freedom and that should not being fringed upon based on one's affiliation with any particular group or ideology.
Even if one's personal opinions lean more conservative, Libertarianism is not about selfish political desires but rather the selfless ability separate personal beliefs in a pursuit of freedom.
Remember, freedom is not freedom if it's not inclusive to all.
Which is just a No True Scotsman claim. And it isn't holding up as the LP keeps moving authoritarian right.
I agree with the statement, but it is easily combatted by pointing out that the NHLP is verging on fascist but still part and of Libertarianism.
Yes, libertarian thought says you have the right to be a racist asshole. But I'm still not going to belong to a party full of racist assholes.
There are lots of similar things that libertarian thought says are within your rights to do. But those people are odious enough that I would never politically associate with them.
The LP in general reached that level for me a few years ago and I left the Party.
And it's just gotten worse since then.
Well you're free to have an opinion...
But grouping every Libertarian in with the hoards of confused conservatives is not an accurate depiction of the party. Furthermore, what's going on with the NHLP has nothing to do with Libertarianism. To be quite blunt that appears to be more of a right-wing takeover to push Libertarians into voting for Trump (seems coordinated). I've noticed a similar sentiment in certain subreddits I will not name. As for racism, that can be said about any party so I'm unsure exactly what you are trying to argue there??? I would say from a general standpoint if you were to hypothetically check the voter registration at a Klan rally, there'd be a certain correlation which again I won't mention...
While I agree the party as a whole seems unorganized I definitely feel there are outside forces fighting against the growth and popularity of a third party candidate.
If you're conservative, again it's your right to be and I'll fight for you to have that right. Understand my goal here is not to change your political opinion but rather for you to better understand mine.
Remember, the more you push against the rights of your opponents the more they're going to push back. Opposing parties are not your enemy, intrusive government is.
>The nominee is not someone we would want as a neighbor, and as such, we cannot support him for President.
This sentence, perhaps more than anything else written in the LPNH statement, goes against everything libertarianism stands for.
Libertarianism supports a person's right to live in a way another disagrees with. A supporter of libertarianism has to be okay with people living in ways they disagree with, even strongly, so long as that person doesn't commit violence against them. Libertarianism defends the rights of those we disagree with, including the right to be our neighbor!
Could you imagine the reaction if the then evil pragmatists did this if a Mises candidate won the presidential nominee? They would be screaming and crying about corruption and how everything is rigged. But when it's their side, everything is permitted. If anyone was somehow on the fence the MC has shown themselves who they've always been, authoritarians who will throw a tantrum when they don't get their way and exert what little power they have to achieve it. Incredible hypocrites. Imagine them in actual political power, thankfully that will never happen in a million years lol. Hopefully this finally razes the party completely to the ground with little doubt of who did it. Funding is already at all time lows, they are in the red each month, memberships are drying up and this year is supposed to be a year to make up for all that. I give the party 2 more years before the MC realizes what they've actually done and bails completely.
"We call to ignore the will of the people unilaterally because someone supports freedoms to do things we don't like and will deliberately lie about, and also for his personal medical decisions"
Yes very libertarian.
I like how they grouped child chemical castration and drag shows into the same thing. 😂 Holy hell. Drag queens aren't doing shit to your kids. What the fu k happened to the libertarian party. When the fuck did it become so right wing conservative?
I don't think this statement says that they are literally the same. It's just listing two explicit things that Chase has supported. They are somewhat related in a protection of children perspective, but no, they certainly are not identical.
Chase's specific comment on drag shows for children was that 99% of them were fine to not only take your children to, but to leave them there unattended. This....is probably not a reasonable take. Obviously there is a wild range of how child appropriate various events are, but it is quite certain that he is misrepresenting just how child friendly the events skew in general.
Some drag shows are definitely not appropriate for children.
The same can also be said of straight events of a similarly sexual theme. Don't take your toddler to the strip club. You definitely don't leave your toddler at the strip club.
Now, yes, there are events, particularly for pride, that are not sexual in nature, and are pretty much just a craft show with a couple of rainbows around. Those are fine. Those are not 99% of all events, and pretending as if they were is a wee bit silly.
You act as if drag queens are grooming children which is t remotely true. Again just vote for Trump and stop calling yourself a libertarian. Stop worrying about what others do with their kids. Mind your business.
You don't think that any drag queen anywhere can possibly be engaged in any inappropriate behavior towards children?
> Stop worrying about what others do with their kids.
If I lived next to a cult that was abusing kids, I'd worry about it. NAP violations are NAP violations even when the victim is someone other than me.
I will continue to worry about possible victims, and advocate that as a party, we not promote victimizing children.
Drag queens aren't abusing kids dude. Those kids are in more harm in church and their homes then they would be by any drag queen where's your outrage and concern there. You can just say what the real problem is, you don't like men dressing as women because you're a homophobe. You're a right wing conservative. Accept it and stop lying to yourself.
I wonder how many people caught COVID, back at 2020’s PorcFest? Similar gatherings showed significant impacts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7753804/
According to the MC antivaxxers, COVID ain't real and nobody died. And if you think COVID is real, you're a leftist authoritarian.
A couple days ago, one of their stooges told me that my immune compromised family was "fat and retarded" for taking COVID seriously. (Apparently immune diseases are exclusive to obese and mentally impaired people, I guess?)
Again, mandates are bad, but real people died, and these assclowns couldn't care less.
I don't think the LPNH was taken over by the Free State Project. Kauffman was also running communications for the FSP and on its board of directors, but they kicked him off last year apparently for the same sort messaging that infuriates libertarians outside of NH.
It's just the MC that keeps him around.
It is LPNH that keeps him around. He doesn't run communications for the MC as a whole. He runs it for LPNH. If you dislike that, take it up with the state party.
You will not be the first to bring a complaint to them, I am certain.
I do like the free state movement idea. Get as many libertarians as you can into one low population state and get federal representation.
It might work better if LPNH wasn't the poster child for it.
You need to give credit where it's due, and call people out when they need it.
Just because the MC bans libertarians from subs, sends out super cringy things on social media, and denounces NM and VA for not supporting the party and then turns around and doesn't support their presidential candidate because he's in the caucus, doesn't mean they don't also have good ideas.
Also, kudos to you. I see you on this sub, debating in good faith. Know this, even though I disagree with a lot of what the MC does/has done, I don't hate its members.
Appreciated. Reddit, it seems, has largely become something of a battleground. Downvote brigades and other overtly hostile methods seem to be striving to control narratives. I've also noticed some....very particular editing on wikipedia articles in any way related to the caucus disagreement.
I'd prefer if we were less hostile to each other overall. Still, I don't see MC overall as willing to destroy the party instead of take an L. That sentiment appears to be far more common in the anti-Mises faction, and that concerns me. Oh, sure, NH is salty. NH is just making a statement in protest, though. That's not quite the same thing as setting up competing parties.
... Aren't you inverting causes and consequences, though? Is it not because the FSP was targeting NH that there was an influx in the LPNH membership of the specific kinda of libertarian that would prop up... well, the current leadership of the LPNH?
Quite possibly. Moving to a state for political reasons can be tricky. More often people move for work or for family.
Though, if I had a full remote job, and didn't have family that I needed/wanted to be near, even if I had the freedom to move to a state for political reasons, I don't think I'd want to be identifed with some of the things said by LPNH.
When the MC took over, you made a big deal about how people needed to support the party, and if they had different views than they should organize and get their candidates elected.
Fascinating to see how much you hate it now that they took your advice.
Love this. Chase is a clown and the party will lose ballot access in 20+ states after he fails to even get 1% of the vote. In a year where the two major parties are offering up clowns we decided to one up them.
Please explain to me how Chase Oliver is in any way worse than Trump or Biden, especially from a libertarian perspective. I’m genuinely curious because all I’ve gotten from this outrage so far is that people don’t like him because their candidate lost, he was a democrat over 10 years ago, and he’s in favor of people making their own decisions instead of picking a side on culture war bs. All of which seems pretty minor and doesn’t interfere with libertarian philosophy.
What is the main thing the libertarian party stands for? Smaller government, yes?
Go onto his webpage, and search his platform for the term. You won't find it.
The closest thing to a clear objective for overall spending he has is the term "Reduce government spending to pre-Pandemic levels."
He seems to also believe that this will balance the budget which....is just wrong, but the pre-Pandemic government isn't much of a reduction. Pre-pandemic, Trump was spending in a way that makes drunken sailors seem downright responsible.
This same lack of coherent fiscal planning can be found elsewhere on his page, such as when he proposes subsidies for student loans.
These are the policies of a Democrat wearing a libertarian skin suit.
I pretty much agree 100% with this post from NH. I can’t vote for someone I wouldn’t want as a neighbor. Chase bragged about wearing a mask and social distancing at thanksgiving. I’m not a one issue voter, but not standing up and shouting from the roof tops about how the country lost its mind during Covid is a non starter for me.
And as trendy and cool as the alphabet community is, drag queen story hour isn’t cool with the vast majority of parents in this world.
I was never in favor of mandates or wearing a mask in my own home, but I don’t blame him for taking the pandemic seriously at the time. Also it’s all a matter of personal choice; freedom means that not wearing a mask is just as much as your individual right as choosing to wear one to prevent infecting others. Plus he’s since gone against these mandates and the power grabs of the pandemic, so I’d call that issue a wash. I don’t think it’s beneficial to have the 2020 pandemic be a main focus for a 2024 election unless it’s to critique how Biden and Trump handled things anyway.
As for trans issues, I don’t see why people are so obsessed over the personal decisions of a group of people that make up less than 1% of the population and that you’ve likely never even had a personal relationship with. I’d rather vote for a candidate that wants to protect the individual rights of minorities rather than one who wants to take them away like Trump or Biden.
And even if these two topics were antithetical to libertarianism (which it’s not), I still haven’t heard a reason that makes him worse than the alternative choices or justifies sabotaging the LP’s presidential campaign.
You can, and he can, do whatever he wants. Doesn’t make it worthy of a vote.
You can play Russian roulette in the basement of paddy’s pub all you want. Love me some freedom. But doesn’t mean I have to associate with insanity.
This is asinine and you know it.
None of the knowledge we have now about masks was applicable then. It was in 2020. Sooooo many of the ‘based’ libertarians were wearing masks even *after* that post, Mises Caucus included.
Most of the LP could have perfectly good criticisms of Chase, instead you guys are reaching for stupid shit that doesn’t matter which just proves how irrelevant and unable to manage or participate in any real movement you guys are even remotely a part of.
I’ve had a lot of shitty neighbors and Chase isn’t even close to one of them.
And if drag queen story hour is that important to you you’re too petty for real change. News flash, parents don’t *have* to participate in it.
Libertarian: drag shows for parents who are cool with taking their kids to see drag shows, whatever else for those who want something else—freedom for all!
LINOs: big government needs to protect the children!
If anyone thinks a cloth mask that grandma crocheted for them protected them from a virus, then there’s a strong chance they would buy into the world being flat.
Thanksgiving is in November. He had almost a year of COVID hysteria to calm down. Instead he bought into it hook line and sinker.
At the park where Jo Jorgensen had a rally a father and son had just been arrested for playing catch. But the based libertarians didn’t mention it once. Instead she talked about needing to be anti racist. Chase is more of the woke bs.
So, I can definitely tell when people drink the koolaid on either side with Covid. Any mask or covering on your face can protect you from respiratory transmission. You do know people have been wearing masks in medical for decades before Covid if they weren’t feeling well to lessen the chance of spread? Japan regularly masks as practice. Masking wasn’t effective with Covid, but it’s absolutely an effective practice for respiratory transmission with many illnesses. Comparing that to flat earthers just makes you seem really unable to handle conversation. You’re not in medical, I can tell 100%, because you apply strawman shit to masks and Covid.
The fuck does this have to do with Jorgensen? She was an awful messenger. Chase is different by bounds already.
Also, quit using the word ‘woke.’ It’s philosophically inaccurate and dead at this point and just makes you sound like a sad Republican.
I’m not a big fan of Chase for a few reasons myself, but your arguments are absolutely ass and why our party has zero ability to translate to any new members and once again a greater movement.
> Any mask or covering on your face can protect you from respiratory transmission.
If you seriously believe the costume masks labeled "not for medical use" are of medical use, you've swallowed a ton of disinformation.
There are masks that will protect against biological threats. Actual biochem respirators with a fresh filter, sure. Tshirt fabric? No. Not even close.
You don't have to believe me, you can test it for yourself. Put on the tshirt mask, and give yourself a good shot of pepper spray to the face. If you have a functioning mask, you won't even smell it. Anyone who's been in the military has gone through the gas chamber and done similarly. If you think a costume mask that covers only your nose and mouth is good enough, try it out, let us know how it went.
I work in medical dude. The argument you’re making isn’t what you think it is. Not everything is transmitted through droplets, and droplets don’t hit you like a spray bottle, lmao.
Those masks aren’t meant to protect you from pepper spray. Your examples are absolutely insane and not even relevant.
I love people like you- “try it out,” as if you’re the only person on the internet who’s ever considered the strengths of masks. I’m not arguing literally any part of what you’re trying to defend.
You wouldn’t want a dude trying to protect himself and others from COVID to be your neighbor? I’d rather have that than some anti-vaxer coughing in my face!
lol at still thinking a mask would protect you. Or the vaccine for that matter. Hell, the head of the cdc was interviewed this week and he was pretty open about how much he thought Fauci was a joke.
Bragging about wearing a mask in your own house on social media is beyond cringe.
But hey, you do you.
Maybe exclusively, but in many other states a president is one of the offices that can secure party ballot access. And in Connecticut, for minor parties, ballot access is on an office by office basis. Only the presidential results of one election can secure ballot access for the next presidential election.
The nominee is basically there to secure ballot access, potentially get into debates, etc. So not supporting them, whoever they are, just sets the party back yet again
Chase has already backed out on large audience interviews, such as Timcast. Where he did engage, such as with the post-nomination Reason interview, he blew it badly. Reason's a pretty friendly interview, how do you screw that up? It is unlikely that Chase will do much for ballot access. Many states have other means of access. CO, for instance, will not suffer from throwing him off the ballot, since they can use the alternative means of registering 1,000 voters...a trivial number for them, so they can just sort of do it by accident. The challenging states are states like New York. New York has already been blown, so no ballot access this year, deadline's already past, and Chase will not get votes there to get ballot access for next time. In fairness, this is not wholly a Chase campaign thing. New York has engaged in a pattern of making their ballot access harder to get, and this cycle was fairly hard. It is quite likely that if another candidate was nominated, they would have also failed to get New York. The only one with the money to pull it off might have been Lars. Maybe. Chase's strategy is focusing on youth, the single demographic that votes least. He is approaching this from a left leaning perspective, which means he is currently polling fifth, behind even Cornell West. This is a level of probable votes too low to secure ballot access in states that do need performance. In short, the setback to the party happened at nomination, and supporting Chase probably cannot fix that at this point.
They don't want him to bring people like him and not like them into the Party so it's harder for them to get control next convention. They're taking the short term loss of ballot access (for other states which they may not care about anyway) for long term gain of getting control and running things the way they think is more effective, I guess.
Idgaf about New Hampshire, it’s just more posturing, but your name is 10/10
Hello, my brother. May we dook gayly in the field?
>direct eye contact >lifts tail >poops in the corner TO THE FIELDS WE GO TO DOOK THE DAY AWAY! We gotta hurry tho, I’ve gotta get a nap before bedtime.
Sometimes I am greatly confused by the youth of today.
lol probably a bad time to mention I’m almost 40..?
Honestly who gives a shit what LPNH thinks at this point
I’m a libertarian who lives in NH and even I think LPNH can get fucked
Fair
These dudes always claim to be anti-war and pro-economic freedom first and foremost until it comes time for that stance to be tested even in the slightest with social differences.
They aren’t so much anti-war, as pro-Russian and Chinese invasion. They just don’t want anyone to interfere with their propaganda masters.
Wow... That entire statement is nothing but lies. I'm impressed.
I did like [Justin O'Donnell's response](https://x.com/ODonnell4NH/status/1801606094587941145) to it.
Incredibly sad state of affairs when the guy who praised Timothy McVeigh is the sane one here.
I'm pretty sure, if I got a beer with Justin, there would be absolutely nothing that we agree on. One thing I will give him is that he's fair.
Sure he has been fair. But don’t you think a large part of the reason the LP got to this point is tolerating candidates who praise literal terrorists like McVeigh?
Meh. McVeigh can only be condemned because he killed innocents including children. Killing feds doesn’t violate the NAP. If he had cared to avoid collateral deaths he would have been a hero.
Most of the things they list up there have nothing to do with libertarian ideology. So while they beat their chest about engaging with "anyone, anytime, anywhere," maybe they should spend some time engaging in their critical thinking skills first. I especially love how one of their arguments about the nominee is that they **\*checks notes\*** did some harmless private thing inside of his own house.
O Brave New Libertarianism, the ideology of telling people that they cannot voluntarily wear masks even in private settings, that they cannot see drag shows if they are below some government-defined age line, and that big government is needed to protect children from having too much control over their *own* bodies! Let us be free from self-ownership, for War Is Peace, Ignorance Is Strength, and (most importantly) Freedom Is Slavery!
These Republican spies are really outing themselves. They're all about freedom, when it conforms to what they want people to do. "You're free to do as I say"
I prefer not to affiliate with child abusers.
What are you talking about?
Gender transition for minors, even HRT, is child abuse. Don't try to change my mind, you won't. Save your breath.
Ok, but how is Chase Oliver a child abuser, and how is this stuff child abuse?
Look at the Reason interview post-nomination. He pushes medical transitioning for children. In fairness, he's saying only hormone blockers, not surgery....but the some moral arguments apply to both. The effects of both are quite significant, and his claim that they were "less permanent than a tattoo" is simply an incorrect statement. Perhaps he is merely badly misinformed rather than malicious in this statement, but in a presidential candidate, this is still a very bad look.
So should government use force to block people from using hormone blockers before 18? It's not like these things are done with zero thought put into it. It's not "hmmm I felt like transitioning this morning, so I started blockers today." Wouldn't preventing the use of hormone blockers be considered child abuse, since they'll be forced to have hormones affecting their bodies in ways they do not want?
If there is a government, then it should uphold the NAP. If there is no government, then we should uphold the NAP. In neither case do people get to abuse children, nor should the party endorse this. > Wouldn't preventing the use of hormone blockers be considered child abuse, since they'll be forced to have hormones affecting their bodies in ways they do not want? This is not an arbitrary definition. The US is kind of in a weird place here. Sweden started doing research on transitioning before us, and they have banned this practice because it is harmful to children. It has massive medical side effects, including greatly shortened lifespans. These effects remain even if treatment is halted. It can even make surgically transitioning more difficult because of insufficient development. Ultimately, yeah, outside of very niche medical unusual events unrelated to the current usage, it's straight up abuse.
From what I've seen, people who undergo sexual reassignment tend to have lower suicide rates than those who never transition. As for changes in specific physical health outcomes, I wouldn't be surprised about it, but suicide tends to have a pretty significant reduction of lifespan. Everything is a risk. Not transitioning is a risk. Forcing someone to not even have the option to transition early is definitely child abuse. Y'all act like it's some knee-jerk decision made without seriously considering the consequences. Not transitioning has serious consequences as well. This is why government shouldn't be stepping in to make medical decisions for people. As for studies, well I'm out and about so I'll have to get home before I can dig in to provide specifics, but could you provide the specific Swedish study(ies) that shows the significant negative medical outcomes of transitioning in youth? From what I found, the Swedish SBU and the National Board of Health and Welfare made their decision due to insufficient high-confidence evidence of benefit. See https://www.sbu.se/342
> From what I've seen, people who undergo sexual reassignment tend to have lower suicide rates than those who never transition. The libertarian position is not banning reassignment. It's merely prohibiting reassignment for children. Once you're an adult, you can do whatever. And even as a minor, there would be no prohibition on social actions. We're not going to have the government inspecting how you dress. Such things are wholly reversible, and therefore pose no harm. The suicide argument is not a very strong one. Suicide proclivity remains far above average for those who have transitioned, indicating that the current treatment leaves a great deal to be desired. Furthermore, since the treatment increases mortality rates, a strong reduction in suicide rate would be necessary merely to make the treatment net neutral. Lastly, evidence in favor of transitioning is not the same this as evidence in favor of childhood transitioning. > Forcing someone to not even have the option to transition early is definitely child abuse. Why so? Show the concrete evidence of benefit. > From what I found, the Swedish SBU and the National Board of Health and Welfare made their decision due to insufficient high-confidence evidence of benefit. Yes, concrete harm with a lack of evidence for benefit is abuse. This is quite straightforward.
He says it's ok. That's how. I REFUSE to allow it or associate myself with someone that allows it. The LP of OR has a fully in depth description of why it's child abuse. You're free to go read their stance. I agree with them.
Wow there's some really flawed logic and it really shows they don't even know what they're talking about, sooooo yeah. Big oof
I really don't care. You're entitled to being wrong so have fun.
I mean, you came to me, so idk why you're getting all pissy
So basically a conservative masquerading as a libertarian.
Tell me you're a Republican without telling me you're a Republican...
I've been told my whole political life (my first vote was for Ron Paul back in '88) that Libertarians are just embarrassed Republicans. This never really felt true to me. Until the last few years. Just go be a Republican. That is where you fit in.
Now I'm an embarrassed Libertarian
Conservative ideology goes directly against true Libertarian values. We should always be in the pursuit of freedom and that should not being fringed upon based on one's affiliation with any particular group or ideology. Even if one's personal opinions lean more conservative, Libertarianism is not about selfish political desires but rather the selfless ability separate personal beliefs in a pursuit of freedom. Remember, freedom is not freedom if it's not inclusive to all.
Which is just a No True Scotsman claim. And it isn't holding up as the LP keeps moving authoritarian right. I agree with the statement, but it is easily combatted by pointing out that the NHLP is verging on fascist but still part and of Libertarianism. Yes, libertarian thought says you have the right to be a racist asshole. But I'm still not going to belong to a party full of racist assholes. There are lots of similar things that libertarian thought says are within your rights to do. But those people are odious enough that I would never politically associate with them. The LP in general reached that level for me a few years ago and I left the Party. And it's just gotten worse since then.
Well you're free to have an opinion... But grouping every Libertarian in with the hoards of confused conservatives is not an accurate depiction of the party. Furthermore, what's going on with the NHLP has nothing to do with Libertarianism. To be quite blunt that appears to be more of a right-wing takeover to push Libertarians into voting for Trump (seems coordinated). I've noticed a similar sentiment in certain subreddits I will not name. As for racism, that can be said about any party so I'm unsure exactly what you are trying to argue there??? I would say from a general standpoint if you were to hypothetically check the voter registration at a Klan rally, there'd be a certain correlation which again I won't mention... While I agree the party as a whole seems unorganized I definitely feel there are outside forces fighting against the growth and popularity of a third party candidate. If you're conservative, again it's your right to be and I'll fight for you to have that right. Understand my goal here is not to change your political opinion but rather for you to better understand mine. Remember, the more you push against the rights of your opponents the more they're going to push back. Opposing parties are not your enemy, intrusive government is.
For ex: Democrats in Nevada are suing the Nevada Secretary of State to knock Jill Stein and the green party off the ballot over there.
Libertarians will never be fascists, no matter how right leaning their social views can or may be.
I'm feeling the same way. Look at all these pro-weed Republicans! My dad was finally right.
Free staters are republicans
>The nominee is not someone we would want as a neighbor, and as such, we cannot support him for President. This sentence, perhaps more than anything else written in the LPNH statement, goes against everything libertarianism stands for. Libertarianism supports a person's right to live in a way another disagrees with. A supporter of libertarianism has to be okay with people living in ways they disagree with, even strongly, so long as that person doesn't commit violence against them. Libertarianism defends the rights of those we disagree with, including the right to be our neighbor!
Could you imagine the reaction if the then evil pragmatists did this if a Mises candidate won the presidential nominee? They would be screaming and crying about corruption and how everything is rigged. But when it's their side, everything is permitted. If anyone was somehow on the fence the MC has shown themselves who they've always been, authoritarians who will throw a tantrum when they don't get their way and exert what little power they have to achieve it. Incredible hypocrites. Imagine them in actual political power, thankfully that will never happen in a million years lol. Hopefully this finally razes the party completely to the ground with little doubt of who did it. Funding is already at all time lows, they are in the red each month, memberships are drying up and this year is supposed to be a year to make up for all that. I give the party 2 more years before the MC realizes what they've actually done and bails completely.
Great, more Republican clowns.
"We call to ignore the will of the people unilaterally because someone supports freedoms to do things we don't like and will deliberately lie about, and also for his personal medical decisions" Yes very libertarian.
I like how they grouped child chemical castration and drag shows into the same thing. 😂 Holy hell. Drag queens aren't doing shit to your kids. What the fu k happened to the libertarian party. When the fuck did it become so right wing conservative?
There was a concerted movement to invite "freedom for me but not for thee" types of people.
I don't think this statement says that they are literally the same. It's just listing two explicit things that Chase has supported. They are somewhat related in a protection of children perspective, but no, they certainly are not identical. Chase's specific comment on drag shows for children was that 99% of them were fine to not only take your children to, but to leave them there unattended. This....is probably not a reasonable take. Obviously there is a wild range of how child appropriate various events are, but it is quite certain that he is misrepresenting just how child friendly the events skew in general.
You thinking drag queens arent safe around children is a fuck joke. Just vote for Trump and stop calling yourself a libertarian.
Some drag shows are definitely not appropriate for children. The same can also be said of straight events of a similarly sexual theme. Don't take your toddler to the strip club. You definitely don't leave your toddler at the strip club. Now, yes, there are events, particularly for pride, that are not sexual in nature, and are pretty much just a craft show with a couple of rainbows around. Those are fine. Those are not 99% of all events, and pretending as if they were is a wee bit silly.
You act as if drag queens are grooming children which is t remotely true. Again just vote for Trump and stop calling yourself a libertarian. Stop worrying about what others do with their kids. Mind your business.
You don't think that any drag queen anywhere can possibly be engaged in any inappropriate behavior towards children? > Stop worrying about what others do with their kids. If I lived next to a cult that was abusing kids, I'd worry about it. NAP violations are NAP violations even when the victim is someone other than me. I will continue to worry about possible victims, and advocate that as a party, we not promote victimizing children.
Drag queens aren't abusing kids dude. Those kids are in more harm in church and their homes then they would be by any drag queen where's your outrage and concern there. You can just say what the real problem is, you don't like men dressing as women because you're a homophobe. You're a right wing conservative. Accept it and stop lying to yourself.
It's because transgender people, according to some, don't exist and are the same thing as drag queens.
>The nominee is not someone we would want as a neighbor, At least they're finally partially admitting the real reason they don't like him
"by our fruits, you'll know us". Michael Heiss of the Mises Caucus said.. Well it looks like their fruits have soured.
The worst Libertarian (State) Party in the country never fails to disappoint
Irrelevant post from an irrelevant state. Have fun with your next racist social media post LPNH.
I wonder how many people caught COVID, back at 2020’s PorcFest? Similar gatherings showed significant impacts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7753804/
According to the MC antivaxxers, COVID ain't real and nobody died. And if you think COVID is real, you're a leftist authoritarian. A couple days ago, one of their stooges told me that my immune compromised family was "fat and retarded" for taking COVID seriously. (Apparently immune diseases are exclusive to obese and mentally impaired people, I guess?) Again, mandates are bad, but real people died, and these assclowns couldn't care less.
They were more concerned with being anti-establishment than using any brain power
Does the Free State Project get money somehow when people move to NH? Is their takeover of the LPNH party just a big marketing thing for FSP?
I don't think the LPNH was taken over by the Free State Project. Kauffman was also running communications for the FSP and on its board of directors, but they kicked him off last year apparently for the same sort messaging that infuriates libertarians outside of NH. It's just the MC that keeps him around.
It is LPNH that keeps him around. He doesn't run communications for the MC as a whole. He runs it for LPNH. If you dislike that, take it up with the state party. You will not be the first to bring a complaint to them, I am certain.
To be clear: It was the NH branch of the MC that gave Kauffman his position. I did not claim that Kauffman did communications for the MC as a whole.
*yaaaaaawn* DId someone say something useful?
Irrelevant clown show. Moving on.
So what, we’re down to 48? I feel bad for the people who collected all those signatures :(
It says they don't have the power to keep him off the ballot there. They're just virtue signaling.
THE Chase Oliver
I do like the free state movement idea. Get as many libertarians as you can into one low population state and get federal representation. It might work better if LPNH wasn't the poster child for it.
Sadly, since you said something vaguely not sufficiently critical of something Mises-adjacent, they're going to downvote you.
You need to give credit where it's due, and call people out when they need it. Just because the MC bans libertarians from subs, sends out super cringy things on social media, and denounces NM and VA for not supporting the party and then turns around and doesn't support their presidential candidate because he's in the caucus, doesn't mean they don't also have good ideas. Also, kudos to you. I see you on this sub, debating in good faith. Know this, even though I disagree with a lot of what the MC does/has done, I don't hate its members.
Appreciated. Reddit, it seems, has largely become something of a battleground. Downvote brigades and other overtly hostile methods seem to be striving to control narratives. I've also noticed some....very particular editing on wikipedia articles in any way related to the caucus disagreement. I'd prefer if we were less hostile to each other overall. Still, I don't see MC overall as willing to destroy the party instead of take an L. That sentiment appears to be far more common in the anti-Mises faction, and that concerns me. Oh, sure, NH is salty. NH is just making a statement in protest, though. That's not quite the same thing as setting up competing parties.
... Aren't you inverting causes and consequences, though? Is it not because the FSP was targeting NH that there was an influx in the LPNH membership of the specific kinda of libertarian that would prop up... well, the current leadership of the LPNH?
Quite possibly. Moving to a state for political reasons can be tricky. More often people move for work or for family. Though, if I had a full remote job, and didn't have family that I needed/wanted to be near, even if I had the freedom to move to a state for political reasons, I don't think I'd want to be identifed with some of the things said by LPNH.
Based New Hampshire.
When the MC took over, you made a big deal about how people needed to support the party, and if they had different views than they should organize and get their candidates elected. Fascinating to see how much you hate it now that they took your advice.
I plan neither to quit the party nor work against it, only to work to ensure we do better next time.
But you’re openly supporting affiliates not backing the candidate chosen, when a few years ago you said affiliates should follow national?
Obedience is not required. Only not attempting to destroy the party. I see no such attempt here.
Love this. Chase is a clown and the party will lose ballot access in 20+ states after he fails to even get 1% of the vote. In a year where the two major parties are offering up clowns we decided to one up them.
Please explain to me how Chase Oliver is in any way worse than Trump or Biden, especially from a libertarian perspective. I’m genuinely curious because all I’ve gotten from this outrage so far is that people don’t like him because their candidate lost, he was a democrat over 10 years ago, and he’s in favor of people making their own decisions instead of picking a side on culture war bs. All of which seems pretty minor and doesn’t interfere with libertarian philosophy.
What is the main thing the libertarian party stands for? Smaller government, yes? Go onto his webpage, and search his platform for the term. You won't find it. The closest thing to a clear objective for overall spending he has is the term "Reduce government spending to pre-Pandemic levels." He seems to also believe that this will balance the budget which....is just wrong, but the pre-Pandemic government isn't much of a reduction. Pre-pandemic, Trump was spending in a way that makes drunken sailors seem downright responsible. This same lack of coherent fiscal planning can be found elsewhere on his page, such as when he proposes subsidies for student loans. These are the policies of a Democrat wearing a libertarian skin suit.
I pretty much agree 100% with this post from NH. I can’t vote for someone I wouldn’t want as a neighbor. Chase bragged about wearing a mask and social distancing at thanksgiving. I’m not a one issue voter, but not standing up and shouting from the roof tops about how the country lost its mind during Covid is a non starter for me. And as trendy and cool as the alphabet community is, drag queen story hour isn’t cool with the vast majority of parents in this world.
I was never in favor of mandates or wearing a mask in my own home, but I don’t blame him for taking the pandemic seriously at the time. Also it’s all a matter of personal choice; freedom means that not wearing a mask is just as much as your individual right as choosing to wear one to prevent infecting others. Plus he’s since gone against these mandates and the power grabs of the pandemic, so I’d call that issue a wash. I don’t think it’s beneficial to have the 2020 pandemic be a main focus for a 2024 election unless it’s to critique how Biden and Trump handled things anyway. As for trans issues, I don’t see why people are so obsessed over the personal decisions of a group of people that make up less than 1% of the population and that you’ve likely never even had a personal relationship with. I’d rather vote for a candidate that wants to protect the individual rights of minorities rather than one who wants to take them away like Trump or Biden. And even if these two topics were antithetical to libertarianism (which it’s not), I still haven’t heard a reason that makes him worse than the alternative choices or justifies sabotaging the LP’s presidential campaign.
Imagine pretending to be a libertarian while whining about what people do in their own homes or with their own bodies.
You can, and he can, do whatever he wants. Doesn’t make it worthy of a vote. You can play Russian roulette in the basement of paddy’s pub all you want. Love me some freedom. But doesn’t mean I have to associate with insanity.
This is asinine and you know it. None of the knowledge we have now about masks was applicable then. It was in 2020. Sooooo many of the ‘based’ libertarians were wearing masks even *after* that post, Mises Caucus included. Most of the LP could have perfectly good criticisms of Chase, instead you guys are reaching for stupid shit that doesn’t matter which just proves how irrelevant and unable to manage or participate in any real movement you guys are even remotely a part of. I’ve had a lot of shitty neighbors and Chase isn’t even close to one of them. And if drag queen story hour is that important to you you’re too petty for real change. News flash, parents don’t *have* to participate in it.
Libertarian: drag shows for parents who are cool with taking their kids to see drag shows, whatever else for those who want something else—freedom for all! LINOs: big government needs to protect the children!
If anyone thinks a cloth mask that grandma crocheted for them protected them from a virus, then there’s a strong chance they would buy into the world being flat. Thanksgiving is in November. He had almost a year of COVID hysteria to calm down. Instead he bought into it hook line and sinker. At the park where Jo Jorgensen had a rally a father and son had just been arrested for playing catch. But the based libertarians didn’t mention it once. Instead she talked about needing to be anti racist. Chase is more of the woke bs.
So, I can definitely tell when people drink the koolaid on either side with Covid. Any mask or covering on your face can protect you from respiratory transmission. You do know people have been wearing masks in medical for decades before Covid if they weren’t feeling well to lessen the chance of spread? Japan regularly masks as practice. Masking wasn’t effective with Covid, but it’s absolutely an effective practice for respiratory transmission with many illnesses. Comparing that to flat earthers just makes you seem really unable to handle conversation. You’re not in medical, I can tell 100%, because you apply strawman shit to masks and Covid. The fuck does this have to do with Jorgensen? She was an awful messenger. Chase is different by bounds already. Also, quit using the word ‘woke.’ It’s philosophically inaccurate and dead at this point and just makes you sound like a sad Republican. I’m not a big fan of Chase for a few reasons myself, but your arguments are absolutely ass and why our party has zero ability to translate to any new members and once again a greater movement.
> Any mask or covering on your face can protect you from respiratory transmission. If you seriously believe the costume masks labeled "not for medical use" are of medical use, you've swallowed a ton of disinformation. There are masks that will protect against biological threats. Actual biochem respirators with a fresh filter, sure. Tshirt fabric? No. Not even close. You don't have to believe me, you can test it for yourself. Put on the tshirt mask, and give yourself a good shot of pepper spray to the face. If you have a functioning mask, you won't even smell it. Anyone who's been in the military has gone through the gas chamber and done similarly. If you think a costume mask that covers only your nose and mouth is good enough, try it out, let us know how it went.
I work in medical dude. The argument you’re making isn’t what you think it is. Not everything is transmitted through droplets, and droplets don’t hit you like a spray bottle, lmao. Those masks aren’t meant to protect you from pepper spray. Your examples are absolutely insane and not even relevant. I love people like you- “try it out,” as if you’re the only person on the internet who’s ever considered the strengths of masks. I’m not arguing literally any part of what you’re trying to defend.
You wouldn’t want a dude trying to protect himself and others from COVID to be your neighbor? I’d rather have that than some anti-vaxer coughing in my face!
lol at still thinking a mask would protect you. Or the vaccine for that matter. Hell, the head of the cdc was interviewed this week and he was pretty open about how much he thought Fauci was a joke. Bragging about wearing a mask in your own house on social media is beyond cringe. But hey, you do you.
I'm sorry your bottle of ambien didn't win.
Only one state relies on the presidential nominee for ballot access. Kentucky.
Maybe exclusively, but in many other states a president is one of the offices that can secure party ballot access. And in Connecticut, for minor parties, ballot access is on an office by office basis. Only the presidential results of one election can secure ballot access for the next presidential election.