Beware a Government That's Here to Help

President Obama, most congressional Democrats, and many congressional Republicans are ardent progressives—they believe government is the chief engine of human progress.

Spencer/WikimediaSpencer/WikimediaThe president is an ardent progressive. This dastardly philosophy of government was brought into the American mainstream 100 years ago by a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, and a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Its guiding principle is the belief that government—not individuals—is the chief engine of human progress. If that means government tearing down rich persons to help poor persons, if that means the massive redistribution of wealth, if it means federal regulation of every conceivable occupation or productive endeavor, if it means fighting an unjust war, progressives are for it.

Before the progressives, the dominant political thinkers in America were Madisonians. James Madison, who kept the notes at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787—notes that eventually formed much of the language of the Constitution—made clear what the purposes of the Constitution were: to prescribe discrete areas of human endeavor in which the new federal government could legislate; to set forth open-ended areas of human behavior in which no government could legislate; and to leave the remaining areas of governmental endeavor in the hands of the states. The areas delegated to the federal government are only 17 in number and generally are referred to as federal powers. The areas in which no government may regulate are infinite and generally are referred to as natural rights.

The progressives have turned this philosophy on its head. Roosevelt and Wilson believed that the federal government could regulate any behavior, right any wrong, tax any event, and curtail any freedom, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution itself. This view of American government not only contradicts Madison, but it also contradicts the language of the Constitution itself, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state in writing what Madison said many times throughout his life.

President Obama, most congressional Democrats, and many congressional Republicans are ardent progressives. They view Congress as a general legislature with no limits to its powers—and they mean no limits. For example, in an area clearly beyond congressional reach, such as in-state highway speed limits, the progressives found a way to extend their reach. They offered money to the states to repave their highways, with the condition that the states adhere to federally prescribed speed limits (only South Dakota declined). Once the courts gave their imprimatur to this assault on the Constitution, the feds realized that by spending taxpayer dollars—by bribing the states—they could extend their regulatory tentacles to any extra-constitutional area they chose.

Progressivism's adherents finance the government by borrowing or by heavily taxing only the rich, both of which are sold as being painless to most voters. Yet, the former merely delays the due date of bills until tomorrow for goodies consumed today; the latter takes cash out of the free market today, where it could contribute to growth and jobs tomorrow, and puts it into the hands of the mindset that runs the Post Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Progressives hate the states because they can be laboratories of less government. They love central government and all of its creations, such as the cash-printing Federal Reserve, the wealth-stealing progressive income tax, and the concept of a federal safety net for all persons. None of this, except the income tax (which Wilson promised would not exceed 3 percent of adjusted gross income), is authorized by the Constitution.

Yet today, we are witnessing a government that is beyond ideologically progressive. Does Obama understand that progressive ideas have consequences and that governmental behavior often has unintended consequences? It would appear not, as his long train of incompetence and indifference, grounded in progressive thought, keeps picking up speed. It is crushing human freedom, destroying human wealth and even taking human lives.

Under his presidency, the government saddled us all with a three-sizes-fits-all version of compulsory health care (which caused more than five million persons to lose their coverage and their doctors); it has been spying on all Americans all the time (and we sleepily permit it to do so); it allowed our ambassador in Libya to be murdered (after it destroyed the lawful government there); it told illegal aliens they need not worry about deportation (and thus encouraged the immigration of hundreds of thousands more—even unaccompanied children—to our shores); it neglected veterans to the point of death in government hospitals (demonstrating conclusively that the feds cannot deliver health care); it released assets material to terrorist organizations into the theater of war in the Middle East (ostensibly in a prisoner swap to save a weird military bird who once embraced his captors); it has claimed the power to kill Americans it views as a threat to others and yet too troublesome to arrest and bring to trial (all the while claiming it has a secret reading of the Constitution and American law that somehow justifies this); and it has added $6 trillion to government debt (with no plans to repay it).

What's going on? The modern presidency is blinded by a conceit that says it can do no wrong. This is partially the result of the passage of power from the states to the feds and from Congress to the president and partially the fault of a president who relishes telling us all how to live. In Obama's hands, all this power produces the vast unhappiness and government recklessness we now see every day.

The same Madison whom Obama rejects warned 200 years ago against the Obama mindset: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Government is just the name we give the things we let a small group tell us we must and must not do together.

  • Hyperion||

    It's the name that we give to the organized crime gang camped out on the banks of the Potomac.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    In my experience criminals don't demand you pretend they're your heroes. Please lower your opinion of them a few more notches and rewrite.

  • Rich||

    Hey, Fist, a lot of people were, um, worried about you. Glad to see you back, and posting Fist!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I was boycotting until they permanently fixed commenting, which I thought we all agreed to do. NO ONE WAS WITH ME.

  • Rich||

    I *tried* to boycott, but -- Lord help me! -- I just couldn't stay away!

    *** sobs, regains composure ***

    Anyway, thanks for getting the commenting fixed permanently! 8-)

  • Ted S.||

    They were?

  • ||

    Fist who?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Don't know, never heard of him.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's whom.

  • Rich||

    Nice catch, er, PITCH!

  • UnCivilServant||

    Sorry, but 'whom' has fallen out of common usage in English. It's now an archaic term, used only by hipsters and grammar nazis.

  • Ted S.||

    And those of us who find that knowing your own langauge's grammar helps when trying to learn a foreign language.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And those of us making subtle yet crude jokes.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Ouch. Then again I have really big hands.

  • ||

    It was the reverse for me. I actually found that learning a furren language helped me with English.

  • ||

    Beshrew me, sirrah!

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    used only by hipsters and grammar nazis.

    You don't have to stand for that, Fist.

  • gaijin||

    So is this the morning link?

  • Sam Gompers||

    "Government" is the phrase we use to dehumanize the small class of people that rule our lives.

    It makes it more socially acceptable to say the "government forced us to do this" or the "government took this from us". When we speak the truth, "a small group of people forced us to do this" or "a small group of people took this from us", the reality is much more vile.

    We need to rehumanize our the institutions that govern us. They are filled with people, after all.

  • barfman2014||

    *barf*

  • ||

    Eh, dead white guys.

  • Doctor Whom||

    subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution itself

    And courts have "construed" away even those when they get in the way of the grand experiment.

  • Yenrab. Knarf Yenrab.||

    By some pretty extraordinary means. Looking at RKBA alone, the Constitution delineates no federal power for regulation, then the 2A expressly forbids infringing on the right to bear arms. That's two layers of protection, either one of which should be ironclad to anyone who respects law. And yet there's still a debate, with retired justices insisting that there's no protected right for individual ownership of weapons. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

    It's shit like this that led Spooner to ridicule the Constitution as utterly impotent, and it's hard to say he's wrong. Only commitment to ideology can secure rights, not old pieces of paper.

  • x4rqcks3f||

    The areas delegated to the federal government are only 17 in number and generally are referred to as federal powers.
    the government ... told illegal aliens they need not worry about deportation (and thus encouraged the immigration of hundreds of thousands more—even unaccompanied children—to our shores)

    One of those 17 is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Naturalization is not immigration. Federally, there is no such thing as an illegal alien.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, it is the feds, is it not, who made the visa rules? Those some call illegals, are here without any form of visa or with one that has expired. So actually, yes, under current law there is such a thing as an illegal alien, under federal law.

    That has nothing to do with whether or not we agree with the law or what our views are on immigration.

  • x4rqcks3f||

    there is such a thing as an illegal alien, under federal law

    Semantics. The federal law is unconstitutional. I don't use the words legal and illegal to describe things the government has no authority over.

  • wareagle||

    the govt has no authority on who comes into the country and accesses services that the rest of us pay for? Seriously?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Hmmm.. jump into the early morning immigration sub-thread or the aborto-bait sub-thread below it.. decisions, decisions..

  • Slammer||

    Abandon all hope

  • Rich||

    aborto-bait sub-thread

    Nice band name.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Naw, I can't envision what their music might sound like. I'd never listen to their stuff.

  • Rich||

    How about Cattle Decapitation, then?

  • Slammer||

    Nice, Rich. I was thinking of posting some grindcore.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I was with it until I saw the album cover. It evoked shrieking monkeys, I get enough of that at my day job. If they have non-simian albums, maybe.

  • Slammer||

    Do not. I repeat do NOT watch the video for Forced Gender Reassingment anywhere near work or a family member. Great band, though.

  • Pathogen||

    ≤sarc≥Obviously, Napolitano is just another bitter, racist, hate-filled TeathugliKKKan Koch-drinker that just wants to see it all burn! LOOOL! Old white desperate clingers like him are being steamrolled by the progress train! The old age and death of his ilk will pave the way to our new utopia... free at last!≤/sarc≥

  • Libertarian||

    Isn't it amazing how "liberal" and "progressive" pundits want more power given to the establishment and the government? Isn't it amazing that "liberal" and "progressive" ideas today equate to a strengthening of authoritarian policies?

  • Pathogen||

    Without the awesome power of government to crush dissent and demand conformity on the scale they envision, the wheels come right off. Since it is alleged to be a government of/for/& by the people, it is our collective will, and complicity in every action it takes. When everybody's guilty... nobody's guilty.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Since it is alleged to be a government of/for/& by the people,

    ... a government of the prostrated, for the bureaucratic, by the brutal ...

  • Hyperion||

    Those aren't liberals, that explains a lot of it. They just hijacked the word to make themselves sound less commie like. Same with the word progressive, which actually does apply to them since the progressive movement is pretty much communism with a shiny new label. Not so new really, but most modern day proggies really aren't too knowledgeable about history.

  • chmercier||

    Agreed on the Orwellian thieving of the word liberal. I mean, who would vote for the "Autocracy Party"? Hahah.

    Yet, I would say that while many progressives may be ignorant of the history, many of their ideological/academic leaders ("vanguard") actually acknowledge the past crimes of socialism and say they should just ignore the history and go on with socialism anyway.

    Check out a book called "The Idea of Communism" edited by Slavoj Zizek. They're actually quite open about all the things that are discussed and inferred on Reason and in the comments here. All of them say that the intellectuals should run everything as a new vanguard. Even Thomas Piketty, the new darling of the Left openly says he doesn't want to help the people but wants to hurt the successful.

    Also, check out one of the "bibles" of the progressive Left from the mid-2000s - Jared Diamond's "Collapse." He often says outright that governments need to control the peasants and what they do.

    It's actually quite astonishing how openly sadistic the progressives are once you get them away from the ears of the peasants.

    Many of them know the history - they just actively suppress it to gain and maintain their own power.

    Maybe it's the old trifecta of socialists - actually ignorant, willfully ignorant, or evil. I would bet on the latter two before the first one.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    What if someone wrote an article and asked no rhetorical questions?

  • The Hyperbole||

    Give him a week or two, the Judge is too good a writer to use a hackneyed and sophomoric gimmick like that more than once a month. Come now, the man is a professional after all

  • GiveMeLibertyorGiveMePie||

    That's how the Judge rolls. He has always done that. The last "what if" article (which I agree was overkill) was clearly a tip of the hat to Ron Paul's famous "what if" speech in front of congress.

  • Eric Bana||

    As a speech it seemed to work better than the articles.

  • Duke||

    I see what you did there.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Progressivism killing babies in Detroit

    While infant mortality fell for decades across the U.S., progress bypassed Detroit, which in 2012 saw a greater proportion of babies die before their first birthdays than any American city, a rate higher than in China, Mexico and Thailand. Pregnancy-related deaths helped put Michigan’s maternal mortality rate in the bottom fifth among states. One in three pregnancies in the city is terminated.
  • pan fried wylie||

    Abortion thread!

  • pan fried wylie||

    and for good measure, do they make Real Pizza in Detroit?

  • Yenrab. Knarf Yenrab.||

    Of course. Little Caesars began in Detroit.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Ew.

  • ||

    and how many of those babies would have been circumcised? Or grown up to have large / small breasts?

    I think that covers it.

  • ||

    Real pizza is made in Chicago and exported.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    It's an infant mortality thread. This means infants who die after they're born.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Which is why I was bothered by this lil nugget at the end of the quote, One in three pregnancies in the city is terminated., which has fuck-all to do with actual infant mortality.

  • Slammer||

    Progressivism killing babies in Detroit

    A Republican Governor and conservative policies killed all those Detroit babies. Derp.

  • ||

    Laugh but Derptologist linked to a video to Chicago activists turning on Obama and Democrat policies. One of the commenters said "it takes time to undo Republican policies."

    Democrats have CONTROLLED Chicago and Detroit for the last five or six decades.

    That's how beyond delusional derps have become. They'll blame Republicans even though they had nothing to do with things.

  • The Original Jason||

    There was at least 1 Republican in office, who sabotaged the merciful Democratic policies. Therefore, it is the GOP's fault Chicago and Detroit are in bad shape.

    Do you see what will happen if you elect RethugliKKKans to office???

  • The Original Jason||

    There was at least 1 Republican in office, who sabotaged the merciful Democratic policies. Therefore, it is the GOP's fault Chicago and Detroit are in bad shape.

    Do you see what will happen if you elect RethugliKKKans to office???

  • Rich||

    Progressives hate the states because they can be laboratories of less government.

    Good observation.

  • ||

    Hasn't Obama deported more illegals than the previous administration?

    Anyway.

    Sounds like progressives operate like mobsters vis-a-vis states. They dangle cash in front of them and when the weaker ones take it, the ensnared forever. You can't get out. You're done.

  • ||

    "they're ensnared"

  • pan fried wylie||

    The Ensnared coming to theaters this fall!

  • Rich||

    "Nice little state ya gots there. Be a shame if somethin' happened to its highway funds ...."

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    ... Too bad if some EPA inspector was t' find a giant carrion beetle dyin' on yer new right o' way.

  • Slammer||

    Hey reason, y'all should have a The Judge versus Sheldon Richman debate.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    That would be interesting, but I would really love is to see The Independents have John Bolton and Richman on the show together to discuss the current situation in Iraq.

    Make it happen Welch!

  • entropy_factor||

    fuck John Bolton's neocon ass with a broken wine bottle.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Well. That escalated quickly.

  • sarcasmic||

    Silly libertarians think that the Constitution gives enumerated powers to the government, leaving everything else to the people.

    In reality governmental power is limited only by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

    Enumerated rights and unenumerated powers, bitches.

  • GregMax||

    Human nature is the real bitch.

  • Gene||

    subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution

    Yeah sure, they're really worried about that.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    I must be a progressive. Theodore Roosevelt is probably my favorite President. He was a great man, in my opinion.

    One thing for sure, his face is on Mount Rushmore. Suffice to say that the face of the author of this article will probably never be seen there, or on the side of any mountain.

    I am also very sure that the people who have posted comments on this article will never reach the levels of accomplishment that President Theodore Roosevelt attained.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Weak trolling D-

  • ||

    Kneel before Zod.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Kal'El: "'Zod' was a really common name on Krypton, kind of like 'Bob'"

    Bruce Wayne: "'Kneel before Bob' doesn't sound any more comforting"

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Better than Bob before Kneel, though.

  • wareagle||

    and what monumental (no pun intended) accomplishments would those be?

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Haroun-al-Roosevelt boxed himself blind in one eye, which is something I bet you'll never do!

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Have a nice day, moron.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, everyone in history who had likenesses of themselves carved into stone, were the greatest evah, Stalin and Mao included.

    /Derp

  • UnCivilServant||

    "My name is Ozymandias, look upon my works ye mighty and despair!"

  • Restoras||

    On a somewhat related note, is it just me or is the naming-of-shit after every recent politician gone too far? I mean, the USS Gerald Ford? Did he win any great battles or even do anything remotely noteworthy? Not to mention the USS George HW Bush, the USS Ronald Reagan, the USS Jimmy Carter...it's just absurd. And if they name an aircraft carrier after a freakin' army general then why doesn't MacArthur get one? Or Patton? Or Bradley (even though he sucked)?

  • Slammer||

    I don't know. I kind of enjoy seeing politician's names on bloated, decrepit gov't buildings like post offices.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I used to work in a building named for a Tammany Hall Governer of New York.

  • UnCivilServant||

    To elaborate, it was 30 stories tall and half empty while we had agencies in rented space elsewhere.

  • ||

    Or Selina Meyer?

  • Brett L||

    It looks like 1986 was the year Congress decided to commission aircraft carriers with Presidential names, although the Kennedy and Eisenhower were two of the four previous carriers. (By exception, I guess due to naval tradition combined with Star Trek fanboism, the Lady E will serve again in a 3rd incarnation. Is it bad luck not to have a carrier named Enterprise?)

  • Timon 19||

    Err...Patton's got a tank model(albeit an old, long disused one) name after him.

    Bradley's got a current model of infantry fighting vehicle named after him.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Have a nice day, moron.

  • Florida Man||

    My wife says I should like TR because national parks and I told her I don't support theft, even if the money goes to things I like.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Your wife is right.

  • Monty Crisco||

    God, that is the dumbest comment I have ever seen at reason. Are you in fucking third grade or are you functionally retarded? Are you dictating this to someone typing it for you or do you actually know how to turn on a computer and type?

  • SugarFree||

    A+

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Monte Crisco,

    I take it you don't like TR?

  • Brian||

    On The Road To Mandalay

    One thing for sure, his face is on Mount Rushmore. Suffice to say that the face of the author of this article will probably never be seen there, or on the side of any mountain.

    Ayn Rand sold a lot of books. People loved them. Decades after she was dead. For sure.

    Suffice to say that no one will ever buy anything you write, or love them, or be reading them after you're dead.

    So, that means she's awesome, right?

  • Ted S.||

    All right, where are the links?

  • ||

    I AM FROM LOFTEREN FOR FUCK'S SAKE AND I WANT MY AM LINKS!

  • Ted S.||

    Note also that I asked about the missing links thread before anybody else, so that makes me first, regardless of who has the earliest comment on the actual AM Links thread.

  • Hyperion||

    +1 Piltdown Man

  • UnCivilServant||

    They're carving them in stone to mount beside Teddy's head at Rushmore.

  • Restoras||

    So, Mount Rushmore will be a Fivehead?

  • Monty Crisco||

    Well, then they must be great, according to dipshit above...

  • Hyperion||

    If they don't put Bammy on there, we're all racist.

  • pan fried wylie||

    While adding Obama to Mt. Rushmore, the other sculptures will inadvertently be ruined. And have their wallets stolen.

    /racist

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    One thing for sure is that your face will never be there. Have a nice day, asshole.

  • ||

    Some of us don't consider having one's face carved in a tourist attraction to be height of human accomplishment.

  • Brian||

    On The Road To Mandalay:

    One thing for sure is that your face will never be there. Have a nice day, asshole.

    These presidents were selected by Borglum because of their role in preserving the Republic and expanding its territory.

    So, basically you endorse a monument to presidents who expanded the empire. Pure awesome.

    BTW, you frequently deride common American people as having multiple, conflicting, contradictory stances and opinions on policy and goodness. Then, these same people elect officials who decide to spend tax dollars carving the faces of certain special presidents on a big mountain. And, this is deemed awesome, because... wow. They carved his face on a damn mountain. Awesome.

    I assume, then, that Egyptian pharaohs were awesome because they enslaved people to build pyramids. I mean, wow, pyramids. Awesome.

    Talk about holding contradictory opinions simultaneously.

  • Slammer||

    Fist is boycotting until they fix the links. WHO'S WITH HIM?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's a reverse boycott.

  • Rich||

    Is *this* the squirrel "fix"?!

  • UnCivilServant||

    I need to vent so I don't violate my workplace violence policy while playing helpdesk pingpong (getting bounced between service desks because each company blames the other for the fuck-up)

  • Ted S.||

    You work for the government. Can't you just sic some state agents on both companies or something?

  • UnCivilServant||

    No, the goon squad is only for the appointed chosen ones. I'm rank and file, we have to break kneecaps ourselves, and we can't do it to the cronies - who happen to be the companies I'm arguing with.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    WHERE DE LINKS?

  • Flaming Ballsack||

    Poor Judge Jesus has the sadz about losing Jim Crow again.

  • Rich||

    Oh, very well.

    Florida Man Offered Prostitute Salad For Sex

    I've heard of "soup or sex", but this takes the cake.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I don't know what a prostitute salad is, but Florida Man would be a fool not to take it unless he was sore.

  • Rich||

    "Lettuce alone with no dressing."

  • John||

    I am pretty sure that would depend on the ingredients used in said salad.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Half and half is the standard.

  • Slammer||

    prostitute salad Sounds like a serial killer diet or something.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Prostitute Salad

    Now that would be an excellent band name.

  • Florida Man||

    How is that not entrapment. "Hey Florida man I'll blow you for a salad." Who wouldn't take that deal?

  • ||

    He couldn't come up with the bread for a good lawyer.

    /pun

  • John||

    They are not Progressives. They are thieves drunk on money and power. I really think it is too much to attribute an ideology to any of them.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, the Vegas shooters were progressives, right John? That is what you were implying the other day.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, it's not. Then again, you have the reading comprehension of a first grader.

  • John||

    Stop picking on first graders. I know for a fact at least some of them can read a little.

  • chevy706||

    The longer this joke of an education system is allowed to carry on, the fewer that number of 1st graders becomes.

  • lap83||

    I was given a special tutor in kindergarten because I couldn't read yet. (I had just turned 5)

    I'm guessing that was shortly before schools decided to shift focus to teaching self-esteem.

  • John||

    No one hears the voices in your head other than you.

  • GiveMeLibertyorGiveMePie||

    Deflect much?

  • ||

    At least he wasn't cheering for them when they shot a man.

  • Hyperion||

    They are not Progressives. They are thieves drunk on money and power.

    I fail to see anything in the 2nd sentence that might substantiate the first sentence.

  • Ted S.||

    I was going to post this in the AM Links, but since we aren't getting them this morning:

    NZ Cop ruled to use excessive force in tasing speeder... but of course he won't be disciplined

    The article is full of fiskable material:

    On Christmas Day, 2011, police attempted to pull over Mark Smillie as he was driving along Arawa Road, in Whakatane.

    Smillie accelerated away and pulled into his property at "high speed".

    The officer followed Smillie and advised him he was under arrest for failing to stop and was required to undertake a breath screening test.

    I instinctively question the "at high speed". But the guy got home and you still tased him? Sounds like a cop pissed that somebody didn't RESPECK MAH AUTHORITUH!!!111!!!

    And, of course, the policeman isn't named.

  • ||

    The officer then retrieved his Taser from his vehicle and warned Smillie he would be tasered if he continued to refuse arrest.

    You're not apprehended until I say you're apprehended!

  • Slammer||

    Philly Couple Arrested for Having Sex in Front of Beachgoers: Police

    Then the article sez: 'Investigators say the public romp took place shortly after 4 p.m. on Sunday. According to Mike Geraghty, of Lower Merion, a crowd of about 30 onlookers formed as the duo went at it, seemingly oblivious to their audience on the beach."

  • Stormy Dragon||

    it allowed our ambassador in Libya to be murdered (after it destroyed the lawful government there); it told illegal aliens they need not worry about deportation (and thus encouraged the immigration of hundreds of thousands more—even unaccompanied children—to our shores); it neglected veterans to the point of death in government hospitals (demonstrating conclusively that the feds cannot deliver health care); it released assets material to terrorist organizations into the theater of war in the Middle East (ostensibly in a prisoner swap to save a weird military bird who once embraced his captors)

    Given that these three items are the result of the government failing to be sufficiently overbearing and intrusive, how do these fit in with the rest of the article, other than Napolitano just throwing out random Republican complaints whether they relate to his point or not?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Thanks for all of the responses to my original comment on this article. Once again, the dimwits who post on this site have showed me how very stupid they are. The world of the functional semi-literate is always fascinating. Any comments they recognize as written by someone who is literate, is an immediate threat to them. So they come back with ridiculous on liners showing how dumb they are.

  • Jordan||

    Your entire comment was an argumentum ad populum. Make an argument that doesn't rest on a logical fallacy.

  • Pathogen||

    After reading both of your posts, I think you should just relax, and drink a cool glass of anti-freeze.

  • Horatio||

    HA U RIGHT WE SO CONFUZE WITH BIG WORDZ

    PLEAZ TELL MOAR ABUOT GREAT FACE MOUNTAN

  • ||

    /Homer scream.

  • barfman2014||

    *barf*

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Jordan,

    All you have done is post another one liner denouncing my original post as a "fallacy". Probably what really bothers you is that I posted an opinion contrary to the premise of the article by the Judge. In any event, my original post was a statement, not an argument. I believe Theodore Roosevelt was a great President, and I wish we had more people of his stature around in government today, to include the White House.

  • Jordan||

    I believe Theodore Roosevelt was a great President

    And your supporting evidence is that he had his face carved in stone. Argumentum ad populum.

    One thing for sure, his face is on Mount Rushmore. Suffice to say that the face of the author of this article will probably never be seen there, or on the side of any mountain.
  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Jordan,

    I take it you don't like TR? Thanks for your literary fart.

    Have a nice day, ass chunk. And before I forget, go fuck yourself too.

    Take the "Argumentum ad populum" and ram it up your rectum.

    Fuck you, moron.

  • straffinrun||

    Mount Rushmore was never completed. The sculptor's final design was to have Jefferson doing a Sin City plumbing rip out on TR.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Thanks for the comment. Thanks for proving (once again) that total retards such as yourself really do exist, and post on this site. You have a nice day, butt wipe.

  • chevy706||

    So what is it that draws you to Teddy most? Is zealous pursuit of American Imperialism? The way he threatened striking coal miners with military force?

    Certainly it can't be his anti-progressive stance of favoring lower taxes, so what is it?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    chevy706

    Unlike the assholes who have responded to my original comment so far, I appreciate your civil question. I will respond to you with respect, not otherwise accorded me.

    Primarily his dedication to the environment and related issues. Had he not fostered that cause, we probably would not have any National Parks beyond Yellowstone.

    Also, his pushing the Panama Canal resulted in a tremendous accomplishment and credit to our country.

    The man certainly had his flaws, but he will be in the history books for a long time to come. One thing for sure, the comments on this site (including my own) will certainly not be remembered.

    The Judge can bash TR all he wants to, but that does not diminish his (TR's) place in U.S. History.

    Hope that answers your question, at least to some extent. At the same time, The Judge is right to applaud Madison. Too bad we don't have giants like him around today. (Madison that is, etc.)

  • barfman2014||

    *barf*

  • OrderFromChaos||

    I concur, based on your comments you are a progressive.

    Care to actually state why TR was a great president?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    OrderFromChaos

    Please see my response to chevy706. Thank you. Have a nice day.

  • OrderFromChaos||

    I understand your comments on TR. I would consider him a great president, but to each their own. I personally like Polk for no other reason than he accomplished what he campaigned on and only served one term, but I don't agree with any of his policies.

    Your original comment was juvenile and the responses were appropriate. No one gives a shit about "life accomplishments" and whether there will be a statue for others to worship. I can't speak for these fuckers, but I'm more of a Fuck Authority™ type person.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    OrderFromChaos

    That's your problem right there. On that note, your response to me is juvenile. Back to the trailer park with you now. Hang out there with your "Fuck Authority" friends. Just stay there so you won't pollute the rest of society. Have a nice day, moron.

    Your response to me is ridiculous. Read what you said to me again. That's why I am telling you to go fuck yourself in this response.

  • OrderFromChaos||

    Projection. It's a fucking feature not a problem.

    Typical progressive, try to actually have a fucking discussion and they go full retard on you.

  • OrderFromChaos||

    I would NOT consider him a great president, but to each their own.

    Fucking squirrels.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Somebody needs to unplug the computer at the psych ward...

    Here's why TR sucked. He appropriated a bunch of land to the federal government for "National Parks." It ended up with a bunch of somewhat nice parks, but the ends do not justify the means. He was nuts for the regulatory state. His biographer said, "Even his friends occasionally wondered whether there wasn't any custom or practice too minor for him to try to regulate, update or otherwise improve." He legitimized the progressive movement on the national stage, he was aggressively anti-business, and he pushed heavily for estate taxes. Further, he was profoundly racist, imperialist, and used American troops at threats against American companies. He hated the railroads, promoting and passing the Hepburn Act.

  • ||

    TTT, I believe he started anti-trust laws with Standard Oil.

    I don't think he was a fan of Morgan, Carnegie and the Vanderbilt family I reckon.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Does this mean that you don't like TR?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    You just don't like TR. Tough Shit! Have a nice day, asshole.

  • MJGreen||

    Jesus. Every single reply to you was better written than your posts here. "to include the White House" indeed! What a literate person you are.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    MJGreen,

    What an utter asshole YOU are!

  • Pathogen||

    Sooo much anger.. Did someone hurt you?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Pathogen,

    Quit bothering me child! It's not my fault that you turned up in the defective gene pool. Don't blame your retardation on m. You are all the more reason I believe in birth control.

  • MJGreen||

    That's neither here nor there.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Fuck you, moron.

  • Horatio||

    Please comment every day - it's goddamned fantastic.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Thank you. I will try my best. I love posting non-libertarian comments that I know will attract a fleet of morons with one liner pieces of shit posing as responses. Works every time. Of course once and a while I do see some intelligent remarks, but not very often. Mostly the same old shit by a bunch of fucking clowns attempting to imitate intellectuals. Frankly, it's really getting to be boring.

  • Brian||

    Mostly the same old shit by a bunch of fucking clowns attempting to imitate intellectuals.

    No one here will accuse you of attempting to imitate an intellectual.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Come on now Brian. You know you enjoy my posts. What else would you have to look forward to every day? Take care of yourself, you fucking moron. Have a nice day, fool.

  • Brian||

    Take care of yourself, you fucking moron. Have a nice day, fool.

    LOL!

    Oh, yes. Please go on, critiquing the quality of the other's posts.

    Somehow, "take care, fuck you, good luck to you, fool" isn't "the same old shit". Because, you're special and amazing when you say it. When On The Road To Mandalay says "fuck you" it's the height of literary brilliance.

    When other people talk like that? They're just being crude and immature, though. On the Road To Mandalay told us so.

  • Brian||

    On The Road To Mandalay:

    I love posting non-libertarian comments that I know will attract a fleet of morons with one liner pieces of shit posing as responses. Works every time.

    Yeah, that's pretty much the On The Road To Mandalay:
    1. Go onto reason.com and say something passive-aggressive (sometimes overtly aggressive, but usually passive-aggressive).
    2. Wait until someone responds.
    3. Use response as justification to hurl verbal insults at responder (i.e., "Fuck You, asshat! "You moron!" "Have a nice day, fool!", etc.)

    Since it's the same formula every time, I assume the greatest pleasure is derived from step 3.

    Frankly, it's really getting to be boring.

    It's your own formula. Feel free to modify it at any time.

    I just enjoy watching someone who claims to be a seasoned, old and wise "middle-of-the-road" American proceed to setup excuses to throw the verbal equivalent of his own poop at people.

    Hey, maybe when I'm old and wise, I'll go trolling on progressive forums, saying passive aggressive things about Obama, just so, when people respond, I can spew profanity at them.

    On second thought, I would hope to be above that, being old and wise.

    Ah well, teach their own. Now, tell us like it is, brother.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Brian,

    See you around the site. Have a nice evening.

    Your analysis of the situation is INCORRECT. I do hurl insults at people, but always and only after they have insulted me first. Take a look and see if this is not true. It's not the "formula" I prefer, but it is the one that has been forced upon me.

    A close look at my responses will also reveal that when people disagree with me, but respond in a civil manner, I do the same. Otherwise, I am not going to let people get away with insulting me. I could ignore them, but I don't suffer insults gladly.

    You will also note, that most of the time people who respond to my posts tend to respond to my comments with one liner insults, but rarely ask me why I hold a certain opinion.

    Anyway, all this is typical of any site where people with differing opinions than the mainstream agenda (libertarianism in this case) are instantly insulted and demonized.

  • Brian||

    Your analysis of the situation is INCORRECT. I do hurl insults at people, but always and only after they have insulted me first

    OK, how about your first post:
    "Suffice to say that the face of the author of this article will probably never be seen there, or on the side of any mountain. I am also very sure that the people who have posted comments on this article will never reach the levels of accomplishment that President Theodore Roosevelt attained."

    This is what we call "passive-aggressive": an indirect attempt at hostility. You're basically telling people they need to think good things about TR because he's on a mountain and they're not, which makes him a better person, really. But, no can can really call you on it, because, hey, you're just saying a true statement: no one will probably carve them on a mountain.

  • Brian||

    A close look at my responses will also reveal that when people disagree with me, but respond in a civil manner, I do the same. Otherwise, I am not going to let people get away with insulting me. I could ignore them, but I don't suffer insults gladly.

    "Passive-aggressive may also refer to a person who refuses to acknowledge their own aggression (in the sense of "agency"), and who manages that denial by projecting it. This type of person insists on seeing themselves as the blameless victims in all situations."

    That's the whole point of being passive-aggressive, as you demonstrate: it's a way of being hostile, without having to take responsibility for it, and, through denial, you can project your victimhood on others.

    After all, you were just being a nice guy, and talking about how wonderful TR is, especially compared to everyone here. And some of them had the nerve to disagree. Therefore, they deserve all the toxin you spew at them.

    It's a classic, passive-aggressive formula, and the whole purpose is to give you the denial that you need to feel such that you can yell profanity at people (which you regularly enjoy), without having to accept the fact that you're really an angry, bitter old man, looking for people to yell at (as long as it's their fault, of course).

  • Brian||

    For example, look at this exchange:

    On The Road to Mandalay: I am also very sure that the people who have posted comments on this article will never reach the levels of accomplishment that President Theodore Roosevelt attained.
    Live Free or Diet: Haroun-al-Roosevelt boxed himself blind in one eye, which is something I bet you'll never do!
    On The Road to Mandalay: Have a nice day, moron.

    So, you say TR is on a mountain, and the people here will never be. And he says he boxed himself blind, and we probably won't do that either. To which, you insult him, by calling him a moron.

    Other than the crime of suggesting that TR might have actually made a mistake by boxing himself blind in one eye, what was Live Free or Diet's insult to you? Is this something from days ago that you're still harboring in your heart?

  • Brian||

    Or how about this:

    straffinrun: Mount Rushmore was never completed. The sculptor's final design was to have Jefferson doing a Sin City plumbing rip out on TR.
    On The Road to Mandalay: Thanks for proving (once again) that total retards such as yourself really do exist, and post on this site. You have a nice day, butt wipe.

    So, staffinrun didn't show proper respect to TR, apparently, but where did he insult you? It was all the excuse you needed to dump profanity and vile on him. I thought you said you respond with civility to people who are civil to you. Must someone show proper respect for TR before you consider them civil?

    Also, it appears that if people don't show the proper respect for TR, you have no problem hurling insults and profanity at them. Therefore, you seem to have no problem with insulting people simply for not liking TR. Yet, you act like you're an innocent victim if anyone disagrees with you in a manner you don't like, and you also reply with more profanity and insults.

    You're ready to go off on the profanity/insult kick in practically all situations. Which seems like the entire point.

    Passive-aggressive may also refer to a person who refuses to acknowledge their own aggression (in the sense of "agency"), and who manages that denial by projecting it. This type of person insists on seeing themselves as the blameless victims in all situations."

    You're a classic example of passive-aggressive behavior.

  • Brian||

    Hell, you completely admit the passive-aggressive formula here:

    I love posting non-libertarian comments that I know will attract a fleet of morons with one liner pieces of shit posing as responses. Works every time.

    The only part you're not agreeing with here is my previously stated step 3: "After I bait the libertarian into replying to me, then I get to hell profanity and insults at them!"

    Listen, it's OK, and it's entertaining, in a way: you're a progressive, passive-aggressive troll. In exactly the way that is supposed to mean. Embrace it.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    I reject your attempts to classify me as a "passive-aggressive" personality. All you have done is further demonize me because my opinions do not represent a libertarian view of the world. I have no idea what your credentials are for coming to your conclusions, but again I reject them. You sure spent a lot of time and ink on this. Don't you ever sleep?

    In any event, I plan to express more of my opinions on this site. All I originally said in response to this article is that I like TR. I never cared for WW that much. Obviously, the author of the article certainly doesn't. Clearly, the way I said it drove some posters into a "frenzy" since this is contrary to the libertarian position.

    With that said, I'm sure you (and others) will continue to demonize me just about every chance you get. However, if you think you are going to drive me off this site for some of my non-libertarian views, you are sadly mistaken.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Brian,

    Your use of the "buzz word" troll in reference to me is very interesting. It implies, for all to see, that here is a person who should not be posting on this site, because he/she do not express "orthodox" libertarian views and ideas. As such, the use of the word warns people that this person is some sort of a type who should not be allowed on the site.

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