A libertarian came to visit us in High School Government class. I thought the guy was an idiot back then. I think it even more now. It is a party defined by apathy and amorality and immorality.

Sarwark may be setting the stage for one of the loudest Never Trumpers in Congress, Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), to run for President in the LP. Amash has publicly flirted with the idea of running for President in 2020 against Trump for quite some time now.

They're trying to lure Amash, no doubt promising they will help him fund his indy House race while he runs for prez at the same time. And this may be legal under Michigan laws, I'm not sure I've seen any information about elected Michiganders seeking two offices at once.

Amash has done nothing to really encourage this but he refuses to say that he will not run against Trump. And he has no doubt gotten a little more attention and maybe some extra donations for his indy campaign as a result.

I still don't think Amash runs for prez in 2020. Not this time. He wants to secure an indy House seat in Michigan first. Maybe in 2024 or 2028 Amash will want to run. Ron Paul always said that the 2020's were when Libertarians would finally have a decent chance of winning elective office up and down the political ladder in local/state/federal elections. Amash, like Massie and Rand Paul, seem to agree with that still.

In some states, a stronger Libertarian vote will actually help Trump more than hurt him. We saw this as well with the Stein campaign for the Green party in 2016. If those GOP tycoons want to help Trump, they do need to make sure the Greens have the money to run a campaign, especially in MI/WI/MN/PA which is where Stein wounded Hitlery fatally, after Hitlery refused to campaign in those states seriously, taking them for granted as Trump moved in to grab enough votes to win the WH.

Don't see the LP taking many votes from Trump...any true libertarian will conclude that anti-Trump equals pro-Marx, which should be anathema to said LPers...MUD

I still don't think Amash runs for prez in 2020. Not this time. He wants to secure an indy House seat in Michigan first.

Amash won't run for President unless his goal is to be called former presidential candidate.

People would take notice sort of like they took notice of the campaigns of Deval Patrick and Mark Sanford. William Weld and Joe Walsh are running for the GOP nomination, but Joe Average would hardly know.

The Libertarian Party remains irrelevant, but it's nominating conventions have provided some entertainment, as did the "occupy" town halls.

Amash would face opposition by the Dems and especially fierce opposition by the GOP. In general, those who convert to Independent have fared poorly except where they were not opposed by one of the major parties. Amash got 54% of the vote after an unopposed primary as a Republican. Trump carried Michigan.

Dems funding Amash would only affect whether the never-Trumpers vote Dem or Libertarian, and Dems need all the votes and funds they can get.

Libertarian votes would largely come at the expense of Republicans. Green Party votes come at the expense of Democrats.

The party central is crazy, the philosophy has much to offer. It is really Liberalism before they decided to combine with fascism. Tommy Jefferson was a Libertarian, with the twist that he knew laws against immorality were necessary.

Ayn Rand had some harsh words for Libertarians and the Libertarian Party.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-on-libertarianism.html

Q

What do you think of the libertarian movement?

AR

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]

Q

What do you think of the Libertarian Party?

AR

I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]

Q

What is your position on the Libertarian Party?

AR

I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they shouldn’t rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issues are so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked and some borrowed—I won’t say from whom—ideas, is irresponsible, and in today’s context nearly immoral. [FHF 73]

Q

Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?

AR

They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. [FHF 74]

Q

Have you heard of Libertarian presidential candidate Roger MacBride? What do you think of him?

AR

My answer should be “I don’t think of him.” There’s nothing to hear. The trouble in the world today is philosophical; only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency. [FHF 76]

Q

Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively?

AR

I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—that is, the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether to be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable. I’ll take Jane Fonda over them. [Earlier during this same Q&A period, AR had been asked about Jane Fonda. For the question and her answer, see below, p. 80.] [OC 80]

Q

Why don’t you approve of libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR

Because libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose. They’re lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They want an amoral political program. [FHF 81]

Q

Libertarians provide intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?

AR

Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout history: by means of people who understand ideas and teach them to others. Further, it should be clear that I reject the filthy slogan “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by the Communists and the Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism. [FHF 81]

Rand was bitter about the chicken's homecoming.