So, the nationalists are going to be more socialist, because they want to vindicate the power of the nation state in taking control of the national economy, and the socialists are going to be more nationalist, because strengthening regulation and advancing redistribution is all the more difficult in supranational arrangements, where a cooperative understanding is seldom reached.
I think the diagnosis is fair; I couldn’t make a prognosis. But I fear there is a symmetric problem for libertarians. If we take Applebaum’s points seriously, as we should, we are put in a very awkward position: which is defending the status quo, made of relatively free international trade plus relatively weak supranational institutions, as the least bad of all possible worlds. And yet libertarians are highly critical of the status quo and won’t feel well in the company of the current global elites.
Interestingly, this year the Libertarian Party, rather than nominating two bomb-throwers, is putting up a ticket of two former moderate governors. And one can make a case that an upset victory by the Libertarian ticket would be more likely to avoid four years of political strife and antagonism than a victory by either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump.
And one can make a case that an upset victory by the Libertarian ticket would be more likely to avoid four years of political strife and antagonism
Ha, Ha, Ha…There will be four years of political strife and antagonism no matter what happens. When hasn’t there been political strife if you read actual history?
Given that Johnson is doing ‘well’ in polls, 12% in latest Fox poll, it is reasonable chance he could impact the election and possibly win a mountain state. (I vote ID but say UT, NM or MT are in play) However, most Democrats have moved on from the Primary and polls are already indicating the Party is rallying around HRC and she appears ready for the election. (HRC is best when slightly pushed and the last ten polls are showing her up by 4%.) Also, I just don’t think Trump has the ability to be interesting but also popular in the national election at the same time.
The goal is for Johnson to get on the debate stage and get his name in the media. Do Sunday shows and late comedians. (Although judging by his appearance with Samantha Bee he really needs to tone down the goofiness.) Advertise in the right states and win a portion of the Mountain areas that very conservative but can’t stand Trump. I think there is a chance of that happening this year.
People are in no mood for moderates.
His temperament is moderate but his politics are not. Abolish the IRS? Come on.
Cruz said the same thing, right?
Interestingly, the elite commentariat doesn’t harp nearly as much on how crazy and politically impossible that would be as they do about Trump’s Great Wall, which would comparatively be a walk in the park next to eliminating the IRS.
Good observation.
Yes, this is the party that nominated Gary Johnson.
James Weeks Strips at Libertarian Party National Convention Drops out of race for Chairman 5/29/16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d45x4OpMoow
Crazy Libertarian Rant at 2016 Libertarian Convention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgbFBlPOemE
Even Crazier Libertarian Rant at 2016 Libertarian Convention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_toYr_Hcdo
Consider: [Anti-virus tycoon John] McAfee — who fled his own Central American residential compound while under suspicion by the Belizean government for the murder of his neighbor; who openly admits that said compound featured a harem of teenage Belizean sex workers; who likes to talk about the time a 16-year-old Belizean prostitute tried to shoot him in the head at point blank range; who bounced around the hotel halls wearing a three-piece suit and a pair of Nikes like some kind of Mad Hatter on meth — had regularly polled in third place for the nomination in the lead-up to the convention and even seemed to have a puncher’s chance to win. Further consider: He was barely the weirdest candidate on the scene.
Polling second coming into the convention, just ahead of McAfee, was a guy named Austin Petersen. Petersen’s 35 and looks 14, but question if he’s seasoned enough and he’ll yelp, “Tell that to the Marquis de Lafayette.” His go-to applause line: “I want gay couples to defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic weapons.” Polling fourth, one slot behind McAfee, was a fellow named Darryl W. Perry, who accepts campaign donations only in the form of precious metals and cryptocurrency and who opted to have his nominating speech delivered by an “erotic services provider” who goes by the moniker “Starchild.” Perry’s most animated moment in the debate came when he slammed his fist against his lectern, forehead veins a-popping, as he insisted that 5-year-old children should have the legal right to inject heroin without adult supervision. [Libertarians Are Loons, By Seth Stevenson, May 31, 2016]
Is your point that people not nominated by the Libertarian party are crazier and more likely to get us into a,really bad war than Clinton or Trump, the actual nominees of the other two?
If so, you are wrong.
Expressed in the link is one of the more demented hopes of libertarians these days, perhaps a sign of advanced pathology, is the hope that by turning the west into a multi-ethnic soup of low IQ people they can finally defeat the welfare state because people will dislike their fellow citizens so much they will no longer feel enough empathy for them to care if they starve to death in the street.
This may also explain libertarians embrace of crime in America’s cities, in the hope that such violence will break down social trust and lead to enough social atomization that people’s lives consist entirely of ordering ethnic food to be delivered to their apartment that they hide in. Once all social interactions have the depth of ordering something off Amazon, perhaps the libertarian dream can finally be achieve.
Leaving aside the obvious dystopian nature of such a society, it doesn’t even seem to be sound reasoning. Places like Argentina, Brazil, and Turkey all raise more as a % of GDP then the USA.
Nor is having a big government bureaucracy or welfare benefits inconsistent with low taxes. Singapore collects much less then the USA. Japan and South Korea about the same though they provide more benefits.
It seems to me unclear if having a fractured and dysfunctional low IQ multi-ethnic polity that hates each other is the best avenue to a lower tax burden. I mean if we became so poor and third world that the government couldn’t operate at all maybe, but lets just assume we remain a least a middle income county. We’ll probably end up paying at least the same amount in taxes (governments tend to find a way to collect every cent they can), but what we get back will be worse. So Brazil has higher taxes and a more dysfunctional government, and that seems the likely outcome. Also, lower overall human capital may mean a smaller economy in general, so its a double whammy.
“…people will dislike their fellow citizens so much they will no longer feel enough empathy for them to care if they starve to death in the street.”
Yeah, that always felt like a bizarre aspect of Bryan Caplan’s open borders cheerleading. He despises tribalism, but he’s actually depending on it to solve the rather obvious math problem posed by liberalized immigration in the context of a social democracy that looooves its uplift and social safety net programs.
I expect the next president to be largely a caretaker for the next election with little possibility beyond the edges. If you don’t want anything done, this will be a good time.