Check out Reason's New LA Headquarters!

Reason's new Los Angeles headquarters are up and running! Reason invited writers, thinkers, artists, and supporters from around the area to spend some time in the new place this December.

Reason TV captured the official "christening" of the new building, and asked various attendees a few questions: As Reason enters its 45th year, what do you think has been the greatest boon to liberty in the past 45 years? What trends are you optimistic about in the coming decades? And what does Reason add to the political conversation?

Hear the answers and see the new facilities in the video above.

About 4 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Sharif Matar, Alex Manning, Paul Detrick, and Paul Feine. Additional camera by Tracy Oppenheimer.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Why didn't you guys just move into Cavanaugh's old house?

  • Schu||

    You guys spend all this time complaining about taxes in California and then turn around and invest in a new building there? Lol

  • SIV||

    As the leading journal of cosmotarianism reason requires a SoCal address to establish their bone fide "Hollywood values".

    /KULTUR WAR

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    And they just had to have an appearance by John Stagliano, director of such films as "Buttman's Big Butt Backdoor Babes 3" and "White Trash Black Splash."

  • RBS||

    Yokeltarians, unite!!!

  • Schu||

    Mencken is rolling over in his grave.

  • ||

    Mencken liked the milk nymphos.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Maybe, just maybe cosmotarians such as yourself will want to be taken seriously one day outside of Cali and Beltway hipster cocktail parties....you know, like CATO and Heritage.

  • RBS||

    Derp cocktail parties derp. What's it like being so fucking stupid?

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Whats it like to be a proggie-lite? Always wanting to filter and control debate to insist that your pet peeve social issues make you a "respectable" libertarian. You're being a good little cosmotarian. I hear those "medical" pot filled LA Christmas parties are a blast.

  • RBS||

    Hahaha, keep digging that hole retard.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Dont worry, I didn't forget the craft beer.

  • ||

    I hear those "medical" pot filled LA Christmas parties are a blast.

    Fuck you, you retarded piece of shit. I hope you die a long, slow, painful death from cancer.

    There is a vast difference from personally not approving of certain behaviour, and choosing not to engage in it, and making it illegal for others that do.

    Just because I don't solicit the services of a prostitute, watch pr0n, or shoot heroin doesn't mean I believe those activities should be illegal, for example.

    When somebody suggests that those activities be subsidized by others forcefully, then I am going to raise my objections. Big difference.

    Kindly DIAF.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Youre confusing my stance, if I ever even stated it. I think medical marijuana is a joke. Does not mean that I dont think Marijuana shouldn't be legal (it should). However, saying that Marijuana should be legal on medical grounds is about as stupid as the Indian Chief telling me the tobacco will cure my scurvy.

    As for everything else, I agree. The difference between cosmotarians and us more traditional, Southern, Friedman libertarians, is that we tend to take economics a bit more seriously than the latest "trendy, legalize it" movement when the country is about to disintegrate.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    is that we tend to take economics a bit more seriously than the latest "trendy, legalize it" movement when the country is about to disintegrate.

    HA HA HA! Seriously? Fuck you. The only shit you take seriously nowadays is the hooting and hollering you call your support of Juan Crow laws.

    The correct term for "traditional, Southern (like that means anything) Friedman libertarians" is "Republican". Now kindly fuck off to Free Republic or someplace else where you can commiserate with your fellow mongoloid cretins.

  • Ted S.||

    The correct term for "traditional, Southern (like that means anything) Friedman libertarians" is "Republican".

    I would have guessed he meant one of those Lew Rockwell "the Confederacy was a libertarian paradise!" types.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    I'm more of a Taki Mag guy myself.

  • Patriot||

    +1

  • Patriot||

    @"Mulatto" So if we don't believe in single parenthood we aren't libertarians? Who died and made you king?

  • ||

    Well fuck me, I didn't know single parenthood was a belief.

  • ||

    I think medical marijuana is a joke.

    I don't. I'm a physician, surgeon specifically, and definitely can see the demonstrable benefits of that course of legitimate PX therapy (such as cancer patients and AIDS patients), and also as an anti-emetic (means keeping you from barfing 24/7) and appetite stimulant (the aforementioned patients have a real hard time eating regularly to fight emaciation). There is also evidence in the TX of glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.

    I take PX mgmnt. very seriously, and my own medical judgement I'll keep, TYVM.

    It's shitbags like you that keep people in PX and fellate the DEA, and that makes me want to rip off your head and shit down your neck.

    Good day, sir.

  • Patriot||

    It is a joke. My friend is in the medical profession, and he estimated that over 90% of the users don't have justifiable reason to use.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Justifiable?!

    Fuck you, that's why!

  • Patriot||

    Exactly. Some people here have what I'd call a "cosmotarian view of the medical profession."

  • ||

    Doc, one question please !

    How is medical marijuana that helpful for glaucoma ? Does it help relieve pain or stop the optic nerves from going bad ? Is it more helpful than the usual stuff prescribed (drops for the rest of your life) ?

  • ||

    Glaucoma is a build-up of intraocular pressure and causes permanent damage to the optic nerve.

    Glaucoma itself doesn't cause PX, but the subsequent blindness that follows can onset pretty quick, and that's why one should take a trip to the optometrist every couple of years or so. I'm sure you are familiar with the "puff test" - a gentle, concentrated blast of air testing the turgidity of the cornea. That's a test of intraocular pressure.

    More on glaucoma and traditional TX.

    More on a limited study that suggests THC can provide a decrease in intraocular pressure.

    As far as efficacy in a large, controlled clinical study, since current (idiotic) drug law in the USA doesn't permit this, I can't attest to long term efficacy or its use as concommitant or adjunctive TX with more traditional methods via a clinic trial.

  • ||

  • ||

    Ooops! Broken link from 5.17 here!

    Curse you, Saccharin Man!-D

  • ||

    Thanks doc,

    My mom was recently diagnosed with that, at only 60. She says she can actually feel the pressure built up in her eyes. I had to take her to the ophthalmologist a good 6 times in the last months before it was stabilized. Now I love my mom, but I really don't want to become her blind dog so if it doesn't get better that woman is getting a bong her next birthday.

    They should do those studies here in Quebec. We have pot laws too, but they're more of a suggestion than anything else. And it's way easier to find that than to get to a doctor. Thanks again!

  • Ted S.||

    You don't watc pr0n? What kind of a monster are you?

    Then again, you're in UKR, so I suppose you probably have a hidden camera set up in the nurses' changing room or something to check out the hot Ukrainian nurses. :-p

  • ||

    You suppose incorrectly, Theodore.-P Also, not all of them are hot. There's a few babushki running around.-)

    Besides, for me, that pr0n energy should be channeled to and reserved for the future Mrs. Groovova.-D

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    COUNTRY MOUSE vs. CITY MOUSE!

    TONIGHT ON PAY-PER-VIEW!

  • Patriot||

    "Yokeltarians, unite!!!"
    We sure will. After many comments, many stories, I have concluded that reason is essentially a "cultural liberal" magazine. They constantly confuse not liking something with wanting to ban. Unless you're totally okay with homosexuality, drug use, and sexual libertinism, you're a "collectivist." If you think that the traditional family, one man, one woman, raising a child together, is the superior system for raising children, you're a "collectivist." If you wonder why most single mothers vote Democrat, you're also a collectivist. Of course, they seem to think that sexual libertinism could survive a libertarian world. In reality, either traditional morality would come back, or socialism would come back. The reason is simple. A single mother, with no education,(most single mothers have no education) no family other than her own single mother, could not afford to raise a child herself. She would need either welfare or subsidized daycare, which can be almost as expensive. Which gives her two choices. Option one is to keep her legs closed until she finds a man who will dedicate himself to her, provide resources for her in a traditional family. Option two is to vote for socialism. As long as we have a culture that does not promote option one, option two will predominate.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    AnCap here says +1

  • Virginian||

    Well, that all depends on what you consider cultural liberalism. Let's take the War on Drugs. It is a monstrous affront to the Constitution and an enormous waste of money? Or is it a something that hammers minorities disproportionately and flies in the face of much scientific evidence.

    Well, the answer is that it is all of those things.

  • Patriot||

    Most people who identify as libertarian oppose the WOD. Cosmos, however, see nothing wrong with drug use. "Yokeltarians" may not. "Cultural liberalism" here means the cultural part of feminism, as well as radical race equality.(such as thinking math problems are racist when blacks can't do them) Cosmos accept feminism's cultural doctrines, but seem to thinks that the political doctrines are not neccesary to achieve those cultural goals. Ditto for radical race equality. They are wrong, as my single mother example shows. Whites have a net wealth 20 times that of blacks. Does anyone really believe that it would be equalized in a libertarian society?

  • Virginian||

    WTF is radical race equality?

  • Patriot||

    It is, as I said, thinking math problems are racist when blacks can't do them. It is thinking that heretitarianism is racist, Charles Darwin is racist, and IQ tests are racist. It is thinking that all the "gaps" in society are caused by evil racist capitalists. It is thinking that not liking Rap music is racist. It is the belief that most republicans are racist.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Does anyone really believe that it would be equalized in a libertarian society?

    No. And I have never seen any commentors on, or contributors to Reason call for an outcome of equality. If you can find any evidence of this, by all means produce it (with links). Otherwise, you have built a strawman.

  • Patriot||

    They don't, but, it never does answer the question of why whites have a net wealth 20 times that of blacks. They say that anyone who thinks that blacks are less intelligent than whites, as the evidence shows, is a racist. They say that anyone who criticizes rap and hip hop and black culture is racist. They say that anyone who doesn't think of NAM immigrants as proto-entrepreneurs is a racist. In refusing to be a part of the hated "Kulture war," they simply do not answer the question. Then they wonder why many NAMs don't vote for them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What's is "NAM", by the way?

  • Patriot||

    Great answer to the question. You know what they are. You're name is a hint.

  • dunlap||

    "Option two is to vote for socialism. As long as we have a culture that does not promote option one, option two will predominate."

    I wholeheartedly agree. The Reason writers are good at pointing out economic consequences of many government policies, but they often seem blind to the consequences of the social policies they prefer.

  • dunlap||

    I actually think that if the Democrats legalized drugs, that would help them to expand government more than anything else they could do. It would become just another lifestyle choice whose participants need government assistance to shelter them from the results of said lifestyle.

  • SIV||

    Government shouldn't have "social policies".

  • np||

    Jesus fuck patriot. You keep coming back with your statist, collectivist mindset every single time.

    You present a totally false dichotomy. You aren't any different whatsoever than the proglodytes you criticize. None, just the other side of the same coin that wants to control people.

    Because the only way for your false dichotomy to work is to control people--in short, to be a statist of a different color.

    Ironically you keep harping about voting, yet that is another method of control, and something which you would have an issue with if you were part of the tyrannical majority. Another irony is the moniker "patriot" because you are anything but a patriot. Finally traditional morals? Yeah, drugs would be legal and well accepted in society even when people recognize its dangers (by DEGREE) not only in nearly all of human history but also in traditional US history. Prostitution? Likewise.

    History already shows your dichotomy to be false. You simply cannot have the collectivist society YOU WANT without controlling people. Period.

  • Patriot||

    Your attempt to try to flip history on it's side is comical. Was traditional US society, more libertarian than now, as you would say "culturally collectivist?" It was. In traditional US society a woman who fell one her back for every guy who had "cute abs," would have been shunned. And it was libertarian! Go figure. You seem to think that just because opium dens and prostitution existed in the 1800s they were well accepted in society. No, they weren't. A prostitute would have been shuned in traditional America. Addiction to Opium was also not considered "accepted." Even alcohol was attacked.(Not everyone who opposed it was a prohibitionist progressive. Many libertarians also promoted voluntary "temperance.") As for voting, I think that democracy is imperfect, but it is much better than dictatorship. As long as people can vote, we should convince them not to vote for socialism. Isn't that one of the points of this website?

  • juris imprudent||

    I'm just thinking your hate on loose women is tied to the fact that you ain't getting any.

    Sure, sure, you'd shun that prostitute in public - but in private, that's a whole nother matter, isn't it?

  • np||

    He's a survivor, man! I don't think anyone else at the party faced felony charges w/ 32 years in prison (who fortunately got off on a technicality declared by the judge).

    Plus:

    A: I have lots of projects in the works. I am working on a mainstream movie or two, and a political advocacy video on the Federal Reserve. It is an animated movie. With or without this trial, I was not planning on doing a lot of porn. The trial did not change my mix of work, if that is what you are interested in. [...]
  • np||

    property prices have probably bottomed in L.A., and CA still has Prop 13

  • Skip||

    Reason is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  • Patriot||

    +1

  • freeAgent||

    Nice digs. It looks like a fun party.

  • DJF||

    How come they dress funny in LA? I did not see anyone wearing a silk top hat, silver tipped cane or monocle?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Did see a dude with a mini ponytail. What's up with that. What's up with that.

  • ||

    Well isn't that the cosmo-est thing since cosmo came to cosmo-town?

  • Jerry on the road||

    Dream of cosmofornication.

  • ||

    Is there a basement cell somewhere where you keep Lucy and Lobster Girl? Have you set up an office with a "Balko" nameplate on it so that Matt has somewhere to stand and look wistful?

  • ||

    Cintia Dicker is an awesome ginger. Work Safe.

    http://fuckyeahcintiadicker.tu.....0676506975

  • The Late P Brooks||

    At least the vast stream of revenue from the new popup ads is being put to good use.

  • ||

    I LOL'd! Thanks, Brooksie. I needed a laugh.

    Also, for you tech savvvy, programming awesomebros, do you happen to know if foreign versions of software (such as the Russian version of Firefox) is appreciably different, because I don't get the popup ad and that was before I installed the No-Script.

    /tech 'tard

  • Ted S.||

    I don't want to know what the Russian version of any software is doing to your computer.

  • ||

    In Soviet Russia, tech savvies YOU!

  • ||

    s/are/is

    Damn you, subject verb agreement.

  • Ted S.||

    You need to use a language like Russian which doesn't use a verb for "to be" in sentences like that. :-)

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Even Chrome is having a difficult time blocking the new ads.

  • Schu||

    RSS feeds work wonders

  • Voros McCracken||

    There's a "cancel my subscription!" joke to be made here, for whoever it is that's responsible for that job.

  • InlineSkate||

    So that's where they're coming from. They pop under my browser so I only notice them when I close it.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Google Chrome with the AdBlock extension, no pop-ups. Of course, no T-shirt girl either. It's a trade off.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Of course the Reason cosmotarians beg for our money just to blow it on California property taxes. I hope the cocktail parties are worth it..

    Why no Houston HQ? No Miami HQ(not preferable, but still better than Cal)?

  • RBS||

    Probably because the Reason Foundation has been based in CA since at least the 70's and most of their employees live there.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    And? Why the need to renovate a highly taxed building so that it can look more like a Austin hipster bar? Its funny that you call us people with a few traditions "yokeltarians", but its okay and rational to dump even more money into some of the most taxed real estate in the country....to house a supposed "low tax" libertarian think tank.....all because its been in the same city since the 70s. Does CATO have a fucking hipster bar in California? There is no use for this wasted "office space" other than for the civil libertarian cosmos to bitch about their pet peeve issues and get together on weekends to host their cocktail parties with their pornography and LA quack friends.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    This is parody, right?

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Reason and Cosmotarians already have that genre fairly well covered; a parody of real libertarian think tanks like CATO.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Serious question UBOR, what is the definition of a cosmotarian? I see folks calling you a yokeltarian, another term I would like a definition for. I honestly don't understand what the dichotomy is. If you, or any of the commentors could explain this, I would appreciate it.

  • Schu||

    I had to look it up myself. Cosmotarians are apparently socially liberal i.e. pro-choice, pro gay marriage etc. I assume "Yokeltarians" lean towards the stereotypical Midwestern values.

  • RBS||

    There is that, and calling them yokeltarians after they call others cosmos really seems to piss them off.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    I generally like to think of Cosmotarians like David Weigel as a good, set example.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Thanks for a link to an old article that is as ambiguous as the term cosmotarian. I was hoping to get a definition in your own words. Maybe three (or more) bullet points highlighting views that cosmotarians hold. I see you call out Weigel below. I don't think he's any kind of libertarian.

    If you can't succinctly articulate what a certain term means, perhaps you shouldn't use it?

  • Virginian||

    I think, as someone who kind of straddles both camps, it's more of a stylistic/cultural thing. Or perhaps its about priorities.

    For example, say it was up to you to decide between one of two legislative acts:

    1. The immediate repeal of the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Hughes Amendment.
    2. The immediate repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

    Now all libertarians should support both of these things*. But in the hypothetical, you can only choose one. Well that I think shows the cosmo/yokel divide.

    Plus many libertarians are either:

    A: Former Democrats who realized leftwing economics and big government are retarded.
    B: Former Republicans tired of the morality police.

    Obviously A is going to be a bit more cosmo in their views, and B will be a bit more yokel. Generally speaking of course.

    *One of the positive things about being utterly powerless. If the LP ever became a majority party they would have to prioritize. Which I think would be difficult, because an awful lot of LP members, from what I have seen, have a one point plan of "Institute Libertopia". Which would be great, but not really workable as legislation.

  • Patriot||

    What's wrong with the Defense of Marriage Act? Sure, the fedgov can't define marriage under the constitution. It also can't do all the things that require it to define marriage. As for defend the State's right define it, I believe in the constitution. Cosmos will use federalist arguments when they agree with them. When they don't, the constitution is raciss.

  • np||

    You realize if you took more Constitutional approach, polygamy would still be legal in Utah today and anywhere else, right? (Neither would the LDS have had their conveniently coincidental revelation reversing course)

    The approach espoused by the founders--most of whom were literally called liberals i.e. classical liberals (Paine, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et. al)--would also run contrary to your beliefs in shaping society. Oh hey, look at this: Franklin's letter to his young friend on
    How To Choose A Mistress:

    First stating his recommendation for marriage, but then going to prosaically state, in effect, "Well, if ya ain't gonna marry and just want someone to fuck, here's my advice..." Why not to prefer prostitutes (remember legal up until start of 20th century), why to prefer old ones over the young ones, one of the reasons being the old ones being more careful in avoid unwanted pregnancy.

    Further irony, from wiki:
    The Mistress letter was not the only document by Franklin that later generations censored. The bawdy portion of Franklin's writing was accepted during his own era.

    Those later generations must not have cared much their own traditions then

  • Patriot||

    "You realize if you took more Constitutional approach, polygamy would still be legal in Utah today and anywhere else, right? (Neither would the LDS have had their conveniently coincidental revelation reversing course)"
    Yes, that's what I'm endorsing, the fedgov staying out of it. Of course the fedgov never required the LDS church to stop polygamy, t just made it a requirement before it joined the union, as it had the constitutional authority to do.

  • juris imprudent||

    Of course the fedgov never required the LDS church to stop polygamy

    Nothing to see here.

    Move along.

  • np||

    Besides, as far as ethical foundations are concerned, if want your politcal philosophy to have stronger grounding than merely "believing in the Constitution" which can be warped and interpreted away, take it a Constitutional lawyer himself--part of our history of patriotic dissent--that the document ultimately has No Authority

  • Patriot||

    @EDG reppin' LBC
    A cosmatarian is someone who thinks that putting value on marriage between heterosexual Americans is "collectivist." A cosmatarian utopia would not look much different from our current world, they'd keep more of their hard-earned investment income, but divorce and slutism would still be around. They'd still be able to fuck anyone they want without consequences. They don't see the fact that 4/10 of newborns are born without a father is a problem. They think that Charles Murray is a Nazi and Steven Jay Gould is a libertarian hero.
    @ yokeltarian, is a libertarian who realizes that children need parents to raise it. See my comment below. We are what most libertarians and fiscal conservatives are. All the libertarian heroes in the past century, Ayn Rand included, were yolkertarians. We realize that fiscal conservatism is impossible without traditional families. Many of us admire Charles Darwin. We realize that men and women are fundamentally different biologically. We realize that there is a reason the average white net worth is twenty times that of the average black.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Hey Patriot. You're definition of cosmotarian sounds like a wealthy liberal/centrist. You're definition of yokeltarian sounds like William Bennett circa 1984. Neither definition seems to address the libertarian viewpoint, "I'll leave you alone, and you leave me alone." Frankly, the whole concept of cosmo and yokel seems absurd, like it's made up out of thin air. There just doesn't seem like there is any substance to either position.

  • RBS||

    EDG, calling these guys "yokeltarians" started out as a sort of parody of them constantly calling everyone at reason a "cosmo." Then, as you see in this thread, they became their own parodies. Plus it really, really pisses them off.

  • Patriot||

    "I'll leave you alone, and you leave me alone."
    A noble goal. However it won't solve many of the problems of society that aren't caused by the totalitarian evil gummint. It won't solve the problem of 40% of newborns born without a father. Can we just put value on leaving people alone and leave these questions to individuals? Not in our current world. The single mothers need, as I said previously, our money. They don't give jack about big words like the "non-aggression principle."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We realize that there is a reason the average white net worth is twenty times that of the average black.

    Go on....spell it out....don't be shy.....

  • ||

    Don't bother, HM. Patriot and American are the same sockpuppet.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh indeed.

  • Patriot||

    Strange. I'm the same person as "American,"(Who I can't help admiring.) "Tony," "Mary," and "Slappy." What you don't realize is that the majority of people agree with myself and with American.

  • Patriot||

    "Go on....spell it out....don't be shy....."
    I already have, numerous times. You guys are the ones who won't answer the question.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh for fuck's sake! Don't you have a "War on Christmas" to be frothing at the mouth over or something?

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Nope, I'm not a HuffPo or OReilly viewer. As for you cosmos, I'd put my worthless money on the former.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Quick...there's a hootenanny...go and chase it!

    Now that UnionHasAnExtraChromosome is distracted, perhaps the adults can continue the discussion.

  • waaminn||

    No way man how cool is that! Wow.

    www.AnonGlobal.tk

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's not cool at all. They only even have an L.A. office so they have a place to get together and smoke the marijuana like a cigarette. Everyone know the real reason operation is in America's heartland: Washington D.C.

  • SIV||

    Better cocktail parties in DC!
    And public schools... for your 2 year old.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Good video. I especially like the jump cut from John Stagliano to the sausage sliding into the bun. Classy. ;-)

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Its so fitting for a self-proclaimed "serious" and "respectable" political organization/magazine.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Why?

  • RBS||

    Because he's a yokeltarian moron. Apparently he thinks reason should be more like Heritage.

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    It takes a cosmotarian dumbshit to interpret:

    "Maybe, just maybe cosmotarians such as yourself will want to be taken seriously one day outside of Cali and Beltway hipster cocktail parties....you know, like CATO and Heritage."

    as wanting Reason to be like Heritage. How bad does the full-fucking retarded feel? Or do you cosmotarians enjoy feeling the "difference"?

  • RBS||

    You're like some retarded little puppet. Were you born this stupid?

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads||

    Retarded Cosmotarians and Proggie sockpuppets think alike-only two responses to those they disagree with.

  • ||

    Double entendres never go out of style.-) I liked the video, and I'll bet they have a fun time working in their new digs.

    Alas, if only puns were so not disparaged amoungst the commentariat...

  • RBS||

    Puns are ok, you just have to get here early before the Brickbat gets buried by the AM Links.

  • ||

    It's in the afternoon for me when Brickbats are posted, but yes, The Groovy One like being pun-gnacious. Quick, get me to a punnery!-D

  • AlmightyJB||

    You're a sick bastard EDG. And I mean that as a compliment.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I said "jump cut". Apparently I meant match cut.

  • Windypundit||

    Loved it that you had food trucks.

    Is the bar a permanent feature of your headquarters? Because for a bunch of libertarians, that would be...expected.

  • Wine Commonsewer (TWC)||

    The food was awesome. They even brought in the bacon dog chick. Those were awesome too. Never had one before.

  • BoscoH||

    Nice touch with the blood splatter from the christening. Hilarious!

  • Wine Commonsewer (TWC)||

    Hey! That's my kids at about 2:18! Cool!

  • XM||

    "Check out the Republican party / some party you've never heard of's new LA headquarters!" That's what most Angelenos will hear.

    The SEIU and their friends might hold a few rallies there once in a while.

  • Patriot||

    Glad the pop-up money is going to good use. Could you maybe consider getting some better tech? It keeps spell checking "libertarianism" and one of the choices is "egalitarianism."

  • Patriot||

    After many comments, many stories, I have concluded that reason is essentially a "cultural liberal" magazine. They constantly confuse not liking something with wanting to ban. Unless you're totally okay with homosexuality, drug use, and sexual libertinism, you're a "collectivist." If you think that the traditional family, one man, one woman, raising a child together, is the superior system for raising children, you're a "collectivist." If you wonder why most single mothers vote Democrat, you're also a collectivist. Of course, they seem to think that sexual libertinism could survive a libertarian world. In reality, either traditional morality would come back, or socialism would come back. The reason is simple. A single mother, with no education,(most single mothers have no education) no family other than her own single mother, could not afford to raise a child herself. She would need either welfare or subsidized daycare, which can be almost as expensive. Which gives her two choices. Option one is to keep her legs closed until she finds a man who will dedicate himself to her, provide resources for her in a traditional family. Option two is to vote for socialism. As long as we have a culture that does not promote option one, option two will predominate.

  • np||

    Since you be spamming and nobody be posting, I be spamming too!
    --------------------------------------

    Jesus fuck patriot. You keep coming back with your statist, collectivist mindset every single time.

    You present a totally false dichotomy. You aren't any different whatsoever than the proglodytes you criticize. None, just the other side of the same coin that wants to control people.

    Because the only way for your false dichotomy to work is to control people--in short, to be a statist of a different color.

    Ironically you keep harping about voting, yet that is another method of control, and something which you would have an issue with if you were part of the tyrannical majority. Another irony is the moniker "patriot" because you are anything but a patriot. Finally traditional morals? Yeah, drugs would be legal and well accepted in society even when people recognize its dangers (by DEGREE) not only in nearly all of human history but also in traditional US history. Prostitution? Likewise.

    History already shows your dichotomy to be false. You simply cannot have the collectivist society YOU WANT without controlling people. Period.

  • np||

    For an example of that real traditional values, see also my comment above:
    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_3451330

  • Patriot||

    "In American culture, the advent and the popularity of hip hop has broken open the ideas of many people, the ideas about what we can do with our bodies and our minds"
    -Thaddeus Russel answering a question about what "has been the greatest boon to liberty in the past 45 years?"
    Then they wonder why we call them "cosmotarians." They think that getting rid of religion, allowing people to be sluts and "playas" without being criticized by free individuals, are libertarian issues. And anyone who disagrees is a "collectivist." Of course the way they define libertarianism is simply very small government. I could start a polygamist Mormon commune in a "libertarian" government, as long as everybody is there voluntarily. That is why it is important to point out that Reason Magazine is a cosmotarian publication.

  • Virginian||

    Then they wonder why we call them "cosmotarians." They think that getting rid of religion, allowing people to be sluts and "playas" without being criticized by free individuals, are libertarian issues. And anyone who disagrees is a "collectivist." Of course the way they define libertarianism is simply very small government.

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    That statement of Russel's is monumentally retarded. The greatest aid to liberty in the past 45 years is the Internet. I can't think of anything else that even comes close.

  • ||

    I could start a polygamist Mormon commune in a "libertarian" government, as long as everybody is there voluntarily.

    Holy shit, you mean someone could do something you don't approve of but doesn't affect you???

    Yokeltarianism and progressive-statism: same idea, different bullshit.

  • Patriot||

    "Holy shit, you mean someone could do something you don't approve of but doesn't affect you???"
    Progressiveness and cosmatairianism, same basic idea. Anyone who doesn't like sluts wants to imprison them in concentration camps.

  • ||

    So under your ideal government people would also be able to start a polygamist Mormon commune?

    If yes, shut the fuck up hypocrite.

    If no, shut the fuck up statist.

  • juliusaugustus||

    I though Los Angeles being a large metropolitan center and being located in California was evil and socialist.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Did someone say "Cosmo"?

  • np||

    Can we just put value on leaving people alone and leave these questions to individuals? Not in our current world. The single mothers need, as I said previously, our money. They don't give jack about big words like the "non-aggression principle."

    Holy fuck your a goddamn statist. In fact, you love this current system because it gives you an excuse to use the state to intervene, interfere and once again, control people.

  • Patriot||

    Hey np, ever wonder why the GOP lost and the LP got one percent of the vote? In order to win in a democracy, you have to debate others. You can't just respond to their ideas by calling them "statists" with "false dichotomy."

  • Redmanfms||

    It's kind of hard to "debate" somebody who approaches the issue in bad faith and uses racist nonsense out of the gate.

    What have you presented to debate? Where are your facts?

    So far you've only proven to be a racist mendacious twat of a sockpuppet, which is why you are getting the responses you are getting.

  • np||

    What's there to debate? Every single racist and collectivist point you make is a non-sequitur. Regardless of the merits or nonsense involved in your pet peeves, you simply and dishonestly justify your issues by stating "it's incompatible with liberty".

    In fact everything you've espoused so far, from twisting words around, to what is actually a positive rights, socon utilitarian rationale for reshaping politics comes straight out of the strategy of the hard-left.

    Just like how you agree with Robert Bork, in arguing against radical individualism, and your attempt to declare it "not libertarian", is very reminiscent of the progressive and socialist hijacking of "liberal"

  • juris imprudent||

    Poor Patriot - maybe it isn't that he isn't just out in the cold with women, but that he can't get it up when he has the chance.

  • American Is Back||

    Guess who's back!

  • Australian||

    Have you ever left?

  • شات عراقنا||

    thank you

  • دردشة العراق||

    thanks man

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

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