Patrick Smith

Welcome to the first day of 2026. Think for yourself. Lead yourself. Be ungovernable.

@dannycantalk One of democracy's most murderously destructive features is it giving people that don't know things the power to help decide for everyone about them.

If you ban investment in housing, the quality and quantity of housing will plummet. I think the reason this is so hard for many to understand is simply because there are too many steps in reasoning required. They can probably understand how the builders and suppliers help produce homes. They might be able to understand how the guy who pays those builders helps too. But the guy who buys it from the guy who paid the builders and suppliers? Too complicated. They lose the thread, and just assume that the investor is unnecessary.

1. The primary usage of the word in most non-libertarians minds involves a government. You have to go dictionary cherry-picking to find one without it. 2. #1 doesnt even matter because the people calling themselves "libertarian" nationalists are, in fact, supporting a state, it's borders, it's enforcers that make victims of peaceful people within and without, and necessarily the extortion apparatus required to fund it all. People aren't shocked. They just detect yet another group of entryist subversives attempting to shove a collectivist skin suit over libertarian principles and must gate keep.

I don’t understand what is so shocking to left/city libertarians about libertarian nationalism. A little research on the word “nation” may be needed. It doesn’t mean “state”. Maybe people think that from hearing “nation state” so often but it actually means “people”. A group of libertarians can join together, refuse to be diluted and become a people in due time. And we can agree to certain terms and cultural norms. This is what libertarians have always spoken about like with covenant communities . I genuinely think they’re just scared of the word “nation” because they think it means “state”.

Libertarians in the United States, many of them, are simultaneously seemingly terrified and yet dismissive of the growing interest in libertarian nationalism. Why do you think this is?

@libertydadpod @registerofdecay @LPNational @grok Nothing you quoted contradicted what I said. I also ran for state level office. Next.

@NotGovernor @registerofdecay @LPNational @grok I've already addressed that lazy answer. Here: x.com/libertydadpod/… Here: x.com/libertydadpod/… Here: x.com/libertydadpod/… And here: x.com/libertydadpod/… And David Nolan literally ran for public office back in 2010. Take your simple behind to someone else's TL.

Libertarians, you haven't time for infighting. I briefly audited ALL 50 state websites linked from @LPNational. Most need work: 1/50 - No site 6/50 - Website nonfunctional 1/50 - Private site 6/50 - Outdated homepage 34/50 - No candidate list 35/50 - No events listed From my brief audit, @LPofMN has the best site. - upcoming events on the homepage - have non-business meeting events - easily found candidates list Get to work!

@registerofdecay @libertydadpod @LPNational @Grok explain to this tastlessly overconfident fellow how the libertarian party was, in fact, formed as an activists project, not to "win elections" as the main goal.

@NotGovernor @libertydadpod @LPNational Do you understand that the purpose of a political party is to win elections and not be some sort of loser social club?

@MovLibertarioCU Greetings to my liberty family in Cuba! Remember, governments are rabid dogs... The only thing you should do with them is put them in the ground before they hurt any more people.

No es un sueño, es un plan: El camino a una Cuba próspera empieza aquí 🇨🇺

@BenjaminDEKR If they’re using a password manager with unique strong passwords for every site, changing is pointless unless there's a known compromise. (pass mgrs have breach notifications) If they're not using one, and being forced to change them, they become the vulnerability.🤣

Is there any real evidence that forcing users to change their passwords every ___ months actually improves security? It seems more likely they won't remember their password, writing it down places they shouldn't or triggering less-secure password resets

Any given law is either downstream from morality, meaning it comports with it, or the law is invalid—or a crime in itself. People are so used to deferring to laws for what is acceptable behavior or not, they forget this fact. They're intended to merely codify the already accepted moral assumptions of how people should and should not interact. Read The Law by Frédéric Bastiat for more.

Ok I gotta say something. Lets think hard about calling abortion "murder" Murder is an illegal killing. Abortion is disgusting, but it's legal in many states. Using the term "murder" blunts arguments with emotional fuel that gives a pro-abort ammo.

@AnarCats9Lives Jesus... you may have a problem. rofl

@NotGovernor written without clawsent. With a pen like a claw and logic sharper than his whiskers, he declared: “No Treason. Just Justice." He questioned authority, batted down bad law, and reminded every kitten in the litter: "When tyranny makes the contract, he finds the Escape Claws."

Did you guys know that Big Spoon self-studied his way to being a lawyer and when met with a government requirement for non-graduates to apprentice for 5 years rather than only 3 for college men, he just did it anyway at 3. Openly challenging the courts on it, he won, and the law was repealed in 1836. He viewed licensing laws as naked class legislation—“no one has yet ever dared advocate, in direct terms, so monstrous a principle as that the rich ought to be protected by law from the competition of the poor.”

James Freeman just got arrested. They're taking him to Tucson Pima county jail. If anyone nearby has info please DM me. Let's get him bailed out of the cage and find out what's going on.

You either don't know the people you are talking about, or you do and are being manipulative. Despite your being anon, the name, and pfp, I'll assume the former. I've debated Petersen on camera directly. Like many of his flying monkeys, he's a statist, and very much not opposed to government—a smaller tyrant is his style. Out of time for this. Happy to continue via voice on Discord some time.

@NotGovernor @Ace_Archist @grok This is also an extremely disingenuous statement on the nature of libertarian nationalism. They are very much opposed to government, and see it as posing a threat to the nation

It’s an affront to libertarianism and ethics as a whole.

@grok explain to him the difference between the stipulative definition Rothbard used in that book ("voluntary, subjective grouping of people by shared language, ethnicity, culture, religion, or feelings of kinship") and the United States, New Hampshire, and Israel—the territories the "Libertarian" nationalists are all nationalist about. The word games are boring now. Nik doesnt want to understand. Even if we accept his minority definition of "nation" ad arguendo, it's not what these "libertarian" nationalists are supporting. Have a great evening Nik.

@NotGovernor @Ace_Archist @grok To quote the man himself: The "nation," of course, is not the same thing as the state (...) Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. Cont.

@MexiconMolester @Ace_Archist @grok @grok please provide him a refresher on Rothbards use of the term "nation"... How was it used again? We forgot.... S.... Stip.... Something like that....

@NotGovernor @Ace_Archist @grok Clearly, you are the one engaging in a semantic manner. Rothbard's definition adheres closely to the first definition, and you are attempting to say that libertarian nationalists want a nation in the second sense, with precisely the backing that you just don't like them

@grok explain to this truly, and I do mean truly, fat-brained individual, what polysemy is. Then give a summary of the major usage. Perhaps with examples like "the nation went to war" or "the United Nations" or "the national debt". Conclude with a quick lesson on strategic semantic overload as a fallacy when using a stipulative or minority definition in an argument without actually saying as much up front.

@NotGovernor @Ace_Archist @grok Grok is wrong. Look up the definition of a nation on google, a very common source for colloquial definitions, and it literally separates the two.

@MexiconMolester @Ace_Archist @grok @grok Explain to this, highly educated, person that the colloquial definition of "nation" does, in fact, involve people in an area with a government.

@NotGovernor @Ace_Archist @grok This, by the way, does not contradict the colloquial definition of a nation, as a nation is not equivalent or even inseparable from a state

@Ace_Archist Don't waste your time on these creaseless brains. We have AI to explain the basics now.

@redflameliberty @Ace_Archist @grok Explain to this ostensibly intelligent person how the terms "libertarian" and "nationalist" are mutually exclusive or contradictory.

@Ace_Archist Globalist

@MexiconMolester @Ace_Archist @grok Explain to this person, who I'm sure has actually read Rothbard's Nations by Consent 😉, what a stipulative definition is, how they're used in philosophical discussions, and how Rothbard did it with the word 'nation' in this book.