Ebert's Libertarian Temptation


United for the liberation of tits.

A half-baked, utilitarian defense of freedom from Roger Ebert, a man who sounds like he missed the counterculture:

Vigilante activity is of course not the answer to urban crime, but what is? In Chicago, Daley floods many area with cops, and shootings continue nearby. It's all fueled by drugs and drug money, of course. You know, one of the areas where I think Libertarians may be right is about the legalization of drugs. There would be less of them with no profit motive for their sale. Less money for guns. Fewer innocent bystanders would die. Who knows?

Sure, you could dismiss Ebert as another wimpy Illinois liberal spouting anti-Tea Party propaganda, declaring a fatwa against mullets and burning American flag t-shirts.

But is it mere coincidence that the above quote came in a review of a movie called Harry Brown[e]?

NEXT: Los Angeles Times Now Favors Rule By Robots

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ah, Roger, Roger, Roger. A for effort, buddy. You almost put some thought into those words.

  2. Wow, he musta been real cool back in the day! Amazing.


  3. OK this makes a lot of sense to me dude.


  4. This the guy who wrote “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.” I think we are beginning to see the hip, swinging Roger Ebert emerge again.

  5. Look at his Twitter feed and you’ll have no doubt he’s the hoariest of old liberals. It’s unbearable.

  6. I am a libertarian, but that flatulent fatso Ebert is off his rocker if he thinks drugs should be legal. Someone should drive a nail through his hand.

    1. Even now, Tim closes in on the above poster with his mighty ban hammer. It shall be epic.

    2. I don’t think you know what a libertarian is. And Naga, it’s Matt who has warned people to not spoof Weigel.

      1. Hmmmmm. I seem to recall that . . . sort of. Damn I was out of it that day.

        1. Washing the pelicans?

          1. Oil just won’t hit shore over in my neck of the woods. The currents are keeping it somewhere past the barrier islands apparently. Everyone east of Biloxi has their beach more or less closed. By which I mean, the beach is open but no swimming.

      2. I’d say that a (Not) negates the spoof, but it’s still a dickhead move.

      3. But is that a proper spoof within the definition of spoof? Or is it a parody, which has clearly been ruled to be legal. I’d have to argue it is a parody since no reasonable person would think that is actual Scandal Boy.

        1. I would not call it spoof nor parody, but art. I am working to perfect the Weigelian style and incorporate it into my own work.

          Here’s the pure Weigelian sonnet form in outline:

          1. Explicitly claim to be a libertarian
          2. Take some outrageously unlibertarian position
          3. Call people who disagree (or simply make me feel self-conscious in public) retarded or insane or use inventive insults to describe them
          4. Threaten bodily harm

          I did not know that this style has been banned at Reason as it has been at the Washington Post. Such is often the fate of great innovators. I guess I’ll have practice somewhere else. Thanks for the heads-up.

    3. So apparently the timeline between “funny” and “played out and boring and not funny any more” is now approximately five threads.

      No wonder “dicklords” didn’t last.

      But then again, somehow, DONDERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOO always stays funny.

      This requires more study.

  7. Sure, you could dismiss Ebert as another wimpy Illinois liberal…

    Fish in barrel, etc.

    Let me know when he gets to staying the fsck out of the economic transactions of consenting adults and, say, the right to bear arms.

    1. “fsck”? “s” isn’t even near “u” on the keyboard. Are you drunk?

      1. Working on it. Vacation, you know.

        It’s an old forum protocol for bypassing swear filters. Just felt like some old school, or it’s the cheap gin I found in the house talking.

        1. Its also a unix command.

          File System ChecK.

          pronounced – fsuck.

    2. unzip
      make clean

      1. Good, but “make clean” sticks out like a sore thumb. You can’t include arguments to one command and not the others.

        1. Yeah, it may not work, but ‘make clean’ is too appropriate to leave out.

          1. Meh. I usually grep in that spot.

  8. But is it mere coincidence that the above quote came in a review of a movie called Harry Brown[e]?


  9. Nice to have you on our side, Roger, but legalizing something does not make the profit motive disappear. And if you think that the profit motive is the part of the illegal drug trade that causes trouble, you’re an idiot.

    1. The profit margins are the chief cause for trouble, Ned the Nitpicker.

      1. No, that’s not it either. The risk markup that drug dealers charge is not terribly different from what happens in legal transactions where one party is accepting a high degree of risk (eg, credit card agreements).

        The main problem with the drug trade is that, rather than non-coercive competition, the market players succeed by committing violence against each other.

        1. It’s a rough business and the purist form of competition, Don Tulpa…you keep to your side of the street and I’ll stick to mine…and we can grease the palms of the powers that be equally. This is an offer you…wait for it…cannot refuse.

        2. Right, but the profit margins have to be sufficiently high to justify the violence to the perpetrators.

          These guys aren’t shooting each other to get fast food jobs.

          1. Dude, you should visit some of the old mill towns along the Monongahela where guys get shot over a motherfucking piece of pizza. Bullets are cheap, and life is even cheaper to that ilk.

        3. The main problem with the drug trade is that, rather than non-coercive competition, the market players succeed by committing violence against each other.

          But why do they commit violence? IOW, what Fluffy said.

          1. Profit margins are high in the pharmaceutical industry, but you don’t see Pfeizer and Merck making the streets run with blood.

          2. And I’m not sure how great the profit margins in the drug trade are anyway, with the constant threat of confiscation.

        4. My understanding is the profit margin isn’t the sole cause of violence. the most important factor is that prohibition restricts access to peaceful means of deciding disputes. Fast food places have to get zoning permission. Retailers and suppliers have contract law. But drug dealers either have the muscle to take over a location and collect on debts or they die trying.

          1. Yes, this is a more concise explication.

  10. Give the guy a break. He’s missing half his face, can no longer eat, and should have been dead months ago.

    Frankly, that he’s able to write anything at all — much less stuff that’s relatively coherent and even occasionally poignant and witty — no matter his rather typical, establishment liberal take on things, is to be commended. The dude, without making a big deal about it, is actually kind of inspiring.

    1. He actually has one of those voice pattern things on a laptop computer that he uses to communicate now, kinda like what Prof. Hawking has (except Ebert can physically type his).

  11. It’s a shame Ebert and Abbie Hoffman never had a debate.

  12. You want to legalize marihuana with this sort of stuff going on? (link)

    A man suspected of carrying out a string of booby trap attacks against the small Hemet Police Department was initially targeting an officer who arrested him last year for investigation of growing marijuana, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

    In all, there have been at least eight attacks. On Tuesday, police found a hazardous device stuck to the bottom of a police car. The device was believed to have been there for up to 60 days.

    Other attacks included an attempted assault with a bazooka round that failed to properly detonate, and an arson fire in which several city vehicles were set ablaze.

    You must be height.

    1. police found a hazardous device stuck to the bottom of a police car.

      A SWAT team member out on a raid to arrest a non-violent petty drug user?

      The device was believed to have been there for up to 60 days.

      You’d think the smell would have tipped off the Barneys.

    2. Wow, thanks for the link. I can totally use this.

    3. So if it were legal, the perps wouldn’t have been worried about being fucked with by the cops, therefore wouldn’t have bothered to wage war against the cops.

      I know this is simple stuff, but sometimes it needs to be spelled out to people.

  13. Harry Brown was very good.

  14. Although it seems like a coincidence, it is a magnificent coincidence.

    It is just so sad that people such as Ebert must wait until they have almost “left the building,” to endorse Libertarian positions, or even give libertarians any props at all.

  15. they are are great men TYF220GDH

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.