Creatrix

the only real libertarian™

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

@Weir4Liberty No shit talking lobster in this house.

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

No, it’s not “billionaires.”

It’s because Maine is a small-state economy with big-state bureaucracy.

Aren’t you a fisherman? You should know better than anyone how this works.

The fishing industry has been buried under licensing requirements, reporting rules, gear mandates, federal whale regulations, seasonal restrictions, fuel costs, bait costs, insurance costs, and compliance costs, all while the same political class tells working Mainers they’re "fighting for them."

They blame billionaires in the abstract while protecting the exact bureaucratic and regulatory system that created the problems in the first place, making it harder for smaller operators to stay alive.

If you actually cared about working Mainers, you'd stop defending the machine that makes their lives impossible while simultaneously acting shocked when only the rich can afford to navigate it.

[Graham Platner for Senate @grahamformaine]

It's not immigrants making life impossible for working mainers. It's not trans kids.

It's billionaires, and the politicians like Susan Collins on their payroll.

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

@SteveBrecher There's a strong correlation, but it's not guaranteed of course.

Does that even matter though? For me the issue is rent-seeking and political incentives, because unlimited financial leverage changes who politicians are incentivized to listen to and what they prioritize.

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

Citizens United v. FEC & Speechnow v. FEC are a huge part of the problem when it comes to politics in the US, but no one is ready for that conversation.

Money is NOT speech, it's a resource.

I think libertarians have historically been wrong on this issue, and this is one of the few times I have disagreed with Ron Paul.

The birth of the Super PAC was one of the worst things to happen to modern political incentives. It’s a mechanism of political capture that encourages rent-seeking and turns elections into proxy wars between donor networks.

This only fuels socialist thinking because when people see that political weight increasingly depends on whoever has the most financial resources, they start to believe the system is rigged against them.

And on this issue, they’re not wrong.

When wealthy donors can contribute unlimited sums of money to a politican in a state they don't even LIVE in, who is the politician REALLY representing? Not their constituents.

This is political coercion.
This is cronyism.

And until conservatives and libertarians get their heads out of their asses on this particular issue, we will keep watching politics in this country become more and more corrupt.

[Ben Weir @Weir4Liberty]

There's no greater joy than being a father and husband (especially to this absolute dime).

This house is so full of love than I ever thought was possible... and I've never experienced anything like it.

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

John Doyle says "everything is downstream from immigration."

No. Everything is downstream from economic and monetary policy, and those bills he accuses Thomas Massie of voting against on immigration were larger packages with broad fiscal consequences, including deficit expansion.

Immigration might change the speed or shape of certain pressures, but without fixing the underlying economic issues in this country, you're not actually addressing the root problem.

If the currency continually loses purchasing power, if deficit spending keeps expanding, if housing and asset prices are inflated by monetary policy, if political incentives continue to reward debt over productivity, those pressures will not just disappear because you stop letting in immigrants.

[Brad Polumbo @brad_polumbo]

.@JohnDoyle: "It's only a principled stand when it helps Republicans... every other time [Thomas Massie] can vote in lockstep with Democrats!"

Me: "Well, that's not accurate!"

@ComicDaveSmith: "That's just a lie, it's just not true!"

@JohnDoyle: "Effectively, the guy is a Democrat!"

Watch more from the latest "Brad vs The World": https://t.co/zH6IYh6SDN

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

So I know this is the standard libertarian argument, but I reject the premise that "money is speech." It's not speech, it's a resource.

Why should 3 or 4 people be able to sway an election in a state they don't even live in just because they have more financial resources? Are we even a "Republic" at that point?

Politicians respond to incentives, they are human just like everyone else!

I think a reasonable solution would be at least limiting contributions to Super PACs to something like $5,000 or $10,000 so no one can essentially buy disproportionate political influence, plus creating more donor transparency.

Right now there's no cap to how much can be donated to Super PACs and this just creates a system where political influence can scale infinitely with capital, which effectively means 2 or 3 people can donate millions of dollars and have more practical influence over political outcomes than millions of voters combined.

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

@cybelethebest @Primal_Birth All I want in life is for my 18 month old to eat fish but everytime I put it in front of him he gags 😭

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

@jessi_for_texas Wooo good to know I'm not alone lol

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

I think a couple improvements would be increasing transparency and creating financial limits, though I still go back and forth on exactly where those lines should be.

For example, in the 2024 election cycle, one in every five dollars flowing through a Super PAC came from an organization that hides its donors. Like wut. lol

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

Totally. I go back and forth on this as well. But why does the state get to create a legal structure where financial leverage effectively scales political influence without limit?

The issue for me isn't people voluntarily organizing or advocating, obvi people absolutely should be able to do that.

But when money is treated as "speech" this completely changes the incentive structure of representation.

If political survival depends on access to large funding networks, then political influence naturally starts flowing toward the people and institutions capable of providing that funding.

Politicians are humans like the rest of us lol they respond to incentives.

I'm not entirely sure how to fix this problem, but it's something I think needs more conservative/libertarian interest for sure.

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

It is my most "left wing" (I guess?) position. But I really think that there's a libertarian argument to be made here and I wish people would flesh it out a bit more.

If you believe concentrated state power is dangerous because incentives matter and power attracts self interest, why would concentrated financial power over political outcomes be immune from the same concern?

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

Democrat and Republican is a false dichotomy.

Assuming either label consistently represents a fixed set of principles or beliefs at this point is foolish. They’re largely just the only viable vehicles people can use to gain influence and win elections.

Do your research and vote for whichever candidates are best on net. (ideally that's whoever is best on economic freedom and monetary policy.. but ya know I'm a bit biased.)

[The Wisconsin Libertarian @libertarianscon]

I’m seeing several libertarian accounts saying to vote democrat in November. Not doing it. That’s groyper shit.

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

@SomeRocketGuy01 What we see on X is just a very loud slice of the population, but not even close to the majority.

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

I've only been saying this for years.

If you don't talk to people regularly outside of X or your own political bubble, You end up with a distorted picture of what the average person actually thinks.

People increasingly mistake highly online consensus for actual consensus.

[Jeremy Kauffman 🦔🌲🌕 @jeremykauffman]

Vivek, who is hated on X, won.

Massie, who is loved on X, lost.

Politics on X is just not reality

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

That's part of it, but not entirely. X is niche and often reflects the people on it more than reality itself.

Only around 12% of Americans use X regularly. Most Republicans and Democrats I know in real life aren't even on it. And a lot of what we see on here is not even coming from Americans lol

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

@tomhinsy I mean a year or so ago, no one knew who Massie was. Now my boomer mom is talking about him lol

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

Me watching the live @RepThomasMassie election results rn:

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

Says a lot that the biggest scandal they have against Massie is that he got laid lol. Do people actually find this stuff incriminating?

[Creatrix @creatrix_ttv]

What a chad.

[Alan Jacoby @AlanJacoby]

The woman who was dating Thomas Massie, Cynthia West, has revealed that Massie was having sex with Lauren Boebert while dating West AND his current wife shortly after his wife died. Massie used a burner phone known to people around him as the "boner phone" to handle his DC kind business. This is just SICK! 😵‍💫