Libertarianism

Mother Jones Asks: Libertarian or Rapper?

|

Today Mother Jones asks "Can you tell the gun-and-gold-loving, tax-hating libertarians from the gun-and-gold-loving, tax-hating rappers?"

Click on the image below to take the quiz. (And for the sake of this exercise, set aside the whole "Ayn Rand hated libertarians like rappers hate other rappers who live on the opposite coast" issue. Focus on the woman's fierce hatred of her enemies, mastery of trash talk, and sweet bling.)

Of course, only fools would think they have to settle for one or the other:

NEXT: Will ObamaCare's Rules Put Some Health Insurers Out of Businesses?

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. 7 out of 10.

    1. Same here. I keep overestimating the rappers.

      1. I did too.

        1. 10 out of ten bitches!!

          1. Moocher, please!

            1. I grant your request for a moocher. By which I mean I have no idea what you’re saying.

          2. I reject the false choice between Libertarians and rappers.

  2. Only 6. I was hoping they were all attributable to Libertarians.

    1. Same here. Except in one place I was sure the statement was Libertarian, turned out to be the “rapper” (as Mother Jones calls them).

      I now think even more highly of “rappers”.

  3. What lazy ass graphics. Ron Paul stands for every libertarian and random black guy stands for every rapper? They should at least have the images change.

    1. When your ideology is based on a binary choice, most other things in life are too.

      1. TEAM RON and TEAM SEAN (Combs that is)?

        1. It’s less tiresome than TEAMRED/TEAMBLUE. And potentially much more entertaining.

          “If HE asks me if I like it, I love that shit… I brush my teeth to it.”

    2. More than just shoddy design, it felt like by clicking on Ron’s head, you were attributing everything to him.

      1. When you were really only attributing 5 things to Ayn Rand.

        1. I know. There were only three “libertarians” listed. Two were/are not libertarians and the other guy I never heard of.

    3. I was very confused by this.

      Well, I don’t remember Ron Paul saying this…

      SHIT! Bob Barr.

      1. Yeah, I knew there was no way Ron Paul licked whipped cream off buxom bosoms at a rally, but apparently the more risque gentleman from Georgia did so I got it wrong.

        1. Didn’t Barr also eat cheese made from the breast milk of a Kazakh whore?

          1. If he didn’t, he should have

    4. Same here — it confused me for a good while.

  4. Maybe I will have to stop being so dismissive of rap. But I am thinking the rappers are more anarchist than Libertarian. Opinions of others more versed in the rap subculture than I?

    1. I think MJ meant to be dismissive of libertarians by likening them to rappers… under the implicit assumption that rappers are violent, ignorant, criminal and greedy. There was very little of relevance to Libertarianism in the quiz – licked whipped cream off a chick’s breast?

      Really? That’s supposed to be informative as to the proclivities of Libertarians?? (BTW, I think it is more informative that someone would think this would be pejorative, just as it is more illustrative of the writers opinions about rappers that they would hew so closely to the racial stereotyping they would ordinarily condemn)

      1. There aren’t many people who are more sexist or racist than Mother Jones variety lefties. They think all racial minorities need their help, and they think all women are silly bubble-headded creatures who need to be told not to sell their bodies for sex.

      2. There was very little of relevance to Libertarianism in the quiz – licked whipped cream off a chick’s breast?

        I can’t figure out whethe rthat one was a rapper, or Ayn Rand.

    2. Even drug dealers and gangsters of early rap become a lot more sympathetic when you put the guys in the context of working within a naturally occurring black market due to government outlawing a product. Being persecuted and imprisoned for conducting voluntary business transactions is the stuff of Randian dystopias and is anathema to free market ideals.

      1. This.

        I haven’t really been a fan of the medium but the artists themselves usually get a lot of sympathy from me.

        They tend to DO the things that whiny little crybabies hope to be ALLOWED to one day.

        *I don’t mean crimes that deprive others. Mainly drug and gun violations.

    3. Some aspects of rap mesh with a fairly libertarian strain. But they don’t broadcast it as a cogent ideology. An overall distrust of government, particularly police and drug policy, is common among rappers of all ilks (the prison industry is a common target in “socially conscious” rap). I can’t think of a single rapper that has ever released a pro-war/nation building song. And many feel the government short changes people, especially poor people, in terms of education and whatnot.

      At the same time, most rappers are Democratic homers insofar that nearly all support Obama and large social programs.

      Anarchy isn’t really present in the rap I’ve heard, which is a shit ton. Most seem to still strive for the “correct/benevolent” leaders crap.

      At most you’ll get little nuggets of freedom friendly language in rap and almost all of it will be social and not based on economic freedom. Capitalism is not looked on kindly.

      1. Agreed. It’s more of a “fuck whitey” thing than a freedom thing.

    4. A lot of underground rappers are socialists.

      One such underground rapper, Immortal Technique, accuses many mainstream rappers of being secret Republicans. Not sure how hyperbolic/true that is, but given their feel for commerce I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a few closeted conservative/libertarian rappers.

  5. 8 of 10. How the fuck should I know what Ayn Rand liked in her jewelry?

    I did like the quiz though. Rappers (seriously, is there a less hip word than “rappers” these days?) and libertarians have a some things in common, yet Mother Jones has the same thing in common as both of them:

    Distrust in our government and financial systems, and a desire for less regulations. They needed a quiz for this?

    1. is there a less hip word than “rappers” these days

      hip-hop artists?

    2. I was going to note the dorky use of “rappers” as well. It’s very… my dad in the 90’s, being confused about the kids these days and their crazy music.

    3. What else are you going to call a person who raps? Or are the kids calling rhythmic speaking over a beat and/or musical accompaniment something else these days?

      1. Usually they are called MC’s, or the painfully descriptive “hip-hop artist” but “rappers” is reserved for unhip urban intellectuals and MSNBC.

        1. I have always thought the very early flight from the “rap” label was due to the easy and often accurate “crap” joke.

          1. bill mcneal is that you?

        2. Hmm. I sort of thought MC was a dated term at this point. At the risk of being seen as un-hip, I am going to keep it simple and call something “rap” if it is more like talking than singing and the people who perform such vocalizations “rappers”.

        3. But MCs are only a subset of rappers. What about hype men and DJs?

          1. Very fed DJ’s also rap. It’s too hard to spin the discs and rap at the same time. Hype men are rappers as far as I remember. Did people start referring to them as something else recently?

          2. Some are called MCs, but it’s spelled emcee. Rapper is still the main title. The terms are interchangeable really

        4. These days, I think the majority would more accurately be referred to as ‘pop artists’.

          Similarly, most R&B artists would more accurately be referred to as ‘auto tuners’.

          1. “Similarly, most R&B artists would more accurately be referred to as ‘auto tuners’.”

            Ha ha! Auto tunees, really, but since it’s not a word…

    4. Well, the giveaway to me was “pin.” Rappers wear more necklaces and rings than pins. Political folk, on the other hand, love them some pins.

      1. 8 out of 10. I got that question wrong, so I wish I’d thought of that.

        It was kinda cool of Rand, actually.

  6. 8 out of 10. Suck it, bitches!

      1. 9 here too. I never knew Bob Barr was that publicly expressive.

  7. “The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.”

    “Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.”

    “Blacks have ‘civil rights,’ preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black TV shows, black TV anchors, black scholarships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.”

    “But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology.”

    1. Please don’t be his porn.

      1. You don’t understand, NutraSweet: he is my porn, and he doesn’t even know it.

        1. I thought I was your porn. [runs sobbing from room]

          1. God, you chicks are so emotional. Are you having your period?

            1. “I don’t get a period. I’m a cartoon character.”

          2. I said, “Hobby Hanson is a n’ear!”

            1. [BELL RINGS]

              What did he say?

    2. Seemingly defeated, Janet slowly walked out of the living room of the small house back towards the bedroom she shared with Hallie’s three-year old son Jason. Terri snuffed out her cigarette in a plastic ashtray on the coffee table and leaned back on the couch, wondering to herself if Hallie had any potato chips or Twinkies anywhere in the kitchen.

      1. At first I thought this was some of Vanneman’s shit. Then I realized it wasn’t an excerpt from Pride and Prejudice.

        1. My favorite thread from yesterday, beginning here:

          https://reason.com/blog/2010/10…..nt_1956486

    3. Um, yeah. Okaaaayyyy, Hobie. That was… insightful. I think.

      Did that bottle have a label on it? Just because it LOOKS like whiskey, doesn’t mean it IS whiskey…

      1. You actually read it? Smirk.

        1. No, I was just getting his hopes up. I’d get more insight reading the label on the back of a can of WD-40.

  8. What is with calling people gun-lovers? I own and sometimes use a hammer as well as a gun, and I think everyone should be allowed to own either one, but no one ever calls me a hammer-lover.

    1. I am SO getting a tee-shirt with “Hammer Lover” on it. It will confuse people for all the wrong reasons.

      1. Definitely sounds like a euphemism for the “catcher” in a gay sex scene…NTTAWWT.

        1. Had em, yet oddly enough wore them TIGHT. Note the bleached sides and duck tail.
          *shakes head*

      2. Now, does Hammer love Guns is teh ?

    2. But go and fuck one sheep…..

    3. If you’ve never seen a true gun-lover, you’re not looking at the right web sites.

      1. a “true” gun, is that like a “real” doll?

        1. Infinitely more disturbing, though.

        2. Yes, made of high quality vinyl flesh, with easily-gribbable curves and a warm, inviting barrel…

    4. You don’t own me, bitch!!!

      (you can’t touch this!)

    5. I don’t know anybody who owns and meticulously maintains a dozen different varieties of hammers.

      When I meet them I will refer to them as a “hammer lover.”

      1. I’ve got like 6 different sizes of hammers, with varying shaped heads. 6 not enough? You’re welcome to try and take them from my cold dead hands if that helps.

        1. I’ve got four or five saws, too. So I guess I’m a saw lover. Weird thing about tools.

          1. True, dat.

          2. Dangerous-looking Assault Saws, I’m sure.

  9. The Left’s selective blindness to Rand not being a Libertarian still baffles me. From now on, I will posit that Kennedy was obviously a pedophile, being Catholic and all…

    1. When I found out that Mary Jo wasn’t 14, I just snapped.

      1. . oO
        (—-)

  10. 9 out of 10. And if anyone missed the obvious Wu-Tang lyric, they have to turn in their decoder ring immediately. Dolla dolla bill y’all indeed.

    1. They must also leave the 36 Chambers.

    2. Free market clan ain’t nuthin’ to fuck wit!

    3. Are the Wut Ang clan responsible for the silly fad of getting tattooed with Chinese ideoglyphs?

      I suppose it’s no dumber than giant clocks on chains around your neck.

  11. 6 out of 10.

    Viva capitalism.

  12. 10/10

    Test is too easy. MJ is just adding to the current grade inflation problem.

  13. Do rappers have to sip crunk juice every time they say, “For a magazine called ‘Reason’. . .”?

    1. codeine coough syrruppp is goood

  14. Lemme see if I follow the logic here…

    Mother Jones doesn’t like libertarians.

    Mother Jones suggests that it’s going to be difficult to tell the difference between a “rapper” (depicted as an urban man into the bling) and a libertarian (depicted by Ron Paul)

    Conclusion:

    Mother Jones doesn’t think much of or like urban people– because they sound like libertarians.

    I always suspected as much.

    1. urban man? ROFL

      It’s a black guy, you know the race and gender combination that dominates the rap industry. Urban man is a tad too politically correct and sounds like a a shitty superhero.

      1. a href=”http://binside.typepad.com/binside_tv/2009/06/jib-jab-obama-hes-barack-obama-superhero-video.html”>Urban Man has already been spotted over the skies of Capital City.

      2. In the flesh

        This is one of jibjab’s best.

      3. Here’s Urban Man in action. For some reason they keep flagging the link as spam, but it’s just JibJab at their best.

        http://binside.typepad.com/bin…..video.html

      4. Urban Man video. Won’t let me link for some reason.

        http://binside.typepad.com/bin…..video.html

      5. One of the “rap guys” in the quiz was Eminem though.

        1. I assumed the reference was to the image on the front of the quiz. Nonetheless the phrase “urban people” is hilarious.

          1. the phrase “urban people” is hilarious.

            Thank you, then my phrasing had its desired effect.

            1. You were successful, I saw that and couldn’t tell if it was intended, or just an actual politically correct faux pas gone horribly wrong.

              1. I’m a fan of Rip Torn’s character in the old HBO show, The Larry Sanders Show.

                There was an episode where a guest host (Jon Stewart– I’m told he’s jewish, not scottish!) had the Wu Tang Clan on. One of the network execs mused if possibly the Wu were too… “urban” for the Larry Sanders Show. Rip Torn quipped back, “Maybe I could have my friend Lenny Kravitz on… he’s only half urban!”

                1. Never seen the skit.

                  Well payed sir. Well played.

      6. depicted as an urban man into the bling

        That would be Rakim(a real live rapper).

  15. 7/10

    And since when were objectivists and libertarians the same?

    1. When Enter the Wu Tang was released.

      1. A is fuckin’-A!

        1. A ain’t nothin’ to fuck with.

    2. All objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists.

  16. I swear, I’ve never met a liberal who didn’t style him/herself a total expert on libertarians, all based on a reading a couple of chapters of Atlas Shrugged in college. Being the hip creatures that they are (is there anything on Earth more smug than a college freshman?) they just know, based on this extensive study, that libertarians are selfish wackos.

    1. Mother Jones has a long history of the libertarian hate.

      Here’s an article from 1996… 1996!!! decrying the dark, dangerous inherent libertarianism that pervades this new technology called “The Internet”.

      1. From the article:

        “. . . without the government, there would be no Internet . . .”

        That’s rich.

        1. Without Hitler there would be no internet.

        2. ‘Cause teh protocols R ALL difficile,
          And all dat shit,
          No way, no how,
          Could you do it wit out teh Government.

    2. with a name like “enjoy every sandwich” I just know you are selfish wacko. I just wanted a bite, you libertine jackass.

      1. You got me there, except for the part about being a libertine. I would be one but can’t afford it on my salary.

    3. (is there anything on Earth more smug than a college freshman?)

      27 year-old -Studies grad students who think reading a couple chapters Foucault entitles them to control everything because it all comes down to power, and they know about power?

    4. (is there anything on Earth more smug than a college freshman?)

      You’ve evidently never met any third-year law students.

      1. You’ve evidently never met any third-year law students.

        Until 99% of them get smacked in the face with the 2×4 of reality the very next year.

    5. I swear, I’ve never met a libertarian who didn’t style him/herself a total expert on objectivists, all based on a reading a couple of chapters of Atlas Shrugged in college.

      1. Not an expert as much as a don’t give a shit for something so meh.

        1. There’s a lot of things I don’t give a shit about because it’s so meh. Like landscaping design bores me but I don’t get all angry every time someone mentions a rose garden they just planted.

          1. Ayn Rand doesn’t anger me. Fountainhead wasn’t a bad read. Enjoyed it in fact. Atlas Shrugged though a great premise was a dull read, hence meh.

            1. In that case, I have nothing but respect for you. My problem is with the Pavlov’s dogs here who read any reference to Ayn Rand and feel a compulsive need to volunteer their disdain for anyone who likes her. And even then it only bothers me because they will never say what they hate about any of the ideas but they just vomit tabloids about her personal life.

  17. This sort of thing only works when you can’t distinguish big blocks of text. Like comparing the Unibomber and Al Gore, which was a hoot.

    1. The unibomber had a point.

      1. Oh really? Then why don’t you just take care of THIS!?

        1. Manbearpig!

  18. Not as good as the Jimmy Carter / Christine O’Donell quote quiz:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie…..epage=true

  19. Puzzled by all the Ayn Rand answers. I thought she called herself an Objectivist. Ah well, par for the course for those who worship the duopoly.

  20. 7/10. My pimp hand is weak, y’all.

    I have noticed a trend in liberal blogs and comment sections to use the phrase “self-identified” and “so-called” in connection with “libertarian”. If you don’t know the difference between an Objectivist, Ayn Rand, a miniarchist, an anarcho-capitalist, and a libertarian, maybe you should just STFU for a while.

    1. maybe you should just STFU for a while

      duly noted, back to work

      1. You watch that those boots don’t scuff the topless dancin’ floor.

    2. Most lefties seem to think that bailing out banks, massive business subsidies, and a massive defense industry is a core pillar of libertarian free market thinking…

      Yeah, I don’t even know.

      1. Granted, but I’m really just baffled at what they think what they define as “real” libertarians believe? I mean, I know they get their history from some dubious sources, but libertarianism (unadorned with an prefix) as been fairly stable ideologically for about 50 years now. It doesn’t have any near the tortured linguistics legacy of “anarchy” (which has meant damn near everything) and “liberal” (which is currently the opposite of it’s original meaning.)

        1. A lot of lefties, especially of the true believer Mother Jones types, insist that “libertarian” properly refers to leftist/socialist anarchy and that we co-opted the word from them and perverted the original, beautiful meaning. I think Noam Chomsky is the one who insists on this point most vehemently.

          1. That’s right, he champions that “libertarian socialism” nonsense.

            1. That’s unpossible. It ain’t socialism if sharing all of your shit is not coerced.

              1. No, when you share your shit because you want to, it’s called charity. Or being a sucker. Whichever.

          2. Hah, according to Rothbard we did coopt libertarian from them (much like they coopted liberalism from us).

            1. No backsies.

        2. Like they ever read outside of their own narrow ideological ghetto. Look at the NYT reporter who thought Hayek made up ‘rule-of-law’.

        3. Hell, going back to pre-20th century, whatever the movement was called then was still ideologically consistent with it’s ideals today. You could timewarp Bastiat, Spooner, Tucker, Nock, and a half dozen other authors, stick them on a blog, and their ideas are still relevant and part of the core libertarian philosophy.

      2. Yeah, and when you counter with “That’s not what libertarians support at all. In fact, it is the antithesis of what libertarians support”, they’ll come to the defense of the bailouts(at least) blaming the amorphous qualities of greed, selfishness, and backwoods racist stupidity of libertarians (Which = 5% of the voting public max, of which 80% give it up for Team Red/Blue every couple of years) as the rationale for it. It’s amazing that when their shithouse is drying out in the sun of economic realities, they have the gall to blame a minority of people who weren’t within a light year of the red button. Hypocritic Disingenuous Assholes (Good band name btw).

        1. “Hypocritic Disingenuous Assholes”

          I think they opened for Maroon 5 last week . . .

          1. I thought they were Maroon 5.

        2. Hey, don’t push you cis-gender, hetero centric, racist beliefs on us, pal. I bet you believe I math, too.

    3. … just STFU for a while.

      If only. Well we can dream, right?

    4. Well, in the case of anarcho-capitalists like me, I can tell you that they don’t even register the “anarcho” part; they hear their dog whistle word “capitalist” and that’s the end of any rational thought.

      1. Even if they heard “anacho” they would just think you were some dipshit bashing in the windows of a McDonald’s to “protest” “Globalism.”

        1. Unfortunately, that’s how everyone else but libertarians reacts when they hear the “anarcho” part. So basically, most people have extremely negative reactions to at least one of the two parts of the name.

          1. It would be a little rich for anyone besides the true ‘anarchos’ to go take that label back from the totalitarian thugs who protest globalization. You guys need to put on white bandanas and go take the brand back.

            1. I don’t understand what is so anarchist about the black mask wearing anarchists. Most of them want government-guaranteed everything and strongly support coercive pressure towards anyone who disagree with them. They aren’t against government systems, they are just against whatever the current government system is and provide absolutely no framework or philosphy for a stateless society.

              1. They aren’t anti-state. They are definitely anti-corporatist. However, I’ve yet to meet any other flavor of anarchist with flagrant disregard for private property. I think its more a life-style than a social philosophy.

      2. The funniest thing is that the typical leftist caricature of a “libertarian” is either an ignorant, paranoid, pot-smoking redneck with a lot of firearms and an exhaust-belching truck OR an amoral mustache-twirling billionaire that lives a lifestyle filled with fantastic technology sure to rape our planet and destroy society.

        1. We are a Shortening of The Way.

          1. We’re Crisco?

            1. Yes, my child.

              1. Not olive oil? I always thought we were olive oil.

                Clearly, conservatives are lard. That goes without saying. Liberals are some kind of nut oil, I think.

                1. My nuts do get mighty oily this time of year.

                  1. So do theirs.

                  2. This time of year mine tend to get vinegary. Perhaps we should hook-up.

                  3. By the way, Kwisatz Haderach would make a fine brand name for a new shortening.

                    1. By the way, Kwisatz Haderach would make a fine brand name for a new shortening.

                      For a truly transcendental pie crust.

                    2. Why just fold batter when you can fold space?

                    3. Muad’dib’s little sister loves short’nin short’nin
                      Muad’dib’s little sister loves short’nin bread

                    4. Elvis?

                    5. The Shortening must flow?

    5. Ha, the less they know the less likely they are to STFU. It is the way of the ignorant.

    6. Let’s see how I do:

      Ayn Rand – crazy Russian broad that wrote crappy novels as a vehicle for her philosophy

      Objectivist – worshiper of Ayn Rand

      minarchist – Someone who holds a night watchman state is valid, but not much else

      anarcho-capitalist – those who reject even a minimal state in favor of a market supplying everything

      libertarians – the people that hold individual liberty as the basis for legitimate government

      Can I write for MJ now, or am I grossly overqualified?

      1. Grossly.

      2. You form logical conclusions, so you’re so overqualified that they won’t even interview you; your salary requirements would be too high. What do you make, like $35,000/year? Way too high for them.

        1. If 35K is what those people make, no wonder they think capitalism is evil. They’re doing it wrong.

          1. Pretty much. Most MJ readers seem to be rich enough to indulge in the fantasy that capitalism is evil, or stuck in near-indentured servitude where capitalism sucks if you think yourself of a better class.

            1. Pretty sure its just the millenia-old technocratic ideal of incorruptible philosopher kings leading their poor less-intelligent brethren into a life of perfect harmony. The intellectual classes are whores to power.

              1. Its like they never read the part of Republic where everyone agrees that benevolent tyranny would only work in the best world, which we don’t live in. Actually, I’m not sure all of them even know that idea is old as Socrates.

          2. I’m pretty sure they get paid in free range radishes and patchouli.

      3. Ayn Rand-unidentified psychological problems, born somewhere else, wrote bad prose, Philosophy not relevant.

        Objectivist-mindless zombie, worship dead woman, philosophy still not relevant

        minarchist-simplified but roughly accurate summary of minarchist philosophy

        Anarcho-capitalist-simplified but roughly accurate summary of archo-capitalist philosophy

        libertarians-simplified but roughly accurate summary of libertarian philosophy

        Can I get pats on the back for pwning objectivism without dealing with any of the ideas now?

        1. It’s always more fun to mock objectivists than to seriously engage them, Fiscal Meth. They have a tendency towards humorlessness that is only exacerbated by mockery. As you’ve proven yet again…

          1. Kind of like calling grown ups poopooheads Hahahaha Poopoopeepee HAHAHA they never laugh and if you do it long enough they always tell you to knock it off……fartbrains HAHAHAHAHAHA

            1. Randriod reacts to charge of humorlessness by being humorless, film at 11.

  21. Six out of ten. Fuck me.

    An aside: inspired by the comment section, let’s play Name That Pathos!

    The followers of Alissa Rosenbaum don’t understand that she has committed one huge joke and you bought it..

    1. And from the same people that would rhetorically gnaw you down to the bone if you insisted on referring to a post-op MTF transgender as “Christopher” rather than “Christine.”

    2. You know, if it’s racist to call Obama by his middle name, what does it mean if you call Ayn Rand by her Jewish real name?

      1. Opposite intent. You mention “Hussein” to damn Obama; you mention “Rosenbaum” to redeem Rand. A nice Jewish girl was just playing a joke on you rubes. She actually loved the Commies that destroyed her country and family.

        1. oh I get it, her novels were satire! makes so much sense now!

          1. Wait, so Atlas Shrugged was a troll?

            Goddammit!

      2. Its only RACIST! if Republicans use the Obamessiah’s middle name. When lefties do it, they are celebrating diversity or something.

        1. You know who else wanted to identify everyone who had a Jewish heritage?

          1. ancestry.com?

          2. “Well, Hitler had pieces of flair that he made the Jews wear.”

  22. You know what would be a more useful exercise? MJ listing a bunch of public figures and asking, “Libertarian or not?” I’m betting that people like Newcular Titties Gingrich and GWB would get “libertarian” votes.

    1. That’s some easy money on that there bet!

    2. I’d like to see a Dictator/Progressive quote challenge. I’m sure you’d see a few jaws dropping when they see what their heroes think.

      Let’s start with a eugenics question.

      1. That’s why you’ll never see it.

  23. Here is the problem for progressives. (For which I am dearly grateful. )

    Despite all there efforts, it will NEVER EVER be cool to be pro-government.

    Because the *essence* of cool is rebellion. The essence of cool is going against the crowd, being in front of the crowd, standing up to authority, and questioning conventional wisdom.

    Libertarianism will *always* have a basic coolness factor that no amount of hate from the left will ever erase, and progressivism will always have an inherent wankishness that results for their basic support for central authority. And no amount of dressing people up in Che shirts and camo will ever nullify THAT.

    The only times progressivism has ever been cool is they are an oppositional minority. Wherever they become the dominant political force, they immediately turn into the most horrifyingly do-gooding intolerant biddies you can imagine, and instantly repell the rest of the population.

    My eternal satisfaction lies in this. Knowing that as the people who are against authority on principle, only a facist can really hate libertarians whole-heartedly.

    1. The problem is that liberals/progressives are not pro-authority or cheerleaders for government for their own sake. They just appear that way in contrast to radical antigovernment types like libertarians, who by the way have no business adjudicating on what is cool.

      Liberals are for good government that works to promote individual liberty and equality. Libertarians just say they’re for those things as if they were bumper stickers, and then carry on doing free propaganda work for the corporatocracy.

      1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      2. “liberals/progressives are not pro-authority or cheerleaders for government for their own sake”

        What a fuckin’ laugh. Thanks, Tony. You never fail to disappoint.

        1. I’m sick of your strawman bullshit, FIFY.

          1. Says the man who couldn’t construct an argument without his own significant investment in straw commodities.

      3. Liberals are for good government that works to promote individual liberty and equality.

        Such a thing has not existed in the history of human existence. And nothing about liberal/progressive policy would do anything to bring it about. I question whether it can ever exist.

        1. It can’t. Egalitarianism can no more be legislated than morality, which is why the far-left AND the far-right are both only in the game to push their respective lifestyle templates on us at the threat of gunpoint. Liberal politicians don’t really give a shit about Teh Poor; they only use the cause to get them into office. Likewise, conservative politicians really don’t fucking care about morality; they only use THAT set of issues to get THEM into power.

          Which is why we no more need to be led by the likes of Democrats OR Republicans. Fuck the whole lot.

        2. Well a functional anarcho-capitalist society has never existed either.

          What liberals HAVE accomplished through government activism, among other things, are equal voting rights for women and racial minorities, equal rights to participate in commerce, greater access to basic necessities and public goods such as education and healthcare, and we’re not done yet. What have you guys done besides jack off in your mothers’ basements?

          1. “and we’re not done yet”

            That’s the truly scary part.

          2. I jack off in the comfort of my home, which I own. I might have jacked off a time or two at my parents’ house.

            And you are missing the point that libertarians abhor the “system”, so many of us choose to have nothing to do with it. We leave that little playground to you and your soulmates, the neo-cons, while we hoard gold and guns for when your playground comes tumbling down.

            1. Kristen|10.19.10 @ 4:42PM|#
              I jack off in the comfort of my home, which I own. I might have jacked off a time or two at my parents’ house.

              So you’re a tranny?

          3. Hey Tony, I’m still waiting for you to list a tangible positive outcome from Obama. We’re closing in on 21 hours since you gave us all a good belly-laugh yesterday. Care to try again, you fucking simple-minded ass.

            1. Uh… Uh…!

              He made the nominal price of any silver and gold you may happen to own shoot through the roof and opened the way for drug dealers to take up a more reputable trade in the health care black market that will soon be forming?

              No, never mind. I can’t think of any tangible benefits. I’m so full of shit!

              1. He made the nominal price of any silver and gold you may happen to own shoot through the roof

                There are many of us who would say he destroyed the value of the dollar.

                Well, you say po-tay-to
                I say po-tah-to.

                Fucking slapdick.

            2. Hey I found a Facebook page for you!

              1. Wow, a page full of bullshit about all the things he hasn’t done yet but he’s going to do for us! That’ll sure prove my case!

                1. Hey, better yet: he also claims as his accomplishments things that never happened at all, such as economic recovery and massive job creation!

              2. I thought they’d close the page listing his accomplishments once he was sworn in.

              3. I especially like the picture of the man and woman who like the page (under the name Kevin Smith) that are sucking on the two-headed dildo. Now is that you on the left or right, Tony?

                1. That’s one of us on the left and the other one of us on the right.

          4. You left off housing projects and prisons.

            1. Is there really a difference in the two?

          5. A functional left-wing society has never existed.

            What liberals HAVE accomplished through their damned government meddling, among other things, is instigating costly and undeclared race and gender wars that destroyed both sides, the destruction of small businesses and strangulation of commerce through heavy regulation and rapacious taxation, horribly reduced access to basic necessities and public goods such as education, health care, and employment, and they’re not done destroying everyone’s liberties yet.

            What have you leftards ever done besides leech off your betters, and why shouldn’t we sentence every one of you parasites to death for treason, huh? Where’s this “functional society” you brag about? I don’t see it anywhere.

            “Activists” like you are parasites, and “activism” should be a capital crime. We need de-activists to help shut down and exterminate all these unwanted “helpers” Tony and his evil pals want on our case. Damn you and the horse’s asses you rode in on to Hell, leftards!

            1. A functional left-wing society has never existed.

              Lenin, Mao, Sung, Mugabe, Chavez and a few others wou….

              Oh, you said functional. Nevermind

          6. What liberals HAVE accomplished through government activism, among other things, are equal voting rights for women and racial minorities, equal rights to participate in commerce, greater access to basic necessities and public goods such as education and healthcare, and we’re not done yet.

            You are mixing up the accomplishments of classical liberals and progressives and socialists. Libertarians are a branch of classical liberalism … so we can equally argue that we’re responsible for abolishing slavery, giving women the vote, etc. And we are certainly very much FOR the equal right to participate in commerce (I doubt seriously that you are though).

            Where we diverge from you is on that last part – providing equal access to health care, education -and food and housing – and every other “necessity” of life. Because doing so requires extreme restrictions on individual liberty – including the right to participate in commerce – and has historically resulted in some of the most horrific tyrannys the world has ever witnessed.

            1. Hazel where have housing, healthcare, and food programs resulted in tyranny? Any country you’d want to live in on the planet has a heavily subsidized healthcare program of some sort, so where’s the tyranny?

              I claim the mantle of the liberal tradition and declare that libertarians on the whole, rather than being descendants of classical liberals, are actually the spawn of segregationists and birchers. And while I don’t think there’s a historical link, your economic philosophy fits right in with, shall we say, the more aristocratic traditions.

              1. “spawn of segregationists and birchers”

                More cocksucking bullshit. And I mean that in the ideological sense.

                1. You can hardly deny that for most of this country’s history anger at the federal government and calls for less of its intrusion into local affairs was over white people’s grievances about what they wanted to do with black people.

                  1. True, there are/have been such racist twits, Tony… but to compare the whole of modern libertarianism to such knuckle-dragging thought is absurd.

                    Makes for a great Mother Jones article, though.

              2. Zimbabwe.

                1. I wish we could answer Rhodesia.

                  Alas…

          7. I love the shit talk directed your way, Tony, but in all seriousness: there were many libertarians and classical liberals involved in those causes. Don’t do that revisionist history bullshit where your little tribe gets to claim credit for every positive thing that’s happened. Additionally, don’t act like today’s “liberals” are yesterday’s “liberals” — you and your type are NOT the heirs of the “liberal” Republicans who passed the Civil War Amendments. Finally, don’t get too self-righteous before you take into account all the BAD things your little tribe has done in pursuing all of its “goods.” I, for one, call the progressive “success” of implementing public schools, in the form they exist today, a human rights atrocity.

            1. Great analysis, TDR.

      4. the road to hell is paved with good intentions

        1. Does that qualify as shovel-ready? The White House is looking for an example.

      5. “Liberals are for good government that works to promote individual liberty…”

        Without even bothering to click over to the front page to look, I’d bet there are (at least) three Prop 19 articles, one health care article, and one free speech article that say liberals do not promote individual liberty.

        1. Ah yes the great and wise arbiter of the political thought spectrum that is reason magazine.

          1. Tony, this joke has really gone too far. Liberals couldn’t give two shits about the liberties of the individual, and you know it.

            1. You’d like to think that because it would justify your me-centric political philosophy as the only game in town. But it’s kinda hard to deny that individual liberty has increased over time, and it’s not because of small government assholes.

              1. Wow. I’m so full of shit.

              2. So how do you define “individual liberty”?

                1. How Tony defines individual liberty:

                  Government telling you what kind of car you may drive, whether or not you may eat trans-fats or salt, and coming soon: whether you may be allowed to smoke cigarettes in the comfort of your single-dwelling home.

                  Oh, and as he promised… there’s more to come. Proving that liberals want to micromanage our lives just as badly as conservatives – just in different ways. Somewhat.

              3. citation needed. I would posit that individual liberty peaked at about 10K BC and has been on the decline ever since.

              4. it’s kinda hard to deny that individual liberty has increased over time, and it’s not because of small government assholes.

                Which universe do you live in?
                The bill of rights is not a “small government” document?
                How about the Magna Carta?

                1. The bill of rights was an afterthought to a document meant to establish a strong central government. Why do you guys always ignore that part? Turns out, they were a good idea. The magna carta was a first step away from god-king rule. You can say that’s a step toward smaller government but I don’t think that formulation is relevant to the 13th century.

                  1. “a strong central government” doesn’t mean an overreaching, bloated, micromanaging, expensive-assed bureaucracy, Tony.

                    Face it, your definition of “anarchy” = “one less iota smaller than it is right at this moment”.

                  2. The bill of rights was an afterthought to a document meant to establish a strong central government.

                    I’m just gonna quote myself here.

                    progressivism will always have an inherent wankishness that results from their basic support for central authority

                    Yes Tony loves him some centralized government, and considers the bill of rights “an afterthought”.

                    I mean, can anyone come up with a hipper edgier position than that?

                    1. I mean, can anyone come up with a hipper edgier position than that?

                      Does wearing a Che shirt and reading Gabriel Garcia Marquez count as a “position?”

                    2. Tony continues to get his ass handed to him.

                      I’m beginning to think that he doesn’t come here for the hunting.

                    3. He likes to be spanked.

      6. Progressives promote equality at the expense of individual liberty, in the full knowledge of that fact.

        How else can you possibly characterize ObamaCare, if NOT a massive restriction on individual liberty in order to bring about more equal access to health care?

        Almost all the economic positions or progressives are *explicitly* about reducing individual liberty to make people more equal.

  24. 9/10. I must be racist.

  25. Seven out of ten. The one about Bob Barr and the breastusses threw me for a loop.

  26. I don’t think I’ve metalled you people enough lately. Divide and Conquer

  27. Rappers have an accepted history of killing one another over point-of-origin, place of residence, tribal/gang affiliations, and record deals.

    Quite frankly, fuck’em.

    1. Jesus what a cunt. There are thousands of rappers, but not thousands of rapper shootings.

      But I realize there are people like you who become bitter, so they cling to their spats and their Bing Crosby 78’s.

      1. Actually, my point was that all the things I listed were anathema to Ayn Rand, another distiction leberals cannot make.

        And I listen to Jerry Vale on wax cylinder.

          1. No, just murdering someone for one.

  28. Two points:

    “America needs fewer laws, not more prisons.” What the fuck is wrong with this sentence, Mother Jones?

    Oh, and why did you use a pic of Ron Paul to represent “libertarians”, while using a generic black guy to represent the rappers?

    That’s okay, I don’t expect you to answer directly. You’re a chickenshit liberal magazine, after all.

    1. Why? Because they’re ignorant, racist, sexist pieces of shite.

  29. You fucking conservatarians don’t deserve to be compared to rappers.

    Oh, and…
    TRUCKNUTZ!

    1. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!

  30. Grats reason, you found a way to get people to turn off NoScript.

  31. I did laugh but the Youtube vid is the dorkiest thing I’ve ever seen on Reason (that’s not something I say lightly)

    The MoJo Wire should team up with Zynga now to make a game about farm animals and iTunes shuffling

  32. Damn, my wife did better. No surprise, 9 years my junior.

  33. “Liberals are for… government that works to legislate individual liberty and equality”

    FIFY’d for ya, Tony. No charge.

    1. As opposed to what?

      1. As opposed to your original, flawed premise:

        “Liberals are for good government that works to promote individual liberty and equality. “.

        Fuck, you schmucks think “promote the general welfare” means “get more people dependent on welfare, which is a right guaranteed by government”. It isn’t, but that doesn’t stop Dems from handing out the welfare crack samples every two years.

        The far-right is, of course, no better for us than the far-left. It’s a shame you can’t see the logic in that.

        1. I do fail to see the logic in an obsessive devotion to false equivalence, yes.

          I will believe you’re a serious person when you stop crapping on poor people for a minute and focus on corporate welfare and welfare for the rich, which is much more expensive and much less morally justifiable. But you’re not gonna, because you have an emotional, cultural bone to pick, and you won’t let anything get in the way of that.

          1. See, that’s the thing – liberals’ very existence is crapping on poor people. You need to keep people poor to maintain your entire philosophy. In fact, it benefits you to create new poor people. Then you can tell them you’re working to help them and make them beholden to you. More poor people = more votes for liberals!

          2. You had me at “I do fail to see the logic”, Tony.

          3. Nice try, asshole. Like I haven’t been accused of hating minorities and poor people… by liberals.

          4. I will believe you’re a serious person when you stop crapping on poor people for a minute and focus on corporate welfare and welfare for the rich

            You mean like farm subsidies, social security, and medicare?

            Most retired people are relatively wealthy compared to the people working and paying taxes, you know.

            1. Most retired people are relatively wealthy compared to the people working and paying taxes, you know.

              And imagine how much wealthier they (and the rest of us) would be if they hadn’t had 15% of their lifetime earnings confiscated, laundered and then returned…at a net loss!

              1. They’d be SOL if they were retiring any time after 2007. Can you not grasp the concept that the point of SS is to have a baseline guarantee for everyone, not just those who were lucky enough to retire during good economic conditions (after having had the foresight to properly plan).

                1. It’s not a “baseline” Tony. People who earn more money get considerably more in SS retirement checks.

                  If you wanted it to be a baseline you would means test it. But you won’t because you want it to be popular. In other words, you want to buy votes for it by bribing the non-poor retired population with huge checks.

                  1. “If you wanted it to be a baseline you would means test it.”

                    Such a simple (i.e., obvious to anyone whose eyes are open) point.

                2. Fuck you and your defense of social security. Payroll taxes rob me blind. I get the pleasure of breaking my balls to pay into a Ponzi scheme, for a system that won’t be worth shit when I retire, just for the privilege of not having your Enlightened Liberal Government(TM) steal my house for the crime of not wanting to be robbed by the elderly. FUCK YOU.

  34. “just say they’re for those things as if they were bumper stickers”

    Hope and Change ring a bell, Tony?

    1. Bumper stickers could be described as necessary but not sufficient for a political movement.

      1. It’s just odd that you decry bumper stickers upthread, yet here you are defending them now. Even if you don’t *think* you’re defending them.

        1. When The Right People are making bumperstickers with The Right Message, it’s all cools, yo.

          1. That’s why we need to be re-elected… so we can make your decisions for you!

            1. Don’t listen to them! For it is WE who are uniquely and solely qualified to make your decisions for you!

        2. Forget the fucking bumper stickers. You missed my point entirely. You people say you are for freedom, but your policy positions actually, in reality, result in much less real freedom than the policy positions of liberals.

          1. And thanks for yet another fuckin’ hearty belly laugh, Tony.

            1. It is pretty funny to suggest that libertarians have policy positions rather than tired old platitudes.

              1. Says the dumbass who was crying about “McCarthyism” thanks to one lazy professor getting fired.

              2. Fuck, Tony, all Obama’s given us IS tired old platitudes.

                Insert obligatory “and McCain wouldn’t have been one bit better” line anywhere you like, Tony… because all of the above is true.

            2. Freedom is only possible when we force people to be free in special, approved ways. And at approved times. Because corporations are infinitely more dangerous than governments, as history keeps showing us.

            3. But FIFY, you are free to do what you want under liberalism. Just be prepared to go to jail if it’s something they don’t like.

              1. True, Joe R., and the same is of course true under social conservativism – a truism Tony and his ilk dismiss as “false equivalence”.

                WE know better, though.

          2. so we get much more freedom for the disenfranchised by legislating small restrictions on freedom for the well off. it’s so utlitarian and good. why are libertarians against equal freedom for all people?

            1. What I learned from libertarians today.

              Team red = team blue AND
              Small tax hike on the ultrarich = genocide

              1. Not like it should surprise me, but that’s one of the biggest stretches of logic I’ve ever seen for you to come to think that he was suggesting what that “a small tax hike on the ultrarich = genocide”

                1. COPROASHUNS = HITLER

                  1. CORPORASHITLERS.

                    CORPORACISTS.

                2. https://reason.com/blog/2010/10…..nt_1958178

                  (but I repeat myself)

                3. Oh so there is a moral distinction between two evils? Congratulations, you’re a utilitarian. Prepare to be ridiculed.

              2. Tony, you didn’t learn anything today. Or any other day for that matter. Why people insist on supporting your delusion that anyone here gives a fig about the pablum you try to pass off as argument is beyond me. You are as useless and a boring as the first day you posted here, and you will be the same when you finally choke to death on one of your idiotic lies. You’re a joke, a punchline, a shrill commercial to be mute until the real program comes back on. A pathetic caricature of a thinking human, little more than an wriggling maggot in an ass-boil. You are nothing.

                1. You should be nicer. Because I’m 95% sure he’s one of us libertarian regulars, sockpuppeting out of boredom.

                  1. You should be nicer.

                    It’s sad to imagine that someone would think the cure for boredom would being seeking to imitate the most boring presence ever to darken this website.

                    1. I would like a moratorium on sockpuppets until we get out of this accelerated decline, but just saying that probably generated a new one.

                  2. I’m 95% sure he’s one of us libertarian regulars

                    Now that’s how you insult a guy. Take notes, SugarFree.

                2. I support his delusions because I am pro-queer. See, your queers are a ‘special’ kind of people who need the tireless pro-queer agenda that Obama has been working on 24/7 since taking office in ’09. I just want to help free the Tonys.

                  What do we want?
                  Free Tonys!
                  When do we want them?
                  NOW!

                3. Why people insist on supporting your delusion that anyone here gives a fig about the pablum you try to pass off as argument is beyond me.

                  Someone made the pithy observation yesterday that thread bloggers should be able to make money with advertisements on their post. You all realize this would mean Tony would be making the most jack because too many of you sad sacks just can’t let a bad faith post go and he would get the most page hits attached to his name because of it.

                4. I’m amused he uses the term “small tax hike”, as if that is all liberals want.

                  1. Small is a relative term. Anything liberals are proposing by way of soaking the rich is definitely small compared to how they were soaked in the past–during the country’s economic golden age.

                    1. Tony, the ONLY reason liberals want to rescind the Bush “tax cuts for the wealthy” is *revenge*. It won’t FIX anything, but it’ll make poor people believe a) that some of that largesse will fall into their pockets and b) that Democrats actually give half a shit about poor people, other than useful tools to grab more power for the Great Democrat Re-election Machine.

                    2. FIFY actually the main reason is because the tax cuts are exploding the deficit. What do you propose to do about the deficit if not raise some revenue?

                    3. Cut spending. And before you say “what spending would you cut?”, let me say “ALL of it”.

                      I know, it doesn’t fly with Keynes-worshipers, but that shit ain’t working anymore.

            2. isn’t the problem that team red and team blue can’t ever see that everything is fine and let private entities do what they will. No, they must control everything always. and if one of there super awesome plans to save starving children should ever have a negative consequence, well sure as shit, they’ll legislate that too.

              when does it stop Tony?

                1. WHO THE FUCK IS THIS?

              1. It stops when private entities stop harming other private entities.

                1. I guess I’ll have to kill myself, because I’m a private entity and I can’t stop harming other private entities by bringing government into their business!

                2. But according to you, my not purchasing a burrito harms the guy at the burrito shop, so I should be forced to buy burritos every day so that he can have a job.

                  1. No Hazel that is what we call a straw man.

                    1. It’s not a strawman, it’s a position that is logically consistent with your stated beliefs.

                      If you think it’s the government’s job to “create jobs” by encouraging people to consume more, and you also think that not buying health insurance is “interstate commerce”, then you might as well conclude that not buying a burrito is a harmful “externality” that the government should regulate against.

                    2. Hazel, when Tony uses the “strawman” response, he means “anyone who disagrees with liberal dogma = strawaman argument user”.

                      Watch, he’ll use it soon.

                    3. You’re the expert FIFY.

                    4. Told ya he’d do it, Hazel. What a mook.

                    5. Hazel, it’s logically consistent with your policy preferences regarding healthcare for more people to die. I.e., you want more people to die and you like it when they do. Right?

                      Not everything has to be taken to its ‘logical’ extreme, but so many libertarians seem only capable of thinking in this way.

                    6. Hazel, I didn’t know you wanted TEH CHILDRENS to die. Why hide your love for the Grim Reaper?

                    7. No, Tony, your logic isn’t sound. Mine is.

              2. When everything is fine, please let us know.

          3. Because “real freedom” is about doing whatever you want with other people’s money.

            1. Freedom is freedom. I just want the highest number of people possible capable of enjoying it.

              1. So, you can’t even define freedom. Much less defend it.

                1. The ability to do specific things or not have things done to you is freedom. I believe in maximizing it. That requires trading trivial specific freedoms for important specific freedoms.

                  1. Those “specifics” subject to the whim of a popular vote, I guess.

  35. lol “urban people”

  36. Random head pressing gets me – 5 out of 10!

    Probability strikes again!

  37. It’s funny that the MJ article has 24 comments (and a third of them are from H&R posters) while this one has well over 200.

    Care to take that one, Tony?

    1. Of course an article on the latest shenanigans from The View ladies can get 10,000 on Huffpost. If reason isn’t the preeminent libertarian site on the internet, can someone direct me to it?

      1. I guess that shows the typical level of intellect of your typical HuffPo poster, right?

        Or are you just saying MJ is no longer relevant?

        1. It’s Huffpo. I really think it’s quite possibly 10 guys trolling the entire progressive movement.

  38. OH MY GOD SHUT THE FUCK UP TONY. Christ, you are like gonorrhea of the Internet.

    1. If you ignore me I’ll go away. Along with half the post count on this site.

      1. Bye-bye, Dickhead. See you in Attica, Dick.

        Movie time?

  39. Thread Jack.

    Johny Knoxville goes to Detroit.

    I wonder if the more than likely bunny hugging liberal artists even grasp the libertarian undertones of starting with nothing and no government intervention to build community and commerce.

    Either way a kind of neat three part series on Detroit with an artist twist.

      1. Hee Haw. Hee Haw. HeeHaw Heehaw.

        1. Daedalus. Snicker.

  40. Tony is in rare form today.

    1. I think he may have forgotten his medication.

  41. 8 of 10. And I would have said or done all of those things myself – especially the whipped cream stuff.

    Oh, and Katherine Mangu-Ward… In your closing statement you were more right than you knew. For you see, both Keynes and Hayek were right… about some things. Keynes understood a fiat currency economy, and Hayek understood second order effects and the dynamic features which apply to all economies.

    But that’s still the best economics video ever. I laugh every time.

  42. The best Libertarian-esque lyric ever:

    “I’m out for presidents to represent me (Say what?)
    I’m out for presidents to represent me (Say what?)
    I’m out for dead presidents to represent me.”

    – Nas “The World is Yours.”

  43. Oh or Public Enemy:

    “I got a letter from the government the other day. I opened and read it. It said they were suckers.”

  44. I got 7/10. And I even knew about Bob Barr and the whipped cream.

    But I object to calling that former Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party a libertarian. And I don’t see Oregon’s Bill Sizemore as libertarian, either. I’d call Bob and Bill old-style conservatives.

    1. I was just WAITING for some humorless jerk off to come in here and make this “point.” Congrats — after 330 posts, you win the prize.

  45. Quote: “America needs fewer laws, not more prisons.”

    It’s pretty sad to see them use this as evidence of the ‘nuttiness’ of the libertarian position…

    1. Maybe I missed something, but I guess I didn’t think that they had a loaded position on each one of those quotes.

  46. bill mcneal is that you?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.