Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

"Mission Accomplished" in Libya?

The Obama Doctrine is nothing to celebrate.

Gene Healy | 8.30.2011 10:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

Mission accomplished! As Libyan rebels took Tripoli last week, liberals practically draped that banner across the nation's op-ed pages. Now was the time for all good men to come together and praise a famous victory.

In Newsweek, liberal columnist Michael Tomasky pronounced Libya "completely the right thing to do," President Obama was on his way to becoming "a great foreign policy president."

"Give Obama credit on Libya," The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne insisted, quoting former Bush official L. Paul Bremer on the wisdom of Obama's Libya policy: "It worked."

Bremer, you may recall, was head of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority from 2003 to 2004, famous for botching the occupation and helping stoke a civil war by disbanding the Iraqi army.

For his next trick, maybe Dionne can consult Ray Nagin, New Orleans' feckless mayor during Katrina, on best practices for hurricane preparation.

Let's hold off on the ticker-tape parade for Libya just now, shall we? (Do you even get ticker-tape parades for something the administration insists wasn't a war, but a "kinetic military action"?)

With Libyan rebels apparently engaged in reprisal attacks against Gadhafi loyalists—"the worst treatment," The Washington Post reported Friday, "appeared to be reserved for anyone with black skin"—we can't be assured of a clear-cut victory even by the dubious terms of "humanitarian war."

It's not clear what we've "won" in Libya. But it is clear what we've lost: Whatever's left of the quaint notions that America should wage war only in defense of our vital interests and that presidential uses of military force can and should be constrained by law.

Last week brought some Twitter triumphalism from the Center for American Progress, with the liberal think tank's @ThinkProgress feed linking to House Speaker John' Boehner's June complaint that the president had violated the War Powers Act.

CAP demanded: "Does John Boehner still believe U.S. military operations in Libya are illegal?"

Why shouldn't he? After all, that's what the president's own attorney general believes. Obama's Office of Legal Counsel, backed by Attorney General Eric Holder, told Obama in May that under the War Powers Resolution, he needed congressional authorization to continue bombing Libya after the WPR's time limit expired.

That wasn't what the president wanted to hear, so he got a second opinion from Harold Koh, the servile State Department legal adviser, who argued that we weren't engaged in "hostilities" under the WPR because Gadhafi couldn't effectively return fire.

It was a law professor's version of a "Jedi mind trick": "These are not the 'hostilities' you're thinking of." It didn't convince anyone, but, hey, at least Obama doesn't "swagger."

Has it occurred to anyone in Obama's cheering section that the Koh precedent will be available for use by future presidents? And that they might come to rue embracing the argument that it's perfectly legal for the president to, Zeus-like, rain down destruction from on high wherever he chooses, without so much as a by-your-leave to Congress?

Yet it was a centrist, not a liberal, who provided the most appalling case for Obama's alleged foreign policy wisdom. Last Tuesday at CNN.com, Fareed Zakaria wrote that "Defense Secretary Robert Gates was very clear and he was right: Libya is not vital to our national interest. The point, however, was that … if we could be helpful, it would be of great benefit to Libya and to America."

Never mind the law, never mind our "vital interests"—if we think we can be "helpful," let the Tomahawks fly. If that's the Obama Doctrine, it's hardly worth cheering.

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power (Cato 2008). He is a columnist at the Washington Examiner, where this article originally appeared. Click here to read it at that site.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: "The consistent, libertarian position is to oppose both styles of social engineering"

Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, is the author of The Cult of the Presidency.

PoliticsWorldForeign PolicyBarack ObamaExecutive Power
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (96)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Tim   14 years ago

    Is it legally a war in which only our machines take the field?
    One can envision a future where robots fight our wars exclusively.

    1. anon   14 years ago

      skynet online

    2. mchf   14 years ago

      Bots on the ground.

      1. Barry Loberfeld   14 years ago

        Sorry for the threadjack, but check out this happening-now slander at Salon.com:

        "Why libertarians apologize for autocracy" by Michael Lind

        1. Liberty 4 me but not 4 thee   14 years ago

          The article is spot-on, but, these days, Milton Freidman would be called a Zimbabwean Socialist around here, just based on being amenable to paper currency and a negative income tax.

    3. James Anderson Merritt   14 years ago

      Read the War Powers Resolution. Providing materaial support, advisors, resources to combatants involved in a war is also prohibited. There is no need whatsoever to have "boots on the ground" in combat zones, in order to trigger the WPR constraints.

  2. 2O   14 years ago

    it is in our national interest to stop another rwanda.

    1. ?   14 years ago

      "Vital" is the keyword. Libertarians concede a vital national interest only when bombs are actually raining down on American cities. But only grudgingly.

      1. 2O   14 years ago

        because libertarians, like paleocons, are isolationists.

        1. anon   14 years ago

          Or we'd just rather make money selling them shit than spend money dropping bombs.

          1. O2   14 years ago

            teach a man to fish...& you can sell 'em bait n tackle. remember jay-sus was a jooo

          2. Mr. FIFY   14 years ago

            You mean "non-interventionists", though Freeper types pretend it's the same thing as isolationism.

        2. Eisenhower   14 years ago

          Or we realize that America is overextended, has a ton of debt, and our "humanitarian war" could possibly be helping people who are no better than the last guy: http://community.seattletimes......016027572&

          But hey who cares about that sort of stuff when you can just cheer for Team Blue. AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!

    2. Harvard   14 years ago

      [it is in our national interest to stop another rwanda]

      Explain.

      1. O2   14 years ago

        because our allies asked the US to stop the bengazi genocide & the US is the leader of the free world.

        1. DJF   14 years ago

          The US did not agree to bomb Iraq until the Arab League supported it. But the Arab League is made up of dictatorships so how are they part of the "free world"? We have the ridiculous sight of the dictatorship of Qatar bombing Libya in the name of freedom.

          1. 2O   14 years ago

            remember france, the UK, & NATO?

            1. LOLbertarian   14 years ago

              Saddam Hussein had been trying his hardest for a long time to genocide the Kurds living in Iraq. I sure hope you supported that war as well, because gee, it would be downright hypocritical to support Libya intervention and not Iraq intervention...

              1. 2O   14 years ago

                team blue not team red asshole derp

                1. 2O   14 years ago

                  i served in and supported gulf 1.

                  1. O2   14 years ago

                    wasnt that team red?

        2. Red Rocks Rockin   14 years ago

          because our allies asked the US to stop the bengazi genocide & the US is the leader of the free world.

          Actually, our allies argued that there "might" be a genocide if the US didn't step in. Furthermore, if the original intent was to "protect civilians," why aren't we bombing Syria as well?

          1. O2   14 years ago

            getting there

      2. R C Dean   14 years ago

        Our national interest is not defined by our allies.

        Try again.

        1. O2   14 years ago

          part of our national interest certainly is

          1. Heroic Mulatto   14 years ago

            And that's exactly what George Washington warned against in his farewell address.

            1. O2   14 years ago

              well 'cept for the french military assistance eh?

    3. Mike M.   14 years ago

      So why aren't we bombing Syria yet?

      1. anon   14 years ago

        shhhhh! We don't need a 5th war.

      2. military-industrial complex   14 years ago

        we're getting there. hang on

      3. DJF   14 years ago

        The Arab League and the UN hasn't given us permission to do that. Remember it was when the Arab League and UN agreed to support the "no fly zone" that the US started bombing Libya.

      4. Rick Perry   14 years ago

        I pity such small thinkers as yourself.

        THANKS, Clinton/Bush/Obama! Standing on the shoulders of such great men will make me the greatest eva.

      5. mikey   14 years ago

        'cause the Syrians can shoot back and that would make it a war which would involve lots of that messy legal, constitutioney stuff

    4. wareagle   14 years ago

      if preventing another Rwanda is in our national interest, how about Syria, North Korea, most of the African sub-continent, ad infinitum?

    5. cynical   14 years ago

      Hard to say, since the more democratic part of government was never asked for its opinion.

  3. ?   14 years ago

    America should wage war

    Wage or assist? There's a difference.

    1. Harvard   14 years ago

      Mention that to the casualties.

    2. R C Dean   14 years ago

      When your planes are doing the bombing, you're waging, not assisting.

      1. anon   14 years ago

        NO! Technically you're just "assisting" the bomb to its destination! /obamalogic.

        1. Ron   14 years ago

          All I did was open the door at the bottom of the plane. It's not my fault a bunch of bombs fell out and killed people.

  4. nanda   14 years ago

    Ghadaffi was a bad fellow without doubt but he was not willy nilly killing people. There was no danger of another Rwanda.

    If the rebels start killing, will the US interfere to stop them? I predict they will be worse.

    Obama did this to show how to interfere in the right way, as opposed to Iraq which he thinks was wrong. If the rebels turn out to be our enemy (which seems likely) it will have been a waste, though less costly than Iraq.

    1. 2O   14 years ago

      gaddafi ordered his army to exterminate the bengazi rats. ~750,000 people live there.

      1. anon   14 years ago

        And that affects me ... how?

        1. O2   14 years ago

          it never was a question of "me"...rather "we"

          1. anon   14 years ago

            And that affects you ... how?

            I imagine it would suck to not have the balls to fight for your own freedom.

            1. O2   14 years ago

              genocide is abhorent to liberal democracies who have the ability to intervene & stop it.

              1. anon   14 years ago

                Well, we're far from liberal, and not a democracy.

                Aside from your pathetic attempt to appeal to my morality though, your statement is far from fact. There's nothing inherit in liberalism that proposes murdering individuals of a foreign government for any reason. Quite simply, the laws a foreign country chooses to live by are none of our business. By dictating what our standards are to a foreign society, we're merely replacing the dictator that's being removed with ourselves, and destroying massive amounts of capital along the way.

                1. anon   14 years ago

                  Just in case I didn't make my point clear enough, dictating how any society lives aside from our own is not consistent with the core principals of liberalism.

                  1. O2   14 years ago

                    classic liberalism advocates spreading democracy thru military intervention...or the sun never sets on the [EMPIRE].

                    1. anon   14 years ago

                      I really hope you don't believe that. Mostly because it's wrong, but partly because I think I've just lost faith in humanity.

                    2. O2   14 years ago

                      im not incorrect. the british [EMPIRE] was classicly liberal...the sun never sets

                    3. 2O   14 years ago

                      wasnt tony blair the LABOUR PM?

                    4. anon   14 years ago

                      Your version of history is delusional. The mere existence of a monarchy precludes the existence of a classic liberal society.

                    5. the real O2   14 years ago

                      unless the monarch is also a classic liberal like boosch & tony blair

                    6. anon   14 years ago

                      You're making it too obvious you're a troll. A for effort though.

              2. wareagle   14 years ago

                then, shouldn't we be in Syria? And, shouldn't we bomb Iran immediately since A-jad keeps talking about wiping out Israel?

                1. O2   14 years ago

                  diff nation, diff tactics.

            2. wareagle   14 years ago

              nothing different at all. Genocide - your word - is genocide.

              1. O2   14 years ago

                diff nation requires diff tactics. turkey & the AU are in the lead & they've not requested military intervention...yet

      2. troll 4 a troll   14 years ago

        Wow, all it takes is some two-bit dictator to order his men to exterminate rats and I can send US fighters to attack his arse?? I'm loving your logic more by the hour. Any idea how I can insert some rats into Iran's mullahs' houses??

        1. O2   14 years ago

          diff tactics for iran

      3. Croesus   14 years ago

        Considering that Gaddafi did not commit mass attrocities on all the other rebel cities he had captured, imagining that he would have treated Bengazi radically harsher is a bit of a stretch.

        1. O2   14 years ago

          its was the rebel capital & the dominate tribes were hostile to gaddafi anyway.

      4. R C Dean   14 years ago

        People like Kathaffiy are addicted to hyperbole. If you really believe that 750,000 people were going to be exterminated because Kathaffiy said so . . . .

    2. Kristen   14 years ago

      In what way does Obama think Iraq is wrong? Perhaps when he was an up-and-coming Senator, but since he's been President, he's neither said nor done anything to indicate that anything is wrong with our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan.

      In fact, he's one of the most warmongering Presidents we've ever had. I'd put him right up there with Kennedy and Johnson.

      1. O2   14 years ago

        did u miss obama pulling combat forces outta iraq?

        1. DJF   14 years ago

          Obama did not pull combat forces out of Iraq, he just relabeled them. They are still there and they are still combat forces.

          1. 2O   14 years ago

            r u saying troop strength in iraq never changed?

            1. Croesus   14 years ago

              Troop levels were reduced, but pretty much on the timeline already determined by Bush. So the most credit you can give Obama is that he is no more aggressive than Bush on the Iraq issue.

              1. O2   14 years ago

                of course the withdrawal was on the timetable bush negoiated w iraq. nevertheless, the drawdown is fact.

        2. Eisenhower   14 years ago

          Did you miss this?: http://www.armytimes.com/news/.....me-081910/

          1. Aqua-Assault-Rabbit   14 years ago

            'Brigade Combat Team' sounds so violent and combatty. But 'Advise and Assist Brigade' is much gentler. Exactly the same mix of guns, men with guns, armored vehicles with boom sticks and kinetic doohickies but kinder and fluffier.

            God Bless you Unicorn Man.

          2. 2O   14 years ago

            derp

        3. R C Dean   14 years ago

          did u miss obama pulling combat forces outta iraq?

          Obama has not pulled forces out of Iraq as fast as Bush promised in the treaty with Iraq. He also plans to keep forces in Iraq after the deadline for full withdrawal.

        4. Auric Demonocles   14 years ago

          Did you miss Obama sending combat forces into Afghanistan?

  5. Liberty 4 me but not 4 thee   14 years ago

    In Libertarian land, nothing fails like success.

    1. anon   14 years ago

      Cause you see how well we "export liberty."

      1. The Arab Spring   14 years ago

        Welcomes its newest Islamic member.
        Just think, Iranian rockets will make such a pretty sight flying over Europe!

        1. boomdoom111   14 years ago

          CIA have said over and over Iran is not even close to getting nuclear weapons yet you believe mainstream media like the weapons of mass destruction crap that led us into war in 2004.

  6. steve   14 years ago

    Stock photo overuse fail

  7. mch   14 years ago

    "Because we can" is never an insufficient principle in Statist-Land.

  8. J_L_B   14 years ago

    There was a perfect justification for this intervention at the beginning.

    He could've simply said, "Ghaddafi is an enemy of the United States and the world. He ordered attacks that killed American servicemen in Germany and the bombing of an American airliner in Scotland. We are now presented with a grand opportunity to remove a dictator who has been a thorn in the side of the world for decades. He is a common enemy we share with the rebels, and we will support them militarily to remove him."

    1. wareagle   14 years ago

      if Germany and Lockerbie are the justifications, we should have gone in long ago. Please. By this calculus, we should have attacked the Soviets in the 80s for shooting down a Korean airliner that had Americans aboard.

      1. Liberty 4 me but not 4 thee   14 years ago

        Keep your memory long, and strike your enemy when he is weak.

        Only fools deliberately miss the opportunity to take advantage of an enemy's moment of weakness.

        1. mad libertarian guy   14 years ago

          Of course for it to be "legitimate", that window needs to coincide with a Team BLUE administration, right?

          1. Liberty 4 me but not 4 thee   14 years ago

            If Bush had pulled off the Libya campaign instead of the debacle in Iraq, John McCain would be president right now.

            1. the real O2   14 years ago

              got that shit right

      2. J_L_B   14 years ago

        if Germany and Lockerbie are the justifications, we should have gone in long ago.

        Reagan attempted to do something by a short bombing campaign that killed one of Ghaddafi's sons, and while he quieted down, Ghaddafi was still a threat.

        we should have attacked the Soviets in the 80s for shooting down a Korean airliner that had Americans aboard

        Unlike the Pan Am bombing, that attack wasn't deliberate. The Soviets were grossly and maliciously negligent, but they didn't track that flight from its origin with the intent to take it out.

        1. 2O   14 years ago

          not according to the birchers

        2. Liberty 4 me but not 4 thee   14 years ago

          Exactly, and we made the exact same error with an Iranian airliner.

          1. the real O2   14 years ago

            id be very hesitant to jump on the side of birchers

  9. Calson   14 years ago

    My nephew died in Afghanistan. What the fuck are we still policing the world for? How many more Americans have to die before the tyrants are shaken awake by some semblance of righteous scorn and resistance?

    1. Bucky   14 years ago

      righteous scorn and resistance? from the residents of their country? sorry for your loss, but are you paying attention to who is filling the gap after the tyrants go...

      1. boomdoom111   14 years ago

        The entire problem with the middle east has to do with the greed of western corporatism for the abundance of oil. We are in Libya due to oil; and most things about Gaddafi are lies

  10. James Anderson Merritt   14 years ago

    The President thumbed his nose at Congress; Congress did not take him to task. There's a lot of blame to go around for the Libyan misadventure, but the real question is, will the people ever slap the perpetrators? Or will we keep re-electing these constitution-flouting bozos? If you want the President to be an unaccountable monarch, then just keep on not disciplining him when he oversteps, or rewarding Congress for not imposing that discipline in your name. You'll get the monarch you deserve. I'm just sorry that I'LL get the monarch YOU deserve. How messed up is THAT?

  11. 1776AGAIN   14 years ago

    Lets get some of our facts straight.
    1. There was no attack upon civilians by the Libya Army, there was only a protest march that was peaceful on both sides until some rebel rats in the march attacked a police station an a military outpost.
    2. The UN resolution UNSC 1970 and 1973 (2011) forbids ANY weapons, aid, troops, or support of aggression which the US and NATO have violated International law and committed many war crimes.
    3. Libya is a Republic like no other in the world as the people rule the country through peoples congresses (read the green book).
    4. Libya has the highest standard of living in the middle east and Africa.
    5. Education, medical and dental care are free for every LIbyan and if the best care is not available the person and their family are flown to a place it is available and all expense it paid by LIbya.
    6. Every Libyan family is given a free home.
    7. The National Bank offers loans at zero % interest (usury is illegal in Libya).
    8. When a couple are married they receive $50,000.00 free to start their lives.
    9. Electric and water are free.
    10. If a person wants to farm they are given free land use, equipment, seed, live stock and operating capital.
    11. When a Libyan buys a car the government pays 50% of the cost.
    12. Every Libyan is armed with an automatic weapon Men women young and old and are trained to use them.
    13. Laws and rules are from the people congresses and everyone has to agree before it is made a law (much like our jury trials require all to agree before judgment veridic can be made).
    14. In June 75% of the people in Libya marched in support of their Republic Gaddafi and against NATO.
    15. The Main Stream Media Lies about everything in Libya INFO war where propaganda is used in an attempt to steal the country from its people. This will not happen as the LIbyan people have too much to lose.
    16. Libya is a peaceful country and owns the largest reserves of the highest quality of oil in the world.
    17. Libya has developed the Great Man Made River Project and has vast amounts of clean water enough to last 200 years and turn Libya into the Food basket of Africa.
    18. Libya owns over 40 tons of Gold and was going on the gold standard.
    19. Gaddafi and Libya were instrumental in ending apartheid in South Africa.
    20. The DOJ paid $3M to a Malta shop keeper and his brother who were the only key witnesses to implicate and testify against the Libyan accused in the Lockerbee Trial and under questioning from Scottish Police their testimony was deemed unreliable and inaccurate.
    21. Gaddafi is loved by his people yet he holds not official office in the government but he is life long leader of the (Jamahiriya) or peoples revolution republic.
    22. US/NATO has murdered, killed and bombed over 15,000 Libyans civilians in 9183 Sorties, 3489 Combat Missions past months in order to protect civilians and have used attack helicopters to gun down unarmed civilians in the streets and squares.
    23. Every company in Libya is an employee owned company and shares in the profits.
    24. Libya uses e-education throughout Libya and has the highest literacy rate in the Middle east and Africa which is 92.4% for women and 76.2% for the population.
    25. The Gaddafi's Peoples Republic Congresses recognizes that Western USA, UK, EU etc. parliamentary two party systems form of so called democracy is really dictatorships as all of the people are not represented and a very small minority rules the country over the objections of the people i.e, (bank bailouts), (patriot act, TSA, Homeland Security), illegal wire taps, illegal wars so political parties are unlawful in Libya.
    26. The idea of creating the African Union was revived in the mid-1990s under the leadership of Libyan head of state Muammar al-Gaddafi to prevent the raping of small African countries from the Imperialist bankers.
    27. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant morality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998.
    So now do you think the Libyan people are mistreated by their government?
    28. Between 1911 and 1931, more than 750,000 Libyans had been killed resisting Italy's occupation.
    29. September 1, 1969, bloodless revolution in which the Free Unionist Officers under the command of Qadhafi took power. A few days later the new government announced it would not renew the foreign base agreements and that 51% of foreign banks would be nationalised. In 1973, Libya nationalised 51% of all oil companies, including the subsidiaries of Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Socal and Shell. It also doubled the price of its crude oil. In 1974, it nationalised three US oil companies and announced an oil embargo of the US.
    30. Libya is one Arab country in which the population as a whole has benefited from oil revenue. The US, France and Britain have never forgiven Qadhafi for kicking them out, and until he is replaced by another King Idris, Teng argues, there will be no let-up to the anti-Libya campaign.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Maryland's New 3 Percent Tax Will Chill the State's Emerging Tech Sector

Tosin Akintola | 7.6.2025 6:30 AM

Conflicts and Contrasts Make Jerusalem Endlessly Fascinating

Jacob Sullum | From the August/September 2025 issue

In Defense of the Tourist Trap: Why Following the Crowd Might Be the Smartest Way To Travel

Christian Britschgi | From the August/September 2025 issue

69 Percent of Americans Say American Dream Is Not Dead

Autumn Billings | 7.4.2025 8:30 AM

With Environmental Regulatory Reform, California Gov. Gavin Newsom Finally Does Something Substantial

Steven Greenhut | 7.4.2025 7:30 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!