Making the case for freer people, freer markets, more pluralism, less centralized control.
Joined August 2026
- Tweets1.6K
- Following1.1K
- Followers339
- Likes6.5K
Another election handed to Democrats because Republicans decided Libertarian voters weren't worth winning over.
Not pictured: all the people who stayed home because Republicans decided they weren't worth winning over either.
1
13
Libertarians have a lot of good ideas, but you don't have to be a perfectly principled libertarian to support more competitive markets and a less burdensome government.
What’s your least libertarian opinion? 👀
Libertarians don’t always agree, and that’s okay! You don’t have to be a complete ideologue to believe in more freedom.
So I asked libertarians what their least libertarian opinion is. What’s yours?
1
26
The transformation
President Trump is the most transformative political leader in American History — and he has single-handedly saved America from those who would destroy it.
It has been the privilege of my lifetime to have served on his team from Day One, and I am honored beyond words to serve as his White House Chief of Staff.
I want to thank the incomparable Susie Wiles for her years of devoted service to the President and the Country, and for her friendship.
The mission now is more clear than ever: Fight with all of our soul to support our President and defend this magnificent Republic.
50
This is a directionally libertarian win from James Talarico.
He's absolutely right that removing outdated regulations that restrict housing construction would help bring down costs and make homeownership more affordable.
I'd love to see him apply that same thinking to healthcare and the rest of the economy.
We could accomplish an enormous amount by removing government-imposed barriers that restrict competition, limit supply, and drive up prices.
Fox host: Give our viewers an idea of what that piece of legislation looks like that brings down costs. How do you define that?
@JamesTalarico: I would love to work with President Trump on suspending the federal gas tax and diesel tax. This is a hidden tax you pay every time you go to the pump, and if we suspend it, we could drop the price of gas by 18 cents a gallon immediately to provide relief. On housing, we have to get rid of all these outdated regulations so we can build millions of new homes so young people can afford to buy their own home.
We could do so much more at the federal level if we're willing to cut this red tape.
57
Directionally Libertarian retweeted
The only thing worse than the Republicans not understanding the repudiation that just occurred is that Democrats actually believe they won based on their policy positions.
Directionally Libertarian retweeted
The biggest lessons tonight are
End the Iran War
End tariffs and scatterbrained economic policy
Stop focusing on things that don't matter like ballrooms and reflecting pools and Trans people using the bathroom and focus on kitchen table issues.
Trump is now a lame duck. The GOP would be wise to track a future as far removed from him as possible.
No one in this administration should be their nominee in 2028.
If Republicans can count on your vote even when you hate them, why would they bother trying to win you over?
5
286
Directionally Libertarian retweeted
If any of my followers are Democrats, I imagine you'll have a good night tomorrow, but be prepared for me to be as critical of you as I am of Republicans when they controlled Congress (or the White House)
If you are the party in power, you really own the bad and the good.
I hope you understand I will be an objective critic, but if you think I only disliked Republican controlled government, well, you are mistaken.
Buckle up Donkeys!
Directionally Libertarian retweeted
Here’s the pitch: The reason why housing, food, energy, and more are expensive is because of the regulation of markets, not markets themselves.
Directionally Libertarian retweeted
What about government spending? Surely Rogers is better than Sanders, right? Sadly, no.
Both will want more spending—albeit in different areas—but it’s Rogers who is more likely to support any given omnibus or continuing resolution that grows government.
In any case, votes on spending are generally close—if at all—only in the beginning, performative stages. The final product that becomes law almost always ends up bipartisan, lopsided in the vote tally, and bad for the American people. The circumstances in which someone like Rogers or Sanders will be the deciding vote are exceedingly rare.
I think it’s fair to view El-Sayed as someone who mostly will follow in Sanders’s footsteps on policy and therefore will be far less dangerous in practice than Rogers.
(Again, El-Sayed as a senator will do many things that are bad. The question addressed at length is not whether he’s good but simply whether he’s better on the whole than Rogers.)
The bottom line is that you can’t evaluate a candidate in a vacuum.
You need to consider the context:
Which office will they hold?
How many allies will they have for their worst ideas and what else stands in their way?
What will be their impact on the issues that are most in play?
Now, get out and vote! 😉
I hear liberals talk a lot about electability when discussing the divide in the Democratic Party. Moderates tend to outperform DSA candidates, and that's supposed to be reassuring.
But suppose the most extreme revolutionaries were the most electable. Would that make their policies worth supporting?
Electability isn't the same thing as good governance. If the policies that produce good governance aren't particularly popular right now, the political project of liberals should be to make them popular.
And while moderate Democrats may win more primaries, that doesn't mean the DSA is losing the argument. They're still influencing the direction of the party and moving its political center further left.
Hey gang! TODAY we go LIVE 4pm EST!
Me, Dev, @PSA_Sitch @Friended4Ever @talibotz and @notinline will all be talking about the MIdterms!
Who is gonna win?
Who deserves to?
What does it mean for the future of America?
Come see, link below
2
275
Directionally Libertarian retweeted
Amy Acton ad in Ohio: Totally blew up in Vivek's face.
Mary Peltola recruiting Dan Sullivan: Totally blew up in Peltola's face.
Trump gerrymandering everywhere: Totally blowing up in GOPs face.
Maybe the lesson here is instead of doing scumbag political trickery you just try to go win our votes on the merits!
Scary stuff, indeed. The sources are particularly illuminating.
From me @NRO, with a frightening warning to voters:
A List of Things Democrats Might Do If They Retake Power
nationalreview.com/corner/a-…
1
281
Easier prediction: Both parties will continue concentrating political and economic power, protecting their well-connected friends, and telling voters they have no choice but to support them because the other party is too dangerous.
This quoted post is unavailable.
153
Directionally Libertarian retweeted
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.
Ted Brown would be the next U.S. senator from Texas if the state had ranked-choice voting.
Meet @TedBrownLiberty, the @LPTexas candidate for Senate who is running against @KenPaxtonTX & @jamestalarico--and covering the spread. I talked to Brown for @reason about what limited gov't would actually look like. youtu.be/WkS9o9aIgR8?si=EqEc…
1
171
Directionally Libertarian retweeted
Policing operates much like fractional-reserve banking. Just as banks hold only a fraction of deposits in reserve because not everyone withdraws their money simultaneously, police departments maintain only a fraction of the officers needed to protect everyone simultaneously. Both systems rely on not everyone needing it at the same time. Just as banks are vulnerable to runs, police departments can be overwhelmed by simultaneous emergencies.
Thus, strangely enough, the state’s capacity to provide protection depends on sufficiently few people needing it at the same time. Universal protection is promised, but its provision depends on demand never becoming universal.
If ever I needed an image of government failure…
The MAGA libertarians have done enormous damage to the credibility of libertarianism.
They've spent years defending a president who imposes tariffs, expands executive power, empowers federal agents to violate civil liberties, and starts wars he can't finish.
They celebrate shuffling government responsibilities between agencies and abruptly pulling the rug out from under people who depend on existing programs as victories for liberty.
And what will they have to show for it when Democrats return to power? A few regulatory cuts that can be reversed? An even more powerful executive branch for the next president to inherit?
They've sacrificed their political independence and credibility for a president who routinely violates their supposed principles.
Spare me the IQ talk. You can be the smartest person alive and still be spectacularly ineffective at advancing your own goals.
This Post is from a suspended account. Learn more