Media

First They Came for "The Most Famous Liberaltarian," And I Did Nothing, Even Though I Was He…: NOW UPDATED!

|

Jeezus, it's been like almost a day since our last post about whether libertarians are any use, or should partner with liberals, or should propose a Vulcan mind-meld with the Suppository People of Uranus or whatever.

So here goes: Last night, in the middle of a good dream, I was deemed to be the "most famous liberaltarian" in the world (Hi, Mom!) by the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney:

In the wake of my column on the collapse of a liberal-libertarian coalition, an office-mate asked me who was the most famous liberaltarian. We struggled for 5 minutes, and came up with Nick Gillespie, at Reason Magazine. Maybe we missed someone, but we couldn't think of any prominent politicians who fit the bill.

Carney goes on to note that there are no "liberaltarian" politicians currently in Congress and that the most free-market-oriented pols (e.g., Rep. Ron Paul of Texas) are actually very conservative on abortion and other social issues. He concludes: "Makes you wonder — maybe there's something about the socially liberal agenda that draws someone away from economic freedom."

His whole bit is here.

Now maybe it's heroin I just injected directly into my eye, but WTF?

I mean, really. How exactly am I a liberaltarian, a term I didn't invent, have never used as a self-description, or even have a clear understanding of what it means? It is true that I believe in as much as economic freedom as you can stuff into your pants pockets during trips to the salad bar and that I am socially tolerant. Is being in favor of legalized abortion (which I am), the crux? Or in favor of treating pot the same as gin? Being in favor of gay marriage? None of those issues, which are not all championed by liberals, have anything to do with my rock-solid belief in economic freedom. In fact, all of them proceed from the same belief in the individual's right to maximum autonomy.

But this makes me a libertarian, plain and simple. I am libertarian, hear me snore! Yes on free trade, deregulation, legalizing drugs, opening borders, the state treating all individuals (even gay Republicans) equally, getting the government out of education, and more. I do not own a beret and have never smoked a clove cigarette. I believe that my legs have a right of self-determination equal to my arms'. I could go on, but I think my meaning is clear: Libertarian is about "Free Minds and Free Markets" (subscribe, dammit!); it's a belief that life is too precious to be wasted on something as stupid as politics, so let's shrink the areas in which that sort of consenus is necessary to the smallest sphere possible. And then let's let folks live their lives basically however they want as long as they're not infringing on other's people rights to do the same.

The main pushers of the monicker liberaltarian are Reason contributors Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson, who are writing a book on the subject titled The Free-Market Progressive: How We Can Use Capitalist Acts Between Consenting Adults to Create Justice, Peace, and Prosperity.

That sounds liberaltarian to me and I wish them well on completing the manuscript and nothing but caviar dreams and champagne kisses when the book hits the shelves.

Now back to the book that I am writing with Matt Welch, which is tentatively titled (I shit you not), The Declaration of Independents: How libertarian politics can fix what's wrong with America.

And Tim Carney (a good friendly acquaintance and generally one of the best political writers around), can I get a kilo of whatever you and the office-mate were tripping on last night?

It's Go Time. #1 signing off!:

Update: Tim Carney takes it all back and publishes a picture of the two of us in which I'm holding my nose like a coke addict. Which reminds me, check out this interview with him about his very good book Obamanomics: How Barack Obama is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses.

NEXT: Natural Law and Economic Liberty

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. How exactly am I a liberaltarian, a term I didn’t invent, have never used as a self-description, or even have a clear understanding of what it means?

    You are a liberaltarian if, whenever libertarian and leftist principles conflict, you break left.

    1. R C dunphy

      Why the change?

    2. “I mean, really. How exactly am I a liberaltarian, a term I didn’t invent, have never used as a self-description, or even have a clear understanding of what it means?”

      They’d call you a “cosmotarian” if they knew the word. Wouldn’t you describe yourself as a “cosmotarian”?

      I think what they mean is that you’re a libertarian , but you’re not one of those scary libertarians like Ron Paul is.

      You’re like the Al Roker or Bryant Bryant Gumbel of libertarians…if you know what I mean.

      1. Cosmotarians are different from liberaltarians. “Cosmotarian” ultimately sprang from former Reason editor Virginia Postrel’s definition of a libertarian as a “tolerant cosmpolitan”, while liberaltarian was coined by those trying to convince libertarians to align with Dems in 2006.

        Cosmos only break left on issues where libertarianism is inapplicable (death penalty, gay marriage, foreign policy) or there is some more fundamental disagreement which must be settled before libertarianism can be applied (abortion). Nick, and most of Reason’s staff from what I can tell, are cosmotarians.

        Liberaltarians, on the other hand, warp the clarity of libertarianism by introducing the concept of “positive rights” into the libertarian pantheon. Thus the right to property, life, liberty, and bodily integrity are joined by (and possibly superceded by) rights to education, employment, health care, etc.

        This is different from libertarian realists like myself, who approve of minimal deviations from libertarian purity necessary to keep society from utterly falling apart (such as police forces, govt-owned roads, and minimal taxes). Just as natural law believers do with negative rights, liberaltarians insist that those positive rights be respected even if doing so makes things worse.

        1. Thanks for the history lesson, but I was kinda here the whole time…I probably left comments in that original cosmo thread…

          But when I need another history lesson about what happened right in front of my face, I’ll be sure to look you up.

          1. If I had sent the above in an email to you, your catty response would have been almost justified. As it is, my explication is intended for general readers who may not have as long and sordid a history here as you or I.

            1. sordid a history here as you or I.

              I am still waiting for those child support checks and my cat is still missing.

              1. It was an old cat. No way I’m paying for a new one!

            2. Dayum Tulpa, all mansplainin’ and shit.

        2. Liberaltarians, on the other hand, warp the clarity of libertarianism by introducing the concept of “positive rights” into the libertarian pantheon. Thus the right to property, life, liberty, and bodily integrity are joined by (and possibly superceded by) rights to education, employment, health care, etc.

          I think you are reaching. I do not remember Lindsey writing that. Liberaltarian is a concept for getting liberals and libertarians to make alliance on policies we already agree on.

          Lindsey’s list if i remember correctly was:

          -End drug war.
          -open boarders.
          -Less poeple in jail.
          -Curtailing the loss of liberty from the War on Terror.
          -Open transparent government.

          1. So long as the alliance is between libertarian representatives and liberal representatives in passing laws that address those subjects, great.

            If they think the lip service a minority of Democratic politicians pay to those issues is sufficient to get libertarians to vote for Democrats and their insidious Progressive agenda… well, they’re right about some people, but even then only if the Republicans hold a lot of power and are currently behaving like total assclowns.

            1. If they think the lip service a minority of Democratic politicians pay to those issues is sufficient to get libertarians to vote for Democrats and their insidious Progressive agenda… well, they’re right about some people, but even then only if the Republicans hold a lot of power and are currently behaving like total assclowns.

              I don’t think Lindsey’s plan has much to do with changing votes. He is a policy wonk and think tanker and he is mostly speaking to other policy wonks, think tankers and columnists. Lindsey could not get anyone elected out of a wet paper bag. he just wants these desperate groups (the left and libertarians) working from the same page on already agreed upon positions.

          2. Rather than go point-by-point, do ANY liberals support “open borders”?
            (other than those with state or non-profit sinecure)
            Maybe for poor people who don’t compete directly with them, but I thought the H1B visa program was lumped in with “corporate outsourcing”.
            The idea of unrestricted immigration of educated/professional classes would make ’em blow a gasket. I read a recent piece which wanted academic research jobs made permanent so temporary visa holders wouldn’t qualify.

            1. Rather than go point-by-point, do ANY liberals support “open borders”?

              I think Obama is probably close to where Bush was on immigration. McCain was there as well until he recently flip flopped on it.

              Basically some sort of amnesty for those already here and some reform so more can work here and more can legally immigrate.

              But yeah they don’t exactly push for it very hard. Instead of actually doing anything the left use it as a political football so they can call Republicans racists.

              This speaks to what Lindsey is talking about. He wants to get the left and libertarians together on issues so there can be a larger tent pushing for policy changes such as Immigration reform (this is the term i should have used. Open boarders although desired by me is not going to happen).

              Lindsey I think is correct that the left and libertarians in their isolated groups are ineffective alone when trying to get electeds to make policy changes.

        3. Well put Tulpa

        4. Wasn’t Hayek then the first liberaltarian? I remember reading in the Road to Serfdom that he wasn’t advocating laissez faire. He even says that it’s not contradictory to a minimal state (or something like that) to provide a mininaml income for people. I think he even supported public education.

    3. It’s the jacket!

      P.S. How about Bill Clinton in 1999 as a liberal-itarian??

  2. Liberaltarians are worse than communists I gather?

    1. No. Communists aren’t fictional constructs.

      1. No but Communism is.

        1. More of a failed construct.

          1. Or a constructed failure.

            1. According to Anne Applebaum the USSR was not so much an underdeveloped constructed failure but a misdeveloped constructed failure.

    2. They make the same kind of splash in the ocean when you throw them out of the airplane.

  3. How exactly am I a liberaltarian, a term I didn’t invent, have never used as a self-description, or even have a clear understanding of what it means?

    It’s the all the hookers and blow, Nick. No self-respecting liberservative would caught doing that without the hooker being found dead in the trunk.

    You simply double-dog dared Carney with all your still-living hookers.

  4. Goddamn! I love a good Gillespie rant! Preach it, brother!

    1. +1. That shit was hilarious — and FTR I agree with the Lindsey/Wilkinson types more often than not.

  5. Mr. Nick Gillespie, I’m not accusing it of being a Liberaltarian, but isn’t your jacket more famous than you?

    1. The jacket is made of animal skin. QED, Gillespie is not a modern liberal.

      1. Much more of a Fonzitarian.

      2. It’s not animal skin. As I’ve told you before,

        Some years ago, Nick Gillespie, a product of thousands of years of Bene Gesserit breeding, took the skin of the sandcow as his own, transforming him into the God Editor of Reason. “The Jacket” merely refers to the leathery skin that-is-not-his-own.

        1. Sorry Pro Lib. I missed that, probably due to too much spice consumption.

          1. I wonder if The Jacket had a gestating wallet in it’s inner pocket when it passed within to become a Reverend Mother.

          2. I realize you’re joking, but have you tried the Spice shit BP? I got my hands on one of those JWH-018 “incense blends” last week — that shit sucked. It definitely gets you high, but the vibe is just no good. No good at all.

            Anybody who wants to check it out, 2 pieces of advice: smoke only small amounts at a time, and don’t mix that shit with booze.

            1. The danger in banning naturally occurring psychoactive plants is not that people will smoke nothing, but rather that they will smoke anything at all.

            2. Could you pilot a heighliner through fold space?

              1. If he can, I say that we should take a trip to Ix.

                1. I find these comments confusing and, frankly, frightening. Must be a Spice flashback.

                  1. If you’re referring to what’s called “K2” here, I believe, I can’t use it because I can’t inhale smoke. (Well, I could, but it would be a bad idea).

                    I have a friend who can be drug tested at any time on the job, and he was happy as hell to find something other than booze. (I was happy, too, because he has a problem with using alcohol).

                    Then I hear about these fucktards who want to outlaw it, and I’d really like to see them die in horrible car crashes.

                2. Makes sense to me. Most of the other Dune worlds sound pretty shitty.

            3. Thanks for the warning. Which one did you try? I’ve heard the different varieties have different effects.

              I’ve been considering trying it, it’s been many years since I’ve smoked the natural stuff. The fact that it’s undetectable by work drug tests seems like a real plus.

              On a side note, I’ve never had a good experience mixing any drug with booze.

              1. For the record, my friend has enjoyed it a lot. In small doses, he says it’s hard to tell from pot.

                Unfortunately, I don’t know what brands he gets. And since he had “K2”, I don’t know if it’s different than what Rhyader was talking about.

                I do know that some random asshole at a headshop said it couldn’t be used in a vaporizer, though.

              2. @TB: They had a bunch of stuff at the local head shop, but I grabbed the “3X” version of this stuff based on the head-shop-dude’s recommendation:

                http://yeah-right-incense.com/

                (I thought the blatant off-label usage implication in the product name was a plus.)

                I wouldn’t say “don’t try it” — it’s not gonna kill you, and like I said the stuff definitely has an effect. Nothing wrong with checking it out, seeing how you like it.

                But compared to the real thing? Sheeeeeit, not even close. There’s no body to the high at all, and I didn’t get much in the way of mood elevation really — it’s just a head trip with what seemed like a bit of a harsh stimulant-like edge to it.

                Oh and the taste of this stuff sucks taint, but I’d imagine there’s quite a lot of variability between brands in that respect.

        2. best. comment. ever

      3. It’s not pleather?

    2. It’s close between Gillespie’s jacket and Napolitano’s hair.

  6. BAAAA-BA-BAA-BAA BAA-BA-BAA-BA-BAA-BAAA

    1. God am I ever horny all of the sudden…

  7. Why does every new political book have the same format:

    Something:How this long ass sentence can fix America.

    How about just calling it Freedom, Bitches.

    1. My personal favorite is this trend:

      “How to title something, or: how to make this look like the title to Dr. Strangelove.”

      1. That particular title format has been around for much longer than Dr. Strangelove.

        1. Yes, but Dr. Strangelove etched the format into the pop culture firmament.

      1. Great, let’s get Nick on board, and call the publisher to get this thing rolling.

        I’ll email you the address to send the royalty cheque to.

        1. Just put the address up here man. We won’t Cheye Calvo you, we promise.

    2. Ditch the comma. I won’t be an accurate title, but it will sell better.

      1. If they put some sort of yellow smiley face on the cover it will make the top 10 new york times best sellers.

        1. I’ve always been partial to the green HHGTTG armed version, but that is just the dork in me talking.

          Actually, I would buy that in a heartbeat.

          1. I like Kos’s book cover.

            It is incoherent and uses complexity to hide its short comings. Thereby, even if by accident, actually allows one to judge the book from the cover.

            1. It isn’t really that complex or incoherent. It’s got 3 things:

              1) Smiley face (but frowning). Hearkens to the cover of Liberal Fascism (which had an actual smiley face). Indicates the point of this book is “so’s your mum” to Goldberg, except (frowny face considered) shriller.

              2) The headgear on the smiley is just supposed to call to mind the Taliban.

              3) The American flag is supposed to represent patriotism, and draw an analogy between religious fundamentalism and patriotism.

              Boom, cover analyzed.

              1. 1. How the fuck is anyone supposed to know that?

                2. When I see a turban I think of Sihks.

                3. Women have been wearing American flag bikinis since the 60s.

                1. 1. The target audience is people who were and are still butthurt over the fact the Goldberg had the nerve to point out that the last group of leftists who migrated over to authoritarian corporatism were lead by a guy named Mussolini.

                  2. Type “Taliban” in Google Image Search

                  3. God bless ’em.

    3. That is a much better title.

  8. Fine, I’ll subscribe to Reason, dammit!

  9. Defamation. Sue until it hurts.

    If you prefer to handle this on the field of honor, have your seconds call on his seconds. I recommend sabers, if you can manipulate him into selecting them–your jacket may serve as a useful defense against any slashing attacks.

  10. [Tim] Carney goes on to note that there are no “liberaltarian” politicians currently in Congress and that the most free-market-oriented pols (e.g., Rep. Ron Paul of Texas) are actually very conservative on abortion and other social issues.

    What’s so conservative about believing abortion is the killing of a human being? It is simply a logical corollary to the principle that one does NOT have a right to kill another human being.

    Is being in favor of legalized abortion (which I am), the crux? […]In fact, [that issue] proceed[s] from the same belief in the individual’s right to maximum autonomy.

    Maximum autonomy does not confer one a right to kill another human being, as that other human being would also have (ta-da!) maximum autonomy, and the act of killing him or her would unduly negate that freedom.

    1. would it be better if it was carried to term and left to starve? I don’t only think we should legalize abortions- we should ENCOURAGE them!

      1. Re: Spencer Smith,

        would it be better if it was carried to term and left to starve?

        Is that the only alternative there is, SS?

        I don’t only think we should legalize abortions- we should ENCOURAGE them!

        In your case, just too late.

        1. I heard that the Libertarnian creed is “I reject the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” If abortion is not the initiation of force, nothing is.

          1. As opposed to forcing someone to house an unwanted parasite to full term? Then force them to pay for them for an extended term?

            1. “As opposed to forcing someone to house an unwanted parasite to full term?”

              Then they shouldn’t fuck.

              I don’t get trichinosis. You know why? I don’t eat raw pork.

              1. I don’t get trichinosis. You know why? I don’t eat raw pork.

                nu-uh. Because the FDA enforces strict standards.

                1. Are you seriously proposing the FDA to release standards for sperm quality?

              2. So if someone fucks and get’s the clap- too bad so sad?

                What the motherfuck is wrong with your brain?!

                Also, if you ate raw pork and got trichinosis, by your logic, you should be forced to live and die with it.

                1. So to you, trichinella = fetus?

            2. Re: Spencer Smith,

              As opposed to forcing someone to house an unwanted parasite to full term?

              Is a human a parasite now?

              Then force them to pay for them for an extended term?

              One doesn’t have to.

              1. A fetus is a parasite, yes. Scientifically speaking, they are a parasite on the mother.

                1. Scientifically speaking, they’re a symbiote. You know, because replicating half of an organism’s genes is beneficial to that organism from the biological/evolutionary perspective.

                  1. Yes, but the difference between an unwanted symbiote and a parasite are negligible for these purposes.

            3. Well, in theory, you could ban hospital abortions but not coat hanger abortions. As a matter of fact, conservative states are putting so much red tape into getting a hospital abortion that this might well be the future.

              Of course many are just hypocrites who want to legalize abortion but ban pregnant smoking.

          2. I initiated force against a pimple on my shoulder this morning. Where do I turn in my tinfoil hat?

        2. Come on now. It’s not the only alternative, no. And to my second point, making abortions readily available leads to decrease in crime and poverty.

          1. Re: Spencer Smith,

            It’s not the only alternative, no. And to my second point, making abortions readily available leads to decrease in crime and poverty.

            On crime: If reducing the number of births reduces crime, why stop there? Obtain a few statistics, see where crime is more prevalent, and carpet-bomb the hell out of them. Eugenecists would be so proud . . .

            On poverty: What are you talking about? Bangladesh-level poverty or USA-level poverty? BOTH are based on arbitrary bar-setting by eleutherophobic economists and sociologists.

            1. Has nothing to do with eugenics. When people wanted abortions and couldn’t get them and were forced to have unwanted children, crime rates rose. When access to abortions became more widespread, lessening the number of unwanted/uncared for children, crime rates dropped.

              On poverty: take the term relativistically.

              1. Your conception of force is bizarre.

                1. Denying someone the ability to do something is equal to using force to keep them from doing it.

                  Why, because if they do it then you will punish them with force. That means it is the force, or the threat of using that force, that is the deterrent, not the original rule denying them the ability to do it.

              2. One day science will discover what causes pregnancy, then people can avoid that thing, and there won’t be any more unwanted pregnancies. After that, we’ll find a way to prevent unwanted hangovers.

                1. And on that day we will learn to quit being hypocritical with our morality. We will no attempt to force our moral and religious beliefs on others.

                  Now, I’m not saying we should pay for their choices/mistakes, but we should allow them the remedy.

                  1. Isn’t murder ‘murder’ regardless of one’s religious beliefs? I could be wrong but maybe some in the pro-life crowd don’t base their opposition on religion.

                    1. Sure it is, but aborting a fetus isn’t murder.

                      Win the war of WORDS.

                    2. Aborting a fetus is murder.

                      That was easy. Now what?

                    3. No it’s not murder. You haven’t proven it so. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it so.

              3. Re: Spencer Smith,

                Has nothing to do with eugenics.

                Of course it doesn’t . . . for you.

                When people wanted abortions and couldn’t get them and were forced to have unwanted children, crime rates rose.

                Absolutely right! The 50s, for instance, was a veritable BLOOD BATH but, right after Roe v. Wade, people could finally leave their keys inside their cars… in Queens, NY.

                When access to abortions became more widespread, lessening the number of unwanted/uncared for children, crime rates dropped.

                Again, why stop there – if getting rid of unborn children stops crime, I am pretty sure that getting rid of the mothers and sibblings will cut crime even FURTHER.

                On poverty: take the term relativistically.

                You’re an idiot – and I am taking your intelligence relativistically.

                1. I’m taking your ability to reason as nonexistent. You sir, are a hipocritical fucktard.

              4. I don’t think the social engineering argument is going to carry you very far here. (It does in other places, yes)

            2. “eleutherophobic”

              I think I know what was Word of the Day on someone’s calendar today…

              1. eleutherophobic

                OM, speak english or git outta my countrey.

                1. That’s a new one for me. God knows it’s appropriate these days.

              2. A few days ago… it’s been popping up the last 2-3 days.

      2. “would it be better if it was carried to term and left to starve?”

        If it’s a straw baby, then yes.

          1. So if I slap the shit out of you, I’ve initiated force, and face crinimal charges. If you kill me, it’s no harm, no foul. Is narcissism libertarian?

            1. Are you a fetus that relies on a biological connection to me to exist? if so, then yes, I can eliminate you with no harm and no foul. If not, then no, I should be punished for killing you- much like you should be punished for attempting to slap the shit out of me.

              1. When’s your cutoff for when one no longer “relies on biological connection”? Because we’re sitting on 20 weeks now, and it’s getting pushed back more and more.

                1. When’s your cutoff for when one no longer “relies on biological connection”? Because we’re sitting on 20 weeks now, and it’s getting pushed back more and more.

                  At 20 weeks you are looking at a being that relies on a biological connection or an extremely expensive technological replacement for that connection. And even under the best care, a 20 week preterm child will have significantly elevated risk for potentially quite severe life-long disabilities.

                  1. “At 20 weeks you are looking at a being that relies on… an extremely expensive technological replacement for that [biological] connection.”

                    So, if someone’s child will die without a certain expensive treatment, the parent not only has the right to refuse to acquire that treatment, but to straight-up kill the child?

                    “And even under the best care, a 20 week preterm child will have significantly elevated risk for potentially quite severe life-long disabilities.”

                    I know if my daughter ever gets diabetes or some serious illness, I’ll have to take her to the vet to have her put down. Can’t bear to see her in pain.

                    Look, those arguments don’t hold water if a fetus is the moral equivalent of a person. If it isn’t, they don’t have to be made in the first place.

              2. But then if I kick your belly and oops the fetus dies, then it’s only assault?

                1. Not if the intent was to bring the fetus to term. it’s really not that hard to get guys.

        1. You monster. You may not care about the mass murder of straw babies, but some of us do. Please have a little sensitivity.

      3. would it be better if it was carried to term and left to starve?

        There are very long waiting lists of couples looking for children to adopt.

        I am pro-choice. But Old Mex does have a point. The state does have a legitimate stake in determining when a person becomes a person by law.

        My personal opinion is the law should be a person is legally a person 3 months after conception.

        This is in line with most European nations….why 5 poeple on the supreme court gets to decide for 310 million people that in the US it is 6 months is tyrannical.

        1. The fact that there are a lot of people waiting to adopt is sad- but has no bearing whatsoever on the rights of those to abort. Maybe these people should step up and offer to pay for these women to carry babies to term and birth them in exchange for direct adoption. I have no problem with that.

          However, that statement belongs nowhere in an argument about abortion. If one suggests that it actually does- and we shouldn’t let them abort because other people will care for the fetus after it develops- then they are saying that it’s OK to force someone to have a child to fulfill the desires of another. That, of course, is wrong.

          1. However, that statement belongs nowhere in an argument about abortion.

            It does however have everything to do with your statement claiming unaborted children will starve.

            You know the one…I even quoted it for you. Here it is so you don’t get confused again:

            would it be better if it was carried to term and left to starve?

            See how that works? If the unaborted children get adopted then they will not starve. Complicated isn’t it?

            1. I NEVER said that unaborted children would starve. You have made an assumption and error in your argument.

          2. It does belong, because there actually are laws against the overt sale of babies for adoption. If it was as easy as standing outside an abortion clinic and showing a million dollar check to every pregnant chick who approaches, the debate would have already faded out and both sides would be (mostly) happy.

        2. There are very long waiting lists of couples looking for children to adopt.

          …healthy, non-black babies. You know, the kind that are rarely victims of abortion.

          Actually, I have a great deal of sympathy for the pro-life position, with my only reason for not being wholly in support of laws being that there are serious negative consequences of such laws. But you guys need to stop overstating your case.

          1. I actually agree with that. I am a pro-lifer by principle, but I am wary of the effects abortion laws cause and therefore do not generally promote changes in the legal status quo (either for or against)

            1. I should add that people who trumpet abortion being legal as a great triumph of individual choice deserve to have their teeth bashed out with bricks. It’s always a terrible thing that, perhaps, may be understandable if the surrounding circumstances are similarly terrible.

              It’s like setting a multiple murderer free because the cops screwed up the search of his house so that all the evidence had to be thrown out. A necessary thing for the rule of law and the preservation of innocent people’s freedoms, but not something to celebrate.

              1. Legal abortion is a great triumph of individual choice.

                1. Yeah, I bet you probably whack off in order to delight in genocide. Murderer!

                  1. hehe.
                    Sadly, my masturbatory fetishes are actually much stranger than that.

      4. Oh why yes, these libertarians all think the poor should starve!

      5. ANCHOR ABORTIONS, dammit! Therein is the solution acceptable across party lines (and party lions)!

  11. I was a Liberaltarian recently, at least for a while. After listening to Gingrich, et al, go slap happy stupid over that mosque thing, I couldn’t help. You get to the point with these morons that you can’t help but think “Dear God! Anything but that!”

    Then I read few of Chad and Tony’s incoherent ramblings and I came back to earth.

    1. Chad and Tony have never considered themselves libertarian in the least as far as I know…

      1. He didn’t say he went from liberaltarian to liberal, did he?

        1. the liberal lunacy of Chony shocked him back to standard libertarianism.

          1. It’s almost like claiming taxes don’t hurt production. I mean, they only hurt the rich people, right? It’s not like more regulation or higher taxes on businesses puts all but the wealthiest corporations out of work, right? Right?

            But Chad did make a good point, though; cutting taxes only to initiate inflationary spending is redundant. Inflation is a tax in it’s own right. Hence why we should reduce taxes AND spending.

            1. Inflation is the only tax that (some) liberals understand the effects of.

              1. You know, you have a point. They reject the notion that things like the income tax hurt the economy by robbing the consumer of some of his money which the government then spends on it’s preferred industries (military-industrial complex, anyone?), or that taxes on business either put businesses under or the costs are passed on to the consumer. But when it comes to the inflation “tax”, man are they lucid.

  12. ‘How exactly am I a liberaltarian, a term I didn’t invent, have never used as a self-description, or even have a clear understanding of what it means?’

    What has that to do with it? Consider a frog. No frog invented the term ‘frog’, used it as a self-description or even has a clear understanding of what it means.

    Doesn’t stop it being a frog.

    1. Who are you, Wittgenstein? It’s Friday, for God’s sake.

      1. New drinking rule: Reference Wittgenstein, drink.

        1. I didn’t start it.

        2. Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

          1. Oh, you’re just saying that.

      2. No, I see his point. Of course you can be something and not admit that you are.

        Take the term “emo” for example. Emo kids exist, emo bands exist, emo is a “fashion,” and a lifestyle. Yet very, very few people will admit to being “emo” and it’s almost exclusively a term of abuse.

        1. Emo is a music style that slows down and speeds up tempo as well as raises the volume and lowers the volume of various instruments during a song.

          In other words an Emo song is a song that isn’t 2 min of white noise.

          1. “emo” is a famously difficult term to define…but this is, perhaps, the worst attempt at such a definition I have read.

            “Emo” – as far as I can tell from the dominate usage of the term, it does not describe anything about the objective qualities of the music (tempo, timbre, melody, etc…), but, instead, relates to either the subjective results of the music…or an attribution of the intent of the musician to evoke an emotional response other than “aggro” (a sub-category of “emo?”).

            1. or an attribution of the intent of the musician to evoke an emotional response other than “aggro” (a sub-category of “emo?”).

              Emo is short for emotional. I first learned of the term in the mid 90 from a musician.
              He explained the strategy to evoke emotions in pop rock music is to change tempo and volume. Specifically the music will be slow and quite and then suddenly become loud and fast.

              There are more complexities and additions to that strategy but in essence that is all it is.

              What is funny and what I was alluding to is that all music does this. If it did not then it would simply be white noise static.

              It should also be noted that it was the punk metal crowd that coined the term. And in fact it is their music that most closely resembles white noise static.

              When the term Emo was in its infancy it was my experience it would be musicians such as “Bar Feeders” calling a band like “Unwound” emo.

              Your version of the term emo is actually a derivative of its origin. Emo become a cultural phenomena just the same as metal or punk or disco.

              It is like you have a disco ball and telling me that ABBA is not disco because they had no sparkly balls.

              1. It is like you have a disco ball and telling me that ABBA is not disco because they had no sparkly balls.

                Huh? That’s not what I am saying at all.

                Your sense of the history of the term is correct. It was a term that came into being in the 80’s to describe bands like Rites of Spring as a shortening of “emotional” and primarily as an antonym to “aggro” (short for “aggravated”). But it never referenced the fast-slow-loud-soft thing you are referring to…partly because this is a trick used just as much to evoke “aggro” as “emo.”

                “Emo” has always been a term used to describe a subjective sense that the music is “tender” or “introspective” or some such thing even though it is loud rock music. It doesn’t, however, musically aggregate into a coherent genre.

                1. ‘aggro’ is aggressive or aggression, not aggravation.

                  Though I suppose it could fit.

            2. Objective musical qualities are as important to determining the subjective emotional response as the thematic content of the lyrics. I’d say that the emotional response generally has to be sadness or a related emotion for it to be considered emo, and that the emotions need to be expressed earnestly.

              Emo will tend to have a lower precieved loudness (ie more “space” in rhythms, distortion with minimal higher harmonics, bass quiet enough that it doesn’t produce a tactile sensation, etc), slower tempo, higher incidence of minor chords and keys, because those are the things that evoke the specified emotional response.

              1. MattXIV,

                Indeed “emo” can be instrumental as well as vocal music…and, yes, the objective form of the music will be the source of the subjective response. As you say…things like minor chords and timbre will be involved in evoking sadness-related emotions (there is some really good research on this). That said, the music that gets pegged as “emo” is often quite loud, quite dense(little space), and quite distorted because the term is most frequently used to describe loud, heavy, fast music that is nonetheless introspective or earnest (which I think is the key to the label more than “sadness” is).

        2. I thought “emo” meant porn with chicks with tattoos?

      3. Oh, and I suppose it’s “Friday” just because you say so, huh? Huh?!?

        1. “All time is an illusion. Tea time doubly so.”

          1. Douglas Adams, yes?

            Don’t Panic.

            1. I think the federal budget is being done with bistromathics.

              1. the trick of course is to leave before the chek shows up.

        2. I kind of forgot today was Friday, too.

        3. I read your comment and wonder why SugarFree doesn’t thrash you for insulting his manhood.

          1. For I am a peaceful man who seeks only harmony with all people.

            1. I cannot believe you just Godwinned this thread.

              1. I’m why we can’t have nice things.

                1. Your symbols of artificial construct are meaningless to me. Therefore, I made them into an anagram: “Caveat Witches Hymen Whining.”

                  1. You win this round, human.

                    1. You should use “Caveat Witches Hymen Whining” as a signature file.

    2. Uh, No duckfrog invented the term ‘frog’, used it as a self-description or even has a clear understanding of what it means.

      Calling a duck a frog doesn’t make it a frog either.

      1. If we call the tail on a four-legged dog a “leg”, how many legs does the dog have?

        Four, b/c etc. etc. what kilroy said

      2. The French, unlike Nick, surrendered to Hitler. They therefor have lost the right to describe themselves.

    3. ” Consider a frog. No frog invented the term ‘frog’, used it as a self-description or even has a clear understanding of what it means.”

      I respectfully disagree.

  13. Gillespie will become even more famous once he’s cast in the role he was born to play: the title character in a movie version of Baretta.

    1. He’d never wear a watch cap. It would mes up his hair and might clash with The Jacket.

  14. For me I think liberaltarianism (I prefer to refer to myself as a “free progressive”) would presuppose the belief that true laissez faire involves an end to the artificial corporate entity, and thus complete individual accountability for violations of the rights of others. This is largely rooted in the beliefs of Adam Smith and Thomas Paine.

    Perhaps Lindsey/Wilkinson are referring to libertarians who are far more forceful on the social issues while attempting outreach to liberals to attempt to convert them on the economic ones? That may be why you got classified as such, Nick.

    Left-libertarianism is a broad and diverse spectrum ranging from Bakunin-supporting Marxo-anarchists to Georgist single-taxers to the currently passe “New Democrats” to the aforementioned social-issues leaning libertarian.

    In practice, left-libertarianism is kind of the final open frontier of politics, as it has so rarely been tread upon due to the flawed yet broadly accepted idea that it is contradictory.

    1. “In practice, left-libertarianism is kind of the final open frontier of politics, as it has so rarely been tread upon due to the flawed yet broadly accepted idea that it is contradictory.”

      It also didn’t help that the Hippies thought freedom had to include freedom from bathing.

      Life, Liberty, and Funk

    2. presuppose the belief that true laissez faire involves an end to the artificial corporate entity,

      Why would artificial restrictions on business organizations and associations be consistent with laissez faire?

      complete individual accountability for violations of the rights of others.

      Which actually exists with limited liability corporations. The corporation itself is liable for violating others rights, as are the individuals that actually violate others rights. Passive investors, not liable, because they didn’t do anything wrong.

      the flawed yet broadly accepted idea that it is contradictory

      Since the core political principle of the left is that there are few things that the State should not control (upon a pro forma showing that its control is intended to benefit The People), I would say that leftism and libertarianism are inherently at odds.

      1. 1.) ?? I just said it would be INconsistent with laissez faire. However, I see enforcement against violators of individual rights (be they public or private entities or individuals) as the primary function of government, and a necessary requirement in a laissez faire system (I am not an anarchist, and believe anarchism would lead to a perpetual system of extortion by mafia that would violate individual rights).

        2.) Why must liability be artificially limited by government? Moreover, the corporate shield that makes it difficult to prosecute complicit corporate actors is what I am referring to. In a laissez-faire system there would only be proprietorships that purchase liability insurance. They can have investors in a similar fashion as a corporation, but the investors would likewise wish to purchase insurance to protect themselves. Such a system would give stockholders a vested interest in preventing their companies from violating the rights of others in the name of quick profits.

        3.) “the core political principle of the STATIST left”. Fixed. Since the modern Right tend to be equally statist, in different ways, the same argument would apply. There are many non-statist leftists however; in my opinion all Leftists should be, given the government’s record of oppression, militarism, elitism and violation of rights and the fact that government is far more likely to perpetuate than to break cycles of poverty.

        1. “Perpetual state of extortion by mafia that would violate individual rights”

          Hell, that doesn’t sound so different from what we put up with now.

          1. Of course, but at least we have the privilege of choosing our mafia, and there is a semblance of rule of law to protect us from their more violent impulses.

            1. Not that I’m defending the status quo, by the way, but the reasoning behind basic miniarchism.

      2. Pure laissez faire and limited liability are contradictory. Hobo has a point.

        Yes, I’ve heard the argument that limited liability could be produced by contract without govt involvement, but that’s baloney. A group of individuals could never possibly contract with every other individual that could ever possibly be harmed by the actions of their group, outside of contrived examples like a lunar colony with population 10 or something.

        1. Or a autonomous Marxist commune within Libertopia?

          Anyways, that’s why liability insurance would be the best system. If your business is dangerous, has a bad record of violating others’ rights, defrauds consumers, etc., their liability would go up, therefore the cost of insurance would go up. The insurance cost for the individual, non-participating stockholder would be minimal because of the lesser possibility they would be found personally accountable for the commission of the crime. The managers and participants complicit in real crimes should be fully accountable, however, risking jail time and with all their personal wealth on the table, like it is for any other criminal.

          Laissez faire would require a system of strong tort law to determine what is and isn’t a violation of the natural rights of others and who is responsible, and the precedent would act as a deterrent that would naturally encourage businesses to remain honest and respective of individual rights.

          Which reminds me to preempt my anarchocapitalist friends, who will likely call me a statist for the above: government is not the only violator of individual rights.

          1. It’s never the only, but it’s usually the one with the most power to do so and least chances it’ll redress it.

            1. In an anarcho capitalist system, other abusers of rights would come out of the woodwork soon enough. Eventually, one or more would operate in a way indistinguishable from that of a government…though probably more like an autocratic one than a democratic one.

              1. Look at the examples where government breaks down (Katrina, Somalia, etc.) It really brings out the best in people as far as respecting the rights of others is concerned…

  15. Liberaltarian is a lie. Conservative libertarian is a lie.

    “the statement in quotations is false.”

    Suck it, Bitches: Or why Your stupidity is hurting my liberty. That’s a better book title.

  16. My favorite title is of the Ray Dennis Steckler film The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living And Became Mixed Up Zombies. Originally the film was to be titled The Incredibly Strange Creatures, or Why I Stopped Living and Became a Mixed-up Zombie. According to Steckler, Columbia Pictures threatened to sue over the similarity of the title to “Strangelove,” which was in production at the time, and he didn’t care to argue over it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..Up_Zombies

    Also, it’s my favorite low-budget horror movie evah!

    1. MST3K’s treatment of that movie is one of my favorites.

  17. Beautiful rant, Nick. Some people can’t get out of the left-right paradigm and think everyone falls into one camp or the other.

  18. Did you ever see The Thrill Killers? Steckler plays the lead.

  19. Liberaltarian… an interesting label. Perhaps it could broken down into something like this: A Libertarian supports human freedom, period. Economic and social. But how one acts personally with that freedom might drive the Liberaltarian label to be applied. For instance, when Reason shifted to Nick’s leadership, it started to read a bit more like High Times (I guess — I’ve never read it). In other words, more articles on ending the drug war, and frankly even a few that were pretty much pro-Marijuana use. So, I support that freedom for Nick or whomever (as a Libertarian), but have no interest in using dope personally. Does that make me a Liberservative?

    1. Technically, Conservatarian

    2. i think that happened more because the WOD has really poisoned the governmental landscape to the point that it has become one of the greatest enemies to civil liberties we have seen in a long time.

    3. To be fair, the Gillespie accession coincided with the beginning of the Bush administration, the wars on Terra, and the end of the 90s boom. Peace and prosperity are usually good for libertarianism, so Postrel’s regime could afford to be more upbeat and focused on positive things.

  20. Sorry, libertarians, we’re just not wanted by liberals. Any thoughts of a liberal/libertarian merge are a pipe dream coming only from the libertarian side. Find me ONE progressive who wants anything to do with libertarians. Even Tony and Chad can agree with me on that point. Ask the founder of Whole Foods how libertarians get treated in the leftist sphere. Ask John Stossel how his liberal friends treated him at ABC.

    On the other hand, conservatives are a lot more willing to embrace us. Look at John Stossel getting a show on Fox News. Glenn Beck is willing to back off on the gay marriage issue. Ron Paul is far more libertarian than anyone on the left.

    In fact, living among lefty liberals, being a libertarian makes me more resented, since if I say something about free-markets, they want to also accuse me of homophobia, religious fanatacism or Bush-loving. Since they can’t do it truthfully, they get even more vicious.

    Get over it.

    1. This is true, because when it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter how many issues on which there is agreement. Libertarians and liberals will never be able to reconcile individualism with liberal hive mind.

      1. If you rely on rugged Randian individualism to argue for letting non-productive babies, the handicapped, dependent grandmas and other “parasites” starve to death, you won’t win many liberal friends. If you propose voluntary collectivism and non-government communitarianism as a far superior avenue to enact change than the State, then they might be open to conversation.

        1. Ayn Rand herself said she believes charities are a better venue than the state for looking after the less fortunate.

          I rarely hear any libertarians saying the handicapped should be left to die in the streets.

          I also have rarely met any progressives who don’t believe that most people (themselves excluded) are too dumb or selfish to do any good without the guiding hand of government.

          1. See also: The Libertarian Macho Flash.

            I’m not saying that hardly any libertarians would support letting the handicapped die out in the streets; I’m saying a strict reading of the philosophy justifies such action by assuming we have no responsibility to anyone else, ever our own dependents.

            Second point: Saul Alinsky. I know plenty of liberals who hate the government; they are generally too brainwashed, uneducated on economics or uncreative to think of a better alternative.

            1. Wait – I mean “I’m sure hardly any libertarians”…proofreading is good.

              1. It may be that strict Ayn Randian doctrine states as you say it does above. However, I think when most libertarians/conservatives criticize leftist policies, they aren’t saying things like “you’re assuming it’s a problem that people die in the streets.” It’s because they point out many leftist policies cause more harm than good, and often don’t effectively solve the problems they set out to address.

                Most liberals I know who hate the government only do so because they believe it currently has the wrong people in charge, or is co-opted too much by other interests. Or, with the current administration, the problem isn’t the government, it’s those tyrannical moderate Democrats and the evil Republican minority. They aren’t generally skeptical of governmental power. In fact, so many lately have thought that if only Obama had MORE power, then things would really get done.

                And, I also know leftists who use terms like “voluntary collectivism” or even purport to be anarchists. However, once they start giving details, in the end it involves government coercion to implement their ideas.

                1. Oh, left anarchists do exist, and I happen to agree with them often when I encounter them. But they are equally shunned by the mainstream left for daring question the wisdom of top-down solutions, central planning, and similar left-liberal orthodoxy. Libertopia would probably end up having a lot of left anarchists within, living in their own gated communities not unlike the Amish.

                2. “Most liberals I know who hate the government only do so because they believe it currently has the wrong people in charge, or is co-opted too much by other interests.”

                  And you could say the same exact thing about most conservatives, who barely complained at all about too much government power during the Bush funfest. We must never forget, ever, that Republicans only hate government because they are not in charge. Also note, blinded by their hatred of the government, they are righteously criticizing the Obama Administration for cutting military spending and Medicare, and not using the full force of the U.S. government for hunting down and deporting undocumented farm hands and day laborers.

                  Libertarianism has long tried outreach to “conservatives” who are supposedly anti-government, and it seems like we’ve largely reached our limit, because they are not really anti-government. Marketing to different groups who traditionally fall on the Left but are being repeatedly screwed by the system is the best way to grow a serious libertarian coalition.

                  Talk to any group with a history of government oppression, be they Latinos, homosexuals, African-Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Americans, etc. with the argument that government can be a force of brutality if in the wrong hands and ask why on Earth do they want to make that force more powerful and stake their very livelihood on the naive belief in the perpetual competence, goodness and charity of wealthy politicians? If they understood economics, they would learn that government debt-created inflation is like a secret tax that disproportionately hurts poor people. Of course it’s not easy combating decades of brainwash, but then, is convincing war-macho evangelicals about pacifism and respecting the right to be a libertine really significantly more viable?

                  1. All good points, and libertarians should always be on the lookout for any potential alliances. I just don’t think that the left, at least in any current form, is a likely candidate. I just don’t hear any prominent leftists showing any sincere interest in free-market economics. Same goes for the right.

                    The sad truth is, if the Libertarian Party ever became a viable political force, either as a coalition or it’s own party, it would eventually be co-opted by big government types.

                    I frankly think anyone who goes into politics has all the wrong instincts anyways.

                  2. The problem is not run of the mill, grassroots conservatives. The problem is Republicans who convince conservatives to vote for them, and then go to DC and become part of government.

    2. I’ve regretfully come to agree with this. The girlfriend is doing a PhD program in poli-sci (I know, I know), and the socio-academic hostility toward libertarianism was pretty shocking to me initially. They won’t even agree with us on the shit they agree with us on.

      Something about deciding you’re a “progressive” seems to immediately convert you to an insufferable arrogant asshole.

      1. Something about deciding you’re a “progressive” seems to immediately convert you to an insufferable arrogant asshole.

        You need to throw the causation into reverse.

      2. Hegemony!

        1. “Hegemony”

          The old policy debater in me just really has to rotfl that one.

      3. They won’t even agree with us on the shit they agree with us on.

        That in an of itself isn’t an indictment… I mean, jeez. Look at us.

        1. I agree completely, but you’re still wrong.

    3. Find me ONE progressive who wants anything to do with libertarians

      The ones who made up the term liberaltarian.

      1. Who was that? Unless you know this for a fact, I wouldn’t assume it wasn’t a libertarian who was merely hoping.

          1. I’ll be damned. I still think it will be a cold day in hell before a significant number of progressives let go of their obsession with entitlement spending and wealth transfer for there to be any real alliance.

            For better of for worse, conservatives seem to be becoming more tolerant on social issues a lot more quickly than liberals are moving towards libertarians on economic ones.

            1. One more thing, that was written in 2006, when there was still a Rebublican president, liberals wanted more to bring more people in on the fold. Now that they have the presidency and congress, they have lost a lot of interest in what libertarians think.

            2. For better of for worse, conservatives seem to be becoming more tolerant on social issues a lot more quickly than liberals are moving towards libertarians on economic ones.

              Of course they are–for the same reason that liberals appear so freedom minded on social issues–they don’t matter.

              Social issues will work themselves out to everyone’s satisfaction under extremely free economic conditions. Get to that point and it won’t matter if someone’s smoking pot, or marrying someone of the same sex–because there will be little impact.

              Liberals can gleefully contrast themselves by adopting the appearance of support for these issues because their suppression doesn’t need to happen until the hold of the state is complete–until then, they function as opiates for the usefully idiotic left.

              And it works–very few of them understand that they’re throwing away their ability to live the lives they want in exchange for state sanction on a gay union or on a legal toke.

              1. I’ve unfortunately started to think along these lines. In short, there’s no such thing as trading economic liberties for social ones.

              2. I’ve unfortunately started to think along these lines. In short, there’s no such thing as trading economic liberties for social ones.

    4. Ask the founder of Whole Foods how libertarians get treated in the leftist sphere. Ask John Stossel how his liberal friends treated him at ABC.

      Ask Ron Paul how his conservative friends treated him at FoxNews back in 2007-08. Ask the Reason writers who went on O’Reilly Factor for that matter.

      The party that’s completely shut off from control of government is always in love with limited govt. That’s why Dems were trumpeting transparency, federalism, and deficit control back in 2006. Once the GOP takes back Congress they’ll dump us faster than a used, unribbed condom.

      1. I am not arguing for a potential conservative/libertarian alliance. I think you are right. In fact, the original ‘liberaltarian’ article listed above was from 2006, when the left was out of power and hoping to bring more people on board.

        That having been said, even pre-Obama era, I saw a lot more Reason writers on Fox than on MSNBC, regardless of how they were treated.

      2. ‘Once the GOP takes back Congress they’ll dump us faster than a used, unribbed condom.’

        I forgot to mention this last point. If they take Congress back in November, and then dump us, I am fine with that. I am really hoping for gridlock. Even if they were smart enough to acknowledge libertarians for a short period of time, and dial down the social conservative rhetoric for a little while, it is progress. The fact that they realize that there are some things worse than tolerating gay marriage was unthinkable five years ago.

        Hopefully, one day Libertarians will have a long term part in a major political party, or be one themselves. I am not holding out hope it will happen ANY time soon.

  21. Thread Jack:

    BREAKING: Houston election headquarters warehouse burns to ground

    A few days ago we blogged how the Houston voter registrar had a press conference announcing widespread voter fraud and thousands of illegal and phony voter registrations submitted by an ACORN-like organization called “Houston Votes.” Those stories are here and here.

    Harris County Tax Assessor Collector [and voter registrar] Leo Vasquez accused the group of submitting thousands of bogus voter registration applications in recent months in what he said appears to be a campaign to taint the voter rolls.

    Well this morning Mr. Vasquez’s warehouse containing all of the voting machines, supplies and equipment burned to the ground. A note of caution: obviously law enforcement officials in Harris County will get to the bottom of this. We are posting this because, for now, Harris County is going to have a mess of an election in November because all of their equipment and supplies have been destroyed.

    UPDATE: Every voting machine for Houston is destroyed.

    http://electionlawcenter.com/2…..round.aspx

    1. A note of caution: obviously it is theoretically possible that law enforcement officials in Harris County will get to the bottom of this.

      1. Jeebus. I beg for formatting buttons, and what do I get?

        Effing threaded comments. NOT OK.

        1. There was a day, not long ago, when formatting was in the commenter tool box. Along with inline images, blink tags, and who knows what else?

          But then Mike the Oppressor deprived us, making us lesser beings.

            1. The Day of the Commenters.

            2. Such a bad man…

          1. We still have ascii art…

    2. Harris County Tax Assessor Collector [and voter registrar] Leo Vasquez accused the group [Houston Votes, an ACORN-like organization] of submitting thousands of bogus voter registration applications in recent months in what he said appears to be a campaign to taint the voter rolls.

      Well this morning Mr. Vasquez’s warehouse containing all of the voting machines, supplies and equipment burned to the ground.

      Well, at least he wasn’t kneecapped!

      Fortunately, I cannot vote, so I don’t give a shit.

  22. If you vote Democrat, you are a Democrat.
    Stop being cowards and just call yourselves Democrats.

  23. Glenn Greenwald is the most prominent liberaltarian I can think of.

    Gillespie doesn’t even come close to being one.

    They have profaned The Jacket! I propose that we respond with direct action. Let’s egg their cars. With deviled eggs.

    1. They have profaned The Jacket! I propose that we respond with direct action. Let’s egg their cars. With deviled eggs.

      I have been reading some stuff on 4chan’s wiki.

      Compared to them we really are pussies.

    2. hey here is a better plan…we all go over to the comment section of Tim Carney’s article and call him a fucking idiot.

      Who is with me?

      1. Can we make things blink ? I have a short attention span otherwise.

        1. lame I posted “Timothy is a fucking idiot” in the comments and it got deleted.

          The Washington examiner hates free speech.

  24. I thought libraltarian was more of an alliance. Libertarians looking for common ground with the left that we can agree on and push for.

    Saying a person is a liberaltarian is like calling someone a NATO. It makes no sense.

  25. If we make a definition of “libertarian” so strict that Ron Paul can’t be a member, then there’s no reason we can’t continue tightening the definition until nobody is left but ourselves.

    By these standards any of us could be “the most famous libertarian.”

    1. Congratulations. You’ve discovered the secret. There are slightly more strains of libertarianism than libertarians.

  26. How exactly am I a liberaltarian,

    You left our Iraq/Afghanistan/GWOT. That was a big dividing line between conservatarians and liberaltarians, maybe THE big dividing line.

    I consider myself a libertarian, too, but a lot of libertarians opposed to I/A/GWOT (on libertarian grounds I can respect, even if I disagree) tended to think of me as a conservative due to favoring intervention and harsh interrogation in the GWOT. I’m usually about where Glenn Reynolds is on these things.

    1. I can see foreign interventionism as not inconsistent with libertarianism, however foolish I consider it on other grounds.

      The torture I have a harder time with.

      1. YMMV. Personally I’m a heartless sociopath, so it seems illogical that if our troops can shoot terrorists, they can’t also, under certain circumstances, discomfort them in order extract valuable information from them, at least within certain parameters. I was fine with waterboarding 3 senior AQ.

        OTOH I certainly don’t want this spreading, esp. into domestic policy, so I appreciate that there are strong headwinds pushing back on this.

        1. how’s that Iraq “victory” coming along Dave?

          Thinking you’re a military dumb-ass doesn’t make us “liberal”. Everything you ever wrote about Iraq is laughable and proven daily to be nonsense.

  27. Gillespie, your early 1990s-era BBS message-thread games bore me… How does this improve upon all those interminable discussions of “who was the 1st punk rocker” (once I saw someone make the memorable answer to this, “Fred Flintstone”)

  28. Anyone else look at that photo and think. “I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue”

  29. : “Makes you wonder ? maybe there’s something about the socially liberal agenda that draws someone away from economic freedom”

    When you’re trying tp remake society into your perception of what is “fairest”, most “compassionate”, and the “bettememt pf all” you can’t just let people run around and dispose of their eanings in a manner they see best. That would be counterproductive to your goal of making society better. They might spend it on foie gras, frivilous travel, hookers and blow. So they oulaw wjat they van and tax the rest.

    Good and proper behaviors, OTOH, like buying a home (whether you can afford it or not), making babies (whether you can afford them or not) or restoring economically unviable architectural treasures (old crappy buildings nobody wants to buy) get subsidized by taking monet from people.

    1. Allow mr to add that conservatives like to micromanage the market as well.

    2. get subsidized by taking monet from people.

      “It’s pronounced de mo-nay. Moooooo-nay.”

    3. Progressives are slaves to authority. It may be an meritocracy, but it is still just rank authoritarianism. They seem to believe there exists some credential that makes one “right” — like being born of a certain womb or a giving homage to a certain viewpoint.

      Libertarians are essentially at the other end of the spectrum. No matter how competent an authority proves itself they remain suspicious of it.

      1. And conservatives aren’t? Ok, never mind about the drug war, the Patriot Act, the wet dream of an ICE megabureaucracy, their disdain for the notion that the Constitution would limit their right to torture, etc.

        1. Lefties support all that shit now in the Age of Obama. Or haven’t you noticed?

          1. Dave C

            Yes lefty politicians do, but most of the base doesn’t.

            1. The GOP supported all the shit they are criticizing in Bush’s day as well. And therein is actually a similarity between the Left and Right. Their politicians are almost uniformly unprincipled.

        2. Progressives aren’t liberals, they’re ex-liberals that decided to discard all the nice things about liberalism and adopt all the shitty things about conservatism.

          1. The words progressive and liberal are so distorted it is difficult to make a distinction. From an economics standpoint, progressive means decreasing tax rates for decreasing means, not socialism. The word economic liberal still largely refers to “classical” except in the US. Can we start using the most accurate term, social democrats, yet? They certainly aren’t either progressive (as noted by their support for inflationary Keynesian policies that disproportionately burden the poor) or liberal (at least not since the Clinton years).

  30. Congratz Nick! Maybe Blago can play you when they make the movie.

  31. I refuse to think of Gillespie as a libertarian, mostly because I can imagine spending a half hour drinking beer with the guy without once feeling like punching him in the head.

    1. Sure, but you save all your real beatings for your wife and your meat, right?

  32. When someone decides that Matt is more famous, the headline will start with “In Which”.

  33. $17.79 for some book from a liberaltarian poindexter and some guy who looks like he’s Blago’s brother in a cheap black t-shirts. These guys are lucky the revolution didn’t start any earlier.

    1. But if you add another $7.21 you get free shipping.

  34. Doesn’t Carney know Gillespie appears on FNC ocassionally? -Therefore Gillespie is a retarded fascist right wing redneck sheep fu**er by association.

  35. You’re a liberaltarian because people who agree with you don’t want to admit to being libertarians.

    1. That is the perfect description.

  36. liberal lol u sound like a fascist apologist to me “free market” huh like corporations have a heart and soul .. everybody paying for anything they might need or require to survive the motive of the day to be profit rather than porperty like thats gonna work

  37. I don’t care to read all of the comments, but hopefully some smart guy mentions the Judge. If he doesn’t call himself libertarian then he’s lying to himself.

  38. I think liberaltarian is a pretty cool guy, eh aborts babes in SUV and doesnt afraid of anything.

  39. The Jacket protests and needs a dry cleaning.

  40. When Gillespie and Welch interview the CEO of Whole Foods and he says he supported Ron Paul in 2008 the look on their faces is priceless. He then starts talking about the Austrian business cycle. All Reason magazine did in 2008 is trash Ron Paul. Welch and Gillespie are third rate hacks.

    1. Dude, Ron Paul trashed himself. reason just reported the bad news about his newsletters.

  41. Conservatives can never be a true friend to libertarians because their support for limited government ends beyond the tip of their own nose.

    Let’s make the assumption that the average American conservative:
    – is native born
    – speaks English fluently
    – is not Muslim
    – is not gay
    – does not do illegal drugs (at least not anymore)
    – has never had the risk of military invasion or lived in a war zone

    All of the above are true for me as well but I have enough perspective to sympathize with and respect the absolute rights of people who have different experiences, characteristics and beliefs than I. The Left trends towards this broader perspective as well, although they react in a very different fashion that I do.

    Conservatives, however, have zero qualms about Big Gov policies as long as they are sure it won’t affect them personally, and it would make society more “comfortable” for them and those who share their values by excluding, oppressing or even killing anyone or anything that would threaten their longstanding, traditional way of life. From my experience, this is what conservatives see as the fundamental role of governments.

    When you have the mindset that the preservation of one’s own way of life (by any means necessary) takes precedence over the basic rights and freedoms of other people you don’t see or care about, I see little hope that would ever be able to make libertarian converts. They have always thought of and likely will always think of those invisible people as immoral or unknown/foreign or inferior or criminals deserving punishment or collateral damage for their own security.

    1. Interesting, but is not this equally true?

      Let’s make the assumption that the average American liberal:
      – is native born
      – speaks English fluently
      – is not Muslim
      – is not gay
      – does not do illegal drugs (at least not anymore)
      – has never had the risk of military invasion or lived in a war zone

      We could also assume, with the same level of certainty, that this applies to the average American libertarian, communist, nazi etcetera ad infinitum, no?

      And I would take deep exception to the idea that you have enough perspective to sympathize with and respect the absolute rights of people who have different experiences, characteristics and beliefs than yourself. Or that the Left trends towards this broader perspective as well, although they react in a very different fashion that you do.

      While this might be true of you, the immensely broad brush you use to paint the Left in a favorable light is, perhaps, not so full of paint as you might think.

      I find no respect on the Left for people who disagree with the precepts of the Left–whatever their background. In fact, in many cases, I see an almost unhinged emotional revulsion for those who express ideas that are not in accordance with Leftist dogma.

      As is made evident by your next statement. Despite your vaunted ‘perspective’, and your supposed ability to ‘sympathize’, you leap to a strange–and ideologically driven conclusion.

  42. I always took “liberaltarian” to mean a libertarian poseur, who would pretend to be libertarian because they want to heavily tax decriminalized marijuana, but in actuality were to the left of Che Guevara. You know, like the guy who runs Daily Kos.

    This is different from a left-libertarian. A liberaltarian is a liberal who pretends to be libertarian. Go to Berkeley and you’ll meet hundreds of them, every one of them with a beret, smoking a clove cigarette, and wanking off to Motorcyle Diaries.

  43. “Thus, The Jacket spake”

    I think Nick was shooting lazer beams out of his eyes as he wrote this.

    NONE SHALL CALL THE JACKET TEH LIBRAL!!! The entire neighborhood around him is in burning rubble, cars burning, dazed citizens wandering the streets in tattered clothes, hugging each other and sobbing, “why, lord, why… who offended the mighty Jacket? …where are the children…”

  44. I don’t think that Gillespie is a Liberaltarian – but certain other Resaonites have been – David Weigel and Julian Sanchez of Journolist fame come immediately to mind. And Suderman has been sounding pretty squishy lately too, probably something he caught from his fake-libertarian wife.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.