The Lousiest ObamaCare Defense You’ll Read Today

The legal challenge to ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which requires the purchase of government-approved health insurance under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, rests on the idea of judicial precedent. When the libertarian and conservative lawyers challenging the health care overhaul argue that requiring all Americans to purchase a product from a private company is unprecedented, they mean that the Supreme Court’s existing line of Commerce Clause cases in no way authorizes the federal government to engage in such behavior. As a result, the legal challengers are not asking the Court to overturn a single previous decision, not even the Court’s notorious 1942 ruling in Wickard v. Filburn, which held that cultivating and consuming wheat entirely on your own farm still counted as interstate commerce. Instead, the challengers are asking the justices to recognize that the individual mandate exceeds the bounds of what the Court has previously allowed and strike it down as a lawless exercise of government power.

And yet despite all of that, some ObamaCare defenders still persist in accusing the legal challengers of trying to repeal the New Deal and return America to the alleged horrors of the Gilded Age. The latest example of this faulty argument comes courtesy of former Obama administration lawyer Robert Weiner, in a guest post at the liberal legal blog Balkinization. Weiner writes:

To a remarkable degree, the challenges to the Affordable Care Act reflect an effort to codify legal nostalgia as legal doctrine. The opinions of some lower courts striking down the individual mandate, as well as the arguments of the States and private plaintiffs in the Supreme Court urging that result, repeatedly hark back to bygone eras of American jurisprudence. This legal facsimile of reincarnation seeks to revive not just the long discredited doctrines invoked by an ossified Judiciary to thwart the New Deal. It goes back further still, to the dogma of an earlier time when the Judiciary regarded its principal function as the protection of private property, even at the expense of social justice, democratic values, and other individual rights.

These arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny. Nowhere in the legal briefs challenging the health care overhaul filed by either the multi-state challengers or by the National Federation of Independent Business will you find anything in favor of reviving any “long discredited doctrines.” So Weiner strikes out on that count. And his bogus historical claims don’t fare any better.

According to Weiner, before the Supreme Court took a progressive turn on economic questions during the New Deal era, “the Judiciary regarded its principal function as the protection of private property, even at the expense of social justice, democratic values, and other individual rights.” In fact, he asserts, economic rights trumped civil rights to such an extent that “minorities could not get a fair shake.”

Yet Weiner conveniently ignores the fact that one of the most significant civil rights decisions of the first half of the 20th century came about precisely because of the judicial protection of property rights, the very thing Weiner dismisses as mere dogma.

At issue in the case of Buchanan v. Warley (1917) was a Louisville, Kentucky law segregating residential housing blocks by race. NAACP president Moorfield Storey, a libertarian lawyer who helped found the pioneering civil rights organization, won the case by arguing that this Jim Crow law violated property rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. As Justice William Day held for a unanimous Supreme Court, “Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the right to acquire, use, and dispose of it.” Furthermore, Day wrote, the 14th Amendment “operate[s] to qualify and entitle a colored man to acquire property without state legislation discriminating against him solely because of color.”

It was a major ruling. As the George Mason University legal scholar David Bernstein has explained, “Buchanan almost certainly prevented governments from passing far harsher segregation laws [and] prevented residential segregation laws from being the leading edge of broader anti-negro measures.” Civil rights leader W.E.B. DuBois credited the case with “the breaking of the backbone of segregation.”

So not only does Weiner fail to accurately describe the legal issues at stake in the ObamaCare case, he also flunks out on the legal history. That's not what I'd call a winning argument.

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.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • John||

    I read the other day where the Egytians are scratching their heads at the death of their tourism industry. Gee you make the place into an Islamic shit hole and no one wants to vacation there anymore. Who could have guessed?

  • plu1959||

    Hahahaha!

  • anon||

    http://www.eturbonews.com/2952.....ct-tourism

    Article published a week ago. HAH!

  • plu1959||

    I was really laughing at John's comment (which was expressed in a way I found amusing), not at the idea. I'm sure it's true.

  • Brutus||

    And when Egypt looks like the flyblown Islamist dictatorships that comprise the rest of the ME, they'll say the reason is that they aren't Islamic enough.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And when Egypt looks like the flyblown Islamist dictatorships that comprise the rest of the ME, they'll say the reason is that they aren't Islamic enough.

    And the Jews. Don't forget the Jews.

  • Brutus||

    That's one way to get lots more Islamic in one fell swoop: Push the Jooooz in the sea.

  • Brutus||

    You know, I think the Occupy idiots might just have something there when they compare their little movement with the "Arab Spring."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Brutus||

    My mama told me it was because of the devil's finger pressing the button on the record player with the show tunes on it, but that may just because the devil's finger in her vagina made her a whore.

    Suddenly, the Screwtape Letters aren't as interesting as I had thought.

  • ||

    That is literally the single funniest thing I've seen in days.

  • Brutus||

    Lunacy delivered with earnestness is the best kind of hilarious.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Wholy shit! That video is crazy.

  • GILMORE||

    "You are all passive homosexuals as well"

    wtf. 'Passive'? reminds me of this =

    http://www.theonion.com/articl.....ock,10861/

  • -Umbriel-||

    I guess Weiner's next endeavor is to reform that "ossified" court by reinstating FDR's court-packing proposal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It goes back further still, to the dogma of an earlier time when the Judiciary regarded its principal function as the protection of private property, even at the expense of social justice, democratic values, and other individual rights.

    Looks like there's some projection going on there--anybody that doesn't accept my dogma is being stubbornly dogmatic!

    ...but the weirdest part of that blurb is the bit about how the individual mandate is, apparently, part of promoting "social justice, democratic values and individual rights".

    The individual mandate promotes individual rights how exactly? That's the individual's right to, what--do whatever the government tells the individual to do?!

    How in the world could the individual mandate promote individual rights?

  • Creepy Uncle||

    I saw Nancy Pelosi make the same argument this week... Something about how people would have much more liberty because they wouldn't be tied to their employer for health care coverage. She has also stated that more artists and musicians could pursue their passions because now they would be covered by universal care. These people's definition of liberty is downright offensive. However, should we be all that surprised? These are also the people who define themselves as "liberals" while being the most authoritarian and intolerant assholes in America. Changing the definition of terms is standard operating procedure for these Fuck sticks.

  • John||

    Under socialism, since every one is equally poor, you are free to be a bum. Sounds great doesn't it?

  • anon||

    BUT IT'S CALLED WORKERS PARADISE WE CAN'T ALL BE POOR JOHN!!!!!!!11111one.

  • Pi Guy||

    Cool, then I've got a head start on the bum thing.

    I, for one, welcome our socialist overlords.

  • anon||

    If you were serious, I'd hope you were the first to the gulags.

  • JW||

    LIBERTY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

  • Ken Shultz||

    It sounds like he's defining "social justice" as an individual right.

    It's equality of outcome recast as an individual right, but equality of outcome and individual rights are absolutely antagonistic to each other.

    He also classified democratic values as an individual right, which is likewise problematic. Either my individual rights exist despite what the majority of people want, or they don't really exist at all.

    That's what makes individual rights individual. They don't depend on what's popular. That's why slavery was unacceptable--despite how voters in newly formed states voted. That's why Jim Crow was unacceptable--despite the majority of voters in the South approving of Jim Crow.

    He's just playing word games. It's not that he doesn't care about individual rights; I think he despises individual rights.

    He just used to term because he knows it's important to the people he's trying to engage.

  • Bill||

    Did not see until after I posted below. You are correct, Sir!

  • Zeb||

    I really hate what the contemporary left has done with teh word "rights". It seems to me that there used to be a lot more leftists that actually cared about some rights, at least (and some certainly still do exist). But for the most part the word has become a joke the way people are using it to mean basically contradictory things.

  • ant1sthenes||

    That gives me an idea for a book: 50 Shades of Red White and Blue, where a college girl named Julia is kidnapped by her creepy uncle Samuel, and kept as a sort of human pet; he explains to her that, while he has to control everything she does, she's free because he's taken care of all her material needs. I'll let Sugarfree write the erotic bits.

  • plu1959||

    How in the world could the individual mandate promote individual rights?

    I have an individual right to your stuff. See?

  • Brutus||

    Arbeit macht frei!

  • GILMORE||

  • Bill||

    He says social justice, democratic values, and other individual rights.

    So he is so confused he thinks a nebulous social goal is an individual right, and that democratic values are individual rights. Basically, anything he likes is an individual right, which is pretty much the way progressives and democrats have thought at least since FDR.

  • John||

    Funny how he says it used to be the court only "protected private property" like the property is somehow separate from the owner of the property. As if the courts went out and kept people from cutting down trees or digging wholes in order to "protect private property".

    Early Weiner, they are called "property rights". Property rights are individual rights.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    In fact, he asserts, economic rights trumped civil rights...

    Can anyone explain why progressives fail to see that economic rights are civil rights?

  • John||

    Because corporations are icky or something. Honestly, their failure to understand that makes it really hard to believe them when they claim not to be communists. The only way economic rights are not civil rights is if you look at economic activity as a way of exploiting other people. And thinking that makes you a Marxist.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Pretty much.

    And a suspicion of the profit motive runs deeply through our government institutions and their regulations.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Labor is economic activity.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Can anyone explain why progressives fail to see that economic rights are civil rights?

    Because anything that isn't under the control of their elected leaders can't be trusted.

    This is why Obama's remarks yesterday were so awful. The media's focusing on the wrong aspect of it.

    They made a big deal about him saying that "The private sector is doing fine", but the real problem is what he said after that...

    The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.

    ----Barack Obama

    Government getting smaller is the problem according to Barack Obama--because that's under an elected leader's control. Getting the economy growing doesn't matter if it doesn't make the government bigger, according to him, because you need the growing part to be under an elected leader's control.

    Everything that's not under such control is doing just fine. If the growing part isn't under the direct control of elected leaders, then we're not making any progress at all.

    And he wonders why people call him a democratic socialist.

  • Ken Shultz||

    He wants to grow the government at the expense of the private sector.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yeah, the whole statement was awful. I wondered at first if the line had been taken out of context to make him look bad. Nope. The rest of what he said was even worse.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I think he just went completely off script.

    He was saying what he really thinks.

    And it all fits together, too. The whole diatribe. It'd be one thing if he said one statement wrong--quite another to have "misspoken" for several minutes at a time!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Government getting smaller is the problem according to Barack Obama

    Yeah, that's amazingly out of touch and more importantly factually incorrect.

    http://www.usgovernmentspendin.....111mcn_F0t

    He said three amazingly clueless things yesterday.

    1) The private sector economy is doing fine.

    2) The problem with the economy is shrinking government.

    3) The republicans want to cut government spending, which is what the Europeans did that caused their current problems.

    It's just stunningly ignorant and out of touch with the country's mood. There's no way this jackass gets much more than 40% in November. Hell, if he was a white guy he wouldn't crack 20%.

  • John||

    John Podhertz has it right today

    Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes, cuts initiated by, you know, governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government,” he said. “And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments.”

    The president seriously wants to go before the American people and argue in an election year that the wildly unpopular $860 billion stimulus of 2009 needs to be supplemented this year by more direct federal support of state and local government workers?

    I’m trying very hard to think of a way this argument is not politically insane for Obama in his quest to win over independent voters who will make the difference in November.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o.....z1xJNWUtSx

  • Ken Shultz||

    The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.

    ----Barack Obama

    That's Obama's way of saying, by the way, that "starve the beast" works exactly as intended.

    If we really want to shrink the government, right now would be the perfect time to slash taxes.

  • Bill||

    Since gov't spending is part of the definition of GDP, he wants to increase one to help the other. A real genius.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, I don't think his race really has much to do with it.

    There are a lot of people for whom voting for Obama is just voting against the Republicans, just like there are a lot of people for whom voting for Romney is just voting against Obama and the Democrats.

    In the big scheme of things, I think the pushes and pulls of that are more important than the race of any particular candidate.

    We should assume that this race will be just as close as so many of the others have been since Bush v. Gore.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    His perceived race gives him a lock on the African American vote, with a likely high turnout and it is the most likely explanation for why the media still treats him with kid gloves.

    And I say his perceived race because the truth is that he's a half white, multi ethnic rich kid from Hawaii that has less in common with the average African American than Pat Buchanan does.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Dems won over 90% of the AA vote in every election since the 1980s, so it's only the turnout that will make a difference. Turnout's going to be down because there's much less enthusiasm. Probably not down to normal levels but certainly not 2008 levels.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I was flabbergasted at Obama's naked assertion that the public sector wasn't doing its proper share of heavy economic lifting and that public sector employment needed to expand -- as if growing the public sector were a legitimate economic goal that were being inadequately pursued! NOBODY called him on this during the press conference. Astounding!

  • anon||

    The private sector is doing fine.

    I really hope this one quote costs him the presidency.

    That is all.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Can anyone explain why progressives fail to see that economic rights are civil rights?

    Because economic rights are less useful to the lower classes, and that's the Dems' target group. Yes, I know about how some poor people would love to start a business etc, but most would be content with living off welfare for the rest of their lives.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.

    ----Barack Obama

    That means he learned absolutely nothing about the public's mood from Wisconsin, by the way.

    We keep talking about the Romney individual mandate as if it were a liability, but Obama could have hammered any other opponent on that issue--any opponent other than Mittens.

    The whole world can pound on Obama for the individual mandate--but Obama can't attack Mittens on that issue at all.

    He can tu quoque, "Well Romney did it, too!", but that would effectively be saying something bad about the mandate, wouldn't it? And Obama's not about to do that.

    That would be conceding.

  • John||

    All Mittens has to do is be positive and not say something stupid and obama is done. Obama can't run on his record. All he can do is try to portray Mittens as some kind of Gingrich crazy conservative. And no one is going to buy that. Romney just has to take a cue from Regan and answer "there you go again".

  • Robert||

    If no one is going to buy that, why's my friend Nadine already saying it? It's not like she's some kind of ideologue. Maybe she gets her news filtered thru France, because she does consume a lot of French media.

  • ||

    Van Irion of Liberty Legal submitted the Amicus Brief you are looking for:

    http://libertylegalfoundation......-Brief.pdf

  • T o n y||

    But without the individual mandate, opposition to the law would be just as hysterical, the legal challenges would still exist, and the right would still be trying to dismantle the New Deal.

  • anon||

    You know, if you keep putting up so many strawmen, eventually they're going to catch fire and burn your house down. Idiot.

  • T o n y||

    You don't seem to be aware of the nearly 100% political motivation behind anti-Obamacare sentiment, and I'm the idiot?

    I don't like the individual mandate either, but I don't like most ideas Republicans come up with. But the fact that the focus is on that aspect of the law is the evidence you need to know that it's all political. You know, since the same Republicans who invented it are now calling it evil hitler socialism. The 2012 election has far more to do with anti-HCR rhetoric than freedom or anything else.

  • anon||

    So you can peer into alternate universes?

    Why would you even attempt to discuss a reality that doesn't exist?

  • anon||

    But the fact that the focus is on that aspect of the law is the evidence you need to know that it's all political.

    HAH! It couldn't *POSSIBLY* be that requiring someone to buy a product from a private company seems like a stretch of power. No, of course not.

  • T o n y||

    I just said I don't like the mandate, just as I don't like most things Republicans come up with.

  • anon||

    Jesus fucking christ the cognitive dissonance must give you one hell of a headache.

    1: Republicans are using the Individual Mandate as a political tool.
    2: I love Obamacare.
    3: I hate the mandate.

    You hold these beliefs at the same fucking time?

    My head hurts just thinking about it.

  • T o n y||

    No, I don't love Obamacare. It's not nearly adequate to the challenge of providing universal access to healthcare in a way that cuts costs.

    Obamacare exists in its current for because it's what the healthcare and pharmaceutical lobbies were able to live with. In a perfect world legislation would be geared toward good social ends and not be hacked up by for-profit interests, but we don't live in a perfect world.

  • anon||

    . In a perfect world legislation would be geared toward good social ends and not be hacked up by for-profit interests,

    Tell me, in your socialist worker's paradise, are there any unicorns?

  • anon||

    And by that I mean, who do you expect to provide free services with no profit?

    When they're out of money, who then?

  • T o n y||

    Nothing is free. I don't expect universal healthcare to be free. I expect it to be paid for by taxpayers in a progressive and fair way, just like we do other universal services, some of which you are just fine with because you are used to them. The problem is healthcare is a universal need but having it be a for-profit system makes it more expensive per capita than other nonprofit systems.

  • anon||

    paid for by taxpayers in a progressive and fair way

    Stealing from the rich to give you shit you want is exactly why we call your type looters.

  • T o n y||

    Taxation isn't theft. If it is, then you are just as much a looter as anyone for enjoying the benefits of national defense and courts, police, etc. This argument is hypocritical moral infantalism.

  • anon||

    Taxation isn't theft.

    It is when it's used as a tool by the less wealthy to steal from the more wealthy.

  • anon||

    Which means that Yes, progressive taxation IS theft.

    I love how you leave off key words when it's convenient to your distortions.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    As some other posters have pointed out in the past (I apologize for not remembering which ones), taxation would more precisely be called extortion.

  • Whahappan?||

    Not disagreeing, but extortion is a form of theft.

  • T o n y||

    What about when it's used by the wealthy to steal from the non-wealthy? Or is that just clever business practice?

  • ||

    I agree with Tony that taxation isn't theft. Using taxes for the common benefit (infrastructure, justice system, defense, etc.) that benefit us all equally is necessary (of course, we can still argue about how much $$$ is appropriate for such things). Redistribution, on the other hand, IS theft. Taxing one group of people for the benefit of another group of people is theft.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Taxation isn't theft.

    Naked gainsaying. And the threat of violence for failure to surrender your property is robbery.

    If it is, then you are just as much a looter as anyone for enjoying the benefits of national defense and courts, police, etc.

    Um, Tony w/spaces, one cannot be both a victim and a beneficiary of a crime.

    This argument is hypocritical moral infantalism.

    Ironic coming from Tony who can't extract the government teat from his mouth and wants, no NEEDS, Mommy Government to tell him what is right and what is wrong.

  • ||

    Taxation isn't theft. If it is, then you are just as much a looter as anyone for enjoying the benefits of national defense and courts, police, etc. This argument is hypocritical moral infantalism.

    FUCK YOU, you moronic imbecile. The only looters are those who enjoy your stated benefits without paying an equal share for them. I have no problem paying taxes for government provided services that protect individual rights. (That's the sole purpose of a government.) What I have a problem with is immoral pigs, such as yourself, who believe they somehow deserve to receive these services for free (or at a reduced rate), while others pay more than full price for them.

    FUCK YOU, YOU IMMORAL FUCKING PIG!

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.9.12 @ 12:54PM|#
    'Nothing is free. I don't expect universal healthcare to be free. I expect it to be paid for by someone else'
    Got it, shithead.

  • ||

    $

  • T o n y||

    And remember in 2010 the big issue with HCR was the Medicare cuts. You tell me if that's anti-safety net ideology or just politics.

  • anon||

    And remember in 2010 the big issue with HCR was the Medicare cuts.

    Nope, pretty sure it was Obamacare; although you would be correct in that with criticizing Obamacare TEAM RED did use medicare cuts as an example of why it was a "bad" piece of legislation. But that's TEAM RED.

  • ||

    You may just be the dumbest fucker ever to exist.

    What's the definition of a safety net, ass-clown?

    A safety net is for individuals who fall on hard times and need help getting back on their feet. (Which, can and should be the realm of private charity.) You are talking about a program that applies to EVERYONE. That isn't a "safety net", it's a goddamned entitlement. And in this case, it's an entitlement to the entire population while only a small portion of the population pay for it.

    You, sir, are a disingenuous immoral pig.

  • Pi Guy||

    "You don't seem to be aware of the nearly 100% political motivation of trying to capture the votes of worthless looters behind antipro-Obamacare sentiment, and I'm yes, you're the idiot?"

    FIFY

  • T o n y||

    Worthless looters being people who have the audacity to become ill and not be independently wealthy?

  • anon||

    Worthless looters being people who have the audacity to become ill and not be independently wealthy? demand free services at someone elses expense?

    ftfy, no charge.

  • T o n y||

    Are you a worthless looter because I help pay for your precious property rights protections and national defense?

  • anon||

    No. Those are two legitimate functions of government; falling under protecting against fraud and coercion. We all receive those services equally.

  • T o n y||

    Begging the question. We would all receive universal healthcare equally, and I believe it to be a legitimate function of government, as it is in every advanced country on earth.

  • anon||

    We would all receive universal healthcare equally, and I believe it to be a legitimate function of government, as it is in every advanced country on earth.

    Several issues:
    1: We would not all receive "universal coverage" equally. For instance, I am a male. I will never incur the cost of giving birth. 1A I have a diet which may or may not either increase or decrease any costs associated with my health insurance; you would have to force everyone to have the same diet to make costs equal.
    2: Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. There is (Your favorite word!) Consensus that it is a legitimate function of government to protect against fraud and coercion. There is no consensus on providing everyone with health insurance.

    3: The US is the most advanced country on earth and providing health insurance is not a legitimate function of ours. What should you learn from this?

  • Ken Shultz||

    We would all receive universal healthcare equally, and I believe it to be a legitimate function of government, as it is in every advanced country on earth.

    Have you noticed that some of your "advanced" countries, lately, have been taking steps backwards on the standard of living--in no small part due to everyone receiving "universal healthcare equally"?

  • T o n y||

    Most advanced by what measure? Not in healthcare affordability and deliverability. Not in education outcomes. Not on crime rates or incarceration standards.

  • anon||

    Most advanced by wealth. Because wealth is the best measure of prosperity.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Most advanced by what measure? Not in healthcare affordability and deliverability. Not in education outcomes. Not on crime rates or incarceration standards.

    GDP per capita, Tony.

    Accord to both the World Bank and the IMF, the U.S. is at about $48,000 a year in GDP per capita. The only countries above us are either very small, full of oil, or both!

    Who do you want to compare our GDP per capita to?

    According to both the IMF and the World Bank, the UK is at around $36,000 in GDP per capita; the EU is at around $31,000 per capita. France is at around $35,000 per capita. Sweden is around $40,000 per capita...

    We produce at least 20% more per capita than the Swedes do--almost 50% more per capita than the average citizen of the EU?

    That's part of the reason why our poor people are so fat! Imagine that? A society where the poor people are fat!

    http://tinyurl.com/3pt4k

    Oh, and those figures are from 2011. The EU's GDP is takin' a step back for 2012, for sure!

    Surely you've noticed?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Most advanced by what measure? Not in healthcare affordability and deliverability. Not in education outcomes. Not on crime rates or incarceration standards.

    What does the individual mandate have to do with education outcomes?

    Anyway, if education outcomes are so different over there, maybe it's partially becasue in our abundant economic system over here, you can get a decent job without needing a college degree. I'd hate to have to fight for a meager paying job in the EU--what with that tiny little pie they're carving up among themselves.

    But that's a big IF about different outcomes. Our universities stack up really well against Europe's. Europe has a population almost twice our size, and yet of the top 25 universities in the world, only six are from the EU--five from the UK and one from Switzerland, which means none of them come from Euro countries.

    http://www.usnews.com/educatio.....-the-world

    How's the U.S. do? 15 of the top 25 are from the U.S. How do you think we rank in accessibility?

    Incidentally, our incarceration rates don't have anything to do with ObamaCare either. That's mostly about the drug war.

    Are you familiar with any libertarians who are in favor of the Drug War?

    I don't think I do. The Drug War, that's an Obama thing, isn't it?

    You're right. He should be ashamed of himself.

  • Pi Guy||

    I'm a terrrible driver and, as such, my GEICO premiums reflect my burden on the pool. What your suggesting is that all of the good drivers should have their rates raised and mine be normalized in order to accomodate my personal burden on the pool.

    Does this seem like a good idea to you?

  • Pi Guy||

    ...What you're suggesting...

  • anon||

    Please don't suggest such a novel idea Pi Guy; somehow it's going to make it into Obama's campaign. Then you'll be metaphorically fucking me in the ass.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.9.12 @ 12:55PM|#
    "...I believe it to be a legitimate function of government,..."

    Yeah, well, you're an ignoramus, shithead. No one cares what you bleeve.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    "There is no greater stupidity or meanness than to take uniformity for an ideal.'' -- George Santayana, The Life of Reason

  • Brutus||

    We would all receive universal healthcare equally

    Demonstrably false. False premise, faulty conclusions.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    We would all receive universal healthcare equally

    Tony, you just said yourself that some people get sick and others don't. By the way, can I borrow that crystal ball of yours when you get finished?

    I believe it to be a legitimate function of government

    Good for you. Would you like a treat, or will a scratch behind the ears suffice?

    as it is in every advanced country on earth.

    But MAAAWWWWWWMMMMM! All the other kids have government-run healthcare systems! I WANT IT!

    What was the shit about MORAL INFANTILISM, again?

  • ||

    Begging the question. We would all receive universal healthcare equally, and I believe it to be a legitimate function of government, as it is in every advanced country on earth.

    You really have trouble with the definition of "equal", don't you?

    How exactly are we to "receive universal healthcare EQUALLY" if some are paying for it and some are not?

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.9.12 @ 12:52PM|#
    "Are you a worthless looter because I help pay for your precious property rights protections and national defense?"

    The day you pay for my property rights, shithead, I'll offer thanks.
    Until then, just keep beating on those strawmen.

  • Brutus||

    Are you a worthless looter because I help pay for your precious property rights protections and national defense?

    I pay enough property and local sales taxes to support the legitimate functions of government that protect my property. So no.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Are you a worthless looter because I help pay for your precious property rights protections and national defense?

    Awww, you don't like it, Tony? Why don't you move to SOMALIA?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Regarding the right being all about opposing the New Deal, I can only dream. It was Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" arguments against the New Deal that made me knock on doors for Ronald Reagan when I was just a little kid and made me switch to identifying with libertarians once Bush the Greater broke his "no new taxes" pledge.

    I remember when being a conservative meant wanting to dismantle the New Deal, and the hope of dismantling the New Deal and the income tax--along with Medicare and Medicaid--is really what politics is all about for me.

    Anyone who expands the New Deal is the enemy as far as I'm concerned--and that means FDR, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama were all enemies of freedom and prosperity as far as I'm concerned.

    That being said, the individual mandate is emblematic of a lot of that New Deal stuff, and as such, I'm happy to oppose it for the same reasons I oppose the rest of that socialistic garbage.

    I still think Barry Goldwater's corpse would make a better president than either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

    If you think Mitt Romney wants to get rid of the New Deal, you're outta yer mind. If you think the Republicans in Congress want to get rid of the New Deal, then you don't know anything about them. Voting to cut spending on New Deal programs is the very last thing the Republicans in congress would do--and then only to save their lives, maybe.

    The right being all about getting rid of the New Deal?

    Ha!

    In my dreams.

  • T o n y||

    Paul Ryan's budget, endorsed by Romney, is as much of a Trojan Horse for dismantling the safety net as anything that ever came along under Reagan. Unquestionably the Republicans have only doubled down on their decades-long crusade to loot the safety net and give it to billionaires. Or freedom or whatever.

  • anon||

    Paul Ryan's budget, endorsed by Romney, is as much of a Trojan Horse for dismantling the safety net

    Show me where Paul Ryan's budget has been mentioned on here, today.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Paul Ryan's budget isn't in any danger of being enacted.

    If it were, I'd pinch myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    When either side takes on the sea of red ink that SS and MEDICARE is swimming in I might take them seriously.*

    *Standard libertarian disclaimers apply.

    Until that day the Teams are just piddling around the margins of our budget problems.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, if they can't even bring themselves to take the Ryan budget seriously, how can anybody be afraid they might really take on Social Security and Medicare?

  • ||

    Paul Ryan's plan doesn't do shit for years. You notice how two weeks prior to Ryan's plan being released, DeMint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee all endorsed a balanced budget within 5 years and that didn't go anywhere? They are not respected by the party, despite thinking about the future. Paul Ryan became the head honcho for Republican economics because he talks the talk, but he is still kicking the can along like almost every other member of Congress.

  • Brutus||

    Paul Ryan's budget, endorsed by Romney, is as much of a Trojan Horse for dismantling the safety net as anything that ever came along under Reagan.

    God in Heaven, I do hope so.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I wish!

    But no, sadly: Ryan's budget is just more of the same.

    -jcr

  • ||

    But without the individual mandate, opposition to the law would be just as hysterical

    Actually no they wouldn't.

    Look at the polls on the subject dimmwit.

  • Brutus||

    and the right would still be trying to dismantle the New Deal.

    You say that like it's aa bad thing.

  • ||

    and the right would still be trying to dismantle the New Deal.

    I thought it was libertarians trying to dismantle the New Deal. I am a libertarian and I would dismantle it if i could. Put libertarians in power and i am pretty sure they would.
    Republicans when in power don't seem to try very hard at dismantling it....unless you mean Bush's attempt to reform social security which would make it more solvent or passing prescription drug benefits is dismantling it.

    Also when exactly did FDR pass Obamacare?

  • anon||

    “Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It is elementary that it includes the right to acquire, use, and dispose of it.”

    If I heard *any* major political figure today say this, I'd blow a load in my pants. Holy fuck I was born in the wrong era.

  • T o n y||

    But you can't acquire it by stealing it, use it by harming someone, or dispose of it by harming the environment. Libertarianism's central problem is that it is too simple to cope with complicated reality, and that's why simpleminded people like it.

  • anon||

    Lets start here: or dispose of it by harming the environment.
    This is not accurate. The first two are; the third is not.

    . Libertarianism's central problem is that it is too simple to cope with complicated reality

    Give me one example. Just one.

  • T o n y||

    You think you should be free to dispose of property in a way that harms the environment? I guess we'll agree to disagree... not sure why people should have that right even under a libertarian ethos.

    One example of what? Complicated reality? You guys barely acknowledge the possibility of external costs at all, because you need to believe that everything works according to a pristine rational market mechanism, and that the only thing that gets in the way of it functioning perfectly is government meddling. You'll probably call that a strawman, but the minute you start getting nuanced is the minute we start agreeing on things.

  • anon||

    You'll probably call that a strawman, but the minute you start getting nuanced is the minute we start agreeing on things.

    You're absolutely right that I'll call it a staw man, because it is.

    Show me one example where libertarian ideals can't cope with something because it's "Too complicated."

    It's precisely because economics is "Too complicated" that libertarian ideals hold up; no man nor group of men can ever have perfect market knowledge. To claim that you can plan an economy is absurd.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Even if it were possible to overcome the knowledge problem that Mises described, there's still the moral issue, which is that no matter how smart some pushy statist bureaucrat may be, other people are not his property to command.

    -jcr

  • Mickey Rat||

    We don't find the concept of "external costs" useful because they are largely impossible to quantify. Therefore useless as a category to make policy decisions by, especially on an individual level.

    Libertarianism is not simplistic, but elegant. Liberalism is not complex, just sloppy.

  • T o n y||

    Because the costs are difficult to quantify doesn't mean they are nonexistent. If you want an elegant and fair distribution of responsibility for costs then you can't just cut away any costs you can't exactly quantify.

  • anon||

    Because the costs are difficult to quantify doesn't mean they are nonexistent.

    By difficult, he means impossible. Especially on any meaningful scale.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Fine. Impossible to quantify doesn't mean they don't exist either.

  • Mickey Rat||

    How can you call any responsibility for costs "fair" based on a category that's not merely difficult to exactly measure but impossible to quantify at all? That's the problem with "external costs", they are a black box concept that can justify any abuse of private citizen's rights.

  • anon||

    "Fair" to Tony is "Give me what I want! Waaaah!" to the rest of the world.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    How can you call any responsibility for costs "fair" based on a category that's not merely difficult to exactly measure but impossible to quantify at all?

    Exactly,

    Besides the remedy to the 'externality' is always used to fund some pet project to buy votes and not to remedy the effects of the supposed externality.

    And those costs are just passed onto consumers as a hidden tax.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Some of the "remedies" to child sexual abuse are pretty damned statist too...that doesn't mean that child sexual abuse isn't a problem.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa the White|6.9.12 @ 2:41PM|#
    "Some of the "remedies" to child sexual abuse are pretty damned statist too...that doesn't mean that child sexual abuse isn't a problem."

    You're kidding, I hope.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y|6.9.12 @ 1:09PM|#
    "Because the costs are difficult to quantify doesn't mean they are nonexistent."

    True, shithead. The cost of anything it difficult to quantify, so we let everyone vote on it. It's called 'the market'.
    Of course, we could try letting ignoramuses like you set the costs, but it's been tried; it leads to mass murder, in case you haven't noticed.

  • Tulpa the White||

    How does the market solve an entire town's residents dumping detergent and fertilizer into the stream that feeds a lake, with the result that all the fish die from the resulting algae bloom, and the people who depended on those fish are out of work.

    Even the civil court system (which is NOT part of the market) would have difficulties dealing with that situ. Externalities are annoying and often misused to justify statist policies, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa the White|6.9.12 @ 2:39PM|#
    "How does the market solve an entire town's residents dumping detergent and fertilizer into the stream that feeds a lake, with the result that all the fish die from the resulting algae bloom, and the people who depended on those fish are out of work."
    Uh, sell the lake to someone.
    If you grant a commons, don't gripe when the commons turns into a tragedy.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    "The Nazis are well remembered for murdering well over 11 million people in the implementation of their slogan, 'The public good before the private good,' the Chinese Communists for murdering 62 million people in the implementation of theirs, 'Serve the people,' and the Soviet Communists for murdering more than 60 million people in the implementation of Karl Marx's slogan, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' Anyone who defends any of these, or any variation of them, on the grounds of their 'good intentions' is an immoral (NOT 'amoral') enabler of the ACTUAL (not just the proverbial) road to hell." -- Rick Gaber

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You guys barely acknowledge the possibility of external costs at all, because you need to believe that everything works according to a pristine rational market mechanism,

    No we don't, speaking only for myself of course.

    We say that the markets provide the best solutions in an imperfect world. The voluntary interactions of millions of people on a moment by moment basis will always provide better solutions than something cooked up by the best and brightest. Emergent order always trumps creationism.

    "Externalities" all too often is used to mean something I don't like. Especially where it cannot be demonstrated to cause harm to specific individuals. Furthermore, in the few cases where they do exist and cause harm, the statist 'solution' is invariably some form of revenue that will be used for a pet project and not to remedy the alleged harm. Not to mention the impossibility of determining an accurate cost of the "externality".


    and that the only thing that gets in the way of it functioning perfectly is government meddling.

    Not functioning perfectly; but functioning more efficiently.

  • Brutus||

    not sure why people should have that right even under a libertarian ethos.

    They don't, insofar as doing so invades the property of others.

  • Mickey Rat||

    In context, "dispose" does mean throw into the garbage. It means that one is free to alienate their property as they see fit, be it by trade, by selling or giving it away.

    I don't know if you got that confused out of real ignorance or a desire to confuse the issue under discussion.

  • anon||

    It's Tony. Of course it's ignorance.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Coercion cannot but result in chaos in the end.
    One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman.
    Gandhi

  • John C. Randolph||

    Libertarianism's central problem is that it is too simple to cope with complicated reality, and that's why simpleminded people like it.

    Tony, you fucking idiot. It's precisely the complexity of reality that makes your statist pipe dreams impossible. The Soviets had their smartest people trying to "run the economy", and they regulated and regimented themselves right into a catastrophic collapse.

    -jcr

  • Longtorso||

  • Brian D||

    What a surprise, a Democrat advocating for the return of slavery.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    And yet, they've given out over 1,400 waivers from Obamacare, thus denying all those people this "right".

  • Sevo||

    And, strangely, the folks who support Obama seem to be the ones denied the "rights".

  • ||

    Don't worry, this time the right people will be in charge and it'll be a unicorn-filled paradise and not a nomenklatura-ruled hellhole.

  • Brutus||

    That bitch is fucking crazy.

  • #||

    I really wish actual republicans were even half of the fantacy republicans liberals have in their heads.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    "Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -- Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev, addressing the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, 2-25-56

    "We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society." -- Hillary Clinton

  • anon||

    I love that quote of Hillary's. Every time I read it I think to myself "Well, what's best for your society is to leave me the fuck alone."

  • Concerned Citizen||

    "...we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." -- Adolf Hitler, 10-7-33

    "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, June 28, 2004.

    "To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole." -- Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, National Socialist German Workers' ("Nazi") Party

    Sadly, I could go on all day.

  • anon||

    It's horrifying that people can hear or read that shit and think, "Yeah, commmies are the good guys."

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I saw an author on TV not long ago talking about the U.S. shipping things to the Soviet Union before we entered WWII. On board were some commie sympathizers, or 'pinkos'. After they had delivered their cargo, and seen how communist life really was, the pinkos weren't so sympathetic anymore.

  • Sevo||

    "On board were some commie sympathizers, or 'pinkos'. After they had delivered their cargo, and seen how communist life really was, the pinkos weren't so sympathetic anymore."

    What's stranger yet is the number of apologists who went there, saw with their own eyes how screwed up it was, and *still* said it was 'the future'.

  • Robert||

    Lots of non-apologists thought that too. Lots of people don't like what they see as the future, but predict that is how it will be. Some of them comment here.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Robert, he's almost certainly referring to Lincoln Steffens' infamous quote, "I have seen the future and it works." Steffens was a die-hard Soviet apologist.

  • Sevo||

    Robert|6.9.12 @ 6:51PM|#
    "Lots of non-apologists thought that too."

    Gee, try that in English; lost my decoder ring.

  • Whahappan?||

    How DARE you imply the Nazis were socialist! They were right-wingers, you Teabagger!!!

  • John C. Randolph||

    I hope that I meet her face to face someday so that I can tell her exactly that. I would also mention that the only good Obama has ever done for this country was to prevent a second Clinton administration.

    -jcr

  • fried wylie||

    the only good Obama has ever done for this country was to prevent a second Clinton administration.

    I'll drink to that!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It goes back further still, to the dogma of an earlier time when the Judiciary regarded its principal function as the protection of private property, even at the expense of social justice, democratic values, and other individual rights.

    What a bizarre statement. When you want to destroy democratic values and individual rights, a great place to start is by weakening or removing private property rights.

  • anon||

    Funny that you quote that statement. I read that and thought "Hey, destroying "Social Justice and "Democratic Values" along with "Individual Rights" is a good thing."

    Funny how those terms all have different meaning than their implied definitions.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    More than bizarre, the statement is incoherent. "Social justice" and "democratic values" are collectivist concepts, which are only properly defined or understood by viewing the individual as a member of a group. These do not constitute any form of "individual rights" whatsoever, so to lump them with same makes no sense.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Still, Wickard v. Filburn needs to be overturned. Our jurisprudence needs to be founded on solid reasoning that bears some relationship to reality and common sense. Wickard fails spectacularly on that score. Raich goes even further down the path of absurdity. Swift, Carroll, and Twain all wrote eloquently and compellingly -- not to mention scathingly -- about those who would twist words and logic so, yet we seem to have learned nothing from those gentlemen, nor subsequently, in the centuries since they put pen to paper.

  • Brutus||

    ^^ THIS. By decision or Amendment, either one. But it must fall.

  • ||

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Oooooooooh, buuuuuuuuuurned!

    The best thing about that video is how it really focused on traits that are unique to Rand followers.

    I mean, "rich white college kids," "people who want to feel smarter than religious people," and "those with a religious zealot's sense of superiority" - no sir, you'd NEVER find any of that among Obama supporters!

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Also, does it bother liberals that the Queen of Selfishness agreed with them on their most sacred issue, abortion?

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    The protestations that the current challenge to Obamacare do not seek to overturn the Commerce-clause status quo remind me of nothing so much as Abraham Lincoln's protestations that his only goal was keeping the Union together, that he would leave Slavery in place if that would do the trick: "If I could save the Union by freeing no slaves I would do it..."

  • Robert||

    I think he was telling the truth.

  • Tulpa the White||

    It goes back further still, to the dogma of an earlier time when the Judiciary regarded its principal function as the protection of private property, even at the expense of social justice, democratic values, and other individual rights.

    CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER!

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    The progressive/liberal narrative about property rights involves one or just a few people holding most or all of the property, and so, effectively, most or all of the rights, leaving little or nothing for other members of society. The goal of the narrative is to foment class envy, ultimately, "to get the peasants to revolt." It has been very effective, especially in times, such as the Gilded Age and now, when a few seem obscenely wealthy while most are in or near poverty.

    (continued in "reply" to this message)

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    A society, in which the principles, rules, and laws allow, or can be bent to allow, a single person or a small group to acquire most of the property (and thus, most of the attendant rights) doesn't strike me as inherently stable. There must, at least at times and perhaps often or continuously, be a high level of misery and discontent -- certainly among the dispossessed and disadvantaged. I don't want people to live in misery and discontentment, and I certainly don't want the explosion of revolution, when people in those situations have finally had enough and revolt. It seems to me that more people would appreciate property rights if they had more property or there were more straightforward, reliable ways for them to acquire it. How can those with property transfer property to those without, in such a way that the lives of BOTH are improved by the transaction? How can more property be created, so there is more to go around? Until we widely publicize demonstrably good answers to such questions, the Robert Weiners of the world will continue to get a lot of traction with their shoddy, cynical rhetoric.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Until we widely publicize demonstrably good answers to such questions, the Robert Weiners of the world will continue to get a lot of traction with their shoddy, cynical rhetoric."

    Broadly speaking, the free market already provides those answers, but most people do not see and therefore do not understand how markets work. Demagogues like Weiner prey upon ignorance, but ignorance cannot be remedied if people are not motivated to find out how system runs for themselves.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    So the task before us is to make sure people understand what free markets really are (as opposed to the many impostors that are falsely labeled as free markets) and how they can provide efficiently for human needs, facilitating prosperity. Also, to find ways to motivate people to seek the truth and give it a fair hearing when they find it.

    What about a series of animations to promote general knowledge of free markets? I am thinking of a series of vignettes in the tradition of "Schoolhouse Rock": e.g.,

    "I'm just a (dollar) Bill..."
    "The Commerce Clause..."
    "Market Inteventions!"
    "Inflation Station"
    "Interstate Nate"
    "The Green Energy Blues"

    Make up your own titles!

  • John C. Randolph||

    I think it's a damned shame that they're NOT taking on Wickard. That ruling is one of the greatest failures of the court in the 20th century.

    -jcr

  • Alex||

    Wickard will never, ever, ever, ever, be overturned. To do so would unravel about 90% of federal law.

  • ||

    I predict it will in the next 50 years.

    The thing about the constitution is the original text never goes away.

    Eventually some court in the future is going to get around to reading it.

  • Pi Guy||

    You might be right. Consider the criminalization of drugs. It's justified via ICC. I am under the impression that if a person was convicted of a "crime" that's later found to be unconstitutional then, in fact, they've not actually committed a crime at all.

    Overturning Wickard would mean that there untold thousands of wrongful imprisonment lawsuits waiting in the wings. Not to mention all the lawyers, judges, probation officers, cops, and jailors who'd be out of work.

    Yeah, this could be messy.

  • Robert||

    At the state and local level, criminaliz'n of drugs is justified by what's called "police power", a somewhat nebulous collection of power all gov't is presumed to have as a default. (The federal gov't, because it has a specific foundation, does not have police power.) So that would still be there even without the ICC. The federal gov't's criminaliz'n of drugs is based on both the ICC and the treaty power.

    I don't think it's realistic to think the police power will ever be undone legally. What will (eventually -- forever is a long time, and nothing stands still) change is the exercise of that power. So they'll repeal prohib'ns but always assert the right to bring them back.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Treaties cannot supersede the Constitution. They become law of the land, subordinate to the Constitution, as Acts of Congress are. If the government does not have the power or authority to do X, signing a treaty cannot give it that power or authority.

  • ||

    ....and yet overturning wickard should be the holy grail of the libertarian party. It would be the frame holding up every plank of the party's platform.

    I was just in the garden weeding for the last couple of hours and thinking that very thing. Wondering if the pot legalization movement could possibly end up giving us an opportunity to do just that.

  • Robert||

    I think it'd be a lot easier and more productive to repeal the laws in question than to overturn an interpret'n which could well be substituted for by myriad other ways the federal gov't can exert influence.

    Narcotics prohib'n at the federal level was until the mid to late 1960s based on the taxing power. They'd gotten a court decision saying the feds could make you use a certain appl'n procedure to pay a tax, then deny you the appl'n, then convict you of failing to pay the tax.

    And if that's not enough, they could always coerce the states to maintain their prohib'n the way they did with speed limits and booze-buying age. And probably a bunch of ways I haven't thought of.

  • Sean Mack||

    Weiner's prose is just god awful, in that typically progressive way. The sentence which begins "This legal facsimile of reincarnation..." made me cringe in memory of my own bad college writing.

    There is something about the pseudo-thought of today's leftism that REQUIRES writing like that. If you read fast it sounds like an argument is being made, but when finished you see that the author has said nothing which cannot be boiled down to "Get with the times, you mean old tigers!"

  • ||

    "There is something about the pseudo-thought of today's leftism that REQUIRES writing like that."

    They havent got a sound argument and they know it. They deliberately write in a way that sounds like an argument if you dont think about it because it is aimed at the largely uneducated masses. When people like you come along and point out how much bullshit they are shoveling, you will be ignored.

    I think this is one of the reasons they have made as much progress as they have. They make brainwashing the masses a priority, while we try to engage them in earnest debate. Just like the leftist trolls here they are not interested in earnest debate. Obfuscation and disingenuousness are their primary tactics. If it looks like they are going to be pinned down on anything they have said or done then they throw tantrums and engage in hysterical ad hominem attacks.

  • ||

    Yesterday I heard a segment on the Levin radio show. A caller claimed to be retired military who had gone back to college and gotten a grad degree. He is conservative. He was now teaching at university and claimed that now he is doing the indoctrination as opposed to the leftists. Levin asked what the guy taught....nursing. "Well you cant really do any indoctrination in nursing!" said Levin. Levin is unfamiliar with just how much the leftists have woven their mindset into everything, and there is plenty of leftist indoctrination going on in nursing schools around the country. The nursing professor has it right, but like most on the right, Levin is thinking in an honest, straightforward way; it is nursing, you teach nursing. there is no reason for indoctrination.
    The left weaves their bullshit into everything and we dont. They are schemers and we arent. Maybe we should become schemers.

    Oh, and fuck character limits.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    +

  • VG Zaytsev||

    +11111

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I also say frak character limits. What submoron ever thought establishing them and programming the robot to enforce them was a good idea? That person needs to go back to Oceania. The Ministry of Truth's Records Department always needs more doubleplusgood bellyfeelers to get the job of rectification done!

    I agree that we need to weave the ideas of real liberty and free-markets into everything. Is it wrong to scheme for freedom?

  • Wat Tyler||

    Robert Weiner (any relation to Tony?), your Marxism is showing, please zip up, it's disgusting.

  • John Galt||

    I can't read about any of these Weiners without being forced a mental image of them using the internet to send images of their wieners to uninterested ladies.

    Thanks Anthony!

  • zamoracarl711||

    just as Betty explained I am dazzled that a stay at home mom can make $6823 in one month on the computer. did you see this link makecash16com

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