Woe Is Us! Only .4% in the Presidential Race.

After the 2024 presidential election, we heard the standard lament among members of the Libertarian Party: “Golly, Jacob, the American people have rejected libertarianism again. I just don’t get it, Jacob. Everyone has a libertarian streak in him. Why do American voters continue to reject libertarianism in our presidential elections?”

My response: American voters did not reject libertarianism in the 2024 presidential election.

Standard L.P. member: Oh, Jacob, you obviously don’t know the percentage of votes that our L.P. presidential candidate, Chase Oliver, received. He got only .4% of the votes. That’s less than half a percent of the total votes cast by the American people. Woe is us, Jacob! Americans just continue to reject libertarianism. I just don’t get it.

Me: I am fully aware of Chase Oliver’s .4 percent. I continue to maintain, however, that American voters did not reject libertarianism.

Standard L.P. member: How do you figure, Jacob? 99.6% of American voters did not vote for Chase Oliver, our Libertarian Party presidential candidate. That is a very large percentage of voters who rejected libertarianism.

Me: As I pointed out in every state convention that I addressed when I was seeking the 2024 L.P. presidential nomination, I stand with those 99 percent. I’m with them.

Standard L.P. member: But Jacob, I thought you liked libertarianism. Why would you join the 99.6 percent of American voters who reject our philosophy?

Me: But they didn’t reject libertarianism. And neither do I. I love libertarianism. I’ve devoted my entire life to this philosophy. I believe it is the greatest philosophy ever conceived my mankind. It is the key to prosperity, peace, charity, and harmony among people.

Standard L.P. member: You have got me really confused, Jacob. How can you love libertarianism and join the 99.6 percent of American voters who rejected libertarianism in the 2024 presidential election?

Me: Because the 99.6% of American voters who did not vote for Chase Oliver did not reject libertarianism. They instead rejected Oliver’s message of welfare-warfare-state reform and Republican-lite that L.P. members have redefined and accepted as libertarianism but isn’t really libertarianism.

Standard L.P. member: But aren’t you despondent over the .4% percent result?

Me: Not in the least. Why would I be despondent simply because voters have rejected a message of reform and Republican-lite that isn’t libertarianism? I wouldn’t care if it had been 100 percent who rejected reform and Republican-lite. The reason you and other L.P. members are despondent is because for you, libertarianism encompasses reform-oriented measures and Republican-lite programs. Therefore, under your concept of libertarianism, 99.6% of voters have rejected your philosophy. For me, those voters have simply rejected welfare-warfare-state reform measures and Republican-lite programs, which is not libertarianism. Again, I’m with them — I’m with the 99.6 percent — I reject Oliver’s message and the overall concept of libertarianism of reform and Republican-lite that has come to define the L.P. and our presidential campaigns as fully and completely as those 99.6% did.

Definitions

What’s the difference between reform and Republican-lite and genuine libertarianism? As we begin examining in my future Substack articles some of the major positions that have come to define the Libertarian Party and L.P. presidential campaigns, we will be able to more easily see the fundamental differences between reform and Republican-lite and genuine libertarianism.

Immigration. Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid. Healthcare. Education. Regulation. Drug laws. National-security state — i.e., the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI. Foreign policy. Economic policy. Monetary policy. Trade. The size of government.

By the time we finish examining those positions, it should be easy to see why I stand with the 99.6 percent of American voters who chose not to vote for Chase Oliver. I think they were right not to do so. Again, I reject the message of reform and Republican-lite as fully and completely as they do. I hold that it is a bad message, especially for a political party that purports to advance liberty. Moreover, it does not — and cannot — garner a large number of votes for a L.P. presidential candidate, as we have repeatedly seen.

Standard L.P. member: So, how do we decide which definition of libertarianism is the correct one, Jacob? Doesn’t each libertarian have the right to his own definition of libertarianism? What makes your definition of libertarianism the correct one?

Me: Sure, people are free to define words any way they want. They are also free to label themselves any way they want. There are people who hew 100 percent to reform and Republican-lite positions and who call themselves “libertarians,” even if they are LINOs — Libertarians In Name Only. But hey, it’s a “free” country, right? People are free to define terms any way they want and to label themselves any way they want, right?

The NAP

Well, except for one big thing: the libertarian non-aggression principle, which is the central, core principle of libertarianism. The libertarian non-aggression principle — or NAP, as it is widely known within the libertarian movement — holds that it is illegitimate for anyone to initiate force or fraud against another person. Thus, if a position violates the NAP, that’s how we know that it’s not a genuine libertarian position, even if L.P. members redefine libertarianism to encompass positions that violate the NAP.

Let’s take an easy hypothetical example. Suppose the federal government enacts a law that states that anyone who smokes marijuana is guilty of a felony and, if caught and convicted, will be punished by a minimum sentence of 10 years in a federal penitentiary. To enforce this law, asset-forfeiture laws are also enacted.

When a person smokes marijuana, he is clearly not initiating force against another person. He might be harming his own health, which could conceivably adversely affect the members of his family (e.g., if he contracts lung cancer). But self-harm is not force initiated against another. Thus, when the feds arrest and incarcerate a marijuana user, it is the government that is initiating force and, therefore, violating the libertarian non-aggression principle. That’s how we know that being in favor of drug laws cannot possible be a genuine libertarian position.

But let’s assume that right-wing L.P. members decide that drugs are harmful to people and to society and redefine libertarianism to encompass favoring drug laws. One of the right-wingers wins the L.P. presidential nomination and runs on a platform of reforming the marijuana law by advocating the repeal of mandatory-minimum sentences and asset-forfeiture laws. He wins .4% of the vote. The standard L.P. member would exclaim, “Woe is us, Jacob! American voters have rejected libertarianism again. Woe is us!”

I would respond: Not so. What they have rejected is reform and Republican-lite, which has been redefined and accepted by L.P. members as libertarianism. But it’s not libertarianism, not genuine libertarianism. It is nothing more than reform and Republican-lite, which violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which is the central, core principle of the libertarian philosophy.