Surging UKIP is Not Libertarian, Despite What Some Would Have You Believe

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is at its highest ever poll rating, thanks in large part to a fall in support for the Conservatives. UKIP is now polling at 9 percent, a 3 percent increase from last month. The Conservatives have seen a 4 percent fall in approval. UKIP, a party that has no members in the House of Commons is now polling only one point behind the Liberal Democrats, who are in a coalition government with the Conservatives.

Although UKIP does not having any members in the House of Commons, it does have twelve members in the European Parliament. Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, is perhaps best known in the U.S. for his colorful speeches to the European Parliament. One of my favorites below:

  

Many in the U.K. and U.S. see UKIP as some sort of haven for British libertarianism. UKIP seems to be at least superficially friendly to libertarianism, the statement on gay marriage found on UKIP’s website describes the party as a “democratic libertarian Party.” However, a fleeting glimpse at UKIP’s policies reveal that the party is not as supportive of personal liberty as its members might like to say it is.

The anti-libertarianism of UKIP can be most clearly seen in UKIP’s immigration policy. Some highlights:

End mass, uncontrolled immigration. UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a.

End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies.

One of the few redeeming features of the European Union is its open borders policy. If what is concerning UKIP members is the supposed drain that foreigners have on British welfare spending then why not address the issue directly? How could a "libertarian" party support such a restriction on the movement of people?

On crime and justice UKIP have adopted some of the scarier parts of the American criminal justice system:

Introduce a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy to deal with persistent offenders and make our streets safer for the public

Double prison places through better use of existing prisons and a substantial programme of new prison building. UKIP will also end the scandal of early releases and weak sentencing. This will cost approximately £2bn p.a. in contrast to the cost of crime, estimated by the Home Office at £45bn p.a.

What is frustrating is that on the economy UKIP offers some good proposals, such as introducing a flat tax, raising the tax threshold, and reducing public spending. UKIP is also Eurosceptic, a sentiment that is especially important today given Europe's current economic crisis. 

Some young libertarians involved in UKIP will tell you that there is potential to change the party from the inside, a sentiment that betrays a fetish for politics over conviction. While UKIP might offer some welcome proposals on how to shrink the state that is no reason to forget its proposals on crime and immigration. It looks like UKIP will become increasingly relevant in British politics, it would be a shame for so-called libertarians to give them a pass just becuase of their economic proposals. 

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.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    UK Indepdence Party sounds so weird. Like they intend to declare their indepedence from the crown or something.

  • JellyJ||

    The European Union, perhaps?

    Anyway, as a platform they aren't libertarian, but their more prominent younger members and supporters are. It's a weird juxtaposition of old people who hark after a golden era that never was, and a group of idealistic and liberal young people who dislike the stench of an overbearing bureaucracy - particularly one so alien as the one in Brussels.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The people's of Middle England will stand together, or fail.

  • Ted S.||

    The people's what of Middle England will stand together, or fail?

  • JeremyR||

    Or in other words, they are libertarian, but not cosmotarian?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Um, first principles of libertarianism recognizes the freedom of movement of individuals across national borders. We could argue the costs of illegal immigration in cradle-to-grave welfare states, but freezing or setting quotas on immigration definitely seems anti-libertarian.

  • fish||

    How could a "libertarian" party support such a restriction on the movement of people?

    I imagine that they wouldn't hold this position if Britain wasn't such a magnet for freeloaders.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    It's Britain, dude. Even their cutting-edge, absurdest, anarchist humor is state-funded.

  • fish||

    That's all fine as long as your state funded absurdities are cheap and in small numbers. Britain, indeed much of Europe has a social welfare "problem".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Um, first principles of libertarianism recognizes the freedom of movement of individuals across national borders.

    No, it doesn't. NAP only applies to activity entirely within the jurisdiction's borders.

  • Libertymike||

    Since when is the application of libertarian principles cabined by geography?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Because libertarianism is only praticed in one geographical area.

  • Jeff||

    I wish.

  • MWG||

    Except for when it's not such as in the case of trade.

    Also, which borders are we talking about? Country? State? County?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The largest jurisdiction controlled by a dominant coercer. In today's world, this usually means a nation.

  • Paul.||

    It'd sure be nice if our own country would recognize its own constitution. If that makes me libertarian for saying so, I'm down with it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Show me the part of the constitution that says we have to have open borders.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Where does it say we have to keep out borders closed/tight?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's implied in the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization, as well as regulating foreign commerce, importation of persons, and repelling invasions.

    If you want to dispute that the fedgov has those powers, I'm sure you don't mind Arizona enforcing immigration law then.

    Oh, wait.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But the Constitution doesn't say the feds have to impose these things. It doesn't even 'imply' it (weak).

  • MWG||

    "It's implied in the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization, as well as regulating foreign commerce, importation of persons, and repelling invasions."

    Dense as usual.

    Naturalization is not immigration. Foreign commerce has never been interpreted to include immigrants. Importation of persons... as in slaves, but I'm guessing you already knew that. Repelling invasions usually involves those holding land and flying a foreign flag.

    You argument is so weak that even the framers, (the ones who wrote the fucking document you're citing place no restrictions on immigration with one exception: the alien and seditions act... Not really considered a good representation of constitutional law.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you have no trouble with states like Arizona enforcing immigration law.

  • MWG||

    What does my opinion of AZ law have to do with your comment or my response?

  • Drake||

    Where does it say we have to keep them open?

  • MWG||

    See my comment below.

  • MWG||

    "Show me the part of the constitution that says we have to have open borders."

    The constitution says nothing about what "we have to have". It sets limits on what the Feds are allowed to do.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Prebutted!

  • ||

    NAP only applies to activity entirely within the jurisdiction's borders.

    What jurisdiction's borders? You mean the ones government's enforce against the NAP? Tulpa, you are one dumb fuck if you think anyone is going to buy your completely made up addendum to the NAP.

    Oh well I guess that means I can shoot those dirty Mexicans as long as I stay within US borders.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If they're on the other side of the border, it wouldn't violate libertarianism. It would be awfully immoral though, unless in self-defense.

    Speaking of which, Reason doesn't apply the NAP to Mexican kids throwing rocks across the border at Border Patrol agents. So maybe they do agree with me on this.

  • ||

    HAHAHA oh this has just been hilarious. You can stop pretending to be retarded now Tulpa. The novelty of it has long worn off. Oh yes, a retarded person would say that killing Mexican doesn't violate the NAP. Good one Tulpa.

    And I don't see Reason saying anywhere that throwing rocks at Border Patrol agents is OK. Obviously you forgot to include the link to that.

  • ||

    BTW Tulpa, I wouldn't travel near the border anytime soon. I'll be taking my sniper rifle to Mexico and bagging some Americans. Wouldn't want you to be one of my victims. Oh wait, they aren't victims because I'm not aggressing against them.

  • ||

    It would be awfully immoral though

    Yeah, because it violates the NAP, you retarded fuck.

  • Chris Mallory||

    You cannot have freedom and liberty unless you have a culture that supports those ideas. Importing hordes of 3rd world savages mean less freedom and less liberty.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And they sell oranges and play their bongo drums all night on the street corner too.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Um, first principles of libertarianism recognizes the freedom of movement of individuals across national borders.

    They do?

  • Trident||

    "Um, first principles of libertarianism recognizes the freedom of movement of individuals across national borders."

    Um, no it doesn't.
    As a matter of fact, libertarianism at root does not even recognize national borders at all.
    And it also does not have any such nonsense as "freedom of movement", because it directly conflicts with something that IS part of libertarian first principles: private property rights.

    The only freedom of movement anybody has within the context of libertarianism, is freedom of movement on your own property.

  • SIV||

    Or in other words, they are libertarian, but not cosmotarian?

    EXACTLY

  • Drake||

    They are libertarianish but not suicidal.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nope they're neither. Sorry, Jeremy, SIV, other nativists, but libertarianism means something and free borders are part and parcel of that something.

  • SIV||

    libertarianism means something

    Judging by al of the disparate ideologies and factions that claim "libertarian" it means almost whatever you want it too so long as you profess to advance individual liberty. While oppose the restictive nativism of UKIP, they aren't a political party in my country. They sure sound a hell of a lot more "libertarian-leaning" than any other viable party in all of Euro-dom.

    Feeney cites UKIP's crime/criminal justice policy as "un-libertarian".

  • Paul.||

    They sound a bit tea-partyish to me. Smaller government and economic stuff, but tough on crime and close up the borders.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's called "law and order libertarianism", and it's the fastest growing segment of libertarianism.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Unless you can quickly reproduce asexually Tulpa (shudder), I'm calling bullshit on your claim.

  • Chris Mallory||

    If you do not defend "something" against the hordes of 3rd worlders then you will soon have nothing to defend.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Lies.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Is this LoneWako? Has he returned under a pseudonym? My god, I have been here too long.

    look at all the stars

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So as far as you're concerned, people who stay on the other side of the border have no right to life and can be snuffed out by Hellfires at any time the president chooses, with no oversight.

    However, any of them that wish to enter our country must be allowed to do so.

    Interesting viewpoint.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Boring strawman.

  • ||

    Well, by this argument:

    NAP only applies to activity entirely within the jurisdiction's borders.

    You should have no objections to Hellfire missiles being fired at civilians, Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There's nothing unlibertarian about it.

    However, it is immoral.

  • ||

    Thank you for proving beyond a doubt you have no idea what you're talking about. I knew it for a while, now I can show people this thread if they doubt me.

  • iggy||

    "Some young libertarians involved in UKIP will tell you that there is potential to change the party from the inside, a sentiment that betrays a fetish for politics over conviction."

    They might be the only non-pinko party in the whole of Europe. Getting in on the ground floor and trying to change UKIP from the inside seems a lot more likely than changing England's politics with some Libertarian party that has no support.

    Man, sometimes Libertarians really seem to hate any plan that might actually work. If we ever want to be more than a debate club, we can't throw possible allies under the bus based on a few disagreements.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Honestly, they sound better than the Republicans.

  • yonemoto||

    low bar, low bar.

  • MWG||

    Seriously.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If we ever want to be more than a debate club, we can't throw possible allies under the bus based on a few disagreements.

    Sure it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!

  • Cytotoxic||

    What iggy said.

  • ||

    I agree. Thinking you can influence them in a more positive direction isn't the same as "giving them a pass" or having a "fetish for politics over conviction". That's just silly. By that logic, any attempt to influence the Republican party by, say, getting more freedom-oriented candidates elected would also be a "fetish for politics over conviction". I don't think there's anyone here that would argue that, though some don't find that strategy effective.

  • Robert||

    For that matter, why would you ever join a political party composed entirely of people who agree with you? What scope do you have for influence there?

  • Almanian.||

    we can't

    1) What's this "we" stuff, Kemosabe?

    2) Fuck off, slaver!

    /radical something or other

  • iggy||

    I'm so sorry, Almanian! That was too collectivist of me. I'm off to say prayers at my Murray Rothbard altar and beg forgiveness from the Great God Mises (Free markets be upon him)!

    I'm pretty sure the last paragraph is actually how a lot of people see us, specifically because Libertarians really do come off like a cult when people start obsessing over what it 'means' to be libertarian.

  • Almanian.||

    Does your butt hurt? Cause it sounds like your butt hurts.

    I'd say "aw, come on, I was just kidding! Get your fucking sarc detector adjusted, ya pussy!" But since I see your butt hurts, I won't do that.

  • iggy||

    Well then I'll say it 'Aw, come on, I was just kidding. Get your fucking sarc detector adjusted, ya pussy!'

  • Paul.||

    I'm pretty sure the last paragraph is actually how a lot of people see us, specifically because Libertarians really do come off like a cult when people start obsessing over what it 'means' to be libertarian.

    One of the reasons there are so many discussions over what it 'means' to be libertarian is because we have pikers like Bill Maher claiming to be libertarian. Kind of muddies the waters, don't you think?

  • iggy||

    Yeah, but Bill Maher is so clearly not a libertarian that he doesn't require us to have the conversation. The conversation over whether Bill Maher is a libertarian would go something like this.

    'Do you think Bill Maher is a libertarian?'
    'No.'

  • ||

    'Do you think Bill Maher is a libertarian?'
    'No.

    The same could be said about UKIP.

  • Shmurphy||

    I would rather be small and principle than affiliated with a large entity whose positions disgust me. If we never win office that's fine, real change is cultural anyway.

  • Robert||

    You're not married, are you?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Man, sometimes Libertarians really seem to hate any plan that might actually work."

    That may be why they look at the Greens and see kindred spirits.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Some young libertarians involved in UKIP the GOP will tell you that there is potential to change the party from the inside...
  • SIV||

    Infinitely more potential than changing the Democrat Party from the inside or making the Libertarian Party viable in anything but a local election.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And they're right.

  • Shmurphy||

    Precisely. I have family involved with the RLC, but despite their efforts the majority want more R than L in their C.

  • yonemoto||

    I want to know what the C stands for.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    caucus...or cake. one of the two.

  • entropy||

    some young libertarians involved in UKIP the GOP

    Except not really, because it's UKIP.

    That would be like attempting to change Cameron's Tories from the inside.

    This is more like attempting to change the Tea Party from the inside, if the Tea Party was a party. Or, attempting to change the big-L Libertarians from the inside.

    For England, UKIP would be a sea change. And if those guys had control, in short order they'd be shaming our sorry asses in the US.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They're not libertarian, because they want criminals in jail and don't want an influx of theocratic totalitarians into their country?

    Sounds more libertarian than Reason to me.

  • ||

    No, they're not libertarian because they believe in punishments disproportionate to the crime and restricting the freedom of immigrants.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    they believe in punishments disproportionate to the crime

    That's a matter of opinion, and it's nowhere to be found in the NAP in any case.

  • ||

    That's a matter of opinion, and it's nowhere to be found in the NAP in any case.

    Just like jurisdictional boundaries are nowhere to be found in the NAP.

    Do you delude yourself from the fact that you're a huge hypocrite, or do you know it and just not care, Tulpa?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And they aren't restricting the freedom of immigrants, they're trying not to have any. Big difference.

    If Libertopia didn't allow 100,000 North Koreans in uniform to cross the open border and bring their 2nd-amendment-protected tanks and artillery with them, would you complain that we were restricting their freedom?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm stand in awe of your mendacity and double-thought Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you don't have an argument and can only insult. Surprising, not really.

  • ||

    Dude, anyone who thinks your moronic bullshit needs to be argued away is probably as delusional as you are.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Funny, you guys were all hot to argue with me until you started losing. Now it's beneath you to bother.

  • Cytotoxic||

    AHAHAHA. No Tulpa we're aren't losing when you start to whip out moronic insane metaphors and equivalences.

  • MWG||

    "Funny, you guys were all hot to argue with me until you started losing"

    When you've declared yourself the winner in an Internet forum, it's usually a pretty good sign that you're not.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I have an argument but you haven't earned it. See Darius below.

  • ||

    According to the Tulpa, military invasions are the same thing as immigration! I'm sure you and Chris Mallory will get along just fine.

  • ||

    And they aren't restricting the freedom of immigrants, they're trying not to have any. Big difference.

    There's zero difference, you twat.

  • Drake||

    I believe the term you are looking for is "Fifth Columnists".

  • ||

    Prove it, dumbass.

  • SIV||

    If Libertopia didn't allow 100,000 North Koreans in uniform to cross the open border and bring their 2nd-amendment-protected tanks and artillery with them, would you complain that we were restricting their freedom?

    That is some pretty effectivereductio ad absurdum there Tulpa. Hat's off.

    I think you just destroyed the case for open borders absolutism.

  • ||

    I think the only thing destroyed is Tulpa's brain for equating immigration and invasion.

  • Sernylan||

    "I think the only thing destroyed is Tulpa's brain for equating immigration and invasion."

    And though you scoff, those who don't differentiate are numbered in legions. A "secure" national border, coupled with a pragmatic immigration control valve.. free from union/supremacist/political influence would be a nice start... coupled with a serious entitlement reform drive. The U.S. has always been a melting pot of sorts, but not Europe. The U.K. is losing its Anglo-Saxon heritage/hegemony (in their eyes) to assorted groups of foreigners who refuse to assimilate, in the name of "multi-culturalism", a social experiment enforced by the labor party, and the EU. The rise of UKIP and its manifesto makes perfect sense in that light. Given Europe’s propensity for violent ethnic cleansing, the UKIP is a mild...tame response to England's perceived immigration problems, the BNP is another story altogether.

  • ||

    Bla bla bla, get to the part about why "immigration control" is not coercion.

  • Sernylan||

    "Bla bla bla, get to the part about why "immigration control" is not coercion."

    Are you being sarcastic?...Coercing who?

  • ||

    Would be immigrants. It's right in the name.

  • iggy||

    I must have missed all the theocratic totalitarians moving into England given their current immigration laws.

    I should really pay more attention because when I first read your post, I assumed you were making shit up.

  • Chris Mallory||

    See the riots in London a couple summers ago.

  • Cytotoxic||

    See all the white people in those riots.

  • Jeff||

    What's so un-libertarian about a global carbon tax, opposition to Right to Work laws, and every single turd vomited up by Steve Chapman?

  • ||

    Oh great, another TURKURJERBS thread...

  • ||

    But heller, this is a limey THEY TOOK UR JERBS thread. That makes it all posh and shit.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I say, they've made off with our employment.

  • ||

    We apologize again for the fault in the
    hiring practices. Those responsible for sacking
    the people who have just been sacked,
    have been sacked.

  • Almanian.||

    And now for something completely different.

  • Chris Mallory||

    The truth hurts doesn't it?

  • Cytotoxic||

    TRKRJERBS

  • ||

    Get back in the pile.

  • Hugh Akston||

    UKIP is now polling at 9 percent, a 3 percent increase from last month.

    Definitely not libertarians. They're way too popular.

  • ||

    Once again, Hugh sees right to the heart of things. Like he does with his victims.

  • fish||

    You just earned yourself one of these.

    http://instantrimshot.com/

  • Cliché Bandit||

    DUDE....WTF? in CO, the LP AVERAGED 4.5% in 3-way races. And sometimes up to 7 and 8. And in 2-way races the LP got mid to high 20s and even a 41%. Plus, LEGAL WEED BITCHES!

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Bash some of the LP or the National LP all you want but KNOW THIS Colorado Stands Above ALL!

    and LEGAL WEED BITCHES

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Colorado is a weird place. They voted for legal weed and the guy who's going to smack it down from 2500 miles away.

  • iggy||

    I seriously doubt Mitt Romney would have been less likely to come down on legal weed. Even conservative Supreme Court justices who claim to be pro-federalism came down against states' rights in regards to weed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Justice, you mean (Scalia). Rehnquist and Thomas both dissented.

  • Russell||

    You don't have to be a goggle eyed madman who's abandoned shirtmaking to become a Birther and climate crank to rise high in the counsels of UKIP.

    But it helps

  • fish||

    Indeed! To be a real climate crank shameless scientific falsification helps!

    Just sayin mann.

  • iggy||

    Dude, who cares? Can you post anything without linking to your fucking blog?

    I'm not even a global warming denier, so I'm not saying this because I necessarily disagree with what you're saying. I'm saying this because your blog is one of the least user friendly, most pretentious, most confusing jumbles of self-righteous blather that I've ever stumbled across. And you keep linking to it for no reason, even when the article at hand has nothing to do with climate change.

    It's annoying as hell.

  • fish||

    Dude, who cares? Can you post anything without linking to your fucking blog?

    Yeah...watts up with that?

  • Libertymike||

    +1776!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Blog whores gonna blog whore.

  • ||

    Look who's talking. You could at least update it once in a while.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Epi, you should know that I steal most of my material from you. And since you haven't posted anything clever in...well, ever, I think I should be the one who's angry at you,.

  • Almanian.||

    Sumbitch ain't earnin' his non-pay. I say cut off his lips unless he starts producing NOW.

    But that's just me.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Unfortunately, since we formed the Commenters Union, the byzantine rules and procedures make it nearly impossible to actually administer corporal punishment, even when it's wholly justified.

    Except for on Cytotoxic, for some reason.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Wait what? That's where the belt marks came from?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Also, unlike you, at least wattshisname and I can call ourselves blog whores.

  • ||

    This is a blog!

    "Commenting, Hugh. A blogpost is something a whore does for money."

  • General Butt Naked||

    What's with HnR regulars and poorly maintained blogs.

    I think Urkobold is the only one that updates. Monkey Tuesday keeps my week just churning along.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I'm waiting for my Stimulus funds to come through before I can start posting again.

  • General Butt Naked||

    "Too blog to fail"?

    I'll show myself out.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    yes GBN, yes you will.

  • Ted S.||

    Ahem. I post to my blog every day. Even though some of the posts are fairly lousy.

  • SIV||

    Poorly maintained? WTF?

    I run a first class joint with regular updates.

  • Russell||

    Maybe i should add advertising.

  • Redmanfms||

    Maybe i should add advertising.

    Nah, you could start by making your shit coherent.

  • pmains||

    In theory, the crown owns all of the land in the UK, yes? We should let Lizzie decide whether immigrants can stay or if they should get off her lawn.

  • fish||

    Shit even lizzie is on a government funded allowance....

  • pmains||

    Then she should start charging all of her ungrateful subjects rent until she can support herself.

    Sheesh.

    Yes, yes. Wars were fought over this very issue, with the citizenry saying, "we're the ones actually producing the wealth, so you need our permission to tax us!" Well, history be damned.

  • fish||

    Then she should start charging all of her ungrateful subjects rent until she can support herself

    Only if she dons the required top hat and monocle when she collects the rents.

  • Almanian.||

    I believe Queen Eliza could pull off that look.

  • sarcasmic||

    UKIP seems to be at least superficially friendly to libertarianism, the statement on gay marriage found on UKIP’s website describes the party as a “democratic libertarian Party.”

    When did using force of government to redefine a word become the litmus test for libertarianism?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Libertarianism = not having the government shove the traditional definition of marriage down people's throats.

    We've had this discussion we won and we're tired of you people bringing it up.

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarianism = not having the government in the marriage business.

    We've had this discussion we won and we're tired of you people bringing it up.

    Who is this "we" you speak of? As far as I can tell you're a soldier fellating conservative.

  • pmains||

    This is especially true in England, where it was Henry VIII who started a state church in order to redefine marriage.

  • sarcasmic||

    I thought he did that so he could get a divorce.

  • Almanian.||

    This whole court is out of order!

  • ||

    Same thing, really.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No, he's just consistently pro-death and anti-sovereignty. Both our sovereignty and Pakistan's, Yemen's, etc.

  • sarcasmic||

    When I want your opinion I'll take a shit. Thanks.

  • Cytotoxic||

    As far as I can tell you're a soldier fellating conservative.

    You're fucking stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    Blow me. Oh wait. I'm not a soldier. Never mind.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You're a mendacious dishonest asshole, much like Tulpa. You're perfect for each other.

  • sarcasmic||

    Grow a skin.

  • Robert||

    Part of liberty is when you go to court, the judge reads your contract according to the traditional meaning of all the words. Traditional meaning = language. Language is nothing but meanings established by tradition.

  • Libertymike||

    Be careful, posing a question like that may get you branded as a dogmatic, militiant type of libertarian.

  • Libertymike||

    From people who are all too comfy with the state and its projection of power.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Non intervention. Coercion is bad. What? Shake things up by intervening and using coercion to redefine marriage? Where do I sign up?!?"

  • ||

    You know Mike, you've convinced me. RTW laws ARE terrible and should never be passed. It's an expansion of the power of the state. We just need to repeal the NLRA. I'm sure that's just right around the corner.

  • Libertymike||

    Did I post something regarding the RTW statutes?

    Sure, from a purist perspective, the RTW laws, COULD, be viewed as unlibertarian. But, they, at least in part, further individual liberty; indeed, I would argue that they advance individual liberty more than they harm associational liberty.

    Fooled ya'!

  • ||

    Unlike opposing discrimination by the government, which is apparently as unlibertarian as can be!

    Fooled yourself! Idiot.

  • ||

    When did using force of government to redefine labor norms become a litmus test for libertarianism?

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    One of the few redeeming features of the European Union is its open borders policy. If what is concerning UKIP members is the supposed drain that foreigners have on British welfare spending then why not address the issue directly? How could a "libertarian" party support such a restriction on the movement of people?

    Why don't you ask Murray Rothbard? Or John Hospers? Or Ron Paul? Considering I've never seen a commitment to open borders listed as a requirement for libertarian bona fides outside of Reason and Cato, perhaps it's not UKIP's libertarianism that needs to be called into question.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Reason is altering the NAP. Pray they don't alter it any further.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's part and parcel of freedom.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Why don't you beg the question a little more?

  • ||

    You talking to yourself again, Tulpa?

  • Cytotoxic||

    +

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Horseshit. "You're free to do as you please in this country" and "Everyone is welcome in this country" are not equivalent statements, as much as cosmotarians attempt to obscure the distinction. The distinction remains nonetheless. Sorry.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Free to do was I please = free to bring in and hire non-threatening immigrants. The former implies the latter. PWND

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Considering that in order to do that you have to grant them access to either other people's private property or public properties which you do not have sole dominion over, I submit you're claiming the right to violate the rights of others.

  • ||

    And you don't have dominion over public properties either. Who are you to say certain people can't walk down a city street because they didn't wait 20 years and have the skills you want? You're such a joke.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    I'm nobody to say any such thing. I am, however, a member of a political body that very much has the rightful authority to make such determinations. And make them it does.

  • ||

    Ooh, argument from authority. Nice and amusing. What political body specifically are we talking, here?

  • Whahappan?||

    It has the power, not the authority. Big difference.

  • ||

    "Everyone is free... unless they want to come here, in which case we'll arrest you for it."

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Are you referring to your house?

  • Cytotoxic||

    OBVIOUSLY NOT

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The US govt doesn't guarantee freedom to people who aren't in the US.

    According to Cyto, it doesn't even guarantee that they won't be innocently incinerated by our drones.

  • ||

    The Constitution doesn't say all those protections are limited to people who pass the government's registration process. So you're making things up, yet again.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "innocently incinerated"

    I like it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    UKIP's immigration policy is seriously wrong. Their crime proposals get a bit more sympathy because the UK really is a violent shithole. Too strong of the wrong medicine maybe. UKIP is still by far the best party for Britain and merits critical libertarian support.

  • Libertymike||

    To be sure, Mr. Farage is entertaining.

  • fish||

    I think Mr. Van Rompuy would disagree.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    It's Lord Van Rompuy to you, peasant!

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    It's Lord Van Rompuy to you, peasant!

  • ||

    UBOR is so regal, he gets to say it twice.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think the UK should make it easier for its law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Going to jail because you took a cricket bat to a home intruder, bollocks.

  • Proprietist||

    There is a largely unsuccessful Libertarian Party in the UK. A more successful, moderate libertarian party is the post-1989 Liberal Party that did not merge with the Liberal Democrats. They have supposedly done well in the Liverpool area, running second or third. Not perfect, but arguably much more libertarian than the UKIP.

  • Robert||

    You mean "with the Social Democrats".

  • Proprietist||

    I know they are kinda social democrats, but the minority half of the majority coalition are the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Party did not want to join when they formed that party back in the 80s and are still independent. They are probably the best libertarians could ask for in Britain.

  • SAL||

    I'm curious if their policies would affect the huge influx of foreign students for undergraduate and graduate studies which subsidize British students. Or the influx of French people escaping from Hollande's France; IIRC, London is now the 6th largest French city.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    For the year was...

    1789!!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    JeremyR hits the nail on the head. These are both issues on which libertarianism is silent, but the cosmos sneak leftist positions in to fill the gap.

    Not only is open borders not a requirement for libertarianism -- if you disagree, you must condemn Ron Paul as unlibertarian -- but post conviction sentencing is also an area in which libertarianism is silent. Libertarianism deals with the question of when coercion is justified. Once coercion is justified, the type and degree of that coercion is not a question libertarianism can answer.

  • Libertymike||

    "Once coercion is justified, the type and degree of that coercion is not a question libertarianism can answer."

    Do you want to reconsider? Its been a long day, the commentariat will understand. At least the more forgiving, like moi.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Show me the part of the NAP that specifies what kind of non-initiative coercion is allowed.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm feeling a need to take a shit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    These are both issues on which libertarianism is silent,

    Tulpa not listening =/= 'silent'

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I guess I'm just too stupid to comprehend that the NAP says something it doesn't.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Non-agression: not initiating force.

    Initiating force: preventing my free association with a would-be immigrant kept out of AMERICA for no good reason.

  • ||

    Or keeping that same immigrant from moving across a non-property boundary.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Imaginary lines are stupid and meaningless when they're between nations, but sacrosanct and written into the fabric of natural law when between tattoo parlors. OK.

  • ||

    Are you claiming that the government owns all U.S. property, therefore they can arrest people for crossing national boundaries? Because that's the only way you can claim property lines and national borders are the same. Idiot.

  • ||

    I hope you like your new nationalist friends, Tulpa. Chris Mallory and Merkin give you two dicks up.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Guilt by association FTL.

    Especially funny since you're allied with the FOREVER DRONE WAR!! KILL KILL KILL!!! pseudo-objectivist guy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So...you complain about guilt by association...and then use it. And you've used it before to discredit wholly arguments by me.

    Keep digging dipshit.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Only for practical purposes of taxation and eminent domain. The Founders fucked up on that one nonetheless.

  • ||

    HM, that's not what the 5th Amendment says. All it says is that the government can't take someone's property without due process of law and just compensation. It doesn't say that all property in the U.S. belongs to them or allows them to control our borders. The 5th Amendment did not create eminent domain powers, it simply limited them to public use. See United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 241 -42 (1946) United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 241 -42 (1946).

  • ||

    Oh, screwed up the info. It's there twice for some reason.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The mere fact that the government can take your property at all, shows that it's not allodial; thus Government is the supreme landlord.

    Everything else is just a polite fiction.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If govt were surpreme landlord they wouldn't have to compensate for takings.

    I'm not a fan of unrestricted ED either, but let's not be melodramatic.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If govt were surpreme landlord they wouldn't have to compensate for takings.

    "Supreme" here doesn't mean that they can do what ever they want, just that they are the highest authority. Just as the British Crown is the supreme landlord of the U.K., they enfief their land to lesser landlords. This is called "fee simple". The Founders took this common law framework and substituted the Federal government for the Crown.

    That the government compensates for land taken through eminent domain is a tradition that dates back to the fedual agreements the peerage had with their monarch. It's worth noting that the term eminent domain comes from the Latin for supreme lordship.

  • ||

    That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it's a legitimate authority. I doubt we disagree on that, though I know Tulpa does. Nor, again, is it something granted by our Constitution, so it should be easier to argue against (in theory).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Here's Jefferson arguing against eminent domain and for allodial title.

    It starts from the 4th paragraph before the end.

    That we shall at this time also take notice of an error in the nature of our land holdings, which crept in at a very early period of our settlement ...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sorry to get all utilitarian on you, but there is no way you could have our current standard of living without eminent domain for transportation, sewage, utility, etc infrastructure.

    And I hope the guy who kept going on about how ancient Chinese privately-made wheelbarrow paths are a guide for interstate highway construction doesn't show up agian.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *shrugs*

    I have a septic tank and I'm currently looking into power generation...solar, maybe...but it will probably be biomass. That's where I'm coming from.

    As for ROADZ!...

  • ||

    It's only easy and definitively righteous to argue against if you're literate, meaning you can actually read the Constitution. Certain people have a problem with that, unfortunately, so we're screwed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Actually if you want to be a literalist, the 5th doesn't restrict takings to public uses. Indeed, it would seem to allow takings without compensation so long as it is NOT for a public use.

    Obviously, that wasn't the intent, but literalists don't seem to care in other settings so there you have it.

  • ||

    Uh, no, you're still being stupid. As previously mentioned, the 5th doesn't allow for takings at all, it only limits them to public use.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If that were true in practice, darius, then why did we have to take Kelo all the way to the Supreme Court (and lose)? Why did Bush feel it necessary to formulate an Executive Order limiting the Federal government's use of eminent domain?

  • ||

    Mulatto, I think we're all arguing about the way it is/should be technically, not the way our authoritarian reality has illegitimately made it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Mulatto, I think we're all arguing about the way it is/should be technically, not the way our authoritarian reality has illegitimately made it

    Well, again, read what Jefferson had to say about it.

  • ||

    The eminent domain powers predate the Constitution. I don't remember where they come from, I just know (both by reading the Amendment, and by reading the case law) that the 5th doesn't establish the ability to take property.

  • ||

    It's not like I knew the ins and outs of this beforehand, I looked it up to be sure of my reasoning. I think the stuff I looked through mentioned common law. I didn't bother to look at where eminent domain came from, since it wasn't directly relevant to what I was addressing.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    As previously mentioned, the 5th doesn't allow for takings at all, it only limits them to public use.

    That's the Court's interpretation.

    It's not what the words actually say.

  • ||

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    Literalism means taking the text literally -- and taking only what's there. Public use -- and only with just compensation. That's it. That means it's restricted to public takings. Period. Fini. Zakoncheno.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    "Umbrellas shall not be opened inside a building, unless it's to dry them out."

    Does this mean that umbrellas can't be opened outside either?

  • ||

    Wow. I give the fuck up.

  • ||

    It doesn't say anything about opening umbrellas outside at all. Similarly, the 5th doesn't establish the ability to take property, just makes restrictions on taking property.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I agree, darius. Of course, that means the states aren't forbidden from taking for nonpublic use, if we take the 5th literally (which I don't think is a good idea).

  • ||

    Tulpa logic: "The government can do something unless a specific provision forbids it."

    I guess you also think every action or product not specifically authorized is illegal, right?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    As far as constitutional law is concerned, yes, state governments can do anything that's not forbidden.

    If you're talking about what would be allowed in libertopia, the wording of the constitution is irrelevant anyway, as it has many nonlibertarian provisions.

  • ||

    You just jumped the shark. This is the part when craniums explode and we sigh for humanity.

    God saves us all.

  • ||

    *where and save, too, but grammar ain't necessary in Hell, is it, Tulpa?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I never claimed they were the same; I was pre-butting the usual refrain that national borders are just "imaginary lines" and therefore recognizing them as important is anti-liberty.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's because tattoo parlors are real things.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Nations are just as real as lots.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I disagree, but we've been through this before. I don't feel like presenting the same argument over and over.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You don't feel like it? I don't care if you're in the mood. I'm in the mood. So you're going to put out tonight.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    RAPE CULTURE!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Except for droning purposes. Then the national borders signify the edge of the area in which humans can be used for target practice if BO feels like it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Which national borders? I want free movement of people and drones!

  • ||

    Truly, the drones should be free to gambol across the desertland, like their microbial predecessors did before the strangling hand of modern anti-biotics took hold.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Just like a 30 mph speed limit violates your freedom to contract with a pizza place 3 miles away for 5 minute delivery.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If that speed limit is senselessly low, then you could sort of say that although it is still another one of the retarded equivalences you have such a flair for Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The point is, your freedom to associate and freedom of contract cannot be used to force other people to bend their rules to make fulfillment of the contract possible.

    You're totally free to contract with a Mexican worker to clean your gutters today. It's just that he may have a hard time fulfilling the contract.

  • ||

    And if the speed limit were set so low it took you months to legally get to the pizza place, would you still say it doesn't violate your freedoms?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's not the contract I was talking about.

    Am I not free to agree to whatever delivery time the pizza place is willing to guarantee?

  • ||

    Is the government free to tell you "No, you have to go with a government-approved pizza delivery process before you're allowed to get the pizza delivered. If the pizza isn't considered to meet the nation's dietary needs, you can't have it delivered." ?

    In what way does your freedom to contract with a pizza place mean the government has the legitimate authority to keep people from coming here?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It doesn't. That wasn't my argument.

    My argument is that claiming that border control violates your freedom of contract is invalid, because FOC does not require that everyone else act to help you fulfill the contract. The government has the authority to control the border.

    Curious, if the feds EDed a one inch wide swath of land abutting the border from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific, would you then think border enforcement was OK?

  • ||

    It doesn't have to act to HELP me fulfill the contract. But it would, in fact, be acting to HINDER the fulfillment of the contract. Hence the whole "non-aggression" stuff. Again Tulpa, you rely on the claim that the government has the authority to control the border. OUR rebuttal is that this is not a LEGITIMATE authority, at least not to the extent the government exercises it. The government ALSO has the authority to lock us up without charge or trial, but I wouldn't say that's legitimate, and I wouldn't use that as an excuse for why it's ok for the government to do so.

  • ||

    Tulpa's moral framework is not founded upon the concept of natural rights. He doesn't give a fuck. He's a stalwart utilitarian, and his matter-of-fact drudgery is what you're going to get, no matter how hard you try.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Ouch. But I'm not sure there are any actual believers in natural rights here. Usually when we start discussing some of the uncomfortable implications of natural rights theory people clam up or invoke the deus ex machina of "private charity" or somesuch.

  • ||

    What the actual fuck are you talking about?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    We were talking about what natural rights would say about shipwreck survivors swim onto a private beach, or a person who desperately needs medicine is refused it by the only person who has some.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Speaking of Deus Ex Machina, Tulpa needs saving and OH look an irrelevant argument/point is coming out of nowhere to do just that.

  • ||

    Jesus Christ, Tulpa, are you high? There's not a single person in the history of the universe who would do shit about a shipwreck survivor stumbling upon his beach. Not one. Ever. Not even Adolf Hitler.

    In fact, the hypothetical is so mind-fuckingly retarded, it might have saved us from World War II, because upon hearing it, Hitler's brain would have been overwhelmed by the sheer, cataclysmic idiocy of its premise and would have subsequently detonated.

    And the second hypothetical is the philosophical equivalent of a quadriplegic with Down's Syndrome who's braindead as is being kept on life support by his funtionally retarded, inbred parents.

    Refused medicine by the only person that has it? Wow!

  • iggy||

    Notice how many arguments against libertarianism are based on hypothetical situations that never occur? Tony always does this, for example. "Well, what if only one person has medicine, somehow, and are unwilling to sell that to anyone else, for some reason, and you have a terminal illness but that person won't give you the medicine? What then LIBERTARDS!?"

  • Scooby||

    Maybe not Adolf, but how about the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey?

  • ||

    You're too stupid to comprehend "non-aggression", apparently. Unless coercion has nothing to do with "aggression". Just keep digging the hole, I hear sarc needs to take a shit.

  • ||

    I gave up when he started arguing that the 10th Amendment contained a clause stating, "jk guys lol this constitution is hereby nullified lololol DESPOTISM FOR ALL!"

  • ||

    The only other places I've seen that argument, it was used to argue we don't owe the gov anything anymore. That's a... NOVEL take on the argument, I'll give him that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    When did I start arguing that?

  • Proprietist||

    if you disagree, you must condemn Ron Paul as unlibertarian

    Ok, I'll be glad to. Ron Paul is a constitutional federalist and not a libertarian. His stances on Lawrence v. Texas and border restrictions indicate as much. That said, he's got too much in common with libertarians to disregard or consider as anything other than a kindred spirit.

  • ||

    How dare you call Tulpa's feeble bluff! I'm sure he will reply to your comment and not move on to spout more ignorant bullshit.

  • Sevo||

    It's a Brit political party; the Brits are tone-deaf to anything approaching libertarianism. They think there's a family of people to whom everyone is supposed to bow, for shit's sake!

  • EnglishCuckoo||

    Some of us Brits are firmly of the opinion they should not be bowed to under any circumstances, bunch of parasitical usurpers. If it weren't for the danger of ending up with President-for-Life Blair and Mrs President Slotgob, Liz II would likely be the last monarch, since Jug Ears is a national embarrasment now.

    There is moreover a strong case for saying that the Queen committed treason and became a normal citizen with the signing of the last EU treaty.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    One of the few redeeming features of the European Union is its open borders policy. If what is concerning UKIP members is the supposed drain that foreigners have on British welfare spending then why not address the issue directly? How could a "libertarian" party support such a restriction on the movement of people?

    Well, because HANDS OFF MY NHS!!!, silly.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ^THIS^. These 'people' actually complain about the site of groups of foreigners in their towns.

    I hope Britain is invaded and the British are smote utterly. Fuck Limeyism.

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure the French are terrified of POLISH PLUMBERS!
    Well they should be; the damn showers might start working and people wouldn't smell.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    I'm a strong believer in national borders and appropriately stern sentencing for violent criminals, but the UKIP's not libertarian.

    A few nuggets:

    "UKIP opposes the takeover of major British companies, such as the takeover of Cadbury's by Kraft Foods in 2010, and would create a new parliamentary committee that would be given powers to block the sale or merger of companies and to attach conditions, including requiring a UK Government “Golden Share”."

    Also:

    "On the issue of the national debt, UKIP believes that there should be cuts in government services but front line services should be improved. UKIP believes that things such as administration and politicians' salaries should be at the top of the list for government cuts instead of services."

    Clarification for those of you who don't follow Limetree Island politics: Their generalistic rhetoric condemning bloated welfare states don't mean shit. They support the NHS and all of its extremities.

  • ||

    1) Their educational policies are much better than anything Limetree Island currently has, but it's basically a half-assed, nonetheless-heavily-governmental system with hefty restrictions on carricula and licensing.

    2) Their military policies (enormous expansion, basically) are pretty decent, but only in the context of a titanic reduction in all other spheres of government.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    I submit that doesn't distinguish them in any great degree from Reason. I don't see Reason advocating for hard money, getting government out of marriage, or repealing the Wagner Act.

    Their "libertarian" positions generally amount to blowing past the actual libertarian position with "Of course, in Libertopia, things would be so-and-so, but as long as they're not" *fill in standard issue Frankfort School claptrap here* "is the closest to libertarianism we can get, daaaaahhhhlings!"

    It's the same bait-and-switch they use whether the issue is Right-to-Work, gay marriage, immigration, etc.

  • ||

    To be frank, I don't give a shit what Reason's authors advocate. And yeah, plenty of progressive horseshit has been sneaking into their work recently. It's pretty disheartening.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's the pool of new writers they're drawing from.

    Other than open borders and abortion, which are old scabbed wounds, the old guard of Welch, Gillespie, Sullum, and Walker don't seem to lean left. It's the new people like Krayewski and Tucille, along with the intern of the week and some of the outside contributors, who inject leftism everywhere possible.

  • ||

    Good thing they got rid of that Steigerwald character, she was trouble.

  • T o n y||

    You mean of course a modicum of reasonableness.

  • iggy||

    Don't bother making a point, Tony. I'd expect nothing less from you. One day maybe you'll make an argument like a big boy, instead of yelling 'MY ARGUMENT IS REASONABLE' while offering no proof of anything you say.

  • ||

    Covering your eyes and then proclaiming you don't see anything isn't the same as them not existing. Really, are you sure you're not Tulpa?

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Presumably you can point me to recent articles which will contradict my assertion. Go for it.

  • ||

    No thanks. You're brain is a turd in your skull, and it always will be. If you're this stupid, blind, and/or dishonest, that's your problem. I'm sure I'll get a "AHA! SEE, YOU HAVE NOTHING!" response, but I don't care. If you're too stupid or lazy to find examples of sound money and all the writers on both sides of the RTW debate who would LOVE to repeal the Wagner Act (if only there was the political support; funny how hard it is to do that when not enough politicians are on board with it), then you're on your own, dumbshit.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    I'm sure I'll get a "AHA! SEE, YOU HAVE NOTHING!" response

    At least you got one thing right tonight.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This and the other comment above. If you haven't seen Reason advocating for hard money and getting government out of marriage then you should just leave because you can't fucking read.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    They've done no such thing. What they've done is exactly what I said they do. They state in a perfect world, government wouldn't be involved in marriage. And then they go on to say as long as it is, gay marriage should be recognized. Show me a single example where they've done anything different.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The last time they addressed that was as an argument AGAINST making the perfect of govt getting out of marriage, the enemy of the good of gay marriage. (that was Shackford)

    Then the next day, Tucille argues FOR making the perfect of getting govt out of labor negotiations the enemy of the good of RTW laws.

    Now, these are different authors. So it's not like they have to be consistent. However, the one thing that is consistent is that the leftist position gets the benefit of any possible doubt.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Bingo. Which is one reason I argue that libertarianism is no real alternative to the current political reality of our "one party with two wings" system, at best it will be another wing of the same party.

  • iggy||

    Wasn't there a sound money article last night? I mean, you don't even have to look that hard.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    I see an article under the heading "Further Inside the Brain of the Sound Money Advocate" arguing against the merits of Quantative Easing. I see no actual argument for hard money.

  • ||

    Turd logic: "Every single post by someone in support of an idea must reiterate the argument for it, or else he doesn't actually support it."

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Get back to me when you can point to an article that actually states the argument even once.

  • ||

    Get back to me when you actually bother to find the articles he already wrote, moron.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Get back to me when you can eat a hoagie without ruining your shirt.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Jaysus that's depressing. It's weird because when the BNP was surging UKIP rightly criticized them for being nationalist anti-market slugs.

    They are still...sigh...the best viable option. And supporting them totally fucks David Cameron over and that's its own reward.

  • ||

    One great nugget from UKIP:

    "A reply to an email that I sent to UKIP, asking about their gun control policies -

    Dear Mr Showell

    Thank you for your message, which was forwarded to Nigel Farage.

    "UKIP is very much in favour of licensed gun-ownership, and deplored the Charity Commission's removal of charitable status from organisations teaching the responsible use of firearms. We note also that the growing incidence of gun-crime is in direct proportion to the restrictions placed on the ownership, by respectable people, of firearms."

    Yours sincerely

    Andrew S. Reed

    Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But they want to put criminals in prison for a long time. So fuck them. [/reason]

  • ||

    What? A writer wrote something I disagree with? I always knew Reason was full of socialists in disguise! [/tulpa]

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You do realize that it's Feeney who's condemning people as unlibertarian because they disagree with him, right?

    I'm not saying anyone is unlibertarian for favoring open borders. It's always acceptable to support the govt NOT exercising some of its legitimate authorities, so long as no one's rights are violated by the lack of exercise. What irritates me is the cosmos' arrogant attitude that theirs is the one true libertarian philosophy and anyone who disagrees is the same as a rank statist.

  • ||

    The problem lies with your definition of what constitutes the government's legitimate authority to "control" the federal border.

  • ||

    Yeah, and I think he's wrong. What I hate is your how much you lack self-awareness in your criticisms, since the first moment anyone makes an argument here you don't like you whine and complain up and down about how Reason or libertarianism is shot all to hell and they're just socialists in disguise who are in the tank for Obama and will ruin America. Meanwhile, the people you piss and moan about mostly just argue that their opposition is wrong. Complain that they're wrong and/or it's not in the spirit of libertarianism, but for the love of all that's holy (whatever that is) knock off the hysterics. It just outs you as a whiny little bitch that can't take actual discussions when you pull this crap at the drop of a hat.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Romney is the natural ally for libertarians /Tulpa

    Yeah well Cyto your positions on immigration are invalid because DRONEZ /Tulpa

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    This is interesting coming from someone who's insulted everyone who disagreed with him in this thread.

    Talk about unselfaware.

  • ||

    If I think you're a dumbshit I'll call you a dumbshit, dumbshit. If I think you're argument is stupid I'll say it's moronic. My post has nothing to do with personal insults as a part of argumentation, that's purely a Reason affectation. If you really think anything I said has to do with deriding insults, you're even more delusional than I thought.

  • KalkiDas||

    Is there ever any party over there or in any of the various people's states over there that advocate the restoration of the right to bear arms?

  • KalkiDas||

    Ok, belay my last. A comment directly above mine showed an answer to my question. Well, partial.

  • ||

    There's a fairly sizable party in Poland (I forgot the name) that explicitly advocates the recognition of keeping and bearing arms as a sacred and inalienable right in constitutional form.

  • ||

    Tulpa says murder is permitted by libertarianism as long as you do it across a border. You heard it here first folks!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Explain the difference between shooting at someone across a border and sending an airplane across a border to bomb a factory.

  • ||

    Differences: airplane, factor, bomb, etc.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Tulpa says murder is permitted by libertarianism as long as you do it across a border.

    International abortion?

    How does that work.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Is it me or does this thread smell funny?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    both

  • Cliché Bandit||

    And for the record both France an UK have a true blue scotsman etc. etc. Libertarian Party.

    I you think the LP in US is fighting a losing battle...it must look like paradise to those poor bastards.

    (I actually knew one guy from France, Aleric Lebreve. A real life shit starting activist for the French LP. Came to Colorado and decided to see how we do stuff.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Does Scotland have any true Scotsmen libertarians?

  • BarryD||

    State promotion of multi-culturalism (whatever the hell that really is) is libertarian?

    That's hardly libertarian. It's anti-conservative, but it's not libertarian. Libertarian principles would oppose state promotion of culture, whether it's politically-correct claptrap like "multi-culturalism", or militant right or left claptrap like nativism or feminism.

    Cultural isms aren't libertarian, whatever they are.

  • BarryD||

    Incidentally, internationalism isn't libertarian, either.

    Again, libertarians have nothing against other countries, but there's nothing about libertarianism that opposes nation-states, nor that opposes the notion of trying to produce a libertarian society in one nation state, despite what the rest of the world might do. Nation-states are defined by borders.

    Internationalism is a hallmark of Communism. That doesn't mean that libertarians see other countries or their citizens as enemies, just as other countries and their citizens.

    What sort of libertarianism resembles multi-cultural American liberalism, and Communism, exactly?

    The UKIP might not be libertarian, but its failure to measure up to the standards of American leftism and international Communism is hardly the reason why.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What sort of libertarianism resembles multi-cultural American liberalism, and Communism, exactly?

    Cosmotarianism.

  • SIV||

    I hate those guys.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's a contradiction. Delingpole says that UKIP is okay with immigrants as long as they don't sponge. He could be wrong but I don't think so.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n.....-ashcroft/

    it very wisely avoids straying into BNP territory by being sympathetic to new immigrants – but only on condition of a five-year welfare moratorium.

  • SIV||

    I wish we had a 5-year moratorium. Life would be better and ending it all together for everyone would be ideal.

    Of course Shikha Damia supports welfare for all immigrants regardless of how long they've been here, so that must be the "cosmotarian party line".

  • ||

    Of course Shikha Damia supports welfare for all immigrants regardless of how long they've been here, so that must be the "cosmotarian party line".

    Citation needed. Last I checked, Shikha wants to get rid of the welfare state.

  • Robert||

    I wish we had a 5-year moratorium. Life would be better and ending it all together for everyone would be ideal.


    See that moratorium? When I nod my head, hit it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That way only the natives would collect welfare and that's an improvement how?

  • waaminn||

    Well now that makes a lot of sense dude.

    www.usaAnon.tk

  • Robert||

    Some young libertarians involved in UKIP will tell you that there is potential to change the party from the inside, a sentiment that betrays a fetish for politics over conviction.


    As RAW wrote, convictions make convicts. I'll take the politics, thanks.

  • Trident||

    A publication that has guys like Steve Chapman is calling others out on not being "libertarian"?

  • Trident||

    A lot of misunderstanding about the issue of immigration is based on the false assumption that there is such a thing as "freedom of movement". This is absolute nonsense.
    The first principles of libertarianism are the NAP and private property rights.
    Within the context of a libertarian society, most if not all property would be private, since the state would not have any business concerning itself with property or infrastructure. Since most if not all property would be private, how could there possibly be such a thing as "freedom of movement", except freedom of movement on your own property. The moment you would step on ANYBODY else's private property (which would mean almost everywhere you look except maybe the desert), your "freedom of movement" stops, rendering it nothing bu a nice sounding figment of your imagination.

    The notion that this fictional concept is used, by libertarians, in the context of collectivist (welfare) states makes it even more absurd.
    And even if it were existing, it would be no such thing as a libertarian "right" if someone else has to pay the bill for it against his will.

  • Robert||

    You've got it backwards. There is such a thing as freedom of movement, which is why property and NAP are insufficient to comprise liberty.

  • ||

    Of course, when we talk about freedom of movement, we mean the government should not be able to stop an immigrant from going to private property where he is invited, i.e. going to his job, or his family's house, or the mall, or wherever else non-immigrants go. Does this violate the NAP or property rights? No, so shut the fuck up.

  • GoldBug||

    What if the UN, or even some Pan-American coalition decided US immigration policy? I believe the US should open our borders, but I can't pretend to believe that every country should be forced to do so. Much of debt-ridden Europe now must provide for families of poor, uneducated Eastern-Europeans and unproductive orthodox Muslims who do not assimilate and end up forming ghettos in big cities. If these countries eliminated welfare, at least for immigrants, then maybe they could talk about free borders. As for multiculturalism he's talking about government-ensured political correctness, as evidenced by the anti-blasphemy laws being enacted all over Europe. And the prisons in England often let burglars go free due to lack of room in prisons and a general uncaring attitude about enforcing laws. Even libertarians should be for putting burglars in jail.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement