An Interview With the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus

71 Republic talks with LPMC about their vision for the Libertarian Party.


By Spencer Kellogg | USA

Dedicated to the support of property rights, nonaggression, and Austrian economics, the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus (LPMC) has grown into one of the largest and strongest footholds for principled libertarian thought and activism.


71 Republic’s Spencer Kellogg caught up with the organization to get a better understanding of their ideas and purpose:

71: Your stated goal is to “Make the Libertarian Party Libertarian Again” and you have said that we should embrace what makes us “uniquely libertarian”. What is unique about Libertarianism & how does the caucus define success? 

LPMC: The unique thing about libertarianism is the focus on consistent principles. Libertarians believe that aggression is wrong, no matter who commits it. While certain individuals can develop little cults around them, I think what makes Libertarianism unique is the willingness to criticize, without delay, anyone who commits or advocates aggression. Success for the LPMC would be replacing the so-called “radical moderates” with people with a solid foundation in principles and a radical mindset.

71: You have stated that “the Federal Reserve and the Wars” are the bedrock issues of our time. How are these two issues related?

LPMC: You can’t fund endless wars without central banks. End the Fed, end the wars. Without the secret tax of inflation, they’d have to take so much from our paychecks there’d be a tax revolt in short order.

71: Your caucus has stated its support for the radical ideology and membership of the party. Do you believe that principled ideology matters more than votes? 

LPMC: Yes. Aside from small local elections, the LP is not in a position to win big elections. Too many within the LP think the goal should be respectability and good election results. We think the goal should be to get a radical message of liberty into the mainstream American discourse.

71: Many in the cryptocurrency community consider themselves cultural libertarians. Are they important to our future & if so, how do we gain their support?

LPMC: We’ve made numerous inroads into the cryptocurrency world. We feel this is important for a few reasons, but here’s two of the big ones: 1. Putting our money where our mouth is. Crypto competes with the dollar, which is a controlled, fiat currency used by the US government to plunder people in the US, and really, all over the world. 2. Many people within the crypto world are intelligent folks with an innate desire to buck the system while succeeding in their own merit. That’s pretty libertarian if you ask me.

71: Who was Mises and what does he mean to your caucus? 

LPMC: Ludwig von Mises was an Austrian economist who made huge contributions to the study of economics. He suggested that economics is an a priori science, rather than an empirical one, the effects of government intervention into markets, the logical case for why socialism can never work, the description of how prices emerge in a market economy, and their role in resource allocation. He made many monumental contributions to economics and paved the way for future libertarian economists like Rothbard.

71: What are your views on state nullification?

LPMC: All things being equal, decentralization is always better than centralization. Nullification also opens the door to ask how far we can take the idea that bad laws deserve to be disobeyed.

71: Is the messaging and propaganda from the Libertarian Party an issue?

LPMC: Yes. Quoting the Satanic Bible on Easter, calling military persons murderers, making overtures to socialists, none of this is productive.

71: The NAP (non-aggression principle): a unity issue or our biggest hurdle? 

LPMC: We think it’s a unity issue. We understand that people might have differences of opinion on where the logic leads them if they take the NAP as a first principle, and that’s ok. We aren’t trying to be purists or drive a wedge between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, we want people who have a fierce desire to roll back aggression, particularly the organized aggression of government. I’d love it if the debate in America were between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists. Unfortunately, it’s between people who want to grow government and people who really want to grow government.

71: Does the LP have an alt right problem? 

LPMC: No, It has a mutualist, socialist, Antifa problem. The alt-right by and large want nothing to do with the LP, although we have had positive interactions with some libertarians with alt-right leanings. In our opinion, if they haven’t gotten too crazy with it, they can still be allies.

71: How do we connect with the next generation of young voters? 

LPMC: How we do that is understanding what their issues are as a group. I don’t think it’s any mystery that they’re a lot different from generations they preceded them. Some have inherited the bad ideologies of their parents, but some see how they have been plundered by the baby boomers, and they aren’t happy about it.

71: Should Tom Woods run for President in 2020?

LPMC: We’d love it if he did. He wouldn’t win, but he would be devastating in debates. He would absolutely change the 3×5 card of allowable opinion every time he opened his mouth.

71: If elected to LP leadership, which race would the Mises Caucus prioritize: Sheriff or POTUS?

LPMC: Sheriff. It’s the most realistic goal currently, and it impacts real Americans in a more personal way.

71: Previously you have stated that “the border debate is tough” – what do you mean & how can we bring the party together on this divisive issue?

LPMC: One important thing to recognize is that because the government runs the border, no one is in danger of getting their way anytime soon. The debate is largely theoretical. We think focusing on respecting property rights and giving the ability of self-defense back to property owners is a good start. You’ll never please the committed ideologues on either side. But one thing we’ve found is that many ordinary Americans seem to have a pretty good grasp on it. Open borders or closed borders may seem intuitive to city dwellers, but farmers and ranchers who deal with the border patrol and Bureau of Land Management on a daily basis have a vision that’s much closer to ours. They don’t need more government, they need government to stop harassing them and preventing them gonna protecting themselves.

71: Finally, Michael Heise has represented your group publicly, who else has been active in your organization?

LPMC: David Hynes, John Hilton, and Luke Ensor.

Check out the Libertarian Mises Caucus Facebook group here.

  1. It is one thing for a libertarian organization that is not a political party to take hard core positions but a political party has to recognize the fear that can be generated by such rhetoric. Its not clear who 71 was talking to here but that person seems to understand that some words, like attacking veterans, are counter productive. So are words that suggest that we want to totally and immediately kill all programs that people have become dependent on. That makes us sound cold and uncaring and it unfortunately too often the kind of wording that can be seen in the platform.

    The Libertarian Party needs to work harder at proposing real world transitional solutions as well as emphasizing our end goals.


  2. Did Woods vote for Trump?


    1. Spencer Kellogg December 7, 2017 at 7:40 pm

      No idea but I doubt it! I have serious reservations about the LP and I voted GJ I assume Mr Woods did too


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: