That's Some Mighty Authoritarian Tea

|

Yesterday, Jesse Walker noted that Arizona's Tea Party seems to have rallied around opposition to immigration, and invited the poster thug for overly aggressive law enforcement, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, to keynote the group's Tax Day rally.

In a similar vein, the libertarian writer Jim Bovard visited a Maryland Tea Party on Tax Day, and found little more than a different variety of authoritarianism:

…there is scant evidence that most tea partyers have studied the copies of the Constitution they generously hand out to bystanders.

At a Tax Day tea party in Rockville, Md., the speaking venue was draped with a huge banner: "Tired of Big Government?" Members of the "Tyranny Response Team" stood near the front of the rally with their official blue T-shirts. Giant American flags and ones with "Don't Tread on Me" (with a coiled rattlesnake) were carried around by men with tri-corn hats. Political campaigns busily sold "9/11 Remembrance" bracelets.

And yet, the crowd of 300 seemed most outraged that the US government is not being sufficiently aggressive in using its power.

Ken Timmerman, the author of "Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America" and other hawkish books, declaimed that the US government must take every step to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons…

Running through a litany of President Obama's greatest failings, Timmerman denounced him for forcing US agents to "stop using enhanced interrogation methods. Has that made us safer?"

"No!" the crowd hollered indignantly.

Jeffrey Kuhner, a local talk-show host, sneered that Obama "has found his inner Muslim" and raged against his bowing to foreign leaders and kings. He complained that Obama has "taken over college loans," and warned that illegal immigrants could be "the shock troops of Obama's socialist revolution." The crowd ate it up.

One of the MCs gushed about how he and everyone else in the crowd loved the police. There was not a word spoken about the video released earlier that week showing a nearby horrendous police beating of an innocent University of Maryland college student.

The rally featured a string of Republican candidates praising fiscal responsibility and denouncing the national debt. One would have thought that it had been 50 years, rather than 15 months, since the Republicans controlled the White House.

There was almost no dissent from any of the 300 attendees. One 50-something man in a faded green T-shirt walked around with a handmade sign declaring, "Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – Bring Our Troops Home Now!" He told me that almost no one he'd talked agreed with his message…

Much more in tune with the crowd was the 20-something woman carrying a sign: "PROUD to be the Military Super Power."…

None of the speakers criticized the warrantless wiretaps that the National Security Agency began during the Bush administration. The feds' vacuuming up thousands of Americans' phone calls and e-mails without a warrant seems to be a nonissue for these folks. Perhaps some tea party leaders hope that Republicans will soon be in position to use such powers to surveil the left…

If tea party activists cannot vigorously oppose torture and other high crimes, then counting on them to stalwartly resist any government policy that doesn't mulct their paycheck is folly.

America needs real champions of freedom – not poorly informed Republican accomplices. Either tea partyers should become more principled or they should ditch their Gadsden flags and wear T-shirts of the lobbying group that organizes the rally they attend.

There's obviously not going to be pure ideological unity at these events, and I'd have no problem if the Tea Parties were merely silent on issues like foreign policy, law enforcement, and the war on terror—that is, if people who disagree on those particular issues had come together for the purpose of rallying against government debt, bailouts, spending, and so on. But it's increasingly looking like the right's favored big government policies are a fairly important part of the agenda of a fairly large portion of the Tea Party crowd. Advocating for more police power, more foreign policy imperialism, and more power for the federal government to detain, torture, and abrogate basic civil liberties sort of misses the entire message of the original Tea Party.

It also makes a mockery of the media narrative that these are gathering of anti-government extremists. Seems like in many parts of the country they're as pro-government as the current administration, just pro-their kind of government.

NEXT: Dallas sign ban

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.

  1. Arizona’s Tea Party seems to have rallied around opposition to immigration, and invited the poster thug for overly aggressive law enforcement, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, to keynote the group’s Tax Day rally.

    Looks like we might see the Tea Partiers start to split…or we’ll see how many libertarians can be counted among them.

    1. or we’ll see how many libertarians can be counted among them.

      I’m guessing I could probably fit them all in my living room.

      But seriously, does this actually shock anyone? This has been so mind-numbingly obvious since the beginning that if you believed otherwise your cognitive dissonance could have formed a black hole.

      1. “But seriously, does this actually shock anyone? This has been so mind-numbingly obvious since the beginning that if you believed otherwise your cognitive dissonance could have formed a black hole.”

        I thought I was the only libertarian skeptical in the beginning… The idea that there could be a truly mass libertarian movement built up at the mere passage of a few bailouts and the election of Obama was/is wishful thinking.

        1. This is the primary reason I so stridently advocated refusing to forget the GOP’s many abuses, and refusing to let GOP figures trick us again.

          As soon as people started inviting Sarah Palin to Tea Party events, the rapid descent of the movement into dime store fascism was pretty much inevitable.

          Somebody post this article every time I think I have any common ground with the Palinites.

        2. Nope. Not the only one. And it was basically confirmed by the wave of polling that found Sarah Palin was anywhere near competent.

      2. I was blown away by the comments on David Harsanyi’s “24-Hour Party People: Scenes from a tax day tea party protest” story last week. I’d link to them, but I get flagged as spam every time I link on here now.

    2. This is Rockville Maryland. Maryland is a heavily Democrat state, and Rockville a heavily Democrat area (66% registered Dems).

      The people most likely to attend a Tea party there are a lot more likely to be conservative.

      You all are reading too much into this one rally because you want to read too much into it.

      From the beginning, the main issue has been the large jumps in the size of government and how those will be paid for in the near and medium future.

      Other issues are secondary no matter how many times Balko and others jump around saying ‘these people don’t agree with me 100%!!1!!11!’

      1. The problem is that people who take the Bush administration positions on “security” authoritarianism, or people who take the Arpaio position on “I hate Hispanics and want to beat them with clubs” authoritarianism, will never cut the size of government. Ever.

        They’ll find reasons not to. As we have already seen over and over.

        It’s not a matter of agreeing with me 100%. I just need to be able to believe that a sincere effort to cut the size of government will be made. And people who want to turn every business owner into anti-Hispanic LEO’s or bureaucrats, and people who want to search every piece of freight coming into the country, or want secret police infiltrating every mosque, etc., are not going to be able to do those things and shrink the size of government. Na Gah Happen.

        1. So is it fair to describe your position as you want to inject everyone full of heroin?

          That’s about the equivalent of your descriptions.

          Many, many, many people (center, left, right, libertarians, etc.) see problems with the status quo of illegal immigration. The biggest benefit (bringing in cheap labor to free up more time for the productive classes) comes along with a host of issues.

          I don’t think I agree with any current US politician on how that issue is handled, but I recognize that people (especially in the SW) might actually give a shit and want to see an end to the status quo.

          As for ‘torture’, I’m less concerned about what happens to a few hundred quite-likely guilty people in the course of a war. I’d rather hear about the thousands of innocents killed as part of normal war-time operations.

          So, yes, people that want immigration laws enforced and want KSM and others tortured can believe in smaller government. They may often be wrong on the details when it comes to both.

          Do you not realize that much of the concern over illegal immigration is that people recognize the government has limited resources? These people see a giant welfare state that only gets bigger and they recognize the problems of inviting more people to come suck on the titties.

          1. Then attack the welfare system, not the citizens and non-citizens who take advantage of it.

    3. What split?

      This is the tea party, look at who they support and the rhetoric they drape themselves in. It’s all been Pro corporate, Pro Thugish bullshit. This is who they are. In a way, it’s the 90s all over again with fake outrage and constant calls for impeachment all over again. THese people need to grow up, read, and furthermore, grow the heck up. The Ra Ra for thugish behavior is not a surprise.

      1. Yup, and we’re seeing another repeat of the pro-government, pro-private-sector-sucks attitude to go along with it, ONNTA.

        Which one sucks worse?

        1. No, what you are seeing is Corporatism sucks. I see you made your choice, but I’m not the type to force my beliefs on others.

          Please, in the future refrain from putting words in my mouth. I know the memo is forget WallStreet, it’s all Obama and the democrats fault, but simple minds swallow simple things. If the tea baggers were independent they would be talking about more than just that black commie in the white house and his terrorist buddy Bill Ayers.

          1. Yeah because Obama and the Democrats had nothing to do with handing Wall Street near a trillion dollars of our money.
            Nothing except doing it, and now setting up a government agency whose primary purpose is to do it again.

            1. Hey SIV, thanks for proving my point.

              1. Do you deny Obama and a majority of Democrats in Congress voted for TARP?

                1. Um, didn’t TARP pass under Bush?

                  1. Yes, when Obama was a democratic senator and voted for it.

                  2. Yeah, but they don’t care about that. It’s all Obama all the time, Obama is mostly guilty of being an enabler, and now guilty of being too spineless to stand up to the moneyed interests who funded his campaign. Some here have no solutions to that problem, they can’t look past Obama to the lobbyists who are pulling the strings.

          2. You don’t know what “corporatism” is.

            You think “corporatism” = “corporations exist! and do stuff! and make profits! EEEEK!”

            In fact, “corporatism” refers to a system in which the government heavily regulates corporations while granting them special favors such as trade protectionism, local or domestic monopolies, subsidies, and tax breaks.

            In this, the Progressive agenda is far more “corporatist” than the Libertarians. It’s the Progressives who think “locally produced” goods should receive special protection against foreign imports. It’s the Progressives who want to give special government subsidies and tax breaks to “Green” energy. It’s the Progressives who think that the health insurance insutry should be turned into a regulated utility.

            1. Then i was correct, and your only complaint is that the “benefits” of corporatism is now being directed toward Green industries.

              You want to believe, i think Corporatism means a business’s general activities. I believe that is because you are content with the system as is where government and the media first think of the opinion and benefit of corporations at the expense of everyone else.

              I have no problem with anyone running or creating a business. What i do have a problem is with their sense of entitlement as employers toward their employees, as land/resource owners, and overall wrong doings that have been committed against individuals.

          3. I put no words in your mouth.

  2. it’s increasingly looking like the right’s favored big government policies are a fairly important part of the agenda of a fairly large portion of the Tea Party crowd.

    The GOP…now with Tea!

    *barf*

  3. excellent as usual, Radley.

    sage – agreed. *barf*

  4. Does this conclusion really surprise anyone?

    1. Disappoints more than surprises. Once again we have folks that are small government EXCEPT for this and that and this other thing.

      1. Once again we have folks that are small government EXCEPT for this and that and this other thing.

        Yep. But as you say, not surprising. It’s why I never fully credit those surveys trumpeting how many people call themselves libertarian, or “socially liberal, fiscally conservative,” etc. The exceptions that they make in practice tend to vitiate the simple categorical response.

  5. The Tea Party movement is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.

    Libertarians, it is time to get the fuck on. Remember what happened the last time you forgave Republicans. They cheated you with their big government mistress, then came home drunk on power and shot your dogs while doing an unconstitutional search of your home.

    Rah, rah. They cut taxes while increasing spending. They invaded one country we had no business invading, and started smoking that nation building crack pipe with another. Made prescription drugs an entitlement for seniors, passed unconstitutional speech prohibiting legislation and pretty much fucked up every goddam thing they touched.

    Dunno ’bout y’all, but this angry libertarian will have nothing to do with the Tea Party/GOP campaign rallies.

    1. The Tea Party movement is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.

      But not of the GOP establishment, of a populist grassroots group of both Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Many of which hate the GOP establishment for being too pro-immigration, for example.

      There just aren’t that many pure libertarians in the US.

      1. But he promised he wouldn’t beat me anymore. He apologized and bought flowers and everything.

        If libertarians get in bed with the GOP again, putting them over the top, libertarians are gonna end up in the ER again.

        1. Your analogy is incoherent.

          That analogy only makes sense if you assume that someone if libertarians don’t vote, then no politician ends up in control.

          But feel free to vote or not on the basis of emotion and moral purity.

          1. I vote. Just not for either of the big government parties.

            You can keep choosing between Coke and Pepsi because they are really, really, fundamenally and philosopically, different.

            1. I vote. Just not for either of the big government parties.

              Neither do I.

              1. racist troll is racist

                1. A dime-store Elie Weasel!

            2. Royal Crown? (cola not whiskey)

              1. Faygo Cola.

          2. That analogy only makes sense if you assume that someone[sic] if libertarians don’t vote, then no politician ends up in control.

            Then we come back to Giant Douche, Turd Sandwich, or the ideal candidate that will not likely get more than 5% of any vote. I’ll vote for the ideal candidate not likely to get more than 5%, because it’s my vote and my voice. When it gets frustrating that TeamRed and TeamBlue are basically two sides of the same fiscally irresponsible coin, emotion does tend to get the better of someone.

            If libertarians get in bed with the GOP again, putting them over the top, libertarians are gonna end up in the ER again.

            If it results in legislative gridlock, then I am willing to take that chance.

            1. If it results in legislative gridlock, then I am willing to take that chance.

              Hope for gridlock is the only reason for voting for either of the two major parties I’ll give a pass on.

              Did you vote for Dems in ’02, ’04 and 06?

              1. ’02, Didn’t vote. ’04 no. ’06 yes.

            2. What the Tea Baggers could have done, and it would have gotten them more respect and credibility is fomenting at the mouth about the lack of access for a third party candidate. If they had thrown their voice behind the constitution party, the libertarian party, or greens, it would have gone a long way in educating the public and promoted serious change. Instead they latched on or took the disguise off, whichever you prefer, Pro corporate republican bullshit that led us into this crisis.

              1. And with the use of that faggoty epithet of yours, you are revealed for the commie traitor MSNBC-swilling moron that you are. So, how do my bags in your mouth taste, leftard? Bwa ha ha ha ha!

                1. Those who desire hate and wish to inflict punishment on others deserve no respect, hence Tea Baggers. If they acted respectful maybe i would treat them respectful. Until then, I hope the contempt dumped on them makes them bitter.

              2. I suspect you’ve got it backwards. The TEA Party started out as largely an anti-spending, and anti-tax crusade, but it didn’t “latch on” to Republicans. Republicans “latched on” to the movement, and by weight of numbers, gradually usurped it.

                Conservatives in talk radio (Hannity, Ingle, etc.) started talking about the TEA parties like it was *their* movement, and listeners to their shows hopped on the bandwagon.

              3. Say, ONNTA… remember when the Dems threatened legal sanctions to keep Ralph Nader off some state ballots?

                1. Yes I do, and they are the filth for doing so. Is that all you have to bring to the table, OH NO the DEms did it. It seems like you’re part of the problem, enjoy the Tea Bagging, and don’t act surprised when spending doesn’t go down.

                  I voted Libertarian actually, sorry if i can’t get it up to continually bash a black man, but he’s not the cause of the problems. He isn’t much of a solution, the insurance industry protection bill is proof of that, but bashing him won’t change a thing.

                  This is what crony capitalism leads to, so you can bash a black man all you want, but this is still what it’s going to be at the end of the day. But something tells me you don’t have a problem with crony capitalism, just that a black man might add a little to the ol welfare…..TEH HORROR

                  Sad

          3. Your mistake is thinking that your Coke Pepsi decision is goiung to bring something other than cola to the table.

          4. If I have a choice between watching statism advance in the US as a result of the actions of politicians I voted against, and watching statism advance in the US as a result of the actions of politicians I voted for, I vote A.

            1. You can only vote for a candidate, never against one. A vote for someone is not a vote against someone else.

              1. You may have stumbled on the PERFECT election reform idea.

                Let everybody put a +1 next to a candidate they like, a -1 next to a candidate they don’t want, and leave blank the ones they are ambivalent about, with no obligation to even give a +1 to anybody. The votes are then tallied, and the highest NET score is the winner.

                I suspect the two major parties would fare considerably worse within such a system.

                1. That would be awesome.

        2. “… and pretty much fucked up every goddam thing they touched.”

          I like to meet the former president, slap him on the back and say, “Heckuva job, Bushie!”

      2. Dick Armey and FreedomWorks thanks you for your kind words.

      3. The early Tea Party looked good – but like you say, most Americans are authoritarians – they just want to BE the authority, or at least have the authority’s ear.

        I vacillate a bit, but I’m really doubtful about America’s prospects. Too many stupid people that want to be in charge.

    2. J sub D @ 1213pm

      Well said, the endorsements of the Tea Parties by many writers, including the EIC of this magazine, are very illuminating as far as liberty and economic freedom is concerned.

    3. If this is the case, whose fault is that.

      Libertarians barely made an effort to influence it.

      What the fuck do you expect when you don’t show up to the party?

      1. OH i party alright, but i have standards on who i party with.

        Libertarians weren’t going to influence it, and the best options they have at the moment are in education.

        At the end of the day, it looks like you are still going to vote republican, I’m not. I’ll most likely vote libertarian, and explain why to as many people as i can. For illinois governer, I’ll vote for the libertarian candidate or the green party candidate. My criteria, honesty, if you don’t like it tough. Welfare cutting isn’t my biggest issue, sorry. I’m not looking to blame this economic crisis on poor people, like some around here Cough Tim Cavenaugh Cough.

  6. “Raaaaacist!!”

  7. Indeed, and has anyone seen signs at these rallies saying that the empire must be cut back to balance the budget?
    Or THEIR Social Security and Medicare benefits be cut? That’s probably too much to ask of these people, some of whom can’t even spell the n-word correctly.

  8. I’m not going to defend everything that those Tea Party Speakers said. But overall, this brings us back to the central difference between those rationalist libertarians like those at Reason and those of us who want a government that actively defends the individual rights and lives of citizens of the United States.

    The Tea Party movement is a homogenous mix of libertarians and conservatives. There are more conservatives than libertarians so you’re going to have more of them there at the Tea Parties than libertarians. Why don’t you guys set up your own libertarian rallies and all five of you can go there.

    1. Indeed. I would vote for Ron Paul any day, but if I had to live under Reason’s conception of freedom, I’d be praying for a Nazi occupation.

      Richard Spencer had their number perfectly.

      1. Except that piece is complete bullshit. Much of it is just conservative ranting with jabs about abortion and gay marriage. And this:

        “Parts of Brooklyn, for instance, might divide between Latino and Black nationalist blocs in which all other races would be excluded and tribal hierarchies rigidly enforced.”

        Holy shit! This is retarded!

        His main problem with libertarianism is that given freedom, people will do bad things and become more intolerant. They would break off into racially divided camps and immediately begin victimizing each other. I find this hard to swallow. (Where are people the most racist? In PRISON!) In the market, the only color that matters is green. Capitalist free enterprise, and social movements did far more to end racism than government ever did. The progressive movement was full of racists, and it was the government that was actively segregating people, mostly south of the maxon dixon line. IT wasn’t until the government had its power to segregate removed that major social milestones could be reached. Most anti-intolerance movements were protesting government actions and laws, not begging to reinforce them. I disagree with Spencer’s entire premise.

        In a democracy, for a minority to gain power, they must already have a fair amount of the majority race on their side. If you think about it, things such as “The Civil Rights Act” were simply cases of the government running in front of a crowd of people and taking credit. They want you to believe that the government “gave” you a new freedom, not that the people took back their freedom from the government. Government laws that respect freedom are simply a realization by the government that the people won’t let them take their freedom away anymore.

        Of course you’ll argue that if it wasn’t for the government’s action, the remaining social stragglers wouldn’t have come around, however, most of the social stragglers resisted such actions, and many government actions, such as shows of military strength to enforce its policies, emboldened those social stragglers. Racism died out due to social change, not government power. The government simply wants to take credit for every good thing.

        SO no, I don’t believe that severely restrained government power will lead to unending race war. Plus, I have no problem with liberal communes living next door to me, as long as they don’t try to use violent coercion to make me be as them.

        I could go on and on about how Spencer is full of shit, but I’m tired now.

        1. His main problem with libertarianism is that given freedom, people will do bad things and become more intolerant. They would break off into racially divided camps and immediately begin victimizing each other. I find this hard to swallow.

          If you’d like to point to an example of where they’ve ever done anything different, I’d sure like to see it!

          1. The netherlands was a pretty free market, individualistic place, and they were pretty excepting of catholics AND protestants at a time when the more authoritarian groups were killing each other.

            I’m not suggesting that anarchy should be the goal, the idea that libertarianism = anarchy is probably the biggest bullshit claim in Spencer’s article. He pulls the whole anarchy thing out of his ass, and then insinuates that that is the goal of the libertarian movement. Libertarians understand the importance of government and rule of law to protect all people and all races.

        2. I think the key point is this:

          There is simply no reason to believe that decentralization, or anarchy, leads to greater social “libertarianism.” And the historical evidence points in the opposite direction.

          You don’t say how you’d prevent the violent coercion from happening across ministates. To avoid a darwinian nightmare some overarching enforcement entity needs to exist.

          The government simply wants to take credit for every good thing.

          And you want to blame it for every bad thing. Government is capable of doing good and bad. Enforcing segregation bad. Enforcing integration good. The point is there will always be government, so trashing it and pretending like it can go away will only result in bad government.

          1. Enforcing integration good.

            The fuck? So forced bussing all the way across a city to some other school is good? Or what the fuck statist crap were you referring to, assbag?

            1. Fine, enforcing non-segregation was good.

              Also, protecting us from chaos and misery is a pretty good thing that government does.

              1. Yeah if we make governments compete and provide services for voluntary payment, the world will dissolve into chaos and misery. Keep sucking the government’s cock, Tony!

          2. “some overarching authority” doesn’t need to be “shitloads of overarching authority”, which even that fucker GW Bush exercised – just in the wrong areas.

            But we have Obama now, and He will save our unworthy asses from… ourselves, I guess.

            1. I do need shitloads of overarching authority – otherwise, My Plans cannot be properly executed.

            2. “Unworthy” no. We do have the right to collectively protect our own asses from ourselves if we choose it, though.

              1. What about those of us who can run our lives just fine without having to be protected from ourselves, Tony? Do we get a say, or is it just tough-shit time?

                1. There is no such thing as someone who can live without My divine intervention. You’d just eat too much salt, or drive a Hummer, or not kiss My Ass sufficiently – so we have to rid the populace of all that pesky “free will” stuff.

                  Because I said so.

                2. Mr. FIFY,

                  Get more people to like your ideas.

                  1. Yeah Tony only hangs out with the cool kids. Reason and truth be damned!

                  2. That would be nice, Tony, but it’s hard to deprogram people who have been conditioned to look to their local handout dispensary instead of making their own lives better through effort and planning.

                    Able-bodied, sound-minded folks who don’t work, don’t deserve to be supported for being lazy. Those who absolutely can not work, is another issue.

              2. you can choose whether to collectively protect our own asses from ourselves, as long as you choose to collectively protect our own asses from ourselves! weeeee

      2. Richard Spencer had their number perfectly.

        Any writer that quotes the rantings of Kerry Howley immediate raises my suspicion of the veracity of the opinion piece.

        I find Howley to be rhetorical, uncompelling, and basically a leftist, elitist twit.

        As opposed to Spencer being a rightist, elitist, condescending prick.

        1. +1

          I think he was attempting to smear libertarians by association with Howley. An effective tactic.

          1. And given that so far they’ve done nothing to disavow her, an honest one, too.

            1. Well they employed Julian Sanchez and David Weigel too. To his credit Weigel never pretended to be a libertarian.

            2. Who is this “they” you speak of and how do they represent me, as a libertarian, and the many other libertarians in this country?

              1. “They”=Reason Magazine

                1. The pronoun “they” refers to the “libertarians by association” referred to by SIV.

                  1. Kerry Howley’s “association with libertarians” is by her former employment with Reason

    2. Surely you meant heterogeneous?

  9. You will drink our tea. We have total information. We party hardy!
    USA! USA! USA!

  10. I saw this yesterday, while perusing the Monitor’s opinion section.

    There was also a long piece, by some dipshit who is a self-proclaimed “founder”of the tea party movement; it was pretty much unreadable. I couldn’t help thinking the Monitor’s editorial board went through all the submissions, looking for one which was the best caricature of a crazy tea party rube.

  11. It depends where you are in the US and what tea party you attend. I have been to tea parties in some states that are warmed over Republicanism, while others in other states are for limited government all around.

    Basically you can find a tea party to paint the entire movement as one thing or other. Its vast and no “broad generalisations” are apt.

    1. I agree.

      You can find different TEA Parties in the same state.

      I went to the TEA Party in Little Rock on the 15th and I spent my entire time fending off people who thought I was a liberal agent there to make the TEA Party look bad because I had a sign that said “There is no difference between destroying health insurance and making prostitution illegal”.

      But on the 16th, when I was at the TEA Party here in the little town I live in, about an hour north of LR, I was totally at home with people who want to put an end to expensive foreign wars and the extremely costly War on Drugs.

      1. I spent my entire time fending off people who thought I was a liberal agent there to make the TEA Party look bad because I had a sign that said “There is no difference between destroying health insurance and making prostitution illegal”.

        Can you blame them?

        1. Of course.

          They are merely two sides of the same coin.

          How can you be ok with the government destroying one industry (like prostitution or marijuana), yet be outraged when the government decides to destroy another industry like the health insurance industry?

          If you give it the power to regulate the one out of existence, you’re also giving it the power to regulate the other out of existence as well.

          In order for the government to leave the industry you like alone, you must be willing to stand up and say that it should leave the industries you don’t like alone as well.

          It’s all very much like Pastor Niem?ller’s poem “First they came…”

          1. One difference:

            The illegal drug industry is what it is because the government making drugs illegal.

            The health insurance industry is what it is because the government created it just that way.

            So “destroying” is probably not the best word to use. It’s just a matter of making it a differently bad system that is slightly differently run by the government than it was before.

            1. That isn’t a difference, in my opinion.

              The government hyper-regulated the marijuana industry. Regulated it out of existence, to be exact.

              Don’t you think that Obamacare isn’t merely the first step towards the goal of regulating the health insurance industry out of existence? To replace it with a government single payer system?

              I do.

              We empowered the government to destroy the mairjuana industry, which was legal and existed not 100 years ago. Why should we be surprised now when they want to regulate the banks and health insurance industry out of existence? We’ve already given, and supported, precedent.

              1. Don’t you think that Obamacare isn’t merely the first step towards the goal of regulating the health insurance industry out of existence? To replace it with a government single payer system?

                Change the word “first” to “hundredth” and yes. And it might be an improvement, because the bill we got has all the drawbacks and none of the benefits of such a system.

                We’re basically going to spend a bunch of money on overhead to create the illusion that we have a privatized system.

                But my main gripe with people is the illusion that caused you to use the word “first.” If you don’t recognize that Obama just took the health insurance industry from 88% socialized to 90% socialized, then there’s probably no reasoning with you. The system was broken way before he ever broke it slightly more. (And Tea Party members overwhelmingly supported that broken system.)

                Why should we be surprised now when they want to regulate the banks and health insurance industry out of existence?

                Are you fucking kidding me? We’re regulating them a giant pile of free cash. The “banks” and health insurance industries are in no danger. They’re falling all over themselves for the handouts we’re giving them. I’m sure we’ll find a way to nationalize all of them and have the connected few still get paid a king’s ransom. The ones getting screwed are the consumers/taxpayers.

                1. A system which provided insurance for 85% of the population, and made 85% of the population happy, that system was broken?

                  Wow. What kind of criteria does something have to meet before you’d consider it a success?

                  1. If you think the “old” system was good, you’ll probably like the “new” one just as well, then. Just a few deck chairs have been reshuffled.

      2. Maybe the difference was that the hometown gathering was put together by the grass roots and the “party” in the capital was staged — er, “sponsored” — by the GOP for the benefit of the media there?

        1. Honestly, I thought just about the same thing when I was there.

          Dick Morris was the speaker, so there is every possibility that the National Media might have had a hand in it. I don’t know, and I’m not willing to fish my tin foil hat out of the closet over it.

          However, if te theory you put forth is true, that the local, more grassroot rallies are substantially different in ideological make-up than the crowds we see on FoxNews, then I am really excited about November, because it means that none of the polls are calling this stuff correctly and no one has any idea what is going to happen on election day.

          1. However, if te theory you put forth is true, that the local, more grassroot rallies are substantially different in ideological make-up than the crowds we see on FoxNews, then I am really excited about November

            The next question becomes whether the “actual libertarian” bloc could carry enough votes for even one Congressional seat in any given area.

            I’m not holding my breath. I’m more worried about “real conservatives” taking seats from libertarian leaning people because they don’t support mandating that prayers be said while torturing gay immigrants.

      3. Meh. You can find some places where the Republicans believe in limited government, too.

        Doesn’t mean I’m going to call myself one.

        1. You can find places where they say they believe. There is a big difference between actually believing.

  12. To Classwarrior, actually the politicians the Tea Partiers are most supportive of are people like Rubio and Ryan who are actually presenting ideas on reforming entitlements, unlike the useless Ron Paul who has presented no workable solution to these problems.

    1. unlike the useless Ron Paul who has presented no workable solution to these problems.

      You come here to stir the pot, and create division between libertarians and fiscally conservative GOPers. Who pays your salary, the DNC?

      1. Actually no, I am a libertarian on basically every issue, except my idea of applying the principles of libertarianism conflict pretty hardcore with the idealism and utopianism of most Ron Paul type libertarians.

        1. Hey, I can totally understand it if you want to be tactical or incremental about advancing libertarian ideas.

          But there’s a difference between incremental advance and outright retreat.

          There is no way to paint pissing on the 4th amendment, or passing an internal passport law, as simply being “non-idealistic” libertarianism. Sorry. So don’t ask me to pretend that it is, or that it’s all part of some master plan.

    2. Yeah, let me know when they have them speaking at their events instead of washed-up GOPers. And Ryan voted for TARP so I guess that’s why the Tea Partiers love him so much!

      1. Ryan seems to be escaping the stigma of his TARP vote .

        1. Palin too. As long as you flip-flop quickly and choose the popular thing (pretty face helps both of them too).

  13. I’d have no problem if the Tea Parties were merely silent on issues like foreign policy, law enforcement, and the war on terror?that is, if people who disagree on those particular issues had come together for the purpose of rallying against government debt, bailouts, spending, and so on. But it’s increasingly looking like the right’s favored big government policies are a fairly important part of the agenda of a fairly large portion of the Tea Party crowd.

    I’m 100% sure it is a “fairly important part of the agenda of a fairly large portion.” But this article attempts to prove too much.

    The guy who demanded more vigorous interrogation techniques, I understand criticizing him. But what this article mostly shows is not so much people agitating in favor of those policies as people not really giving a crap about them.

    “None of the speakers criticized ”

    “There was not a word spoken about”

    “seems to be a nonissue for these folks.”

    The article is going far beyond demanding that the Tea Parties be silent on these issues, and demanding that they “vigorously oppose torture and other high crimes.”

    I certainly agree that to the extent that the Tea Parties actually call for those policies that they’ll split the movement. But the author appears to try to use silence to prove far more. Whether or not silence implies consent, I’m even more doubtful that silence implies vigorous advocacy.

    1. I agree John. The article seemed to be one strawman after another.

  14. I was feeling masochistic this morning, apparently; I watched the Sunday Parade of Pontificating Politicians and Panderers.

    In addition to sitting through about a dozen of GM’s “Ain’t We Wonderful?” ads, I got to see both David Brooks and Paul Krugman weep bitter tears for poor old “Rational Centrist” Charlie Christ, who is getting his ass handed to him by that maniacal rightwing teabagger Rubio.

    1. On the bright side, you apparently didn’t see David Frum, or you would have mentioned him, too.

  15. Are you telling me that Tea Partiers are just dissatisfied conservative Republicans under a different banner? Who’d have guessed?

    But Radley, doesn’t this put Matt Welch in the uncomfortable position of writing a 5000-word post refuting your obvious conclusion, the same way he has done when others have pointed out that the odd juxtaposition of “get the government out of my Medicare”, xenophobia, birtherism, support from FreedomWorks and Fox News, lack of interest in government excesses during the last administration and the rest of the nuttiness seemed to correlate pretty closely to the same positions of the conservative Republican base.

    A general tip off should have been that the corporate sponsors don’t seem to be so willing to run the buses to Washington to protest any continuation of “Too Big To Fail”. Against the bailouts, but not TBTF? Go figure.

    1. +1

      Damn if i wasn’t thinking the same thing. How many posts have we been subjected to about the Tea Partiers aren’t row row republicans? How many licks to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, the world may never know.

    2. the odd juxtaposition of “get the government out of my Medicare”, xenophobia, birtherism, support from FreedomWorks and Fox News, lack of interest in government excesses during the last administration and the rest of the nuttiness seemed to correlate pretty closely to the same positions of the conservative Republican base.

      Why do people in the conservative Republican base have those positions? This is not a rhetorical question, I’d really like to know why certain positions seem to go together.

      1. The protests about medicare started when Obama wanted to implement a european style single payer health care system which being a monopoly would have put large downward pressure on drug prices.

    3. “A general tip off should have been that the corporate sponsors don’t seem to be so willing to run the buses to Washington to protest any continuation of “Too Big To Fail”. Against the bailouts, but not TBTF? Go figure.”

      Because TARP was in October 2008, Rick Santelli’s rant was in March of 2009, and Tax Day was on April 15th of that year, providing a convenient focus of organization. Given that most “conservatives” have never protested anything, you can’t expect them to all become experts at it in the 3 weeks time period between financial crisis and TARP. Showing up at state capitols and various venues on April 15th was a mild entry into protesting that had enough symbolic value to stick.

      Also, your facts don’t jive with reality.

      There was a grassroots movement that shut down the congressional phone lines and got enough R’s to block TARP in the house on the first round. You can’t claim hypocrisy on this issue as there was a systematic effort by ordinary citizens to derail this stuff, it just didn’t have a unifying theme until later.

      By the time that monster of a bill passed over massive objections, and cap-and-trade and the stimulus passed in the house, enough people who normally would never even considered protesting finally let loose. When they discovered that lots of other people felt the way they did, those informal relationships from the original event were maintained, and the organizations kept growing momentum.

      1. A response to my own post as I realize I didn’t actually answer the quote I attached.

        The problem is you assume that there is such a thing as TBTF and that the government’s policy in the form of the Dodd bill will end that practice. It won’t.

        From what I can tell, the Tea Party people don’t support the big investment banks, but they see the current regulation as just another way for the government to play favorites through crony capitalism.

  16. I bet not one speaker denounced slavery.

    1. And while we’re on the subject, let me take this opportunity to apologize for slavery. Again. Thank you.

      1. Good that you cleared it up. Your lack of a denunciation of slavery in previous comments was increasingly looking like that maybe you not only pined for the old days of slavery but were advocating a return to it.

        1. Interestingly, that is the one thing that Bovard’s piece did not explicitly state: the ethnic demography of the ~300 attendees.

  17. The tax day tea party rally here in Madison WI was disappointing in similar ways, though not nearly as bad as the one Bovard describes. There was nothing I would call authoritarian but a number of speakers laid great emphasis on their religion and on the Godlessness of the bad guys. One lead the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance, emphasizing the “under God” when they got to it.

    1. Is one side particularly religious and the other side particularly Godless, for real? If so, why does it shake out that way?

      1. Not sure why those crazy socialist Islamists are so religious. You tell me.

      2. It is telling that the same side which espouses the separation of church and state, will often use terms like “my brother’s keeper” when referring to welfare spending.

        IMO, church and state must NEVER mix.

      3. I am not so convinced that it does shake out that way. Of all the religious people I know, I would say they are pretty evenly divided between left and right politically (if you had to chose one).

  18. The problem is… how can immigration in America circa 2010 be handled by “small government”?

    Historically, I’ve been pro-amnesty mainly because of the fact that as long as the U.S. is relatively way more affluent than Central America and South America, the rest of the world, etc… we’ll keep up getting thousands upon thousands of immigrants, more illegal than legal.

    However, just to operate a functional system a small army of government will be required to do it. On immigration, libertarians simply can’t have their cake and eat it too… no side can, to be honest.

    1. Like the drug war, it would be helpful if those prosecuting the war on people (aka “people prohibition,” aka strict immigration enforcement) would create a list of all the bad things that illegal immigrants do because they have not availed themselves the benefits of proper process, vs. the list of the bad things they would be likely to do if there were little or no immigration process. For the War on Drugs, we would list the bad situations that drugs create, even in the absence of the drug war, vs. the bad things that happen because or are made far worse by the simple illegality of drugs. I suspect that the lists “without prohibition” in both cases would be a lot shorter, including very reasonable and tractable problems to solve, than the lists for the “with prohibition” side. In fact, other than people simply hating foreigners or people of a different accent or skin tone, I think that the “problems” of immigration stem PRIMARILY from welfare-state entitlements and the prohibition itself. What’s so bad about people freely coming and going IF THEY ARE PEACEFUL AND OBEY THE LAWS? And if they are not peaceful and DON’T obey the laws, why are they not simply criminals, with their “third strike” resulting in permanent expulsion? What is so hard about this issue? (Hint: I think the fear and hate are the major ingredients in current immigration-control proposals, and there is no rational argument against such things.)

      1. (Hint: I think the fear and hate are the major ingredients in current immigration-control proposals, and there is no rational argument against such things.)

        You had me with your argument until you ended with this caveat. I disagree; I think the main argument against the illegal is, as you said “welfare-state entitlements and the prohibition itself”. Americans don’t wish to give up their goodies primarily, and I’ll bet a good chunk of naturalized americans feel similar, the rationale being “Hey, if I became a citizen of the US legally, why shouldn’t they?” Especially when it come to health care now well on it’s way to being nationalized, people are naturally going to want to protect what they think is theirs, regardless of the ethnicity or origin of the illegal immigrant.

        “How dare you take from me what I rightfully stole!”; an interesting pathology to be sure.

      2. You make some good points but miss some others. Immigration is a good thing to a point, but like all good things, it’s possible to have too much of it. Welfare-state entitlements are part of the problem, but perhaps even more is the cult of multiculturalism and diversity. English-speaking Americans don’t want to be a minority in their own country. They hate “press one for English.” This isn’t a racial issue so much as a cultural own.

        With our current near-open borders policy, plus all the sanctuary cities and such, it’s impossible to know if immigrants are peaceful and obey our laws, it’s difficult to deport them to make them stay deported.

        Finally, I think libertarians are being excessively idealistic about immigration and missing the real-world effects. What do you think are the political beliefs of these ten of millions of poor Mexicans and other South Americans? Their home countries have officially leftist political cultures, their kids go to big city public schools, and their local political leaders are nearly all leftist Democrats. Plus, many of them are socially conservative Christians. So libertarians are cheering the importation of tens of millions of anti-libertarians. Brilliant!

        1. They hate “press one for English.”

          And as we all know, the tiny inconveniences of white people trump vast injustices for nonwhite people. Funny how this was even true when the white people were the immigrants.

          1. White people suck. Thanks for the reminder, Tony! We almost forgot!

            1. I’ve been saying that all my life – even if it isn’t always true… it still is.

          2. The English language is not a racial thing, it’s cultural, as I pointed out. And if you come to a country that speaks a certain language, it behooves you to learn it. That’s not a “vast injustice” to anyone except dim-bulb knee-jerk leftists like you.

            1. There is no official language here. So if 50% of the people in your community speak Spanish, wouldn’t it behoove your community, including its businesses, to adapt to that market?

              Maybe I just like multiculturalism. The only thing latino immigrants have done to my city is bring a lot of good food. If I have to press an extra button on my phone in order to accommodate a large portion of my community then that’s not so much to ask. Lots of people live in bilingual societies and that fact alone has never harmed anyone, unlike xenophobia.

              1. If I moved to, say, Norway… I’d learn the local language, not expect everyone to speak English.

                What’s wrong with that, Tony? Or is that “xenophobic”?

                1. How do you know they are not learning the language, and how do you know they don’t have ways to get around it.

                  Are you saying, you’re against private enterprise accommodating these individuals.

                  1. I think he’s saying he’s against PUBLIC enterprise accommodating these individuals. Private enterprise… I’d say he’s all for it.

                2. TLG,

                  What harm has ever come from a society being bilingual? Apparently vast epidemics of carpal tunnel from having to push an extra button when talking to customer service, but besides that?

                  What you expect from individuals is different from the macro question. The market is going to adapt to a bilingual reality unless you force it to do otherwise. Why do you want big government to solve a problem that’s not really a problem?

                  1. Wow, Tony… I offer a common-sense approach, and you STILL find fault.

                    There’s just no pleasing a statist.

                3. well since you brought it up, close to 90% of the population in Norway is fluent in english so you actually wouldnt have a problem not learning norwegian.

                  1. I picked Norway out of thin air. I could pick any other country, and still use the same argument – and it would still make sense.

                4. But lots of people here speak Spanish and have historically. A huge piece of the country used to be part of Mexico. There is no single culture or heritage in the US. Yes, English dominates, but that does not mean it always has to. People who move here have a great incentive to learn English, but if they chose not to, and others chose to accommodate them with multilingual automated telephone lines, what’s it to you?

              2. Lots of people live in bilingual societies and that fact alone has never harmed anyone, unlike xenophobia.

                I invite you to read up on the histories of Quebec, Belgium, and the Austro-Hungarian empire, for starters.

                1. Yeah. Switzerland is a real shit-hole.

                  Multilingualism within large societies is the norm for most of human history, and continues to be the norm today. The idea of a “national language” paralleled the rise of nationalism as a European political and social movement. It’s nationalist movements associated with the violence you give as examples, and ironically, monolingualism.

                2. What about the US? Many languages are and always have been used here.

            2. “Racist” = “whatever the fuck WE say it is.”

              1. Racism is actually just racism, oddly, there have been many examples of it on this board as of late.

                1. Raaaaaaaaaacist!

                2. Examples such as… Tony, Chad, and ONNTA. They’re all racists. And homos.

                3. Racism is just a figment of prominent race-baiters’ imaginations. Decreasing numbers of Americans see racism as a big problem. While there are still examples of discrimination based on skin color or cultural background, the only reason there’s public outcry against most cases of “racism” is because people such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or reporters at MSNBC stir the racism pot when things start to settle, instead of just declaring the things said by Michael Richards and Don Imus as the rantings of idiots and blas?.

                  We’re all of the human race. If we’re going to discriminate it should be against the ignorant, or the lazy, so that they may feel uncomfortable and attempt to change their ways. Either that, or kill themselves. Win/win if you ask me though.

                4. No, racism is the belief in genetic superiority over all other races, ONNTA. Not “we liberals pick and choose whom we call racist based on their level of non-compliance with liberal ass-kissing regulations”.

                  1. This is an incomplete definition.

                    1. Perhaps, but it’s the gist of the definition. The real problem is when leftists bastardize the term for political gain.

        2. Simple solution: If you dont want immigrants, dont sell land or rent to them and they will have no place to live.

          What? You neighbor might not care and rents to them? Tough shit.

          1. Here in SF, the city rents subsidized apartments to illegals. They get better places for less than I pay. I’ve tried voting Libertarian in local elections, but it hasn’t worked. So what’s your suggestion?

            1. Get the fuck out of California, moron.

            2. What’s your suggestion? You seem to realize that it is not going to change.

        3. What do you think are the political beliefs of these ten of millions of poor Mexicans and other South Americans?
          Well they risk personal harm for a better life(i.e. greater income) and by doing so forgo many citizen rights for a low pay long hour wage job. And all without the help of a governmental agency. Hmmmm. what political ideology is that?

          1. It’s not an ideology at all.

            But let’s look at things from another perspective. Moving authoritarians around doesn’t increase their total number in the world. If one country gains authoritarians, another country loses them. So it’s a problem only if you think the world has been gerrymandered to give the USA an uncharacteristic libertarian plurality, and that no country would have such otherwise.

            1. That’s a weird way of looking at it. The world hasn’t been gerrymandered, it’s just that by importing millions of poor socialist-leaners, you are diluting to political power of libertarians in the one country on Earth where they have even the slightest influence.

              And, I should add, by doing so while advocating open borders, you are turning off a huge chunk of the country that might otherwise be sympathetic to other libertarian positions. So as a practical matter, open borders dilutes libertarian influence by shear numbers, plus turns off most voters. It’s ideologically pure but lose/lose.

              1. It’s ideologically pure but lose/lose.

                Its never a loss when you behave morally.

              2. Which country is that? Somalia?

              3. Which country is that? Somalia?

                1. Such a great cliche’, Chris had to say it twice!

        4. Plus, many of them are socially conservative Christians. So libertarians are cheering the importation of tens of millions of anti-libertarians. Brilliant!

          Shockingly, libertarians also support free speech for those who argue against freedom of speech.

          I’m distrustful of states who make it a matter of policy to shape the political opinions of the constituency.

        5. I (white libertarian american) like “press one for spanish” (English is always the default in my experience).

          I hate the “new immigrants are all leftists” argument against immigration. I see it as a basic right to move freely about the world to places where people want to employ you. You are not much of a proponent of freedom and rights if you want to deny rights and freedoms to people who disagree with you. And even if we did stop immigration of brown (sorry, should have said leftist) people, this country is not about to disassemble the welfare state. I say bring on the immigrants if it will speed up the inevitable collapse. That or create an unlimited and practical guest worker program which stipulates that the guests do not get to take advantage of state welfare services.

      3. How do you enforce “permanent expulsion” if you don’t have someone to police the borders?

        1. Exactly what I’m saying.

      4. Oh, I’m with you… in theory people should be able to go wherever they want to go. The problem is national sovereignty and the economic disparity between different national sovereigns. And most importantly, as you said, peculiar national sovereign welfare-state entitlements.

        It’s just not easy to fix when what everybody wants is so vastly different. There ain’t much common ground on immigration reform, especially when the economy is in the tank and entitlements are being expanded.

        1. The problem is national sovereignty and the economic disparity between different national sovereigns.

          Don’t worry. Starting over in a new country away from everything familiar with minimal support is difficult, and not many people will ever choose to do it.

          Those, however, with the balls to do so, are always welcome.

          1. Of course, but there’s a tipping point of too many, yes? We can’t subsidize all the machers of the world can we?

            1. No. Whatever happens happens. No central planning bullshit, please.

              1. Whatever happens happens? Central planning? Are you an anarchist?

                If there are laws, they have to be enforced, otherwise, the law isn’t the law. Keeping people who’ve been deported out of the country will take police work and there are no two ways about it.

    2. Considering the immigration problem we’ve had since the 1990’s has a lot to do with the United States dumping government subsidized crops on Mexican markets, thus putting farmers in Mexico out of work and leading them to look for jobs in the United States…I think a small government solution of ending farm subsidies would go a long way in solving the problem.

  19. I would prefer my tea flavorless on issues other than fiscal responsibility. If the movement could focus on fiscal and regulatory matters, we could see a real change in Washington. If, however, the movement starts (continues?) to branch off and espouse causes exclusive to libertarians or specific to conservatives, then the Tea Partiers might as well quit wasting everyone’s time and go back to their original affiliations.

    1. This is actually what progressives and Democrats want to happen. Label them all racists, and then enact whatever economic policies they want to cause they’re the not racist white party.

      Tim Tebow’s NFL draft party got called “nazi” and “lily-white” just cause he’s a religious white dude.

      1. Got a source for that? (I’m not suggesting you’re lying; I’m just curious to see who’s saying that.)

          1. I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones who clearly took quotes out of context, couldn’t understand the concept of “humor,” and whined until they got their way.

          2. The best thing anyone offended by this comment can do is to not follow it up. Do NOT turn this into a big thing the way Al Sharpton did over Imus’ comments. Point out the fact that a double standard exists, but do not demand a public apology. Do not pursue any kind of firing or legal recourse. The only way to defeat political correctness is by showing that it isn’t effective. Don’t succumb to the game the left tries to play.

            With that said, I don’t like Tim Tebow, so this was pretty funny. Also the writer of the article, Sheppard, is one weird looking mofo.

            1. I agree, Tim Tebow is so pathetically in love with himself.

  20. But it’s increasingly looking like the right’s favored big government policies are a fairly important part of the agenda of a fairly large portion of the Tea Party crowd. Advocating for more police power, more foreign policy imperialism, and more power for the federal government to detain, torture, and abrogate basic civil liberties sort of misses the entire message of the original Tea Party.

    Not to be a dick, Radley, but you’re just figuring this out now?

  21. I don’t think anyone should be surprised. The anti-immigrant rhetoric has continually been part of the diatribe of the birthers that have (successfully?) attempted to take over a movement that originally came together to protest massive government spending and high taxes.

    Their argument that “these are professional law enforcement people who are trained to make judgements like these,” and will enforce this law “fairly” would be laughable if one could laugh about the loss of freedom under this law.

    Two simple steps would restore order to the border: make employers document the legal status of employees; and end the war on drugs.

    1. Two simple steps would restore order to the border: make employers document the legal status of employees; and end the war on drugs.

      Make that four. Greatly expanding the number of legal immigrants (guest workers anyone?), skilled and unskilled alike, has got to be part of any serious attempt to limit illegal immigrantion.

      So does amnesty.

      1. It would be easier and (arguably) better simply to not distinguish “legal status” unless someone does something ILLEGAL. It would be better not to create a class of “illegals” by passing a law that says, “you can’t cross this line.” Look around you and list the actual problems that immigrants cause, which aren’t functions of 1) the entitlement State and corresponding mentality; 2) drug prohibition; and 3) people prohibition. We need to sweep these other causes/exacerbators away and then see which problems are left to solve — approaches to which would form the nucleus of our immigration policy going forward.

      2. No need for amnesty. Expanding the number of legal immigrants (by making it effectively infinite) allows those already here illegally to go check in at the border.

        My “moderate” position, which is the compromise between the pure libertarian position and what we have now, is to grant 330 day work permits to anyone who can pass a background check. They can leave and turn in their permit at any time, but have to wait 30 days before receiving another.

        In the meantime, they can get on the list for the limited number of permanent positions.

        Oh, and anyone crossing the border anywhere but the easy to access stations for handling this is shot on site as a foreign invader.

    2. How about this instead? Offer jobs to anyone living here illegally, or anyone from another country who would like to live in America. The job: build a border fence not unlike the one the Chinese use to keep out the Mongolians. The pay: Room and board, plus lessons in English and certain skill sets that would allow one to work legally upon finishing a preset amount of wall building.

      You actually build two walls. One right along the border, and a second about 2 miles in, with panthers and wolves running wild between the two (after the walls are finished).

      In addition to the room, board, and lessons, the workers will also be able to attain citizenship legally. A sort of indentured servitude of amnesty, not unlike what many immigrants had to do when moving here in the past.

  22. I’ve declared a one-day moratorium on thinking about tea parties. However, for those interested I offer a bit of analysis I just heard on ESPN, home of the high-tech slave auction know as the NFL Draft: “The teams were really boning up on tight ends.”

    1. “The teams were really boning up on tight ends.”

      Trying to convert them to wide receivers?

      1. Or maybe split ends?

  23. Were I to go to a NORML event and the speakers and attendees were parroting AIPAC talking points, I’d have to wonder if it was really about legalizing reefer.

    When a tea party descends into the hell of big government and social con GOP talking points, I’ve got to wonder if it’s really about cutting irresponsible spending.

    1. But the article didn’t really demonstrate that. The article had a lot more complaining that no one really cared about it. He mentions one speaker and attendee, along with an anti-war attendee with a sign.

      I damn sure don’t want the Tea Parties to be about restricting immigration. But Jim Bovard wasn’t arguing for silence. He was complaining that the Tea Parties weren’t discussing social issues and war and law enforcement, just in a manner to his satisfaction.

      1. I damn sure don’t want the Tea Parties to be about restricting immigration. But Jim Bovard wasn’t arguing for silence. He was complaining that the Tea Parties weren’t discussing social issues and war and law enforcement, just in a manner to his satisfaction.

        After reading his article three times, I am forced to agree with John. Bovard wasn’t suggesting that the group should have been prohibited from speaking, it just didn’t pass his litmus purity test. I also took his piece as a warning “Be very careful with whom you associate.”

      2. You keep shilling for the GOP, John. Work that shaft!

        1. John keeps confusing reason.com with freerepublic.com…

          1. It’s a mistake many here make.

          2. Shalom Achi

  24. To think I came here expecting, well… reason. Of that there’s little enough to find here but plenty of libertarian emotion-stirring laying claim to the mantle. Worse still, that emotionalism is self-defeating for libertarians.

    “Authoritarian”? Is that what you call people wanting our border secured and the de facto invasion, by people who proudly proclaim allegiance to their home country first, stopped? Is it “authoritarian” to demand not only that laws be inflexibly held to constitutional standards but also that constitutional laws be aggressively enforced rather than ignored for political gain? On the contrary, it seems “authoritarian” is being misapplied to legitimate functions of government just as it is to the illegitimate, all for emotions’ sake.

    “Foreign policy imperialism”? Capitalizing on one of the left’s favorite stigmas, “imperialism”, to smear people who want nothing more than a strong national defense and the willingness to do more than sit on our hands when attacked, goals that are explicitly given the federal government by our Constitution; is that “reason”? Anyone with half a wit of reason can look at Iraq and realize that the dreaded “imperialism” had nothing to do with our actions there. Nor would an “imperialist” power tolerate a belligerent and unresponsive Karzai in Afghanistan. I would suggest the author and readers go look up an actual definition for “imperialism”, but I rather doubt anyone buying into the left’s use of the word cares how inapplicable it really is.

    “More power for the federal government to detain, torture, and abrogate basic civil liberties”? Again, libertarians buy into the left’s canard about torture. If non-physical sleep deprivation, discomfort, and a procedure deemed safe enough for our troops to experience are “torture”, there would be precious little that isn’t. As for unlawful enemy combatants captured and held by the US, they have no claim to the Geneva Conventions rights (“unlawful”) and no claim to our constitutional rights (save the rare, treasonous individual, though arguments can be made on whether treason and aggressive action against one’s former country constitute self-expatriation). One can argue back and forth about what rights someone supporting Al-Quaeda, the Taliban, or any foreign enemy gives up, but dismissing the entire issue as “authoritarianism” is foolish. Again, the application of vaunted “reason” has been tossed to the wayside in preference for stoking ignorant emotion.

    No, the people missing the point of the Tea Parties are right here. They were never “anti-government”. They were and are anti-extra-constitutional-government. The fact of the matter is that libertarians largely fall into the former category and are becoming dismayed that they have not been able to co-opt the conservative-driven Tea Parties for purely libertarian goals. The Tea Partiers support is for making and keeping worthy, constitutional functions of government robust as much as it is for slashing the extra-constitutional, overreaching growths. If libertarians take issue with the former, they need to decide whether it is better to side with the group that seeks a smaller government overall or continue using the ignorant rhetoric of the group that seeks only greater power over the people.

    The Tea Party Movement is conservative in nature. Libertarians should embrace the movement where our ideals overlap and hold their tongue on the rest for now. Once the unconstitutional cancer in our government has been excised, libertarians can strike up a debate on currently-constitutional functions of government that are unneeded. However, using false rhetoric, leftist or libertarian, to go after Tea Party ideals you don’t agree with is self-defeating. If you manage to break up the Tea Party, your only chance of getting to the point where your own goals are even imaginable will have been destroyed. Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face comes to mind, as attacking the only vehicle giving libertarians a chance of realistically debating their goals on the merits just doesn’t seem very… reasonable.

    1. “If non-physical sleep deprivation, discomfort, and a procedure deemed safe enough for our troops to experience are “torture””

      Have you ever heard of waterboarding? It’s been in the news a bit lately.

      “As for unlawful enemy combatants captured and held by the US”

      Most of the detainees at Gitmo were arrested OFF the battlefield. KSM himself was arrested by the Pakistani police at his home in PAKISTAN! The last time I checked we didn’t have any troops in Pakistan. We only bomb them with Predators.

      Your post is naive to the point of stupidity.

      1. Waterboarding is torture? Or is it an advanced interrogation technique? I’m still not sure. I do know that Christopher Hitchens had it done to him and asked to go again though. He also had all his fingers afterwards too.

        The world is also a better place without Saddam Hussein in it. No longer is there an embargo enforced on the people of Iraq, Iraq is now a functional democracy to a degree, and we no longer have to enforce the no-fly zone. Also let us not forget that Shia pilgrims may come and go as they please now to Shia religious sites. Yay, freedom!

        1. Hitchens was waterboarded, true, and he asked to go again, hoping to last longer (hold his breath longer, that is), but he’ll be the first to say that’s only because he knew it would stop as soon as he asked. And he said it’s definitely torture.

          1. He did say it was torture… but he asked to go again too. I’m not sure what to believe, his actions or his definition.

            Waterboarding, as far as I know, always stops… you don’t keep doing it and doing it. Maybe there are many rides along the waterboarding train, I don’t know… but nobody dies or is permanently injured. Whatever happens in the mind though… who knows.

        2. And all at the cost of only 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. Oh and about 700 billion dollars.

          1. And all at the cost of only 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

            What was the cost in guilty Iraqi civilians?

            Even Matt Welch said our policy of not invading Iraq was killing more than 100000 civilian children alone. If you’re not a colloidal silver drinker you could use UNICEFs figure of over a half million children killed by our old “no war in Iraq” policy

            1. Not my problem

              1. It can be anyone’s problem, just not at our expense.

            2. Wow, and people think Welch is a libertarian. Anyone got a recent count of how many Iraqi children have died from our poorly educated thugish troops.

              1. Watch it, Sparky.

              2. And some people on here think you leftard teabagees have brains; some mysteries, no one can explain.

          2. Yep, such is our world.

      2. Andy Breckman was waterboarded by actual Romanians (or maybe Bulgarians) to raise money for WFMU — and wound up cursing and thereby threatening to have them fined!

    2. Your paragraph about immigration is largely fail. Our immigration policies are asinine and it’s ridiculously hard to get in.
      But thank you for pointing out that labeling our destruction of a hostile tyranny in Iraq and concern over another in Iran as “imperialism” is bullshit and nothing else.

      1. “Your paragraph about immigration is largely fail.”
        Please, do elaborate. Do you disagree that our laws should be held to a strict constitutional standard? Maybe you think that we should ignore constitutional laws? How about the people, do you believe most of them embrace this country? Do you simply disagree with calling it an invasion, perhaps? All I see is one point (“the laws are bad and make it hard to legally immigrate), and that is a strawman. You might notice that I never touched on that topic, mostly because it is secondary. I’ll happily agree that the immigration process is overly cumbersome and likely encourage some degree of illegal immigration. However, fixing that has to be subordinate to stopping the flow of illegal aliens for a very simple reason: We don’t care about stopping the ones that we would let in under perfect laws. We care about stopping the ones would would still have to try to circumvent legal entry, be they jihadists (who we know enjoy that porous border), violent gangs, or drug traffickers. Reforming immigration laws won’t do a thing to stop the people we want stopped, so it must be addressed only after border security. Again, feel free to elaborate on which specific points of mine are “largely fail”.

        Thanks for the second part, though. 😉

        1. “I’ll happily agree that the immigration process is overly cumbersome and likely encourage some degree of illegal immigration.”

          Some degree?

        2. Reforming immigration laws won’t do a thing to stop the people we want stopped…

          Of course it will. If everyone who is not a threat to the public is allowed an unlimited visa after they pass a background check, then any alien who is not carrying that visa is prima facie a threat to the public.

          Cutting the number of people that ICE has to pay attention to by 98% or so makes it much, much easier to detect the few who actually intend harm.

        3. Yep, fail. Did you miss the comment above pointing out that this is not freerepublic.com?

    3. Translation: we Libertarians should assume the position to get fucked by Conservatards because we supposedly care about 1 issue in common (which is only applicable when Dems are in control. BTW), and insist on just ignoring all of the completely anti-Libertarian ideals that come from these other Big Government party hacks.

      On the surface the Tea Party is all small government and fiscal responsibility. But once you scratch the surface, it seems that large swaths of the movement is little more than fiscal responsibility in Big G clothing.

      1. because we supposedly care about 1 issue in common (which is only applicable when Dems are in control.

        Not true. Many Tea Partiers were just as upset by Bush-era bailouts and overspending, a good part of the reason the GOP tanked in the ’06 and ’08 elections.

        I’m largely with Cortillaen here. Small-d democratic politics involves compromise and coalitions, and libertarians would be foolish to dismiss and demonize a massive popular movement opposing many aspects of big government, no matter how ideologically impure and contradictory it may be. There simply is no mass libertarian movement, and there’s unlikely to be one anytime soon. The best near-term victory for liberty would be a breathtaking defeat of Democrats in November, which would mean (sorry!) a victory for Republicans. The rest we can hash out afterward.

        1. “Many Tea Partiers were just as upset by Bush-era bailouts and overspending, a good part of the reason the GOP tanked in the ’06 and ’08 elections.”
          Bingo. The Tea Party movement didn’t abruptly coalesce on Nov 5, 2008 or Jan 20, 2009. These people have been pissed on by the liberal Dems and the lib-lite Reps alike for a long time. Obama won in large part because of the apathy engendered by years of Reps riding just to the right of the Dems. Now they moved on to anger and action.

          This is likely the last shot we have at peacefully preventing a slide into Euro-style misery. Trying to destroy that chance because you don’t like not being in charge of it is sheer foolishness.

          1. Obama won in large part because of the apathy engendered by years of Reps riding just to the right of the Dems.

            Not just that, he actually talked like a fiscal moderate (much of the time): “net spending cut,” “no middle class tax hikes,” “going through the budget line by line,” etc.

            1. Yeah… So, how are those 0-boy promises workin’ out for ya?

    4. The problem with this advice is that we already know that cunts like you are fucking lying trash.

      You will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER do any of the small government action items you lie about. But all the other authoritarian stuff you have in fact demonstrated a talent for.

      1. Right, sure, so go ahead and shoot conservatives in the back. Just keep in mind that you are shooting yourself in the foot at the same time. Like I said, your position doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of going anywhere right now. Your options are to support the side that might just bring your goals into sight or be the brat on the beach kicking everyone else’s sand castles because yours won’t stay standing.

        1. If the goals conservatives have in mind are things like the Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, NSA wiretapping, invading countries that are no threat to us, indefinite detention, denial of habeaus corpus, torture, etc., etc., etc., I think I’ll withhold my support thank you very much.

          1. Well, this depends partly on your priorities. While Democrats might be ever-so-slightly more to your taste regarding national defense, with that package you get a more socialized and centralized economy. Is that trade-off really worth it to you?

            1. That is a false dichotomy. And false dichotomy is a tool of big government.

              1. No, it’s a recognition that there’s no chance libertarians will control Congress in the foreseeable future. Only Reps or Dems. Sad but true. So given Obama, Reid and Pelosi, what’s the best hope for liberty in November? A crushing defeat for Democrats. Yes, “big government” types will still be in charge, but it will be an improvement by most of the measures I care about.

                1. The best hope for liberty is for about 4 or 5 million Americans to march on Washington armed to the teeth, drag the assholes out into the streets and hang them from the lampposts.

                2. I actually do think that having the Republicans back in charge will get us closer to an end of big government. Not because I think the Republicans will actually do anything to support a smaller government though. To the contrary, the Republicans will likely do nothing about the health insurance reform bill, will continue expanding the wars to Iran and I’m sure come up with some new big government nonsense to shove down our throats.

                  My hope is that by having such frequent shifts in control of the government, and nothing really changing, the majority of America will finally start to wake up to the fact that both major political parties are the same. With so many Americans out of work and likely to stay that way with our bloated government taxing us directly and through inflation, enough people are going to be hurting that maybe they’ll finally start looking for something beyond Keynesianism and neo-Keynesianism.

        2. Absolutely.

          Hey, if I have to lose, it will make me feel better if YOU LOSE TOO.

          What I’m not going to do is get suckered again.

          If that means the left holds the whole country under water for ten minutes, then THAT’S WHAT IT FUCKING MEANS AND I DO NOT GIVE A SHIT.

          If keeping your mouth shut so we can all get along is so easy, why doesn’t that cunt Palin do it?

          Oh wait, that’s different, right?

          1. It’s sad to see people so irrational as to rather have their country crash and burn than put some of their lesser personal agendas on the back burner. When you demand all or nothing, you get nothing all the time.

            This isn’t ten minutes underwater. You’re looking at a permanent descent into Euro-style statism from which the only escape is a violent one, and even that will get you nowhere if you fight conservatives as absurdly as you do here.

            One shot. That’s what we’ve got, and you’d prefer to throw it away rather than see it used in a way even slightly discrepant from your own desires? Ever wonder if that childishness doesn’t have something to do with the inability of libertarians to go mainstream in the US?

            1. Let me tell you something. Libertarians know something that neo-cons don’t. Fiat monetary systems eventually crash. Creeping inflation eventually leads to galloping inflation and the crash, the real crash. Libertarians are more than content to sit back and watch it all fall apart. The more statism the better, the sooner the end will come. Then we can rebuild. Why do you think Libertarians buy gold?

            2. You’re looking at a permanent descent into Euro-style statism from which the only escape is a violent one,

              Do you have even an example of a violent escape from Euro-style statism? How do you know there’s any escape?

              1. Based on current European trends, it looks like the system eventually grinds to a halt and dies out as the natives stop reproducing.

            3. Yeah, I’m sure the party that brought us two endless wars and expansions of social programs paid for by pushing the United States 10 trillion dollars in debt is really going to turn the statism ship around. Just because the Democrats are worse, doesn’t mean that the Republicans policies won’t inevitably lead to the same place.

              1. In that case, isn’t slower better?

    5. Good points all around.

    6. . They were never “anti-government”. They were and are anti-extra-constitutional-government.

      Blah. And right, true constitutional government is? Lemme guess, whatever exactly aligns with your policy preferences.

      If there is vast unconstitutionality in our system, then it’s up for the judicial branch to figure that out. To the extent that it hasn’t stricken out government programs or practices, those are not unconstitutional. Especially not just because some internet jackoff or Newt Gingrich says so.

      1. Newt Gingrich is a big-government Republican. Fuck him and his fellow travelers.

        1. Heh, keep in mind that most hardcore conservatives dislike Gingrich’s empty platitudes and pure politics as much as you do. He was vaguely useful years back, but only as what he has always been: A tool.

          One of the biggest challenges conservatives face is being associated with Republicans and even more so with the Republican Party’s decidedly unconservative actions much of the time. Even a cursory viewing of comments here make that glaringly obvious. In reality, conservatives have been systematically quashed within the GOP for years precisely because we don’t agree with the big government tendencies. Politicians as a whole, Dem or Rep, gravitate towards a statist agenda because it gives them power, prestige, and money. This is the antithesis of conservative principles.

          My deepest hope is that the Tea Party movement and states finally pushing back en masse against the bloated federal government might give us a shot at fixing the problem in the only way possible. A constitutional amendment removing the voting power of those dependent on the government (yes, I understand the immensity of getting proper wording for that), introduced and passed via the Art.5 provision for end-running Congress, is the only way to remove the power of and incentive for statists. After a decade or two of cleaning house, libertarians and liberals would have roughly switched places in influence. That would be good news for libertarians and conservatives both.

          Think of it this way: Two big groups are arguing. Group A wants to launch a mission to Mars while Group B wants nothing of the sort. There’s a smaller group, Group C, that wants to launch a mission to Saturn, but it has little power to make that happen. Does it make more sense for Group C to vehemently attack Group A because of the difference in goals or to work together to make Group A’s more viable goal happen and use that milestone as a jumping-off point for pushing Group C’s goal?

          Long story short, libertarians don’t have the numbers or public support to make their dreams reality (there’s a reason for that, but I’ll save that little bit of temper-tweaking for another time). Conservatives may not have the same dreams, but they both want the federal government cut way down to size. Why not get that done before going our separate ways?

          1. I don’t think your analogy is apt. It would align more with this situation if Group A wanted to launch a mission to Mars and do some despicable shit on top of that. Group C not only wants to go to Saturn (fiscal responsibility) but they want nothing to do with any of that despicable shit (wiretapping, fear-mongering, war on drugs, war on terror, etc. etc) enabled by only shooting for Mars (marginal fiscal responsibility). Moreover, Group B would probably want to mount an expedition to the Magical Gumdrop Kingdom, where work is for fools, money is a curse word, and considering your own well-being is a capital offense. “Rational” compromise led us all to this unfortunate reality so do you really think it can free us from it? We will just trade the unachievable Magical Gumdrop Kingdom for pitiful Mars and hosts of other violations. It may be “childish,” but being a party to mass-murder and mass-servitude are just not palatable to some of us on a moral level, and shoots us in the backbone on a practical level.

            Case in point, the Liberals have been using the “Where were you during Bush’s transgressions you fucking Nazis!!!!!????” rhetoric to marginalize us further. On the other hand, I see John on here blaming us for Obama’s ascendancy. So which is it? Did Libertarians compromise with both sides hoping for some sort of change? If so, all it did was sour our well further. If our center does not hold, what does? In the end, we are more fucked then ever. We can’t even claim any sort of moral high ground if we did ,as a whole, help bring Bush AND Obama to power. Who is next on deck? Mitt & Huckabee? Giuliani (SHUDDERS)? Che Guevara’s reincarnated soul? What a goddamn nightmare compromise has wrought for us. At least “utopianism”, gives us a bulwark against the “But you helped so & so” bullshit. In the battle for our long and forever lost freedom, sometimes “I told you so…” is the best consolation prize we can hope for.

          2. “A constitutional amendment removing the voting power of those dependent on the government (yes, I understand the immensity of getting proper wording for that), introduced and passed via the Art.5 provision for end-running Congress, is the only way to remove the power of and incentive for statists.”

            Yeah, or you could just end all the programs which make people dependent on the government…pretty sure that would be all of them.

            1. You completely missed the point, it seems. As long as there is power to be had from statist policies, those policies will be advanced and defended by the power-hungry. Hence, those dependence-creating programs are made effectively immortal in a circular, self-supporting manner. The only chance of actually getting rid of them is first getting rid of the power they produce. To that end, we’ve got a single move that cannot be opposed by the federal government, and, realistically, we’ve got only one chance to use it.

          3. No one’s dreams are going to become reality. Not in politics anyway. Libertarians choose to take a principled, somewhat idealistic view of things. If they didn’t do that, they wouldn’t be libertarians. To many of us, the things that have no chance of happening right now are the important things. And we know that what we want is not likely to happen.

      2. “If there is vast unconstitutionality in our system, then it’s up for the judicial branch to figure that out.”

        No, it’s for the voters–like the Tea Partiers–to figure that out. The SCOTUS gets the 4th crack at it.

    7. To think I came here expecting, well… reason.

      Drink!

      1. We did it take so long for the obvious response?

        1. The Little Green Footballer got us all in a tizzy and we forgot our cocktails (cosmos, naturally)!

    8. Libertarians should embrace the movement where our ideals overlap and hold their tongue on the rest for now

      Piece of advice, never tell Libertarians what they should or should not do. Fucking neo-cons. It was Libertarians that started the Tea Parties back in the 90s. You know what, I’ll hold my tongue when you coma hold my fucking cock. Go fuck yourself.

      1. The inability to accept advice is the surest sign of immaturity. You could argue that it is bad advice, but, instead, you simply don’t want to hear any at all. It’s time for libertarians to make up their minds. Do you want to pare down the federal government more than you hate people who don’t hold your exact views of government’s proper role?

        1. Didn’t sound like advice to me. It sounded more like an ultimatum. I’ll tell you what you neo-cons should do. Go over to Mises.com and take the time and actually learn Austrian Economics. Until then, you have no position to try to tell libertarians what they should or should not do. The Tea Partiers are trying to hijack the Libertarian movement the same way Thomas Dewey hijacked the Republican Party from Robert Taft. Learn history, learn economics, then come and talk to me about limited government. Until them, maybe you should keep your mouth shut. “Individual liberty, free markets and peace” is not just a slogan. They are principles that are not to be compromised for every little two bit whore that comes walking down the street.

        2. Fair enough. It’s bad advice. Fucking bad advice. What you’re suggesting is to forego getting ass fucked by one guy with a big government cock, just so I can have the pleasure of getting ass fucked by a guy with an equally large big government cock.

          I’m either to accept endless entitlement programs for the poor and/or lazy, or entitlement programs for the militarized police and prison guards?

          You need to fuck off with that shit.

          1. No, it’s to prevent getting Libertarians associated with Tea Partiers, thereby destroying any credibility that is left in the movement.

            You know how any idiot with a molotov cocktail is called an ‘anarchist’ by the media? You’re not going to be able to use the L word either.

            1. “You know how any idiot with a molotov cocktail is called an ‘anarchist’ by the media? You’re not going to be able to use the L word either.”

              That’s a rather amusing proposition given the historical relationship of the two terms.

          2. As clear an example as Radley Balko is, of why the LP richly deserves the success it has had. You can’t stand for mere drastic improvement, nnoooooo! if you can’t have everything all just your way, you’d rather things get as bad as they can so you have more to gripe about without the possibility you might have to exert yourself in improving something.

            1. Well, at least Balko can put together a sentence.

              You foolishly presume to know what others would consider improvement. I don’t see much hope of any improvement from Republicans, let alone drastic improvement.

    9. “For a magazine called Reason…”

      You guys know what to do…

      1. Seriously, I love this phrase. I’ll use it when espousing my own fucked-up neo-con beliefs after that car crash I’m sure is in my future.

    10. Also, could you please show us where the Constitution says that the government should restrict immigrants from coming into the country?

      The truth is that the Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration (naturalization, but not immigration). So saying that the Constitution tells us to regulate immigration is a LIE.

      1. Was there regulation of immigration when the Constitution was written? Review the Declaration of Independence and you will find that one of the complaints the colonialists had against King George was his attempts to limit, control and regulate immigration into North America. It is worth observing that the Founders never once passed a single law restricting immigration, and indeed we didn’t get any laws restricting immigration until very late in the 19th century, long after all the Founders were dead and buried.

        1. Congress was given power to regulate naturalization, the Founders didn’t employ it in their time because they needed people. But the authority was there. The feds have been corruptly not using it–laws are on the books unenforced–because it suits important constituencies in each party. It is corrupt because the status quo is opposed by a huge majority of the American people.

          1. Naturalization is not the same thing as immigration, my friend.

          2. And the laws aren’t enforced because they are poorly conceived and unenforceable. You can’t stop people from coming here illegally unless you provide a good way for people to come and work legally.

    11. You should watch the documentary “Taxi to the Dark Side.” It will show you what “sleep deprivation, discomfort, and a procedure deemed safe enough for our troops to experience” was. I used to think like you, that 1) if they’re war criminals, why do they deserve rights; and b) is there anything really torturous about sleep deprivation? Hell, I do that to myself when I get a new PS3 game. But part of the argument of Republicans and neocons is that America is the premiere power in the world… so isn’t it time we start acting like the benevolent dictator instead of the Saddams and Jong-Ils we claim we want removed?

      And for the record, I’m perfectly fine accepting my fate should the enemy “not be so kind to me.” But I’m also not so ignorant as to think national security will be compromised if the FBI can’t record every citizen’s phone, or the troops can’t use “enhanced interrogation techniques.” If we’re the best military in the world, why are we using 1940s Japanese interrogation techniques?

  25. The real part of the article that bothers me is that concern over Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is labeled “Authoritarian”. Does that make Tom Sowell an authoritarian because he’s written multiple columns about that issue.

    What about illegal immigration? Ron Paul’s positions I believe are nearly identical to Tom Tancredo. Why isn’t he labeled an “authoritarian”?

    1. True this. If wanting to prevent the government that leads chants of “Death to America” is authy, then I’ll be authy. The more I read this article the weaker it seems. It just seems to be about stuff that didn’t happen that the author wanted to. I don’t doubt there are severe problems in the TP movement, but to discount it based on a 300 person rally in AZ is silly. Maybe Cato should organize some rallies exclusively. Or do something.

      1. It was a 300 person rally in Rockville Maryland on Tax Day,featuring mostly Maryland GOP candidates as speakers (ie probably more a local GOP event). One of those candidates, Timmerman, is a journalist and author whose work is all Mid-East/Islam focused.While dissing Obama he included criticism of the Administration’s foreign and security policy.Some of the crowd agreed. Another speaker gave a “shout out” to the police working the public rally. Some chick wore a T-shirt indicating she took pride in our country’s military strength.Did I miss anything?

        Sure sounds like the end of the world for any hopes of small government conservatism taking hold now doesn’t it?

        1. You should be a journalist.

          1. Is that an insult or a compliment?
            I was trying to condense Bovard’s observations from his opinions and conclusion.I found his case wanting bases on the presented facts.

  26. I was talking to a World War II veteran. He was saying how he and his buddies fought to defend freedom and defeat fascism. But they were totally in favor of a massive buildup of arms and industry! Fucking hypocrite.

    1. They were pawns, cannon fodder FOR fascism.

    2. This is very sad for true small-government conservatives.

    3. Yeah. Because throwing away our weapons and destroying our industry is a REAL good way to bring world peace and economic freedom, right?

      You know, just like your beloved 0-boy is doing right now? How’s that workin’ out for ya?

  27. Libertarians should embrace the movement where our ideals overlap and hold their tongue on the rest for now.

    “Hold my tongue on the rest.”

    Like the Fourth Amendment?

    Kiss

    my

    ass.

    1. A better idea. Rather than telling people that the movement is only about fiscal responsibility, but making other issues crop up, then telling those who might not agree with those other issues to STFU and like it, why don’t you keep the fucking agenda narrow? You know, like you claim it is?

      I, for one, won’t be used like a cheap whore to advance a philosophy that is completely anti-thetical to my own. Especially when all I’ll get in return is a sore asshole.

      Either keep the agenda narrow, or don’t act all pissy when people leave. If your goal is to advance small government, then do everyone a favor and actually work against all big government not just he big governments you don’t like.

      1. The agenda was widened by both sides of the political establishment so that the movement could be killed. Only the wingnuts are getting airtime.

  28. Bovard is on the money.

    1. One rally does not define a movement.

      1. Agreed.

        However, what is wrong with taking the measure of a movement, group or organization at an event one is attending? His observations are first-hand; he is compiling evidence of tea-party attitudes and focus and he is chronicling it for us to consider.

        Do I think this one rally in Rockville defines the Tea Party movement/phenomenon? Of course not. But Bovard is not opining that the Tea Party movement is defined by his Rockville observations. That straw just had to be set afire.

  29. I’ve always said that the big swing toward libertarianism, if it comes, will come from the left. The tea parties have done nothing to persuade me otherwise.

    1. From the left? Dream on.

    2. You’re joking, right? There will be no big swing toward libertarianism, from the left or the right. Both sides are only against the other guy getting control.

      1. Agreed. I came to Libertarianism precisely because of the Team Red/Team Blue dichotomy. Granted I would be moreso right leaning (national defense, I share most of John’s views), but overall the sick pathology of picking one party over another because one might nibble my ear while raping me, as opposed to the other might be less rough and sing me a song afterward just doesn’t cut the mustard.

        If it is a two party system, gridlock it is.

      2. the big swing towards libertarianism will come and is already coming from the right – they’re called the tea parties. The modern left is anathema to libertarianism. The only large group in this country that libertarianism is ideologically similar to is the Right.

        You idiots are just too stupid to realize it because you’re stuck on your stupid libertarian dogma. If someone is for immigration control or for defending this country that means he doesn’t believe in liberty? Give me a break

        1. Oh yes, the right is so similar to libertarians, with their torture, military spending, foreign interventions, anti-immigration, etc.

          Yes, you’ve convinced me! The right isn’t just the other side of the coin of the left! I’m going to vote GOP starting today!

          Idiot.

          1. Episiarch, you do need to get a hold of yourself. There is no “torture.” Military spending is necessary to physically preserve a nation which has liberty for its own citizens. Foreign interventions can be reasonable and even necessary when seen as a forward defense of or preemption of attacks on said liberty. And immigration is fine as long as those immigrating do so lawfully, with the intention of continuing the tradition of liberty.

            You can rail all you like, but here’s the truth: libertarians are seen as an extreme faction of “the right” by the vast majority of observers.

            The conservatives are at least grounded in the reality of human nature (people are violent and will take things from you and kill you, if not prevented from doing so — this is the lesson of history). Progressives are not grounded in reality, but in fantasy. So, to the extent libertarianism is grounded in reality (and I’ll grant you, not all of it always is), it’s similar to conservatism, and will find natural allies therein.

            1. “Military spending is necessary to physically preserve a nation which has liberty for its own citizens.”

              The US spends more than 7x what the Chines spend on their military. Excessive to say the least.

              1. The US needs $10-20B per year on the strategic deterrent, and maybe $10B per year for UAVs to perform ‘limited’ nuclear bombardment in retaliation for striking US interests.

                I guarantee that after you blow up one city of sand niggers, America won’t get touched.

            2. Dude, fucking spare me the “natural allies” shit. I’m completely done with it.

              You TEAM RED TEAM BLUE dipshits are no one’s allies but your own.

            3. FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

              GO AND RAPE KITTENS YOU THUGISH PIECE OF SHIT. OMG TEH WIZARDS ARE BLOWING THOURGH ARE BORDERS AND THE IRANIAN KU KLUX KLAN NEEDS MORE MILITARY SUBSIDIES TO THE MATCHING APARATUS POST HASTE

              SPEND SPEND SPEND BECAUSE NOTHING MAKES ME FEEL GOOD LIKE COP AND MILITARY WELFARE.

              i don’t usually do all caps, but fuck it. FUCK YOU DRACO TARD TEH POTTER IS GOING TO SHOVE HIS LEFT WING UP YOUR SNITCH

              1. This is probably actually an identity thief doing his impression of ONNTA. Pretty good one, though.

            4. “Military spending is necessary to physically preserve a nation which has liberty for its own citizens. Foreign interventions can be reasonable and even necessary when seen as a forward defense of or preemption of attacks on said liberty.”

              US troops are stationed in 135 different countries and there are 737 US bases in the world. That doesn’t strike you as kind of excessive if the government’s only goal was to keep us safe?

    3. In order for the left and libertarians to be allies, libertarians have got to give up on fiscal anarchy. It is just false that maximizing liberty involves a zero-sum equation of how much government there is.

      Fiscal anarchy is actually where libertarians find common cause with Republicans. Except they want government to be big enough in some areas to be worth looting, but small enough in others so that the looting is possible. Whatever their rhetoric, Republicans do not have policy intentions that maximize liberty for anyone but the rich, and you ought to be pissed that they’re whoring out your philosophy to justify it. Markets have to be regulated. In fact, they always will be to some extent, the question is whether the structure favors the elite or whether it favors the people.

      Once this fundamental fallacy is disposed of, libertarians can advocate with the left for more social liberty, and libertarians can serve to check any overreach on the left. One thing is certain, finding common cause with the fascists because they say things you want to hear but never, ever act on those platitudes is the worst place to be in.

      1. Tony, we don’t want to be your allies. Really, we don’t.

        1. I know. You want to be the allies of the fascist pigs because they call you pretty after they’re done using you like cheap whores.

          1. One group of fascist pigs or the other, Tony. That’s the two basic “choices”… two shit sandwiches, one on red bread, and one on blue bread.

            Would you like some chips with that?

            1. It is incredibly improbable that both parties are equally evil. One better reflects your views than the other, and your job is to influence it, cuz doing nothing but cry about the system you have to live in isn’t going to change anything.

              It’s helpful if your alliance is based on reality rather than slogans, too.

              1. Finally, something that Tony and I can agree on.

              2. So… you *don’t* want the chips, then. Too much salt?

              3. “One better reflects your views than the other”

                If this were true, then I might consider voting for one of them. But it isn’t.

            2. Mr. FIFY – Don’t you mean “turd sandwich” or “giant douche?”

              1. Same thing, no?

          2. Tony|4.25.10 @ 5:40PM|#
            “I know. You want to be the allies of the fascist pigs because they call you pretty after they’re done using you like cheap whores.”

            Much as Stalinists shoot useful idiots like Chony, right?

            1. Yeah. Just wait until Chony discovers he’s not exempt from all the greentard regulations in whatever form of Tax & Rape we ultimately get. (That bill’s been defeated for now, sure, but so was the ERA. Eco-fascists like Chony never give up easily.)

      2. Just one of your fallacies is to think that we live in some sort of regulation-less “fiscal anarchy.” In 1970, there were 54,834 pages of federal regulations. In 1998, there were 134,723 pages in 201 volumes, for 19 feet of shelf space. Now it’s over 25 feet, plus indexes. How many more feet of regulations do we need to avoid “anarchy”?

        1. That’s not enough pages!

      3. Shorter Tony: give up on the thing you most passionately believe in, and then we’ll be friends, mm’kay?

      4. Tony|4.25.10 @ 4:40PM|#
        “In order for the left and libertarians to be allies, libertarians have got to give up on fiscal anarchy….”

        That’s “fiscal responsibility”, bozo.

    4. The left hates economic liberty WAY WAY MORE than the right hates civil liberties.

      1. Not sure I agree there.

        Too much God tied in to social issues for conservatards to give up on them. They’ll take ObamaCare LONG before they take gay marriage. Fuck. They actually advocated for SS recently.

        Most liberals I know aren’t so because they support big government, except for all of those “underpaid” teachers with their “Raise my Taxes” signs at protests, but because of the belief that the social injustices perpetrated by the right, the war on drugs, the war on gays and the war on people, lick taint.

        1. I agree
          However, look at it this way.
          The Supreme Court even a conservative one is far more likely to strike down stupid Republican attempts at regulating speech, rather than liberal ones.
          Case in point: contrast “fairness doctrine” with “anti-obscenity” in the Communications Decency Act. So the awesome libertarian part of CDA – Section 230 stayed, and Supremes struck down the moralistic BS.

          Same way, it is complete BS to think of the Left as some vanguard of civil liberties anymore. They may be only marginally better.

          E.g. nanny statism – what you can eat, smoke, etc etc. Healthism. Also has Bush’s National Security state gone away? No? Thats what I thought.

          What have liberals done till now to benefit civil liberties besides gay marriage stuff?
          Who is fighting against Asset Forfeiture? : Institute for Justice

          What about the War on Drugs? Well Joe Biden comes to mind. And if you peruse con sites like Hot Air during marijuana threads, you’ll see they dont really give a shit about that right now. So the momentum is on our side. Legalization in California, or at least significant support for it. There’s going to be no more renewal of the Drug War. Now consider Obama’s promises. What has changed? Nothing. Infact, active backtracking on DEA raids of medical marijuana dispensaries.

          This is my conclusion: The left simply does not care for any liberties, proper. They care, first and foremost about EQUALITY. And they HATE HATE HATE economic liberty.

          Choose your poison wisely.

      2. What ever happened to the middle?

  30. This looks like the typical nonsense I see from every political blog comment page. Someone in a very large movement doesn’t agree with you on every aspect of policy, so it’s time to dredge out the name calling, instead of working on what you do agree on.

    Guess Libertarians are no different than any other political clique in that respect.

    God forbid we all work on some fiscal policy issues that desperately need attention instead of stroking our purity e-peen.

    1. If you care about fiscal policy, then why the hell make the Tea Party about anything else? Why is it the fault of Libertarians that Tea Partiers hold views that are fundamentally inconsistent with Libertarianism? I would think that the group creating the tent, would be mindful of their natural allies and be silent on those issues where there are incompatibilities. Once the Tea Partier’s cross that line however, it would be a failure of ones Libertarian principles to ignore it.

      If you honestly think that fiscal policies issues are important, then you should be the most vocal out there trying to get your fellow Tea Partier’s to focus on those issues, because getting side tracked into this social nonsense obviously distracts from that and it offends natural allies.

      1. I concur. 100%.

      2. With Drizzles, I concur 100%, as well. I would be more than happy to put up with and ignore the Fox News bullshit we#1 rah-rah that gets the lefts panties in a wad if I thought a Republican victory would lead to real results in fiscal responsibility, but all signs point to this being the platform for an unreconstructed and unapologetic return to power for the GOP with their flunkies like Jeffersonian Republican turning on us even before they get their greasy digits on the power button. They can’t even help themselves to turn on independents like libertarians and pretend we are kafir standing in the way of their blessed perfection.

        It’s in their DNA. When you are basically lizards, short term memory is all you have. That time when the Republicans held the White House, Congress and the Court. It MUST have been a golden age. Unless, unless those damn libertarians fucked it up with their calls for ending the drug war, ending foreign adventurism, expanding immigration, gay marriage, full exposure of Janet Jackson’s titties on national tv, and fiscal responsibility damn it! Why did libertarians have to screw it up for us!

        This time we’ll shut their pie holes and it will be different! We are the GOP and we’ll do what we want. Whatevah!

    2. What fiscal conservatism are libertarians and GOP/Conservative/Tea-Partiers supposed to agree on when the latter support policies that are the antithesis of fiscal conservatism?

      I’m talking entitlement programs like
      1) The enormous defense industry
      2) The war on drugs
      3) Social security, medicare, and all the other entitlements that old people love and the GOP is NOT going to touch

      If Tea Partiers balk at the idea of “Government Motors” maybe they should take a look at the big fat defense companies that have been sucking at the government teat for years.

      1. Sigh. Sometimes it’s like talking to 5 year old children.”Defense” isn’t an “entitlement program.” In a world of violent people who take things from others whenever not dissuaded from doing so, defense is necessary. When you talk this way, you simply remove yourself from the realm of rational discourse. You convince no one.

        1. Spending 7 times the second biggest military spender is rational?

          1. It totally is, if you want to 1) dissuade anyone from attacking you, and 2) easily win if they do anyway.

            1. That’s worked out fucking awesome hasn’t it…

              I’m all for a strong defense, but when the vast majority of the military is about job creation and not defense, one must question the idea that spending so much money is wise. The military is the single largest bureaucracy we have. Much of it is completely unnecessary for the military to function, and actually makes it less nimble and less likely to be able to function properly when it is called upon.

            2. You mean like Afghanistan and Iraq?

            3. Look at the economic competitiveness of Switzerland and Sweden, both of which have strong national defenses and strict non-interventionist (neutral) foreign policies. Connection, perhaps?

              Yes, the United States is still number 2 on the list, but that is in spite of our unsustainable spending and massive entitlements/military bureaucracy. Just imagine if we dropped or massively scaled back both of those programs; then we could achieve through economic reform that which neocons want through military might and the liberals want through government social programs much more quickly.

          2. It is when it gets you way more for than you put into it.

            1. Wow, I’d love to know how you calculate that ROA.

        2. Yes, defense is necessary. Not a massive world-spanning military. You can’t tell the difference?
          When arguments against cutting defense spending involve senators crying about jobs lost in their home states, it starts to look a lot like an entitlement program, even if describing it as such is not technically accurate.

    3. A lot of people seem to be forgetting that this is a news and commentary site, not a political organization. This article is information about something that is happening, not a call to action.

  31. There’s a difference between “Anti-government” and “anti-THIS-government”.

    There are probably no more than 100 people living in America who really, truly want the government to have less power, that is, to not be allowed to do things that might be useful/helpful for government to do. Make that less than 50.

    1. There are at least 50 posters here who really, truly want the government to have less power.

      1. Hell there is probably more than 50 who want no government at all

        1. Sign me up!

        2. I’m in

        3. Oooh ooh pick me!

        4. I believe there was something in the declaration of independence about this. We all recognise that the entire government is illegitimate, not just the parts we don’t like, right?

    2. I think you are confused, my friend.

      There is very little that it is “useful/helpful” for the government to do. It is a necessary evil, wherever and whenever it exists.

      1. There is one proper function of government, defend individual liberty. In that it is a necessary good.

  32. Your options are to support the side that might just bring your goals into sight

    “C’mon, Charlie Brown! I won’t pull the ball away, this time. Kick it. Kick the football, Charlie Brown!”

  33. The tone of politics in this country has gone full retard.

    Progressives want to give every illegal immigrant tax-payer funded healthcare, education, food, and housing.

    The Tea Party response is to advocate a total lockdown of the border and create a society where you must show proof of identity to take a shit in a public restroom.

    What the hell has this country come to.

    1. Progressives want to give every illegal immigrant tax-payer funded healthcare, education, food, and housing.

      The Tea Party response is to advocate a total lockdown of the border and create a society where you must show proof of identity to take a shit in a public restroom.

      The second is much better than the first.

      1. Way to prove Bingo’s point.

        1. Hey Mike P, you want to know why Mr. Ejercito is right–because we’re outta money!

          1. And the point keeps getting proven.

            Is there any room for the libertarian middle? Legalize illegal immigrants, but grant them no targeted government services.

            1. hahaha I think you forgot what country you live in. Would that we could, but we can’t.

          2. Yes because detaining the extraditing 13 million illegal immigrants won’t cost money. Only social programs cost money. Law enforcement and the judicial system works for free!

  34. “Give me liberty a pony, or give me death.”

    1. “Give me liberty a pony, or give me you death.”

  35. Jeffersonian Republican|4.25.10 @ 12:24PM|#

    To Classwarrior, actually the politicians the Tea Partiers are most supportive of are people like Rubio and Ryan who are actually presenting ideas on reforming entitlements, unlike the useless Ron Paul who has presented no workable solution to these problems.

    You come here to stir the pot, and create division between libertarians and fiscally conservative GOPers. Who pays your salary, the DNC?

    Assuming that isn’t the case, how can a conventional Republican like you afford to be arrogant after you gave us the failure of Bush? Lack of self awareness? You really should be grovelling and asking for forgiveness instead of being the typical nasty Republican sumbitch that most independents reject and most would prefer enduring another six years of Obama/Pelosi than putting up with the likes of you, all over again.

  36. For those of you defending the TPiers because of our over generalization based on one rally, I defy you to show us a TP rally where fiscal responsibility, ending the drub war, and a wider door for legal immigration were the rally cries of the day.

    1. “where fiscal responsibility”

      Every one I have heard about.

      1. But it’s just a slogan. Everyone’s in favor of fiscal responsibility, and its even easier when you don’t have to name any program to cut or any taxes to raise and still can believe the deficit can be dealt with.

        1. Everyone, Tony?

          1. The party out of power only gives a shit about fiscal responsibility and small government when they ARE out of power.

            1. Yep… hypocrites in both wingtips. And when Team A takes power from Team B, Team A gets all puffy-shirted and demands undying, unquestioning fealty to Their Causes… while Team B is naught but a bunch of kid-diddlin’ wife-beaters who can’t be trusted with a picture of a pair of scissors.

              Bread and circuses. Lotsa fun to watch while the country deteriorates.

            2. The Democrats never give a shit about smaller government. When they are out of power they attack the other party for not doing/spending enough. Are you 12 years old?

              1. SIV doesn’t think the Defense Budget has anything to do with the government I guess.

                1. Liberals believe the government is wonderful and efficient in everything it does BUT the military.

                  Conservatives believe the government is awful and inefficient in everything it does BUT the military.

                  They are both wrong: the government is awful and inefficient in everything.

                2. Try to cut defense spending in any Congressman’s district and you’ll hear howls from even the biggest peace creep.

              2. IMO, in TLG’s analogy, Team A is whichever party holds power at a given time, not the party CURRENTLY in power. It’s interchangeable, see.

            3. No, the Democrats never had any problem with George Bush’s social program except he was being to chintzy for them.

      2. I meant all three together.

  37. You just can’t form a good mob without promising some whoop-ass. (Or a sexy broad like Sara Palin.)

    1. Sex and violence is always on the political menu.

  38. “I’d have no problem if [this group] were merely silent on issues [I don’t like]?that is, if people who disagree on those particular issues had come together for the purpose of rallying [for stuff I like].”

    What a vapid post.

  39. If the teabaggers want libertarian support they just need to come out in favor of gay marriage and heavily regulated and taxed marijuana.

    1. Wrong. They need to come out in favor of eliminating licenses for all marriages and unregulated and untaxed mary jane.

    2. No, we need to come out in favor of child marriage and lightly regulated and taxed crack cocaine!

  40. Jeffersonian Republican|4.25.10 @ 12:24PM|#

    To Classwarrior, actually the politicians the Tea Partiers are most supportive of are people like Rubio and Ryan who are actually presenting ideas on reforming entitlements, unlike the useless Ron Paul who has presented no workable solution to these problems.

    Where was Paul Ryan when TARP was being voted on? If he is the answer to all of our Goddamn problems that you make him out to be, where was he?

    1. It is I who am the Answer to all of our Medamn problems. Rest easy, do what I say, and don’t forget to put some vitamin-E oil on the lobotomy scars.

      1. Medamn, good one. laboto . . . hey now!

  41. Those who continue to defend the Tea Parties, do so at their intellectual peril.

    If you’re looking to get your hate and punishment on, then I guess the Tea Parties are for you.

    1. Yeah! WE never stoop to violence or intimidation to get what we want, and we’re always gracious when our side wins!

      1. LOL, who’s talking about the left? OH, it’s you, do you have no other way to validate the argument you’re trying to make. OH, my bad, you weren’t making one.

          1. Good points, [Citation]. Let’s see ONNTA dispute ’em.

            1. Here’s one for you too

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

              Only people like you, and Matt Welch think the tea baggers are anything but racist thugs.

          2. Here’s a few, and i didn’t have to rely on free republic and weekly standard to do it.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pdwTQ4xA8

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbc064Uwax4
            reply to this

            And here, here’s the outcome you and your tea bagging buds support.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSzxjd3B8Ik

            You should be ashamed.

    2. If you want to get your hate on, hang our with some progressives and get them to talk about, say, Wal-Mart.

      1. Or Sarah Palin. (“I h0pe she chokes!”) Or George W. Bush.

        Nice people with whom to associate yourselves, losertardians. I guess hatred and violence in the name of “peace” is all right, isn’t it? And people wonder why I consider all pacifists insufferably self-righteous hypocrites at best, and fascist fellow travelers at worst.

    3. Commie traitors like you who bash the Tea Parties do so at peril of being so soundly whipped in November that you won’t be able to eat sitting down for decades.

      Not that this is going to bother your losertardian friends here, ONNTA; they’ve never won a single election! But oh, how you Dim Rats must be shaking in your boots right now at the prospect of the ass-kicking you’re about to receive from We The People in November. No wonder you’re screaming desperately about immigration; you sure don’t have any legitimate way to win the next election!

        1. No, but I’m pretty sure one of these is you.

  42. I wonder how long Radley will remain with Reason. He needs to do what Charles Koch tells him to and fall in line with the GOP uh.. I mean Tea Party, just like Matt and Nick.

    Jay

    1. KOCKTOPUS!?!?!?!?!?

      I’ve always wanted to do that. I agree with ya though, Radley is the only thing keeping me here. Well, besides the horroricade of misidentified libertarians. It’s been eye opening though, watching these guys reactions to the tea parties really shows you the type of person they really are.

      1. The fact that you troll here tells me a lot about the kind of person YOU really are.

  43. It is incredibly improbable that both parties are equally evil.

    Sure it is.

    1. I think the FDA plan to progressively wean us from salt for our own good tips the Dems into “more evil”.

      1. Doesn’t Bloomberg have an (R) beside his name? He’s the one making the most noise about salt.

        1. No he doesn’t anymore you twit. The salt ban has gone FDA Federal now too.

          1. Sometimes, MNG, Republicans act like Democrats. Bloomberg is a control freak AND a capitalist – worst combination.

            1. There’s also that Bloomberg was only a Republican for convenience’s sake, so he could claim to be Giuliani’s successor. He dropped the “R” when conservatives started to complain about his nanny state tendencies.

  44. Dude that is the coolest thing I ever seen.

    Lou
    http://www.anonymous-vpn.tk

  45. Being short sighted as they are, I don’t think you in the GOP are
    aware of the trap the Democrats are laying out in front of you.
    You say to yourselves, ‘national security, immigration, how can
    we lose?’ even after being trumped on these matters previously.
    You really think you have the nativist vote locked down as your
    own? Sure, go ahead and stoke nativist sentiments, all the
    Democrats have to do to trump you and take a good chunk of that
    vote is to bring up NAFTA, free trade agreements, and demonize
    China.

    If you doubt it, just look how they turned the Dubai port deals
    against the Bush Administration. It was like a flash mob event
    occurring in an instant, and it happened during the last go
    around of immigrant bashing, not an accident. The Democrats
    just happen to be much more subtle at the bigoted nativism than you,
    and they also know how to come out of it smelling like a rose,
    keeping the fools who vote for them thinking they are voting for tolerance,
    peace and understanding personified in check, an art Republicans never learned.

    As for National Security, Republicans have an advantage
    and likely will continue to do so, but Democrats can sufficiently weaken
    that advantage by satiating the bloodlust aspect of the Republican vote.
    Provoking Iran is a high risk move, so I doubt if it will be the go to one used
    this Summer. My guess is this — a series of actions well played by the
    Democrats can accomplish this — a skirmish between Russia and Georgia that
    ends with Obama’s new buddy Medvedev coming to Washington with his tail between
    his legs, Obama brokers a peace agreement, and the Russian leader publicly
    apologizes for his part in the skirmish, in exchange for his public humiliation,
    he returns to Moscow with several billion dollars worth of technology
    transfers done under the table.

    Obama looks like a strong leader, even a big faction of the we#1 ra ra ra Republicans
    go ga ga. Shit, he might even get a second Nobel peace prize out of it.

    Sounds ludicrous? What, you thought that Presidents create close
    ties with specific leaders over their internal rivals for the
    GOOD of this nation and not for their own bottom line? Now THAT
    is ludicrous. Brother, the story writes itself because it has
    happened before.

    1. “You say to yourselves, ‘national security, immigration, how can
      we lose?’ even after being trumped on these matters previously.”

      Trumped? Never yet once. 70% of the country wants the immigration laws enforced. Going for an amnesty was the 2nd or 3rd biggest mistake George Bush ever made.

      “but Democrats can sufficiently weaken
      that advantage by satiating the bloodlust aspect of the Republican vote.”

      There is no bloodlust aspect to the Republican vote. People who want to kill us and who make much of any progress in that endeavor should be flattened, that’s not bloodlust, that’s just prudent.

      As for the rest of your rant, the odds are so massively against it that I could believe your doing some as yet unknown but soon to be controlled substance. Medvedev has already roller over for Putin ten or thirty times, he’s Putin’s bitch.

      1. Medvedev has already roller over for Putin ten or thirty times, he’s Putin’s bitch.

        Medvedev is massively sick of being Putin’s bitch. There is a new strategy at play in the Kremlin, now that Bush is no longer president. When the Putin nationalist whup it up again, Medvedev will have other resources at his disposal if the tit for tat between him and Obama and other Western leaders went as for all appearances as well as it did.

        Maybe it didn’t, but we’ll see.

        There is no bloodlust aspect to the Republican vote.

        Sure there is, look at the reaction to the recent innocuous remarks Obama made concerning American empire. If you listened to talk radio you would have thought he signed a treaty of surrender to the Mau-Maus. Or just listen to talk radio in general a view notches below Limbaugh on the dial if you have never been exposed to Republican blood lust.

        People who want to kill us and who make much of any progress in that endeavor should be flattened

        Like those Iraqis?

        that’s not bloodlust, that’s just prudent.

        Like invading those Iraqis?

        Trumped? Never yet once. 70% of the country wants the immigration laws enforced. Going for an amnesty was the 2nd or 3rd biggest mistake George Bush ever made.

        I noted the situation where you Republicans got your asses handed to you, did you not notice that? Yes, trumped. Democrats can do that to you on nativist issues because they possess troglodyte union members on their side. Have you forgotten that? Of course you have. Republicans have no long term memory for reasons of species explained above.

        But, consider the source. I’ve been accused of being a retard and a drug addict, but neither of you boys offered a substantial criticism of the underlying ideas. Hell, Alice did better than you Republicans. Is that how it is going to be if we help you back at the table? The same old thoughtlessness that got you kicked from that table?

  46. If Cortillaen ever stops by again to play his conservative crappola:

    https://reason.com/blog/2010/04…..nt_1675140


  47. a skirmish between Russia and Georgia that
    ends with Obama’s new buddy Medvedev coming to Washington with his tail between
    his legs, Obama brokers a peace agreement, and the Russian leader publicly
    apologizes for his part in the skirmish, in exchange for his public humiliation,
    he returns to Moscow with several billion dollars worth of technology
    transfers done under the table.

    Don’t think so alan, lol
    Cosmotarians are so retarded when it comes to foreign policy. Yeesh.

    1. I gave it as one example of an action that could be taken to improve Obama’s standing as a leader. Medvedev is in his debt, so it is certainly not unreasonable to point that out as a front. Obama is not going to sit passively from now to this coming November, and offer his head up to the Republicans. You would have to be a fool to think that.

      However, if you be a Republican, given your party’s track record and the world wide howls of deserved derision it brings, I would be careful about throwing around ‘retarded’ to describe the foreign policy views of anyone not named Joe Biden. Your record is terrible. The results of a slug level of intelligence compared to this retard.

      1. Okay, enough with insults because I’m truly curious. I put out one possibility (all the elements — phony groveling, phony skirmishes, phony peace agreements planned well before, under the table technology transfers, have all been well documented to have occurred in previous administrations, if not all collectively in one particular event), a scenario will occur designed to improve Obama’s standing, even if it is not this one, or merits the degree of cynicism that I conjured up in mine, what would you guess would be the likely scenario?


      2. Obama is not going to sit passively from now to this coming November, and offer his head up to the Republicans. You would have to be a fool to think that.

        In what way, shape, or form do u think Obama has NOT offered his head up to the Republicans…He’s NOT ?

        Look, he may not be a libertarian. He may not be a hard-core conservative. But, he’s definitely a middle-of-the-road conservative….and Not what I voted for

        1. If you are voting within the two party system, you will always be voting for someone who is a conservative, in the sense that they believe in the political dynamic as it is set up and they work towards its preservation.

          If he was really ever what you thought he was there would have been some indication of that before the election, like a major network trying to exclude him from the debates, or some such.

        2. “Well I didn’t mean to…”

          “Didn’t mean to!? You put your sword right through your own head!”

          “Oh dear… Am I all right?”

        3. Obama = conservative???

      3. Alan, what is it that Medvedev owes Bambi?

        1. In the Bush administration there were two camps, one including Bush, who put their weight behind Putin, no matter the situation who hamstrung any efforts to advance any agenda (for good and ill, actually) to the consternation of the more sensible elements in the administration, and then you had those who considered Putin to be an annoying prick, those sensible elements. Obama’s people are more united in their thinking and this strengthens Medvedev’s hand.

          Incidentally, that view is consistent with what I hear from inside Russia as well (not politicians, I contract in an industry much populated with smart talented Russians), and though I would love to claim full credit for the scenario I drew up if shit went down that way, it actually comes from a recent exchange of e-mails with a Russian friend.

        2. Incidentally, in my friend’s scenario, Obama gets to strut around as Peace Maker for the price of disputed mineral rights in the Arctic. Probably more plausible, but i didn’t want to mention a matter that would lead to technical details that had the potential to drag the discussion as it did in the e-mail exchange.

  48. Again… I may seem stupid… And, most of u think I am … but …

    I think this country should have never fought the Civi War !!!

    We should have left this country split up.

    Thats EXACTLY how I feel 2day.

    I no longer wanna argue the merits of any issue (healthcare, taxes, immigration, etc.).

    I JUST WANT TO ARGUE FOR STATES RIGHTS: That is, STATE LAW TRUMPS FEDERAL LAW.

    I am willing to live with the New Arizona Law. I’m willing to accept states bringing back slavery, the closet, the coat-hanger, etc. I’m even willing to accept states that outlaw masturbation as long as I can vote and Live in a state far away from these people.

    Let’s just abandon the concept of the federal government…and let states do what they want…for good and/or for bad.

    1. *facepalm*

    2. Right. And states shouldn’t be able to set their own drug policy, or gay-marriage parameters, or seat-belt or helmet usage… right, Alice?

    3. So Alice, that means you oppose California having special auto emission laws, then?

      1. Isn’t that the opposite of what she said?

        1. I thought she was being sarcastic, talking about being OK with slavery and all.

  49. I still don’t understand why people like you don’t just move to Europe.

    Your dream socialism is there just waiting for you. Stop being lazy, and move.

  50. Why don’t you move to Somalia JB? Your dream anarchy is just waiting for you there.

    1. Somalia? DRINK!

    2. I know everything is going spiffy as it is, with our efficient, uncorruptable government services and court system, external affairs with the Arabs and southern African neighbors could not be either more peaceable or lucrative for us, and the wonderful interventions of the UN distributing resources to our citizens in a fair and equitable manner through the responsible and concerned care of our tribal chiefs whom racist Westerners slur to be warlords, and the World Bank and IMF have proven to be such successful means for us to achieve real markets accessible to all, but you know what would make all these things we already have in such great abundance even better? If we washed our hands of all of this, and started an anarco-capitalist society from scratch without any reference to what has already occurred.

    3. Who says I want anarchy?

      Although I can’t wait for slugs like you and Alice to keep pushing for more socialism here instead of moving.

      You really won’t like the eventual push-back; it’s advisable to overcome your laziness and move.

      1. The Somalia analogy was old and tired the moment it was first issued from the hellhole leftist talking-point factory.

  51. “But it’s increasingly looking like the right’s favored big government policies are a fairly important part of the agenda of a fairly large portion of the Tea Party crowd.”

    Immigration law enforcement is small government, not large, and the manner of it determines it’s justness, not the fact of it. In fact, since it is not controversial that welfare states and unrestricted immigration cannot stably coexist–and the welfare state in some form exists in every society more advanced than what requires Grandma to build a last igloo–it’s the unrestricted immigration that needs to go.

    It’s not even unjust in theory–we are under no obligation to be a safety valve for societies who can not make themselves attractive enough to retain their own citizens willingly.

    “Advocating for more police power”
    This isn’t more police power, its police power that has been caused for corrupt reasons to remain dormant for far to long, but it has existed since colonial times. Sorry history isn’t what you need it to be.

    “more foreign policy imperialism”
    Like what, praytell?

    “and more power for the federal government to detain, torture, and abrogate basic civil liberties”
    Detention for the duration of a war is what happens to captured soldiers, and it can happen to unlucky civilians too–we are under no obligation to be perfect, just reasonably competent, and quick glance at history says were are doing fine.
    As for torture, it’s just a hammer, and the (what total of three) AlQaeda personnel who’ve been “tortured” worked really long and hard at making nails of themselves.
    And what you are calling basic civil liberties were as far as I can tell invented as a propaganda tool by the left for sole purpose for using then against the Bush administration–there has for example, never existed a right to communicate with the enemy free from interception for military purposes. It simply never existed.
    “sort of misses the entire message of the original Tea Party.”
    I dunno Radley, they would tar and feather a man at the drop of a hat, without trial, and when they caught a spy, they just hung him–not necessarily with benefit of even a court martial.

    Neither history nor human nature are what you need them to be for your argument to be reasoned or reasonable.

    And you are determined to let the never to be realized perfect be the enemy of the drastically improved.

    1. The problem is your “drastically improved” is my other bowl of shit. The one that was taken away for a bit, but is waiting eagerly to make a return to the table.

    2. “This isn’t more police power, its police power that has been caused for corrupt reasons to remain dormant for far to lon”

      More Police Powers. Not power, Powers.

      “Detention for the duration of a war is what happens to captured soldiers, and it can happen to unlucky civilians too”

      And when we win our war against the nation of Terror I assume we’ll allow the civilians to return home? And which continent is Terror on, Eastasia, Oceania or Eurasia? I can’t find it on my atlas.

  52. And for Balko’s disgusting attempt to say that just because Arpaio likes the idea, it must be bad, Arpaio will be distracted by this into honest work. That’s a good thing.

    1. First of all we don’t like restrictions on immigration no matter what Arpaio says. Second of all, Arpaio is a slimebag who should not be given any respect or honors of any kind.

      1. First of all we don’t like restrictions on immigration

        That’s why you’re all assholes. If you had any sense, you’d be solidly opposed to bringing in more far-left-voting welfare-consuming socialists to help overturn the popular electoral uprising against socialism. Instead, you’re in favor of bringing them in. That means you must be slimebags, and we should not be “civil” or at all respectful to you in any way. Arpaio is right and we should be proud of him for enforcing the law against treasonous commie scum like you.

        1. Hmmm, is this a troll? Hard to tell considering the intelligence of some of the conservative commenters here…

          So, assuming you are not a troll: not compromising on the principles of liberty or breaking those principles in order to reach some vague political end that is based on the premise that all immigrants are socialists… Yeah this is one tough decision.

          Dumbass.

          1. There’s a kernel in there, heller… poor immigrants might be more easily-swayed to vote for Democrats (the other evil) than for Republicans (the other other evil).

            1. And….

              By that argument we should be trying to take freedom of speech away from everyone who isn’t a libertarian. Oh, but then we wouldn’t be… libertarians.

      2. Who is this ‘we’ business?

        I’m all for restrictions on immigration as long as the welfare state is in place.

        1. I’m not for any freedoms as long as the Democrats or Republicans are in power. I’m a fair weather libertarian too!

  53. If a movement appears that that will lead to smaller government, I don’t expect libertarians to support it. It’s like me saying I never married because I never met the right girl, but the truth is I just don’t want to get married. I would expect that if libertarians ever did get a substantial movement going that it would not be very attractive to anyone, least of all libertarians.

    1. On th contrary, I would jump at the chance to support and be a part of a large libertarian movement. But the Tea Party is decidedly not a libertarian movement. I won’t stand next to someone shouting the opposite of my views.

      1. And the country will continue to move left until who you stand next to is all you get to decide, and proud libertarians will be still standing alone, but not free.

        1. I hate to pull the Nazi card, but didn’t the Christian Democrats and/or other German political groups have the same attitude when they voted Adolph into power to thwart the reds? (I’m not morally equating the GOP subversion of Tea Parties to the National Socialist Party, merely showing an example of how bowing to political pragmatism can be folly.)

          and of course I’m kidding, I LOVE to pull the Nazi card- they make learning fun!

        2. So you say… But some people have these things called principles, which basically means they won’t just whore themselves out to whatever group promises a vaguely “libertarian” future. And that’s not only because principles aren’t supposed to be compromised, but because they’re a bit skeptical that anyone that promises that will actually give it to them. History proves it again and again.

  54. Y’know, losertardians, 70% of Arizona’s voters are in favor of this measure cracking down on illegal immigration. Only 23% agree with your obnoxiously elitist dogma.

    How many armies hath the dopes?

    1. 89% would probably vote for mandatory free chocolate yum-yums. Doesn’t make it Constitutional.

    2. The majority is always right!

      Except when they disagree with me!

      1. Same thing “Boo Hoo” Radley Balko said.

        1. Can I haz quote plz?

          1. What, you didn’t see the article at the head of this comments section? Can’t you READ!?

            How you losertardians do whine when we reaffirm that illegal activities are crimes! Next thing we know, you’ll be complaining because somebody actually made a law requiring that candidates for public office demonstrate their eligibility for that office before they can be put on the ballot!

    3. You know, teabaggers, 98.7% of USA’s voters think you are dumb as shit. Ipso facto, it must be true, correct? Any of you who say you aren’t dumb as shit are simply obnoxious elitists for going against popular opinion.

      1. Mixed up your polls again, losertardians? It’s you that they think are dumb as shit. 48% agree with us.

        1. Yeah, you bunch of lamerturdians! Bet you’re all too scared to challenge me at the big ski race down dead man’s slope this weekend! C’mon Teabagger, let’s go give a freshman a wedgie!

        2. But, but, I though losertardians are only a small elitist minority. Why does our view matter?

        3. Also, I think you should go again and try for that GDE. That poll is not about the intelligence level of Teabaggers.

          1. Looks like you haven’t earned yours yet, losertardian. On the other hand, I’ve heard of high schools giving out diplomas to kids who don’t know how to spell simple things like GED, so maybe you do have one. It still doesn’t mean you’ve earned it, though.

    4. Yeah, but as of the last census only 60% of Arizona’s US-born population was even born in Arizona.

      So, yes, Arizona indeed has an immigration problem: People born in other states immigrate to Arizona and use their political power to change Arizona for the worse.

      1. Let me fix that…

        As of the last census 60% of Arizona’s US-born population was not born in Arizona.

        So, yes, Arizona indeed has an immigration problem: People born in other states immigrate to Arizona and use their political power to change Arizona for the worse.

  55. Halt, I zay! Show your papers, I zay!
    Do as I zay, mere subjects!

    1. So, how’s it feel being in bed with Al Sharpton and 0-boy, commie?

      1. ‘Teabagger’, Sharpton and Obama all give me a warm tingly zensation. I would not be able to tell my comrades apart, they sound so alike, if “Teabagger” didn’t wear that foort ball helmet to protect his zoft cranium.

        He’z our special needs boy. Don’t worry “Teabagger”, I will protect ze boarder and not let those Mexicans take your federal funds!

        1. Hey look guys, an infiltrator! What d’ya say we wave our private parts at his aunties and call his sadomasochistic Nazi uniform a silly thing?

        2. By the way, nice to see you hypocritical losertardians throwing your in your lot with violent protesters! Gosh, how could anyone declare these criminals personas non grata when they behave themselves so well?

  56. I don’t like the sound of these here “Boncentration Bamps”.

  57. Contemplationist|4.25.10 @ 10:53PM|#

    I agree
    However, look at it this way.
    The Supreme Court even a conservative one is far more likely to strike down stupid Republican attempts at regulating speech, rather than liberal ones.
    Case in point: contrast “fairness doctrine” with “anti-obscenity” in the Communications Decency Act. So the awesome libertarian part of CDA – Section 230 stayed, and Supremes struck down the moralistic BS.

    Same way, it is complete BS to think of the Left as some vanguard of civil liberties anymore. They may be only marginally better.

    E.g. nanny statism – what you can eat, smoke, etc etc. Healthism. Also has Bush’s National Security state gone away? No? Thats what I thought.

    What have liberals done till now to benefit civil liberties besides gay marriage stuff?
    Who is fighting against Asset Forfeiture? : Institute for Justice

    What about the War on Drugs? Well Joe Biden comes to mind. And if you peruse con sites like Hot Air during marijuana threads, you’ll see they dont really give a shit about that right now. So the momentum is on our side. Legalization in California, or at least significant support for it. There’s going to be no more renewal of the Drug War. Now consider Obama’s promises. What has changed? Nothing. Infact, active backtracking on DEA raids of medical marijuana dispensaries.

    This is my conclusion: The left simply does not care for any liberties, proper. They care, first and foremost about EQUALITY. And they HATE HATE HATE economic liberty.

    Choose your poison wisely.

    I agree with this entirely. However, what Balko and Bovard are witnessing is something I have noticed as well. There is an itch within the Republican aspect of the Tea Party to return to 2002. That is a self destructive tendency because the fiscal reality of these United States means you cannot turn back the clock and live on Uncle Sam’s credit card like a Bush scion any longer.

    If the Republicans return to power they will not be able to repeat the irresponsible behavior of the Bush administration in its Frumist domestic agenda, nor in the empire at large. You’ll have to cut that defense budget as it is the largest source of discretionary spending. If 20-something “PROUD to be the Military Super Power” girl isn’t pissed off at you by the end of the first two years, than God help us all, you will have only have made the situation even worse.

  58. Libertarians either need to take over the Tea Parties or disavow them. It is not like many of us did not know way ahead of time that GOP partisans, the right and so called “conservatives” would try and co-opt the pro-liberty movement with the assistance of the media.

    1. Libertarians either need to take over the Tea Parties or disavow them.

      In other words: “How dare those Republicans co-opt the tea parties! We need to co-opt them ourselves.”

      Did the possibility ever occur to any of you weepy teeth-gnashing losertardians that you’ve got your retarded conspiracy theory completely backwards? Methinks ol’ “Scuzzy Favors” Scozzafava has a long sad tale to tell you as to who’s taken over whom… if anybody still listened to that RINO bitch.

      Welcome to the world of “Here Comes Everybody” where political reality truly is democratic… for better or worse. How amusing that you think anyone could co-opt a popular movement that doesn’t much have or need any leadership to organize.

      1. Funny, your papers zay MNG. You will have to come with me.

        1. The tea party movement should have stuck with financial matters. Period.

          1. Speak for your own hypocritical party, losertardian. If you elitist pinpricks can’t keep your hoggish proboscises out of the social issues (such as illegal immigration), you’ve got a hell of a lot of nerve telling a true grassroots movement what to do.

        2. Stay back, you faggoty sadomasochistic 0-bot: I’ve got a gun!

  59. Holy shit, are you really just discovering this? Fucking hilarious.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.