Is Serfdom an Executive Order Away?

The dangers of National Defense Resources Preparedness

(Page 2 of 2)

Think of the potential for corporatist rent-seeking.

There’s more. The power to pay direct subsidies (after consultation) is delegated to agency heads to “ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost.”

The agencies are also authorized to “procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons” (emphasis added). Further, they are empowered to “provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities” (emphasis added).

Selective Service

In the section on personnel we learn that the secretary of labor shall “collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense” and upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services.”

Maybe the government is making a first claim on all labor after all. Selective Service of course is the government agency that would oversee a military draft. We haven’t had a draft since the 1970s, but 18-year-olds are still required to register for it. So along with the commandeering of private resources in the event a president declares an emergency, there will be the commandeering of military (and other?) labor–slavery by another name. (Here you’ll find the old FEE pamphlet “The Conscription Idea” by Dean Russell.)

Advocates of the freedom philosophy have a dual concern: that the executive has virtually unchecked authority to declare an emergency and that in an emergency the private economy would be commandeered by government officers. The Executive Order is a breathtaking reminder that, as Higgs put it, “private control of economic life in the United States, to the extent that it survives, exists solely at the president’s pleasure and sufferance.”

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, where this article originally appeared.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • R||

    First?

  • Pham Nuwen||

    Lame . . .

  • R||

    Not as lame as YOUR MOM.

  • Pham Nuwen||

    The meadow at noon, sir! Have your second consult my second.

  • Lar Gand||

    Second? Methinks that change is afoot.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I hope they at least had the forethought to write in a section allowing for regional political commissars to indoctrinate the proles and keep them informing on each other.

  • anon||

    Forethought requires thinking, so no.

  • TELLMOFF||

    These articles about how things could get bad have been around for my entire life. They always have the prophesy of "then the people will take action". The rulers have already committed far to many acts of tyrany and persecution. The common man will always have an excuse for not engaging in sedition. Sedition is accomplished by a tiny percentage of courageous fighters.

  • ||

    That's really interesting. Can you tell us more about your time in the Spanish Revolution? I'm fascinated.

  • Ska||

    Needs photo of creepy Wonka.

  • ||

    Sorry. Done.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Gene Wilder was nowhere near as creepy as Depp's Wonka.

  • juris imprudent||

    But used in the political context he comes out way creepier.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I hadn't considered that, juris. Hat tip to ya, but I ain't polishin' your monocle.

  • Mike M.||

    It seems to me like the new registration system has gotten rid of our worst lunatic troll. The threads are actually tolerable once again, thanks goodness!

  • anon||

    Unfortunately, it means there's nothing to do on Saturday mornings anymore. Le sigh.

    OT: We should just start an advice column on Saturdays and rotate the Q&A mods.

  • John||

    i think boredom beats watching a lunatic talk to herself.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    i think boredom beats watching a lunatic talk to herself.

    It was all her, huh? She must have been one fucking psycho. Manic for sure. The sheer number of postings was insane. And there were at least 3 different personalities. Schizoid as well. Glad the bitch is gone.

  • moop||

    there totally someone using your name on chinasmack

  • John||

    There was one uber troll. And she seems to be gone.

  • ||

    ♫GAMBOL ON JOHN! GAMBOL ON!♫

    (to the tune of "Ramble On")

  • Randian||

    No no no no no no:

    It's "Gambolin' Man", set to the tune of "Ramblin' Man" by the Allman Brothers:


    Lord, I was born a gambolin' man
    Tryin' to make a livin' and foragin' the best I can
    And when it's time for leavin' I hope libertards understand
    That I was born a gambolin' man

    Well my father was a gamboler down in Georgia
    And he wound up on the wrong end of a fence
    And I was born on the back end of a
    Buf-fa-lo
    Rollin' down the Trail of Tears

  • ||

    I defer to the greatness that is thee...

  • Killazontherun||

    Randian, you win.

  • ||

    The internetz, you have won some.

  • Brutus||

    FTW!

  • UvalDuvalCuckoo||

    I had thought about the Gambolin man concept, but every time I tried to come up with lyrics, they were whack. Hear hear Randian - well done.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Don't jinx it Mike. Weekends not over.

  • ||

    There is no jinx. She's fucked. And it couldn't happen to a shittier scumbag.

  • PapayaSF||

    I did see some post-registration posts that seemed to be her, but maybe those handles got banned. Also a few posts by shrike and o3, who some said were the same troll.

  • ||

    Oh, she tried after registration began on Tuesday. But reason hunted her down and killed every handle she tried to use. It was beautiful.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well, good. But it feels funny now. Maybe she left me with a little PTSD.

    I am interested in seeing how many of our other trolls were actually her.

  • John||

    You have to remember that these things are written by people who have no idea what they are doing and are talking out of their ass. In the event of a real national emergency, this document would go out the window. They have no idea what they would actually do. This is disturbing in that it shows how they think. But don't think for a moment any of this stuff would actually happen as planned.

  • ||

    Merely confirms the notion that both TEAMS think in terms of the same end result, just different modes and speeds to get there.

    There's all sorts of legislation that have been on the books that individually regulates different areas of society (like medical: in the event of a national emergency, I can be impressed into government service) discretely.

    What this legislation, bi-partisan I might add, does is unify and codify those areas that are covered under national emergency situations into one, nice and neat conglomeration. In theory, anyway. Plato would marvel at this.

    It's not unlike, say, The US Tax Code.

  • John||

    It is unthinkable to people in government that the world might fix itself without their help and guidance. This whole document is a monument to that kind of thinking or lack of thinking.

  • ||

    This whole document is a monument to that kind of thinking or lack of thinking.

    I dare say a Utilitarian stroke object. Perhaps MNG will swoop and weigh in with an opinion to defend this type of sweeping legislation?

  • John||

    Top Men.

  • ||

    What this legislation, bi-partisan I might add

    This isn't legislation. It is an executive branch order that doesn't even pretend to ask Congress for the authority to do this stuff. And it isn't bipartisan, unless Obama appointed a Republican co-president recently who approved this missive, and I missed that co-presidency news story.

  • ||

    True that prote...I was thinking of this monstrosity when I was posting.

    What I should have said was "this 'appearance' of legislation..." I also don't see or hear any catterwalling in Congress over this blatant all-encompassing power grab. Thank you for correcting me.

  • mgd||

    There is the Defense Production Act of 1950, as the article mentions, which the EO seems to have in mind when it mentions "the laws of the U.S."

  • Killazontherun||

    It only takes one evil genius taking full advantage of vigorously authoritarian laws to set the ball in motion. Yes, as a society we dodged a bullet when Sugarfree decided the isles of a library were the proper venue for his tyranny, but who is to say he doesn't have a fellow clone working in the justice department rubbing his hands together as we speak, whispering 'bwahahaha!' to himself.

  • ||

    The Executive Order, which requires no additional congressional approval, details who within the executive branch has what precise authority in the event the President invokes his emergency powers.

    Once again, another glaring example of Congress ceding authority wholly to the Executive Branch. For expediency's sake. Of course.

  • John||

    Article III. CinC. The President can do anything he wants.

    And yes, Congress should put a kink in the President's ass over this. Both sides should care about the institution. But they don't. It is always okay when our guy does it.

  • ||

    Actually, this unconstitutional power grab would require congressional approval if congress had the power to rewrite the constitution without amending the constitution, which they don't.

    If Congress was filled with people who actually cared about fidelity to that document, this power grab would result in impeachment followed by removal from office, and possibly charges of treason.

    But that's not gonna happen.

  • Pro Libertate||

    We're not quite dead yet. If the government tried to exercise this power, the bulk of the country damned well better agree that it's necessary. Otherwise, we may end up with an ex-government (to be replaced by something just as bad or worse, I'm sure).

  • Ken Shultz||

    If the president says it's a crisis, doesn't a bulk of the country always agree it's necessary?

    That's the way it was when they rounded up American citizens for being of Japanese ancestry. That's the way it was with the Patriot Act. That's the way it was with torture. That's the way it was with TARP.

    That's the two-step rule for presidential crisis management.

    Step 1: Oh, we got trouble, right here in River City!

    Step 2: Tell the American people to grab their ankles.

  • TELLMOFF||

    The "bulk of the country" are not fighters. Americans are a "piss in your pants" type of people.

  • ||

    You sure are a tough guy. I bet you can even beat your wife up.

  • TELLMOFF||

    It sounds like you are afraid to talk back to your wife. You fit right in with the American culture of equality and cowardly helplessness.

  • ||

    With a capitol T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool
    Politics.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The bothersome thing is that they never sunset this stuff.

    Even when there's a clause to sunset it, there's always this fear that they're going to need it in the future--and who wants to be responsible for taking that power away from the government now? ...next week, something bad happens, and *poof* there goes your career in politics.

    In times of peace, the threat of the government taking our rights away under a state of emergency seems far-fetched, and during real states of emergency, very few people are worried about the government doing too much in an emergency.

    And it's not like the president seems to let what's legal or illegal get in his way of what he wants to do in times of crisis anyway...

    These kinds of laws paper over the real problem--the real issue is? Who can imagine Congress impeaching a president for doing something the American people think was protecting us from some existential threat?

    Who in Congress is about to hold the president responsible for doing what Jack Bauer would do in a crisis?

    This or that law isn't the problem; the problem is that we're so easily manipulated by fear mongering.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Sorry to nerd up the thread, but didn't Darth Sidious do something very similar to this in Star Wars?

  • grylliade||

    Darth Sidious? I don't remember anyone named that in the trilogy. Darth Vader, sure. But Darth Sidious?

  • ||

    Then you sir should have your nerd card revoked. Unless you're saying Palpatine was never called Darth Sidious by name, cause that I can't remember.

  • Randian||

    He wasn't.

  • Contrarian P||

    Pretty sure Dooku mentioned Darth Sidious by name in his conversation with Obi Wan while holding him captive in Attack of the Clones. And thank you for bringing to mind that abortion of a film.

  • Contrarian P||

    Oh, and the Nemoidians called him by his name in Episode I also.

  • grylliade||

    I have no idea if he was or not. I remember him being called Emperor; I'm pretty sure he was called Palpatine, though that may have been introduced by a novelization.

    If Lucas had ever actually made the prequel trilogy like he said he planned to, he might have introduced a character called Darth Sidious. But given his track record with the latter two Indiana Jones movies (Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade) it's probably for the best that he never did.

  • ||

    I see what you did there.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Took you long enough.

  • Suki||

    OT: Some might say that this John Derbyshire article is racist. Mostly those who self-segregate in the Treyvon Martin corner of the politically correct lunchroom.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Hey John, do you miss Slap the Enlightened and his race-baiting?

  • Ice Nine||

    And then some might say that this John Derbyshire article was SCREAMING TO BE WRITTEN for about the last forty years.

  • Suki||

    + The Internet

  • Concerned Citizen||

    From my experience, yes.

  • Suki||

    The more recent comments at Taki are intelligent. You have to go to the early comments to get the full force anti-freedom of association, knee-jerk Leftoid bigots.

  • Randian||

    John, shut the hell up already. Calling someone's thought odious or disgusting it not "anti-freedom of association".

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Thanks, Suki, I have a new favorite website.

  • Suki||

    +1 CC

  • PantsFan||

    OT: Someone misses the male gaze
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....le2393518/

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Hopefully some young Jezzie will read that and get a clue. I always feel kind of bad for them when they go on about the male gaze. Not only are they going to be gobsmacked some day when men stop looking, but they didn't even let themselves enjoy it while it lasted. A shame.

  • ||

    If the so-called "Teh MALE GAZE" ceased, I suspect so would child-bearing in the conventional way, forget courtship. Or is bearing children slavery, when it isn't. I can't keep up with the inconsistencies.

    Is there any way to satisfy the typical Jezehellion?

  • juris imprudent||

    Spawn, die and leave her a fortune?

  • o3||

    "I was ticked off, too, but for a different reason. In his essay, Mr. Brown referred offhandedly to a woman he knows who just turned 50, “and is still attractive.” Still? What a slap."
    _
    the unspoken part is a cubicle-dwelling whale, male or female, wearing a tent for clothing is hardly gaze, much less desire-worthy. >but there are sum few athletic women, regardless of age, who get teh [GAZED] alls overs !11!!1

  • JW||

    I was reading this as I waited for service at my car dealer this morning. There was a young brunette woman working there whose bod is at the extreme end of the Hawtness scale. Dressed the part too to show it off. Pretty too, but not overly so. It was tough to concentrate on reading.

    At one point she was looking for a particular customer and asked if I was him, since I looked over at her at one point (she was wearing very clacky heels that made a racket on the tile floor, making it easy to track her position). I politely smiled and said, "No, I'm not him." What I really wanted to say "I was just looking at your amazing ass." but I deferred.

  • ||

    What I love about "teh male gaze" is the assumption by women that they don't use "teh female gaze" on us. Well, at least those of us that aren't hideously deformed.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    True that. Back when I was single and in shape, teh gaze from the chubbies was not at all enjoyable.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This or that law isn't the problem; the problem is that we're so easily manipulated by fear

    After the last three posts about Star Wars, Derbyshite and ogling, I'm wondering if I should amend that statement...

    Maybe the real problem is that we're so easily distracted.

  • TELLMOFF||

    The real problem is the yellow streak running down the back of the American people.

  • Randian||

    Look out guys. We got a bona fide cowboy in our midst!

  • TELLMOFF||

    Anything is preferable to being a libertarian scholar.

  • ||

    To be fair, the Star Wars comment was on topic.

  • Longtorso||

    Maybe the real problem is that we're so easily distracted.

    Hansen: Morality of fossil fuel emissions on par with slavery
    ...Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a “great moral issue” on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen....

  • Sevo||

    I can understand such blather from ignorant old farts in funny hats, but you'd think this guy would be capable of embarrassment and try to avoid it.

  • Bill||

    Based on his behavior for the past 20 years? Apparently not.

  • ||

    Aw, it's like listening to my PlanSci professor babble on about that bullshit.

  • Longtorso||

    #7. Fred Williamson
    ...I'm still choosing to say that a Fred Williamson fight scene looks like two people with cerebral palsy feeding each other.

    There are several reasons for these bad action sequences. First of all, he had to hold back so much to not kill his costars. If he wanted, Fred Williamson could kick your ass so hard that nine months after you die, your wife would give birth to his foot. ....

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That grocery store shootout was actually pretty good, with the sound off.

  • Longtorso||

    #5. Eric Roberts
    ...I have no idea how Eric Roberts has been cast so many times as a martial artist. He fights like an interpretive dance about coming out to your father....

  • ||

    He fights like an interpretive dance about coming out to your father....

    Sister Julia is more masculine than Brother Eric.

    Best of the Best proves the trope for James Earl Jones (and Sally Kirland, to a lesser extent) quite nicely.

  • nipplemancer||

    Sorry Doc, but Best of the Best is the greatest Tae Kwon Do movie made in 1989. This is fact. Eric Roberts deserved an Oscar for his performance. How dare you. HOW DARE YOU?!?!?!

  • ||

    I dare, Nipply One...I DARE TO GO THERE!!!!

  • nipplemancer||

    You're dead to me... unless I get a scrip in the mail for some awesome opiates and even then it's iffy.
    May Eric Roberts feast upon your soul.

  • ||

    May Eric Roberts feast upon your soul.

    He is looking gaunt these days.

  • ||

    Maybe the real problem is that we're so easily distracted.

    Or maybe Ken, the Iron Law:

    If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority

    is in play here.

    If you want to go all "I'm more libertarian than thou", be my guest.

    I referenced above that this law merely consolidates a hodge-podge of existing laws, and I doubt my selective moral outrage is going to change things one iota.

    If you want to practice a random act of self immolating protest, bully for you.

    I, for one, will pick my battles a bit more wisely. For the very thoughtful commenter you are, Ken, the sometimes condescending tone gets tiring at times.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Jeez, you'd think I said something wrong--it's my attitude?

    I've always had a bad attitude. It comes with the scenery. Women love it!

    You'll get over it.

  • ||

    You'll get over it.

    Already have, Ken. Doesn't make my observation any less true. If it gets you more sloppy sex, more power to thee.

    Though, I have to wonder the quality of the snatch that righteous indignation gets you, with "In the dark, it's all warm and wet" rationalizing notwithstanding...

  • TELLMOFF||

    Groovus, you sound like you have never been in a battle. I do aree that someone like you will never change things one iota. You will never make it to the Homeland Security Watch List like I did. Let's hear all the libertarian replies: "what good did that do". Ugh!

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Are you one of those extremist "sovereign citizens"? I aspire to be, but was tricked at an early age into becoming a United States Citizen, "and subject to the laws thereof". Ten miles square, bitches.

  • TELLMOFF||

    I am blasphemist and seditionist. Easter is almost here.

  • ||

    You're a fan of George Noory, aren't you? Tell me, is the tumeric working for you?

  • Longtorso||

    #1. William Shatner
    ... Bill Shatner invented entirely new ways to look ridiculous while punching, and he did it all at one quarter speed. He threw judo chops so slowly against space monsters that he was already on TJ Hooker by the time they connected. They say the Gorn still roams the Vasquez Rocks, waiting for his cue to duck...

  • John||

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/04.....anonymous/

    NBC fires producer over Zimmerman tape but won't admit who he was.

  • Suki||

    +100

    Now if only all news organizations would fire the people parroting these manufactured "news" pieces.

  • o3||

    +6' under!
    and teh niggahs still dead.
    nothing to see here...

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Yeah, he should have died of 'natural causes', ie; murdered by another young black male.

  • o3||

    oops - without the firearm, its just another fistfight...well, make that zimmerman standing there like a dumass getting his jaw jacked.

  • Killazontherun||

    Don't be mad, bro. There is still a chance you might get your race riot porn even if the MSM got caught trying to push the narrative. La Riots II if charges don't happen. Dare to dream, lil' left buddy. Pandemonium in the streets. Korean grocery stores burned down. Dirty capitalist pawn shops getting jacked. Plenty to get your nuts off on this coming summer. Dare to dream!

    What if there isn't a riot? Painful for a lil' lefty to contemplate, I know, but you can still dig up Martin's body and fuck it, like you are doing rhetorically here. It's not riot porn, but I doubt if you are all that choosy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Team Blue will have a riot or its hands, more than likely if Barry doesn't get to stay in power another four years.

  • anon||

    La Riots II if charges don't happen.

    As if MSM can keep its gaze fixed that long.

  • John||

    Writing in the Puffington Host, "Dr." Peggy Drexler--she has a Ph.D. in psychology--opens up a new front in the feminist war on euphony:

    The Supreme Court's June 2003 landmark decision striking down sodomy laws validates gay relationships, including gay parenting, and shows how the terms "mother" and "father" are often archaic concepts.

    Yes, the terms "mother" and "father" do still usually convey a biological distinction between who inseminates and who gives birth, but the rise of donor insemination and surrogate pregnancies open debate even on that.

    Whether we acknowledge it willingly or not, the differing social roles the mother-father nouns once designated are rapidly converging. . . .

    To parent: It's a verb that barely existed a quarter of a century ago. . . . In our transformed world where men nurture and women behave paternally, "motherhood" and "fatherhood" reveal nothing about who takes the kids to school or disciplines them, who earns the family income or stays at home, or who comforts children when they cry or who praises them for being brave.

    That's right, she wants to ban the words "father" and "mother" in favor of the generic "parenthood."

  • John||

    What's odd about this is that her PuffHo bio identifies her as the author of a book called "Our Fathers, Ourselves: Daughters, Fathers, and the Changing American Family." Umm, shouldn't that be "Our Parents, Ourselves: Children, Parents and the Changing American Family"?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....TopOpinion

  • ||

    That would require consistency, John. Remember, there is a larger narrative here.

  • ||

    I don't care if "PuffHo" was intentional or not. It was awesome.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I assume that's taken from Taranto, who calls it the "Puffington Host."

  • AlmightyJB||

    I remember back in the Clinton days seeing a lot of articles about FEMA and how they would have unlimited dictorial like powers during any major emergency.

    As far as the peasants revolting, as long as we have the highest standard of living in history and even our so called poor people have central air and cable tv, it's going to take quite a bit to get people in full revolution mode. That's just a fact.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As far as the peasants revolting, as long as we have the highest standard of living in history and even our so called poor people have central air and cable tv, it's going to take quite a bit to get people in full revolution mode. That's just a fact.

    Panem et circenses, the authoritarians' preferred opiate since the beginning of history.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yep. But will they be able to maintain these standards on their current course of using inflationary economics as a hidden taxation method. When the money is worthless that's when the SHTF.

  • Killazontherun||

    You have to make it possible for them not to get off their couches and fully engage in the revolution while also being entertained. That is why the government fears drone technology leaking out.

    Hey, dude, come on over and hit the bong with me. We're going kamikaze style on a truck load of pigs with ATF tonight!

  • ||

    The FEMA articles started back in the CARTER days.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I stand corrected. That's when I first remember seeing them. I was in high school during the Carter days. Wasn't really as up to speed on alternative media sources as I probably should have been at that time. Just didn't have the exposure.

  • Sevo||

    City tries 'public campaign funding' and finds that it needs some changes:
    "Supes' campaign finance revision smells fishy"
    In an effort to cut costs (really, that's what they claim), they increase funding to incumbents from $89K to $153K. Can't wait to see the next round of 'cuts'.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/......DTL&tsp=1

  • Sevo||

    Another Bay Area city government fancies itself smart enough to act as developer, 'invests' $38M, sells project for a whopping $425K!
    I guess they're learning from our glorious leader in DC.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....1NR5IP.DTL

  • ||

    It gets better:

    Hercules' descent into financial free fall started during the real estate boom, when it borrowed more than $135 million for redevelopment projects. City leaders' rationale was that the projects would spur further development, and an influx of new residents would fatten the property and sales tax revenues.

    But those bonds are costly: In all, the city owes about $8.5 million a year to repay its bond debts.

    OOPS! As John would say, "Top. Men."

  • Sevo||

    "City leaders' rationale was that the projects would spur further development,"

    MULTIPLIER!
    Well, divider; ~$0.12 on a dollar. Get poor quick investing with Top. Men.!

  • Fluffy||

    24000 people live in this place.

    That's not a city, boys. That's a town.

    Your town put $38 million into one development?

  • lightning||

    When this first came out every conservative pundit was quick to say, "Nothing to see here move along". They indicated that this was perhaps the most benign order of Obama's carreer, and was "Merely an update of an executive order first created in 1950 and revised several times by several presidents, including Clinton and G W Bush." This is why I will never stop being a libertarian. Republicans are such sheeple. Tell them something was written in the past and automatically its OK. No pundit ever thought to question the fact that we got throught WWII just fine without this executive order and that builing up and engaging in a major world war is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EASY. YEESH@! Sorry, but such blind faith, acceptance, and trust makes me realize that we are well and truly screwed.

  • ||

    I thought the article said that this type of power was first instituted during WWII. Wouldn't that mean we didn't get through WWII without it?

  • sloopyinca||

    Enjoy this, (ladies and?) gentlemen...and dunphy.

    I remember you saying yesterday that there are cases where cops get treated more harshly as well. Could you post a different one now, please? I've got a pocketful from the other side.

  • Bashan||

    Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger! Where art thou?

  • LambMaritza||

    my roomate's sister got paid $20092 past month. she has been making cash on the computer and bought a $322400 home. All she did was get blessed and try the instructions reported on this web page (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/WpSPL

  • ||

    she has been making cash on the computer

    She must be gangbanged by several Secret Service agents if she's still out of jail pulling that scam.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement