Weekend Open Thread

To get you started, a blog called "Marry in Massachusetts" would like some advice.  It seems that this left-leaning fellow's mother has gone all right-wing on him, and as an "aggressive gift" bought him subscriptions for arch-neocon magazines like City Journal, Policy Review, and...that notorious right-wing rag called reason.

What should he do?  Cancel the subscriptions?  Forward them to his mother's address?  Politely ask her not to renew them? 

I can only speak for reason, but given that gay rights seems to be one of his pet issues, I'd suggest the guy start by, er, reading it.

I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons.  I can't think of much of anything Bill Kristol and I agree on these days.

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.

  • ||

    I'd suggest the guy start by, er, reading it.

    Becoming informed before forming an opinion? How quaint. You must be new to this internet thing.

  • ||

    """I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons."""

    I think it fits the vogue "us versus them" attitude in politics today. If your not part of one, your "the other". I belive there are some neocons that would call reason a liberal rag.

    For most the people I know, the right-wingers call me liberal, and my liberal friends think I'm a right-winger. I would disagree with both.

  • ||

    I can't think of much of anything Bill Kristol and I agree on these days.

    Kristol is useful to have around...

    ..to set your drink on.

  • ||

    Kristol is useful to have around...

    ...for me to poop on!

  • stephen the goldberger||

    """I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons."""


    neocons in liberal areas are ashamed to call themselves it so they say they are libertarian.

  • m g||

    "I can only speak for reason, but given that gay rights seems to be one of his pet issues, I'd suggest the guy start by, er, reading it."

    Er, he is reading it:

    "Like my mother, I feel compelled to read them. I may even post soon on Reason's piece on Disneyworld and gay wedding packages."

  • uncle sam||

    I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons.

    Because they are still dwelling in the one dimensional political model. If you see the political world as right-left, then anyone who doesn't agree with you must be on the other side.

  • Federal Dog||

    I've lived in MA for decades, and there is something about the implacable one-party political inbreeding here that makes people exaggeratedly smug and close-minded. When everyone thinks the exact same thing at the exact same time in the exact same way, it never even occurs to people that there is any other way to think about things.

  • ||

    I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons

    As bad as that is, it's better than people saying "Oh, so you like that LaRouche guy?"

    I've had that happen several times. It seems like it should be a joke, but it isn't.

  • t3knomanser||

    Wait, I thought _Reason_ was a liberal rag. Now I find out you folks are Conservatives? I feel betrayed.

    No, in all seriousness, my political affiliation is "Skeptic". I am _skeptical_ that new laws are a good thing. I am _skeptical_ that massive wars are solving things. I am _skeptical_ about the need for most of the things the Government does.

  • ||

    His mother didn't get him the subscriptions. He started the post with a rambling discussion of his mother, and how he got her a *Nation* subscription, but she didn't retaliate.

    The other magazines came from a different source:

    "A long-term friend and godmother to one of our boys started subscriptions for us to City Journal, Reason, and Commentary. . . .

    "Our friend is an artist -- painter and sculptor. When she moved from the South to Manhattan and we all lived there, she seemed liberal enough. However, she kept company for years with a wealthy lawyer and businessman, who held very different views and got such publications as she has now visited upon us. He has died, but the damage was done."

    By the way, he praises the *Nation* for its use of rational argument, in contrast to those awful, emotion-based right-wing publications and talk-shows.

    He is of rare discernment, being able to detect rationality in the *Nation.*

  • ||


    A long-term friend and godmother to one of our boys started subscriptions for us to City Journal, Reason, and Commentary.

    just a small correction, it wasn't his mother.

  • ||

    and i see mad max has beaten me to the punch. nevermind.

  • ||

    Do I HAVE to repeat my story about my college journalism professor... again?

  • Untermensch||

    As bad as that is, it's better than people saying "Oh, so you like that LaRouche guy?"

    Or my favorite, "so you're one of those John Birchers?" I used to try to answer that one, but I gave up. It seems that the people who ask that question are, invariably, intellectually incapable of understanding the answer...

  • Untermensch||

    Trying again, to get the formatting right:

    As bad as that is, it's better than people saying "Oh, so you like that LaRouche guy?"



    Or my favorite, "so you're one of those John Birchers?" I used to try to answer that one, but I gave up. It seems that the people who ask that question are, invariably, intellectually incapable of understanding the answer...

  • ||

    I never had a chance to respond to that story, Akira, but from what I remember the story didn't seem as bad as you're making it out to be. It is not out of line (and I consider it pretty acturate) for some one to refer to a pro-capitalism POV to be "right wing."

    No, in all seriousness, my political affiliation is "Skeptic". I am _skeptical_ that new laws are a good thing. I am _skeptical_ that massive wars are solving things. I am _skeptical_ about the need for most of the things the Government does.

    Please. Anyone from any end of the political spectrium could use "skepticism" as their "political affiliation."
    (I am a "skeptic". I am _skeptical_ that giving corporations too much power over the people is a good thing.)
    (I am a "Skeptic." I am _skeptical_ that allowing homosexuals to influence popular culture is a good thing)
    and so on and so on.

  • surf||

    Since it's an 'open' thread, who noticed this in the debate:
    Moderator: Mrs. Reagan wants to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Will that progress under your administration?
    Paul: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution.
    The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.
    Moderator: OK. That's a no.
    Giuliani: As long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning, and we limit it to that, and there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in those situations where you have limitations.
    So I would support it with those limitations, like Senator Coleman's bill in Congress.

  • ||

    A while ago I head that adopted kids of lesbian partners are more likely to succeed academicly. When I heard that, my first thought was how it is going to become the stereotype in the near future;
    "Way to go on the test, Dave, an A+"
    "Yeah man, what are your parents lesbians or something?"

  • ||

    DeLa Hoya is fighting Mayweather in about 5 hours or so.

    I have money on Mayweather, but I would kind of like DeLa Hoya to win.

    This being an open thread and all.

  • ||

    Akira,
    Your response on the fella's blog was a bit acerbic don't you think?? A lot of lefties are told that Reason = Heritage Foundation and believe it without having read any of the works put out by Reason (namely the mag).

    Being nasty doesn't change minds and usually galvanizes people against your cause. Since he admitted to having read the magazine and was thinking about posting on an article, it seems like he may have found something of interest, which may now be tainted negatively by your rather brash post.

  • DerbyDay||

    In the Kentucky Derby, I have some money on Any Given Saturday to place.

    I can never pick a winner tho.

  • ||

    Jonathan H - it's true that one can express skepticism about just about anything; libertarians have no monopoly on it.

    The things t3knomanser expressed skepticism about are significant interventions in the status quo which cost money and time. And that's our money, from taxes, and the time we're paying for in government-employee salaries.

    The things you mentioned are certainly debatable propositions, but they can be rephrased, faithfully, as "we should intervene in the status quo, and spend money and time, by doing such-and-such." So these propositions aren't really about skepticism; they're about advocacy.

    And the burden of proof falls on the advocate of an intervention, not on the advocate of doing nothing.

  • cls||

    Why do libertarians get lumped in with conservatives of various odious kinds? Perhaps because there are too many libertarians who hang out in those circles and buddy up to the far Right? We have groups that hang out with the racist League of the South. We have libertarians (small or big L) who mouth anti-immigration resentments. We have people seeking the LP nomination who are proud about wanting to build a wall on the border (which helps keep people in as well as out). We have prominent libertarians who are close to the loonies at the Birch Society and espouse loony banking conspiracies. So perhaps before we are too quick to judge outsiders for getting the wrong impression we should be looking inwardly at libertarians who go out of there way to reinforce those impressions. (Reason being an exception I should note).

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons

    Always been that way. I can't find the spot right now but one of the leftie women's rights group calls the LP anti-choice on abortion because they do not support tax paid abortions.

    Anything that has to do with the reduction or abolition of social services, reduction of taxes, or reduction of business regulation is seen as right-wing, therefore libertarians are right-wing because we favor economic freedoms.

    Years ago I asked a leftie friend why he kept calling me a Neanderthal who was slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. I offered up drug legalization as proof of my bona fides. He told me that the only reason I favored drug legalization was because I was hoping all those druggies would OD and then we'd be rid of the riff-raff.

    Hard to shake those mis-impressions. Of course, these days the guy is a fargin Neo-Con who walks around telling anyone who'll listen that he USED TO BE A LIBERAL.

  • ||

    Fuck this guy's mother. If he is not man enough to do what he wants as an adult, there is no hope for him. The world belongs to those who take it.

  • Bonus for Ron Paul fans||

    Ron Paul fans may want to hear what Chris Matthews muttered under his breath after a Ron Paul answer at the GOP debate. Audio at the link.

  • ||

    Bonus,

    Already heard it, thanks.

    TWC,

    "I can't find the spot right now but one of the leftie women's rights group calls the LP anti-choice on abortion because they do not support tax paid abortions."

    That's because most political activists (that is, all except libertarians and sincere "moderates") who use the term "pro-choice" to mean "legal abortion" are either insincere or else are using the term "choice" in a way totally different than the meaning everyone else uses. Of course, they don't want the taxpayer to have the choice not to support abortion. What they want is abortion, not choice. Choice just works well in focus groups.

  • ||

    Kwix,

    Akira? Acerbic? NEVER!!!!!

    The guy is just lucky he never mentioned God in his blog. That would have made things pretty ugly.

  • ||

    Years ago I asked a leftie friend why he kept calling me a Neanderthal who was slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. I offered up drug legalization as proof of my bona fides. He told me that the only reason I favored drug legalization was because I was hoping all those druggies would OD and then we'd be rid of the riff-raff.



    Damn.

  • ||

    I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons.

    In addition to what everyone else has said above, it's b/c most of us favor negative liberty but scoff at the idea of positive liberty.

    I didn't grasp what libertarians were until I took a course in Victorian prose in grad school. The whole class was at first a little shocked by the way laissez-faire and socially open philosophies were linked. We weren't used to seeing both views being held by the same people. (This was in the mid-'80s.)

  • ||

    NOTE, I AM A LITTLE DRUNK RIGHT NOW, HAPPY CINCO DE MIO, MOTHERFUCKERS. TAKE THAT, FRENCH INVADERS, THAT WIlLL SHOW YOU FOR INVADING A SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRY, ALTHOUGH ONE HAS TO WONDER WHY A CULTURE WOULD DEEM THE FACT THAT THEY BEAT SOME PUSSY-ASS FRENCH PEOPLE SIGNIGIGANT ENOUGH TO BASE A HOLIDAY ON. WHAT"S NEXT, THE DAY WHEN WE CELEBRATE THE DAY A GRANDMA WAS ABLE TO SCARE A FLUFFY LITTLE BUNNY AWAY? FUCK YEAH

    Why do libertarians get lumped in with conservatives of various odious kinds? Perhaps because there are too many libertarians who hang out in those circles and buddy up to the far Right? We have groups that hang out with the racist League of the South. We have libertarians (small or big L) who mouth anti-immigration resentments. We have people seeking the LP nomination who are proud about wanting to build a wall on the border (which helps keep people in as well as out). We have prominent libertarians who are close to the loonies at the Birch Society and espouse loony banking conspiracies. So perhaps before we are too quick to judge outsiders for getting the wrong impression we should be looking inwardly at libertarians who go out of there way to reinforce those impressions. (Reason being an exception I should note).
    Amen. The liberterian phillosophy is based on a right-wing train of thought, and is pretty devoid of leftist beliefes at all. THe reason we are always in bed with the right-wing feelings people is because we are right wing.

  • Asharak||

    Why do libertarians get lumped in with conservatives of various odious kinds? Perhaps because there are too many libertarians who hang out in those circles and buddy up to the far Right? We have groups that hang out with the racist League of the South. We have libertarians (small or big L) who mouth anti-immigration resentments. We have people seeking the LP nomination who are proud about wanting to build a wall on the border (which helps keep people in as well as out). We have prominent libertarians who are close to the loonies at the Birch Society and espouse loony banking conspiracies. So perhaps before we are too quick to judge outsiders for getting the wrong impression we should be looking inwardly at libertarians who go out of there way to reinforce those impressions. (Reason being an exception I should note).

    This is true, sadly enough. I've seen quite a few paleo-libertarians supporting Tom Tancredo's campaign because of immigration while they overlook Tancredo's un-libertarian view on civil liberties for American citizens.

  • ||

    "I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons. I can't think of much of anything Bill Kristol and I agree on these days."

    I'm always more confused as to why libertarians lump themselves in with conservatives or the GOP in general. Democrats and liberals have their annoying public health wing, but otherwise they are much more friendly to freedom in lifestyle for the majority of folks. The GOP is basically a vehicle for the religious right (which also has its quasi public health wing albeit without any scientific basis [no drinking, smoking, caffeine, etc]).

  • Asharak||

    Years ago I asked a leftie friend why he kept calling me a Neanderthal who was slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. I offered up drug legalization as proof of my bona fides. He told me that the only reason I favored drug legalization was because I was hoping all those druggies would OD and then we'd be rid of the riff-raff.

    Hard to shake those mis-impressions. Of course, these days the guy is a fargin Neo-Con who walks around telling anyone who'll listen that he USED TO BE A LIBERAL.


    Let me guess, 9/11 "changed" him, right?

  • ||

    I don't think I was being "acerbic," or "rude" or anything of the sort. He/She seems ignorant Reason's editorial position, and most likely, the only thing they have to go on is is the "Free Minds, Free Markets" tagline. Many leftists automatically assume "free market" equals "right wing" despite all other considerations.

  • ||

    Democrats and liberals have their annoying public health wing, but otherwise they are much more friendly to freedom in lifestyle for the majority of folks. The GOP is basically a vehicle for the religious right (which also has its quasi public health wing albeit without any scientific basis [no drinking, smoking, caffeine, etc]).
    Culturally, yes, the democrats don't care if we do anything (although that isn't always true, for example; Anderson Cooper's recent pissing about rap lyrics) at least in terms of gays fucking and "the media" they don't give a shit, but politically, they also can be very authoritierian putting laws into place that tells us what the fuck to do. It is a lose/lose situation with us liberterians (although not that bad, I mean we have a lot of freedoms the freedoms being taken away from us by the the left and right piss about are insignifigant, although we have a right to complain about them anyways.) and personally, alhtough I voted for the democrats thhis time around, I have a feeling that in the near future (next 10 years) it is better for us to side for the republcvians (even though, culturaly, they oppose all of the freedoms we have FUCK BILL O'RIELY)

    GO RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! I OPPOSED HIM IN THE PAST FOR HAVING TO EXTREME LIBETERIANS BELIEFS, BUT I BELIEVE HE WOULD DO PRETTY GOOD IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

  • ||

    PLUS, I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN, A SLIM, SLIM, SLIM, CHANCE< BUT A CHANCE NON THE LESS. I SHOULDN"T GET MY HOPES UP, THOUGH. IN PAST ELECTIONS I SUPPORTED PEOPLE WHO HAD NO CHANSES OF WINNING AND DELUDED MY SELF ABOUT THEIR CHANCES BUT ONLY ENDED UP GETTING BURNNEDAND DISIPOINTED IN THE END.

  • ||

    Also, I've got to say, I think I would make a great president (at least the Jonathan Hohensee in my fantasines) I would make myself avaliable a lot to the general public, to win their support (being frendly and avaliable to both the left and the right, doing inveterveiwes with right-wing radio outlets and letting the left-wingers being able to question me and shit) and then I would put forth legislation that both sides would have to make sacrafices for; ie; legalizing pot (to the point that candsada has legal pot) and at the same time getting rid of the estate tax, (Another example would be getting somethign passed that doesn't matter, like flag-burning or some shit, then getting rid of pot or something) Oh, and not running for a secxond term.

    While running and during the debates and shit, I would be open and just show The People (and The People voting during the primariers) my true self, not being ashamed about the fact that I have positions that aren't right-wing. (Altrhough I will come off as pro-choice, and in office do absolutely nothing about abortion rights, negative or positive). And I would be funny while running and honest, that will get me into the white house and enable me to do stuff like mI mentioned in the first paragraph.

    Aslo, I have a fantasy that, during the Republican debates, that (in thhis fantasy, I am 52 years old) they ask the candidtents "what type of music do you like" and all the other guys answer with some non-offensive softball answer like "Oh, the music of america" or "I like all types of music" and then it comes to my turn and I (much like how Biden answered humourously "yes" to that one question) will answer "mid-eighties punk music" and then people will laugh and Matthews will ask me to clairify (I will run as a republican) and I will studder "I mean, Violent Femmes, you don't get better than that band" and people will respond to that, because they will (first of all, find it intresting that a guy in his early 50s would enjoys punk music more than other music, completely what you would not expect) respond to the fact that I would rather show the American people my TRUE self when asked a question as opposed to giving some glib answer (like the rest of the candidnets gave) that serves to get votes.

  • ||

    I'm always more confused as to why libertarians lump themselves in with conservatives or the GOP in general.

    Well, there used to be a fair slice of the GOP that seemingly believed in less govt* - until they actually won control of that govt, and then they couldn't get enough of it. Particularly as they sensed that their power was contingent on using govt to deliver goodies to people that would thus vote for them.

    Certainly not in my lifetime has there been any part of the Democratic party that seriously questioned the need for more govt - unless you count Clinton's "ending welfare as we know it". But that was more then counterbalanced by the Clintonian desire for nationalized healthcare.

    *One of the great ironies of Reagan's political career is that he still holds the record for the largest tax increase in the history of the state of California.

  • I tattled on you guys||

    I left a post on the guy's blog informing him of this post. This should make things more interesting.

  • ||

    I have a fantasy too - where politicians answer questions like, "what kind of music do you like?" or "boxers/briefs?" directly with something close to, "That's an irrelevant and stupid question - grow up."

    & BTW - I listen to classical music, classic rock, alt country, jazz, blues, etc, etc, etc. I do like all kinds.

  • ||

    Kwais -

    I have no money, but certainly feel as you do. Mayweather will likely win, but I'm hoping for De La Hoya.

    Undercard is staring now.

  • ||

    After I mention The Violent Femmes, I hope the band's bassist, Brian Ritchie, would bithc about the fact that a Republican would say that they like the band so then I would contact Brian Ritchie, bassist of the violent femmes, and say "Hey, even though my feelings about econmoics might not be the saame as you, I am a pretty nice guy and your mean comments are pretty unwarrented." Afterwards he would realize that he was being pretty cruel and we would foster an uneasy friendship not unlike the friendship between Jerry Fawell and Larry Flint or the friendship between Fanney May Baker and Ron Jermey.

    On that note, did anyone read about Brian Ritchie bitching about Gordon Gano (lead singer/guitarist of the violent femmes) licencing "Blister in the Sun" to the Wendy's fast food resturaunt commericals? Brian Ritche's bitching makes me sad, partially because it shows that their is some bad blood between the people of the band (it makes the fact that the band has been tourering together for 20 years seem inscincere, that they are just togheter for the money and not because they have fun playing together) and because what Brian Ritchie is bitching about is completely stupid and childish (he's angry that his music is being used to help a "Big Bad Corporation" make money by making people fat)

    Honestly, the whole thing upsets me because I have been idioloizing the band since I was in highschool and, as it turns out, the memembers of the Violent Femmes are just as greedy and egotistical as every other hack band out there. This pissy fight is like something you'd see with the memebers of creed, but not what you would expect from teh band that was able to completely master putting Teen Angst to music.

  • Grotius||

    As I note on my blog, a new poll (.pdf) has Sarkozy ahead of Royal 55% to 45%. If that holds up tomorrow that would be something of a landslide (given the generally close nature of French Presidential elections during the Fifth Republic).

  • ||

    I left a post on the guy's blog informing him of this post. This should make things more interesting.

    Bring it on, baby!! (Too bad my bedtime is fast approaching.)

  • ||

    As I note on my blog, a new poll (.pdf) has Sarkozy ahead of Royal 55% to 45%. If that holds up tomorrow that would be something of a landslide (given the generally close nature of French Presidential elections during the Fifth Republic).



    Hey a lot can happen in 24 hours. Sarkozy could headbutt someone and get suspended.

  • ||

    I have a fantasy too - where politicians answer questions like, "what kind of music do you like?" or "boxers/briefs?" directly with something close to, "That's an irrelevant and stupid question - grow up."

    The way I said I would answer to the question, in spirit, is the same as the way you said you would answer such questions. By answering the question honestly, I subtuly show The People that I don't want to blow smoke up their asses by telling them what I think I want them to hear, instead I take the questions literarlly.

    & BTW - I listen to classical music, classic rock, alt country, jazz, blues, etc, etc, etc. I do like all kinds.
    Do you really listen to classical and jazz, or do you say it just to impress people? About 95% of the people I've run across who say they list4en to jazz and classical just say it to make others sound smart. (The biggest tip-off of "I just want others to think I'm smart" is when they don't have a real deep understanding of the genres, ie; they tell people "Oh, I like Mozart and betoven and BB King", but couldn't (or don't listen to) anything less obscure than that)
    Years ago I gave up trying to kid myself that I have the abilitiy to listen to jazz or classical, although recently listening to "Sinnerman" by Nina Simone pecked my intrest in the jazz gerne
    (I'm pretty confident that it won;''t lead to me actually liking jazz, though, I have a feeling that I will go through the same routine that I went though with my Heavey Metal phase; I'll convince myself that the people telling me the genre of Hevaey Metal is good are right, then I'll waste money/computer memory on exploring the gernre, then, after many years, I'll admit to myself that, to myself, all the songs sound teh same and taht I will never understand the complexities of teh genre or what exactly makes the genre so fucking great)

  • Grotius||

    Deus,

    At this point the election starts in ~ five hours. ;)

  • ||

    Sarkozy is the Republican one, right Grotius?

  • Grotius||

    Amerocentric,

    Err, hmm, he's "center-conservative." He's the candidate of the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP).

  • Grotius||

    Amerocentric (crimethink?),

    You are sort of right though. One of the ideological elements of the UMP is "republicanism" in the ideological sense (we'd think of it as a term to be used for a "liberal society)..

  • ||

    I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons.

    Why? Because, like most people, they have a little binary checkbox system:

    Liberal:

    Conservative:

    They've lived most of their life with this simple choice and if you aren't one of them, you're one of the other them. Few think to look outside the box and when they do, all they see are "crackpots." It's simpler to do that than a critical evaluation of ideas.

    I'm not sure if being considered nuts is better than considered evil.

  • ||

    I'm not sure if being considered nuts is better than considered evil.
    I agree; Both are equally as fun.

  • ||

    At this point the election starts in ~ five hours. ;)



    It's already started in French Polynesia. And polling closed in French Guiana.

  • Grotius||

    Deus,

    Yeah, yeah, and they've voted in Pierre and Miquelon.

  • ||

    I lived with a guy who was a hard-core Republican and used to get the full panoply of right-wing mags -- and "Reason". So of course I assumed that "Reason" was another right-wing mag, until I took a closer look.

  • Single Issue Voter||

    Libertarians are "Right Wing". In the American political spectrum we are ultra-rightists.
    Left = collectivist... Right = individualist.
    Libertarians are more individualist than the rest of the American right.

    The lefties who label libertarians as "right wing" are more astute in their political understanding than many of the commenters in this thread. Communitarian/utilitarians (Amitai Etzioni for example) consider libertarian ideology to be profoundly more "wrong" and even "dangerous" than mainstream conservatism.

  • ||

    Do you really listen to classical and jazz, or do you say it just to impress people? About 95% of the people I've run across who say they list4en to jazz and classical just say it to make others sound smart.

    I'm not attempting to impress anyone - just stating a counter-point to yours. And even if I'm am just trying to impress, it still doesn't mean there aren't people that can honestly answer the question, "What kind of music do you like?" - with "All kinds."

    & Besides - I said I liked all kinds of music - I never claimed to be intelligent.

  • Single Issue Voter||

    Most ideological conservatives consider Bush to be a "liberal". They tolerate him for about 3 reasons- the War on Terror,judicial appointments, and that liberal/lefties hate him.

  • Single Issue Voter||

    Reason? Oh the people who think I should have to pay TWICE to drive on public roads. Once in gas taxes and then again with tolls.

    (I think that is the foundation rather than the magazine- or is it both)

  • ||

    Aren't most toll roads funded through the tolls and not gas taxes?

    Tolls are much fairer; all those rich people driving their Piouses pay a lot less for the roads than us poor folks driving Hyundais.

  • ||

    NOTE: Over the time since I last posted, I sobered up a bit, but since my roommates desided that they wouldn't want to go out tonight (thank god, I'm running out of money) I desided to keep my buzz by burning through my bottle of vermouth, which remained untouched for the past 6 months since my failed attempt to make a good martini. Thank you for your time.

    I'm not attempting to impress anyone - just stating a counter-point to yours. And even if I'm am just trying to impress, it still doesn't mean there aren't people that can honestly answer the question, "What kind of music do you like?" - with "All kinds."

    & Besides - I said I liked all kinds of music - I never claimed to be intelligent.

    I really meant no offense to you, my (what was basicly an) essay on classical music on jazz was more of a rant against the type of people who use jazz and classical as an excuse to make people think they are smart (along with my own private shame that I don't really understand the genres).

    That said, I usually get annoyed when people say "oh, I like all types of music" or "anything but country" when I ask them about music. About 99.9% of the time when someone asks "what type of music do you listen to?" it is an attempt to spur a small talk converstation and by resoponding "everything", it kills the converstation quickly, leaving both involved in awkarward silence. Adimtabbly, when it comes to small talk, asking "what type of music you listen to" is rearly successful as even if someone doesn't say "Everything", the expansive and large nature of the medium music basicly gaurantiees that they'll never say a band, or even a genre that you have in common with them, so the majority of time the question leads to awkard silence.

    Actually, to be honest, it almost never leads to awkard silence to me, but that is because IRL I have a lot of personality and I usually use the question of "what type of music do you listen to?" only as a platform to jump into a rant that is similar into the paragraph above. (ie; bitching about how people respond "oh, I listen to everything")

    Conversing with other people, espeically other people that you don't know or have only scant contact with (like in a doctor's waiting room or something) is an art, and it is an art that I am very, very good at. (I'd comapre myself to DiVinci) I exhaust a ridiculous amount of mental energy to imginary conversations, funny quips I could say. and poiginet passing observations I could make to friends and complete strangers in every day conversations, but it is competely worth it as it opens an insane amount of doors of oppruninity, both occupationally and socially. (ei; Every costmer service job I've ever had, my employers begged me not to quit)
    I am SO.FUCKING.AWESOME.

  • ||

    So, I don't have a TV. Anyone care to liveblog the De la Hoya/Mayweather fight?

  • ||

    Tolls are much fairer; all those rich people driving their Piouses pay a lot less for the roads than us poor folks driving Hyundais.

    Tolls is one of the few examples that I could think of that income tax is more benificial to the people than a "Service tax."
    I currently live in Orlando, a city with an extremely signifigantly above-average number of toll roads, and it causes an insane amount of gridlock and wasted money in terms of gas.

    Additionally, although the rich are more able (and likely) to purchase low gas-milage vehicals such as the prius, they are are also more able (and likely) to purchase extremely high gas-milage vehicals such as the hummer or the SUV Earth Destroyer 2000. I have a feeling it all balances out.

  • Single Issue Voter||

    "Aren't most toll roads funded through the tolls and not gas taxes?"

    The Reason Foundation's plan is to charge tolls for social engineering purposes kinda like mortgage interst deduction and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

  • ||

    First off, I must ask, does anyone know where I can download for free (pirate) some DOCTOR WHO AUDIO adventures? My car only has a tape player and I recently figured out a way to record audio that plays off of my laptop onto a tape

    For seven years, I would regularly frequent a message board full of intelligent, cynical people but after so many years a lot of the people I would talk to began stop visting the site and those who remained where just plained burned out and soon the website died. The website "died" a little less than a year ago but I find myself still occationally pining for the days in which I would chat away for my online friends. These people where a group of mature, bitter, intelligent people with ages ranging from 25-40 (signifigantly beyond my age) who, through my teen years, played a siginifigant part in shaping my personality and worldveiw.

    This brings me to the question; have any of you guys felt an emtional connection for an online community that reached beyond what is considered socially acceptable?

    fuck, I miss that message board.

  • miche||

    I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons.



    See first letter in June's issue of reason.

    (Haven't yet read the thread and not saying that I agree with the letter, and how long does it take for spilled wine to dry so the "N" key will stop sticking?)

  • ||


    The lefties who label libertarians as "right wing" are more astute in their political understanding than many of the commenters in this thread.


    True that.

    Libertarianism has always been part of the conservative tradition. Yes, we've had to make uneasy alliances at times with cultural conservatives but such is life. And sometimes we've been the abused partner in the relationship. But we have very little in common with the democrats unless you consider abortion up there with the very nature of society and mans place in it.

    If the government isn't making its money by taxing us all to death its not going to be able to enforce a theocratic agenda regardless if it wants to or not.

  • Widget||

    (Haven't yet read the thread and not saying that I agree with the letter, and how long does it take for spilled wine to dry so the "N" key will stop sticking?)
    Fornnnnnnnnnnnever

  • miche||

    Many leftists automatically assume "free market" equals "right wing" despite all other considerations.



    Mother in law is in town and she took my copy of reason to bed with her. She liked the tagline.

  • miche||

    Hey a lot can happen in 24 hours. Sarkozy could headbutt someone and get suspended.



    LOL

    /working through thread

  • ||

    Mayweather takes WBC crown from De la Hoya: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/boxing/6626009.stm

  • ||

    Anybody who thinks libertarianism is a conservative system needs to actually read a history book instead of pulling it out of their ass. Yeah I am talking to you Mr Chalupa.

    Go back 200 years, and the conservatives were trying to preserve the divine right of kings and the nobility, and the libertarians were advancing the radical notion that all people were equal.

    In the Paris assembly where that whole left-right thing started, the radical liberals (what we would today call radical libertarians) were assigned seats in the extreme left wing.

  • ||

    Sarkozy is _way_ ahead on intrade.com

  • ||

    Whenever I tell a Republican that I'm libertarian, the first question out of their mouth is, "What are you, a pothead?"

  • Thomas Paine\'s Goiiter||

    Jonathan Hohensee

    Please STFU until monday.

  • rarr||

    Libertarianism is its own label, as far as I can tell. It's equal parts liberal (on civil liberties) and conservative (on economic liberties) so you can't really say that it's one or the other.

  • ||

    "Mother in law is in town and she took my copy of reason to bed with her. She liked the tagline."

    -miche

    I always take my Reason to bed with me and it's not because of the tagline. ;-D

  • Paul||

    I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons

    Because wishing for smaller government is sooooo right wing.

  • NP||

    I don't mean to defend this guy's rant, but Reason, to its credit, does publish columnists like Michael Young whose approach to foreign policy is perhaps better described as neoconservative than libertarian. And, of course, laissez-faire capitalism has always been identified more with the Right than with the Left.

    Just two reasons why those who haven't bothered to read it might lump Reason with the flagship conservative publications.

  • thoreau||

    but Reason, to its discredit, does publish columnists like Michael Young whose approach to foreign policy is perhaps better described as neoconservative than libertarian.



    Fixed that for you.

  • Grotius||

    NP,

    Well, there is more than one voice on FP at Reason and that all and all is a good thing.

  • ||

    The reason libertarians are mistakenly lumped in with right-wingers is that lefties are thoroughly and openly collectivist -- note the Democratic politician on a recent Jon Stewart show who happily claimed the 2006 elections were a mandate for a more collectivist approach -- while the most recent incarnation of the right-wing still claims to be individualist -- while ramping up government spending, doing away with quaint stuff like habeas corpus and private telephone calls, starting disasterous wars, and generally behaving like Democrats Lite. So, rhetorically libertarianish, in reality statist.

    There is a small subsection of the Republican party in Congress that is libertarian-leaning -- about 40 or so members, notably
    including Ron Paul -- and no Democrats at all, so a tiny grain of truth to that categorization. But, the overwhelming majority of Republican politicians are statist bastards.

  • ed||

    I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons.

    Um, 'cause The People don't think very well, when they think at all? They take their lead from a few popular media outlets, most of whom describe all Republicans as "conservatives", as if there are only Democrats and "everyone else on the right."

  • ||

    "If the government isn't making its money by taxing us all to death its not going to be able to enforce a theocratic agenda regardless if it wants to or not."

    It doesn't take that much money to make certain consensual behaviors illegal and punish them using law enforcement and the justice system - those things which are basic functions of even a limited government.

    In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of any items on the religious right's agenda that require any funding, except maybe foreign aid (they're for it, so long as it doesn't involve contraception or abortion info).

  • ||

    Anybody who thinks libertarianism is a conservative system needs to actually read a history book instead of pulling it out of their ass. Yeah I am talking to you Mr Chalupa.

    Go back 200 years, and the conservatives were trying to preserve the divine right of kings and the nobility, and the libertarians were advancing the radical notion that all people were equal.


    If this was France in 1979 you'd have a point. Our founders agreed with the European liberals and wrote a constitiution based on those ideas. That's why American individualists who try to preserve these ideas are called "conservatives." Liberals have been chipping away at that constitution for the last 60 years or so.

    If American conservatives have a history of preserving the rights of kings I must've missed it.

  • Grotius||

    Grand Chalupa,

    Many French conservatives weren't defending the divine right of kings by end of the reign of Louis XVI. Of course Tocqueville had to castigate French aristocrats in the mid-19th century for wanting to return to the days ancien regime as opposed to fostering a liberal society.

  • Grotius||

    Grand Chalupa,

    BTW, I am pretty sure you meant 1789 and not 1979.

  • ||

    It was...

    1789!

  • Grotius||

    Speaking of 1979, anyone going to make to the Smashing Pumpkins reunion tour?

  • Jennifer George||

    I once had an idiotic conversation with a neighbor about this. I told him I was a libertarian and the only thing he could wrap his tiny little brain around was the fact that I wasn't a Democrat or Republican. "So you're an independent!" he kept saying. I tried to figure out what he meant by that. Like George Wallace? No. Did he understand that libertarians had their own ideology? Yes, you're an independent! He was like one of those shitheads in college who lumped together everyone who wasn't in a fraternity or sorority as a "goddam independent."

  • ||

    I'll amend my original statement to add that there is still *some* cross polination between conservativism (note I did not say republicans) and libertarinism, mostly on the topics of markets and trade. Modern liberalism is wholly owened by the collectivists and I can see no common ground between them and libertarians, exept where oppopsition to a common issue exists, like the Iraq war.

    So yeah, if you don't think that we should nationalize everything and ban all that is unholy in the eyes of the left, then you must be one of them.

  • ||

    "Culturally, yes, the democrats don't care if we do anything (although that isn't always true, for example; Anderson Cooper's recent pissing about rap lyrics) at least in terms of gays fucking and "the media" they don't give a shit, but politically, they also can be very authoritierian putting laws into place that tells us what the fuck to do."
    This is the all too common and always baffling to me kind of statement I hear from libertarians when the choice of evils question comes up. Baffling because of its wierd equation with mere "cultural" freedoms which the Dems are solid on and "political" ones which they supposedly suck on. I mean, cultural things are, well, how we may choose to LIVE our lives. Political freedoms I'm guessing have to do with tax rates and such. I'm much more worried about my freedoms to drink alcohol, get wild in the bedroom, read,, and do what I want than about whether I get a capital gains tax or whether I have the "freedom" to create a business with unsafe working conditions or sub minimum wage hiring. It's not that the latter don't matter, its just that they do not effect the average person and his or her freedom very much while the former effects us all, and in the most intimate of ways...

  • ||

    Yesterday morning, I had Fox News' so-called "business" shows on as background noise. What a bunch of jabbering imbeciles. There was a lot of huffing and puffing about gas prices, in which the general consensus seemed to be, "I'm paying too much for gas. Somebody (in the government) ought to DO something."
    Oddly enough, nobody said anything about the useful signal high prices send to consumers.

  • Cesar||

    *"I'm paying too much for gas. Somebody (in the government) ought to DO something."*

    Let me guess--the liberal on there suggested we should have a 'windfall profits tax' and/or price caps, while the conservative blamed it on Hugo Chavez and suggested we should invade Venezuela?

  • ||

    The lumping together is simply a result of prosperity in the U.S. For me to figure out the subtle and not so subtle differences between ideologies and candidates would require time, effort, and thought. It is easier for me to just make some broad generalizations and be done with it. I really do have better things to do than ponder the future of this country. That's what we pay our reps. to do.
    I am American. I have it all. I don't have to think anymore beyond my next big mac and pabst blue ribbon. I like my politics the same as my food, fast with no real nutritional value. More than two parties just kinda boogers it all up.

    Jesus: yes
    abortion: no
    gay marriage: no
    prayer in school: yes


    NEXT

  • ||

    hey hey hey

    before you all tear me a new one, I am just trying to present what I believe to be the truth about people's attitude toward politics in general. I am not advocating a particular belief system.

  • ||

    Jonathan Hohensee,

    You sure like to blabber on when you are drunk, don't you?

    Single issue voter,
    very good points. I hadn't thought of it like that.

  • ||

    Jesus: yes
    abortion: no
    gay marriage: no
    prayer in school: yes


    Not much libertarian thought in those positions Ben - at least if you are advocating government promotion/enforcement.

    Not tearing, just sayin'.

  • ||

    So DeLa Hoya lost a split decision. I actually didn't see the fight as being that close. He shoulda jabbed more.

    Sorry I couldn't live blog the fight. The undercard came on here at 5am.

  • ||

    Jesus: Maybe, what is his position on the war?

    Abortion: Only if the condom fails and it looks like I am going to get stuck with child support payments

    Gay Marriage: Marriage is a pretty gay event and yet we still do it.

    Prayer in School: It is really not going to help you much with that test, but go ahead anyways.

  • ||

    "Michael Young whose approach to foreign policy is perhaps better described as neoconservative"
    Fantastical or dream-like would be a better description (if we would just oppose Syria and appease Israel a little more the Arab street is this close to bursting into a pro-American orgasmic frenzy)

  • dhex||

    "If American conservatives have a history of preserving the rights of kings I must've missed it."

    did you miss the last eight years of "yes, your majesty"?

    kiss the ring, piggies!

    preemptive strike: yeah, libruhs did the same thing during the clinton years. people are bootlicking slavefucks who just want to taste the right kind of bootblack. principles, honor, justice, these things are all just dust in the wind.

    oh well. anyone for yatzee?

  • ||

    I don't know about the pseudo-intellectuals around here, but, as for me, I'm a classical liberal.

  • ||

    Who's going to be the first to post that John McLaughlin just said that Ron Paul put in the best performance at the Republican debate? Not me, I don't watch the show.

  • ||

    I'm surprised no one brought up the "four corners" libertarian political truth test, or whatever it's called. While it may be a bit goofy, it's still better than the pointless left - right thing.

    Labelling the "right" as individualist is misleading because there are plenty who support freer trade due to utilitarian / pragmatic ideas rather than due to the individual right to trade.

    I once got the 'Libertarian? So you like Lyndon LaRouche?' line from someone. I would have slapped them, but the wind blew my tinfoil hat right into my eyes at that point.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Libertarianism has always been part of the conservative tradition.

    Not at all. Liberalism and libertarianism (in the modern, American meanings of those words) are two branches of the same family tree. Liberals embraced the idea of "positive" liberty, while libertarians generally approve of "negative" liberty only.

    Having said that, there are quite a few people who have one foot in libertarianism, another foot in conservativism, and, usually, another foot in their mouths.

  • Mike Laursen||

    I once got the 'Libertarian? So you like Lyndon LaRouche?' line from someone.

    You might want to point out that while he has never run as a Libertarian, he has run several times as a Democrat.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Why do libertarians always get lumped in with the Right?

    Cause WE ARE FUCKING RIGHT WING!!!

    How incredibly a stupid-ass question is that. Conservatives are our cousins. They are our friends. They are our political allies.

    Yeah, they are geeky SOBs. (Until you liquor them up at a late-night YR Party.) But at least they're polite, well-mannered and treat us with respect.

    All the Liberal assholes do is block our petitioners for Property Rights and Tax Cuts with their AARP/Union Thugs in Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, and Nevada.

    Ask yourself this simple question. When was the last time you heard of a conservative trying to stop libertarians from gathering petition signatures in front of a Post Office for some libertarian cause?

    Or how about this. When was the last time you heard of a conservative trying to deny a libertarian free speech rights, like a radio talk show host, or some libertarian trying to speak on a college campus?

    Liberals are the enemy.

    We libertarians are Proud Right-wingers in the traditions of our movement's Founders: Barry Goldwater, John Hospers and Dana Rohrabacher. And of course, our Great Libertarian Godfather PJ O'Rourke.

  • Guy Montag||

    We libertarians are Proud Right-wingers in the traditions of our movement's Founders: Barry Goldwater, John Hospers and Dana Rohrabacher. And of course, our Great Libertarian Godfather PJ O'Rourke.

    Don't forget Wolliam F. Buckley, Jr., who's employees have to be bashed by commenters here every time they are mentioned in a post.

  • ||

    When was the last time you heard of a conservative trying to deny a libertarian free speech rights, like a radio talk show host, or some libertarian trying to speak on a college campus?

    When was the last time a conservative public figure advocated the abolition of punishment for victimless "crimes"? When was the last time a conservative public figure argued for the removal of legal distinctions between gay and straight unions? When was the last time a conservative public figure came out as an atheist or even an agnostic?

  • Grotius||

    Libertarianism comes from many intellectual currents. Thus it is not surprising that libertarians come in several different flavors.

  • Grotius||

    jp,

    The Texas Republican Party platform as of 2004 still opposes the legalization of sodomy. You can read it right here.

  • dhex||

    sodomy...talk about a slippery slope!

    thank you, i'll be here all night.

    "Conservatives are our cousins. They are our friends. They are our political allies."

    your cousins, friends and allies, maybe.

  • ||

    jp --

    "When was the last time a conservative public figure advocated the abolition of punishment for victimless "crimes"? ..."

    Ummm, when was the last time politicians of either major party advocated for social liberties (other than gay rights)? Now that Democrats control Congress, are we seeing legislation to end the War on the Laws of Supply and Demand (aka the War on Drugs)? Any Democrats advocating legalizing prostitiution? How many Democratic congresspersons can you name who are openly atheistic?

    Yes, the theocratic right can be a major pain in the okole, but an Hayek pointed out, economic and civil liberties are inextricably intertwined, and the tiny handful of congresspersons who appear inclined to roll back the overall statist trend even the tiniest bit all appear to be Republicans, albeit mostly on the economic front. If you can name some Democrats I missed who overall would increase our freedom, please do so. Hillary? Obama? Edwards? Please.

  • Grotius||

    jh,

    Hayek wrote a little piece titled "Why I Am Not A Conservative."

  • ||

    ...and the tiny handful of congresspersons who appear inclined to roll back the overall statist trend even the tiniest bit all appear to be Republicans

    Not that it matters much, since they caucus with the massive Christian Authoritarian Socialist wing.

  • ||

    I think some people here have confused the modern American conservative movement, which has been largely classically liberal, with the European conservative movement, which has been a variety of things, classically liberal rarely among them.

    Libertarians and conservatives go together in the United States because they've historically opposed most of the same things. It wasn't until the last ten or twenty years that conservatism had enough political capital for the differences in what the two groups were actually for to come to the surface.

    That said, libertarians belong much more with the conservatives in America than with the liberals. Off the top of my head, sexual rights in general are the only point, rhetorical or practically, that the liberals tend to be more libertarian than conservatives.

  • ||

    Libertarians get lumped in with republicans because you want the same things:

    1. lower or no taxes
    2. No regulation
    3. Hatred of Affirmative Action

    And neither of you could care less about the rights of women, gays, and blacks, at least not enough to do anything about it. Libertarians state "well, we can't have the government do anything", and Republicans say "things are great as they are." Result? Neither does anything.

    The description of Libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke pot is all too true. I've read far more rants on H&R about lowering taxes and the War on Drugs than I have on civil liberties.

    And I note that Reason has remained totally quiet on the entire medical contamination/pet food contamination issue.

  • Grotius||

  • ||

    wow, grumpy, you couldn't possibly have shown any less thought in that insipid little post of yours, huh?

    If we suck so bad, maybe you should take your happy ass on down the road. You're not adding anything to the debate here....unless you count the round thrashing you gave that strawman and launching your ad hominems.

  • ||

    Not at all. Liberalism and libertarianism (in the modern, American meanings of those words) are two branches of the same family tree. Liberals embraced the idea of "positive" liberty, while libertarians generally approve of "negative" liberty only.

    The only thing that those two ideas have in common is that they both have the word "liberty" in them.

    In the world of practical policy and ideas they are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

  • Thomas Paine\'s Goiter||

    Cause WE ARE FUCKING RIGHT WING!!!

    Raise your hand if you had fruit loops for breakfast. And lunch.

  • ||

    champale for breakfast

    beer for lunch

    40 year old scotch for supper.(it is sunday after all)

    I am trying to emulate Churchill in some ways.

  • ||

    Ken said,

    I'm always more confused as to why libertarians lump themselves in with conservatives or the GOP in general. Democrats and liberals have their annoying public health wing, but otherwise they are much more friendly to freedom in lifestyle for the majority of folks.

    Because the idea that democrats are more friendly to freedom is a myth.

    Democrat politicians have every bit of the cultural conservatism of the republicans. In the past we had the gores and the complaints over music videos, today we have hilary clintion's ongoing attacks on video games. Bill Clinton signed the defense of marriage act which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. So when push came to shove the democrat president was happy to join up with the social conservatives.

    Plus the democrats want to regulate what we eat, listen to (regulation of the media via the fairness doctrine), what type of cities and house we live in (numerous planning boards etc that answer to nobody), the kind of cars we drive, etc.

    The republicans and the democrats are both disasters when it comes to personal freedom.

    Anyone who thinks the democrats respect personal liberty more then the republicans have not been paying attention.

  • ||

    "Jesus: yes
    abortion: no
    gay marriage: no
    prayer in school: yes

    Not much libertarian thought in those positions Ben - at least if you are advocating government promotion/enforcement."

    No advocacy here, just saying that the voters in general pick 1 or 2 hot button issues to line up a candidate and dont pay attention to the rest. It is what will ruin Giuliani's chances. His lack of clear stance on Abortion.
    I think that voters from the shallow end of the gene pool will look at hillary and giuliani and say,"they both like abortion but she is Bill's wife and he was really good for us and she is gonna fix health care so I will vote for her.

  • ||

    Ken said

    I'm much more worried about my freedoms to drink alcohol, get wild in the bedroom, read,, and do what I want

    Good for you Ken, party on!

    Unfortuantely for you it is hard to pay for that partying if you can't get a job or keep the money you made at that job.

    You miss the absolutely fundamental fact that personal freedom is not possible without economic freedom.

    Economic and tax policy impacts the personal freedom of every person in the US. They impact the personal freedom of far more people in far more ways then the right to drink alcohol ever will.

  • ||

    All I'm sayin is that from where I sit, libertarians put a lot more thought into candidates than the general population.

    It ain't rocket science. It's more like used car sales to most of us. Make us like someone and we'll vote for them. George W. Bush was the most tolerable candidate to us common folk.
    Had it been Edwards/Kerry, it would have worked better.

    Image is everything.

  • ||

    The republicans and the democrats are both disasters when it comes to personal freedom.

    Anyone who thinks the democrats respect personal liberty more then the republicans have not been paying attention.


    That's a wrap!

  • ||

    Anyone who thinks the democrats respect personal liberty more then the republicans have not been paying attention.

    Well, I think it depends on what you mean when you say Democrats. Absolutely democratic politicians aren't any generally better on civil liberties than Republican politicians (and Republican politicians aren't any better on economic ones). I think there is more widespread support among Democratic voters for things like drug legalization and the rights of the accused than there is among Republican voters and more support among Republican voters for lowering taxes and spending than there is among Democratic voters.

  • ||

    You might want to point out that while [LaRouche] has never run as a Libertarian, he has run several times as a Democrat.

    I was actually aware of that at the time (and that he ran under his own party - The American Worker party or some such), but the person who asked me if I liked him was one of those who are immune to both thought and facts. Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.

  • ||

    "Well, I think it depends on what you mean when you say Democrats. Absolutely democratic politicians aren't any generally better on civil liberties than Republican politicians..."
    John, you're either drunk or not paying attention to say that...How many Republicans opposed the NSA program, military trials or Gitmo provisions (like five)? Not all the Dems have, but they are the only party with a sizable portion that did or do. Flag burning? Posting the 10 Commandments? Are there ANY GOPers who don't fall in line for that one? Trained seals there...Every now and then you get a GOP official who talks about 4th, 5th, or 1st Amendment Rights, but thats why you hear about it, it's really news when they do.
    http://www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1a.pdf
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/timespoll/la-463pa3an,1,457920.story?coll=la-news-times_poll-nation

    A majority of both parties support the War on Drugs, but the Dems have much more folks who want to use prevention and treatment over interdiciton and law enforcement. And they are more likely as politicians and the public to favor things like medical marijuana.
    http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t269.pdf

  • ||

    "Economic and tax policy impacts the personal freedom of every person in the US. They impact the personal freedom of far more people in far more ways then the right to drink alcohol ever will."
    Is that true? I mean, I've read Hayek, and it made sense to me. But my friends who live or travel in Europe seem to report back to me that there is plenty if not more cultural freedom there, though the tax and economic policies are, shall we say, contrary to what ol' Hayek proposed.
    There's a central point here: the religious right owns the GOP right now. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Orrin Hatch...No drinking (grape juice at communion even!), no variation in sexual positions (it was National Review that howled and American Prosepct that rejoiced when Lawrence v. Texas finally killed sodomy laws), no drugs (anyone remember that the whole War on Drugs started with Nixon and Reagan, you know, sticking it to those hairy hippies and their 'pot'), no tolerance for art that is the least bit offensive (see Catholic League, Moral Majority, etc), no gaming (online poker slain by GOPers)...

  • ||

    Ken,

    How many Democratic officials voted against the Real ID act, the Patriot act, and the war in Iraq in the first place? If you go to congress you can certainly get some split votes, but not enough to make a real difference. Certainly a majority of elected democratic politicians do not have a significantly better record on civil liberties than their republican counterparts. Certainly a small minority of democratic politicians have some reasonable views on some of the issues that you mentioned, but if we want to talk about minorities that are too small to matter politically, it's worth noting that the best elected official on civil liberties is a Republican...not that it does anyone any good.

    I'm not sure why you posted the links, since I had already made the statement that I think Democratic voters are better on civil liberties...my comments were restricted to nationally elected congressmen.

    FWIW, I can't remember the last time I voted for either a Republican or a Democrat for national office, so I'm certainly not trying to take sides in the debate of which side sucks less...more trying to point out that while the leaders they elect are terrible, there are things that are worth respecting in a lot of Republican and Democratic voters.

  • NP||

    thoreau,

    "but Reason, to its discredit, does publish columnists like Michael Young whose approach to foreign policy is perhaps better described as neoconservative than libertarian."

    Fixed that for you.


    I know you probably meant that half facetiously, but if not the point I was trying to make was not that I agree with Michael Young (I do only to a certain extent), but that Reason is willing to give voice to a variety of views that most libertarians don't agree with.

  • Guy Montag||


    1. lower or no taxes
    2. No regulation
    3. Hatred of Affirmative Action


    The last two contridict each other.


    And neither of you could care less about the rights of women, gays, and blacks, at least not enough to do anything about it. Libertarians state "well, we can't have the government do anything", and Republicans say "things are great as they are." Result? Neither does anything.


    No, we want everybody to have the same rights. Some of us even want unborn babies to have the same rights as you. Now, I am only talking about real rights, not quota systems or treating lilttle innocent unborn babies as if they were grapes to be squished because of a social inconvenience.

    The description of Libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke pot is all too true.


    Some of us don't do that, but don't care who does as long as they are not driving our trucks. It is okay for me, as a private business person, to test you when you arrive at work isn't it? I hope I don't need a law to tell me it is okay.

    I've read far more rants on H&R about lowering taxes and the War on Drugs than I have on civil liberties.

    Hope this fills the gap. Keep your laws and jack-bnoots off of humans and the workplace. Have fun at your next book burning!

  • ||

    Thoreau, thanks for providing an example of liberal collectivism, by changing other peoples' words to fit your prejudices, and condemning others for not censoring on your behalf.

  • dhex||

    "Thoreau, thanks for providing an example of liberal collectivism, by changing other peoples' words to fit your prejudices, and condemning others for not censoring on your behalf."

    you are too much!

  • Single Issue Voter||

    ken,
    yeah, blame the drug war on the right again,
    FDR and the New Deal Congress made reefer illegal at the Federal level. Drug Prohibition originates with PROGRESSIVES, you can't hide from history

  • ||

    How incredibly a stupid-ass question is that. Conservatives are our cousins. They are our friends. They are our political allies.


    They're more like the uncle you really don't like to go visit because he'll sneak into the guest bedroom you're sleeping in after your aunt's asleep...

  • ||

    Ken shills for Big Dem...

    A majority of both parties support the War on Drugs, but the Dems have much more folks who want to use prevention and treatment over interdiciton and law enforcement.

    Whoopie-to-do - the state will treat, or otherwise prevent, you from doing what you want with your own body. Remind me, these are the same people that are pro-choice on abortion, right? Not to mention that the safety-nazis (anti-transfat, etc.) tend to come from that side of the aisle too. The only real difference between the Dems and Repubs is in the particulars of which freedoms they don't want you to have. Neither of them are all that keen on making sure you have more freedom.

    Lawrence v. Texas finally killed sodomy laws

    While I applaud the result, it was lousy legal reasoning. It's the same problem with most of the landmark rulings the left so admires.

  • Mike Laursen||

    The only thing that those two ideas have in common is that they both have the word "liberty" in them.

    Liberals support both "positive" and "negative" liberties for the same reason libertarians support "negative" liberties. To free people from oppression. To free them.

    Personally, I think liberals' faith in big government is misgiven, but liberals have good intentions. Not that having good intentions should ever be confused with actually doing good.

  • libertreee||

    Lawrence v. Texas finally killed sodomy laws

    While I applaud the result, it was lousy legal reasoning. It's the same problem with most of the landmark rulings the left so admires.

    Juris--If you are a paleolib, and believe the feds should never interfere with the states even to protect individual rights, you are correct.

    If you are an individualist lib, who believes the 14 Amendment empowers the Supremes to strike down state law in the name of individual rights, then this case is an improvement over Roe v Wade.

    Justice Kennedy did not decide the case based on penumbras coming from eminations. He did not decide the csse based on the right to privacy, which does not exist. He decided the case based on an individual liberty right.

    In that sense, it was good law, even beyond the
    good outcome.

  • Single Issue Voter||

    juris,

    Brown vs Board of Education

    does anything top this in the contrast between just result and fucked up legal reasoning?

  • libertreee||

    DR and the New Deal Congress made reefer illegal at the Federal level. Drug Prohibition originates with PROGRESSIVES, you can't hide from history

    Yes, and in Raich V Gonzales, it was the Liberal judges who upheld the feds drug war against states rights...based on the Commerce Clause. They will not let go of that Commerce Clause at all!

    But, the Conservatives have ratched up the drug war due to the Christian Coalition, Nixon and Reagan...Carter and Clinton were softer on drugs.

  • Single Issue Voter||

    "Carter and Clinton were softer on drugs"

    Carter did a 180 turn from his campaign to his Presidency (attributable in large part to the Peter Bourne scandal) I seem to remember him supporting the poisoning of the marijuana supply with paraquat. How exactly was Clinton "softer on drugs" ? I think this is an example of misperception- well exploited by Democrats at election time with potential constituents- much like the small success they have with pinning the threat of conscription on Republicans.

  • Single Issue Voter||

    Nixon was not a Conservative- wage and price controls and the plethora of 3 letter bureacracies he created.

    I'm not aware of the Christian Right having the Drug War as a top priority.

  • ||

    Single Issue Voter-Wishful thinking. I just finished reading a work on Anslinger. You think that guy was a progressive? You must be smoking something. He was your traditional anti-communist fanatic. Sure, he worked under Democratic administrations, just like J.E. Hoover did, but neither was what you would call a progressive, in any sense of the word. Early prohibition was passed with many a Democratic vote, but the Democratic party was hardly a progressive party back then. It was the conservatives, usually from the South, of that party, you know, the same ones that broke and now are with the GOP that loved to heap the law and order on those "pot or opium smoking no-goods."
    Saying "Nixon was not a conservative" is crazy. Maybe compared to your ideal of a conservative, but he was one of the most right leaning politicians of his time. You're right that he was no William F. Buckley, but William F. Buckley couldn't have won a mayors election much less a Presidential election. You have to compare Nixon to someone like McGovern or Humphrey, and if you do he was far to their right. And it was he that started to ratchet up the War and Drugs. Reagan was far more gung-ho about putting it to those 'dope fiends' than Carter was, and Clinton was attacked by the American Spectator types all the time for being soft on drugs, that his US Attorneys and such were not going after drug cases and the like. Pay attention a little.
    NORML recently had a rnaking of congressmen and women. I don't recall the GOP doing very well. The GOP has always been intolerant of anything not "traditional" and they don't see drug use as traditional. Did you miss that?
    I love the fellow who wanted to use Raich to attack liberals. Did you not even read the second party to that case, Gonzalez, as in the BUSH ADMINISTRATION genuis. Reno had expressly DECLINED to prosecute that case, and conservatives like Ashcroft flipped out. When they got in power they went after California (a liberal state) big time.

  • ||

    libertree-

    If you are an individualist lib, who believes the 14 Amendment empowers the Supremes to strike down state law in the name of individual rights, then this case is an improvement over Roe v Wade.

    I would buy that as long as the Supremes were singing in the key of 9th [Amdt] - which they definitely were not. In this case, as in many others, it just comes down to selective [ab]use of due process in order to get the desired result. Kennedy's opinion is no improvement on Roe at all. Rather like Scalia's twisted reasoning in Raich - the result does not flow cleanly from the principle.

    SIV-

    does anything top [Brown] in the contrast between just result and fucked up legal reasoning?

    Actually, Plessy was the fucked up decision. Nothing wrong with correcting the system when it's gone off the track. Perhaps one day the Court will drive a stake through the heart of Wickard v. Filburn, and all the zombie progeny arising thereunder will collapse. If only [sigh].

  • SIV||

    juris,

    In Brown I'm referring to the basing of the descision on the psychological harm of segregation rather than that the State can not Constitutionally discriminate on the basis of race.

    Plessy was one of those "progressive" rulings that segregation was good social policy.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Ohhh, Grump, you are as full of crap as a Christmas Turkey.

    Libertarians hate taxes because it cuts into the dope budget, we hate AA because it is simply too close to AAA and we don't like car clubs. Wait. We hate AA too, because it is too close to getting off booze or dope.

    What, exactly, do you want to do about Women's Rights? Give them the right to vote? WTF? How about we allow them to own property? WTF? How about we let chicks be hookers? Nope, can't do that, we're all Republicans. How about letting chicks go topless at the beach? WTF? We ain't Frogs. And Driver Licenses, well, not only NO, but hell NO, everybody knows chicks can't drive, may as well give licenses to Vetnamese refugees.

    And Blacks, we like blacks dude, hey, Walter Williams, and that Supreme Court Guy, plus, there's that writer black guy too. Sowell, man Sowell. Sounds like he's calling hogs. What? You ARE a racist, aren't you?

  • ||

    Ohhh, Grump, you are as full of crap as a Christmas Turkey.

    It's goose, Winesewer. The expression is "your as full of crap as a Christmas goose"!

    This comes from the well-known propensity of geese to crap all over the damned place. ;-)

  • ||

    We do like A though, because A is A.

  • ||

    Also comes from the fact that a goose is the traditional Christmas feast bird - in the UK anyway.

  • ||

    It's goose, Winesewer.

    er...make that Commonsewer. (It's been a long day.)

  • grylliade||

    How incredibly a stupid-ass question is that. Conservatives are our cousins. They are our friends. They are our political allies.



    No, they're not. They've used us, for years. They've appropriated our rhetoric, using the language of liberty to get elected. Then, once elected, they shit all over liberty and wipe their asses with the Constitution, just to stay in power.

    Were they our allies, they'd at least try to throw us a bone every now and then. Hell, even if we were their lapdogs, we'd get more than we get now. Instead, the Republicans tell us that, if we vote for them, they'll make the government smaller. We're the abused wife that keeps on coming back when her husband says he's sorry.

    Not that the Democrats would treat us any better. They're fuckheads, too.

    Instead of pretending that we "should" be allied with the Republicans, let's ally with them only when we can get something in return. Same with the Democrats. Let's advance the cause of liberty as much as we possibly can, however little that may be. A pox on both their houses, and fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

  • miche||

    Foxhunter | May 6, 2007, 3:42am | #

    "Mother in law is in town and she took my copy of reason to bed with her. She liked the tagline."

    -miche

    I always take my Reason to bed with me and it's not because of the tagline. ;-D

    Foxhunter may need leave the magazine beding if he wants somehing from Mrs, Foxhunnter,

  • miche||

    damnn that looks crazy and my ambien just hit me.It's gonna a weird night.

    Ambien X 2 + one vodka lemonade the room is startig to spin and walls are wavy-- Party time startinng-will tell you how was tuesday.

    That took 10 to type wuth errorsl Sorry, buy i am officiall fucked on legal drugs taken at same time ad manner,

    If you cannot read what I wrote, Sorry. I willlgive you the fornula when I a sober.

  • ||

    "Personally, I think liberals' faith in big government is misgiven, but liberals have good intentions. Not that having good intentions should ever be confused with actually doing good."

    Who gives a damn about intentions? I'll happily take a selfish miscreant who doesn't even like me, but who due to Adam Smith's Invisible Hand ends up benefiting me, over some oh-so-kind-hearted statist who inevitably strips me of my freedom in an attempt to help the downtrodden and/or "the children".

    There seems to be an direct correlation between a politician's alleged selflessness and the amount of liberty they confiscate.

  • Guy Montag||

    Yesterday morning, I had Fox News' so-called "business" shows on as background noise. What a bunch of jabbering imbeciles. There was a lot of huffing and puffing about gas prices, in which the general consensus seemed to be, "I'm paying too much for gas. Somebody (in the government) ought to DO something."
    Oddly enough, nobody said anything about the useful signal high prices send to consumers.


    Well, if this was the Forbes on FOX segment that just re-ran, it seems you missed a lot of information. Mainly the subject.

    They were talking about Nancy Pelosi's promise to pass legeslation in the first 100 hours of the new Congress to lower gas prices.

    The bright folks on the panel suggested the government stay out of the way and allow more refineries to be built, drill in ANWR, etc.

    Maybe you think that is idiotic, oh well.

    The regulation contingent said these laws have not yet had a chance to work, even though they could not name one that was passed and I forgot what they said about Hillary's want to sieze energy company profits or how that would help lower any prices.

  • ||

    Ken,

    You do know that the Clinton justice department started the raids on medical marijuana centers in California.

    That all of the democrats with the exception of Feingold, voted for the patriot act.

    When it comes to personal liberty the main difference between the democrats and the republicans is the democrats will give personal liberty some lip service before voting against it.

    Anyone who thinks the democrats are better then the republicans on personal freedom need to pay more attention to the democrat actions and less to the democrat rhetoric.

  • ||

    "I'm baffled as to why people still lump libertarians in with neocons."

    You people spent half a century aggressively pushing a "fusionist" agenda with the Strangeloves, the Bill Connors, and the Jerry Fallwells.

    It's going to a take a little while to scrub that off.

  • Grotius||

    joe,

    "You people?"

    At best libertarianism has always had a troubled relationship with the American right and there certainly is no single voice or vision amongst libertarians.

  • ||

    When you join a coalition, Grotius, you are accepting some broad-stroke categorizations.

  • ||

    When you join a coalition, Grotius, you are accepting some broad-stroke categorizations.

    If that's true, joe, you have no right to complain when we lump you in with other liberals on gun control, eminent domain, "fair" trade, etc.

  • ||

    libertarians | May 7, 2007, 1:30am | #

    We do like A though, because A is A.


    libertarians,

    Don't forget - Helping is Futile.

  • dhex||

    "When you join a coalition, Grotius, you are accepting some broad-stroke categorizations."

    or when one is lumped in, as well. or when someone wants to paint with a broad brush because it suits them.

    let's face it - there's not a whole lot of interest in nuance on the left or the right, especially in their more manichean expressions. or their fusionist (esque?) offshoots, like the conservatarians.

  • ||

    Uh. There are only two coalitions that get elected. You can criticize people for who they hang out with as a matter of political expediency, but you probably shouldn't act as though they were ideologically identical.

    It is the same sort of problem you run into if you grab any Democrat at random and paint them as "leftist".

  • Dave W.||

    I think some well-placed suggestions to cut military spending would straighten this gay guy right out.

    I remember when Liberal Avengers said "x billion spent in Iraq and the best Reason can do is attack Liberal Avenger."

    They (meaning actual leftwingers) see you go after military spending and then they know you are not neo-cons. Otherwise the difference is kind of technical and abstract.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    It's goose, Winesewer. The expression is "your as full of crap as a Christmas goose"!

    Iceburg, Goldberg, what the hell's the difference? :-)

    The origin of the idea that one can be as full of crap as a Christmas turkey came from the stuffing that Americans make from all sorts of 'crap'. And Turkey is the main course for almost everybody's Christmas dinner, except of course, the Jews........

    I have known a couple of people who have Goose for Christmas though. Both swear by it and would never consider anything other.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I see Miche's been in the Schapps again. :-)

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    SASOB, I once told someone they were as full of crap as a Christmas turkey and the guy responded by saying....

    Boy, I guess I don't want to come to your place for Christmas dinner.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    You people spent half a century aggressively pushing a "fusionist" agenda with the Strangeloves, the Bill Connors, and the Jerry Fallwells.

    You People? What are we, the IRS? You People?

    Joe, I think you've outdone yourself with that remark. To be polite, that statement is a gross misrepresentation on a par with reporting Lynden LaRouche as a libertarian. Might be deliberate, or maybe you just had a couple of twelve packs. Doesn't much matter to me. That pretty much sets the record straight on your credibility. I'd expect shit like that from Kos, but I thought you had more sense.

  • ||

    Look up "fusionism" on Wikipedia, TWC, and spare me the wailing.

    No, the decades-long alliance between libertarians, Cold Warriors, Big Businessess, and "cultural traditionalists" is not a smear invented by liberals. It's your history, and it's going to take some time before libertarianism isn't primarily viewed as part of the Republican Right coalition.

  • One Good Snark Deserves Anothe||

    . . . take some time . . .

    and it will take less time as libertarians become more pro-active about breaking those ties. I have my issues with Mona, but she does some real nice work in this area.

  • Grotius||

    joe,

    You didn't address my comment.

    There are no "you people." Libertarianism comes in many different flavors and a lot of flavors want nothing to do with Fallwell, etc.

  • ||

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070505/ap_on_re_eu/un_organic_food_1

    Organic food better in the long run?
    Are yields the only metric that matters?

  • ||

    Grotius,

    Every political faction can be so broken down. Nonetheless, it is possible to speak about them as a whole with some degree of accuracy. Particularly when discussing that faction's profile among the general public.

  • ||

    Remember, Grotius and everybody, that joe is a pinko commie collectivist who tends only to think in terms of groups, not in terms of differentiated individuals. Just like all those other lefty socialists. ;)

  • ||

    joe sez Look up "fusionism" on Wikipedia

    Oh joe, you make me all quivery when you get so authoritative.

  • libertreee||

    love the fellow who wanted to use Raich to attack liberals. Did you not even read the second party to that case, Gonzalez, as in the BUSH ADMINISTRATION genuis. Reno had expressly DECLINED to prosecute that case, and conservatives like Ashcroft flipped out. When they got in power they went after California (a liberal state) big time.

    You may not have read the decision. The Libertarian and the Moderate (Thomas and O'connor) voted for states rights over the broad interpretation of the commerce clause that liberals refuse to give up...

    The liberals (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer) wrote the majority opinion defending the commerce clause against state and individual rights. Scalia and Rehquist (I believe) sided with the liberals, but on different grounds.

    If Reno did not pursue the case, it may be because she knew which way the dice would roll,and didn't want to challenge the commerce clause even to uphold individual and states rights.

  • libertreee||

    I would buy that as long as the Supremes were singing in the key of 9th [Amdt] - which they definitely were not. In this case, as in many others, it just comes down to selective [ab]use of due process in order to get the desired result. Kennedy's opinion is no improvement on Roe at all. Rather like Scalia's twisted reasoning in Raich - the result does not flow cleanly from the principle.

    Juris Imprudent--

    But, Kennedy DID reference the Ninth Amendment. He did so in the abortion case he wrote the opinion on as well, Casey.

    For more details, see Randy Barnett

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