Smith Sarwark Debate

The Libertarian Party should never again put out national candidates whose views are similar to those of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

Affirmative: Dave Smith
Negative: Nick Sarwark

1. Dave's Opening Statement:
   1. The liberty movement over and before the libertarian party.
      1. This is how it is for Dave. Dave cares about:
         1. The Liberty movement.
         2. The philosophy of liberty and
         3. Seeing liberty in people’s lives.
      2. Liberty is about civilization itself.
         1. NAP.
         2. Don’t hit others, and don’t take their stuff.
   2. Things are bad, getting worse. Hitler and Stalin would be impressed with our statism, but libertarians have the answers. So do we make a difference?
      1. A difference is bringing others in. It is not aggressing against other libertarians, especially with leftist tactics.
      2. Two narratives about making a difference:
         1. False narrative: It’s pragmatic leftist libertarians who get votes vs. anal anarchists who get in the way.
         2. True Narrative: Winning more people gets more votes, and votes without conversion amounts to little.
      3. The exemplar, the libertarian that converts people is Ron Paul. How?
         1. He was courageous and principled.
         2. He had an epic message.
            1. Not watered down views.
            2. Not “I think the system could be tweaked to be more fair.”
      4. The center is not where you recruit!
         1. Centrists lose elections. Who won? Obama, Trump.
         2. Centrists: Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham.
         3. Libertarian party marketed from the center and it hurt.
   3. Particular Views of Johnson-Weld:
      1. Disqualifying views
         1. Concept: If you have a candidate that was for free trade, lowering taxes rates and was for gay marriage in 2004 and if it was Dick Cheney whose instituted torture He’d be disqualified in spite of other good views.
         2. Disqualifying views of these two candidates:
            1. Johnson: That Weld should be his VP, especially as a partnership.
            2. Bill Weld a lobbyist for a weapons company, vouched for Hilary as a principled person, endorsed Iraq, …
   4. Tom Woods quote: “We libertarians are the inheritors of an exceptionally venerable tradition of ideas that is noble and beautiful, and that carries a grave responsibility. We must be true to that inheritance. Enough putting people to sleep already. It’s time we finally woke them up.“
      
      
2. Nick's Opening Statement:
   1. Pushing a rock up hill. Realized he’s not the home team.
   2. Only disqualifying views heard. Johnson wanted bill Weld. Weld thought Hillary was honest, Weld and weapons company.
   3. You special and different because you are a libertarian.
   4. LP is a political instrument, so
      1. no think tank and other such stuff. Instead,
      2. Running people for office to effect policy and set the world free in our life time.
      3. Dave ‘s way:
         1. Dave is more about hearts than votes.
         2. Dave doesn’t care about the party because he doesn’t care about politics.
         3. Libertarian party has tried it Dave’s way.
            1. Interprets statistics as Johnson Weld out performing Ron Paul in votes and money.
            2. Political Parties should run candidates and get votes.
            3. Appeal to subjective preference in diverse issues and purity tests.
               1. Weapons company work is just: “not work I would take.”
               2. This is not as big a deal to other libertarians.
                  1. Appeal to ideo-diversity of libertarians.
                  2. Different priorities and come from different places. Thirds. Left, right, f the man (with missed votes).
            4. Numbers persuade. The officials must feel the heat if not see the light.
               1. Vouching for Hillary appealed to leftists.
               2. Must balance of Purity and Profile.
               3. 87% of Johnson’s voters were not libertarian.
                  
                  
3. Dave's Rebuttal:
   1. Regarding Ron Paul in 1988 and Gary Johnson,
      1. Ron didn’t inherit the Ron Paul movement and
      2. Ron wasn’t running against such hated candidates.
      3. So why call this a victory?
   2. 87% who voted for Gary weren’t libertarians, and they’re still not.
   3. Gary is said to have done so well, but the liberty movement is doing worse than it was in 2012.
   4. Regarding more views to discuss, being pro- war and pro- fed was enough to disqualify someone.
   5. It’s less that Weld preferred Hillary to Trump than it is why:
      1. With an hour on CNN We disagree on some economic issues but she’s a good person.
         1. Good person? Suuuuure.
         2. One should lead with Libya, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, …
         3. Weld objected to Trump’s ending wars message.
   6. We are competing with Hitler in the genocide. The LP has to support the liberty movement
      1. that is being at least anti war and anti fed
      2. Johnson Weld also not good on the fed.
         
         
4. Nick's Rebuttal:
   1. No body cares about the fed outside the libertarian
   2. Either the LP is to get people in the movement or to win votes.
   3. Votes have to come from non-libertarians.
   4. Either the LP can leave others until they are libertarian or they get them to vote L anyway (and maybe again in the future).
   5. Johnson Weld
      1. was anti-war.
      2. had some libertarian positions
   6. Mind the audience.
   7. You’re special.
   8. Meet votes where they are.
      
      
5. QnA
   1. Would you prefer a Gary Johnson or a Ron Paul candidate next time?
      1. Nick: Whoever is speaking bold in the empty space between the other two candidates.
      2. Dave: Would you rather have had Ron Paul? Hell, yes?
   2. If you could run Dick Cheney on the LP and get 10 million votes would that be a good move?
      1. Nick: That’s a bad bargain.
   3. Is that because certain views are disqualifying?
      1. Nick: No.
   4. Are there any positions that would be disqualifying for you?
      1. Nick: Pro-war is disqualifying.
   5. Who should we nominate in 2020?
      1. Dave: Anybody willing to run an anti-war and anti-fed nominee bare minimum. Austin Peterson would have been better, others too.
   6. Which did you vote for in 2016?
      1. Dave: You gotta win my vote. No one.
      2. Nick: You know because I voted.
   7. Convert a million people to libertarianism or shrink the state a bit?
      1. Dave: False choice.
   8. Nick, do you see your broad tent catering more to the pseudo’s from the big parties or to the intellectual diversity in the party?
      1. Nick: The diversity of thought extends beyond the Mises Institute. There are two groups: “propertarians,” and individual rights / reason libertarians. People who don’t vote for LP candidates on principle are part of the problem.
      2. Dave: I’m a soldier in liberty movement not just part of a team of people who always go with the team. That is why there’s Democrats and Republicans. The two groups perspective, that’s it’s just that some are about individual happiness and some are more property, No. One has a solid philosophical foundation, and the other doesn’t.
   9. What’s your number one issue:
      1. Nick: Criminal justice reform and the war on drugs. Seeing it destroy communities and with every cop who murders- if you ran Dick Cheney and he ran on nothing but ending the war on drugs across the country, I would vote for him at convention.
      2. Dave: What a load of first world privilege. You would take killing a million Iraqi’s if it would end the war on drugs at home?
      3. Nick: Do you have any evidence that wouldn’t happen anyway? Cause they have for the last 4 administrations!
   10. Shouldn’t the LP be more about a libertarian future than just votes and such?
       1. Nick: The votes do that. Exs. marriage and drugs.
       2. Dave: It doesn’t serve the movement to pretend that was the LP. It was the left. We’re losing everything.
   11. Do you really think people feel free? BLM, TDSers?
       1. Nick: These are the groups we can reach.
       2. Dave: so we make the point it takes zero courage to make. I have converted more I have a bigger audience. Here’s how you convince, you believe in something. Do things like back-peddle and no one cares.
   12. How can the LP call itself the anti-war party at home and abroad and oppose any form of gun control. How many people need to die before you wake up?
       1. Dave: She had some courage. I will support us turning in our guns as soon as we run a background check on the government and see if they are going not go on a killing spree.
       2. Violence is the issue and the libertarian platform is for minimizing that in ways like ending wars and criminal justice reform and drug legalization. These things are good in themselves and they’ll truly help the problem of gun violence.
          
          
6. Dave’s Closing Statement:
   1. Convert how? By standing for something.
   2. Fed and War are disqualifying.
   3. Johnson faux success. Membership is low. was higher with real candidate.
   4. State is dramatically growing. Getting worse.
   5. 2016 was the time for real spokesperson.
   6. 2020 will be another.
   7. Nick doesn’t know how to help the liberty movement. He grossly alienated its most effective recruiters.
   8. It is time to finally wake them up.
      
      
7. Nick’s Closing Statement
   1. Most people don’t know about Libertarians
   2. We need to run candidates who can appeal to outsiders and Johnson Weld did.
   3. War and Fed are purity tests. Imply issue weight is subjective / relative.
   4. Rocks from the side line? Party-members participate!
   5. Gary Johnson got more ballot access.
      
      
8. *Drumroll*
   Dave wins a tootsie roll, Oxford style.

Watch it here.