How Dave Smith Became the Leader of Nothing

The Libertarian Party was once a movement grounded in principle and action, built on the belief that liberty is a cause worth fighting for. In recent years, however, the party has devolved into a platform for rhetorical exercises and ideological purity tests, spearheaded by figures like Dave Smith. While Smith portrays himself as a champion of liberty and a thought leader within the Mises Caucus, his detachment from action and over-reliance on contrarian soundbites have left him a “leader of nothing.”

This article examines how Smith’s brand of libertarianism—rooted in theory, posturing, and personality—has hollowed out the party’s potential to enact meaningful change and why it’s time for Libertarians to move beyond figures like him.

The Libertarian Identity Crisis: From Principles to Personality

Dave Smith’s rise within the Libertarian Party reflects a broader identity crisis. Once a movement focused on advancing liberty through action and engagement, the party has become dominated by personality-driven politics. Smith’s podcast, Part of the Problem, and his constant social media presence have turned him into a figurehead for the Mises Caucus, but his leadership is defined more by rhetorical posturing than by principled action.

At the heart of Smith’s philosophy is a fixation on ideological purity. He promotes essays like Do You Hate the State?, which encourage an almost religious disdain for government, but fails to offer practical solutions for how to address the challenges posed by state overreach. This focus on rhetorical purity alienates those who value pragmatic approaches to liberty, reducing the party’s ability to connect with broader audiences or effect real-world change.

“Do You Hate the State?” A Wasteful Rhetorical Exercise

Smith’s embrace of Do You Hate the State? is emblematic of the hollow nature of his libertarianism. It’s easy to rage against “the state” in abstract terms, but what does that accomplish in practice? The state exists, and while it can act tyrannically, it also provides structures that can be navigated to protect liberties, resolve disputes, and keep power in check. Reducing libertarianism to a blanket hatred of the state ignores these realities.

I’ve lived through real battles for liberty where my civil rights were restricted—not hypothetically, but tangibly and painfully. These experiences have taught me that liberty isn’t about hating the state; it’s about dealing with it.

• First Amendment Rights: I’ve faced real censorship, unlike the abstract grievances Smith likes to discuss. City officials, congressional leaders, and even the White House have blocked my phone number, directly limiting my ability to petition the government. USA Today blocked my domain, preventing me from tipping off their reporters and engaging with one of the largest free press networks in the country. Social media companies have also censored me, suppressing my posts and throttling my reach. These barriers are isolating, frustrating, and hard to cope with—but they’re the reality of censorship in today’s world.
  
  Despite these challenges, I’ve fought back. I’ve convinced Hearst Communications to bring me on to publish work, using my persistence to reach audiences and make an impact. While Smith theorizes about government overreach, I’ve experienced it firsthand and taken action to push back.

   

• Second Amendment Rights: I’ve also faced restrictions on my Second Amendment rights through Protection From Abuse (PFA) orders, imposed despite the fact that I didn’t own or even want a gun. These restrictions stemmed from personal disputes, not violent behavior, and represented a clear overreach of authority. But I addressed these challenges directly, sometimes representing myself pro se in court and standing up for my rights.

   

These experiences are messy, uncomfortable, and far from glamorous—but they’re what liberty looks like in practice. Smith and those like him talk about civil rights as though they’re abstract concepts. For me, they’ve been stripped, fought for, and, in many cases, won back. That’s the difference between rhetoric and reality.

The Misunderstanding of Freedom: Practicing Liberty vs. Preaching It

Smith and his followers often talk about “freedom” without ever stepping into the ring to fight for it. Their attachment to theoretical purity leaves them blind to the opportunities available to challenge power constructively. I’ve used the state to my advantage in ways Smith and his cohort rarely consider, let alone attempt:

• I’ve worked successfully with federal agencies like the FTC, SEC, FBI, and DOJ to report fraud and corruption and fulfill my civic duty.
• I’ve engaged with city officials, state representatives, and local agencies without ever voting for a representative.
• I’ve protested corruption in the streets, often alone, knowing that real action is what drives change—not endless debates about theory.

Freedom isn’t about refusing to engage with the state. It’s about knowing how to navigate it. I’ve fought for my rights, had them stripped, and won many of them back. Liberty requires participation, not just critique.

The State Is A Tool, And A Tyrant

Make no mistake: the state in America today can be tyrannical. But the solution isn’t to hate it blindly—it’s to confront it strategically. Most people like Smith never directly engage with the government. They “oppose” or “support” it in theoretical terms but never participate in its systems. They critique from a distance, but they don’t file complaints, testify, or stand up to power in meaningful ways.

I approach the state differently. I see it as both an obstacle and a tool. It is flawed, but it is also a structure that can be used to protect rights and hold power accountable. Navigating the state requires both collective action and individual effort—something Smith and others like him fail to understand because they rarely, if ever, confront it. Liberty isn’t about hating the state; it’s about using it to your advantage.

A Leader of Nothing: The Futility of Dave Smith’s Contrarianism

Smith’s contrarianism might appeal to a niche audience, but it leads nowhere. His rejection of mainstream politics and fixation on ideological purity have left the Libertarian Party isolated and politically irrelevant. Leadership requires humility, selflessness, and a commitment to collective progress. Smith’s leadership, by contrast, centers on self-promotion and rhetorical posturing. It prioritizes soundbites over solutions and personality over principles.

This isn’t leadership—it’s stagnation. The Libertarian Party under Smith’s influence has become a platform for endless contrarianism rather than a force for change.

Purity Tests Can’t Be Done In A Dirty Lab

The future of the Libertarian Party depends on moving beyond figures like Dave Smith and embracing a vision of liberty grounded in action. This means rejecting the cult of personality and focusing on pragmatic engagement with the state to protect and expand freedom. Libertarians must stop waiting for leaders to show them the way and start practicing liberty themselves, in their communities and through direct action.

As someone who has lived these principles—who has confronted power, fought corruption, and defended liberty—I’m not trying to lead the Libertarian Party. But I could use help elevating my voice and experiences to prominence. America would be much better off if more people were inspired to act rather than simply talk about freedom. Liberty is possible, but it requires action, not endless contrarianism.

The Minus Caucus Has Become The Librarian Party

If you speak too loudly, Dave Smith the historian librarian will shush you down. That is how it is among people in this club of libertarians, podcasters, and others who are more interested in making friends than they are with making an impact on the world and the government itself. That’s probably why a lot of people left the libertarian party.

Looking back in time, Ron Paul is the same kind of do-nothing politician that gets idolized like Bernie Sanders, or Thomas Massie. But these men are not knowledgeable enough about markets, finance, business, or competition in order to detect and stop monopolistic practices. They many grandstand and speak well. But they don’t get anything legitimately done.

Dave Smith’s libertarianism is all talk and no action too. His brand of contrarianism appeals to those seeking ideological purity, but it alienates those who value real-world engagement. True liberty requires humility, pragmatism, and a willingness to confront power—not just critique it.

Smith’s failure to lead meaningfully has left him the “leader of nothing,” while those of us who practice liberty continue to do the hard work of defending it. If the Libertarian Party wants to reclaim its relevance, it must move beyond rhetorical figures like Smith and embrace a future grounded in action, accountability, and selflessness.