His supporters were out in force (literally) appearing around the (nonpolitical) FIBArk events, waving petitions, and talking up his candidacy and now it is official. The Robert F. Kennedy Jr. -Shanahan campaign has petitioned its way onto the Libertarian ballot slot in Colorado for president and vice president.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Courtesy of NBC News

In an announcement on July 3, the Kennedy campaign said it looks forward to joining forces with the Libertarian Party of Colorado to canvass, phone bank, and turn out the vote for Kennedy and the American freedoms that we will together restore.

It points out that the partnership with the Libertarian Party of Colorado is intended to disrupt the entrenched two-party system and provide Colorado voters with a viable alternative to our last two presidents disastrous status quo in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

Kennedy, whose own, rich, famous family has disavowed his politics, and his stance on issues, is running as an anti-vaccination, anti-government, free-market, less regulation candidate. He often touts conspiracy theories and has been accused of everything from sexual assault to bar-b-qing a dog. He recently sat for an interview in which he reported that he had a flesh-eating worm (pork tapeworm) in his brain and added that it didnt impact his reasoning.

Thank you, Libertarian Party of Colorado and Chair Hannah Goodman for your visionary leadership in defense of freedom, said Kennedy. Together, we will win the White House and steadfastly protect the Bill of Rights, the First and Second Amendments, and all the foundational liberties they secure. Our administration will restore free markets, end corporate welfare, stop the money-printing and unwind the war machine it fuels. On day one, I will pardon Edward Snowden, Ross Ulbricht, and all political and corporate whistleblowers who protect our democracy.

It remains to be seen what such a high-profile third-party candidate might do to the presidential race; but many political observers say that his appeal leans toward the right, and could take votes away from GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado partnership is a testament to Kennedys unifying independent run and how the campaign is bringing this country together, said Libertarian Colorado State Director Isaac James. Our movement has universal appeal because of its common sense values, rooted in the founding principles of our country, and its rejection of the divisive fear narratives used by the establishment parties to steal the wealth of our children and keep their corrupt hold on power.

View original post here:

Kennedy Gains Libertarian Ballot Access in Colorado - by Jan Wondra - The Ark Valley Voice

(00:00): I think many of my listeners knowthat more often than not I vote libertarian for president. I don't always,but yeah, most presidential races in my lifetime I have voted libertarian. Leadingthat way this year but undecided, and part of what's going to help medecide is the conversation we're going to have

(00:20): now. Joining me is Chase Oliver. He is the Libertarian Parties candidate for president of the United States. Hejoins us from Atlanta, Georgia today. Chase is good to talk to youfor the first time. Thanks for doing this, Hey, thanks for havingme. I look forward to speaking to your listeners and hopefully spreading the messageof liberty all across the state. Yeah.

(00:40): I hope so as well. I'mvery liberty oriented guy. You may appreciate more than the average person doesthat. My son's middle name is rand, so that's kind of where I amwhere I am coming from. Before we get into the nuts and boltsof this year and your campaign, just for folks who aren't as versed inthis as you or I might be,

(01:03): can you please explain what it meansto be a libertarian and why you are one. Yeah, so, broadlyspeaking, the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian principles are and limiting the government,you know, as much as possible. So when we say nonaggression, wemean that if you're not harming anybody, that if you're living your life inpeace. The most local governance is your

(01:23): own self governance, and as longas you're governing yourself in a way that's peaceful and peacefully interacting with other people, there should be no need for any other government to impede upon your life, your body, your property, your business possible, you know, inevery aspect. You know, if you're not harming anybody, it shouldn't matterto you. Yeah. Actually, that

(01:45): non aggression principle, again for folkswho don't read this stuff as much as I have, or Chase has,a non aggression principle is a key part of libertarianism. Basically, you don'thave a right to hurt anybody if they haven't hurt you from essentially, so, I'd like to ask you just to elaborate a little bit more. Then, So what does what does the Libertarian

(02:07): Party stand for? And we mayget into some of the nuts and bolts here, because the Libertarian Party hasits own many controversies going on right now. But big picture, what does theparty stand for? Yeah, so we stand for limited government, individualrights, the maximum amount of freedom possible, and really at least the bare minimums, sticking to the constitutional level overnents,

(02:30): if not limiting that even further soon everything from gun rights to gay rights, to drug wars, toimmigration to your business to entrepreneurship. We really believe in keeping the government handsoff as much as possible and allowing for the free market of ideas and thefree market of commerce to flow. Speaking, we are not seeking to empower government, but we want to empower each

(02:51): and every individual to make the bestof what they can in their lives and their communities. So I think thatin some of these policy areas, listeners will find that there's significant overlap betweensay Republicans and libertarians, and other policy areas there will be overlap between Democratsand libertarians, And then in other policy areas there won't be any overlap atall, Which is why it's very,

(03:14): very difficult to put libertarians on thiskind of left right spectrum. You know, in my mind, if you drawa line from left to right, you know, Bernie Sanders on oneside, and I don't know some maga guy on the other side. Libertariansaren't on the line, they're like above the line somewhere. Do you seeit that way? By axis, there's also the X axis. You know, it's not just about left versus right.

(03:35): It's also about who's applying government authorityversus who's trusting the individual liberty of each and every person. So,you know, you can be on the left or on the right. Youcan be a conservative or a you know, progressively minded person. But so longas you're not seeking to use the power and force of government of governmenton other people to impose your way of life, you're a libertarian. Youknow. I've met many libertarians who are

(03:57): more conservative than me, and certainlymany more libertarians who are more outside of the box or outside of the normsthan I am. And I think that's you use the power of government toforce our way of life and trusting that hey, if the way I liveor my values are the best values, they'll just they will spread themselves organically. They don't need the government to be doing that for them. We don'tneed a nanny state to impose our way of life on other people. We'retalking with Chase Oliver he's the Libertarian Parties

(04:20): candidate for president. His website isvote Chaseoliver dot com. I want you a lightning round with me here realquick. I'm going to name some policy areas, and I want you togive me a super quick summary of the most distilled possible version of your policyposition. Okay, A drug legalization,

(04:45): decriminalize all drugs. Abortion. Iam pro choice and think we should defend that choice for individuals. Do youthink there's a federal role there or not? I do. I believe that bodyautonomy is a federally protected right and should be and should be protected federally. Immigration. I believe in the twenty

(05:08): first century, Ellis Island, letpeaceful people come here and work. That's a good one. Taxation, it'stheft. That's my favorite one so far. Taxation. Would it be okay?Would it be going too far? Because okay, I'll tell you whatI normally say, and then I want you to tell me if you thinkI'm being too squishy. What I normally

(05:31): say is taxation, and excess ofwhat's required to fund the constitutionally authorized functions of government is theft. Do youthink that's too squishy or just do you basically agree with that, but we'regiving a shorter answer. Well, I think that, honestly, we couldfund our government if it was small enough

(05:53): without the use of force taxation,we could do. But that's not the world we live in right now.So what we can and do a seek to at least get to the levelyou're talking about, right, Okay, all right, that's good stuff,So so many other things I want to jump into. Let's let's do avery practical thing. For some reason that I don't entirely understand, the LibertarianParty of Colorado has decided that they want

(06:20): Robert F. Kennedy Junior to beon the ballot here representing the Libertarian Party for a president. And for therecord, pre COVID I always thought of RFK Junior as a grifter trying toget fifteen minutes of fame and make money

(06:43): by essentially committing mass child abuse bytelling parents not to vaccinate their children. Now I'm not saying government should mandatevaccines, that's not my point, but I really despise RFK what he didthere on pre COVID vaccinations for kids, and it sickens me to think thathe would be the Libertarian party candidate for president. He's not libertarian. Sofirst I wonder if you have any thoughts

(07:08): about RFK. But second, moreimportantly, is am I going to be able to vote for you? Well, we'll get We'll go from that last question then move our way backwards.So I can't speak to motivations of you know what LP Colorado is doing.But what I do know is that the National Libertarian Party we met at ournational convention. I won the nomination there

(07:28): and so do nating paperwork has beensubmitted to the Secretary of State, which is signed and sealed, as wellas my declaration of an intent to run. So, by all intents and purposesto of this November, you'll be able to vote for me. Speakingto RFK, I believe you're correct he's not a libertarian. There's many positionshe has that are not libertarian at all. In fact, if you look ata lot of his website, you

(07:50): know, you could close your eyesand you say this is probably a Democrat. I'll seize many of them, andso I'm happy to be repers libertarians and giving libertarians someone to vote forthis November in Colorado and all across the country. And yeah, That's justthe process that we have and I'm going to keep sticking to it. Isyour expectation then that my ballot in November

(08:13): will have his name and your nameor just your name on the for a libertarian. I will be a libertariancandidate on your ballot. Robert Kennedy might be on your ballot in Colorado asan independent, but I will burn in choice on your ballot. Okay,So somehow the national Party has the authority to override what the wacky people inthe local state party want to do.

(08:37): Well, I don't know. I'mnot into the minu shift process. I just do know that the way theway we your state is that the National Party submits the paperwork and I submitmy intempt to run. Both of those things have occurred. We've declared thatand confirm that with the Secretary of State. So we should be good to go. Okay. You know, at some point soon I will check withthe Secretary of State's office and ask them,

(08:58): am I going to see your nameon the ballot? And if somehow they say no, I'll let yourteam know. I imagine they'll say yes, because I'm sure you know better thanI do. I want to talk about the Libertarian Party for a minute. So the Republican Party has had this pretty significant division that a lot ofpeople call maga, a sort of very populous thing that is quite different fromtraditional conservatism, Reagan conservatism and all that.

(09:22): And I'm not expert, but itfeels to me like the Libertarian Party has had a similar kind of divide, with this group called the Mesas Caucus kind of infiltrating the Libertarian Party andtaking positions that I personally don't see as libertarian views. And I can't eventell you what they are because it's been

(09:43): a while since I look at thisstuff. But whenever I see this Mesus causes people speaking up, I'm like, Okay, if that's the Libertarian Party, I don't want. I don't wantany of that. And I think that you're not the Mesa's caucus guywho came out of the process. Is that right? And can you tellus any else about this division within the party? Well, of course,like most political parties, there's internal party

(10:05): divisions along caucuses. I'm someone who'sbeen trying to be a conciliator, somebody who tries to bring the common idealsand the common principles to the tea and you know with that, I havea a you know, members of the Mesas Caucus on my staff. ButI am certainly was not there endorsed candidate going into the convention. But Ido hope to represent the party as a whole with a positive aspirational message,one that does turn voters on, one

(10:28): that brings them say, I wantto vote for this, because I don't think it's good enough for us toimmediately be a protest vote. If that's the case, we're going to loseground because we have to inspire voters to vote for something, and you dothat with positive and powerful that I think my campaign has really demonstrated as we'vetraveled across the country. Were the first libertarian campaign to ever travel to allfifty states and speak to voters all across

(10:52): the country, hearing their stories andrepresenting them back to them with a message of liberty. So yes, there'si internal party division, and I would say I disagree with some of themessaging that comes out of some wings of the party obviously, but on thebig issues, on the big principles, there's broad agreement on the ideas ofnon aggression in government. I think it's a way of how we represent thosevalues best. And I do believe that

(11:15): the delegates picked me for that veryreason. They think I'm the best communicator of those values. We're talking withChase Oliver. He is the Libertarian Parties candidate for president. Vote Chaseoliver dotcom is the website. So one of the other things that must frustrate you, no, and when you hear it, but I'm going to ask you again, because it's always comes up,

(11:39): is the Libertarian Party candidate is notlikely to win the presidency of the United States. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not very likely. And the question then always comes up,this whole spoiler question, right, who does Chase Oliver take more votes from? And I'm actually looking at a news

(12:01): story from another radio outlet where theytalk about the party chair, Libertarian Party chair Angela mccardal, talking about havingyou there with the specific effort to try to help Donald Trump, like theythink you're going to take more votes from Democrats, even though historically you'd thinkLibertarians take more votes from Republicans. Again,

(12:22): I'm sure you don't dig this conversation, but everyone's having it, and I want to know your take.Yeah, so I always start the premise with you can't spoil something that's completelyrotten, which is the two party system as it currently exists. But youknow, for me, it's about saying we're not here to spoil anything.We're actually here to build the Libertarian Party up. We're here to build somethingup beyond today, and your vote helps

(12:45): to do that. You know,you're right, it's difficult for any third party or independent to breakthrough, andwhen the election, it's not impossible. That's something we're going to be workingfor every single But barring us winning that outright victory, there's a lot ofother victories you can win by investing in voting libertarian this November. You canwin ballid access in your state, so it's easier to get Libertarians on theballot in your state, so you can

(13:05): have more choices in your ballot.You can help us win major party status in states all over the country thatallows us to have increased participation in the primary ballot or increase media access whenour candidates do run. You can help us by electing local libertarians across thecountry and local races, you know, help push them across the finish line, they're in your communities and your neighborhoods and your cities and towns right nowrunning. We want to make sure we're

(13:26): shining the attention on them. Andof course, when you vote for us, you're building up a party foundation thatgrows beyond just me. So let's say you do vote. You knowthat there's myself, the Democrat, the Republican, and Rfken your ballot pratsof the Republicans are broken parties that are broken, and we all know it. RFK is a one and done candidate. You vote for him and poof,he's gone. You vote for the Libertarian candidate. You're building the Libertarianparty up, not just in the country,

(13:50): to be a true challenger in thenext generation, the welcoming temp and that next generation of Gen Z voters. I think there's great potential for real victory, even if it's not theoutright victory November. So again I ask you these questions with the full understandingthat you know libertarian candidates always hate these spoiler questions. But if are you, are you ambivalent between whether Joe Biden

(14:18): wins or whether Donald Trump wins,assuming that one of those two guys is going to win. Do you carewho it is? Do you see any important difference between them? Yeah?Well, and as you mentioned before, our largest pool of voters, bythe way libertarians, is actually independent voters. So but when it comes to youknow, well, you pull from one or the other. Who doI care about? When I always asked this at the convention if a Trumpor Joe Biden, what would I do?

(14:41): I said, the gun would gooff. And I mean that with all sincerity. No matter which ofthese men gets elected, we're going to have further division, further polarization,less things getting done for the American people. The debts and deficits will continue togrow, will continue to see the United States war machine operating around theworld, and we're not going to see any change for the major status quoof economic protectionism, immigration protectionism, and a lot of the things that JoeBiden has continued along right past Donald Trump's.

(15:07): You know, it's it's two birds, it's two wings of the same bird. And I am ambivalent.I think either way we're in. We're in for bad times over the nextfour years, no matter who wins. Between those two men. When youwere younger, I mean, you're young now, But when you were youngerand just kind of thinking about politics, did you ever vote for a Democrator a Republican for president? And if

(15:30): so, which were both? Yeah? Yeah, So I got into politics as an anti war activist during theBush years, and because George Bush was prosecuting those wars, I kind offell in line with the Democrats, even though I was very pro gun andsome other things. But uh, you know, nominated Barack Obama, expectinghim to be the peace candidate, the guy who's going to end these warsoverseas, and he did none of that

(15:54): and ended up winning a Nobel Priestprize anyways for some reason, and that really pushed me out of Democratic partindependent, and it was finding the Libertarian Party that truly changed me and broughtabout my political awakening from the years of twenty ten to twenty fourteen, whileit became a hardcore libertarian. Yeah, indeed, Jr. And I appreciateanybody who stands up for that level of

(16:17): principle. And I think it maybe difficult for many listeners to my show, more difficult probably for my listeners thanfor me to hear somebody say they're ambivalent about whether Trump or Biden winsbecause I think most people think that one of those guys is, you know, much worse than the other and different.

(16:37): You know, one group will thinkone of those guys is much worse. The other group will think the otherone of those guys is much worse. And I'm I'm probably not exactly whereyou are, Like, I probably think one is a little bit worsethan the other. I'm not completely ambivalent, but I'm pretty close. And Iguess my frustration is I don't think either one of them gives a rat'sass about individual liberty, which is what

(16:59): I care about. I'll give youthe last seventeen seconds. Yeah, my job is to wake up those apatheticvoter. There's those voters who feelly don't have a choice. Give them achoice. Then help build opposition to these two failed parties. And that's whatwe'll be doing through November. And if you feel it, give out what'sgoing on with Trump versus Biden, and I encourage you to check out theLibertarian Party. Uh. Chase Oliver's website is vote Chaseoliver dot com. Howabout your Twitter handle Chase so people can

(17:23): follow you there at Chase for Libertyon All the major platforms at Chase for Liberty, Chase for Liberty at excellentand excellent, Twitter, and other social media handle as well. Thanks somuch for your time. I appreciate it. If you're coming to Colorado at anypoint, let us know and hopefully we get you in studio and sayhi in person. Yeah, thank you so much, God blessed. Okay, you too,

See the rest here:

7-9-24 *INTERVIEW* Libertarian Party Candidate for President Chase Oliver - The Ross Kaminsky Show - iHeartRadio

Free State Project activist Dennis Pratt and Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein debate the resolution, "A better way to persuade more people of libertarianism is to convince them of the ethics stemming from self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, without relying primarily on consequentialist/utilitarian arguments."

Dennis Pratt, a libertarian writer and activist in New Hampshire, took the affirmative, arguing that the consequentialist arguments typical of libertarian economists are only narrowly effective, don't represent the core of libertarianism, and are too difficult for most people to quickly grasp. The philosophy of self-ownership, he said, has far more force in its ability to persuade the most people.

Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein disagreed. While he espouses the same philosophy as his opponent, he made the argument that the empirical facts related to the poor results of government interventions can get many people to rethink their anti-libertarian assumptions.

The debate occurred on June 20, 2024, at the Porcupine Freedom Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire, and was moderated by Free State Project founder Jason Sorens.

The rest is here:

What's the Best Argument for Libertarianism? - Reason

This combination photo shows Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally on May 1 in Waukesha, Wis., left, and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during a campaign event, Oct. 9, 2023, in Philadelphia. Trump is addressing the Libertarian National Convention Saturday, courting a segment of the conservative electorate that's often skeptical of the former president's bombast while trying to ensure attendees aren't drawn to independent White House hopeful Kennedy Jr. AP/AP hide caption

The Libertarian Party is holding its national convention to select its presidential nominee, who will likely be overshadowed by speeches from Republican former President Donald Trump and independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

The gambit comes as Libertarians have seen internal struggle over the direction of the partys future and as third-party candidates could play an outsized role in deciding the outcome of the 2024 presidential race.

Kennedy and Trump do not have many ideological overlaps with libertarians, but they do bring outside attention and media coverage to the party and its platform.

Libertarians have ballot access in 37 states, including key battlegrounds like Georgia, Michigan and Arizona, as well as a consistent enough presence in those states to have some influence over who wins in November, even though it wont be a Libertarian.

Angela McArdle, chair of the Libertarian Party explained in a recent podcast interview the logic behind having Kennedy and Trump speak.

They need us, she said. And so we have a lot of bargaining chips right now, and theres so much that we can do without compromise, without ceding any ground its literally just inviting them to share the stage with us.

McArdle and others in the party say getting major candidates to the convention stage will have them engage with and hopefully eventually adopt libertarian views on a range of issues.

You have to go talk to Republicans and Democrats, that's how this works, she said. We're a political minority, we don't get elected and then only work with libertarians, you've got to work with other people and try to pull them in your direction.

Not everyone is thrilled by having the partys marquee meeting overshadowed by hosting two presidential candidates that dont support the partys goals. Some of that split was on display Friday, when there were several failed attempts to rescind the speaking offer for Kennedy and Trump and give the time back to Libertarian candidates.

The Libertarian Party has seen internal turmoil in recent years, with a faction called the Mises Caucus taking charge and taking a more aggressive, hardline and sometimes isolating stance on the party and its future. In many ways, they align more with the far right of the GOP.

Members of the Classical Liberal Caucus have pointed out that Trump and Kennedy dont align with libertarian values, and note that bringing these candidates to the convention increases the likelihood they poach voters from the Libertarian candidate.

In many ways, the spat over the convention is reminiscent of the meme that sees three Spider-Mans in a standoff pointing at each other, because the Libertarian Party, Kennedy and Trump are all competing for this same pool of voters.

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during the Libertarian National Convention at the Washington Hilton in Washington Friday. Jose Luis Magana/AP hide caption

Kennedys Friday afternoon speech lambasted Trumps handling of the coronavirus pandemic and said the Republican took a hammer and tongs to the Constitution.

With lockdowns, the mask mandates, the travel restrictions, President Trump presided over the greatest restriction on individual liberties this country has ever known, Kennedy said.

Kennedys appearance at the convention comes as he seeks ballot access, so his speech is another higher-profile opportunity for his campaign to reach more people that could help sign petitions to get him qualified in more states.

The Libertarian Party usually earns a small percentage of the popular vote depending on the state and race and year, and with several swing states potentially decided by narrow margins again, more people voting Libertarian has more of an impact on who ultimately wins the White House.

Thats a reason Trump is there: to try and win these voters back into his fold, show them that he shares at least some of their values and that he can act on them as president.

But in an election cycle where appetite for third party support could be at an all time high, theres also potential for pretty low support, between RFKs polarizing views on vaccines, the libertarian infighting and voters thinking more strategically about how their vote counts.

The rest is here:

Trump and RFK headline the Libertarian Party's raucous convention - NPR

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and special guest Zach Weissmueller rehash the events that took place this past weekend in Washington, D.C., during the 2024 Libertarian National Convention, where former President Donald Trump addressed the crowd ahead of the Libertarian presidential candidate selection process.

01:20Libertarian Party convention recap

38:14Weekly Listener Question

44:22Some Memorial Day memorializing

58:40This week's cultural recommendations

Mentioned in this podcast:

"WATCH: Libertarians React to Donald Trump's Speech at Their Convention," by Zach Weissmueller

"Chase Oliver Is the Libertarian Party's Presidential Pick," by Eric Boehm

"Trump, Who Wants To Execute Drug Dealers, Promises To Free Ross Ulbricht," by Billy Binion

"Libertarians Booed Donald Trump Because He Isn't Libertarian," by Robby Soave

"No, Vivek Ramaswamy, a Libertarian-Nationalist Alliance Doesn't Make Sense," by Eric Boehm

"Cato Institute President Peter Goettler on Why Trump is no Libertarian," by Ilya Somin

"Inside the Libertarian Party's Decision To Host a Trump Speech," by Brian Doherty

"Dave Smith: What Is a Libertarian?" by Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe

"Debate: It's Time for a National Divorce," by Angela McArdle and Zach Weissmueller

"What Does the Mises Caucus Really Want?" by Zach Weissmueller and Nick Gillespie

"What's Next for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Who Forced a Runoff in the Georgia Senate Race?" by Eric Boehm

"How's the New Libertarian Party Doing? Live With Angela McArdle" by Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller

"The Libertarian Party's Internal Strife Is as Old as the Party Itself," by Brian Doherty

"Zach Weissmueller: Will the Mises Caucus Save or Kill the Libertarian Party?" by Nick Gillespie

"Ron Paul Revolution 2.0: Angela McArdle's Plan for the Libertarian Party," by Zach Weissmueller and Nick Gillespie

"'By Our Fruits, You'll Know Us': The Mises Caucus Mastermind," by Zach Weissmueller and Nick Gillespie

"Inside the Mises Caucus Takeover of the Libertarian Party," by Zach Weissmueller, Nick Gillespie, and Danielle Thompson

"Can a Post-'Takeover' Libertarian Party Improve on Its Historical Run of 201220?" by Matt Welch

"Super Size Me Was Not Groundbreaking Journalism," by Billy Binion

"South Park Libertarians," by Nick Gillespie and Jesse Walker

"It's Time for Over-the-Counter Ozempic," by Charles M. Silver, Jeffrey A. Singer, and Michael F. Cannon

Upcoming Reason Events:

Send your questions toroundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsor:

Audio production byIan Keyser; assistant production by Hunt Beaty.

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

Link:

Libertarian National Convention: Are You Not Entertained? - Reason

Theres nothing surprising about a presidential nominee addressing a party convention ahead of an electionunless, that is, the party is not the one theyre leading. Thats why it was curious to read of former President Donald Trump, the current head of the GOP ticket, addressing the Libertarian party convention on Saturday.

Trump did not exactly win over the crowd, which booed him repeatedly. Still, the appearance was a shrewd political move since, as Trump himself noted, the Libertarian party regularly pulls in 3% on Election Day, and winning over even a few of those voters could make the difference. Trump also used the event to tout his recent conversion to crypto, telling the crowd he would keep Elizabeth Warren and her goons away from your Bitcoin and promising to commute the sentence of drug kingpin Ross Ulbricht (a.k.a. Dread Pirate Roberts) on his first day in office.

These remarks reportedly elicited loud cheers, which is not surprising given that libertarians have supported crypto since day one. This includes the Free State crowd that helped make New Hampshire an early hotbed of Bitcoin, and Erik Voorhees, the radical libertarian who built the influential OG crypto projects Satoshi Dice and ShapeShift.

The libertarian viewas best as I can make it outis that the government has no business in any part of our lives, aside from national defense, and that society should be organized entirely around private contracts and the free market. Its a compelling idea. After all, many of us would like to live our lives with less meddling from government-backed factions of the progressive left and the religious right. Alas, the libertarian vision also feels unworkable in this day and age. Do we really want to leave things like highways, schools, policing, and pollution entirely to the market? Ditto with crypto.

Its neat in theory to imagine a world where anyone can mint and circulate their own currency. But the reality is the government has a legitimate interest in preserving the supremacy of the U.S. dollar. History teaches us it rarely ends well when a countrys leaders can no longer control its money supply. In this context, Trumps recent words should be viewed as simple political pandering rather than a decision to go full-metal libertarian on crypto or anything else.

I look forward to hearing about more of this at Consensus in Austin, where Ill be interviewing Tom Farley, former NYSE president and current Bullish CEO. The annual crypto confab will also feature a keynote speech from Voorhees, and a political debate between Trump convert Ryan Selkis and Uniswaps top lawyerand staunch DemocratMarvin Ammori. If youre on the ground, come say hello.

Jeff John Roberts jeff.roberts@fortune.com @jeffjohnroberts

A Nigerian judge adjourned the trial of Binance executives till June as one defendant, a U.S. citizen, is suffering severe malaria. (Reuters)

A recent series of raids on forex shops in China suggests crypto trading is still very active despite an official ban. (Bloomberg)

Ethereum-based memecoins PEPE and MOG hit all-time highs as some traders turn to them as a proxy bet to ride the latest ETF hype. (CoinDesk)

Caitlyn Jenner's X account is promoting a new memecoin named after her, though the news has been met with concern about hacks and deep fakes. (The Block)

Bitcoin prices dipped as trustees of the Mt. Gox exchange, which filed for bankruptcy in 2014 following a massive hack, finallybegan returning billions to former customers. (Bloomberg)

How America votes now?

Excerpt from:

Trump and the Libertarian case for crypto - Fortune

Donald Trump appeared before a raucous crowd of Libertarian Party delegates and his own supporters at the Libertarian National Convention in Washington, D.C.

Starchild, a longtime Libertarian activist, was taken to the ground by security after he held up an anti-Trump banner. Trump drew his loudest boos after offering himself as the Libertarian Party nominee, and the loudest cheers when he pledged to commute the life sentence of Ross Ulbricht, creator of the black market website the Silk Road.

Freeing Ulbricht, something Trump failed to do when he had the chance as president, was an item on a list of 10 demands the Libertarian Party submitted to Trump before the speech.

After the speech, three Libertarian presidential candidates delivered a response, but most of the crowd and media had cleared out by then.

Reasoncaptured the crowd reactions and asked Libertarian Party delegates and Trump supporters in attendance what they thought of the event.

"It was the weirdest room I've ever been in," one delegate toldReason.

Watch the full video above.

Continued here:

WATCH: Libertarians React to Donald Trump's Speech at Their Convention - Reason

Donald Trump is addressing the Libertarian National Convention on Saturday night, courting a segment of mostly conservative voters that has often been skeptical of the Republican former president while trying to ensure attendees aren't drawn to independent White House hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Libertarian Party will pick its presidential nominee during the gathering at a Washington hotel that wraps up Sunday. Kennedy, who ran in the Democratic primary before switching to an independent bid, addressed the convention Friday but has indicated he's not interested in being the Libertarian nominee.

Polls have shown for months that most voters even a majority of Democrats don't want a 2020 rematch between Trump and Democratic President Joe Biden. That dynamic could potentially boost support for an alternative like the Libertarian nominee or Kennedy, whose bid has allies of both Biden and Trump concerned that he could be a spoiler.

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson won about 3% of the national vote in 2016, when Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in a tight race. Party nominee Jo Jorgensen got only a bit more than 1% during 2020's exceedingly close contest between Biden and Trump.

Peter Goettler, president and chief executive of the libertarian Cato Institute, suggested in a Washington Post column published this week that Trump addressing the Libertarian convention violated the gathering's core values and that "the political party pretending to be libertarian has transitioned to a different identity."

A Libertarian candidate may try to draw support from disaffected Republicans, but also from people on the left who oppose perceived government overreach. Such voters could also gravitate toward Kennedy.

The son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, he frames himself as a truthteller with a track record of fighting for the middle class against powerful interests. He is also trying to win over conservatives who want to see the national GOP move away from Trump.

His anti-vaccine activism has appealed to some on the right who oppose COVID-19 vaccine mandates. He has also suggested that some of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, may have been prosecuted for political reasons.

Having previously praised Kennedy and once considered him for a commission on vaccination safety, Trump has changed his tone. He suggested on social media that a vote for Kennedy would be a "wasted protest vote" and that he'd "even take Biden over Junior."

Trump, in office, referred to the COVID-19 vaccine as "one of the greatest miracles in the history of modern-day medicine." But the former president now says that should he win in November he will "not give one penny" to public schools and universities that mandate COVID-19 vaccination. He also accused Kennedy of being a "fake" opponent of vaccines efforts that could shore up his support among some in his base who might otherwise consider defecting to Kennedy.

In his own speech at the Libertarian convention Friday, Kennedy accused Trump and Biden alike of trampling on personal liberties in response to the pandemic that spanned their presidencies. Trump bowed to pressure from public health officials and shut down businesses, he said, while Biden was wrong to mandate vaccines for millions of workers.

Kennedy, who has long claimed to be a victim of government and media censorship of hisunorthodox views, said Americans have lost faith in their leaders and institutions, and he pledged to restore it.

Maybe a brain worm ate that part of my memory, but I dont recall any part of the United States Constitution where theres an exemption for pandemics, Kennedy said, referencing a New York Times report that he was diagnosed more than a decade ago with a parasite that lodged in his brain.

Neither of them upheld the Constitution when it really counted, he said of the current and former president.

Vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, have been proven to be safe and effective in laboratory testing and in real-world use in hundreds of millions of people over decades. The World Health Organization credits childhood vaccines with preventing as many as 5 million deaths a year.

While no medical intervention is risk-free, doctors and researchers have proven that risks from diseases are generally far greater than the risks from vaccines.

An anti-vaccine group Kennedy led has a lawsuit pending against a number of news organizations, among them The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy took leave from the group when he announced his run for president but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

Biden, meanwhile, has trumpeted winning the endorsement of many high-profile members of the Kennedy family, in an attempt to marginalize RFK Jr.

The advocacy group MoveOn Political Action, which supports Biden, is circulating a mobile billboard around the Libertarian Convention this weekend decrying Kennedy as "extremist," criticizing the different positions he has taken on abortion and arguing that a vote for Kennedy will ultimately help elect Trump.

Kennedy talked publicly about pursuing the Libertarian nomination as a way to secure ballot access, which sparked controversy in the party, where some members opposed supporting a candidate who is not always in step with their limited government views. His mere presence at the convention was controversial, with some delegates attempting to bar his speech. Kennedy was not on the list of nominees from which a Libertarian presidential candidate will be selected on Saturday.

Bearing the name of one of the Democratic Party'smost famous political dynasties, Kennedy acknowledged his differences with libertarians but focused is pitch on his view that the Biden and Trump administrations overstepped during the pandemic.

Trump, he said, was wrong to close businesses and shield companies from liability in developing products to respond to the pandemic. And Biden violated Americans' fundamental freedoms with hissupportfor vaccine mandates, Kennedy said. The mandates, which aimed to require inoculations for as many as 100 million workers, were partially blocked in courts and Congress, and most of the restendedin 2023 with the Biden administration touting them as tremendously beneficial.

Kennedy also took aim at social media companies he says bowed to government pressure to block dissenting views on the origins of COVID-19 and the safety of vaccines.

Democratic and Republican administrations have taken turns assaulting our constitutional rights and freedoms, Kennedy said.

He repeated his pledge to pardon WikiLeaks founderJulian Assange, who isfighting extraditionfrom the United Kingdom on U.S. espionage charges, and to drop charges againstEdward Snowden, a former intelligence contractor who revealed classified U.S. surveillance programs to capture communications and data from around the world.

Continued here:

Trump to address Libertarian Party convention after RFK Jr. - Spectrum News NY1

No, I am not talking about voting for Libertarians, who pretty much support the same kind of Laissez-Faire Capitalism that existed in the so-called Gilded Age. I, for one, WANT government support on issues that are important to me, such as green energy, feeding the hungry, protecting the environment, and ensuring that the Constitutional rights of an individualisprotected, no matter what skin color, sexual orientation, or religious preference he or she has. I support labor unions as well, which would be illegal under a Libertarian government. So what do us Democrats have in common with Libertarians, based on the LP platform? Not much at all, but there are a few issues we have in common.

.

To be clear, I am not talking about how we can work with Libertarians during a normalelection cycle, but when elections are over, and other issues still need to be addressed, and proposals put on a special electionballot. Here are a few of those issues:

.

1-Ending marijuana prohibition, and making marijuana legal for recreational use: The LP goes too far here when they recommend the legalization of all drugs. Fentanyl, tranq, and other hard core drugs are killers, and is proper for the government to ban them. However,I agree with the LP position on marijuana. Can we work with the LP to legalize it?

.

2- Abolishing the death penalty: I am fully on board with this one, for obvious reasons. So is the LP.

.

3- Ending the criminalizing of sexuality, and the marginalization of the LGBTQ community: First of all, even though I support LGBTQ rights, someones sexual identity is none of my damn business in the first place. People should be free to love each other without restrictions. The LP platform expresses the same sentiment. On this issue, we also have something in common.

.

4- Maintaining separation between Church and State: Religion belongs in church, not schools. This is also part of the LP platform.

.

5- End the banning of books in schools. While localgovernments rightly should make sure that no pornography, Playboy magazines, etc be on the shelves of grade schools, it is none of the governments business whether or not classics like the Diary of Anne Franke, Huckleberry Finn, and others shouldbe banned. Florida has gone way too far here. I am not sure whether the LP stands exactly where we do on this issue, there does appear to be an intersection of interests here.

.

These are a few of the issues I have in mind, and there may be a couple of others that I have left out. So heres the question: Do we hold our noses and work with the LP on those few issues we have in common and, if so, how do we do it? The how is simple. To get a proposal on the ballot we need to get signatures. It would not be that hard to give some signature forms to the Libertarians, and let them collect some signatures too. Its called working across the aisle. Back in 1974, when I was a Republican (Im in a 12 step program for that LOL), I collected signatures in Detroit for Governor William Millikens property tax relief proposal. I ran into some Democrats who were collecting signatures for the decriminalization of marijuana. We exchanged some of our forms, andcollected signatures for each other on both issues. It was a win-win situation for both parties. Can there possibly exist a win-win situation here? Some Libertarians will reflexively say Hell no, but there are others who will hold their noses and work with us to collect those signatures. The question is are we willing toalso hold our noses, and reach out? Just something to think about. What say you?

.

Go here to read the rest:

Is it possible to reach out to the Libertarians on a few issues? - Daily Kos

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent candidate for president, pitched his bid to the Libertarian Party on Friday, telling a potentially critical group of voters that he stands with them on valuing personal liberty and vowing to protect their rights to speak, to assemble and to keep and bear arms.

In a speech that was as much a lecture on constitutional law as it was a political appeal, Mr. Kennedy, a former Democrat and environmental lawyer, railed against government overreach to a largely receptive audience of fellow government skeptics. He slammed what he called a program of coercion, and information control during the Covid pandemic, accusing President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump of failing to protect liberties.

Mr. Kennedy spoke as the party met to select its presidential nominee, a prize that will land the winner on ballots in at least 37 states. Mr. Kennedy has fitfully courted the nomination for months, as he undertakes the expensive and complex process of qualifying as an independent. But he recently said he did not intend to run as a Libertarian, and several party leaders and delegates say it is unlikely he will win the nod when the delegates vote this weekend.

Mr. Kennedy was not the only non-Libertarian presidential candidate on the convention lineup: Former President Donald J. Trump is set to address the group on Saturday night.

The attention to an often-overlooked minor party underscored the tug of war over right-leaning, independent-minded voters. In a race likely to be decided by narrow margins, Mr. Trump cannot afford to lose any votes. And Mr. Kennedy, with his anti-establishment message and zigzagging ideology, has been veering into Mr. Trumps lane.

Recent polls suggest that Mr. Kennedy could draw support away from both Mr. Trump and President Biden in a general election. He is polling at around 10 percent of registered voters across battleground states, recent polls from The New York Times, Siena College and The Philadelphia Inquirer show.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Go here to see the original:

RFK Jr. and Trump Go to Battle Over Libertarian Party Voters - The New York Times

What happened

The Libertarian Party chose activist Chase Oliver as its presidential nominee after a weekend convention that featured a poorly received speech by Donald Trump and a less-contentious appearance by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Trump's pitch for the Libertarian nomination included pledges to "put a libertarian in my Cabinet" and commute the prison sentence of online drug kingpin Ross Ulbricht. His speech was met with "skepticism and contempt," Semafor's David Weigel said. After prolonged booing and jeering, Trump told the crowd they "don't want to win."

Kennedy, who was eliminated in the first round of voting Sunday, had seen the Libertarian nomination as a "possible pathway" to ballot access, CNN said. He's on the ballot in six states so far, versus 36 states for the Libertarians.

Third parties have "rarely been competitive" in U.S. presidential elections, and the Libertarian candidate drew 1% of the vote in 2020, The Associated Press said. But the party is "getting more attention this year" because the election "could hinge again on small vote margins in a handful of contested states."

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

To continue reading this article...

Create a free account

Continue reading this article and get limited website access each month.

Already have an account? Sign in

Subscribe to The Week

Get unlimited website access, exclusive newsletters plus much more.

Cancel or pause at any time.

Already a subscriber to The Week?

Unlimited website access is included with Digital and Print + Digital subscriptions. Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.

See the rest here:

Libertarians jeer Trump, pick nominee - The Week

(I would have posted this sooner, but someone in my life had a minor medical emergency. He is relatively fine now, and went on a rant about the US healthcare system. I hope this experience makes him want to register to vote.)

So I saw a few of my fellow Democrats giving Libertarians some credit for booing Trump when he was speaking at their convention. As a former Libertarian, I can assure you that not of them were booing Trump, and not all of them were booing for the right reasons. The LNC invited TFG, Brainworm Man, and even Joe Biden to speak at their convention. They knew Biden wasnt coming because thePresident of the United States has better things to do than talk to Libertarians.

I know all this because I used to be a Libertarian and Iwas raised by a Libertarian. Dad was very unhappy with his career working for the federal government. Instead of quitting, (our family need his salary and benefits), he started reading libertarian literature and even donated to the LP. During the 20th century, the Libertarian Party was the party of marriage equalityand marijuanalegalization, issues that were political poison until recently. As a idealistic young man, that level of commitment appealed to me. I felt that the Libertarian Party was the party of the future.

I had the dubious privilege of being the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana during the COVID-19 pandemic. I advised members to stay home as much as theycould.I attended meetings via Zoom. I even said to comply with Indianas mask mandate because we would be able to accomplish more ifwe avoided getting sick or arrested.

They finally voted me out as chair after I denounced the J6 riot as a terrorist attack and blamed the attack on Trump. They were repeating a lot of Trumps talking points about election integrity.

Some Libertarians are smart enough to recognize that Trump is a threat to their freedom. But there are Libertarians who want Trump to be President, either because they want Trump to crash the system or because they think they have something else to gain from a Trump dictatorship.

Link:

My take on Trump speaking to Libertarians - Daily Kos

DES MOINES, IOWA(May 28, 2024) The Libertarian Party of Iowa (LPIA) is delighted to announce the success of the Libertarian National Convention held this past weekend in Washington DC. The event was a testament to the growing strength and unity of our movement, bringing together passionate advocates of liberty from across the nation. The convention received massive media coverage, with thousands of people around the world watching and hearing about the Libertarian Party, further amplifying our message of freedom and individual rights.

Over a dozen committed members and activists from Iowa attended the convention, showcasing our states dedication to advancing the principles of individual freedom and limited government. There were many Iowans on prominent display as well; key supporters of candidates, and one of the candidates for the LP presidential nomination, Joshua Smith. Their participation was a key highlight, reflecting the vibrant and active role that the LPIA continues to play on the national stage.

The convention was marked by significant achievements, including historic commitments from prominent presidential candidates. Robert F Kennedy Jr and former President Donald Trump have joined the LP delegates and pledged that they would prioritize the immediate release of Ross Ulbricht on their first day in office. This commitment underscores our ongoing fight for justice and against the overreach of federal power.

One of the key objectives for the Libertarian National Convention is the selection of candidates for the presidential and vice-presidential office for the Libertarian ticket.

Jules Cutler, Chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of Iowa, stated: The journey to selecting our presidential candidate has been a rigorous process, beginning with our First in the Nation Iowa Caucus back in January. With that we are proud to announce that Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat will be representing the Libertarian Party as our presidential ticket. Both candidates have made multiple visits to Iowa throughout their campaigns, engaging with voters and building strong connections within our community.

Although both the Kennedy and Trump campaigns sought nomination for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, they were rejected outright on the first round of balloting. Cutler continued: The fact that both Trump and RFK Jr are courting the Libertarian vote is a testament to our strength as a voting bloc. Let their rejection from our ballot be one more proof that our party will not compromise on the principles of individual liberty and free markets in the face of political pressure.

Looking ahead, the Libertarian Party of Iowa isexcited to host Chase Oliver and Mike ter Maat at the Iowa State Fair this summer. This will be a major outreach event, providing an excellent opportunity to connect with thousands of Iowans and spread the message of liberty. We invite all attendeesto join us for this pivotal event.

The Libertarian Party of Iowa is committed to Americas heritage of freedom: Individual liberty and personal responsibility, a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity, a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade. Find out more atlpia.org.

View post:

Libertarian Party of Iowa Celebrates Libertarian National Convention - River Cities Reader

Donald Trump was loudly heckled at the Libertarian Partys national convention in Washington, D.C., on Saturday night just one day after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now in consideration to be the partys presidential candidate, attacked the former president for mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

The scene at the Washington Hilton, where the convention took place, brought together Trump supporters and Libertarians alike. But not everyone was happy to see the former president. His efforts to convince third-party voters to vote Republican in Novembers general election didnt sit well for some attendees, who reportedly responded with boos and chants like lock him up! while his supporters were seen wearing Make America Great hats and chanting, USA! USA!

On Sunday night, the Libertarian Party picked Chase Oliver as its candidate for the 2024 presidential election.

Heres what you need to know about Trumps contentious appearance.

Trump announced on May 1 that hed be speaking at the convention. The appearance was an attempt to woo voters and avoid losing Republican support to independent candidate RFK Jr. in Novembers 2024 presidential election, explained the Associated Press.

If Libertarians join me and the Republican Party, where we have many Libertarian views, the election wont even be close, Trump said in a statement at the time.

The 34-minute speech Trump delivered on Saturday was one of his shortest campaign speeches to date. It also marked the first time a current or former president has spoken at the third-party convention, according to the Washington Post.

During his speech, Trump called Joe Biden the worst president in the history of the United States before asking the crowd for their vote.

Im asking for the Libertarian Partys endorsement or at least lots of your votes, Trump said, inciting boos.

If you want to lose, do that. Keep getting your 3% every four years, he told the crowd, noting that Libertarians earned 3.3% of the national vote during the 2016 election, according to The Hill.

Trump, who suggested he may be a Libertarian without even trying to be one, added, If we unite, we will be unstoppable. He also promised to put Libertarians in senior posts in his administration, if elected, but that didnt seem to win over the crowd.

If I wasnt a Libertarian before, I sure as hell am a Libertarian now, he said. I want your support. We want Libertarian votes because you stand for what we stand for and dont waste the vote.

While Trump received a single nomination to be a Libertarian presidential candidate on the convention floor, he didnt submit the required paperwork beforehand, making him unqualified, according to CNN.

Trump sought to appeal to the Libertarian crowd, who largely support the decriminalization of drugs, by pledging during his speech to commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht, the mastermind behind Silk Road, an online bazaar selling drugs and other illegal goods, who was sentenced to life in prison in 2015.

Many in the crowd held signs that read: Free Ross.

Trump also promised to pardon the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 roughly 1,200 of whom have been arrested as of December 2023, according to the New York Times.

It will be my great honor to pardon the peaceful January 6th protesters, or as I often call them, the hostages, he said. There has never been a group of people treated so harshly or unfairly in our countrys history.

Trumps invitation left the party divided. While some appreciated his highlighting of Libertarian issues, others thought it was disingenuous and a mere attempt to grab more votes.

It was a lot of politicking, Glen Lewis, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, told the Guardian. He came here to tell us to pull our peoples votes towards him using the fear of Joe Bidens presidency. But real men and women vote on integrity.

Michael Rectenwald, another Libertarian presidential candidate, praised Trumps commitment to commute Ulbrichts sentence but said its not enough to get his vote.

There are no people in this room in the Libertarian Party at risk for falling for Trumps bullsh*t, he said at a news conference, according to CNN.

Katherine Yeniscavich, a national Libertarian party committee member, has a different viewpoint: Its one of the things we wanted from his first term, she told Politico. [Trump] wants Libertarian voters, and if he agreed to free Ross, he would get a lot of votes.

Chase Oliver, now the official Libertarian presidential candidate, told Politico of Trump, If he thinks he is going to win our nomination, hes more delusional than I thought.

In Kennedys own 45-minute speech on Friday, he accused Trump of closing over 3 million businesses with government lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

He was initially very reluctant to impose lockdowns, but then he got rolled by his bureaucrats. He caved in, and many of our most fundamental rights disappeared practically overnight, Kennedy said. He did not stand up for the Constitution when it really mattered.

Referencing his claim that, in 2010, a parasitic worm ate a portion of his brain, Kennedy added, Maybe a brain worm ate that part of my memory, but I dont recall any part of the United States Constitution that creates an exemption for pandemics.

A known vaccine skeptic, Kennedy waded into conspiracy territory, accusing Biden of colluding with the FBI to display medical misinformation on social media about the origins of the coronavirus. He also promised, if elected, to drop espionage charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and pardon government whistleblower Edward Snowden, whos in exile in Russia.

The Libertarian Party, which prioritizes small government and individual freedoms, was founded in 1971 and calls itself the party of principle on its official website. The party's uniting belief is to strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions.

According to CBS News, the partys 2016 presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, received 4.48 million votes and earned 3.3% of the popular vote in that election.

Though unlikely, Kennedy could theoretically earn enough Electoral College votes needed to be president should he become a third-party nominee. As noted by the New York Times, research suggests that Kennedy whos polling stronger than any third-party candidate has in decades could take votes away from Trump and Biden in a general election, which makes Trumps pitch for the Libertarian vote all the more strategic.

According to ABC News, the Libertarian Party has 2024 election ballot access in at least 37 states, including battlegrounds like Arizona and Pennsylvania. A win for Kennedy in all those states could take him over the finish line.

Read the original post:

Trump tried to woo Libertarian voters and got booed. Here's what happened. - Yahoo! Voices

The Libertarian Party has cast its bet for the White House on Atlanta activist Chase Oliver, snubbing both ex-President Trump and outsider Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the 2024 race. Oliver, the new face of Libertarian politics, walloped his competition after seven rounds of voting to become the partys nominee, grabbing more than 60 percent of the final vote, FOX News reported.

In a seismic shift from the political norm, Trump, who was booed at the Libertarian convention and failed to win over the delegates, claimed that he couldn't seek the Libertarian nomination despite his assertion that he could have seized it with ease. "The reason I didn't file paperwork for the Libertarian Nomination, which I would have absolutely gotten if I wanted it (as everyone could tell by the enthusiasm of the Crowd last night!), was the fact that, as the Republican Nominee, I am not allowed to have the Nomination of another Party," he said in a brassy post on social media. Meanwhile, Kennedys pitch at the convention seemed to resonate better, however, his support crumbled, as he managed to scrape together only 19 votes, a paltry 2 percent, and was cut from consideration in the early voting rounds, according to CBS News.

While the nomination of a third-party candidate might typically fly under the radar, Oliver's selection is turning heads due to the tight race anticipated between Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden. With such narrow margins potentially deciding the outcome in key swing states, Olivers campaign could play a pivotal role in the 2024 election. Olivers platform, highlighted on his campaign website, includes aggressive federal budget cuts aimed at balancing the books, the abolition of the death penalty, the closure of overseas military bases, and pulling the plug on military support to both Israel and Ukraine.

Oliver, characterizing himself as "armed and gay," stumbled upon the Libertarian Party during the 2020 Atlanta Pride Festival, "Politico" reported. He is a staunch supporter of individual liberties, with an inclusive stance on who should be allowed to partake in the American Dream. He thrives on the belief that if immigrants are coming to work and live peacefully, it is not his, nor the government's, business to interfere. His political rsum includes previous runs for the U.S. Senate and House from Georgia, in which he earned about 2 percent of the vote in both bids, demonstrating modest but tangible support.

With a former Florida police officer, Mike ter Maat, by his side as his vice-presidential running mate, Oliver is preparing to target a younger crowd, one thats disenchanted with the current political landscape and energized by hot-button issues like the Israel-Hamas conflict. He plans to take his message to college campuses and popular social media platforms like Twitch and TikTok in a bid to stir up enthusiasm and climb an uphill battle to the presidency.

Read the original here:

Atlanta Activist Chase Oliver Clinches Libertarian Nomination, Trump and RFK Jr. Left in the Dust for 2024 Race - Hoodline

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

The Libertarian Party of California (LPCA) announced this week that independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr will be a guest speaker at the party's annual convention and will participate in its POTUS Candidate Panel along with Libertarian presidential candidates Dr. Michael Rectenwald and Mike ter Maat.

The LPCA Annual Presidential Convention will be the first time in the 2024 cycle a Libertarian Party affiliate opens its doors to a non-member to engage with its presidential candidates. But it also offers something US voters are not accustomed to seeing in the nation's hyper-partisan political environment -- open and substantiative discourse between opposing sides.

"The legacy parties are too intimidated to give any voices that don't fit their narrative a platform, which is why the Democrats have cancelled their debates. The Libertarian Party is not afraid of hearing from those with whom we don't always agree," saidAdrian F Malagon, Chair of the Libertarian Party of California.

"In fact, Libertarians welcome free-flowing discourse with individuals who hold any number of dissimilar views. As such, we welcome the opportunity to have a conversation with and hear from RFK Jr."

The 2024 presidential election is primed to feature independent and third-party candidates in a way the US has not seen in over three decades. Kennedy is currently polling high enough not only to keep him in the conversation, but he could also be the first non-major party candidate since Ross Perot in 1992 to appear on the debate stage with the Republican and Democratic nominees.

The LPCA Annual Presidential Convention will be held at The Hilton Costa Mesa in Costa Mesa, California, between February 23-24. Kennedy will be the featured Saturday Luncheon Guest Speaker. Tickets for the event are available on the party's website for anyone interested in attending.

Original post:

Robert F Kennedy Jr to Speak at Calif. Libertarian Party Convention - IVN - Independent Voter News

Term in metaphysics

Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism is an incompatibilist position[2][3] which argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe. Libertarianism states that since agents have free will, determinism must be false.[4]

One of the first clear formulations of libertarianism is found in John Duns Scotus. In theological context, metaphysical libertarianism was notably defended by Jesuit authors like Luis de Molina and Francisco Surez against rather compatibilist Thomist Baecianism. Other important metaphysical libertarians in the early modern period were Ren Descartes, George Berkeley, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Reid.[5]

Roderick Chisholm was a prominent defender of libertarianism in the 20th century[6] and contemporary libertarians include Robert Kane, Peter van Inwagen and Robert Nozick.

The first recorded use of the term libertarianism was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to necessitarian or determinist views.[7][8]

Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical viewpoint under that of incompatibilism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the agent to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances.

Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation, and consequently the world is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality.

Explanations of libertarianism that do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic subatomic particle behavior a theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" believed to be necessary by libertarians.

Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane,[9] where he hypothesizes that,

In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposesa hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort.

Although at the time quantum mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, in his book Miracles: A preliminary study C. S. Lewis stated the logical possibility that if the physical world were proved indeterministic this would provide an entry point to describe an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality.[10] Indeterministic physical models (particularly those involving quantum indeterminacy) introduce random occurrences at an atomic or subatomic level. These events might affect brain activity, and could seemingly allow incompatibilist free will if the apparent indeterminacy of some mental processes (for instance, subjective perceptions of control in conscious volition) map to the underlying indeterminacy of the physical construct. This relationship, however, requires a causative role over probabilities that is questionable,[11] and it is far from established that brain activity responsible for human action can be affected by such events. Secondarily, these incompatibilist models are dependent upon the relationship between action and conscious volition, as studied in the neuroscience of free will. It is evident that observation may disturb the outcome of the observation itself, rendering limited our ability to identify causality.[12] Niels Bohr, one of the main architects of quantum theory, suggested, however, that no connection could be made between indeterminism of nature and freedom of will.[13]

In non-physical theories of free will, agents are assumed to have power to intervene in the physical world, a view known as agent causation.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Proponents of agent causation include George Berkeley,[22] Thomas Reid,[23] and Roderick Chisholm.[24]

Most events can be explained as the effects of prior events. When a tree falls, it does so because of the force of the wind, its own structural weakness, and so on. However, when a person performs a free act, agent causation theorists say that the action was not caused by any other events or states of affairs, but rather was caused by the agent. Agent causation is ontologically separate from event causation. The action was not uncaused, because the agent caused it. But the agent's causing it was not determined by the agent's character, desires, or past, since that would just be event causation.[25] As Chisholm explains it, humans have "a prerogative which some would attribute only to God: each of us, when we act, is a prime mover unmoved. In doing what we do, we cause certain events to happen, and nothing or no one causes us to cause those events to happen."[26]

This theory involves a difficulty which has long been associated with the idea of an unmoved mover. If a free action was not caused by any event, such as a change in the agent or an act of the will, then what is the difference between saying that an agent caused the event and simply saying that the event happened on its own? As William James put it, "If a 'free' act be a sheer novelty, that comes not from me, the previous me, but ex nihilo, and simply tacks itself on to me, how can I, the previous I, be responsible? How can I have any permanent character that will stand still long enough for praise or blame to be awarded?"[27]

Agent causation advocates respond that agent causation is actually more intuitive than event causation. They point to David Hume's argument that when we see two events happen in succession, our belief that one event caused the other cannot be justified rationally (known as the problem of induction). If that is so, where does our belief in causality come from? According to Thomas Reid, "the conception of an efficient cause may very probably be derived from the experience we have had...of our own power to produce certain effects."[28] Our everyday experiences of agent causation provide the basis for the idea of event causation.[29]

Event-causal accounts of incompatibilist free will typically rely upon physicalist models of mind (like those of the compatibilist), yet they presuppose physical indeterminism, in which certain indeterministic events are said to be caused by the agent. A number of event-causal accounts of free will have been created, referenced here as deliberative indeterminism, centred accounts, and efforts of will theory.[30] The first two accounts do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe. Ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" that libertarians believe necessary. A first common objection to event-causal accounts is that the indeterminism could be destructive and could therefore diminish control by the agent rather than provide it (related to the problem of origination). A second common objection to these models is that it is questionable whether such indeterminism could add any value to deliberation over that which is already present in a deterministic world.

Deliberative indeterminism asserts that the indeterminism is confined to an earlier stage in the decision process.[31][32] This is intended to provide an indeterminate set of possibilities to choose from, while not risking the introduction of luck (random decision making). The selection process is deterministic, although it may be based on earlier preferences established by the same process. Deliberative indeterminism has been referenced by Daniel Dennett[33] and John Martin Fischer.[34] An obvious objection to such a view is that an agent cannot be assigned ownership over their decisions (or preferences used to make those decisions) to any greater degree than that of a compatibilist model.

Centred accounts propose that for any given decision between two possibilities, the strength of reason will be considered for each option, yet there is still a probability the weaker candidate will be chosen.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] An obvious objection to such a view is that decisions are explicitly left up to chance, and origination or responsibility cannot be assigned for any given decision.

Efforts of will theory is related to the role of will power in decision making. It suggests that the indeterminacy of agent volition processes could map to the indeterminacy of certain physical events and the outcomes of these events could therefore be considered caused by the agent. Models of volition have been constructed in which it is seen as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of physical indeterminism. An example of this approach is that of Robert Kane, where he hypothesizes that "in each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposes a hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which must be overcome by effort."[9] According to Robert Kane such "ultimate responsibility" is a required condition for free will.[42] An important factor in such a theory is that the agent cannot be reduced to physical neuronal events, but rather mental processes are said to provide an equally valid account of the determination of outcome as their physical processes (see non-reductive physicalism).

Epicurus, an ancient Hellenistic philosopher, argued that as atoms moved through the void, there were occasions when they would "swerve" (clinamen) from their otherwise determined paths, thus initiating new causal chains. Epicurus argued that these swerves would allow us to be more responsible for our actions, something impossible if every action was deterministically caused.

Epicurus did not say the swerve was directly involved in decisions. But following Aristotle, Epicurus thought human agents have the autonomous ability to transcend necessity and chance (both of which destroy responsibility), so that praise and blame are appropriate. Epicurus finds a tertium quid, beyond necessity and beyond chance. His tertium quid is agent autonomy, what is "up to us."

[S]ome things happen of necessity (), others by chance (), others through our own agency ( ). [...]. [N]ecessity destroys responsibility and chance is inconstant; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach.[43]

The Epicurean philosopher Lucretius (1st century BC) saw the randomness as enabling free will, even if he could not explain exactly how, beyond the fact that random swerves would break the causal chain of determinism.

Again, if all motion is always one long chain, and new motion arises out of the old in order invariable, and if the first-beginnings do not make by swerving a beginning of motion such as to break the decrees of fate, that cause may not follow cause from infinity, whence comes this freedom (libera) in living creatures all over the earth, whence I say is this will (voluntas) wrested from the fates by which we proceed whither pleasure leads each, swerving also our motions not at fixed times and fixed places, but just where our mind has taken us? For undoubtedly it is his own will in each that begins these things, and from the will movements go rippling through the limbs.

However, the interpretation of these ancient philosophers is controversial. Tim O'Keefe has argued that Epicurus and Lucretius were not libertarians at all, but compatibilists.[44]

Robert Nozick put forward an indeterministic theory of free will in Philosophical Explanations (1981).[45]

When human beings become agents through reflexive self-awareness, they express their agency by having reasons for acting, to which they assign weights. Choosing the dimensions of one's identity is a special case, in which the assigning of weight to a dimension is partly self-constitutive. But all acting for reasons is constitutive of the self in a broader sense, namely, by its shaping one's character and personality in a manner analogous to the shaping that law undergoes through the precedent set by earlier court decisions. Just as a judge does not merely apply the law but to some degree makes it through judicial discretion, so too a person does not merely discover weights but assigns them; one not only weighs reasons but also weights them. Set in train is a process of building a framework for future decisions that we are tentatively committed to.

The lifelong process of self-definition in this broader sense is construed indeterministically by Nozick. The weighting is "up to us" in the sense that it is undetermined by antecedent causal factors, even though subsequent action is fully caused by the reasons one has accepted. He compares assigning weights in this deterministic sense to "the currently orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics", following von Neumann in understanding a quantum mechanical system as in a superposition or probability mixture of states, which changes continuously in accordance with quantum mechanical equations of motion and discontinuously via measurement or observation that "collapses the wave packet" from a superposition to a particular state. Analogously, a person before decision has reasons without fixed weights: he is in a superposition of weights. The process of decision reduces the superposition to a particular state that causes action.

One particularly influential contemporary theory of libertarian free will is that of Robert Kane.[30][46][47] Kane argues that "(1) the existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent's power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely, and that (2) determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities (it precludes the power to do otherwise)".[48] It is important to note that the crux of Kane's position is grounded not in a defense of alternative possibilities (AP) but in the notion of what Kane refers to as ultimate responsibility (UR). Thus, AP is a necessary but insufficient criterion for free will.[49] It is necessary that there be (metaphysically) real alternatives for our actions, but that is not enough; our actions could be random without being in our control. The control is found in "ultimate responsibility".

Ultimate responsibility entails that agents must be the ultimate creators (or originators) and sustainers of their own ends and purposes. There must be more than one way for a person's life to turn out (AP). More importantly, whichever way it turns out must be based in the person's willing actions. Kane defines it as follows:

(UR) An agent is ultimately responsible for some (event or state) E's occurring only if (R) the agent is personally responsible for E's occurring in a sense which entails that something the agent voluntarily (or willingly) did or omitted either was, or causally contributed to, E's occurrence and made a difference to whether or not E occurred; and (U) for every X and Y (where X and Y represent occurrences of events and/or states) if the agent is personally responsible for X and if Y is an arche (sufficient condition, cause or motive) for X, then the agent must also be personally responsible for Y.

In short, "an agent must be responsible for anything that is a sufficient reason (condition, cause or motive) for the action's occurring."[50]

What allows for ultimacy of creation in Kane's picture are what he refers to as "self-forming actions" or SFAsthose moments of indecision during which people experience conflicting wills. These SFAs are the undetermined, regress-stopping voluntary actions or refraining in the life histories of agents that are required for UR. UR does not require that every act done of our own free will be undetermined and thus that, for every act or choice, we could have done otherwise; it requires only that certain of our choices and actions be undetermined (and thus that we could have done otherwise), namely SFAs. These form our character or nature; they inform our future choices, reasons and motivations in action. If a person has had the opportunity to make a character-forming decision (SFA), they are responsible for the actions that are a result of their character.

Randolph Clarke objects that Kane's depiction of free will is not truly libertarian but rather a form of compatibilism. The objection asserts that although the outcome of an SFA is not determined, one's history up to the event is; so the fact that an SFA will occur is also determined. The outcome of the SFA is based on chance, and from that point on one's life is determined. This kind of freedom, says Clarke, is no different from the kind of freedom argued for by compatibilists, who assert that even though our actions are determined, they are free because they are in accordance with our own wills, much like the outcome of an SFA.[51]

Kane responds that the difference between causal indeterminism and compatibilism is "ultimate controlthe originative control exercised by agents when it is 'up to them' which of a set of possible choices or actions will now occur, and up to no one and nothing else over which the agents themselves do not also have control".[52] UR assures that the sufficient conditions for one's actions do not lie before one's own birth.

Galen Strawson holds that there is a fundamental sense in which free will is impossible, whether determinism is true or not. He argues for this position with what he calls his "basic argument", which aims to show that no-one is ever ultimately morally responsible for their actions, and hence that no one has free will in the sense that usually concerns us.

In his book defending compatibilism, Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett spends a chapter criticising Kane's theory.[53] Kane believes freedom is based on certain rare and exceptional events, which he calls self-forming actions or SFA's. Dennett notes that there is no guarantee such an event will occur in an individual's life. If it does not, the individual does not in fact have free will at all, according to Kane. Yet they will seem the same as anyone else. Dennett finds an essentially indetectable notion of free will to be incredible.

See original here:

Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia

COP Out

Ever since she lambasted world leaders at a UN conference in 2018 when she was only 15 years old, Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg has had the ear of the international community.

Now, Thunberg says she's skipping out on next week's COP27 UN climate summit in Egypt. Why? Because it's rife with "greenwashing."

"I'm not going to COP27 for many reasons, but the space for civil society this year is extremely limited," Thunberg said at a press event for her book, "The Climate Book," as quoted by The Guardian. "The COPs are mainly used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention, using many different kinds of greenwashing."

Ultimately, in Thunberg's view, the COP conferences "are not really meant to change the whole system" and instead only promote incremental change. Bluntly put, they're feel-good events that don't accomplish much, so she's bowing out.

Wasted Breath

It's not an unfair assessment. For all the pledges made to drastically cut back emissions and achieve net carbon zero by 2050, very few nations have followed through in the short term. And in Europe, the energy crisis in the wake of the war in Ukraine has further sidelined those climate commitments.

So we can't blame her for not going. But it's a bit disheartening that even a tenacious young spokesperson like Thunberg has given up on convincing world leaders at the biggest climate summit in the world.

Maybe it's indicative of the frustrations of her generation at large. When Thunberg was asked what she thought about the recent wave of Just Stop Oil protests that included activists throwing soup on a Van Gogh painting, she said that she viewed what many detractors perceived as a dumb stunt to be symptomatic of the world's failure to effect meaningful environmental change.

"People are trying to find new methods because we realize that what we have been doing up until now has not done the trick," she replied, as quoted by Reuters. "It's only reasonable to expect these kinds of different actions."

Maybe the real question is: if even a UN climate conference isn't the place to get the message out and change hearts, where's the right place, and what's the right way? If the headlines are any indication, zoomers are struggling to figure that out.

More on Greta Thunberg: Greta Thunberg Thinks Germany Shutting Down Its Nuclear Plants Is a Bad Idea

The post Greta Thunberg Says UN Climate Conference Is a Scam and She's Not Attending appeared first on Futurism.

Original post:

Greta Thunberg Says UN Climate Conference Is a Scam and She's Not Attending

A provocative manslaughter case is about to kick off in Los Angeles later this month, involving a fatal crash caused by a Tesla vehicle that had the company's controversial Autopilot feature turned on.

It's the first case of its kind, and one that could set a precedent for future crashes involving cars and driver-assistance software, Reuters reports.

We won't know the exact defense until the case gets under way, but the crux is that the man who was behind the wheel of the Tesla is facing manslaughter charges — but has pleaded not guilty, setting up potentially novel legal arguments about culpability in a deadly collision when, technically speaking, it wasn't a human driving the car.

"Who's at fault, man or machine?" asked Edward Walters, an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University, in an interview with Reuters. "The state will have a hard time proving the guilt of the human driver because some parts of the task are being handled by Tesla."

The upcoming trial is about a fatal collision that took place in 2019. The crash involved Kevin George Aziz Riad, who ran a red light in his Tesla Model S, and collided with a Honda Civic, killing a couple who were reportedly on their first date.

According to vehicle data, Riad did not apply the brakes but had a hand on the steering wheel. Perhaps most critically, though, the Tesla's Autopilot feature was turned on in the moments leading up to the crash.

Riad is facing manslaughter charges, with prosecutors arguing his actions were reckless.

Meanwhile, Riad's lawyers have argued that he shouldn't be charged with a crime, but have so far stopped short of publicly placing blame on Tesla's Autopilot software.

Tesla is not directly implicated in the upcoming trial and isn't facing charges in the case, according to Reuters.

A separate trial, however, involving the family of one of the deceased is already scheduled for next year — but this time, Tesla is the defendant.

"I can't say that the driver was not at fault, but the Tesla system, Autopilot, and Tesla spokespeople encourage drivers to be less attentive," the family's attorney Donald Slavik told Reuters.

"Tesla knows people are going to use Autopilot and use it in dangerous situations," he added.

Tesla is already under heavy scrutiny over its Autopilot and so-called Full Self-Driving software, despite conceding that the features "do not make the vehicle autonomous" and that drivers must remain attentive of the road at all times.

Critics argue that Tesla's marketing is misleading and that it's only leading to more accidents — not making the roads safer, as Tesla CEO Elon Musk has argued in the past.

In fact, a recent survey found that 42 percent of Tesla Autopilot said they feel "comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving."

Regulators are certainly already paying attention. The news comes a week after Reuters revealed that the Department of Justice is investigating Tesla over Autopilot.

Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced an investigation of accidents in which Teslas have smashed into emergency response vehicles that were pulled over with sirens or flares.

This month's trial certainly stands the chance of setting a precedent. Was Riad fully at fault or was Tesla's Autopilot at least partially to blame as well?

The answer now lies in the hands of a jury.

READ MORE: Tesla crash trial in California hinges on question of 'man vs machine' [Reuters]

More on Autopilot: Survey: 42% of Tesla Autopilot Drivers Think Their Cars Can Drive Themselves

The post Manslaughter Case Has a Strange Twist: Tesla That Killed Couple Was on Autopilot appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original:

Manslaughter Case Has a Strange Twist: Tesla That Killed Couple Was on Autopilot

AI-lands in the Stream

Sorry, but not even Dolly Parton is sacred amid the encroachment of AI into art.

Holly Herndon, an avant garde pop musician, has released a cover of Dolly Parton's beloved and frequently covered hit single, "Jolene." Except it's not really Herndon singing, but her digital deepfake twin known as Holly+.

The music video features a 3D avatar of Holly+ frolicking in what looks like a decaying digital world.

And honestly, it's not bad — dare we say, almost kind of good? Herndon's rendition croons with a big, round sound, soaked in reverb and backed by a bouncy, acoustic riff and a chorus of plaintive wailing. And she has a nice voice. Or, well, Holly+ does. Maybe predictably indie-folk, but it's certainly an effective demonstration of AI with a hint of creative flair, or at least effective curation.

Checking the Boxes

But the performance is also a little unsettling. For one, the giant inhales between verses are too long to be real and are almost cajolingly dramatic. The vocals themselves are strangely even and, despite the somber tone affected by the AI, lack Parton's iconic vulnerability.

Overall, it feels like the AI is simply checking the boxes of what makes a good, swooning cover after listening to Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah" a million times — which, to be fair, is a pretty good starting point.

Still, it'd be remiss to downplay what Herndon has managed to pull off here, and the criticisms mostly reflect the AI's limited capabilities more than her chops as a musician. The AI's seams are likely intentional, if her previous work is anything to go off of.

Either way, if you didn't know you were listening to an AI from the get-go, you'd probably be fooled. And that alone is striking.

The Digital Self

Despite AI's usually ominous implications for art, Herndon views her experiment as a "way for artists to take control of their digital selves," according to a statement on her website.

"Vocal deepfakes are here to stay," Herndon was quoted saying. "A balance needs to be found between protecting artists, and encouraging people to experiment with a new and exciting technology."

Whether Herndon's views are fatalistic or prudently pragmatic remains to be seen. But even if her intentions are meant to be good for artists, it's still worrying that an AI could pull off such a convincing performance.

More on AI music: AI That Generates Music from Prompts Should Probably Scare Musicians

The post This Deepfake AI Singing Dolly Parton's "Jolene" Is Worryingly Good appeared first on Futurism.

Read this article:

This Deepfake AI Singing Dolly Parton's "Jolene" Is Worryingly Good