Michael Lind: Libertarians "Apologize for Autocracy" and "Side with the Confederacy"

Writing at Salon, Michael Lind of the liberal New America Foundation attacks libertarians as crypto-fascists who “apologize for autocracy.” It’s a long screed riddled with errors and misleading statements, so in the interest of space I’ll focus on the overall theme, which is that libertarians have been on the wrong side of American history since at least the Civil War. Here’s one way Lind makes this bogus claim:

[W]here was the libertarian right during the great struggles for individual liberty in America in the last half-century?... [C]ivil libertarian activists are found overwhelmingly on the left. Their right-wing brethren have been concerned with issues more important than civil rights, voting rights, abuses by police and the military, and the subordination of politics to religion -- issues like the campaign to expand human freedom by turning highways over to toll-extracting private corporations and the crusade to funnel money from Social Security to Wall Street brokerage firms.

I challenge Lind to name, if he can, a liberal or progressive who’s done as much good work on behalf of the cause of “abuses by police” than the libertarian journalist Radley Balko, whose investigative reporting has exposed police and prosecutorial misconduct and also helped get a man off of death row and out of prison, among other things. As for abuses by the military, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman played a key role in ending the draft, which ought to count for something.

But what about state-sanctioned racism and civil rights? Have libertarians been absent from that fight?

No.

The NAACP’s first president (and one of its founders) was a libertarian lawyer named Moorfield Storey who argued and won that organization’s first victory before the Supreme Court, the 1917 case of Buchanan v. Warley. Storey’s libertarian constitutional defense of property rights convinced the Supreme Court to strike down a Jim Crow residential segregation law. Lind may not have heard of this case, but his ignorance doesn’t make Buchanan any less important as a component of American’s long march towards racial equality. (Storey was also a founder and president of the Anti-Imperialist League, which opposed U.S. annexation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War—but then again, Lind didn’t include either the anti-imperialist or anti-war movements in his definition of “the great struggles” for liberty. Maybe that's because he thinks Vietnam was "the necessary war.")

Lind should also consider the extraordinary civil rights contributions made by libertarian hero T.R.M. Howard. A wealthy surgeon, entrepreneur, and mutual aid leader in Jim Crow Mississippi, Howard “consistently pushed an agenda of self-help, black business, and political equality whenever opportunities arose,” observe his biographers David and Linda Beito. Among other accomplishments, Howard founded and led the pioneering Regional Council of Negro Leadership, which organized early economic boycotts (“Don’t Buy Gas Where You Can’t Shop”) and hounded racist state officials to follow the letter of the law. He also persuaded the NAACP to deposit its money in the black-owned Tri-State Bank of Memphis, where he was a board member. This allowed the civil rights group to flex its economic muscles without having its credit frozen by racist white bankers and their government allies. As for his politics, Howard once said that he wished “one bomb could be fashioned that would blow every Communist in America right back to Russia where they belong.” He also once said, “There is not a thing wrong with Mississippi today that real Jeffersonian democracy and the religion of Jesus Christ cannot solve.”

Finally, Lind gives us this charming smear:

When it comes to American history, libertarians tend retrospectively to side with the Confederacy against the Union.

Below are a few of the things published by Reason—a libertarian publication, or so I’ve heard—which most certainly do not side with the Confederacy. Once again, Lind should have done more research before running off at the mouth.

Southern Nationalism: Exploring the roots of the Civil War. By Charles Oliver.

The Confederate Leviathan. By Ronald Bailey.

Wrong Song of the South: The dangerous fallacies of Confederate multiculturalism. By David Beito and Charles Nuckolls.

‘A Glorious Liberty Document’: Frederick Douglass’ case for an anti-slavery Constitution. By Damon Root.

The Trouble with Thomas Jefferson: The eloquent Founder's original sin. By Damon Root.

Up from Slavery: There's no such thing as a golden age of lost liberty. By David Boaz.

To put all of that another way, despite what Lind’s sloppy and uninformed article would have you believe, libertarians have played a key role in “the great struggles for individual liberty in America.” Nothing he writes will change that fact.

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.

  • Restoras||

    When you see a threat, discredit and smear with any means available, including lies and half truths. Oh, and being sloppy/lazy/stupid helps.

  • ||

    Sheesh. For a "philosophy" that, as we have been told time and again, is on the ascendency, libertarians as of late are getting awfully defensive. Haven't the Reason-Rupe polls proved conclusively that a bright libertarian America is just beyond the horizon?

  • Pip[||

    WHAT THE FUCK???

    No five hat-tips to Barry Loberfield???

  • kinnath||

    Loberfield was late. I posted first in the morning links.

  • Pip[||

    It was a joke.

  • kinnath||

    Sorry, sinus headaches squash my sarcasm meter.

  • ||

    This was in the morning links earlier this week. You guys are days behind your own readers.

    How dare any liberal accuse any political opponent of "apologizing for autocracy" after Western liberalism's sorry ass record of appeasing and excusing the crimes of communism. Fuck you Lind. That blood isn't coming off your hands no matter how hard you pretend it isn't there.

  • Amakudari||

    Well, Lind is a liberal anticommunist.

    We don't have much to say about them as they've been mercifully excised from American politics.

  • cynical||

    "This was in the morning links earlier this week. You guys are days behind your own readers."

    Yes, well they had to actually write a rebuttal rather than post a link and wait for the hate to flow.

  • kinnath||

    A day late, and a dollar short......

  • Tim||

    Root you drunken bastard (shakes fist)!

  • ||

    http://new.music.yahoo.com/blo.....000-honda/

    Justin Beber apparently owns an F340. I wonder how much Ferrari plans to pay him never to be seen in one of their cars again.

  • Abdul||

    There you go, apologizing for corporations at the expnese of oppressed teenaged transexuals. You libertarians make me sick.

  • ||

    I am serious. If you were spending several hundred thousand dollars on a car, would you buy the Astin Martin DBS that someone cool like the Daniel Craig drives or would you buy the Ferrari and always know that you are driving "Justin Beber's car". I would buy the Astin. This is a big problem for the brand. Recent Abercrombi and Fitch offered one of the freaks on Jersey Shore a big payout to stop wearing their clothes. It was killing their brand. Same thing here.

  • O2||

    several hundred thousand? vintage Tbird w the 427

  • ||

    I would buy a classic car too. But it would be an AC Cobra with the 427.

  • ||

    for myself - something custom-built

    like the '88 Monte Carlo SS I saw with the 6-speed manual and LS7 engine.

    ah, here it is:
    http://www.ls7montess.com/

  • Pip||

    I had a '71 Monte with a 350 V8, GM quadrajet and a posi rear end.

    That fucker was fast.

  • ||

    The LS7 engine is absolutely brilliant. One of the best engines in the world.

  • GSL||

    Oh yeah. Years ago I had a coworker who owned a 72 (I think) Hemi Roadrunner. Would give my right arm for a car like that now.

  • Echton||

    I had one of those. First car I owned. bought it for a grand when I turned 16. Still my favorite car of all time.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I make my purchases solely on utility. Neither of those cars would do well in a Pennsylvania winter. What celebrities do is of little concern to me. Canadians, doubly so.

  • ||

    You can buy a civilian version of this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marauder_(vehicle)

    for around a half a million. That ought to stand up to the winters.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm pretty good a parallel parking, but not that good. Then again, maybe you don't have to be good if you're wedging that thing into tight spaces. (TWSS)

  • Tacos mmm...||

    I would get a 458; I don't care who else owns one. I would have sex with that car.

  • ||

    I would have sex with a lot of cars. And if I had the money to buy a 458, I would have sex with one that hadn't been with Justin Beiber.

  • ||

    I am pretty sure that only d-bags buy Ferrari & Lambos any ways, so it isn't hurting their brand at all.

  • Pip||

    Pretty plain looking for a Ferrari.

    (but i'd gladly own and drive it)

  • ||

    Ferrari peaked in the 60s. They will never make a car as beautiful as this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....O_34_2.jpg

    or this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....left_2.jpg

    But I think they have gotten better in recent years. The 1980s Magnum PI cars or worse the Fiat made Dinos were a low point.

  • Joe M||

    That 250 GTO is damn sexy.

  • ||

    Considered the greatest Ferrari ever. I think the last one that came up at auction went for about 18 million.

  • robc||

    I always liked the Ferrari 456. Didnt look like a Ferrari or a sports car for that matter, but could do 180.

    If I had had a couple hundred k to drop on a car in 1993, I would have got one.

  • ||

    I agree. It is not just a track monster. The suspension is set so that you could actually drive it long distances in comfort. A true grand tourer. It was replaced by the 612, which I think looks even better.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....Scaglietti

  • robc||

    300k for the FF which is replacing the 612.

    Four wheel drive...anyone got 300k I can waste?

  • ||

    I think the last one that came up at auction went for about 18 million.

    1962?? What the fuck?!?!

    All the patents are up...for 18 million you could easily remake 30 of them.

    Old cars and the people who buy them are idiots.

  • Warty||

    I read that as F350, and I was wondering why he needed to haul horse trailers around. F340 makes much more sense.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    HE'S CANADIAN. Goalie pads and Molson kegs won't fit in the Ferrari.

  • ||

    All he spends is $187,000 on a car? Damn, kid, you have the money, get something really retarded.

  • Warty||

    I just hope he'll bisect himself with a telephone pole while driving a Bugatti or something.

  • ||

    He's not cool enough to pull a Ryan Dunn.

    Too soon?

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    It wasn't "too soon" by late that afternoon. The man spent his life putting himself into potentially life-threatening situations. He would want us to make jokes at his expense.

  • Warty||

    That's why I want the poor kid to have an awesome death. He'll never redeem himself in life, you know?

  • ||

    I am told that there is a private race track in upstate New York where celebrities and other rich people take their exotic cars out to run. Beber is a member. Would it be too much to ask that he blow a tire at 150 miles per hour and flip into a few other equally annoying celebrities creating a fiery crash and death for all?

  • Gojira||

    I want him to pull a Lance Murdock and fall into a pool of lions, electric eels, sharks, et al.

    Or spontaneous combustion on-stage during some Africa aid concert.

  • ||

    I think he'll have a long career in AIDS activism. It'll be important for him to speak out. It will give others the courage to talk about their own struggles.

  • ||

    He stole his whole career and act from Sanjia anyway.

  • Gojira||

    I think he'll have a long career in AIDS activism. It'll be important for him to speak out. It will give others the courage to talk about their own struggles.

    Gotta +1 that.

  • ||

    It's an F430, F340 is a typo. Also, the street price for one in SoCal runs more like 210-220k if you want to get one now, as the Ferrari dealers there tend to have a 6 month waiting list.

  • ||

    What the fuck business is it of yours, John?

  • ||

    Nice violence fantasies above, I would add.

    I just hope he'll bisect himself with a telephone pole.

    I want the poor kid to have an awesome death.

    Would it be too much to ask that he blow a tire at 150 miles per hour and flip into a few other equally annoying celebrities creating a fiery crash and death for all?

    I want him to pull a Lance Murdock and fall into a pool of lions, electric eels, sharks.

    I think he'll have a long career in AIDS activism.

    Stay classy, gents. Awesome AIDS-wish, SugarFree.


  • ||

    Beiber fans get so emotional.

  • Apatheist||

    I'm touched by your genuine concern.

  • KPres||

    It was moving, wasn't it?

  • Almanian||

    White Injun?

  • ||

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....strip-club

    HIV charity uses federal dollars to open a strip club.

  • Warty||

    Is there a better use for federal money?

  • ||

    Not really. It employs single mothers. Keeps them off of welfare.

  • Tim||

    Paying kids to ride around the middle east looking for roadside bombs. Paying farmers not to farm. Paying unemployed people to keep not working.

  • Abdul||

    You left out the best part--the charity's name is "Miracle Hands."

    Somewhere, a massage parlor is filing a trademark infringement suit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Damon is wasting his pixels. People like Lind don't give a shit about facts. What is should be true is true for them. He'd read this and barely blink.

  • ||

    When it comes to American history, libertarians tend retrospectively to side with the Confederacy against the Union.

    Yes, and if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.

    Fuck you, Michael Lind.

    I have no problem stating that I am wholly against Lincoln's launching of full scale war and the South's horrific institution of slavery. But such thinking blows the little mind of a fuckstain like Lind.

    Liberals who are Anti-war. How does that work again?

  • ||

    I've always said--as a Southerner whose family was all here fighting the North at the time--that the Union was justified in fighting to free the slaves (and yes, I know that wasn't really their sole motivation). If they'd kicked the South's butt and said "Don't do it again, or we'll come back; otherwise, enjoy your little country", I think people would have less of an issue with what happened.

    As it is, the idea that secession--which is central to American philosophy (See Independence, Declaration of)--was taken away as a right because of the use of military force, well, that was the beginning of the federal government thinking that it could do whatever it wanted.

    I'm not a Rockwell libertarian, but it's not some crazed pro-slavery, racist, or fascist belief system that results in some libertarians having sympathy for the South in the Civil War. The reason most of them do has less to do with the South and what it did wrong (or right) and more to do with the tyrannical actions that the North engaged in during and after the war, which, unfortunately, have trickled down as precedent to this day. Obviously, no libertarian is pro-slavery, and it's ridiculous to think they are.

  • ||

    Of course if the North hadn't engaged in those actions, they would have lost the war. I blame the entire thing on the South. They are the ones who had the evil system of slavery. And they never gave a rats ass about states rights or freedom or anything other than keeping their own fucked up evil institution of slavery.

    Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. He just planned to end the fugitive slave law and stop the spread of slavery into the territories. And for that the South went nuts and started shooting. In one sense they were right. Slavery was eventually going to become so odious to the rest of the country that the constitution would be Amended to end it. But it was going to end anyway. You couldn't have had a country in the 20th Century that practiced widespread slavery. Eventually people would have refused to trade with the South. It would have been an outlaw nation. And it also, with the invention of repeating rifles and high yield explosives, have had to have been a police state to keep from having a slave revolt.

    Every Southerner ought to kiss Lincoln's ass and thank him for saving them from their own ignorance and that fate. And every Northerner ought to kick any confederate sympathizer in the ass for defending such an evil system and a system that created a war and a giant federal government to win it.

  • ||

    Plenty of blame to go around. Dumb-ass Southerners should've seen the economic writing on the wall for slavery, if nothing else. The fact that it was a totally evil practice and absolutely contradicting everything Americans stand for aside.

  • ||

    My read was that the whole Civil War started due to an emotional response to being dumped.

    "Bitch, you ain't leaving this house."

    Anyway, as John somewhat implied, even a peaceful succession likely would have ended in Civil War unless the South final saw the writing on the wall and ended things peacefully. But a slave-led Civil War, supported by Northern abolitionists, would at least have been actually about slavery, instead the war we had, which was rooted in Federalism.

    In my mind, motivations matter.

  • ||

    But a slave lead insurrection would have been a hundred times worse than the civil war. It would have lasted decades and turned the South into Latin America.

  • ||

    I don't think so. A slave led insurrection would have eventually also led to a North/South civil war, as I doubt that a North that would have become even more abolitionist than it was in 1860 would have stood on the sidelines.

    The net result might have been the same, but the motivations would have been far different (and in my view, far more just). It may have also led to a more libertarian society where freedom was the focus instead of the state (wishful thinking at its best).

    In any event, a slave led insurrection was not inevitable. The South could have eventually gone the way of England. But the conflict over Federalism removed that possibility.

  • ||

    Ultimately, slavery delayed industrialization by the South, and that is what really killed them. William Tecumseh Sherman foresaw just how damaging that was to their cause in a letter to his Southern friend Prof. David F. Boyd:


    You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.
  • ||

    Sherman was nothing if not prescient. He also said it was going to take three years and hundreds of thousands of lives to conquer the South. His bosses thought him insane.

  • Cytotoxic||

    A great man who we should emulate in our counterinsurgency efforts elsewhere. Oh and thanks above for doing your best to vindicate Lind. Cripes you can't make a statement like "Civil war bad" and have it completely unlinked to the continuation of slavery. That is bullshit. Lincoln did some bad stuff like the draft aka military slavery and suspension of HB but he had every right to torch the South. Death to all Slave States. Lastly, I have yet to see any evidence that America was more centralized in governance after the Civil War than before. Actually, it was freer because the slavery was ended.

  • cynical||

    "Death to all Slave States"

    Had they stuck to attacking the state, rather than the society underneath it, maybe people wouldn't have such a problem with them?

  • twv||

    Great, perceptive comment by one of the world's great war criminals. Thanks, Sherm.

  • Destrudo||

    Criminal Schmininal. What a crock. Sherman saw the truth of what war is and must be. It's not some pansy, cover-your-ears-and-say-lalala kinetic military action. It's crush your enemies and see them driven before you. Finish them fast and for good.

  • ||

    You forgot the lamentations of the women.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Of course Sherman marching through the entirety of the south and burning everything to the ground didn't help their economy either, and I'd argue that the economic damage done that was completely unnecessary is STILL being felt to this day.

  • newshutz||

    Sherman took a linear path on his march, which besides not going west of Georgia did not get close to covering "the entirety" of those states he did march through. The economic damage of Sherman's march was small, and to use it as an excuse over 150 years later is silly.

    The main damage of the march was moral. His force was relatively small (~60,000), and yet the Confederacy could do nothing to stop him. He demonstrated that the South had lost the war by his march to the sea. That he had to march from Georgia almost to the Army of Northern Virginia before Lee surrendered is a tragedy caused by the leaders of the Confederacy.

  • Barack Obama||

    "You couldn't have had a country in the 20th Century that practiced widespread slavery"

    Let me be clear, in the 21st Century, progressives will manage to pull it off.

  • ||

    They are the ones who had the evil system of slavery.

    Wait, you mean that slavery didn't exist in the North? It was unique to the South, rather than being a part of almost every human culture that had ever existed? Is this really MNG posting as John?

    Pop quiz: Where in the United States of America was the last slave legally held? Hint: It was NOT in any state which had been a member of the CSA.

    How is it that the Union was so opposed to slavery that they initiated a war over it and yet didn't free their own slaves until after the war?

  • ||

    In 1860, slavery was in the South. It was the South who refused to end slavery and then went to war because they thought the North was going to end it.

    And yes, the North didn't end slavery in the border states until after the war, which shows just how fucking retarded the South was for leaving the Union.

    Why do Libertarians defend the South? It is one thing to say they should have been let go. But it is quite another to defend the aristocratic bible thumping bastards.

  • ||

    Speaking only for myself, I am attempting to defend history, not the CSA. I am personally so appalled at the idea of human slavery that I tried to get my wife to name our first son William Wilberforce Gill. The woman has no vision.

    Claiming that the Civil war was about the emancipation of human slaves is historically inaccurate. While undoubtedly an important factor, I have yet to read of a Union battle cry of "Free the slaves". Indeed, the supposed slave hating Union did not free the slaves in Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware or Missouri until the passage of the 18th(?) amendment of the Constitution, after the end of the war.

    What do you think? How is it that the North was so very opposed to human slavery that they went supposedly went to war over it and yet failed to free their own slaves?

  • Zeb||

    13th amendment.

    And yes, teh war happened because the South wanted to keep slavery, not so much because the North wanted to end it.

  • ||

    Since you have admitted in earlier threads (I think it was you, no offense intended if not)that you didn't know much about the causes of the Civil War, you might find this link interesting.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1828

    I don't think anyone, including myself has ever claimed that slavery wasn't one of many issues over which the war was fought. Claiming it was the only issue is historical revisionism to cast a negative light upon the idea of Federalism. Most often, those who claim it was "about slavery" just happen to also think that Federalism=slavery.

  • M. Simon||

    "Battle Hymn of the Republic"

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Why are you so sure that the south was made up of bible thumping aristocratic bastards? The VAST majority of southerners didn't own slaves because they were DIRT POOR FARMERS made so by slave labor (I.e., they couldn't compete with labor costs) - and the vast majority of those who were able fought for the confederacy.

    There's a lot not to like about some of the things the south was trying to preserve, but boiling everything down to TEH SLAVES!! is both intellectually lazy and dishonest.

  • newshutz||

    "Rich man's war, poor man's fight"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "He just planned to end the fugitive slave law and stop the spread of slavery into the territories."

    His First Inaugural said that a fugitive slave law was OK so long as it protected free blacks from falsely being claimed as slaves. Actual fugitive slaves - he had no problem sending them back to slavery until after the war started and antislavery measures were needed to fight the Confederates.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The Union Army often sent slaves back to slavery until Congress put a stop to it.

  • ||

    True. I was just giving the South the benefit of the doubt. The worst he would have done would have been that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The worst Lincoln could have done was to make the centralizing dog wag the antislavery tail: Central banks, military conscription, suspending civil liberties, etc. He was elected in 1860 on a plan to put slavery, peacefully, on the way to ultimate extinction, and the Republicans assured the voters that *no way* would Lincoln's election lead to secession and war . . . cross our hearts, it will mean peace and rainbow-flavored unicorns. All those threats of secession? Just bluffing!

  • Joe M||

    Questioning any government action makes you racist.

  • Zeb||

    The way I look at it, the North may not have been completely good in the war, but the South was definitely in the wrong. The North wasn't fighting primarily to end slavery, but the South sure as hell was fighting for the purpose of keeping slavery.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    What if the South had offered to end slavery, but they still wanted to secede, and stop paying taxes to enforce the South being an economic colony of the North? Would Lincoln have let them peacably go? Hell no. That would have changed nothing.

    What if Lincoln had offered to let them keep their slaves as long as they'd pay their taxes? Oh wait. That was the actual offer on the table.

    Seems to me taxation/protectionism was the real issue.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It would have changed lots. Lincoln may have done the very same things, but he wouldn't have gotten the abolitionist support he needed at the end in order to finish the war off, and the south would have won their independence.

  • Joe M||

    Come on guys, we desperately need a threadjack.

  • fish||

  • Wayne||

    To put all of that another way, despite what Lind’s sloppy and uninformed article would have you believe, libertarians have played a key role in “the great struggles for individual liberty in America.” Nothing he writes will change that fact.

    Lind is not trying to change that fact, he is miseducating the left, and much of the right, to believe that libertarians are just a bunch of racists.

    It is the decades old, "call them racists" approach, e.g. the journolist progressive who suggested, "let's call them racists". It is somewhat amazing to still see people hurling the "racist" label so long after the label has become a nearly universal joke amongst our young people.

  • ||

    It takes some real Orwellian contortion to call a bunch of borderline anarchists "authoritarian".

  • ||

    Or just some major league stupidity. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to malicious stupidity.

  • M. Simon||

    Simon's Law:
    It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.

  • Thom||

    He's just writing what his audience wants to hear. It's the free market at work, which is kind of ironic. Reason should just write an article about how Lind approves of child molesters or something. Take a cue from their playbook, just write horrible things about people who disagree with you and pass them off as fact.

  • sevo||

    "Come on guys, we desperately need a threadjack."

    How'bout:
    "Solar-cell maker touted by Obama last year is closing its Fremont facilities, laying off 1,100."
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....1KU8G2.DTL
    I'd trust Obama on solar cell tech like I'd trust Lind on libertarianism.
    Can Lind go bust?

  • Joe M||

    Are those jobs created or saved?

  • Amakudari||

    A San Franciscan helpfully suggests, "This is what happens when you make it so easy for China to sell their stuff here. Maybe it's time to reconsider their favored nation status?"

    Or maybe it's because silicon got a bunch cheaper -- Solyndra's main advantage was less reliance on silicon inputs -- and other companies, including American ones, were able to produce the same product at nearly half the cost.

  • sevo||

    "Or maybe it's because silicon got a bunch cheaper -- Solyndra's main advantage was less reliance on silicon inputs -- and other companies, including American ones, were able to produce the same product at nearly half the cost."

    I don't doubt their tech was poor; the entire thing seemed aimed at rent rather than commercial success.
    Beyond that, if the same job can be done by folks making 'way less, WIH were they doing setting up shop in a high-cost labor market?

  • Amakudari||

    It was a bet on dearer prices for silicon. Also, because the modules were tubular, they absorbed light from the roof, which makes the roof itself part of the solar power generation, so light-colored roofs were eligible for a significant federal tax credit. Also, apparently, even though they were selling for double the market price of flat panels, it cost them far more than that to even produce the things.

    In other words, they were banking 100% on rent-seeking. Mainstream Democrats, lovable retards that they are, fell for it hook, line and sinker. I still don't understand how people get duped by solar investments these days, but I guess there's a sucker born every minute.

  • Hirai||

    Like Lysander Spooner, I believe that the South had the right to secede, that the Civil War was a war of conquest, and that the US just swapped one form of slavery for another when they supposedly emancipated slaves in the South. Does that mean I side with the Confederates?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Don't forget Lincoln's draft riots. He used slaves to free slaves.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes it means your a neo-Confederate asshole with a fictitious version of history.

  • cynical||

    Yes. But personally, I have no problem with the theory that the South were the bad guys, because of slavery, and the North were the bad guys, because of seeking sovereignty over CSA territory through military might rather than through consent of the residents.

    'I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.' - Lord Vetinari

  • Libertarians||

    We don't "apologize for autocracy," we merely acknowledge that some aspects of it are better than some aspects of democracy, such as the long term perspective and character of at least some hereditary office holders compared to the typical short-term-thinking demagogues holding high office for a brief time under democracy.

    As for the Confederacy, we don't so much side with them (slavery is the antithesis of liberty, after all) as we acknowledge the basic human right of self-determination and the right of individuals and communities to secede from larger conglomerations. And we might ask those who oppose the secession of the Confederate states due to the existence of slavery in them how the situation is different from the American Revolution against England, when several of the 13 colonies also permitted slavery?

  • ||

    Since when do Libertarians have so much respect for local government? Are you kidding me? These are the same people who say local governments should have no right to pass zoning laws. They couldn't possibly think said governments could have the right to maintain slavery.

  • Hugh Akston||

    There are those amongst us who believe that the authoritarian impulse can never be truly extinguished from humanity. Restricting federal power in favor of local control makes it easier for people to escape communities that insist upon regulating themselves to utopia.

  • ||

    I am a federalist as well. But I am often in the minority on that.

  • Fluffy||

    John,

    I think it's more a recognition of the fact that government derives from the consent of the governed.

    So if the people of the state of California say, "Yesterday we consented to be part of the United States; today we only consent to be part of the Republic of California" I don't see any theoretical way to tell them they're wrong to do that.

    The actual details of the new local government they create may suck, and that would be a reason to oppose that government once it exists. But that comes into play AFTER we acknowledge that they can form their government in the first place.

  • Fiend||

    "Fuck the NCR"

  • newshutz||

    Wouldn't Caesar's Legionary be a more apt "name" on this thread to denounce the NCR?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    California wants to secede? Can we cut that fucker off and push that bitch to sea?

  • Lex||

    Yes.

  • Old Mexican||

    Please don't feed the troll.

  • Bradley||

    Of course, states seceding from other states is not the same thing as an individual seceding from a state. The Confederate States of America denied individuals their basic right to self-determination just as surely as the Union (and more so, when taking slavery into account).

    That doesn't mean libertarians have to condone the Civil War, but it should make us hesitant to get excited over the "right" of a bunch of statists to go off and form smaller-scale (but arguably crueller) institutions of oppression.

  • M Lind||

    STOP COMPLICATING MY NARRATIVE!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    As for the Confederacy, we don't so much side with them (slavery is the antithesis of liberty, after all) as we acknowledge the basic human right of self-determination and the right of individuals and communities to secede from larger conglomerations.

    Right, right.

    From the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article I, Sec. 9, Paragraph 4:

    No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

    But slavery would have gone away naturally. Now pull the other leg.

  • robc||

    So you are saying that the CSA would still have slavery in 2011 if they had been allowed to secede?

    I call bullshit.

    1880. It wouldnt have made it past that.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    And what specific event/technological advancement would have convinced the landed Southern aristocracy to say "okay, we're done with 'negro' (because enslaving white people is simply beyond the pale) slavery and we can find no further use for your forced labor? No railroads we can force you to build, no ironworks we can put you to work in, no tractors we can make you drive, no ditches we can make you dig, you're free to go."

    I'm not that much of an optimist. And historically, slavery is as much a cultural institution as an economic one.

  • tarran||

    In 1860, an escaping slave had to make it north of the Saint Lawrence river to be free.

    If the slave owning states had seceeded, and the remnant of the United states ahd abolished slavery, then the escaping slave would only have to make it to Pennsylvania or Ohio to be free.

    Slavery depends on a police force that returns escaped slaves over a wide swath of territory.

    Moreover, slavery would become prohibitively expensive for the border states like Maryland, where a journey of 15 miles could ensure freedom.

    Marylanders, unable to take advantage of slavery, would pursue other avenues of production, and eventually would see the existence of slavery as a problem (depressing wages, increased taxes, etc) and the phenomenon that drove slavery out of the North would start to drive slavery out of the south.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    In 1860, an escaping slave had to make it north of the Saint Lawrence river to be free.

    If the slave owning states had seceeded, and the remnant of the United states ahd abolished slavery, then the escaping slave would only have to make it to Pennsylvania or Ohio to be free.

    Slavery depends on a police force that returns escaped slaves over a wide swath of territory.

    True, however given the Southern states taste for "filibustering" (see: Narciso Lopez) I find it hard to believe that the Confederate states, in the wake of widespread escape attempts by their slaves, would not have demanded that the United States return them or face war.

  • robc||

    If they thought the actual war went bad, how badly do you think that one would have gone?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If they thought the actual war went bad, how badly do you think that one would have gone?

    Probably about the same. Except the congress in Richmond would have had a few more years to, to paraphrase Robert E. Lee, "eat peanuts and chew tobacco" as Confederate congressmen.

  • ||

    You are surely correct. No other countries in the world ended human slavery so there is no reason to think the CSA would have. Oh, wait....

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Yes, because no one in America would dream of keeping slaves, certainly not in the idyllic neighborhood of Pembrooke Pines Nor do our valuable and trusted allies in Saudi Arabia lure Filipinos into forced labor though they "officially" banned slavery 1962 (in terms of history, about 10 minutes ago).

    Nope, it's all sunshine and lollipops here on planet Earth.

  • ||

    Yep, slavery still exists. And the ONLY times that it has been outlawed in human history were after a bloody civil wars. It simply has never been outlawed otherwise, anywhere. Only some technological advancement makes it possible. Enlightenment doesn't occur....except through State force.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Well gee, I guess if the law says something, that's that. Yay magical governmental pen, what wonders shall you work next now that, in a few deft strokes you liberate all mankind from bondage? Eradicate hunger? Poverty?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Anonymous Coward,

    And what specific event/technological advancement would have convinced the landed Southern aristocracy to say "okay, we're done with 'negro' (because enslaving white people is simply beyond the pale) slavery and we can find no further use for your forced labor?


    The steam tractor.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Re: Old Mexican,

    The steam tractor.

    Alright, so we've got the agriculture covered. How about industry? Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond rented and owned slaves as company property, who were also given skilled positions as puddlers and rollers. I'm sure if the slaveowners had held on until the 20th century, they could have converted their labor to assembly line as well. Take into consideration that our hypothetical Confederacy doesn't want to build an entirely Southern railroad network (if they could work around that annoying clause in their own Constitution which forbade Congress from spending money on internal improvements for the purpose of commerce).

    This is assuming that Southern dreams of filibustering the Caribbean or Latin America did not enable them to acquire new plantations to send slaves to work until they acquired the capital (land rich, cash poor, so I heard) to send steam tractors to their plantations.

  • Joe M||

    Damon, don't you get it? All the people you talk about a left-libertarians. That's how he gets away with this crap.

  • Au H20||

    So, I'm kind of tempted to register on Jezebel just to be an annoying pissant who questions their stats.

    For example, the constant moving target of 1 in 3(or was it 1 in 4, of 80%, or whatever number is in use today) of women have been raped/sexually assaulted. Or the one about how anywhere between 8 and less than 1 percent of rapes are false, but none above that.

    I would probably become the most infamous troll in the history of Jez just for asking basic questions, reading and questioning study's methodology, etc.

  • ||

    It takes a long time to be starred, and even then they ban quickly.

  • Amakudari||

    As much as I'd like to give them shit for not allowing open discussion, they must get trolled a lot. It's so damn tempting sometimes.

  • ||

    I don't have a problem with them banning straight up trolls, but they often ban over mere dissent or humor. Which is fine too, it's their blog and all, and they never made any claims to be interested in free inquiry and debate.

    I like their whole registration and promotion process, and their blog software makes it easy to keep track of responses, even if they ban hard and fast.

  • ||

    Just out of curiosity, how many times have you registered/been banned?

    Dude, be careful. Prolonged exposure to that shit can't be healthy.

  • ||

    Only once, and I've never been banned. I'm a starred commenter and I have 22 followers.

  • Amakudari||

    Is it possible that all commenters are actually men who are trying to gain the credibility necessary to imp feminists?

    Remember, there are no women on the internet.

    The internet was a tough place to get into during the 80s and 90s. One had to have real computer skills to manually set up his network, have patience during the handshake and the subsequent 20 minutes of pageloading, and have the motivation to stay home for hours and lurk - sifting through text and simple images in search of excitement and knowledge. Women have always found distaste in this, preferring to go outside to sunbathe, gossip and seek mates.

    In the 2000s, a feminine interest arose in certain aspects of the technology creating a sudden threat of a newbie infestation. In their wisdom, to prevent Eternal September II, a handful of responsible young men invented social networks such as MySpace on the outskirts of the real internet, to divert female flow and store them in a pseudosite where they can be periodically mined for pics and otherwise contented with Farmville and Photo Comment arguments.
  • ||

    The internet was a tough place to get into during the 80s and 90s.

    Oh, horseshit. In the early 80s, sure.

    But I don't recall doing any of that crap when I started internetting around 1990.

  • Amakudari||

    There was no 20-minute handshake.

    But for some of us, 90s internet was still a thoroughly frustrating experience.

  • np||

    Reminds me of:
    http://rt.com/usa/news/38-schapiro-usa-study/

    False child prostitution report makes headlines

    If you thought the recent statistic published by USA Today saying online sex trafficking of underage girls was on the rise at an astronomical rate was unbelievable, well, that’s because it was.

    USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Miami Heard and other major outlets all published the results of a study released by the Women’s Funding Network that showed that juvenile prostitution was becoming an American epidemic. In the state of Minnesota alone, the number of underage girls trafficked online was said to have gone up over 60 percent in only six months.

    These figures all came after the Women’s Funding Network’s Chief Program Officer Deborah Richardson testified at a September hearing of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary. Richardson rattled off a slew of statistics to a roomful of lawmakers and the numbers quickly trickled down to the mainstream media.

    The gist of it is, they quite literally made shit up.

    They looked at Craigslist Ads, and assumed that 38% of any "young looking" woman was a child prostitute.

    Say what, young lady? No, I don't care how old you are, you ain't looking for date. Can't you see you're a victim of child prostitution?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    This isn't news. It's SOP.

    "My issue is an epidemic! Send money!"

    BOOM. Done.

  • ||

    published the results of a study released by the Women’s Funding Network

    Gee, I wonder what their first clue was that something might not be right?

  • Edwin||

    He's generally not wrong. I've heard Lincoln referred to as a "tyrant" only in libertarian circles, and libertarians' focus on one issue out of purism tends to make them ignore guilty parties that ought to be shamed and serious solutions that might stray away from their purism.

    Not to mention that their ideal proposals are massively unfair and based on kindergarten-logic philosophy. Sure, private running of HIGHWAYS would be great and better, but not every fuckin road in town, I can't pay a toll every 5 minutes. Not to mention that the proposed "privatization" would be theft; public property is common access to everybody, you can't just take that away from people without having in fact stolen something from them.

    Not to mention that that kindergarten-logic philosophy leads to seriously fucked up conclusions. What was it just a couple weeks ago, I AGAIN got a bunch of posters to admit they think they have the right to grope women at the workplace. Or was it justifying murder? I think it was the latter, in the name of "property rights"
    There's only like one libertarian radio show in the whole country and the guy regularly talks about the right to diddle little kids.
    And there's a lot more like that where all that shit came from.
    Then you turn around and try to say it's only a few crazies. Problem is there are very few libertarians, and that shit pops up over and over again.

  • Joe M||

    It's Thursday somewhere.

  • ||

    Retard troll is retarded. Are the adults talking through you, retard?

  • ||

    What was it just a couple weeks ago, I AGAIN got a bunch of posters to admit

    Linx or it didn't happen.

  • Joe M||

  • Edwin||

  • Joe M||

    That first link just keeps backtracking to you making the same accusations over and over again.

  • Joe M||

    The second link is just you making more accusations and blatantly trolling.

  • Amakudari||

    DEAR EVERYONE

    PLEASE IGNORE EDWIN. HE IS A RETARD AND/OR A TROLL.

    THIS HAS BEEN A TEST OF YOUR MONOCLE'S BROADCASTING SYSTEM. PLEASE RESUME EATING BABIES OR ENGAGING IN BLOOD-SOAKED ORGIES.

    THANK YOU

  • Edwin||

    read all my links thoroughly and you'll se it in there

  • Edwin||

  • Joe M||

    The third link is you once again making the same wild accusations (defending the lawn murder) with zero evidence. Linking to yourself failing to link in the past is further failure.

  • Edwin||

    no, you suck at reading

    read all my links and you'll see it in there

    At least Old Mexican and one other poster truly think they have the right to murder kids for walking across their lawns

  • Fluffy||

    I don't see him saying that anywhere.

    I see people saying that you have the right to force people to leave your property.

    That's hardly an extreme view or even a very libertarian one.

    If no one anywhere had the right to ever employ violence to defend property, there would be no property.

    The police will use violence to defend your property, if you call them while someone is trespassing or trying to take your property away.

    Go RIGHT NOW to the discussion appended to any Boston Herald article and loudly announce that you think that no one should ever be allowed to use violence to defend property. Then count the number of people who dispute the issue with you. Are all those people libertarians?

    I was looking more for links to people saying they were entitled to grope women at their workplace.

  • Edwin||

    bullshit

    I was talking about Larry Mugrage, who shot and killed a kid just for walking across his lawn, and Old Mexican and some other poster believe he head the right to do that

    go fuck yourself
    go fuck yourself so hard

  • Joe M||

    Utter bullshit. This is as close as he gets to what you're accusing, whereupon you try pulling a gotcha on an imagined comment. Huh, kinda like now.

  • Edwin||

  • Edwin||

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/08.....tcontainer

    Old Mexican|8.17.11 @ 11:43AM|#

    Re: Edwin,

    Well I once saw a libertarian who said that you could ANYTHING to someone no matter how small the property rights-transgression.

    That would mean you should not mess with his property; the guy means business

  • Edwin||

    I'm not a walking bibliography, but it's all been said before

    That you guys can't remember is because you deliberately have to exercise massive denial to believe your system

    You're telling me that only the good parts of libertarianism matter, and that's bullshit

  • Edwin||

    I couldn't find the Rothbard quote I cited and all the posters agreeing with him, do some fucking googling.

    Anyway Rothbard outright said that groping isn't agression and is consensual

  • Edwin||

    and apogee felt the same way

  • Edwin||

    the libertarian group is filled with sick fucks who think they can do what they want to anybody under the guise of "property right", and I've proven that well beyond the extent I really need to for 5 minute postings on some article

    if you really had some honest beliefes, and really cared about truth, you'd look shit up yourself, I've given you more than enough to google search with

  • Fluffy||

    He seems to be giving you some humorous advice, and not describing a position of any kind.

    In any event, there are plenty of government installations where if I trespassed and then evaded I could very well end up getting shot. So I guess that means you hate the government, too? Since they would murder any one of us for walking where we didn't belong?

  • Fluffy||

    Depending on the context, groping most definitely might not be aggression and might be consensual.

    Hopefully your parents did a little groping before you were conceived. I'd hate to think your dad proceeded directly to penetration without some preparation first. Think of your poor mom, after all.

  • Fluffy||

    the libertarian group is filled with sick fucks who think they can do what they want to anybody under the guise of "property right"

    Since the law of the land holds that force can be used by somebody to remove a trespasser from private property, it seems to me that your beef is with any and all societies that have property. Are they all sick?

  • Edwin||

    Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit fucking Bullshit

    you don't have the right to murder kids just for walking across your lawn

    that you're dissembling so hard shows what a sick fuck you are

    the end

    I win

  • Edwin||

    I quoted Rothbard and numerous posters agreed with him. The ROthbard quote was that employers threatening firing if they dont let lady employyes grope them is OK.

    go look it up

  • fish||

    Hey you said you were done posting! Liar! False advertising.....I will now kill you using my mad libertarian skillz!

  • Edwin||

    See? See? Bullshit distraction and changing the subject. Not to mention that there are huge, strong ass fences with numerous signs at such facilities

  • Fluffy||

    How is it changing the subject?

    The subject is, "What force, if any, is permitted the owner of property to prevent trespassing or remove trespassers, and under what circumstances?"

    There is a fairly large gap between, "You shouldn't shoot a young kid who crosses the corner of your property innocently" to "No one can ever use force to defend their property, ever".

    I'm probably the most absolutist defender of property rights here. But I certainly do not think a property owner has the right to immediately employ deadly force in response to a trivial act of trespass. Certainly not before attempting to secure the property right in question by communication.

    If I don't think you can do something in defense of your property, trust me - these other people don't. I'm more of a property hawk than 95% of the people here and probably 99% of libertarians in general.

    So, yeah, you're pretty much wrong.

  • Edwin||

    wrong on what?

    I've proven that other libertarians DO believe they can murder people so, among believing other sick shit

    again, you're asking me to believe that only the good parts of libertarianism matter, and I'm calling bullshit on that

  • Edwin||

    so I give you facts proving my point, and you outright don't believe them?

    You're basically admitting the only way you can cling to libertarianism is through denial

    If you'd fucking pay attention, I have over the months/years linke to all these things

  • herr||

    de derr

  • sevo||

    "so I give you facts proving my point, and you outright don't believe them?"

    Shame on me!
    I wasted 5 minutes or so locating (and getting nauseated by) this stupid shit's earlier comments and the responses.
    The proof provided is that the stupid shit has made the same claims before and has been called on his bullshit.

  • Fluffy||

    Your links take us to threads where you claim to be reporting things non-board libertarians have SAID to you.

    They are not links documenting your actual claim, namely:

    "...I AGAIN got a bunch of posters to admit they think they have the right to grope women at the workplace. Or was it justifying murder? I think it was the latter, in the name of 'property rights'..."

    In order to document that claim, you'd have to come up with links to threads where Hit and Run posters made the statements you reference.

    Try again.

  • Edwin||

    How about you assholes actually fucking read the comments more thoroughly?

  • Fluffy||

    Maybe you could quote the one(s) you mean.

    Because I read every discussion you were in just by searching for "Edwin" over and over and reading your posts and all responses to you.

  • sevo||

    Hey, dipshit, how about you point to what you expect us to read instead of saying 'it's in there somewhere'?

  • Edwin||

    so you guys admit you can't even extract the basic facts when citations are given?

    morons

  • Restoras||

    Not morons, but since you are trying to make some sort of point it's generally a good idea to make it easier, not more difficult.

    What you're doing is tantamount to turning in a term paper with just a bibliography, getting an "F", and proceding to get all millennial whiney about it saying "It's all in there!!"

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    We have to pass his comments in order to find out what's in them.

  • Joe M||

    Guys, he's successfully trolling the shit out of us right now. Probably time to step away from the thread.

  • Edwin||

    I'm not a walking bibliography, but it's all been said before

    That you guys can't remember is because you deliberately have to exercise massive denial to believe your system

    You're telling me that only the good parts of libertarianism matter, and that's bullshit

  • wheelock||

    Just out of curiosity... Since you assert that the main tenets of libertarian thought have to do with murdering children... What are the "good parts"?

  • EDWIN||

    I may be an asshole and an authoritarian and a retard but I am not an asshole.

  • Sparky||

    I probably deserve to be castigated for further feeding the troll but I'm going to see if this works.

    If you're saying that:

    the libertarian group is filled with sick fucks who think they can do what they want to anybody under the guise of "property right", and I've proven that well beyond the extent I really need to for 5 minute postings on some article

    is proof that all libertarians are bad/evil/monstery people then you're really not up to speed on individualism and should probably stop coming here.

    You do understand that members of a group can hold positions that not all other members hold to, right? Or is this a real issue with people of your philosophical bent? I've seen Tony and MNG do the same thing so maybe you truly aren't capable of comprehending that.

    Also, you've been derided and laughed at and had your nose rubbed in the fact that you aren't changing anyone's mind. Why do you persist? If you're truly not just trolling, why go on? I'd be surprised if even one person that just read through your tantrum had their mind changed by you. There is nothing wrong with abandoning a fight you know you can't win.

  • Tony||

    Why can't any of you actually deal with the point at hand?

    Do you have the right to shoot children who cross your yard? Yes or no? Why or why not?

    Every time you are confronted with a seemingly huge flaw in your beliefs you start muttering about trolls.

    It's your nutty belief system. So defend it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    How about you assholes actually fucking read the comments more thoroughly?

    Got some sand in your vagina?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Defend yours first, Tony.

  • ||

    I've heard Lincoln referred to as a "tyrant" only in libertarian circles

    This is actually true. Though I may be biased cause I don't hang out in Mississippi.

  • heedless||

    To be fair, suspending habeus corpus was pretty tyrannical. I don't think this is what Edwin means, but there it is.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Not to mention that their ideal proposals are massively unfair and based on kindergarten-logic philosophy. Sure, private running of HIGHWAYS would be great and better, but not every fuckin road in town, I can't pay a toll every 5 minutes. Not to mention that the proposed "privatization" would be theft; public property is common access to everybody, you can't just take that away from people without having in fact stolen something from them.

    I didn't know you felt so strongly about eminent domain.

  • ||

    I've heard Lincoln referred to as a "tyrant" only in libertarian circles

    An anti-slavery Republican (they were all anti-slavery by the way and it was the democrats who were pro-slavery)in the mid 1800s.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you but Lincoln was a libertarian in all but name.

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    ...but Lincoln was a libertarian in all but name.

    Well, we're individuals and all, but I don't think there are many libertarians who are down with drafts, suspension of HC, ignoring the SC when it curbs executive authority, locking up dissenting newspaper editors and reporters, etc. etc.

  • ||

    I disagree with your interpretation that he suspended HC, one would have to say all prisoners of war that the US has ever taken has been done under the suspension of HC, and I have never heard about him locking up newspaper reporters.

    Plus, you know, it was a Civil war and the South was the aggressor. the constitution does explicitly give the president powers to defend against domestic enemies.

    Also I am pretty sure congress did declare war.

    Plus the SC was filled with southern state appointees....is it anti-libertarian to fight slavery and ignore judges defending slavers?

    It would appear to me that under your definition of libertarianism that the US never should have rebelled against the British....as it was technically against the law.

    Fighting a war (yeah a fucking war not a bitch slap fight) against slavers that slavers started is inherently Libertarian.

  • Gojira||

    I don't give a shit about the "law" except when it promotes liberty. Rebelling against tyrannical authority is good. Using the law to establish tyrannical authority is not.

    He suspended HC for those suspected of harboring Southern sympathies period, not just prisoners of war. From the wiki, "He vigorously exercised unprecedented war powers, including the arrest and detention without trial of thousands of suspected secessionists. "

    Just because you haven't heard of something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do a quick google search of his locking up newspaper editors.

    What does congress declaring war have to do with anything? I never said they didn't. As to the constitutional ability to defend against enemies, kindly point out the portion of the constitution which states anything to the effect of, "when defending against aforementioned enemies, all the rest of the words in this document can be discarded as unnecessary bullshit for the duration of said conflict". My copy doesn't seem to have any such clause.

    I note you didn't say anything about the draft. Tell you what, lets do a Reason-Rupe poll and find out how many self-described libertarians support a draft.

    I'll grant you the point about the SC. I think they were right in their condemnation of his taking on of authority, but they did seem to have a noticable pro-southern bent, so their decisions are suspect, at the very least.

  • ||

    What does congress declaring war have to do with anything?

    The deceleration of war gives the president powers that he would normally not have.

    The founders recognized the need for this and is why they put it in the constitution.

    Also did those secessionists that were imprisoned give material support to the confederacy? If so then I fail to see why they would be exempt from becoming prisoners of war.

  • Gojira||

    No, many of them were imprisoned for the crime of voicing suspicious opinions. Remember, we're talking about a nation still made up of a majority of farmers. Most of them wouldn't have been able to provide "material support" even if they wanted to.

    All this comes down to is, he was a proto-dictator who believed in massive central-gov't supremecy. He was a dick and a tyrant who tolerated slavery when it suited his agenda (before the war, and until after the war in the border states), and the only reason history has white-washed him to the degree it has is 1) because the people he fought were disgusting, and 2) he got capped (though on a hilarious note, it had nothing to do with the Civil War; he was a well-known 49ers fan, and the play in question was held in a firmly pro-Raiders theater. True fact.).

  • Gojira||

    And for added effect, this is what your counter-argument reads like (to me):

    Shorter Joshua Corning:
    "Drafts and warrant-less, trial-less mass detentions are all perfectly A-OK as long as the people you're fighting are Extra Bad(tm)."

    Being anti-Lincoln does not make one pro-slavery. Many times, both sides suck. The world is not a strict black-or-white storybook. I hate Lincoln for the powers he assumed for himself and the massive expansion of federal authority he oversaw. I also hate the south for the vile institution of slavery. I am capable of hating and being against both things simultaneously.

  • ||

    Being anti-Lincoln does not make one pro-slavery.

    I never made this claim nor would I.

    "Drafts and warrant-less, trial-less mass detentions are all perfectly A-OK as long as the people you're fighting are Extra Bad(tm)."

    Pretty close...though i disagree with your interpretation of HC. Why would a county at war need warrants to imprison prisoners of war?

    The draft I will admit I am having trouble with.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Joshua Corning,

    I disagree with your interpretation that he suspended HC, one would have to say all prisoners of war that the US has ever taken has been done under the suspension of HC[...]


    That's it, then: Political rivals and unsympathetic journalists do not have their Habeas Corpus protection the moment Fuckingly Big President declares them Prisoners of War.

    Correct me if I got your argument wrong.

    and I have never heard about him locking up newspaper reporters.

    By executive order

    Plus, you know, it was a Civil war and the South was the aggressor.


    False. If you want to regurgitate the canard that Fort Sumter was an act of aggression, let me remind you that SC had already seceded from the Union and that the fort was part of their territory. Besides, there was NO garrison in FS - a sneaky Union general moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. The SC militia was practically repelling an invader.

    "On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Robert Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor."

    From Wikipedia.

    the constitution does explicitly give the president powers to defend against domestic enemies.


    The Southern states, once seceded, were no longer "domestic," just like a son of daughter of yours is no longer part of your household if they move to their own apartments.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    the fort was part of their territory

    In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
    "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

    "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

    "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

    "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

    "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

    "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
    "In Senate, December 21st, 1836
    "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

    Jacob Warly, C. S.
  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    well in name, plus the whole arresting congressman and journalist thing. and the fiat money deal. and the starting a war without congress. and the whole big government crony capitalist thing. and being OK with slavery as long as the protection rackets kept paying off. and the draft.

    other than that, he was totally libertarian.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Edwin,

    He's generally not wrong. I've heard Lincoln referred to as a "tyrant" only in libertarian circles,


    Well, yes, but you hear that only because it's the truth.

    and libertarians' focus on one issue out of purism


    Yes, yes - respect for the Constitution; not killing 630,000 Americans; incarcerating journalists, politicians and judges for their anti-war views or for being political rivals - sure, these things are pointed out out of purity.

    Not to mention that their ideal proposals are massively unfair and based on kindergarten-logic philosophy. Sure, private running of HIGHWAYS would be great and better, but not every fuckin road in town, I can't pay a toll every 5 minutes.


    Like people in Denver, for instance, who pay a toll every 5 minutes...

    ... you were sayin'?

    Not to mention that the proposed "privatization" would be theft;


    "Theft"?

    [...]public property is common access to everybody, you can't just take that away from people without having in fact stolen something from them.


    They already had something stolen from them. And government keeps stealing from everybody to finance roads going from Duluth to Maple Grove even when the people paying for it live in Oregon, or Texas.

    You're such a stupid piece of shit, Edwin.

  • ||

    Aren't you the one who's always saying not to feed trolls?

  • cynical||

    "I've heard Lincoln referred to as a "tyrant" only in libertarian circles"

    Lincoln was a tyrant. What does that have to do with being pro-Confederate?

    Wait, a lot of libertarians despise Stalin, does that make us pro-Nazi-Germany? Maybe this Lind guy was on to something.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    Even more depressing than Lind's article were the comments left by Salon's left-of-center readers. It is almost unbelievable that in this day and age we still have to explain what libertarianism is. Many lefties were not even receptive to corrections. One bright spot: I was able to have a civil exchange with a person charmingly named "Kill Republicans." It began when I asked, "So the Pinochet regime stains Milton Friedman and therefore all libertarianism? The obvious next question: Why doesn’t it stain similarly (or even more so) Richard Nixon and Big Government ‘liberalism’? Because Nixon had nothing to do with that regime … or with that ‘liberalism’?”

  • ||

    But these people are totally ignorant about history. Mention Kennedy and Ngô Đình Diệm sometime. It is cute when they get that blank stair like a golden retriever.

  • Skr||

    Hell most of them seem to think that Nixon started Vietnam.

  • Pip||

    And I have read that Ho chi Minh first approached the US for assistance (he lived in NY Boston in 1912-1913) and only went to China for help after the US said no.

  • PR||

    my girlfriend couldn't believe it when I told her Lincoln was a Republican. COULD NOT BELIEVE IT.

  • Skr||

    I hope she's hot enough to be that dumb

  • Chupacabra||

    I bet my golden retriever is smarter than Edwin.

  • ||

    Man, I wasted so much time trying to reason with them. And for a libertarian, I'm pretty much a left winger - minarchist, anti-corporate, supporting a single land rent, admitting that public education is probably worth the long-term investment, supporting the merit of decentralized wealth as an outcome of a free market, anti-Objectivist, etc. Somehow I'm still a right wing autocrat and/or anarchist who is ignorant of and/or stuck in history and wants the disabled poor to starve to death on the street.

    Fallacy, race cards and ad hominem ran rampant. Time was wasted.

  • ||

    For that reason, I didn't even try. Just posted one response - addressed to Michael Lind - and left. Sometimes I argue back, other times I just have my say and leave. Either way, I figure I am not really trying to convince the people I am arguing with. If I choose to argue, I am writing for the benefit of the readers of that thread, so they can at least see the counter argument. In that sense, I figure, your time was probably not wasted.

  • newshutz||

    please, I hope that is public funding of education you support and not government run schools.

  • ||

    Sure. I'd prefer a choice-centric system of charter and magnet schools. I just think if we don't want a welfare state, we have to solve the poverty riddle first. Quality educational access at least sets up a meritocratic system, and should be the maximum extent of the "welfare state".

  • MWG||

    "One bright spot: I was able to have a civil exchange with a person charmingly named "Kill Republicans.""

    I didn't see any comment by KR that could be described as 'civil'. KR's an asshole... but I repeat myself.

  • ||

    Isn't Michael Lind the American Taliban? I'll be damned if I'm going to stand idly by while he disparages libertarianism!

  • Colin||

    That was Johnny Walker Lindh.

  • ||

  • ||

    The Commodore is a furry?!?

  • Joe M||

    You don't get credit since work is blocking that link.

  • ||

  • Joe M||

    Shades of Donnie Darko.

  • ||

    Do Furries all screw each other in costume? Isn't that kink the whole point of it? Or is that just a myth?

  • ||

    Some engage in a type of frottage while in costume--one-on-one and in orgiastic groups (which goes by a few different names)--and some "yiff" which supposedly involves genital-to-genital contact.

    Then there are the voraphiles, whose sexual fantasies involved eating (as in consuming) or being eaten, usually simulated as bite-play.

  • Joe M||

    Once again the breadth and depth of your knowledge of perversion frightens and impresses me.

  • ||

    That is just fucked up. Can't we go back to the 70s when the most people ever did was swap wives or tie each other up?

  • ||

    I don't think there's anything new under the sun, we just know more about it now. And the internet makes it easy for like-minded people to band together in groups large enough to be recognized.

    I mean, are furries really a new thing? The Greeks had satyrs and nymphs. The persistent mermaid fantasies. Fox and octopus sex in Edo-period Japan. Hell, even the scene in The Shining with the guy in the dog mask going down on the other guy is at least proto-furry iconography.

  • ||

    That is true. This kind of stuff makes me long for the Victorian age. People still did the same stuff, they just didn't tell you about it.

  • Amakudari||

  • Amakudari||

    Also, for everyone's edification, there's more:

    Pregfur.org is a site dedicated to furry femmes that are pregnant. I'm linking to the stories archive. Do not read any of them.

  • ||

    Wow. That is just so wrong.

  • ||

    Kinky Skunk Solo Action

    from Bioorganic 14-7415

    Yona continued to groan and purr as she kneaded her ample chest. Warm white milk dripped down her front, over her growing tummy. She let out a little giggle as she realized it was running down her bare nether lips. She let out a curious mirr and pinched her nipple till a fair trickle of lactate accumulated in her palm. She leaned back slowly and started to stroke the fluid against her sex and fingered it inside.

    “Oh muh… oh my! Tha… oh my that feels… oooh!” Within a moment she was trembling with ecstasy. Her sexual desires welled in her body as she kneaded at her breasts and rubbed the milk into her sexual petals. The white fluids dripped inside her tunnel and she squirmed in delight as orgasm after sensuous orgasm washed over her. She passed most of the day in this manner; lactating, stroking the motherly cream inside of her and orgasming.
  • ||

    You really do like to torture us don't you SF? Why do you hate us so much?

  • ||

    The funny part is... this is only part that's any good. The rest of is an awkward stumble through a dying forest of science fiction cliches. Cut it down to a couple of paragraphs and you have something punchy and disturbing.

  • ||

    They just need an editor SF. Your just the man for the job. Maybe you should offer your services.

  • ||

    The Way it is by Gandri & Wolvarr
    An interesting short story about a man who is changed into a pregnant dragoness.

    It's all first person, like he wrote it after being turned into a pregnant dragoness! This is hilarious! And the site is PREGFUR! Dragons don't have fur!

    It's like a blue, glittering ocean of fail that I want to swim forever.

  • ||

    This dragon does. Curious George doesn't have a tail but he is still a monkey you know.

  • ||

    Nope. Clearly says he has scales...

    A tail ripped its way out of my rear and entwined itself around a nearby tree, my face extended outward and I was covered in scales.

    The "tail coming out of the rear" part is quite telling.

  • ||

    You can't make people up. Realistic fiction can no longer be produced because anything realistic cannot be believed.

  • Amakudari||

    Well, just know that I'm happy you're happy.

  • ||

    Don't get lost in there, NutraSweet, because I sure as hell aren't wading in to get you out, and I'm pretty sure Warty won't either.

  • Warty||

    Dude, I'm not going anywhere near that site. I know my limits, and this is coming from a guy who has read a few paragraphs of the John/Suki BDSM stories.

  • ||

    What are you whining about? Try living those stories and then come talk to me.

  • Warty||

    Don't make me post a link to it. You know I'll do it.

  • twv||

    Mr. Root does not bother quoting the whole offensive paragraph of Lind's inane Civil War thesis: "When it comes to American history, libertarians tend retrospectively to side with the Confederacy against the Union. Yes, yes, the South had slavery -- but it also had low tariffs, while Abraham Lincoln's free labor North was protectionist. Surely the tariff was a greater evil than slavery."

    I have never heard a libertarian say that the tariff was WORSE than slavery. Never. What libertarians tend to say is that the North had the tariff, and that without the South, the tariff system wouldn't work. So union was necessary for the "internal improvement" Whig political economy.

    Further, libertarians generally make the decent point that slavery after secession would have been quickly undermined, without the bolstering of the Fugitive Slave Acts.

    So, by supporting the right of secession, libertarians support (in this counterfactual) both the tariff and for a mostly peaceful end to slavery.

    Horrors! Libertarians sure are kooks. Against war and centralized power and all.

    They must be racist. Oh, and authoritar... what?

  • Skr||

    But but but PINOCHET.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    Best summation of Pinochet regime:

    "It's clear that Chile was never the laboratory of 'pure' free markets that its cheerleaders claimed. Instead, it was a country where a small elite leapt from wealthy to super-rich in extremely short order -- a highly profitable formula bankrolled by debt and heavily subsidized (then bailed out) with public funds. When the hype and salesmanship behind the miracle are stripped away, Chile under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys was not a capitalist state featuring a liberated market but a corporatist one .... a mutually supporting alliance between a police state and large corporations, joining forces to wage all-out war on the third power sector -- the workers -- thereby drastically increasing the alliance's share of the national wealth...."
  • ||

    "It's clear that Chile America was never the laboratory of 'pure' free markets that its cheerleaders claimed. Instead, it was a country where a small elite leapt from wealthy to super-rich in extremely short order -- a highly profitable formula bankrolled by debt and heavily subsidized (then bailed out) with public funds. When the hype and salesmanship behind the miracle are stripped away, Chile America under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys the Demoblicans was not a capitalist state featuring a liberated market but a corporatist one. . .

    Who can argue?

  • Colin||

    I once lived in Czech Republic and I always found it interesting how people there you would've normally assumed to be liberal just loved Pinochet. This was because they had their own version of Allende. And after he was "elected," there was no more elections for 40 years.

  • Number 2||

  • Number 2||

  • robc||

    Can I question the entire concept of it being a civil war?

    Two separate nations fighting each other isnt the definition of a civil war.

  • Joe M||

    When the winners write history, it is.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Excellent point. It was a war of Northern aggression. I'd love to bring this up to a group of civil war re-enactors.

  • twv||

    I've long called it the War Against Southern Secession. Or, more juicily, the War Against Independence.

  • ||

    You and whole lot of Southerners. I can give them War between the States but it still was about slavery. I suppose we can go Roman old school and call it the Social War.

  • Jerry||

    That Lind really is a douchebag. Mises saw fascism as the less of another evil, namely that of Bolshevikism, not as something good in itself. But of course Lind isn't prepared to quote those passages from the Mises book.

  • Edwin||

    Can you?

  • Jerry||

    What distinguishes liberal from Fascist political tactics is not a difference of opinion in regard to the necessity of using armed force to resist armed attackers, but a difference in the fundamental estimation of the role of violence in a struggle for power. The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence. In order to assure success, one must be imbued with the will to victory and always proceed violently.

    (...)

    Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies
    committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.

    (...)

    Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect—better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas.
  • Corey S. ||

    Edwin?

  • UYD Fan||

    Here it is:

    http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

    The bit Lind quotes is at the end; the full quote is:

    It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

  • Old Mexican||

    Plus, Mises wrote that when every Progressive in the US and Europe saw fascism as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The hypocritical Progressives of today quickly forget this and simply quote Mises on it as if he was endorsing fascism when he wasn't: His commentary reads more like "Sure, ok, maybe the fascists made some strides to fix a thing here and there, but don't be fooled into thinking they're the greatest thing since sliced bread."

  • cynical||

    Exactly: It's not an apology for fascism aimed at an audience sympathetic toward liberalism, it's an apology for liberalism aimed at an audience sympathetic toward fascism.

  • Restoras||

    Nicely pawned.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    When it comes to American history, libertarians tend retrospectively to side with the Confederacy against the Union.

    First, Mr. Lind can go find a heavy object and use it to test for kinetic friction against his sphincter. Second, that's a pretty broad brush he's tarring all libertarians with. There is a principled argument to be made for peaceful, voluntary secession in spite of the actions of past actors. Statists like to DERP about how the Constitution is not a suicide pact when it is time to abridge the people's rights, but shit hot bricks when someone replies that the Constitution is not a suicide pact when they don't want those rights infringed on.

  • Spooner||

    Lincoln was an asshole.

  • Colin||

    Progressives aren't interested in fact, just smearing.

    Which works great for their ranks of mindless sheep, who are far too stupid to think for themselves.

    Hell, you still see the anti-Koch signs well after that idiot woman's smears were thoroughly debunked.

    It's funny how they mock the intelligence of conservatives when their collective IQ isn't sufficient to tie shoelaces.

  • Edwin||

    Pinochet was hardly a libertarian, he was more of an in-general-free-market-ish, rightist guy

    Though I'd like to note that of all the dictators, the only rightist one is also the only one who took full responsibility for what he did and didn't try to dissemble (is that the word? Dissemble)?

    ""I assume the political responsibility of all that has been done."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....n_to_Chile

    I THINK, I'm not sure, that his full quote is more detailed

  • Skr||

    I think corporatist kleptocrat is the descriptor for which you are searching.

  • Barf.||

    The comments section at Salon is full of all kinds of stupid. Even Tony made an appearance under the name stephendedalus82

  • Skr||

    Yeah, when I saw a comment about how a private organization that tested for harmful contaminants has never nor will ever exist, I had to shake my head and walk away muttering, "underwriter's laboratories.... Fucking retards...," over and over again.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I just checked out the Salon website. Going to take a shower now.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Writing at Salon,

    That's as far as I needed to read to know that Lind's article would be complete bollocks.

  • ||

    Liberal says people who disagree with him are racists.

    In breaking other news, the sun rose in the east and water is wet.

  • GILMORE||

    As I noted yesterday in reviewing the comments to Salon's interview with Matt & Nick... ('Are Libertarians Misunderstood'?)....Michael Lind is not here represetating the "Extreme" view of Salon contributors/readers... He's preaching to the already-converted. I would of thought that after Ron Paul in the last election that the mainstream liberal types had probably gotten slightly more informed... but the caricature of libertarians as 19th century industrialists bent on draining the earth of its natural resources, enslaving the third world, shooting the poor with bullets made of compressed-money from the balcony of our gated mansions ... if anything at all it seems to have gotten worse. Now we're (*"as everyone knows!"*) also 'Secessionist Plantation Owners bent on restoring slavery'-meets-'Cruel, Repressive South American Military Dictators'... am I missing one? Oh yeah, I think we're also bent on dissolving Democracy altogether and replacing it with some sort of Corporate Star-Chamber plutocrats.

    I think that roughly covers it. Congratulations guys!

    That piece of Lind's was (as far as I could tell) echoing things that some people had repeated in the comments I mentioned earlier.

    This stuff (e.g. we caused the debt crisis; we put Pinochet in power; we're bent on dismantling the constitution, privatizing air) is "established fact" in their world.

    They were pretty quick to leap from pointing out that Nick 'wasn't keen on the minimum wage' to blaming libertarianism for for every act of human cruelty since we climbed out of the trees. And probably the ones when we were still monkeys ("they never offer to pick other people's nits! They don't believe in redistributing the bananas!)

    The predominant view over there (based on that survey of like 300comments) is that libertarians are both

    a) Extremely Evil,

    and, simultaneously,

    b) Foolish Deluded Utopians

    How that works I'm not sure. Evil Utopians, that is.

    'We Dream of an Impossibly-Evil World That Will Never Be Achieved'??... we manage only to *spread small doses of evil* because of our inability to grasp fundamental political realities?

    I guess that makes us something like the Evil Emperor in Star Wars - only that he's unable to achieve Emperor status, so goes to work in an Evil think tank.

    My favorite part of that thread was how after like 200+ comments, half of which were nothing but substance-less insults and vulgarity (and many making the case that "Libertarians are just the New NeoCons!!*??)...

    ... someone posted *this*

    This has been one of the more civil and substantial threads on Salon in a long time. Frankly, I think, because not only did the trolls not show up (no red meat), but so few self-avowed libertarians did as well - the callow, glib and born on third base.

    I mean that shit is *funny*.

    They were maybe 1-2 posts away from burning milton friedman in effigy and then lynching the nearest CPA, and the guy was like, "ahh, today was a *good hate*. Well done my fellow enlightened progressives. I am glad our hate was not interrupted by anyone who is actually informed on this issue. Those bastards (spits)!!"

    I like especially how in 2008, 'libertarians' would have been characterized as 'harmless and irrelevant' by mainstream partisans... Now, we're somehow an evil force of nature threatening subordinate the entire nation. (...I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the Progressive Dream Team has turned out to...well, suck, really... and that in these circumstances, its easier to find things to hate that it is to explain why your Dear Leader isnt delivering the goods)

    I admit, being hated is more amusing at least.

  • Skr||

    Ahh yessss, let your hate flow through you.

  • ||

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    I think we're crossing into the fighting stage.

  • GILMORE||

    I think there's probably some truth to that.

    Meaning, things like 'federal spending' - things libertoids have been bitching about *for-evah* - are now central issues that can't be dismissed. That and more.

    I almost feel bad for them. They seemed to be on the cusp of all they dreamed of... a one party rule... lots of social engineering... a president that relieves their upper-middle-class white guilt... and then...POOF... it all starts to go to shit...

    Almost.

  • ||

    Back when I was in my universally Leftist, extremely communistic (I'm not even exaggerating this - we all had to work on campus for equal wages we didn't actually get) college in the Bush years, I was considered a somewhat pesky, but sympathetic compatriot by my Leftist comrades. I wonder if I was in that school now if I'd have any friends at all. The inexplicably sudden hatred for libertarians is strange coming from people for whom abuse of executive power, unprovoked war and violations of privacy were the most important issues a mere three years ago.

  • ||

    I wonder if I was in that school now if I'd have any friends at all.

    I suspect there are more libertarians of that age now then there have been in a long long time.

    Ron Paul is popular among the kids these days.

  • ||

    Well, I mean most of my friends were unabashed Marxists. But even though we criticized each other, there was not much obvious repugnance towards my beliefs or questions of my moral integrity as there is today amongst the Left.

    For that matter, I was approaching the regulars at Salon as I once approached my Leftist friends - assuming we shared desired outcomes (freedom, justice, economic mobility) and had honest, intellectual disagreements over the means to get there. Silly, naive me...

  • ||

    I was approaching the regulars at Salon as I once approached my Leftist friends

    Standard response # 71:

    "Welcome to the internet."

  • ||

    libertarians have been on the wrong side of American history since at least the Civil War.

    Didn't the left, you know, invent Jim Crow in the fucking first place?

    And wasn't it the democrats who was the pro-slavery party?

    Wasn't the KKK the military wing of the Democrat party?

    Weren't those New Deal work programs segregated by good ol boy progressive FDR?

    Wasn't it Wilson who actually want backwards with his segregationist policies?

    The left have not only been on the wrong side of history from the start they have a far larger record of repression and far larger body county then libertarians ever will.

  • Skr||

    Even if you accept the Pinochet paradigm, that's what 20k dead next to what 40m from Mao and Stalin. Really??? Pinochet is their comeback to that?

  • ||

    It's funny that Pinochet is the only example they can give of a psuedo-economically libertarian autocrat. It's also not like the Marxist rebels were exactly non-violent protestors.

    Still. F--- Pinochet.

  • ||

    Even if you accept the Pinochet paradigm

    But why even go there. What libertarian thinks his murder and repression is what they want?

    What part of libertarianism does not denounce that on a fundamental level?

    On the flip side there is nothing fundamental about left wing moon batery that denounces slavery, Jim Crow, internment camps, war, the Gulag, genocide, repression of speech, and the murder of the opposition.

    We know there isn't because the left has done all those things and more.

  • Tony||

    You are confusing "the left" with "Democrats" who haven't always been in the same camp. Democrats used to have a faction in the South--where the racists are.

  • ||

    You are confusing "the left" with "Democrats"

    FDR and Wilson were both Democrats and progressives.

    The roots of progressivism are inherently racist.

    I am glad idiots like you are no longer overtly racist...but please do not try to rewrite history in order to avoid an apology.

  • Tony||

    Okay, everyone was racist in the 1910s through the 1940s. It was not liberal progressives who hung onto racism through the 60s and beyond--it's always the same group catching up with modernity: southern whites. Now they all feel happily at home in the GOP. This Glenn Beck inspired revisionist bullshit is tiresome.

  • ||

    Okay, everyone was racist in the 1910s through the 1940s.

    BULLSHIT!!!

    McKinley made several speeches on African American equality and justice:
    “ It must not be equality and justice in the written law only. It must be equality and justice in the law's administration everywhere, and alike administered in every part of the Republic to every citizen thereof. It must not be the cold formality of constitutional enactment. It must be a living birthright.[85] ”
    “ Our black allies must neither be forsaken nor deserted. I weigh my words. This is the great question not only of the present, but is the great question of the future; and this question will never be settled until it is settled upon principles of justice, recognizing the sanctity of the Constitution of the United States.[85] ”
    “ Nothing can be permanently settled until the right of every citizen to participate equally in our State and National affairs is unalterably fixed. Tariff, finance, civil service, and all other political and party questions should remain open and unsettled until every citizen who has a constitutional right to share in the determination is free to enjoy it.[85]

    In 1924, Coolidge responded to a letter that claimed the United States was a "white man's country":

    ....I was amazed to receive such a letter. During the war 500,000 colored men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom sought to evade it. [As president, I am] one who feels a responsibility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have taken my oath to support that Constitution....[129]

    Go fuck yourself Tony. You are a lying hack, piece of shit.

  • Trespassers W||

    Whatever you say, racist.

  • ||

    It was not liberal progressives who hung onto racism through the 60s and beyond

    The 1960s...so that would include Eisenhower who desegregated the military and Nixon who implemented the Civil rights act.

    Once again Tony you are a prick.

  • Tony||

    Eisenhower and Nixon were quite liberal compared to anyone in the modern GOP.

  • ||

    Once again this is McKinley who said over a hundred years ago:

    Nothing can be permanently settled until the right of every citizen to participate equally in our State and National affairs is unalterably fixed. Tariff, finance, civil service, and all other political and party questions should remain open and unsettled until every citizen who has a constitutional right to share in the determination is free to enjoy it.

    Call it "liberal" all you want...but it looks to me like they were simply doing what Republicans had been doing since the party was formed.

    Progressive Democrats on the other hand have a long and violent history of fighting it.

  • Tony||

    Playing my team vs. your team when the teams have significantly shifted demographically in the past 100 years is petty Glenn Beck level bullshit. To be progressive is to be anti-racism. I don't care what other labels are attached.

    Now the Republican party is almost exclusively a southern and western (but more to the point, rural) party of white old farts. What exactly are we talking about here?

  • ||

    What exactly are we talking about here?

    You were lying in an attempt to officate the truth of this post:

    libertarians have been on the wrong side of American history since at least the Civil War.

    Didn't the left, you know, invent Jim Crow in the fucking first place?

    And wasn't it the democrats who was the pro-slavery party?

    Wasn't the KKK the military wing of the Democrat party?

    Weren't those New Deal work programs segregated by good ol boy progressive FDR?

    Wasn't it Wilson who actually want backwards with his segregationist policies?

    The left have not only been on the wrong side of history from the start they have a far larger record of repression and far larger body county then libertarians ever will.

    also this is a bullshit:

    To be progressive is to be anti-racism.

    I am not progressive yet my ideology "libertarianism" comes from the long unbroken line of classical liberalism that started before the enlightenment that not only is anti-racist but in fact it fucking invented anti-racism.

    So go suck it.

  • Tony||

    The left did not invent Jim Crow, as that isn't possible. The people inventing Jim Crow, whatever they were, were not liberals. You earn that label by believing and doing certain things, like being first in line to oppose racism.

    Maybe you are from classical liberalism, but somewhere along the line you stopped contributing to that cause (by rejecting the natural evolution toward economic justice) and joined the fellators of the elite.

  • cynical||

    "To be progressive is to be anti-racism."

    I thought you guys supported affirmative action?

  • Tony||

    AA? All else being equal, society should favor the least privileged. That's not racism, it's an attempt at a cure for the problems racism causes. Maybe a failure. What do you have to offer? Oh yea, "fuck you and your children you lazy parasites!"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So... all non-progressives are racists. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Apple||

    That's where they are? I've been looking everywhere. It's so damn hard to find a racist these days.

  • ||

    I suggest the nearest union hall.

    Seriously. Racism (these days, at least) is largely confined to certain precincts of what used to be called the working class. There's no geography to it.

    As far as places where I've lived, the city with the worst race relations is Boston. You remember, where the riots over school bussing were? The best - Richmond, VA.

  • Warty||

    Nobody hates niggers like some old pollack or transplanted hillbilly who spent his life in a steel mill. Even more so if he still lives in the old neighborhood.

  • GILMORE||

    Seriously. Racism (these days, at least) is largely confined to certain precincts of what used to be called the working class. There's no geography to it.

    uhm. see geography of racism link below.

  • GILMORE||

    the South--where the racists are.

    You don't get around much, do you?

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazett.....acism.html

    http://www.salon.com/news/poli.....ted_cities

    Seriously Tony, just STFU.

  • Edwin||

    dude I call bullshit on that

    I live in the New York/New Jersey area, it is NOT segregated. New York is like the opposite of segregated, blacks white chinese gays straights, motherfuckers drssed like girls who are actually guys, vice versa, vice versa but also with shit all over their face. Jesus christ it's a clusterfuck.
    Interracial couples of any stripe are trivial

    And I've been to very south jersey near philly a bit, and there are black people all over the place down there, it's not nearly so concentrated. I'm pretty sure.

  • Edwin||

    ohhh... well obviously shit's going to look segregated if you break it up into blocks and color each one only one color based solely on the majority population there

    in reality people are much more interspersed

    whatthe hell are those blocks even supposed to be? They look sort of like the municipalities on the jersey nyc map, but they're kind of off, and LA and NYC don't have municipalities, they're cities, they're already municiplaities. So what the hell is with the boxes?

  • GILMORE||

    come to brooklyn Edwin. We shall experiment in your walk from east NY to williamsburg as a start.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The New Black Panther Party and La Raza are in the South?

    Wow, someone tell the SPLC to update their shit-lists.

  • ||

    But, but, they meant well!

  • Tony||

    How many times have I had to defend as uncontroversial a concept as consent-of-the-governed on these threads? No, you guys really don't care for democracy all that much. It's not all that surprising--people who can't get their way in politics tends to grow bitter about democracy. What nobody ever offers is a superior alternative. (Nobody lecture me on the difference between a democracy and a republic--I know.) It's almost a consensus that what's needed is a sort of benevolent libertarian despotism. After all, it's not people's own wishes about their own lives that count, it's first principles, and it'd be a better world if people were forced to adhere to them.

    When you realize that libertarianism amounts to freedom for plutocrats, enslavement for everyone else, autocracy becomes a feature rather than an inconvenient necessity. And that is what libertarianism is--at least the property-rights-obsessed version that seems most prevalent around here. A fairly flimsy philosophical justification for keeping wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Whatever your intentions or slogans about freedom, that is the end result, so who cares what your motivation is?

  • Warty||

    Is this the real Tony? Was there ever such a thing?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Funny... he has no problem with a "benevolent progressive dictatorship"...

  • Gojira (formerly Jim)||

    STFU. People have offered you alternatives constantly, but you simply don't believe any of them are "superior", in your words. Since that's a subjective value judgment, trying to discredit the ideas of a large group of people simply by virtue of the fact that they haven't changed your mind about something which you fundamentally disagree with them about to begin with is the biggest piece of intellectual shit-rape that you can possibly try to pass off as a cogent thought.

  • Tony||

    What alternatives to democracy? Tyranny? Is there a third way? Either people have a say in their government or they don't.

    All I'm saying is that if libertarians economic philosophy is exactly the same as a plutocrats' wishlist, who cares why you believe it?

  • Old Mexican||

    Guys, keep away from the sockpuppet's cage because he tends to fling out his droppings, case in point ^^ the above ^^

  • ||

    A fairly flimsy philosophical justification for keeping wealth in the hands of the wealthy.

    So libertarianism would give billions to megabanks, give healthcare tax exemptions to politically powerful groups and corporations and increase black unemployment to historic level?

    Oh wait....

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Joshua Corning,

    From the sockpuppet's perspective, "It's not Fascism when we do it!"

  • Tony||

    Yes, just more so. Libertarians wouldn't give tax exemptions? Pshh.

    What'd happen is you'd just do away with the facade of policymaking and hand all power over to the corporations.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "What'd happen is you'd just do away with the facade of state autonomy and hand all power over to a centralized federal government."

    Open up, Tony. You're blocking.

  • Watoosh||

    Tax exemptions by definition mean that someone else has to pay the bill, which means it's corporate welfare in disguise. If you start breaking everyone's legs and then choose some people to exempt from it, you're not ending any injustice. Thus it's not a libertarian policy.

    To be fair, I do think some libertarians are on the wrong side of this (Ron Paul seems to think he can destroy the tax code by voting yes on every exemption and tax credit), but I still think most of them can be called libertarians so I can't call No True Scotsman. However, a consistent libertarian would not be in favor of any further holes in the tax code.

  • ||

    You are such a tool, Tony. If you really believed in equality you would have abandoned the left long ago. But there you stand, childishly stamping your foot because we won't help you believe in your fantasy land. You're a cheerleader for the party that's oppressing minorities to this day. You're a fucking racist piece of shit.

  • Tony||

    My "team" is the same one that contains all the racial minorities. Explain that without invoking racism, if you can.

    But adopting slogans is not the same as understanding the issue. I'm part of the only team playing that even claims to care about the real problems minorities face.

    Maybe what you're saying is that racialism is itself the problem. But given statistical reality, it's a necessary evil. Something's going on that makes minorities not keep up economically, in a huge way. Pretending it's all good because we're all equal in god's eyes isn't adequate.

  • Edwin||

    old statistics Tony. I'll bet more modern statistics would show much less wealth inequality outside of the very wealthy, who are probably much more heavily white (though even that hasn't been my experience here in Jersey, I know shitloads of wealthy people, and we've got a lot of customers buying our mansions we build, and none of them are white... there's only like 1 or 2 white families in that pool - all the others are hispanic, jewish, near eastern, or far eastern, oh and 1 australian - and all the people in my fmaily's circle are near eastern)

    anyway, more importantly, statistics show that people who aren't fuck ups do just fine. Don't do drugs, don't commit crimes, don't cheat on your spouse - none of these things are huge stretches of human willpower, but doing them will provide yu with a pretty good lifestyle

  • Edwin||

    Frankly, I don't think I've ever even met an Anglo-Saxon white male protestant

    Maybe one guy... but he wasn't rich or pwerful, he worked for us, was essentially a handyman

  • Tony||

    Anecdotes and racism. I said statistics:

    The US Census declared that in 2008 13.2% of the general population lived in poverty:[30]
    8.6% of all Whites
    9.8% of all Asian Americans
    23.2% of all Hispanics (of any nationality)
    14.2% of all American Indians and Alaska Natives
    24.7% of all African Americans.

    I could get more recent ones, but trust me they haven't gotten any better.

    So this tells you that african americans are "fuck ups" three times the rate of whites?

    Either that's a symptom of an underlying problem, or you have to invoke a racist explanation.

  • Edwin||

    that's not what I said Tony,

    I said anyone who's not a fuck up shouldn't have trouble doing OK for himself. That is, the statistics show that anyone of any color who doesn't do a few key things does OK. They don't make it rich but they do OK. On a human level that's a very meaningful indicator of quality of life. Think of John Rawls' veil of ignorance thought experiment.
    Not to mention that the poverty threshold isn't THAT that low. And on top of that with welfare schemes their lives aren't that bad.
    And again, I don't buy these statistics too much. They could still be using some of the old statistics or something.

    Some minorities might do some things more than others. Very few blacks swim(statistically). A lot more blacks play basketball than other minorities. A douchebag fistpumping in a club is likely to be an Italian American descent. Firemen and police officers run small businesses at a higher percentage than other people. Greeks overrepresent diner-owners. Nigerians in America over represent in fraud crimes.
    Exactly why are all these things so? Who cares? None of them are drastic enough to be THAT relevant to a meaningful measure of quality of life.

  • Edwin||

    anyway, why the hell am I even going that much into it?

    A black guiy is president. Racism is no longer a huge problem. That's pretty much the end of the story right there.

  • Edwin||

    23.2 % of hispanics? See, I knew I couldn't trust those numbers. Half the hispanics aren't even on the books that you could get statistics from them!

    even if they are "poor", they come here willingly because their lives here are so much better than where they came from! Your complaints about poverty in this case would again be short sighted

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Yes We Can" isn't a slogan?

  • I am sure....||

    ...you will give your unquestioning support and defense to the next George Bush-like candidate that squeaks in with 50.00000000001 percent of the vote -- consent of the governed. A continuance of the Bush/Obama Big Welfare, War, Homeland Security excesses and all.

  • ||

    While Lind was obviously too lazy to do some actually intensive research of the movement he was ranting against, you do have to admit that there are many segments of the so-called libertarian spectrum that his criticisms do apply to. For instance, if he based his conception of libertarianism solely on Lew Rockwell's site, he's actually not far off the mark.

  • Blank||

    While Lind was obviously too lazy to do some actually intensive research of the movement he was ranting against, you do have to admit that there are many segments of the so-called libertarian spectrum that his criticisms do apply to. For instance, if he based his conception of libertarianism solely on Lew Rockwell's site, he's actually not far off the mark.

    The neo-Confederate wing of libertarianism - which unfortunately is a thing - stretches far beyond Lew Rockwell's disgusting website. Observe how wildly popular paleo-libertarian "intellectuals" are within the movement; just look at how many Reason commenters buy into this bullshit (and how very few sane libertarians are willing to go against their own political base and criticize it).

    The underlying issue here is mindless, knee-jerk anti-federal government collectivism. Much like collectivists on the left, these assholes love to engage in false moral equivalence (for instance, drawing a parallel between living under the brutal institution of slavery and living as a free man in the post-war U.S.) and deflection ("Slavery was bad, b-b-but Lincoln was worse!") to their demon figure of choice.

    Of course there is no such thing as the "right" to secede if you're doing so in order to keep slaves (whose rights were being violated by the mere existence of slave states). Legally, there is a (rather unconvincing) case for southern secession; however, from a moral perspective, defending such an action is utterly contemptible.

    Face it, guys: As bad as Lind's article is, he has a fucking point.

  • Amakudari||

    No, he doesn't. He paints the entire belief system with a broad brush, and for that he can fuck off. There's a reason he doesn't address the movement today and instead relies on thinkers from centuries ago who were expressing broadly acceptable prejudices. Most libertarians these days are not racists, proto-fascists or slavery apologists, which is inconvenient. Libertarians concern themselves with wars of aggression, be they against the Middle East or inner cities via the War on Drugs, support political/economic/social freedom in the extreme, and spend no time pining for the right dictator.

    Where were the anti-authoritarian libertarians, denouncing libertarian fellow travelers of Pinochet?

    While progressives betray their principles when they apologize for autocracy, libertarians do not.

    Macaulay’s solution was to limit voting rights to those who drink champagne and ride in carriages, on the proto-Reaganite theory that some of their wealth would trickle down to people with hungry, crying children.

    Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy. Most libertarians have made it clear which of the two they prefer.

    That's some serious bullshit right there.

    And I'll just leave this here: which group has never expressed periodic contempt for democracy? Democracy led to the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Fugitive Slave Acts, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, laws banning sodomy, etc. Lynchings were usually pretty popular. Fuck, Hitler was elected.

    Lind may rightly observe that libertarianism is incompatible with pure democracy and that early thinkers considered the limits of the system. But he turns around to imply that opposition to pure democracy -- which we currently have as a republic -- means diametric opposition to American Democracy.

  • Blank||

    No, he doesn't. He paints the entire belief system with a broad brush, and for that he can fuck off. There's a reason he doesn't address the movement today and instead relies on thinkers from centuries ago who were expressing broadly acceptable prejudices. Most libertarians these days are not racists, proto-fascists or slavery apologists, which is inconvenient. Libertarians concern themselves with wars of aggression, be they against the Middle East or inner cities via the War on Drugs, support political/economic/social freedom in the extreme, and spend no time pining for the right dictator.

    Lind has a point about the Confederate apologists and general apologists for dictators and terrorists who still exist in the movement (again, particularly at sites like lewrockwell.com). No, most libertarians aren't racists, crypto-fascists, etc. - obviously Lind's piece has serious problems and you're right that he is an asshole for painting an entire movement with a broad brush. Nevertheless, there exists a wing of libertarianism that is full of racists and crypto-fascists, and very few people are willing to call them out for it.

  • GILMORE||

    Lind has a point about the Confederate apologists and general apologists for dictators and terrorists who still exist in the movement

    Then he'd have a point.... if he was talking about "lewrockewell.com", and actually citing examples. Otherwise, he is indeed smearing an entire group over the lunatic fringe (who, btw, I have never seen, hope not to... please feel free to point me to these 'prominent' neo-confederate libertarian slave-owners/fans of dictatorship)

    I mean, the criticism of the greek protestors was so *vociferous* on the left... and they're so well known for their disavowal of stalin-apologists, mao-ist terrorists, zapatista separatists, etc. Come the fuck on. If the criticism is 'failing to police extremists', then there's *no freaking contest*. They're more guilty than anyone.

    WTF, I've never even *heard* of the kinds of 'libertarian outliers' you describe. Failing to criticize what *barely registers* in the spectrum of debate is hardly cause for concern. And FWIW, we do actively criticize some of the more ideologically creepy libertoids. Which is why Reason often gets called out as 'Cosmotarians'/beltway libertarians... for being *so diplomatic*, and not psychotically ideological.

    No, Lind's smear-job did not have a point, and has little to no basis in reality. It was pure strawman-bashing. There's certainly kooks out there in the world, but that's not what he was saying.

  • Amakudari||

    Lind has a point about the Confederate apologists and general apologists for dictators and terrorists who still exist in the movement

    If that were the point he's making, he would have a point, but a considerably less interesting one. But nowhere does he imply that he was talking about a subset of libertarianism, and let's face it: authoritarian apologists are few in any libertarian camp. Some thinkers held ideas that turned out to be wrong, just like anywhere else, but the real question is which ideas hold sway today. If he wants to complain about the libertarian movement, he should complain about things libertarians actually believe.

    And FWIW, even LRC almost never features dictator apologia or race-baiting or any of the other smears. Right now, the topics on the site are mostly about the surveillance state, the wars and wartime medical experimentation. Heck, they have an article sympathetic to the use of sharia to resolve community disputes and another criticizing an anti-Muslim book in public schools, so so much for the most obvious potential paleocon target. It's all lovably breathless and not the first thing you'd show the unconverted, but it's a far cry from the war hawks, drug warriors and union thugs you find in mainstream camps.

  • This Michael Lind??????||

    Michael Lind's "Vietnam: The Necessary War"

  • Rod Flash||

    I think Lind counts Balko as a liberal activist now that he's over at HuffPo. I'e seen him accused of that in comments there ever since he moved.

  • Bradley||

    That's the power of being a libertarian. You can be alternately demonized or claimed by either team whenever political expediency demands it.

  • Max||

    I would suggest getting familiar with the work at www.libertarianinternational.org as a start for people like Lind... I will say none of these people quoted seem to be knowledgeable on Lib goals or pledged Libertarians.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement