Classical liberalism or (neo liberalism) the term often used by the left is a term used to describe those who believe in limited government and negative rights but not positive ones. Just like Social Democracy is used to describe those who believe in a mixed state economy (Socialism + Capitalism)

I have come across Stefan Molneux before in my internet travels, and I will just say that you might want to check out his credentials before buying him wholesale. I can be a fan of biology and state my opinions, but if I want to be taken seriously by academics and the media, than I should at the very least, have a bachelor's degree in the field. Same goes for economics.

I disagree that you need a degree to be qualified to talk about a subject. But that doesn't mean I take his, or anyone's, word as gospel.

I'm a fan of Castro's death toll for sure, but Marx not paying his own servant and Jew hatred is kind of a put off.

Moving on...

How do you think the party can develop from here? Third parties essentially not being allowed to enter the debates clearly doesn't help, but there's other things the party could do to gain wider appeal. One of those would be to elect a more personable and legitimate Libertarian to head up the movement.

I have no idea who that could be.

Doug Stanhope!

I would **** my pants if there was a Trump/Stanhope debate.

I'm going to look it up but I believe this year was different for third party candidates. They were allowed to speak at like a town hall event both Gary and Jill.

Just no one watched it like no one really would vote third party.

Gary was polling at 5% at one point in time while Jill was polling at 2%.

Really? No mention of his second Aleppo moment? The guy is an objective embarrassment.

You're posting in a thread that contains no Gary Johnson fans.

This was ten million times worse than Aleppo.

I could respond but it's not worth it.

Aleppo was pretty damn bad.