Fact: The Stalin Apologists at The New York Times Smear the Unambiguously Libertarian Cato Institute as "Ultraconservative"

Over at Mediaite, Andrew Kirell tears into The New York Times' Tamar Lewin for calling the Cato Institute "ultraconservative."

Here's what Lewin wrote at the Cato Institute's hiring of Chinese dissident Xia Yeliang:

The political labels of Professor Xia and the Cato Institute, in Washington, are strikingly different. Professor Xia got into trouble in China for being too liberal, while the institute is known as libertarian or — less to its liking — ultraconservative. But the professor and Cato officials say they have the same focus.

As Kirell notes,

No one in their right mind would consider Cato “ultraconservative,” especially when a cursory glance at their policy recommendations shows support for same-sex marriage, legalized marijuana, reduced military spending, non-interventionist foreign policy, and relaxed immigration restrictions....

Kirell writes that Lewin is either confused or being underhanded. Either way, it's shoddy stuff that should be turned against the Times itself for fun:

Some say the New York Times is run by a pack of space aliens; some say Fox News is firmly in President Obama’s camp; some say the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag planted by the Illuminati. See how fun it can be?

Take it from this libertarian who’s been called everything from a “fascist with a bong” to a “pinko commie Obama shill,” libertarians can be touchy about ideological labeling and misrepresentation of their views. But that really doesn’t excuse such hilarious confusion from a newspaper that dedicates itself to living in the nuance.

Read the whole thing.

Exit question: Who do you think the Adolf Hitler of illegitimate comparisons in today's mediascape?

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||

    For many liberals, libertarianism is the worst kind of conservative: one that's better on personal freedoms than they are.

  • ||

    I think the people we are talking about here, who call themselves liberals, have nothing but contempt for freedom, personal or otherwise.

    They hate libertarianism because they are in fact authoritarians.

  • ||

    They hate libertarians because libertarians have consistent principles and they don't. They just want more free shit for themselves and are willing to say anything to justify it.

  • Tony||

    I hate libertarians because they're incredibly stupid yet incredibly egotistical about their ridiculous bullshit.

  • GroundTruth||

    Go home Tony, we've heard it all before.

  • Tony||

    Strange sentiment coming from people who think the entire world can be managed from platitudes on an index card.

  • mplspolitics||

    Awww shucks puddin', you ARE paying attention! You're projecting all the original OFA 3x5's comments back onto everyone else because you still don't know how to articulate your own point of view. Keep fuckin' that chicken Ton!

  • ||

    Because thinking you're smarter than everyone else isn't egotistical.

    Truth is, progressives are deeply intellectually insecure. They are dumb people who like to think they are super smart, and so they spend a lot of time boning up on pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

  • Sam Grove||

    They're just smart enough to recognize and therefore resent people smarter than themselves.

  • ||

    I think the people we are talking about here, who call themselves liberals, have nothing but contempt for freedom, personal or otherwise.

    They hate libertarianism because they are in fact authoritarians.

  • Tony||

    Yes, libertarians are.

  • mplspolitics||

    Yes, libertarians are...superior to liberals, especially Tony, in every conceivable way.

    FTFY.

  • GILMORE||

    "libertarianism is the worst kind of conservative: one that's better on personal freedoms than they are."

    ITS ALL A LIE! THEY DONT *REALLY* BELIEVE IN REAL FREEDOM, JUST, UH, CORPORATE FREEDOM! PERSONHOOD! ALSO, THEYRE RACIST GUN NUTS AND UNREALISTIC AND KOCHS AND DID WE SAY RACISTS?

  • oncogenesis||

    It's time for libertarians (aka "classical liberals") to take back the word "liberal". The current crop of soi disant liberals are extremely illiberal. Let them have the euphemistic label "progressive". In fact, insist that they own it.

    #takingbackliberal

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Right after I take back that pair of jeans from my friend with the anal leakage issues.

    Seriously, we don't want it anymore after what they've done in it.

  • Dweebston||

    The meanings of words change over time. Your friend Shitdrip, on the other hand, will always be known for his leaky plumbing whether or not he gets it fixed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    He went long on Tampax.

  • GILMORE||

    Tupla, that was *well played*

    (theatric slow clap)

  • SugarFree||

  • anon||

    one that's better on personal freedoms than they are.

    Wait, they want economic and social freedom!?

    BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!!!

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Look, a NYT article. Say, what's black and white and in the red?

    After their hit piece on Rand Paul (featuring a truly offensive instance of libel against Walter Block by portraying him as a slavery apologist), I'd say the Krugman Klan have disposed of all masks. The NYT is now the unread dead-tree version of MSNBC, albeit with local theater and restaurant reviews.

  • Sevo||

    "Say, what's black and white and in the red?"

    I thought it was black and white and red all over.

  • playa manhattan||

    Knarf gets bonus points for being clever. I liked it.

  • GILMORE||

    "
    Sevo|2.10.14 @ 7:35PM|#

    I thought it was black and white and red all over"

    No, that's an Oreo-abortion.

  • JeremyR||

    Racism. It's almost impossible to defend against. Which is why it gets used so much.

  • DWC||

    I detest the "Gray Lady" utterly and certainly prefer Cato, but I don't think it is truly accurate to refer to Cato as unambiguously libertarian. They are certainly libertarian, but I hardly think unambiguously so.

  • Sevo||

    "They are certainly libertarian, but I hardly think unambiguously so."

    I'll agree in that I wasn't pleased with their wishy-washy stance re the gun grabbers.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Even if that's true, Cato's not remotely conservative, let along "ultraconservative."

  • SIV||

    Cato is "anti-government" which is "ultra-conservative". Regular mainstream conservatives are fine with government, they just want to slow the growth and focus it on "conservative priorities".

  • grrizzly||

    You forgot \derp

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    That's OK, alignment with reality isn't important. Sunday NYT published an opinion piece called "The End of Snow?" This on the same day as NOAA showed the continental USA having 67% snow coverage.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    yes but there wasn't any snow in hawaii so take that denier!

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The name is Mauna Kea or White Mountain, from its undersea base of -19,000 feet to the wind-swept peaks of 13,796 feet, it's the world's highest mountain! It offers some of the world's highest skiing.This massive extinct volcano is blessed with the finest snow in the world, opening almost 100 square miles of ski able terrain. At this latitude the conditions are spring like; the snow is sugar corn. We call it 'Pineapple Powder'."

    http://www.hawaiiinfoguide.com/hawaii_skiing.htm

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    yes but there wasn't any snow in hawaii so take that denier!

    Ah! My mistake.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    It really doesn't matter. There is no scenario that falsifies global warming. If it's extra hot: global warming. If it's extra cold: global warming. If it's both extremes: global warming. If it's stable: global warming. If the entire world goes into a new ice age, that's because all the water evaporated and then condensed at the poles where it was still cold and became ice and spread over the entire hot world from there. No scenario is un-spinnable.

  • steedamike||

    oh, it's colder? Climate change...

  • anon||

    Even if that's true, Cato's not remotely conservative, let along "ultraconservative."

    To be fair, they're far closer to "conservative" than me.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Cato's not remotely conservative

    Cato is economically conservative. That means "ultraconservative" since 98% of the country is either Republican or Democrat and we know neither of those parties is economically conservative.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    How would a liberal ever fit in at Cato? Oh, right- liberal basically means libertarian in many parts of the world. It's truly pathetic that that line got written in the first place and that it got through the editing process. Their ignorance is truly impressive.

  • ||

    I was going to say the same thing. That really stood out to me more than the "ultraconservative", which is plainly just a smear, whereas casting liberal and libertarian as in odds with each other just seems bafflingly ignorant for an NYT reporter.

  • Brian||

    Krugman wants to have the conscience of a liberal.

    They can't redefine the terms in their favor, if they allow inconsistencies.

  • ||

    Krugman has the conscience of a liberal the way Ted Bundy had the conscience of a serial killer.

  • Cyto||

    "Libertarian" is the new boogieman for progressives. For them "ultraconservative" and "libertarian" are synonyms, as are "neocon", "nazi" and "fascist". They all mean the same thing that "liberal" means to an 80's era conservative - mostly "somebody who disagrees with my core philosophy". But ever since libertarians began making inroads to the young base of the democrat party they've adopted 'libertarian' as their number one label of evil.

  • DenverJay||

    "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
    "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane." - the Prophet Orwell

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." - Lewis Carroll

  • ||

    They always saw us as evil, or rather a threat, because they know that we are right. it's more that they see us as MORE of a threat lately. They are starting to actually get scared.

  • Tony||

    No it doesn't. Libertarianism is a specifically American political fringe group. Liberal means "less government" only to the extent that the anti-human practices happening in a country are the result of its overbearing government. Liberal just means putting human needs and interests firsts (over, say, those of a central authority like a monarch or church). Libertarianism is advocacy for government for the poor and anarchy for the rich. It's one of the most anti-human philosophies out there, i.e., one of the least liberal.

  • GroundTruth||

    20 to 25 % of the American population have a libertarian outlook, however, the media and two major organized political parties conspire to perpetuate the myth that libertarianism is a fringe group. A brilliant strategy actually, since by denying the thing a name, they deny it's existence and keep each of those 20 - 25 % of the population isolated from each other and politically ineffective. Once those people realize there is a name for their outlook, they will get together and things may change. If you doubt this, I suggest you take a look at gays and lesbians who went from being legal pariahs to nearly full legal recognition in about a generation.

  • Juice||

    Here's how my iMac dictionary defines it:

    liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
    adjective
    1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
    • favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
    • (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.

  • deepspeed||

    "Liberal just means putting human needs and interests firsts"

    You have neither the intellect nor the authority to determine the needs and interests of others.

    "Libertarianism is advocacy for government for the poor and anarchy for the rich. It's one of the most anti-human philosophies out there, i.e., one of the least liberal."

    What a pathetic and disgusting shill you are.

  • Paul.||

    I'm telling you, ever since progressives won the war within the Democratic party, we've got a massive redefinition of terms going on. Those who don't lionize the state are "ultraconservative".

  • playa manhattan||

    Why don't you "invest" in some "common sense" "health insurance" from the "marketplace" ?

  • Almanian!||

    "Everyone" supports these "reforms" in the "language". "Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome in today's GOP." Which is "racist".

    All your terms are "belong to us."

  • MJGreen||

    They want to CUT TAXES! Ultraconservative radicals!

  • ||

    When people are not what they say they are, when their agenda is not what they say it is, when they know they would be rejected if they were unmasked, then there must necessarily be a constant and massive redefinition of terms. The history of the progressive party is the history of their ever shifting terminology.

  • ||

    This.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Amen.

  • Ron||

    Are you channeling George Orwell's 1984

  • SIV||

    ever since progressives won the war within the Democratic party

    That was about 1912.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Those who don't lionize the state are "ultraconservative"."

    Exactly, the NYT didn't lie. Compared to the NYT, Cato is ultrconservative. Are there statues of Chairman Mao or Comrade Stalin at Cato's HQ? Didn't think so.

  • Brandybuck||

    Those who don't lionize the state are "ultraconservative".


    Or anarchists. I keep hearing Republicans accused of being anarchists. It's almost like the progs live in their own little bubble world or something.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    It's all apart of a logical fallacy that the middle is always better.

  • Almanian!||

    Wondering who gives a shit what the NYT thinks about much of anything these days.

  • Stilgar||

    In fact, the NY Times is run by a gaggle of space aliens. Where have you been the last 60 or 70 years?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The political labels of Professor Xia and the Cato Institute, in Washington, are strikingly different. Professor Xia got into trouble in China for being too liberal, while the institute is known as libertarian or — less to its liking — ultraconservative. But the professor and Cato officials say they have the same focus.

    How fucking stupid do you have to be to not realize that "liberal" in China means supporting things like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press?

    Why wouldn't a Chinese dissident feel at home with a think tank that staunchly supports civil liberties and economic freedom that has proven essential to killing authoritarian regimes?

  • ||

    How fucking stupid do you have to be

    You can stop right there. Being a partisan means being willing to look and act the fool if it's required by your TEAM. It even means being willing to actively make yourself a fool if required.

    These people are very, deeply stupid. They write these articles for equally deeply stupid people (who else reads the NYT any more?). It's stupid all the way down.

  • Killaz||

    I concurred with someone's positive assessment of their reporting a few days ago, but it should be understood by all, I was drunk at the time. Two Big Foot Barleywines (2014 is their best batch ever) in my system along with a Narwhal I was nursing on. Deeply embarrassing in the cold light of sobriety. I shall go finish off the rest of the later pack to compensate.

  • ||

    Big Foots are strong. Very strong. But not so strong that you should ever have a positive assessment of the NYT's reporting. What else were you on? Goofballs?

  • Killaz||

    No other narcotics, and no warm glow where everything is right in the world after receiving a blowjob to account for it at the time. Hmm, brain cancer? I should get that checked.

  • playa manhattan||

    Brown Shugga is stronger. But not available this time of year. I'm stuck with Lagunitas Sucks in the meantime.

  • Killaz||

    That's a really good one too. I love big malt, big hops, big booze and syrupy sticky feelings being left on my tongue, and those two underscore that to perfection.

  • Killaz||

    I make a malted cider now that is big on all four of those qualities. I'll take a half gallon of pear juice, derive wart from a 1/2 pound of pale malt, along with a pound of dark brown sugar, boil it down to a hard candy. Comes out with a consistency very much like a praline.

    Once its a hard candy, desolve it with three gallons of purified water, and brew it like a beer with hop additions. It is ridiculously good.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Wow!!!

    I'm a Reinheitsgebot purist, but that sounds really, really good.

  • anon||

    Arrogant Bastard is always available. One of my favs.

  • Killaz||

    Even the gas station around the corner carries it. Close to the best bang for your buck for an IPA. Ever had Double Bastard?

  • anon||

    Nah, never tried it; only because I'm content with AB though.

  • playa manhattan||

    I will now.

  • Brandybuck||

    You're not worthy!

  • DenverJay||

    Weep for me, my brethren! And know of my sorrow; for still am I exiled to this dull and depressing land of Oklahoma. Here, all beer sold cold must be 3.2, and even that sold warm must be brewed within the state! How my very soul cries for those Halycon Days when I could freely tour the markets of far off Colorado. There I would while away my days, quaffing such ambrosia as Pete's Wicked Ale, or the splendors of local artists such as Left Hand Brewery, who offer up "400 Pound Monkey IPA", and "Barrel Aged Wake Up Dead". Oh, to sip even a luke-warm New Belgium Blonde would seem like heaven in this backwater of blue laws and college ball!

  • Locke||

    One of the reason Flagstaff is pretty awesome, despite the hippies and that idiot Joe Harding on the radio, is the fact that we have like 4-5 independent breweries in a town of about 70,000 people.

  • ||

    I concur.

  • GILMORE||

    "Killaz|2.10.14 @ 8:08PM|#

    I concurred with someone's positive assessment of their reporting a few days ago...

    HA! hardy haar har.

    1 - That was me
    2 - and I was completely sarcastic
    3 - and I was a bit confused by your sincere endorsements at first, then just went, 'eh, whatever!' figuring it was maybe a confused point anyway....

    The comment was = They had published a piece bemoaning "The End of *Snow*" (nonsense) - I pointed out that this should probably be excused since the Sunday Times was by its very nature a horrible exercise in emotive non-news-news solely intended for shallow conversation-starting by surburban housewives and west side yuppies over brunch.... compared to the (insert Sarc/) "rigorous, objective, professional, non-partisan, clear-thinking bastion of journalistic integrity which the NYT is generally known as")(end Sarc/)

    To which you said, "I GUESS THEY ARENT THAT BAD REALLY".

    Priceless.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The NYT is using "liberal" in the American political sense of the word. The PRC govt hates true blue communist ideologues as much as Democrats hate libertarians, probably for the same reason: communists and libertarians actually believe in the stuff that the PRC leaders and Democrats, respectively, have to pay lip service to.

  • Paul.||

    support for same-sex marriage, legalized marijuana, reduced military spending, non-interventionist foreign policy, and relaxed immigration restrictions....

    All "ultraconservative" views. Save same-sex marriage which required the state to expand privileges to a new group, where's the state with legalized marijuana, reduced military, non-interventionist foreign policy and relaxed immigration? For four of the five items, you've essentially reduced the state's footprint.

  • Paul.||

    It is now difficult for Congress to pass even the kind of spending that all sides once saw as necessary public investment in transportation, research and education.

    I'm guessing he's talking about the Reagan years, back when government worked!

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The reason the Chinaman can fit in at Cato is because he's a classical liberal, not an authoritarian progressive like those at the NYT.

    (side note: we need to call them authoritarian progressives going forward. It's just accurate.)

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Seconded.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I just call them fascists.

    -jcr

  • PapayaSF||

    Historically it's not inapt, but it is problematic as a rhetorical tactic. Your opponents will just dismiss you, and most bystanders will just think you are tossing epithets. "Authoritarian progressive" make everyone stop and think, and opponents will have to try to explain how they aren't really authoritarians.

  • GroundTruth||

    damn, I hate it when someone kills off such a wonderfully visceral epithet like "fascist" with such a clear statement of the need to break through the fascists' thick skull with too many words.

  • PapayaSF||

    The left has devalued the term through overuse (and psychological projection).

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Probably shouldn't call them Chinamen, either.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Would the yellow menace be ok?

    Joke, joking.....

  • SIV||

    "The Pigtail" was good but then them wily, inscrutable Chinamen went and changed their hair styles.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The Orientals are an inscrutable lot.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    I remember some idiot in the 1980s running around exclaiming, "Yellaman gonna rooul tha' world!"

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    A good friend of mine is Chinese. We call him The Chinaman.

    I know. I'm a hypocrite.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Yeah, you're all taking the 'Chinaman' thing a bit too earnestly. I used it ironically.

  • pan fried wylie||

    "Chinammen is probably the laziest racial epithet ever. They just stuck two words together."
    -John Mulaney

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Well, he's not American, therefore, not Asian-American.

    He's Chinese, therefore, he's Chinese.

    Apparently, we've learned nothing about accuracy in labeling.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Speaking of accuracy in labelling, does this Coke taste funny to you?

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Well, the rest of us got your joke, anyway.

  • CatoTheElder||

    This is a great idea:

    authoritarian progressives.

    We call them by their name, but with the correct modifier.

  • Blueman||

    "(side note: we need to call them authoritarian progressives going forward. It's just accurate.)"

    I'm down with that.

  • Ansy Swateel||

    Nah, they'll just reply "And you way that like it's a bad thing!"

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    The reason the Chinaman can fit in at Cato is because he's a classical liberal

    Plus, they're so small.

    TIWTANLC

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "a cursory glance at their policy recommendations shows support for same-sex marriage, legalized marijuana, reduced military spending, non-interventionist foreign policy, and relaxed immigration restrictions"

    Buckley wanted to legalize marijuana, Rand Paul supports the military cuts and noninterventionism. And even with gay marriage, there are people who say, "omg even former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson supports SSM, why can't the rest of you conservatives get on board?"

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Rand Paul isn't a non-interventionist and fascist Buckley not only hated libertarians but fellow warmonger Ayn Rand.

    Not being a complete Republican asshole =/=libertarian or classical liberal

    I'm not saying Rand Paul isn't one of the most libertarian people in Washington as that is a very a low bar, but he is more conservative than anything.

    The only libertarians supporting Rand like he's some kind of savior are people who are like Lew Rockwell but aren't anarchists and are at best a little confused on foreign policy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    warmonger Ayn Rand.

    MORON ALERT

  • Locke||

    Wait, did Shrike change his handle again?

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    First I get called "Orwellian" (I wish more libertarian-leaning people were aware that Orwell was a socialist who opposed non-interventionism) for pointing out the fact that football is a hotbed for homophobia (athletes talk about it themselves) and now I get called an idiot for describing the foreign policy views of a fanatical cold warrior who said many disparaging things about libertarians especially because of their belief in non-interventionism. What will happen if I say the sky is blue?

  • Nazdrakke||

    I wonder sometimes what it must be like, being an internet troll with a completely lacking a grasp of irony and self-awareness..

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Point out one thing that I said was incorrect. The only one here being ironic is you. Your username doesn't even make sense. Like the names of supposed "satisfied customers" in many infomercials.

  • David Emami||

    Point out one thing that I said was incorrect.

    You claimed Ayn Rand was a warmonger, when she was nothing of the kind. She opposed the Vietnam War and didn't have many kind words to say about US participation in WW2, either. Unless you're using the Rothbot definition of "warmonger", i.e. "anyone who isn't anti-interventionist." Hint: a warmonger is someone who thinks war is good, not someone who thinks it's sometimes necessary. Just because someone thinks intervention can be the right thing to do in some cases doesn't make them George Patton standing atop his tank growling "War, by God, I love it so!"

    Likewise, you called Buckley a fascist. Granted, the term has long since become meaningless, but he doesn't fit any non-silly definition of the word.

    Thirdly, you implied that being a cold-warrior was incompatible with being a libertarian, whereas one of the founders of modern libertarianism, Hayek, was in favor of the cold war. ("I am convinced Reagan is right not to reduce arms expenditure. World peace depends upon America staying strong.", 1983 interview).

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    As much as i'm a Gary Johnsonian centrist my views on foreign policy are that of Ron Paul. I don't believe in "an eye for an eye". That's childish and psychopathic. My view on the death penalty is the same. I'm more concerned about the root of the problem rather than punishment. I'm not sure what Rand herself would say but every objectivist entity I know of is full of rabid Zionists whose view of the world is like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion except Jew is replaced with Muslim.

    Buckley was a pro-war, anti-civil liberties nationalist. He was the Joseph Goebbels of the GOP. Enough said.

    Hayek was pro-union and a friend of Keynes. The fact that he supported the US giving billions of dollars to the Soviets, prolonging the Cold War, shows how well his brain handled aging.

    Arms reduction is very fiscally conservative. I don't how a self-described fiscal conservative could oppose it unless they're worried about ten foot tall wife-beating desert warriors who drool acid and shoot lasers out of their eyes while flying magic rugs of Islamofascist doom.

  • steedamike||

    Better than Tony.

  • David Emami||

    I'm not sure what Rand herself would say...

    So you claimed that she was a "warmonger" without knowing whether or not she loved war. Glad we've resolved point one.

    Buckley was a pro-war...

    If you mean he thought war or the threat of it was necessary in cases where you didn't think so, that's almost certainly true, but it means absolutely nothing. If you mean that he thought war was a good thing in and of itself, kindly back that up.

    anti-civil liberties...

    In the case of abortion, I'll grant that. In the case of drugs, he was wrong earlier in his life but changed his mind. Otherwise, again, please back that up.

    nationalist...

    Meaning what, exactly? If we use Orwell's definition of patriotism being a belief that one's country is good, and nationalism a belief that one's country is the standard by which "good" is judged, then Buckley was a patriot, not a nationalist. Otherwise, please explain and back your claim up.

    He was the Joseph Goebbels of the GOP.

    Godwin.

    (...continued...)

  • David Emami||

    (...continuation...)

    Hayek was pro-union...

    That's not how I read his "1980s Unemployment and the Unions", if by "pro-union" you mean he favored things like the Wagner Act and its offspring.

    ...a friend of Keynes

    Guilt by association. And also, good for Hayek that he was willing to be friends with people he strongly disagreed with.

    The fact that he supported the US giving billions of dollars to the Soviets, prolonging the Cold War...

    Cite please. In any case, I pointed out that Hayek was in favor of a military-backed stance opposing the USSR during the Cold War. Either I'm wrong about that (please cite if so), or Hayek wasn't a libertarian (ridiculous), or you are wrong in your implication that favoring the Cold War and being a libertarian are mutually-exclusive. Which is it?

    ...shows how well his brain handled aging.

    You're really flirting with the Soviet "you disagree with the Party so something must be wrong with your brain" stance, here.

    Arms reduction is very fiscally conservative.

    Not if failing to have a sufficiently-strong military results in higher costs due to being attacked. It's a risk analysis and cost/benefit thing. Obviously you think the risks are lower than do the people you're criticizing, and you could well be right, but there's nothing about libertarianism or fiscal conservatism that demands that one assume the risk is on one end of the scale or the other.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    When I said I didn't know what Rand herself would say I meant in regards to more recent events that occurred after she died.

    Almost every war America has been involved in since WW1 was the result of America being involved in WW1. That should say enough. The American military should only worry about American territory (that does not include bases that are otherwise on foreign soil). If the Swiss didn't have compulsory service then their foreign policy would be perfect. NAFTA is my foreign policy.

    I strongly disagree with just about everyone I know, but like Marx, Keynes has caused alot of devastation in the world.

    You said Hayek was in favor of the Cold War and that was a major part of it. It was all the doing of a b actor who had his wife and carcass Bush make decisions for him because he was senile.

    Buckley was pro-death penalty (like all rogue governments), pro-CIA and anti-tobacco. His schizophrenic belief in an invisible man in the sky likely had some effect on it, and I make no distinction between nationalism and patriotism. I see government as a tool, and global governance is impractical so there's a practical reason as to why there are many different countries, but I see no reason to be emotional over soil.

    The Wagner Act is all about unions. I think some labor laws are legitimate but I don't believe unions should exist.

  • David Emami||

    When I said I didn't know what Rand herself would say I meant in regards to more recent events that occurred after she died.

    Alright, then, what did she say when she was alive that led you to accuse her of being a "warmonger." And again, I stress that the word has an actual meaning, denoting someone who loves/advocates war for its own sake, not merely someone who thinks that it's necessary when you think it isn't. You asked for someone to "point out one thing" that you said that was incorrect. Back your assertion up, or admit that it was incorrect.

    Almost every war America has been involved in since WW1 was the result of America being involved in WW1.

    Only in the sense that those wars were also the result of Henry Ford's assembly line, Guglielmo Marconi's radio, Orville and Wilbur's airplane, and Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov's hemophilia. I don't think the US should have been involved in WW1, either, but you've stepped into the realm of flapping butterfly wings causing or preventing hurricanes. And lack of minor military action at one point can lead to far vaster military action later. Since you've already Godwin'ed, I get my turn: a minuscule show of force -- not even any shots fired, just troops showing up -- on the part of the French would have led (per his own admission) to Hitler backing down from remilitarizing the Rhineland, and his probably being overthrown by his generals.

    (...continued...)

  • David Emami||

    (...continuation...)

    But this is all a digression, because I'm not primarily interested, right now, in the wider pros/cons of anti-interventionism. I'm interested in your assertions that Ayn Rand was a warmonger, that Buckley was a fascist rather than primarily libertarian, and that one cannot be both a libertarian and in favor of the Cold War.

    Buckley was pro-death penalty...

    There are reasons to oppose the death penalty -- I'm iffy about it, myself -- but there's nothing unlibertarian about it per se, provided the crimes that receive the death penalty are indeed crimes by libertarian standards. Executing someone for smuggling drugs is unlibertarian. Executing them for murder is neither here nor there, libertarianism-wise.

    ...pro-CIA...

    Are you asserting he was in favor of domestic spying? Otherwise, there's nothing unlibertarian about spying on other countries, or trying to prevent them from spying on us.

    ...anti-tobacco

    I presume you mean his 2007 editorial, I agree that his position was unlibertarian, but since his primary reason for writing that was the death of his wife, which he blamed on her having smoked, I'm willing to cut him a bit of slack on that one.

    (...continued...)

  • David Emami||

    (...continuation...)

    I make no distinction between nationalism and patriotism... I see no reason to be emotional over soil.

    I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic or earnestly ridiculous, here. No patriot is emotional over dirt. Patriotism is a belief that one's country's ideals are good, and should be protected, and by extension one's countrymen for sharing those ideals. The US has sadly been slipping in the freedom rankings, but it is still on the high end, and was higher still when Buckley was alive. He had every reason to be proud of those ideals, in which libertarianism is rooted.

    Now waiting, again, for you to back up your claim that Buckley was an unlibertarian fascist. You've pointed out one unlibertarian thing about him, and nothing even remotely fascist. The rest is ad-hominem. Back it up, or back it down, please.

    (...continued...)

  • David Emami||

    (...continuation...)

    The Wagner Act is all about unions. I think some labor laws are legitimate but I don't believe unions should exist.

    One of us is misunderstanding the other. You claimed that Hayek was "pro-union." I pointed out that he opposed the Wagner Act and its ilk, i.e. special legal status for unions. Are you claiming that libertarians should be against workers forming unions whose power derives not from special government backing, but solely from their members voluntarily coordinating their participation in the market for their services?

    But that's a digression, again. Are you claiming that Hayek wasn't a libertarian? Do you dispute that he did, in fact, support the Cold War? If you can't back up one of those, then withdraw your implication that one couldn't be a libertarian and also support the Cold War.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    First I am a moderate classical liberal, not a libertarian, though as someone who was a Rothbardian in their youth my definition of libertarianism is usually the non-aggression principle.

    Preemptiveness in foreign policy is is no different than the concept of pre-crime in the movie Minority Report. If you believe that America should defend soil that isn't American then I would say that qualifies you as a warmonger.

    I don't believe the US government should be spying on anyone unless they have a warrant on someone who is on US soil. I don't believe in "American exceptionalism" thus if I were president I would be very angry if I caught a foreign government spying on the US. Almost angry enough to intervene using the military.

    Again I see the existence of different countries as utilitarian thus I oppose global governance (not all multi-national treaties but GLOBAL governance). My ideals are my ideals as an individual, not someone else's. Patriotism is just another form of collectivism.

    Anyone who seriously believes in free-markets and the notion of supply and demand opposes the existence of unions. Again I believe some labor laws (like worker's comp) are legitimate, but all unions do is make it harder to fire bad employees and raise the prices of goods and services.

  • David Emami||

    First I am a moderate classical liberal, not a libertarian

    I'm not interested in what you believe. Well, actually I am, otherwise I wouldn't be engaging in debates on fora like this, but I mean not in the context of the current thread, which I stepped into due to your challenge to be proven wrong about your assertions.

    though as someone who was a Rothbardian in their youth

    Congratulations on your recovery.

    If you believe that America should defend soil that isn't American then I would say that qualifies you as a warmonger.

    In other words (as I said before) someone who thinks war is necessary in some cases where you think it isn't.

    "You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

    In any case, Ayn Rand was not a "warmonger" even by your incorrect definition, as you'd know if you'd read any of her writings on the subject of the Vietnam War, which she denounced quite vehemently for precisely the grounds you gave.

    Now are you going to withdraw your claim about her?

    (...continued...)

  • David Emami||

    (...continuation...)

    I don't believe the US government should be spying on anyone unless they have a warrant on someone who is on US soil

    Whether you believe it should or not has no bearing on whether or not it violates libertarian principles, and therefore makes Buckley a fascist rather than a libertarian for supporting it.

    Again I believe some labor laws (like worker's comp) are legitimate, but all unions do is make it harder to fire bad employees and raise the prices of goods and services.

    As before, whether you think it's a good idea or not has no bearing on whether it violates libertarian principles, therefore discredits Hayek as a libertarian for being "pro-union" (meaning what, exactly -- not advocating a government ban on them?), therefore invalidates him as a counterexample to your implication that being a libertarian and supporting the Cold War are incompatible.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Like I said, i'm not a libertarian but a moderate classical liberal (like former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson or economist John Stuart Mill before he got old and crazy), but, again, as a former Rothbardian my definition of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle ie the belief that having a concert at 3:00 a.m. is an inalienable right, but as a non-interventionist, non-left-wing liberal my foreign policy views are essentially the same. I'm where Mises meets the ACLU on a street in San Francisco.

    No I am not withdrawing my criticism of war monger Ayn Rand (I didn't say pro-war-any-war just pro-war, like warmonger Trent Lott opposing Clinton's wars), collectivist schizophrenic Buckley or spineless Hayek.

  • David Emami||

    No I am not withdrawing my criticism

    I didn't say withdraw your criticism, I said withdraw your claim, unless you can back it up, which you seem either unable or unwilling to do.

    of war monger Ayn Rand (I didn't say pro-war-any-war just pro-war,

    A warmonger is someone who thinks war is not merely sometimes necessary but good, best exemplified by progressive Herbert Croly voicing anticipation that WW1 would provide Americans with the "tonic of a serious moral adventure."

    Folks of Rothbard-ish views use "warmonger" in about the same way and with as much substance and validity as modern progressives who fling the term "racist." Just as coming from the a progressive, "racist" means "someone who disagrees with me about racial policy" rather than "someone who judges people based on their race", you and others use "warmonger" to mean "someone who disagrees with me about military policy."

    collectivist schizophrenic Buckley or spineless Hayek.

    Insults are not evidence. Please support those claims.

  • David Emami||

    And on further thought, you keep calling Ayn Rand a warmonger, without having pointed out a single war you believe her to have wrongly supported. Even if your mistaken definition of "warmonger" were correct, what is your basis for claiming that she fits it?

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I already said why Buckley was collectivist (social conservative) and schizophrenic (he believed in an invisible man in the sky). You said it was good that Hayek was friends with people he disagreed with but in his case he folded for their approval. He knew that showing support for the Cold War would get him ahead.

    Ayn Rand thought invading other countries was justified if they have a dictator despite the money spent and the blowback that may come later, not to mention all of the innocent bystanders who ironically get killed as the result of trying to "free" (by shooting at them and bombing their property) them. Like I said NAFTA is my foreign policy. America should only worry about America.

  • David Emami||

    I already said why Buckley was collectivist (social conservative)

    Believing in social conservatism (or any other code of social behavior) does not contradict being a libertarian. Using government to enforce such a code is where you step out of the realm of libertarianism. Buckley did that on one major issue -- abortion -- on which even some libertarians disagree.

    and schizophrenic (he believed in an invisible man in the sky)

    1. Schizophrenic does not mean what you seem to think it means.
    2. There is nothing contradictory with being a religious libertarian, and there are quite a few.
    3. That phrase, which you seem to think so profound and witty, has been old and tiresome for years.

    You said it was good that Hayek was friends with people he disagreed with but in his case he folded for their approval. He knew that showing support for the Cold War would get him ahead.

    And your basis for claiming that he didn't hold his view on this issue sincerely is...?

    Ayn Rand thought invading other countries was justified if they have a dictator

    Ah, so we're not even talking about an actual war here. And once again, it's just "she thought war might be justified in cases where I don't think it is."

    You're in the same realm as the (previously mentioned) progressive who calls someone who disagrees with Obama "racist", the fundamentalist who calls a woman who has premarital sex a "whore", and a Marxist who calls voluntary employment "wage-slavery."

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I didn't say a libertarian couldn't be a social conservative. As a former Rothbardian I am very well aware of the paleolibs and their racist past. I did imply however that social conservatism is in fact collectivist. What they call "atomized individualism" is actually individualism. It's a pejorative like "new atheist" which simply means an atheist who isn't ashamed of their beliefs.

    Schizophrenia is all about being in contact with things that don't exist. My brain involuntarily links people who believe in supernatural nonsense with adults who believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

    Hayek was an establishment suck-up like Friedman.

    How is invading a country justified when they did nothing to yours? Would old world Japan have been justified to go to war with the US because homosexuality (specifically male homosexuality in this case) was illegal in the US at the time? Should the Dutch have gone to war with the US several years ago because pot was illegal everywhere?

    Once again America first.

    PS: I'm in the same realm as the foreign policy department at the Cato Institute. Most people there have an America first attitude when it comes to the military as well. Yes i'm aware that there are some Jimmy Carter-esque multilateralists there but somehow Daniel J Mitchell and his fake tan got in there as well so I don't take everything that comes out of Cato for granted.

  • David Emami||

    I didn't say a libertarian couldn't be a social conservative

    When in the world did you bring it up, then, since I'm arguing about your claim that Buckley wasn't a libertarian?

    Schizophrenia is all about being in contact with things that don't exist.

    That's not the way psychiatrists diagnose it, and since there's controversy within the profession about whether it exists as a condition or not, it's not a good idea to toss the term around.

    Hayek was an establishment suck-up

    Again, do you have any basis for claiming this, i.e. that he expressed beliefs that he did not sincerely hold?

    (...continued...)

  • David Emami||

    How is invading a country justified when they did nothing to yours?

    Rand's point was that dictatorships have no sovereignty that other nations need respect, having already initiated force against their own citizens. She said nothing about an obligation to liberate them.

    Should the Dutch have gone to war... because pot was illegal everywhere?

    Maybe not a full-scale war, but they would have been in line with libertarian principles to send their special forces here to start shooting DEA agents. The DEA initiated force against drug purchasers and was subject to force by anyone who cared to respond. If A initiates force against B, C may respond with force against A. Whether they "should", as you put it -- whether it would be a good idea to do so -- is a totally-separate question outside the scope of our discussion.

    I'm in the same realm as... Cato.

    I'm not talking about your beliefs on the subject. I'm talking about your hyberbole and abuse of the English language by calling Rand a "warmonger" when the word has a specific meaning which does not fit her. "Warmonger" does not simply mean "someone who is not an anti-interventionist."

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I said Buckley was not a civil libertarian and that it had alot to do with his social conservatism. Of course a cultural liberal can also be an enemy of civil liberties but more often than not social conservatives are the worst offenders and unlike the different flavors of cultural liberalism social conservatism is always collectivist and anti-individual.

    Schizophrenics hear voices in their heads and see things that aren't there. That's spirituality.

    You obviously have little regard for political borders, and I say that as a NAFTA-supporting, pro-open borders economic globalist, and again THE MONEY SPENT. American tax money is for Americans.

    There's a difference between non-interventionism and anti-interventionism. I never advocated ANTI-interventionism here. You and Ayn Rand are/were boundary challenged on foreign policy.

  • David Emami||

    unlike the different flavors of cultural liberalism social conservatism is always collectivist and anti-individual.

    Alright, let's take an example of a specific socially-conservative more. How is believing that people should refrain from swearing in public in any way collectivist? Note that I said believing they should refrain from, not "the government should stop them" or "I am entitled to punch them for it."

    Schizophrenics hear voices in their heads and see things that aren't there.

    Well, then, as you're apparently more-qualified to diagnose psychiatric conditions than professional psychiatrists are, there's not much left to discuss on this item, is there?

    You obviously have little regard for political borders,

    I have close to zero. "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In the case of a dictatorship, no consent, therefore no just powers, therefore no sovereignty or valid borders that anyone (government or otherwise) need concern themselves with.

    (...continued...)

  • David Emami||

    (...continuation...)

    American tax money is for Americans.

    Which has absolutely zero to do with what Ayn Rand said, as she very explicitly (in the the very passage you're referring to, I believe) said that a non-dictatorship has no obligation to free people living under a dictatorship, and she repeatedly denounces elsewhere the idea of the US providing military charity. She was saying that there is nothing wrong per se with overthrowing a dictatorship -- that the dictatorship has no claim of wrongdoing against the party overthrowing it.

    You are mixing up two distinct questions here. To see the separation, ask yourself: would it be objectionable for a private mercenary company to overthrow a dictatorship?

    There's a difference between non-interventionism and anti-interventionism.

    I'm being a bit of a grammar Nazi here, but "non-interventionism" is not intervening, and "anti-interventionism" is being against intervention. That is, an anti-interventionist advocates a policy of non-interventionism. Unless we're talking about you personally refraining from intervening somewhere, it makes no sense to call you a "non-interventionist."

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    and back to Hayek I get easily suspicious of people based on who they associate with. I can't trust Rand Paul because of both his association with that magic-underwear-wearing sociopath and his hawkishness. "WAHHH CHRISTIANS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE OPPRESSED!!!" Psshhh their problem.

  • David Emami||

    The reason I brought up Hayek is due to your statement, way back:

    I get called an idiot for describing the foreign policy views of a fanatical cold warrior who said many disparaging things about libertarians especially because of their belief in non-interventionism.

    ... implying that supporting the Cold War is incompatible with being a libertarian. I'm not interested in any non-sequiturs or tangential topics, just a straight answer to what I originally asked after citing Hayek's support for the Cold War in his 1983 interview.

    1. Did I misunderstand you, and you're not claiming those views contradict? In that case, challenge withdrawn on that score because you didn't claim what I thought you claimed.

    2. Are you claiming Hayek wasn't a libertarian? If his is, then your original claim is clearly wrong as he's a counterexample.

    3. If you are claiming he's not a libertarian, please back that up with something other than "he associated with people I disagree with" or "he was a suck up -- said things he didn't believe -- even though I can't show that he didn't believe what he said" or "he held views I disagree with but which are neither here nor there libertarianism-wise"?

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I was talking about Ayn Rand in those words you italicized.

    Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle which means that having concerts at 3:00 a.m. is an inalienable right, so yes being any kind of interventionist is unlibertarian. Even the non-interventionist (again non, not anti) views of me and RON Paul go against the non-aggression principle because we both believe a military should exist and that it requires some kind of funding.

    At the same time the type of people who take a right-wing stance on the cold war also go against my globalist trade-centric worldview because they tend to be grumpy savages. Once again if the Swiss didn't have compulsory military service then their foreign policy would be perfect.

  • David Emami||

    Your inability or unwillingness to give straight answers to simple questions is getting increasingly-frustrating. So, I'll put Ayn Rand and Buckley aside for the moment, to come back to later.

    Now then.

    1. Did you intend to imply that one cannot support the Cold War while being a libertarian? Yes or no, please. If no, my mistake. If yes, proceed to...

    2. Do you agree that F. A. Hayek was a libertarian? Yes or no, please. If yes, your claim in #1 is obviously wrong, since he supported the Cold War. If no, proceed to...

    3. Please back up your claim by showing that Hayek's beliefs contradict libertarian principles. Not that they contradict your beliefs, my beliefs, Murray Rothbard's beliefs, the editors of Reasons' beliefs, or the beliefs of some random person on the street. Not that "the same type of people" as Hayek have non-libertarian beliefs. Not that Hayek was a "suck-up." Not that Hayek kicked his dog, was a bad tipper, dressed funny, or had bad taste in music.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I just said that one cannot support the cold war because libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Laws that prohibit concerts at 3:00 a.m. also violate the non-aggression principle.

    Hayek would be better described as a classical liberal than libertarian, though I don't think he would be in the upper quadrant of the Nolan Chart. Rather he would be in the upper right quadrant. I view him as a moderate wishy washy conservative.

  • David Emami||

    I'll take that as "1-Yes" and "2-No", which brings us to 3. So, please back up your assertion that Hayek was not a libertarian.

    Since you bring up the Nolan chart, when I go through http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php and answer as I think Hayek would based on his works, he's at the extreme apex of the libertarian corner. According to http://www.nolanchart.com/survey-php , he's very close to the corner, though none of the choices under "Foreign Policy" match his views precisely.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    That's an extremely simply quiz. I'm also at the extreme apex of the(ir) libertarian corner and I support ENDA. When he was governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura also found himself at the top and he was "generous" with funding public schools.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    *simple

  • David Emami||

    I only discussed it because you did.

    Please back up your assertion that Hayek was not a libertarian.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Once again a libertarian is one who subscribes to the non-aggression principle. Hayek didn't subscribe to it. Rand didn't subscribe to it. I don't subscribe to it. You don't subscribe to it. Hayek and Rand weren't even strict constitutionalists like Ron Paul or Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne and they don't/didn't subscribe to the non-aggression principle either.

  • David Emami||

    Nice try, and thank you for giving a straight answer, but that's not how most people define "libertarian." Indeed, you've gone straight off into No True Scotsman territory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman ).

    Merriam-Webster: "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action"

    Wiktionary: "One who advocates liberty either generally or on a specific issue, e.g. 'civil libertarian'"

    Dictionary.com: "a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct."

    Note that it's called "libertarianism", not "nonaggressionism."

    A good summary of the different views can be found here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/

    Personally I would define self-ownership as the core libertarian principle, but that would just be my opinion, no more valid than you saying it all rests on non-aggression.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    The anarchist notion of self-ownership is the same as the non-aggression principle ie my body is my private property so to force me to pay a single tax or to tell me I can't have a concert at 3:00 a.m. or tell me I can't own a nuclear weapon is coercive and an infringement on my private property rights says the libertarian ideologue.

  • David Emami||

    You replied to a minor aside that I said wasn't important, and ignored the important part.

    The consensus definition of libertarian is someone who advocates liberty. Now, if you're saying that Hayek doesn't meet your special personal definition of libertarian -- by which not even Libertarian Party candidates qualify -- then fine, but that wasn't what I was asking.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    As long as the definition of liberty doesn't have a hole in it big enough to allow some Wilsonian do-gooder to drive a thousand tanks through it. The cold war, along with the great society, forced tax payers to work longer and harder to keep what they already had.

  • David Emami||

    As long as the definition of liberty doesn't have a hole in it big enough to allow some Wilsonian do-gooder to drive a thousand tanks through it.

    Or rather, as long as it's your personal definition.

    forced tax payers to work longer and harder to keep what they already had.

    Which is true of any taxation, or any government. That's saying that minarchists aren't libertarians, nor is anyone who focuses on achievable nearer-term improvements rather than concentrating on defining eventual perfection. You are describing a subset of libertarians and attempting to pass it off as the definition of the larger group containing them. You are also, ironically, taking the same sort of doctrinal position taken by Ayn Rand vis a viz libertarianism, and by religious denominations versus others.

    Hell, Rothbard doesn't qualify as a libertarian by your definition, since he supported Pat Buchanan for president in 1992, and Buchanan is a very, very anti-free-trade.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Would have replied sooner if I didn't have large amounts of data to move around and new systems to configure.

    Anyways no I don't view minarchists as libertarians. Classical liberals yes, but not libertarians unless they're the kind who view going back to the original US constitution (which is crazy and extreme enough to me since I like federal food labeling laws) as a stepping stone to anarchy.

    And a libertarian can vote for a non-libertarian. Justin Raimondo supported both Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich because of they carry the Alex Jones seal of approval though ironically he attacked Gary Johnson because he's more George McGovern than Ron Paul on foreign policy even though Johnson is more of a non-interventionist than either Nader or Kucinich. I admit I supported Nader myself in 08 because I hated and still hate Barr and I was already too familiar with Chuck Baldwin because his name was all over the crazy ABeka school books that were forced on me as a kid.

  • David Emami||

    Would have replied sooner if I didn't have large amounts of data to move around and new systems to configure.

    I empathize.

    Anyways no I don't view minarchists as libertarians.

    If discussion depends on using your personal view of what a libertarian is, rather than the definition almost everyone else uses, then there's really no point. It's like Objectivists insisting on using their definition of "sacrifice", or like talking math with someone who claims that pi equals 3.

    There are many different schools of libertarian thought. Pointing to one school and calling it the "true" one is no better than different religious denominations labeling others as heretics.

    And a libertarian can vote for a non-libertarian.

    The point wasn't that Buchanan was a non-libertarian. The point was that he strongly advocated certain policies completely at odds libertarianism. Now, presumably Rothbard thought that Buchanan's good points outweighed his bad points, but your assertion was that supporting any policy you think violates the non-aggression principle disqualifies someone from being a libertarian, that support means that you're willing to take the risk of Buchanan implementing that policy rather than being able to talk him out of it after he's elected.

  • David Emami||

    Sorry, that last paragraph came out rather garbled and unfinished.

    Your assertion was that supporting any policy you think violates the non-aggression principle disqualifies someone from being a libertarian. If you support a candidate with anti-libertarian policies, that means you're willing to take the risk of him implementing that policy rather than you being able to talk him out of it after he's elected.

    Mind you, I don't think supporting Buchanan disqualifies Rothbard as a libertarian. Libertarians don't agree on everything, nor do they all have the same priorities even on things they do agree about. It's under your definition that such support disqualifies Rothbard, since he was advocating putting into power someone who explicitly promised to use that power in a way that clearly violates non-aggression.

  • David Emami||

    Still around?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Exit question: Who do you think the Adolf Hitler of illegitimate comparisons in today's mediascape?

    Que?

  • Pro Libertate||

    That would be Robert "Third" Reich.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The political labels of Professor Xia and the Cato Institute, in Washington, are strikingly different.

    This autistic-child obsession with "political labels" would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Just spent a day with some nice guys but who could not fathom a world where the energy industry is privatized. They seemed to be generally skeptical of gubment but when it came to electricity they thought it necessary for gubment to have a big hand. All while complaining about idiot gubment policies involving wind and ever changing rules for the nuclear industry. It is a mentality of just needing the "right man" in charge.

  • sarcasmic||

    Watching one of the Narnia movies last night I was thinking about how at the end, children were made into all-powerful kings and queens. And their subjects rejoiced.

    Children.

    Top. Children.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Sure, but under the Narnian Constitution, the kings are limited in their powers. They command the armies in time of war, preside on ceremonial occasions like Vegetarian Appreciation Day, and hold fancy-dress balls where the animals dress like their favorite human. And that's it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Talking beavers have NO appreciation for the value of freedom. That much is well-documented.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Well you have that much in common with them.

  • ||

    There is no 'right' man.

    That's the point people need to realize.

  • sarcasmic||

    Of course libertarians are ultra-conservative!

    They want to impose liberty on the people!

    They want to force those who impose our will on us to stop imposing their will!

    They're tyrants!

    Can you imagine that? No one to give us permission? No giving us orders?

    That would be Hell on Earth! How would anyone know what to do? Who would stop people from getting it wrong?

    They'd allow people to get rich! Filthy rich!

    They'd allow companies to fail! Even the ones that are too big to fail!

    People could try new things without asking permission!

    People could make their own rules!

    No one telling us what to do!

    Oh the horror! The horror!

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Well, freedom is slavery.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    We all want freedom - freedom from need!

  • sarcasmic||

    True freedom is freedom from responsibility!

    How can you be held responsible if you ask permission and obey orders?

    It's not your fault! You had permission! You were doing what you were told!

    Slavery is freedom!

  • angus||

    You can't put a price on such freedom.

    Or at least not one you'll ever need to pay.

  • OneOut||

    "True freedom is freedom from responsibility!"

    No attributes sarcasmic ?

    The actual quote is...To a true liberal, freedom is the freedom from responsibility.

  • Sevo||

    Dumbest political statement ever:
    "Freedom from want!"
    What, did FDR live in Marin? I want it all now!

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    It must have been some commie thing.

    ... Hobbit

  • Winston||

    I think FDR was referring to the old meaning of "want" that is referring to the lack of something. Still pretty stupid.

  • Killaz||

    Hell on Earth, good memories. The double barrel changed everything, and Romero was at the peak of his creativity in clever map design.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    +1 this.

  • Killaz||

    That is extremely groovy with headphones on.

  • anon||

    Liberty means responsibility; that's why most men dread it.

    -G.B. Shaw.

  • PapayaSF||

    The cranky old socialist was onto something there.

  • XM||

    You're not going to score points with the left just because you agree with them on a few issues.

    You're pro-immigration, but you want the minimum wage to be dismantled, and farm subsidies to end? Job training programs are waste of money? You're ejected from the game even before you reach strike three. Gun rights and drug rights? They don't mix.

    Race, guns, spending - if you lean even slightly "right" on those issues, you're a right winger. That's why minorities didn't vote for Ron Paul.

  • sarcasmic||

    Good tolerant leftists don't tolerate intolerance!

    If you disagree with them on anything, then you are intolerant!

    The more contempt they throw at those who disagree with them, the more tolerant they are!

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    How else are we going to be invited to the cocktail parties?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Oh that is ridiculous, the writers here at Reason seem to simply think a pox on the houses of liberals and conservatives-statists all. If they wanted to be accepted by liberals they would be writing quite different stuff than they do.

  • Sevo||

    ..."(some call it "cosmotarianism"...

    Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.
    Not enough racism for you, Merkin?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "Ultraconservative" would more aptly apply to Saudi Arabia - not Cato.

  • sarcasmic||

    Look! A broken clock! It's right! It's right!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The GOP does this too, they just call it 'defense and veterans spending.'

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    OR faith-based grants, agribusiness/oil subsidies, SS/Medicare, charitable deductions, etc.

  • Lorenzo||

    Read this today in my high school class. I mentioned Duranty and The Times. I can't wait to show my students the Taylor book.

    "Hitherto the animals had had little or no contact with Whymper on his weekly visits: now, however, a few selected animals, mostly sheep, were instructed to remark casually in his hearing that rations had been increased. In addition, Napoleon ordered the almost empty bins in the store-shed to be filled nearly to the brim with sand, which was then covered up with what remained of the grain and meal. On some suitable pretext Whymper was led through the store-shed and allowed to catch a glimpse of the bins. He was deceived, and continued to report to the outside world that there was no food shortage on Animal Farm."

  • RishJoMo||

    Sounds liek a solid plan to me dude. Wow.

    www.GoAnon.tk

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Just spent a day with some nice guys but who could not fathom a world where the energy industry is privatized.

    Let me guess; "Natural monopoly!" "Economies of scale!"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is a stunningly silly thing to say. How would a dissident from an authoritarian Communist country be a poor fit at a think tank that abhors Big Government? Would not it be an ideal fit? It just makes no sense.

  • Sevo||

    I'm sure you have a cite supporting your claim, right?

  • Sevo||

    Kenn|2.10.14 @ 9:01PM|#
    "You are the one who wrote the article, it's not my burden to give a source for easily verifiable facts."

    So your claim is bullshit? Surprise!

  • ||

    It is not supposed to make sense.

    It is mindless prattle to rouse hate inside the team blue bubble.

    These are the same types who move to florida, are eventually forced to interact with 'rednecks' and then are shocked to discover that 'rednecks' actually care for their family and friends.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I've been in Florida and around rednecks my whole life. Can't stand them. Technology is "effeminate" to these people. Don't even get me started on what they think of anyone who isn't a heterosexual or can see that there's no scientific evidence of an invisible man in the sky.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    You can't care about someone while disowning them because of their sexual orientation or because they would rather read a book than play in mud like a pig.

  • SForza||

    Pigs use mud as sunscreen when there isn't adequate shade. Watch a feral pig or a wild boar in its natural environment; you won't see much slopping around in mud.

  • Sevo||

    Dunno, 'Merkin, but you remain a slimy racist.

  • sarcasmic||

    Jefferson had slaves! Everything he said about liberty is wrong because he had slaves! He even had children with his slaves! So everything he said was wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

    Slave raper!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The full essay in case anyone is interested. It's actually about Churchill's full-throated support for the Zionist project. Murkin, never having read the source of his quotes before pulling them, half-understood, off a VDare post, is hoisted by his own petard. As usual.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Please. Your stammering and stuttering about having been caught with your pants down is pathetic.

  • Sevo||

    "Murkin, never having read the source of his quotes before pulling them, half-understood, off a VDare post, is hoisted by his own petard. As usual."

    The quote is also factually incorrect as anyone who's read Pipes on the Russian Revolution would know. Plenty of Jews were 'liquidated' along with others.
    But, again, Merkin only cares if a quote supports his racism; accuracy is irrelevant.

  • anon||

    Everything he said about liberty is wrong because he had slaves!

    And the worst part is this is what progs actually believe, without having read a single word Jefferson wrote. Including the Declaration.

  • ||

    What were my views on Winston Churchill before?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    MURRIKIN!

  • sarcasmic||

    Watched last night's Walking Dead tonight. I like where it's going.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Meh. I'm not so sure, Mr. Gillespie. To me, libertarianism is conservatism taken to its logical conclusion. Once a conservative decides he really believes what he's saying, he has to go libertarian. What you bring up are what could legitimately be called the neoconservative heresies. Now, I'll grant that the heresies have gained currency. But, that doesn't change the fact that, on principle at least, they don't hold.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, someone hasn't read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

    What are the “conservatives”? What is it that they are seeking to “conserve”?
    ...
    There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity. ...
    Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies—that one has no rational arguments to offer. The “conservatives’” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith—that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

    Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the “conservatives” concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists’ irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits
  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    God, what a self-righteous witch that woman was. Even if I agree with her on some things.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yeah, that was pretty much my take away too after having read everything she wrote, with the exception of that play she wrote.

  • sasob||

    No one likes a self-righteous person. Doesn't make what she had to say any less righteous though.

  • Cytotoxic||

    How dare she know she was right and act like it!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I like Rand in many ways. But, I think she's just wrong on this one. Anglo-American conservatism (as opposed to the Continental tradition that I'll have no part of) is essentially the liberal tradition divorced of the progressive reinvention. Most "conservatives" get shit scared of thinking through the implications of what they think. Hence the popularity of neoconservatism. But the first principles of conservatism mean you've kind of got to wind up accepting libertarianism unless you want to accept a contradiction.

  • anon||

    But the first principles of conservatism mean you've kind of got to wind up accepting libertarianism unless you want to accept a contradiction.

    That's all well and good until you realize the first principles of conservatism are the exact same as the first principles of liberalism:

    Free shit for me but not for thee.

  • sasob||

    No, no - It's free shit for me but paid for by thee.

  • anon||

    Fair 'nuf.

  • sasob||

    No, no - It's free shit for me but paid for by thee.

  • sasob||

    And with a double posting there's plenty to go around. (damned squirrels)

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    What about people who believe in capitalism and minimal taxation and don't want anything to do with conservatives?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Conservatism doesn't have a logical conclusion. It's an incoherent emotional leaning. So is leftism, of course.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except, the Anglo-American conservative tradition does. If you believe its arguments, it just stops being conservative and becomes libertarian.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm assuming you define the "Anglo-American conservative tradition" in a similar manner as Allitt does?

    Even if you don't, you have to admit that some strands of libertarianism, especially the ones sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism are an anathema to conservatism, by definition.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    ...you have to admit that some strands of libertarianism, especially the ones sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism are an anathema to conservatism, by definition.

    I'm not so sure I'd contend that Murray Rothbard or the Mises Institute would be seen as anathema to conservatives.

  • Sevo||

    "Libertarianism as it exists now is diametrically opposed to the White race."

    You bet! Why, the new slogan for Reason Mag is "Down with Whitey!"
    Fuck off, Merkin.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's funny that what he means by "Libertarianism as it exists now is diametrically opposed to the White race" is that libertarians oppose giving White people free shit at the exclusion and detriment of Blacks and Hispanics.

    Yet, the national socialist feels justified in coming here to lecture us.

  • ||

    Liberals hate libertarians because they force them to argue about economics instead of gay marriage, birth control, drugs, and immigrants. They would like to pretend all of their opponents are in one giant camp of ignorant religious fundamentalists and racists. Libertarians always take the conversation back to dollars and cents and liberty. They can't stand that.

    Liberals hate libertarians because they are deeply insecure about the validity of their own economic theories. The fact is that they are essentially motivated by self-interest - they just want to carve out a bigger slice of the pie for themselves - and all the theory is rationalizing window-dressing for that. And at some level they know it, which is why they can't stand to argue it on the economic theory.
    They always want to shift the topic of conversation to social issues, so they can distract attention from the fact that their economic program makes no sense except as a pure cash grab by their favored interests.

  • anon||

    Liberals hate libertarians because they are deeply insecure about the validity of their own economic theories.

    Not sure those theories actually exist. More like "feelings."

  • PapayaSF||

    I agree with everything you said, except for them being "essentially motivated by self-interest." Or maybe just define self-interest beyond "cash grab." I think a more important core of liberalism is wanting to be "nice" (especially with other people's money), and the emotional self-congratulation that goes along with that. They care, you see, and that makes them better than their opponents. Intentions trump all. Hence the support for programs that don't work, because "at least something is being done."

  • ||

    I think it is more cynical than that once you get to Washington.

    It might be all about being nice out in Peoria and SWPL land, but inside the circles of power it's not. It's about giving money to "your people".

    And for a lot of progressives, they are deeply convinced that corporations and Republicans are evil, that it's all the same thing. Giving money to the good people and taking it from the bad people is functionally identical to giving money to Democrats and taking it from Republicans. Most of these people don't think of it as self-interested, but the higher up you go, and the smarter they get, the more of them realize that's what it is. To them, all of politics is about getting the most for yourself and your team, and always will be, and they really, honestly don't think there are any other rules than winning and distributing resources to your side.

  • PapayaSF||

    I think you're right.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The fact is that they are essentially motivated by self-interest - they just want to carve out a bigger slice of the pie for themselves

    You got everything right except this. People here gotta understand that all the evils of our enemies is driven by altruism. They would really give all to The Collective.

  • ||

    It's not altruism. It's greed dressed up in altruistic drag.

    Do yuo think when Obama bailed out the auto unions with taxpayer dollars that was altruism?

  • PapayaSF||

    No, I think Cytotoxic is correct here. (Even though he's often a jerk to me about immigration.) Huge numbers of Democrat voters (e.g. college students, artists, writers, liberal tech types) aren't voting for handouts for themselves, they are voting for candidates who they think will help other people, using other people's money. When A votes for B to take money from C to give to D, it may not be a good example of altruism, but it's not greed. (Though as I said above, it is self-interest in the sense of self-congratulation.)

  • ||

    And let's not forget how proggies are always acting so disconcerted that poor people "vote against their self-interest", by not voting themselves money from the public coffers.

  • croaker||

    There are times I long for the days when newspaper reporters and editors were regularly beaten in the streets by their outraged readers. This is one of them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is that dog actually wearing jewelry?

    That's like French aristocrat a day before the Revolution shit right there.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Complete with the background photo of serfs laboring in the fields.

  • Sevo||

    Heroic Mulatto|2.10.14 @ 9:45PM|#
    "Is that dog actually wearing jewelry?"

    It took until I checked the image to see what you meant; I thought you were posting about HER!

  • anon||

    It took until I checked the image to see what you meant; I thought you were posting about HER!

    Wait, I looked at the image. Is it not her?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

    No wonder the O is tappin' Beyonce's ass.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I thought that was Biden.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    You're thinking of Clinton, and it was Elizabeth Berkeley.

  • William of Purple||

  • sasob||

    From the link:

    Rostain added: "We should not forget Marilyn [Monroe] or Monica Lewinsky. You can be the president of the first world power — that doesn't make you any less a man."

    But being faithful to one's wife does? Good to know.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    As they say in the War Room, "He is a man of the people, but he is a man."

    How insulting.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Whistle words!

  • anon||

    This pic infuriates me.

  • PapayaSF||

    Example #2,789 on the "If a White Republican Did This There Would Be a Shitstorm" list.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    White Republicans have it easy. Black Republicans are subject to character assassination just by existing.

  • SIV||

    Where's the guy holding a banana ?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    "Bone appétit, America!"

  • ||

    She should learn to spell French.

    Feels like she was confused and caught in a linguistic vortex pitting French and Italian.

  • C4LCNCPLS||

    The NY Times will not be around in 3-5 years. The mayor is going to make sure of it by taxing the crap out of all NYC businesses.

  • Jayburd||

    Do they still pay their delivery truck drivers 100k/year?

  • OneOut||

    Usually you have to make a profit to be taxed.

  • Dr. Paul Krugman||

    As the author of a humor blog supported by the New York Times, I object to these misguided attempts to lambast the newspaper of record.

  • Sevo||

    Your humor blog is missing the laugh track.

  • anon||

    SORRY Nobel-Prize Winner Dr. Paul Krugman Ph.D!

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Slow clap.

    Or golf clap.

    Anyway, well done / would recommend to a friend.

  • Sevo||

    POOF!
    'Merkin disappeared once again.

  • anon||

    Have no fear, that turd is too large to flush.

  • Sevo||

    I've gotta admit the sorry piece of shit must go through all sorts of shenanigans just to see his new handle show up here and get the crap beat out of him one more time.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why doesn't he just pay for a dominatrix?

    Well, the gay version of a dominatrix. Dominator?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The polite term is Homonator.

  • GILMORE||

    a 'Warty'

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Read it and weep.
    Or laugh.

    5 Ways Rich People's "Entitlements" Cheat You and Me

    And the more they take from us, the greater their belief that they deserve the wealth we all helped to create.
  • Sevo||

    For starters, whoever wrote that can't count to five; there were only four and then some vague teaser about how there are more.
    Plus:
    "As Forbes notes, the hundreds of trillions of dollars of speculative financial transactions constitute "a massive financial accident waiting to happen, yet again." "
    I'm absolutely certain that quote, in its original context, means nothing close to what is hinted-at here.
    Rank lying; worthy of Tony.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

    Of course! When I think of rap, This is the guy I immediately think of.

  • GILMORE||

    I spit beer on the screen @ that.

    I somehow don't think he's a Kool G fan

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RVQeJPAW2U

  • Sevo||

    A "college teacher". Hmm. What college and what does he teach?
    There have been several "colleges" in SF that come and go depending on how long they can game the system for student loans.
    The students get a piece of paper with some words printed on it.

  • Dr. Paul Krugman||

    As any good acolyte of Keynesian macro knows, true wealth comes from spending. Thus, the more we spend "publicly", the more shared prosperity we all enjoy. It isn't debt, it is wealth.

  • Derpetologist||

    Great Zeus, if I keep saving money, I'll go broke!

  • Juice||

    Did that list only go up to 4?

    And it was 4 ways to say the same thing: rich people receive cheat us by not paying more in taxes.

  • prolefeed||

    Exit question: Who do you think the Adolf Hitler of illegitimate comparisons in today's mediascape?

    Questions have verbs. This is more like free association.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Dr. Paul Krugman||

  • Derpetologist||

    dingalingaling! Retard alert! Another clown tries explain why libertarianism is wrong:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhZbX05YFGw

  • kbolino||

    "I have now answered pretty much every counter-argument to this video and am bored of repeating myself. Comments are now disabled. PM me if you have anything useful to add"

    That told me everything I need to know, no need to watch the video.

  • Irish||

    Suicide bomb instructor accidentally kills himself and students when vest explodes.

    That story is awesome to begin with, but I noticed something interesting:

    The militants belonged to a group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, which is fighting the Shiite-dominated army of the Iraqi government, mostly in Anbar Province.

    LAAAAAANNNNNAAAAAAAAAA!

  • anon||

    Holy shit, that's fucking hilarious on both fronts.

  • MJGreen||

    Dukes!

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    "I thought you said N, as in Nancy!"

  • PapayaSF||

    It's the feel-good story of the week.

  • Agammamon||

    Hey, when the FBI guy said they were conducting unauthorized intelligence operations he didn't say *who for*.

  • JeremyR||

    Of course, the people at Reason would blame this on the US's immigration policy.

    If he had been allowed to come here thanks to an open border policy, this tragic accident never would have happened.

  • ||

    LAAAAAANNNNNAAAAAAAAAA!

    What!?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Sevo||

    I found that somewhere eariler today and the article begs the question.
    Let's allow that the winds are the cause; if so, random winds can 'save the planet'?
    I thought the effect were pretty robust and needed the actions of governments world-wide to save us. Now, we need a butterfly someplace?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Of course, it couldn't simply be their theory is wrong.

    Can we agree then, that if it doesn't warm up by 2016, they'll just move on?

  • Sevo||

    "Can we agree then, that if it doesn't warm up by 2016, they'll just move on?"

    Ha, and HA!
    They checked that bathroom the sled rider had to break out of. The heats been hiding in there!

  • Boisfeuras||

    Can we agree then, that if it doesn't warm up by 2016, they'll just move on?

    Why would they abandon something just because it's been disproved time and again? Charles Fourier, undoubtedly a certifiable madman, came up with climate change (he also coined the term "feminism", thought the oceans would turn to lemonade, and man would ride lions as beasts of burden).

    The irony is that virtually the entire progressive agenda was concocted by a rogue's gallery of 18th century French cretins: the lunatic Fourier, rapist de Sade, charlatan Rousseau. De Sade viewed mankind as a blight on the earth and encouraged its extinction. Nothing quite says "progress" like clinging to crank theories exploded again and again over the centuries.

  • Tony||

    It couldn't be that all the world's scientists are right and you're wrong. Perish the thought, you're a entrepreneurial superman! You know everything and experts know things only with your permission.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Golf map jam inward.

  • OneOut||

    Are you referring to all the world's scientists that thought the earth was flat or all the world's scientists that thought the earth was the center of the universe ?

    Which one

  • OneOut||

    In 1840 the explorer James Ross was the first person to do a marine survey of what was later named for him, The Ross Ice Shelf. In 1912, Robert Falcon Scott, the second man to lead an expedition to the geographic south pole, also surveyed The Ross Ice Shelf. Both men were chosen to lead their expeditions because of their navigation and marine survey skills. Falcons entire party perished after reaching the pole ( He refused to use dogs and proved that men couldn't drag enough food for such a long journey and back ). A later expedition brought back his logs and journals to England. A noted naturalist of the age was quoted as " lamenting that the Great Ross Ice Shelf has retreated by over 50 miles between surveys 62 years apart. He wished he had seen it it all it's glory. Ross discovered the ice shelf in a sailboat without a steam engine. Scott's ship was more technologically advanced, it had auxiliary steam power. Sail was used for distance and coal powered steam for power and maneuverability in the ice. So the largest Antarctic ice shelf was already receding 1 mile a year when first discovered during the Age Of Sail. I don't pretend to know what was causing this melting of the ice shelf. Unfortunately, man made global warmists claim to know. They blame it on something that did not exist when it was first noted that the ice shelf was retreating.

  • Nazdrakke||

    global warming hiatus blamed on pacific winds

    like it's let them all down. but they're not bias regarding the cult of AGW. honest.

  • Juice||

    And there was a 2006 paper that said that global warming was causing increased trade winds. Which is it? Did global warming cause decreased winds or did it cause increased winds that pushed heat deep into the oceans?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • sasob||

    Scratch a progressive and find - oops! - a progressive. How about that?

  • JeremyR||

    Sadly, "progressive" is no longer the term it once was.

    Every story I read about that gay college player mentions "progressive" in a positive manner.

    Like, "Surely some team will be progressive enough to draft him" or the ilk.

    No, progressive would be sending all the other players in the NFL to a re-education camp...

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So reproduction should be left to the white- I mean, right- people?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Sevo||

    CBC has fewer 'human interest' yappers?
    Hey, maybe we can get Bob Costas fired!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In 2018, we're going to have had 3 consecutive Olympics held in the winter. WTF?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    August is winter in the southern hemisphere. It's how it works.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Also, shot-putters and figure skaters spin counter-clockwise.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Smart fellow.

    I just wish we could have winter olympics during the summer. In Ushuaia maybe?

  • Sevo||

    Darn! Three consecutive 'major events' I've missed!
    How much longer do I need the TV off to miss this one?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "If that wasn't enough, a petition dated Monday demanded the U.S. government "rescind NBC's monopoly on the broadcast and distribution of the Olympics Games."

    I was not aware that the US government granted NBC a monopoly to broadcast the Olympic Games in the US. I thought NBC bought that from the IOC.

  • SIV||

    Does the US government enforce NBC's "property rights" to exclusive distribution of video coverage?

  • Rollo||

    No, IOC keeps anyone other than approved broadcasters from filming the events. Americans caught filming the events and posting them to YouTube are delivered to the local mafia for some old-fashioned reeducation.

  • Mickey Rat||

    From what I gather, the contracts with the IOC are written to prevent the broadcasters in individual countries from competing with each other. To the extent that the US government will help enforce a contract, I suppose it does. That does not mean that the US government can unilaterally repudiate the contract.

    Why are you using Tony logic?

  • Sevo||

    Background:
    The Bay Bridge span to Oakland was damaged in the '89 quake. Given the monumental egos of the SF and Oakland mayors, it's no surprise the design was a political football and only took 15 years and three times the budget to finish the 'really COOL' new bridge; sleazy politicos need something they've spent taxpayer money on to brag about.
    So the design (nice from a distance, like your first wife) tested the edges of bridge-building technology. Well, no, it went a bit over (unlike the budget which was a LOT over)
    "Bay Bridge: Hundreds of leaks, possible corrosion"
    The central span, hung from the central tower, relies on a sort of monocoque structure, and as such, corrosive stress-risers are a no-no.
    Well, guess what?
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/.....222501.php

  • PapayaSF||

    Yeah, another screwup by government. What a surprise. And I still don't believe they couldn't have just retrofitted the old bridge.

    But it's cool to drive on the new one and see them dismantling the old one. How they are going to dismantle the whole thing without dropping big pieces into the bay, I have no idea.

  • Sevo||

    "And I still don't believe they couldn't have just retrofitted the old bridge."

    For the time and money spent on the new one, that is not in doubt.
    But Willie and Moonbeam must have their 'legacy' project! I just hope, like O-care, it gets hung around their necks when it requires tons more money and broomsticks to keep it upright.

  • PapayaSF||

    When I first moved to California decades ago, when Willie was Speaker of the House, I asked my friends how a state politician could also be in a private law firm that did business with the state government. They just laughed and said "That's Willie!"

  • Swiss Servator, Befehl!||

    See also Mike Madigan (D-Chicagoland) Speaker of the IL House.

  • playa manhattan||

    "However, they conceded Monday that they have yet to figure out all the reasons why the steel structure is leaking, and so they have not yet devised a solution."

    *raises hand*

    There are holes in it?

  • Sevo||

    "*raises hand*
    There are holes in it?"

    BINGO!
    First rule of waterproofing if you REALLY, REALLY don't want water inside:
    Do NOT pierce the damn membrane!
    Weld fasteners on top, hang straps over the side, glue it together; do NOT pierce the membrane!

  • Rollo||

    One less piece of public infrastructure to support the 1% and their unsustainable corporate business schemes. Maybe when the bridge crumbles you'll understand how important government is to your sad excuses for lives.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Because no private company could ever handle such a heroic project like building a bridge.

  • Rollo||

    A private company did build it, American Bridge/Flour. See the result when you outsource government jobs to Libertaria.

    How them apples taste, now?

  • Agammamon||

    A private company built it to the customer's specs. The customer being the government. Every time there was a problem with construction the *customer* decided to relax their requirements.

    The private company built *exactly* what was asked of them.

  • Sevo||

    Rollo|2.11.14 @ 12:50AM|#
    "A private company did build it, American Bridge/Flour. See the result when you outsource government jobs to Libertaria."

    Yep, built to the egomaniacal standards of the politicos on stolen money

    "How them apples taste, now?"
    You tell us.

  • ||

    The first bridge to span the Columbia river in my neck of the woods was payed for and built by private interests about 100 years ago.

    It is still standing today.

  • GILMORE||

    Most of the great 'public works' in New York City were funded entirely by private contributions.

    Which really does send progs into a tizzy. I note they never mention how the Kochs have been bankrolling Lincoln Center (and the NYC Ballet) for like the last 2 decades.

  • playa manhattan||

    Judging from the deleted comments, it looks like Murican was hoisted by his own retard. What did I miss?

  • Sevo||

    "What did I miss?"
    Jooooooze!

  • ghada2013||

  • FuriousFatMan||

    gotta love the way the communistic jews are still spreading lies and using manipulation to silence and smear their opponents.

    god damn jews trying to fulfill the prophesy of their bullshit book through the same means they've been using for over 2000 years.

    you'd think people would understand this bullshit scam by now....

    -FFM

  • kbolino||

    Protip: You never go full racist. You need to ease it in, give the commenters a good game. That way, when your true feelings inevitably slip out, your posts get deleted and it looks like everyone else is barking mad.

  • GILMORE||

    These amateurs!

  • Tony||

    He writes that Cato "is known as" ultraconservative, and then goes on to explain how Cato and Xia share common "liberal" goals. You're whining about how people perceive you. Maybe if you stopped equating the most modest progressivism with Maoism, and stopped flirting with political coalitions with neonazis, that perception wouldn't be there.

  • GILMORE||

    Yes tony, we really do need to purge the Nazi element out of Reason.com

    (sigh)

    what you just said is equivalent to a wife beater screaming "YOU SEE WHAT YOU MAKE ME DO!!?"

    I.e. 'they only mischaracterize you as extremists because YOU DID IT FIRST! (Spits in face)"

    its just a variation on, "BOOOOOOSH", which is wholly unsurprising.

  • Tony||

    So you aren't extremists?

    You know what I want? To use political labels only in the most casual sense. Because everyone except maybe people at the very far extremes believe in a mixed economy. Conservatives aren't trying to conserve shit. Liberals and libertarians disagree on theories of freedom that amount to airy nonsense. We should be talking about what we want government to do or not do and why, and stop getting bogged down in moralism and bullshit, that's what I think.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I'm fairly moderate compared to the average libertarian (hence I have classical liberal instead of libertarian in my username because it's a much broader term) but I oppose a so-called mixed economy which is just the pc term for corporatism.

    I think if someone sees a cockroach in their meal at a rest

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    oops will continue in another comment

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    CONTINUED: restaurant then the government should be able to intervene. I also believe it should be illegal for a business to discriminate against someone because of their race, sexual orientation or gender identity. On welfare i'm not against assisting people in dire poverty or giving households who make less than a certain amount a year vouchers to pay for their kid's K-12 education.

    However i'm pro-NAFTA and I don't believe unions or the minimum wage law should exist. I also believe in free-market healthcare, which does not mean people can perform surgeries in their garage and it does not mean that hospitals can do whatever they want in regards to sanitation. Free markets are about supply and demand, not anarchy.

  • Tony||

    You're describing a form of a mixed economy. Some free market, some government intervention. Just like everyone pretty much on the planet. And you're perfectly entitled to the mix you prefer.

    What I find exasperating is libertarians asserting, over and over and over, that their preferred mix is true and good because it doesn't allow for coercion and force--but of course it does, because they believe in some government involvement. I simply think policy preferences should be defended on their merits and people shouldn't be giving themselves unearned extra credit because they slap the word "freedom" on their preferences.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Usually when people tout the words mixed-economy they're usually calling for Keynesian micromanagement and handouts to the likes of Tesla (whose CEO by the way is very creepy). You see the economy like a machine with buttons and levers and I see it as a plant. Not to be completely left alone but also not to be either artificially fed or have growth stopped by 'unions' of various critters. Some light pesticides may be used for the sake of sanitation but too much is unreasonable and will also harm the plant.

    I never said my moderate flavor of classical liberalism completely lacked coercion. When anarcho-capitalists frame everything to be about coercion i'm reminded of Marxists and their emphasis on equality. I don't believe it should be legal to have a concert at 3:00 a.m.. That stance is coercive and violates the non-aggression principle. Most self-described libertarians would agree with me that having concerts at that time should be illegal but only a minority are strict textbook libertarians. Most of them are somewhere between me and a hardcore anarcho-capitalist.

  • Sevo||

    "Maybe if you stopped equating the most modest progressivism with Maoism,"

    Yes, we definitely need to take a lesson from you and learn to lie much more often.
    Of course, you set the bar for lying extremely high; it will take years of practice to be able to do so without breaking out in laughter.
    But thanks for your advice, asshole.

  • GILMORE||

    Speaking of which - someone should really do a meta-analysis of which posts the racist sockpuppets really come out for in force.

    My guess is - based on observation - that the real loony-bin hate-mongers are probably more frequently associated with posts that cross-link to other short-term highly-trafficked pieces - articles which present a really sharp and accurate critique of TEAM RED or TEAM BLUE bullshit.

    Ive noticed the crazy haters flood here mostly when a punch lands home, showing MSM narratives to be completely full of shit. When Slate or Salon or the NYT or The Nation write slimy hit-pieces against 'libertarians', they don't mind when people like Reason *rebut* them - they just can't stand the idea that MORE people might actually read the rebuttal than the hit-piece. They want to own the narrative. So when things like this highlight bullshit casual smears in the NYT, and get attention for it - they come out like a plague of locusts to 'undermine'.

    I say this partly because (other than Mary, Tony, Shreek), they really don't ever even bother to come here for any other purpose.

    Which I suppose may be what the editors bitch about from time to time = the readership (at least commenters) are already 90% already-sold libertoids, and the remaining 10% are just psychotic hate machines.

    There are no 'normals'. :) I BLAME WARTY

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Hitler is the Progressives, Progressive. Absolutely top of the heap.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Hitler's economics were definitely left-of-center, but on non-economic issues (with the exception of guns) he was pretty much Pat Buchanan. Actually Buchanan himself isn't much to the right on economics. He's very protectionist and union-friendly, like Hitler. Though to Buchanan's credit his views on military interventionism are the extreme opposite of Hitler's.

  • ||

    very [...] union-friendly, like Hitler

    All independent trade unions were suppressed by Hitler after he came to power; the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (led by Robert Ley) replaced them.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    So he replaced individual unions with a monolith. That's still a union, in fact the German economy was even more unionized than before due to the monolith you speak of, though I was speaking more in ideological terms. In modern terms the Nazi Party is half Green and half ultraconservative (both traditional and neo-conservative), and Pat buchanan is a nationalist and a social conservative whose protectionist stances on economic issues has gotten him praise from many on the left.

  • OneOut||

    Why are any comments here removed ?

    i want to see them all. We here are all pretty much big boys and girls and I don't think comments should be filtered for any REASON.

  • PapayaSF||

    My complaint is that if they are going to delete comments, they should delete spammers. And that includes Anonbot. I hate spammers.

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