The Need for a New Left + Right Libertarian Coalition

21 min readJan 20, 2021

The “Libertarian” Debate

When the average person hears the word “libertarian”, it usually invokes a rather negative reaction, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. This is for varying reasons, everything ranging from mere third party skepticism to ties with white nationalists. With a long and twisted history, there is mass confusion around the term itself. Why is it that so many people are downright uninformed about Libertarian values? I suspect one reason for that is marketing.

Not even Libertarians can agree on marketing, or even, what views they should be marketing at all. Some, like myself, understand that libertarianism is a spectrum of ideologies, while others narrowly believe only their subset of libertarianism is “real libertarianism”. Primarily, traditional left wing anarchists and Rothbardians tend to find themselves at the forefront of this debate. Historically, the word “libertarian” in a political context was often used synonymously for “anarchist”, particularly in Europe. It held this associated meaning from the 1800s onwards, until it was appropriated in the US to refer to either classical liberalism or staunch Rothbardian theory. “Anarcho-Capitalist” theorist Murray Rothbard bragged about this in one of his written works.

“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…”
― Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal Of The American Right

So, right there we already have a conflict. Multiple distinct ideologies taking claim to the same label. While some say only their version is correct, I am of the belief that they are all correct, and all are simply different schools of libertarian thought. It gets tricky because to some, it may seem that these ideologies are directly opposed to one another, with right libertarianism having a strong emphasis on capitalism and left libertarianism having a strong emphasis on socialism.

Libertarian Socialism?

Chances are, you’re reading this right now and telling yourself “libertarian socialism is an oxymoron!” If you assume libertarianism is Rothbardianism, or Propertarianism, then, yes. However, the fact remains that the term was essentially stolen, and took on additional meanings. While words can change, the prior connotations never went away, and “libertarian” still means the same thing in the rest of the world as it did in the 1800s. Anarchism. With that being said, anarchism is widely regarded as a radical form of stateless socialism.

First, I’d ask you to break away from whatever definition of “socialism” you have. It is especially difficult to have a conversation over concepts when people are not even using the same definition of words. Understand that, in political philosophy, there are different types of socialism, as is with every theory of organization. I will present three different instances of socialism.

Socialism — a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Socialism (in Marxist theory) — a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
Stalinism — the ideology and policies adopted by Stalin, based on centralization, totalitarianism, and the pursuit of communism.

I’m not going to get too in-depth about different economic theories, as I am not arguing for or against any, but merely presenting the conceptual existence of libertarian socialism as a historical fact. When you see someone use the phrase “libertarian socialism”, know that they are not advocating for forced wealth redistribution, in fact, it is more likely than not that they don’t believe in a state at all. If you are trying to wrap your head around this, wondering, “how can anarchists be socialists?”, I urge you to do some reading on anarchist philosophy. Again, debating the idea is not the purpose of this, as this is simply about Left Libertarians existing (which inevitably, libsocs fall under that umbrella).

To every instance of an angry right-libertarian saying libertarian socialists don’t exist, I urge them to look in the mirror, and look at what history has to say about that. To these people, on either side, I suggest that you refute their ideas, rather than trying to lay claim to the word “libertarian” — because both sides use it, and will continue to use it. Saying “libertarian socialism” is an oxymoron is so laughable to me, because its a pathetic excuse used to cop out of a battle of ideas. Similarly, I groan when libertarian socialists make the same claim about libertarians that are capitalistic in nature (but I do think at least there is more evidence on their side of the argument being that the term was stolen from them in the same way “liberal” was). Something I tend to say, is that you can oppose or argue the ideas being espoused by left/right libertarians, but to flat out deny their existence is pure foolishness.

Schools of Thought

Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism. Scholars distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines. — Libertarianism (Wikipedia)
Left-libertarian ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist and New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. — Libertarianism (Wikipedia)
In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States, where it advocates civil liberties, natural law, free-market capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. — Libertarianism (Wikipedia)

There are numerous debates over what a free society would look like, but the truth is, everyone envisions their own utopia and we can never know for sure what would happen if these ideas come to fruition. We can make educated theories, but all would otherwise lack proof. While there are many arguable solutions to the left vs. right divide, there is a short term solution proposed by members of the Libertarian Party.

What is Bottom Unity?

“Bottom Unity” is the concept that the libertarian left and the libertarian right should work together and form a coalition against the state, and work out the rest later. Some suggest that it is pointless to argue about economics and semantics and “what-ifs” in regards to a potential society that we are so extremely far away from at this point in time. So instead of making enemies out of one another, the idea is to focus on similar goals that are mutually held in common — such as opposing the omnipotent state.

Opponents of bottom unity say they refuse to align with people willing to assert force on others, except both sides define the others’ economics as forceful. In terms of the Libertarian Party, it is vastly dominated by the economic right, with virtually all of its members referring to themselves as laissez faire capitalists. Foundational aspects of the party are rooted in private property rights and free markets, but it is worth nothing that, while markets are a factor of capitalism, markets can also exist outside of capitalism.

Libertarian Socialists and the Libertarian Party

On one hand, there is a valid argument that there is little reason for libertarian socialists to join a party that opposes their core values. Although, another argument can be made as well. First and foremost, there are mentions of “justly acquired property” in Libertarian Party documents. As you’ll see many socialists say, they oppose private property, not personal property. One major fault here is that both sides define property differently. Even among proponents of private property rights, there is room for debate over what those rights entail, and where they end, if ever. There seems to be a lot of confusion around each side’s beliefs and disingenuous conversations don’t help both sides understand one another. I do believe, however, that the standards of private property are pretty set in stone according to what the Libertarian Party has put fourth. One could hypothetically deviate from the platform in this manner if their beliefs differ, but I question the motives of those who join the party yet stand against a very fundamental belief.

Now, let me flip the script for a moment. Must one oppose property in order to be in favor of horizontal business structures? To favor communes? These are all valid questions. I think there is indeed a way to implement such ideas in a NAP-compliant form. The Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Libertarian Party formed in 2018, and caused quite a bit of controversy. However, its platform does not necessarily contradict the Statement of Principles. In fact, upon reviewing the original wording of the document from 1972, the term “laissez-faire capitalism” was replaced with “the free market” in 1974.

Libertarian Party Statement of Principles

Since government has only one legitimate function, the protection of individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. Men should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders on a free market; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of man’s rights, is laissez-faire capitalism. — Original Wording
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market. — Present Wording

Something of note — there is yet another difference I picked up on between both versions of the Statement of Principles. The removal of all gendered language, taken from male-dominant phrasing to gender neutral wording. Personally I think this shows just how forward-thinking the founders were.

Early Forms of Bottom Unity

The beliefs of those involved with the origin story of the Libertarian Party differed from person to person. They held a range of beliefs, which was one reason the Dallas Accord was made. It was a compromise between Minarchist and Anarchist factions within the party. Surely, if there were anarchists, not all would have been ancaps like Rothbard. In fact, Samuel Edward Konkin III also played a role in the American Libertarian movement. He was the founder of the ideology known as agorism, which believed in counter-economics as he called it. Agorism is categorized (by Konkin) as a form of left libertarianism, left wing market anarchism to be exact. [Left wing] Market Anarchism is a market socialist economic theory. So, back to my point about hostility towards “libertarian socialists” in the LP… knowing the history of both A) Libertarianism and B) The Libertarian Party opens a door of understanding that may not have been there before. Since the beginning, Left Libertarians were involved with the party and the movement.

The Libertarian Party pulled from both the Old Right and the New Left in it’s earlier days, but eventually abandoned the left somewhere down the road. David Nolan, founder of the party, echoes a tone of bottom unity in the following quote, long before the term was coined in libertarian circles. This was used as a reason TO form the party.

“[…] we will be able to hasten the already emerging coalition between the libertarian “left” and libertarian “right”. At the moment, the former group is supporting people like Eugene McCarthy, while the latter is supporting people like Barry Goldwater. A truly libertarian party would draw support both from such “leftist” groups as the Institute for the Study of Non-Violence and the American Civil Liberties Union, and from “rightist” groups like the John Birch Society and the Liberty Amendment Committee, however. This would increase the political impact of the libertarian “movement”, as “leftist” and “rightist” libertarians now usually wind up voting so as to cancel each other (when they vote at all). Furthermore, libertarian votes now get lumped in with “liberal” and “conservative” votes, whereas the votes received by a libertarian party would not be hidden in this manner.” — The Case for a Libertarian Political Party by David Nolan (August 1971)

There is a reason the words left and right are written in quotation marks here. David Nolan created the Nolan Chart, which is a different political spectrum graph than the 4-quadrant political compass. It separates left/right, and libertarian/authoritarian, making them into distinctly different areas. This is why many libertarians reject the left/right paradigm entirely. Meanwhile, the political compass has left authoritarianism, right authoritarianism, left libertarianism, and right libertarianism. Personally I align more with using this method in my conversations, but I do appreciate the Nolan Chart and its impact on the liberty movement. In fact, I feel as though it makes up for some of what I dislike about the political compass — which conflates social views when determining a point on the left/right spectrum. I feel as though one can hold very liberal or conservative views and believe in left/right economics apart from those views. The Nolan Chart also allows for centrism, and personally as someone who finds it hard to identify as either left or right, I can also appreciate that.

Now, I mentioned that the left was abandoned — forgotten — when it comes to the Libertarian Party. While many love to tout the works of Murray Rothbard, it pains me to see that there is such little [visible] love for others whom were involved, such as Karl Hess. Hess was a critic of capitalism at one point or another, and is a great example of someone who moved left from the political right. He was a speechwriter for Barry Goldwater, but also ran with the Black Panthers. Hess and Rothbard both worked together on editing “The Libertarian Forum”. Rothbard was a highly influential figure in the LP, and was an advocate of a coalition between the Old Right and New Left. That is, until, his later years.

What is the Paleo Strategy?

The Paleo Strategy was created by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell in an effort to bring social conservatives over to libertarianism. Thus, what became known as “Paleolibertarianism” was born. Do you recall, in the very beginning, where I said some people have a negative view of libertarians due to ties with white nationalists? Tons of internet spaces supposedly full of libertarians are instead alt-right cesspools. This is why.

Paleolibertarianism developed in opposition to the social progressivism of mainstream libertarianism. In his essay “The Case for Paleo-Libertarianism”, Rockwell charged mainstream libertarians with “hatred of Western culture”. He argued that “pornographic photography, ‘free’-thinking, chaotic painting, atonal music, deconstructionist literature, Bauhaus architecture, and modernist films have nothing in common with the libertarian political agenda — no matter how much individual libertarians may revel in them”. Of paleolibertarians, he wrote that “we obey, and we ought to obey, traditions of manners and taste”. After explaining why cultural conservatives could make a better argument for liberty to the middle classes, Rockwell predicted “in the new movement, libertarians who personify the present corruption will sink to their natural level, as will the Libertarian Party, which has been their diabolic pulpit”. — Paleolibertarianism (Wikipedia)

The Paleo Strategy is, essentially for all intents and purposes, the anti-bottom unity, and an open doorway for bigotry. A primary tenet of this philosophy means being staunchly anti-left, including “left wing” social views. Really, this is a complete erasure, not only of the Old Right/New Left coalition, but even of Right-Libertarian influences, such as Bleeding Heart Libertarianism.

Rothbard’s protege, Hans-Hemann Hoppe, expands upon this ideology. He insists that, it is possible to outlaw homosexuality in a libertarian framework. I advise a slight content warning for the following quoted material.

Expulsion of homosexuals, dissidents and other races and religions
In “Democracy, The God That Failed”, Hoppe describes a fully libertarian society of “covenant communities” made up of residents who have signed an agreement defining the nature of that community.
Hoppe writes “There would be little or no ‘tolerance’ and ‘openmindedness’ so dear to left-libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property”. Hoppe writes that towns and villages could have warning signs saying “no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Muslims, Germans, or Zulus”.
Hoppe writes:
“In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” — Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Wikipedia)

Hoppe also wrote the foreword to the book “White, Right, and Libertarian”. On its cover image, the figures of 4 people are depicted strung from a helicopter, with images symbolizing communists, muslims, antifascists, and feminists.

The history of this movement single handedly dealt some of the biggest blows to damage the libertarian movement for years to come. For example, prominent neo-nazi Christopher Cantwell, “The Crying Nazi”, openly referred to himself as a libertarian, and even tried running for office under the party’s banner, before being kicked out of multiple libertarian organizations.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, for one it helps to understand the perspective of outsiders who already have a negative predisposition to libertarians. It also helps us understand how we can combat such arguments when brought against us. However, there is a greater concern. The revival of the paleo strategy. Many have already heeded the warnings, but others do not perceive it as an issue. Many, simply do not know. Perhaps you didn’t, perhaps you would have been better off not knowing. But I say this to raise awareness, and to help clear the stains on the party, of which I love so dearly, and hate so passionately, at the same time.

There is so, so much more about this that I can’t even begin to cover. Personally, I find paleolibertarianism to be an illegitimate form of libertarianism, as I believe bigotry and libertarianism are incompatible. To me, it is an absolute bastardization of everything that came before, and I abhor it with every fiber of my being; for the foul stench of this ideology will easily pass through its rotten core.

The Resurgence of the Coalition

So, how do we reignite the spark between the left and the right? The country right now is so polarized, potentially to the point of no return. One thing we can do, though, is keep spreading the message of liberty and justice for all, in hopes they hear it, and in hopes it resonates with them. We should convey a message of compassion, without compromising on our principles. Articulating a beautiful, meaningful, captivating message is extremely important. Sometimes it can be difficult to capture the hearts and minds of an audience. We have bold ideas, and how we share them, crafting a message, is ultimately key to a successful delivery of said ideas. You have to sell them to people. Right now, the idea being sold is Bottom Unity. Attracting the left is just as important as attracting the right. Liberals and conservatives and all those in between can certainly find a home within The Libertarian Party.

Looking Back at, and Returning to, the Party’s Roots

Something that Libertarians feel very strongly about is our Party Platform. To some of us, it is a sacred document that exemplifies our belief in non-aggression, voluntary interactions, and mutual liberation. To me, cooperation vs. competition, socialism vs. capitalism, such things are simply personal preference in the absence of a state. As individuals, we are allowed to have our own views, because libertarians are free thinkers, we are not a monolith, though we are almost always on the side of freedom. When in doubt, within the boundaries of the party, refer to the party platform. Many new folks are surprised to learn how much the platform was watered down over the years. In an event referred to as The Portland Plank Massacre of 2006 , delegates of the convention brought the platform from 61 planks down to 15. Viewing a history of the National Platform is essentially required reading.

Group Identity and Labels

It’s no secret that libertarians are stereotypically referred to as “republicans who smoke weed”. Majority of self proclaimed libertarians also tend to be ex-GOP voters. We do, really badly, when it comes to talking to the left. Many of us are infatuated with rugged individualism and a brutalist worldview, rather than approaching from a place of compassion or understanding. This even extends to simple conversations about race or gender.

Earlier I made the accusation that paleolibertarianism contributed to the erasure of left-libertarianism as well as right-libertarianism. For instance, the over-emphasis on certain authors over others in philosophy discussions. This also applies to more than just written works. Many times, I have amusingly heard that “collectivism”, such as feminism, is incompatible with libertarianism. Feminism is arguably a libertarian tradition, if anything! Individualist Feminism, Anarcha-Feminism, entire ideological schools of thought dedicated to libertarian style feminism. In 1972, Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Tonie Nathan, founded The Association of Libertarian Feminists.

While American Libertarianism is tied to individualism, it is important to understand the difference between collectivism, and self identity. It is a fact of the world that various demographics exist, and face their own issues that sometimes pertain almost exclusively to that demographic. Insensitive, and nonfactual nonsense such as claims that systemic racism doesn’t exist, and other things of that nature, not only make you look ignorant, but repel people to your cause. Outright denying the injustices they face, as members of voluntary or involuntary groups, is an ineffective recruiting tactic. Instead, use it in your conversations.

The left is akin to their group identities, though this is not specific to the left. For example, if your target is Log Cabin Republicans, you could mention the fact that The Libertarian Party supported LGBTQ+ rights since its inception — while the GOP is still anti-gay marriage in their party platform. It is also reasonable to assume they would not switch to become Democrats- and there are plenty of instances where the reverse would be true.

Some of these staunch anti-collectivists do not understand that majority of individuals label themselves, one way or another. They also don’t understand “identity politics” in the slightest. The absolutely painful level of tone-deaf things said by such libertarians on a day to day basis is bothersome, and potentially a reason why we lack diversity in the party. Not only in terms of race, ethnic origin, or things of that nature, but we are even lacking in diversity of thought, in my opinion. While I am certainly more radical than most, I am not so much of a fundamentalist that I adhere solely to the words of Rothbard, or any particular figure. The party has many right wing factions, but almost zero left wing ones. We would need to build upon both sides equally to create a true bottom unity sentiment among each other.

Is There a Place in the LP for Left-Wing “Minarchists”?

Many people deviate from the party platform. They either do this as individuals or as a group via a caucus. Within the right wing, we allow pro-lifers and bordertarians despite being a pro-choice & open borders party in terms of our official stances. In fact, people can even be bigots and some will defend them saying they don’t have to agree with the platform 100% — where do we draw the line? The platform itself? Some of the platform? Half of the platform? The Statement of Principles? Being anti-immigration, or pro-police certainly receives a more caring and understanding reaction than someone who thinks we need M4A so poor people don’t die due to a lack of healthcare. Those people are treated like the absolute devil, even if their intentions are good, versus bigots who are shielded because they agree with the brutalist approach to economics and messaging.

Progressives and neo-liberals are often seen as these scary authoritarians, but I’ve personally found, through my own research, that they are usually lib-left, and dramatically so! Many being lower on the political compass than many I’ve seen on the right, yet the ones on the right are accepted with ease while the ones on the left are still referred to as the enemy. Even if they are more anti-authoritarian by the metrics used to measure it.

I think, Libertarians that believe in small government, but still believe in the existence of a social safety net, should be welcomed into the LP. For an anarchist, this may seem unreasonable, but not for a minarchist or classical liberal. There are plenty of examples of countries that have social safety nets without the other burdens carried by the United States. This does not mean I would say we advocate for things like M4A or a Green New Deal as they currently stand, but we should offer better alternatives to what is currently popular among voters. We can be known as the party of innovation, or we can be known as the party whose current platform is less relevant to the current times than its platforms from the 70s-80s in their times.

There are a few things I think would sell well. Bitcoin, transhumanism, UBI, and LVT.

Libertarians have always been skeptical of government-backed currency, so it’s seemingly a no-brainer that we would be on the cryptocurrency bandwagon too. I feel like we don’t talk about this enough.

Another thing is preparing for the future. Transhumanism, artifical intelligence, and upgraded technology are the future. Do we want to be the party of the future, or the party of the past?

UBI is a bit more tricky, but some libertarians do support it as universal basic income or in the form of a negative income tax. Nonetheless, I think its an interesting concept that we should put more research into before writing it off as “statist”, when it can play a key role in a major reversal of the welfare state.

So the Land Value Tax (LVT) is fundamental to GeoLibertarianism, and this Georgist idea is found in the writings of many classical liberals such as: Henry George, John Locke, Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Thomas Spence, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer. It was also espoused by American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. Interestingly enough, it was also supported by modern Libertarians, such as Milton Friedman, Karl Hess, John Hospers and David Nolan. In fact, Nolan called it the least bad tax.

If such efforts were made to bring economically left policies to the party (in any capacity), I think there would be massive hysteria from Libertarians. Perhaps if a group were to state that they deviate from the party platform on such matters, and do not advocate for the party to change its stance, maybe there would be less hostility? All in all, when it comes to concrete policy in the real world as opposed to idealistic visions, we need to have a horse in the race. Right now, we don’t.

If we are to grow, and be a big tent party, as we claim to be, that would mean we would eventually need to allow for more pragmatism with people coming from the left. The left does a better job at attracting the left, and vice versa. Having the left message the right and the right message the left will only scare people off.

Different Priorities

In my opinion, not all welfare and spending are equal. As a Libertarian, I would much rather spend my time attacking corporate welfare and military spending than I would attacking single mothers on food stamps — or trying to reverse the civil rights act to allow discrimination because its “freedom of association”. The priorities of some libertarians are so out of whack, it makes me question why they are libertarians to begin with. There are two types of libertarian: Liberty for Me vs. Liberty for Thee. (Thee is essentially we, Me is essentially I.)

Liberty for Me: Libertarians that only care about the issues that directly effect them. May place a greater emphasis on taxes than human rights violations at the hands of ICE, for example. Stereotypical, selfish libertarian.

Liberty for Thee: Wants to promote policy placing the freedoms of others at the forefront of the liberty movement.

I would place human-centered civil rights policy as more important in my worldview, because the things that affect people directly are a greater threat to their wellbeing than financial threats later down the road. If someone is in prison for a drug offense, they likely aren’t worrying about property taxes.

Where We Seemingly Agree

The battles between left and right libertarians on economic policy are never ending. Though, lets not forget, both sides have plenty in common too. We can draw bridges on social issues. Drug legalization, sex work decriminalization, immigration, criminal justice reform — these are all topics that can bridge the divide between Libertarians of different flavors. It is my personal belief that, as a party, we should reject staunch social conservatism, as it will cause the eventual downfall of the LP. The youth are becoming more and more progressive, and if we don’t catch up, we will continue to lose thousands of young activists to the machine of the Democratic Party. Shifting our focus to hot button issues (which are often civil rights related) will fast-track us to getting a better reputation among the mainstream population. Regardless of your economic beliefs, there are many views that libertarians can agree on regardless. Whether its policy initiatives like pushing for electoral reform with ranked choice voting, or legal battles regarding freedom of speech, or fighting against police brutality, libertarians should be at the forefront of these movements.

In Conclusion…

Every day, people from both the left and the right are joining the Libertarian Party because they decided they wanted better options than what the duopoly was offering them. The party is always going to have internal ideological conflicts, but perhaps that can be lessened and mitigated over time if both sides are able to reach a mutual understanding about one another. Allowing a true big tent anti-authoritarian party would grow the LP like never before. The internal faction wars will cease if we can learn to cooperate, someday. While I do not anticipate a large coalition movement will resurface again in upcoming years like it did in the past, I can still hope that individuals can come together for the pursuit of similar goals within the spectrum of libertarianism. At least, temporarily, until we inch closer to our ideal societies. Let’s fight it out then, not now.