Attn, DC Reasonoids: Gillespie vs. Goldberg/Libs vs. Cons, Tuesday, July 18, 6:30PM

Come for the free booze, stay for the sermonizing…

If you're going to be in or around DC on Tuesday, come and watch Reason Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie debate National Review Online Editor at Large Jonah Goldberg on one of our favorite subjects; the fractured love affair between libertarians and conservatives.

What is the state of the friendship between conservatives and libertarians after 9/11? While they can agree that they're both against the left, are they both against the state? These are the questions we'll try to answer at AFF's 10th Anniversary Roundtable on Tuesday, July 18.

Join Jonah Goldberg of National Review and Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine in a reprise of the legendary AFF debate on the relationship between conservatives and libertarians. The event will take place at the Heritage Foundation Fund for American Studies, 1706 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, near Dupont Circle.

The event will take place at The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Ave, NE. The nearest Metro stop is the Red Line's Union Station stop.

Drinks at 6:30; Roundtable begins at 7:00.

Roundtables are free for members, $5 for non-members.

RSVP to Kathleen O'Hearn at [e-mail].

Audio of the last Gillespie appearence at AFF, on a similar subject, is here.

Comments

[Warren]

I reiterate my comment from the last time this was posted:

Nick,
Please oh please, come loaded like Neo in The Matrix for this thing. You did fine in the AFF link, but you could have been much more ruthless. After getting bitch-slapped for half a century by these conservative Neanderfucks, they expect flowers and a Hallmark will make everything all right.

I guess Jonah Goldberg is the biggest sweet-talker of the current crop of fusion fucks. He needs to have his smarmy ass chewed up and spit out. Do your homework Nick, this is his stomping grounds. But that just means you should know every bullshit card in his grubby hand, and be able to trump it before he even plays it. Hand him his ass Nick, the little fascist needs to be sent home crying to mama.

[cliff]

Damn Warren, don't edit yourself, share with the group.

[Bob Dobalina]

Um, Nick, don't take this the wrong way, but if you can't mop the floor with Jonah Goldberg, you should probably become a plumber or something.

[jerka]

as somone one new to the loving fold of libertarianism, are there events like this with the Left? I come from the left and know a couple others, is there no history of the left and libertarianism or do we just concede we are bastard children of the right and I just don't know it?

Sources and links appreciated.

And yes, I'm new but I know about antiwar.com as one left-libertarian link, just wondering more about history of the movement -- the link with conservatives and libertarians, to this noob, makes little to no sense.

[Phileleutherus Lipsiensis]

...the fractured love affair between libertarians and conservatives.

That assumes that they were in love in the first place.

[Sandy]

Well, they told us they loved us, but it was only to get into our votes.

[John]

Jesus Warren, why don't you just tell Nick to shoot the guy. Or better yet, maybe we should have re-education camps for people like Goldberg and those who agree with him to ensure that they achieve the proper political conscience.

[Ayn_Randian]

Oh yeah, John, that's entirely what he was insinuating. No hyperbole or intentional distortion on your part. No siree.

What Warren said (and I agree) that it's time that these conservatives who treat us like the kind of ugly girl you can always go back to deserve a teen-movie ending; where they get called out for the playboy jerks they are and lose all their friends.

[John]

Ayn Randian,

I don't think most conservatives care enough about libertarians to ever go back. You guys sound like a bunch of Canadians talking about how someday the Americans will realize how important they are.

[vincente]

I swear that address is not right. Heritage Foundation in NE? Next to the check cashing and nail shops and Go-Go clubs?

I think you mean NW.

[Kurt]

Well, 214 Mass NE would be a stone's throw from Union station. I don't recall too many check cashing places on that block.

[spur]

No check cashing or go-go clubs, but the Marijuana Policy Project office used to be right nextdoor. As well as some building for wheatfarmers and the Thurgurd Marshal building that did something or other...

[diogenes jim bob]

Didn't someone say something about head butting?
No but really, it's not like Goldberg is Michael Medved or something - now that guy really could use a good libertarian beat down.

In general though, I'm not sure what a debate that's less than civil would accomplish, other than play into the reputation of libertarians as obnoxious children (in the minds of many conservatives and more than a few liberals). That doesn't mean libs need to concede anything or back off from their positions, but what's up with this, "hand him his head on a plate," silliness?

Jerka,
At one time libertarians and some (only some) conservatives shared a common wariness over social engineering, top downish type schemes, the expansion of the military industrial complex, and governmental power in general. Or so such fairy tales inform us. But conservatives have lost, if they ever really had it, this wariness and now, especially when they are in power, are ever so cozy with the state in all its forms.

[Warren]

You guys sound like a bunch of Canadians talking about how someday the Americans will realize how important they are.

No, what we (or at leas I) am saying is that libertarians who are amenable to conservatives, are like battered women who keep going back to their abusive spouse. Conservatism is the enemy of liberty. When the liberals where in power, conservatives use to sweet-talk libertarians. Their rise to power was in no small measure due to an energized libertarian faction. Now that they're in power, we get bitch slapped, while they stay out all night boozing it up, gambling away the rent money, and caring on torrid affairs with other paradigms (like social engineering, the slut).

Any friend of individual freedom, and limited government who's still trying to get back together with these assclowns needs to pull their head out of their ass. They don't love you, they never did love you. When they tell you that they love you, they're lying.

As to tonight's debate, Jonah Goldberg is the epitome of the abusive conservative. He is no stranger to public speaking. He has a finely honed style, which is full of pithy humor. He maintains a friendly demeanor while scoring hits with biting satire and caustic insults. This style of his is put to use to promote a vile agenda that is nothing short of fascism.

I would hope that it is obvious to all readers that my remarks are not a call to violence. Furthermore, I'm not calling on Nick to become uncivil or to push the debate into a playground shoving-match. What I am saying, is that no matter how slick it's packaged, Jonah and his ilk are full of shit, and I want Nick to be vigilant in smacking down his all his bullshit. "Don't let him get away with anything" is what I'm saying. And also noting that he usually gets away with quite a bit. I want Nick to insist that, while he is engaging in a formal debate, and that such an activity demands that its participants conduct themselves with civility, that such respect for the forum bestowed upon his adversary, in no way should be construed to imply that he views said adversary as anything less than a manifestation of pure evil.

[Stevo Darkly]

What Warren said (and I agree) that it's time that these conservatives who treat us like the kind of ugly girl you can always go back to deserve a teen-movie ending; where they get called out for the playboy jerks they are and lose all their friends.

Well put! It's time for us to pull off our unflattering old spectacles, shake our hair out of that prim bun, and reveal ourselves as the devastatingly attractive voter demographic that we really are!

[Stevo Darkly]

What Warren said (and I agree) that it's time that these conservatives who treat us like the kind of ugly girl you can always go back to deserve a teen-movie ending; where they get called out for the playboy jerks they are and lose all their friends.

Well put! It's time for us to pull off our unflattering old spectacles, shake our hair out of that prim bun, and reveal ourselves as the devastatingly attractive voter demographic that we really are!

[John Hood]

OK, well, here's a hint from this libertarian fusionist and Reason alum: if modern libertarians cannot express their views without resorting to juvenile behavior, barnyard epithets, and calling Jonah a "fascist," they and their critique of conservative missteps will not only never be taken seriously but will not deserve to be taken seriously.

Here's a relevant question to ponder: why do most conservatives continue to venerate founding fathers of libertarian thought such as Hayek and Friedman but seem so disdainful of modern-day libertarian activists and ideas? Is it simply hypocrisy, or is there something else going on, something having to do with how ideas are expressed and how disagreements on the application of libertarian principles are aired?

[Pro Libertate]

Why do most conservatives continue to venerate founding fathers of libertarian thought such as Hayek and Friedman[?]

"Ye shall know them by their fruits": It doesn't cost conservatives or liberals anything to pay lip service to the Founders. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have shown a commitment to the ideals of classical liberalism. Both parties act like Cafeteria Constitutionalists--take the few parts they like, and trash the rest. All while having no understanding or appreciation for the Founders' elegant solution for restraining government and protecting our freedoms.

While modern libertarians have plenty of flaws, their core values are in line with the supposed principles of this nation. Maybe they'd blow it if they got into power, too, but I doubt they'd do as badly as the two major parties have. They're solely in it to achieve certain popular goals and to stay in power. Principle has nothing to do with it, for the most part.

[link123]

womanhealthnet.info

mental health services, woman health, home health care, health insurance coverage, health services facility, student health insurance, health insurance company, cheap health insurance, world health organization, health and wellnessq, health plan, california health, international health insurance, national institute of health, discovery health, child health, child health, health savings account, health medicine, health services, florida health, health supplement, woman s health, health care for woman, health insurance for woman