Campfire with Jo Jorgensen

What do you think the upcoming Campfire with presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen will be like? Jorgensen and Weinstein had a brief interaction on Twitter a few weeks ago which alluded to them potentially having a discussion like this. What talking points do you expect to be discussed?

This topic is for people to discuss before, during and after the Campfire.

(Watch it live at 5pm PT/8pm ET, October 21)

3 Likes

I am really looking forward to this!

I expect Brett will give a good explanation of our concerns and find common ground around breaking duopoly’s protections embedded in our system.

I hope Jo will provide some insight about the challenges her party faces with ballot access, advertising, and garnering respect as outsiders.

2 Likes

This shall be very fun

can someone send a link to “democracy AI”? I keep wanting to interact in the campfires, but I have no clue what democracy AI is.

Unfortunately, I think we’ll get a bit more of a politician’s perspective from her; she is running for president after all. Thus, I expect a fair bit of stumping and less substance than we got from Amash. I base that partially on some of her other appearances and interviews, as well. Hopefully Bret can get the conversation to more interesting ground though. She’s not an evolutionary psychologist, but they might have some common interests regarding psychology and certainly her perspective on working outside the duopoly for so long will be interesting.

My secret hope is that Bret can help guide left-liberals/left-libertarians into the LP and open the LP to more left-liberals (there are some, like the libertarian socialist caucus, but we need more space, imo). America needs a new party, and the LP could be it if it were a little less “freedom for me but not for thee” conservative (i.e. a party focused less emphatically on how democrats are evil and taxes are theft, even if there is a grain of truth to both). I also hope Jo will help Bret acknowledge problems with over-policing and distinguish between black lives mattering and BLM. She’s pretty good on it, imo, even if a lot of people on the right saw her statement as complicity in the violence of some of the protests or an espousal of or capitulation to identity politics, which it really wasn’t, imo.

I already voted for Jo, but I think Bret and Heather are probably voting for Hawkins or writing someone in. Maybe they are waiting to see how this goes and whether the LP can legitimately offer a big enough tent for left-libertarians, though.

3 Likes

This is better than I thought it would be. They are disagreeing a lot, and I feel like that will turn some people off, but at least it’s an honest conversation and not pure fluff like I feared.

4 Likes

That said, I don’t think Jo is doing a great job of expanding the LP tent.

2 Likes

I agree Graham, I wish there was more of a willingness on Prof. Jorgensen’s part to suspend her beliefs to better understand Bret. The direct and staunch disagreement doesn’t create a productive discussion here in my opinion. Every answer is “No, that’s wrong” or “I disagree.”

2 Likes

Yeah. She is making a point. An argument even, but it’s not as sophisticated as the conversation with Amash.

1 Like

This is a big bummer for me. I was hoping I would be able to get behind the Libertarian ticket, but Jo seems to be missing all of the nuance of the conversation Bret hoped to have. I’m not sure what the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism is, besides “but you can’t kill people.” Anybody have any thoughts alternatives? Write in the Unity2020 ticket even if it’s “dead”?

1 Like

There are too many people and too many complexities to be totally independent and self-reliant. Government is necessary. And done right, it can preserve individual freedom. The problem is how to balance the right of the community with the right of the individual. We have a good government structure. - a federated three-branch system. The problem is always people - you and I.

2 Likes

Prefatorily, I don’t think most anarchist philosophies permit murder even though that would be the obvious conclusion given the plain meaning of the term.

But otherwise, I agree. She’s basically an anarchist, and not even a sophisticated one at that. I was hoping for more, and I’m sad to have voted for her even if it was really only ever a vote against duopoly (and I would still vote for her and the LP even after this convo). I figured a phd–even in business psych–would have some more nuanced takes than hers. She suffers from much of the same syndrome that ails the major parties, an over-commitment to ideology and and hyper partisanship. Alas.

At least she is willing to do these kinds of conversations. That’s an open-ness most politicians don’t have.

4 Likes

If Ms. Jorgensen is mainstream Libertarian, her party will never field a viable Presidential candidate. I think the Libertarian Party probably works better on a local county or city level than on a state or national level.

4 Likes

Interesting. In libertarian circles, I always start by admitting “well, I’m not really a libertarian…” because I’m only a libertarian on most federal issues (probably better described as a federalist than a libertarian, truly). I think libertarianism starts to break down at the micro levels, even if there are mechanisms for it (e.g. Coase transactions). But at some points, taxes are necessary even if they do look a bit like theft.

Gary Johnson was a much better candidate (in 2012 and 2016), and Justin Amash would have my vote in a heartbeat.

It perhaps looks like anarchy from our current government. The externalities Brett mentioned such as stray photos are potential harm of one person on another easily handled with a libertarian system. Same with adding CO2 to the atmosphere. It gets more complicated which 3rd and 4th order affects.

1 Like

Photons!
not photos
really

How would you propose handling the photons issue?

Also, what about the case of viral transmission by reckless spring-breakers at a shared doctor’s office?

1 Like

Just some thoughts from someone who is 99% in agreement with Jorgensen, voted for her and talk to several other like minded people. Although I believe we should get rid of most governance, I think we could get a lot further by coming up with some concessions. For me personally the biggest issues in American government are getting rid of the federal reserve and pardoning whistleblowers. Obviously I want to get rid of more but if we could all agree on doing those two I think unity would be much more likely to get some capital L libertarian support. Just my two cents.

1 Like

Courts handle such issues today. Noise is another common issue. They are not easily solved and very detailed analysis is required of who wants what and precedent and harms on both sides. It is not simple to solve each issue but it is done every day. See Richard Epstein for many examples.