Reason

Glenn Reynolds Interviews Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch on "Libertarians to the Rescue: How Free Minds and Free Markets Can Fix America's Problems"

|

On PJTV's Instavision, host Glenn Reynolds grills Reason's Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie on their new book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America:

Forgot to wear pajamas

Click here for the full conversation.

NEXT: On Nostalgianomics for the "Midcentury Moment"

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. In b4 “Reynolds is a pro-torture neocon warmonger hack”

    1. And worse, he considers himself libertarian.

      1. It’s probably because of all those crazy libertarian ideas he’s always pushing and all the traffic he drives to Reason

        1. Libertarian ideas like preemptive war, occupation, torture, rendition, indefinite detention, assassination, etc.? Libertarianism is subjective but I think supporting initiation of force on a global scale would be a disqualification.

          1. pre-emptive war =/= initiation of force

          2. Force had already been initiated, even if not directly against us. If you want to argue that those policies violate the rights of Americans due to us bearing the cost via taxes, fine, there’s a strong libertarian basis for that. Otherwise, you’re confusing “libertarian foreign policy” with “Jean Luc Picard lectures about the Prime Directive.”

            You seem to be arguing that these actions are *inherently* wrong, so let me put it this way: which of these would you object to if undertaken by a private person or group? If some company bought a bunch of armed UAVs and was hunting down Al Queda and Taliban leaders, and financing their operation with pay-per-view showings of the footage, would you be upset? I wouldn’t.

            As to it being funded by taxes, I don’t like that, but I don’t object when the tax-funded police arrest a murderer, either. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an analogous principle to the one Ayn Rand put forward on the subject of taking a government job: it’s alright if the work being done isn’t immoral per se, just not something the government should be involved with.

        2. Take your tongue out of Reynolds’s ass for a second and read the man’s own words:
          http://www.pajamasmedia.com/in…..010928.php

          And while this is admittedly crazy, it ain’t libertarian by any stretch:
          http://www.pajamasmedia.com/in…..030050.php

          1. And let’s not forget his call for genocide:

            ” I say nuke ’em. And not with just a few bombs. They’ve caused enough trouble ? and it would be a useful lesson for Iran, too.”

            http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/110310/

            Doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

            /Jay

            1. “Genocide” WTF?
              That’s Jacksonian, not libertarian. It’s also long-standing US policy.I’d like to see us withdraw from South Korea but as long as we’re there that is exactly what is going to happen if the North launches a full-scale invasion.

            2. I believe you mean “doesn’t sound very Rothbardian to me.” It would be perfectly Randian.

              Also, to note, the subject of Reynold’s comment was North Korea. I presume he’s talking about nuking NK’s military bases because, humanitarian reasons aside, what the hell does Kim Jong Il care about NK civilians? By any libertarian standard, NK military personnel are wrongfully using force and are therefore subject to force in return. Not just from those whose rights they have violated, but from anyone who cares to.

              Now, I’m not advocating that we do this (no idea where the radiation would blow).

              1. ITT noninterventionists tar serious military action against an international menace as “genocide”.

  2. Wait, Reynolds is a neoconservative? o_O

  3. I’m confused. Why would a neo-con who loves torture and war be interested in libertarian ideas? Is Glenn Reynolds finally realizing how morally bankrupt he is?

    /Jay

  4. Nine minutes, my ass. I budgeted that much time to watch this and now I’m running a deficit.

    1. can’t you just make more minutes?

  5. I only watch PBS, thanks to generous contributions from people like you. When will this roadshow be making a stop on the Tavis Smiley Show?

  6. Welch: “Let’s take this outside and see who the *real* libertarian is!”

  7. I think the number of comments left here (as well as any other post with a Glenn “Let’s nuke innocent civilians” Reynolds video is a testament to how little real libertarians care about that hack.

    /Jay

    1. Dude, it’s always the same three or four Rothbardians (yourself included) showing up to bash Reynolds in every single post about him. And for the record, supporting and praising dictators and terrorists, writing racist newsletters, and spreading kooky conspiracy theories isn’t very “libertarian” either. If Rothbard, Rockwell, and Raimondo are “real libertarians” to you, then thank god I’m not a real libertarian.

  8. Man, Reynolds has put on some weight in the last 10 years. Now he’s a fat, neocon warmonger hack.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.