Libertarians Hunt Humans—And Other Tales

The latest hysterical response to libertarian ideas


With the electorate getting more comfortable with libertarian ideas, a Maginot Line of hackery is being built to keep the barbarians out.

The latest is over at Reuters, where Sally Kohn writes one of the silliest pieces on the topic I've ever read. Using Peter Thiel's seasteading efforts ("sovereign nations built on oil-rig-type platforms anchored in international waters") as her touch-point she expounds on this "sinister" and "un-American" ideology lurking deep in the dark souls of otherwise "tame-seeming libertarians."

Don't like the idea of tax dollars paying for public schools or highway construction or Medicare—or don't like the idea of taxes at all? The brave new floating world offers just the solution. And if the self-appointed creators wish it, there would be no restrictions on guns or automatic weapons. Or, for that matter, no prohibition against murder. Pesky "moral suasion"!

Automatic weapons and murder for all! (The Most Dangerous Game starring Peter Thiel as Zaroff.) Was she joking? I can't tell.

No, I don't "like" the idea forcing citizens to join a Washington-run health care program or forcing parents to pay for crappy school that fail their kids year after year. But I've yet to meet a libertarian who opposes restrictions on homicide. Perhaps I don't get out often enough. I always knew there were many schools of libertarian thought, all of them having something to do with an underlying belief that an individual ought to have the freedom to live his/her life as he/she likes as long he/she respects the individual rights of other hes/shes. Critics always seem to ignore the latter half of the idea. Imaginary anarchy, racism, and hedonism ensue.

Kohn also informs us that libertarians don't want roads and would like to abolish FEMA and the TSA—which God gave us in 1979 and 2002, respectively—because if government isn't helping no one is. (I suspect the folks at the Reason Foundation have probably done more thinking about transportation today than Kohn has in her entire life.)

She tells us that anti-corporate he-devils used to avoid regulation—even the law—for personal gain but today he-devils want to start new countries even as they look to destroy old ones. Never mind, that the modern-day Robber Baron has a better chance enriching himself by buying into government. As long as it's environmental friendly cronyism this is to be admired.

There are many substantive arguments available in this debate, but it seems that the effort is to either misinform or scare the hell out of people.

Do libertarians like Peter Thiel really want to live in America? (Evidently he doesn't? Right?) I suppose you'd have to ask him. I'm only a mushy small "l" classical liberal type and I like living in America. But if America becomes a place where government has its coercive hands in every aspect of life and business—the kind of America that Kohn envisions—then seasteading is going to look mighty attractive.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

NEXT: Nick Gillespie on Freedom Watch Talking Jobs Jobs Jobs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Not … one … of … us!

    1. ….is there a fucking factory out there where someone is stamping out knock-off Rachel Maddow clones?

      1. There are hundreds of them.

        They’re called universities.

        1. +1000

      2. Want to watch liberals sputter with incoherent, impotent rage? Follow the link:…..post641693


    3. Want to watch liberals sputter with incoherent, impotent rage? Follow the link:…..post641693

      1. Milton Friedman is supporting a bailout of the Bank of the US in this video. Friedman is saying the Fed should be creating money, buying govt bonds. Isn’t that what Bernanke is doing? WTF?

        Sorry, I don’t get his point in the first 10 minutes. As he said, the depositors got 92% of their money back. His example of the bank in Utah is essentially ‘nothing to fear but fear itself’.

        Were the conditions that much different in 1930?

  2. That’s a gooood statist, Sally. Lick those boots.

    1. *om nom nom nom*

  3. Dude, Sally Kohn is a ridiculous FAR FAR left progressive. I wouldn’t take her seriously at all.

    1. Just in case the fact that she is a “community organizer” didn’t already tell you all you needed to know.

      1. That’s an important job. Without organizers, communities would just be people running around punching each other in the neck.

        1. He’s right, you know.

        2. See Sarasota, FL pee wee football “game”

    2. After reading Sallys latest erotic offering I found myself full turgid!

      (I need to excuse myself)

      1. explain ur turgidity sir

  4. “With the electorate getting more comfortable with libertarian ideas, a Maginot Line of hackery is being built to keep the barbarians out.”

    So…libertarians are Nazi Germany?

    All you have to do, to bypass the Maginot Line, is go through Belgium.

    1. Beat me to it. Although I believe the correct form is
      “Do you know who else bypassed the Maginot Line?”

    2. Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.

      1. Said the general who had several months worth of trouble breaking into fortified Metz.

        1. True enough, but he did break in after all.

      2. +1 for the Patton reference.

      3. So is the entire French armed forces.

    3. Belgium hasn’t had a government for about a year now so, perhaps it really is the way libertarians will unleash their ideas on the world. Plus, they have good beer.

      1. Its a misnomer. In europe the “government” is the least necessary part of the state apparatus. Most of the day to day decisions are made by state bureaucrats not members of the “government”.

  5. Sally Kohn = sALLY kOWN

    1. No, it’s “kOWNED”.

      Also, you’re a poodle.

      1. enum FailStatus {
           kYOURGOOD = 0,

    2. Check out the Ting Tings latest………………..

  6. Friday’s are for techno:

    And pub rock parodies:…..kGUJYLLwVq

    1. The Monks pioneered the Butterface movement, I’ll have you know!

  7. I’ve dreamed of hunting you down and killing each of you. What bullshit.

    1. that’s gadaffi’s line…plus rats

    2. Never give up the dream.…..lling-prey

      1., that is one of the greatest email addresses ever.

  8. Being in favor of limited government is “un-American” now?

    1. Yes. If you do not want something to be done by government, then you do not want it to be done at all.
      If I ask “Do you want the government to run all the farms?” and you reply “Hell no!” I must conclude that you do not want people to eat!

      1. I have a serious, nonsnarky question to the statists: Do you, in a general sense, believe that we should have limited government? If yes, explain where you think those limits should be and what stops government from exceeding those limits.

        If not, please explain how rights you care about will be protected with an unconstrained government doing whatever it wants?

        1. Honestly, I don’t think there is any “Why not have government control this?” type of question to which they would answer in the negative.
          They want everything to be controlled, for if it is not controlled then you have anarchy.
          That is why they fear libertarians. They see us as anarchists (which is true in the sense that we are economic anarchists).
          They simply cannot conceptualize any kind of order without authority.

        2. I’m confused by your question. Are you implying government cannot or should not do whatever it wants? What’s the point of governing if you don’t have absolute power?

          1. I’d like a libertarian with media access to ask that question of a statist sometime. Do you agree with limited power, checks and balances, some individual liberties being untouchable, or not? If yes, please explain. I don’t think they can.

            1. They will say yet, but be unable to articulate.

              1. *yes* not yet
                preview – how does it work?

              2. I think that’s right. It’s emotion rather than reason that drives them. When you ask for details, they aren’t going to be able to say anything but “Trust them.” Which, to the leftist statist, you respond, “So you loved Bush?”

                1. Trust Democrats.

                2. It’s emotion rather than reason that drives them.

                  Earlier in my life I felt the same the statists do.
                  Now I think differently.

                3. Many leftist statists hated Bush as a person but loved what he did. The doublethink is strong.

                  1. Too many people vote on who someone is (or what they’d like them to be) rather than on what they do.

                4. I love small “b” bush.

            2. “Yes, but…”

              And as we all know, anything before the but is irrelevant.

            3. Um, are you suggesting that Reason ask the hard questions and then post the interview on YouTube?

              1. Yeah, I guess I am.

            4. It’s because statists aren’t good systematizers. If they traced the logical results of their favored policies to their conclusions, they would realize they are either impossible to attain or produce different results than they want.

            5. Leftist statists and emotion:

              You can’t tell them logical statements without getting some response about starvation in the streets.

            6. What I would like (recalling that we are the “land of liberty” and the whole foundation for the mythology of America is based on the notion of liberty)is for those people who obviously oppose liberty in nearly every meaningful context as is evidenced from their expressed preference – for those to at least be honest and say they oppose liberty and they oppose the supposed principles on which the country was founded at least the would be honest and I could respect that after a fashion. What I can’t respect is opposing liberty is every particular detail while claiming to endorse it in principle. At what point do we get to call people who expressly oppose the liberty that America routinely proclaims to be its defining principle unamerican?

              1. Your first sentence is a bit long, after a fashion.

            7. I’d like any reporter to ask a union thug “which would you prefer… a hundred new union jobs, or a million new NON-union jobs?” – just to see him/her/it squirm on live television.

              1. Nah, they’d say “a hundred new union jobs” and people would love them for their bold shamelessness. Our society is fucking weird. Decadent is the right word, I suppose. In love with evil.

                1. I jury-rigged a bumper sticker to read “Proud to be Non-Union”.

                  Oh, the dirty looks I get when I drive past the local Teamsters hall…

            8. They would agree that their are some liberties that are untouchable. Like freedom of speech, sexual persuasion, etc.

              Then they will go on to explain how these liberties must be protected by laws requiring balanced reporting, quotas, etc. without skipping a beat.

              They will deny any contradiction that freedom can be created by more laws and regulators.

        3. They can’t answer, they’re too busy raping the Commerce Clause.

          1. And the commerce clause is busy raping us. It’s like that weird centipede porn.

        4. They get around the “what if government would infringe on rights I care about” by imagining that government will always be enlightened and in tune with the rights they care about.

        5. All that matters is the prosperity of the people, moral concerns about rights mean nothing without wealth.

          1. Proper smug tone….clunky political tone.

            Final Spoof Grade: C+/B-

            1. Morality implies at least a smattering of religiosity. And we can’t have church and state mingling now, can we?

          2. Prosperity is subjective. If you eliminated the top wealthiest P of people, you’d still have the same issues. Just with a different P.

          3. Prosperity is subjective. If you eliminated the top wealthiest P of people, you’d still have the same issues. Just with a different P.

            1. That was suppose to be 50 percent, not P. Also, this 64-bit IE tends to hang for a few seconds resulting in double posts after clicking again.

              1. I think your problem is the “IE” part rather than the “64-bit” part.

        6. If not, please explain how rights you care about will be protected with an unconstrained government doing whatever it wants?

          Uh, hello? Democracy? Votes? God, you libertarians are idiots.

          1. What about a corporation’s “right” to do whatever it wants? Is that not a threat to freedom as well? In fact, I think that corporations are the biggest threat to the free-market there is. Economic freedom needs to be squared with the need for separation of corporation and state.It seems to me this problem won’t be solved unless campaign financing is reformed. Here though corporations will raise the banner of freedom in order to stop this from happening. So will many Libertarians. That is why it appears sometimes as if Libertarians are defenders of big business, which I don’t believe is actually true. Libertarianism has been hijacked by crony capitalists under the banner of “economic freedom”: http://www.deliberatelyconside…..ckle-down/

            1. Is this a spoof? I’d like to respond, but want to know it’s serious first.

          2. A majority of the people in my state voted to legalize medical marijuana. The feds are still harassing cancer patients here. Want to try telling me that democracy limits the power of government?


          3. “Uh, hello? Democracy? Votes?”

            Yeah, democracy and popular votes have been a great safeguard against tyranny for many years.

            Jim Crow laws, for instance — democratically passed and signed into law, and supported by a majority of residents of the state where they existed.

            Today, gay people are targeted by government popular votes as well.

            “God, you libertarians are idiots.”

            Seems to me that people who believe that popular votes protect the rights of unpopular minorities are the true idiots. Oh well.

          4. really??? votes???? do you feel you are represented in congress? is your congressman voting on your behalf or his? please tell me how you are directly contributing with your vote, to the real formation of real policies??? please tell me how your vote influenced the patriot act, for example… our votes are near worthless, when the politician does not care about the constituent except for that one day every other november. please do not be so naive

      2. If you do not want something to be done by government, then you do not want it to be done at all.

        …and the government must forbid it!!!

        1. I didn’t think of it that way.

          If you don’t want government to do it, then you want government to ban it.

          Whatever “it” is, there must be some sort of authority directing it.

        2. If it is not mandated it is forbidden!

      3. Your man Bastiat

        “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
        We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

        1. Nice to see Bastiat calling out the Statist Fallacy even back in the day.

          1. “back in the day” was over a hundred and fifty years ago?

            Is that you Logan?

        2. Awesome.

    2. Only until their (the left) guy (BHO) leaves office.

  9. Kohn also informs us that libertarians … would like to abolish FEMA and the TSA

    Guilty as charged.

    1. I’ve got a whole lot longer list of things I’d like to get rid of.

      1. I’ve got a whole lot longer list of things I’m guilty of.

      2. ive got a list too

      3. TSA is close to the top of my list.

        FEMA is further down. I can even see a rump FEMA (purely for coordination of disaster response efforts) surviving under the General Welfare Clause.

        1. Eh, the first entity to arrive with bottled water to New Orleans after Katrina was Wal-Mart. FEMA isn’t really necessary. Here in VA the power company got the electricity back on damn quick, because if people don’t have power they aren’t running the bill, so there is a massive incentive to get the power back on as quickly as possible.

          One example I always use for leftists is Manhattan. Millions of people live on Manhattan, and they eat every day. Not only that, they have everything from supermarkets to hot dog stands, from world class restaurants to fast food joints, of every imaginable culinary style and background. No one is in charge of it, no one is the Food Coordinator of New York City. It just happens because there is profit to be made in supplying food to the people of Manhattan, profit to be made transporting it, profit to be made growing vegetables or grazing stock, etc.

          Thoughtful leftists walk away with a greater appreciation of decentralized emergent order. Less thoughtful ones say there should be someone in charge of it. One true idiot insisted that was part of the Mayor’s job, which made me laugh uproariously.

          1. “Thoughtful leftists” – Oxymoron alert

      4. I’ve got a whole lot longer list of things I’d like to get rid of.

        I think most libertarians would be better off making a list of things they’d like to keep. It will be much quicker and easier to compile.

        1. libertarians would be better off making a list of things they’d like to keep.

          I’m drawing a blank, someone help me out here.

          1. The Library of Congress is pretty cool.

            So there’s one.

        2. I have a crazy idea. What if we made a list of things the government were allowed to do; for now let’s call them enumerated powers.

          Then we could write these down into a legally binding document called, oh I don’t know, a Constitution.

          We get the federal government to recognise that as the supreme law of the land and we’re all set.

          Oh I’m sorry, what was I thinking. That would never work. Never mind.

    2. Fascinating how a ranting leftie can suddenly demonize those who want to abolish the TSA — probably Bush’s most visible, unpopular legacy. That would be George W Bush, who could do nothing right, according to those same lefties. But once the TSA is part of the statist establishment, it’s sacrosanct? WTF?

      An aside: I often found myself defending W or some policy, even though I wasn’t happy with either. The criticisms leveled by the ranting lefties at the time were just so inane, that I felt compelled to point out how stupid the specific complaints were.

      1. THIS. Some lefty pal was, the other day, bitching about the rapaciousness of PG&E, versus the wholesome wonderfulness that was SMUD (Sacramento Municipal Utility District), and how this was a general feature of all private utilities. I pointed out to her that

        1) SCE, PG&E, etc. do not have access to below-commercial interest rates available to LADWP et al. because they can’t issue bonds at government rates, i.e. the interest returned to their bondholders is taxable, and likewise for their dividends. (Wanting to get paid for an investment, apparently, is “greedy”.)

        2) This versus the bait-and-switch LADWP did to fill LA City’s coffers some while ago, in which they got a rate hike passed that was supposed to go toward subsidy for solar panel buildout … then, mysteriously — as if on cue! — the solar subsidies vanished.

        It’s only rapacious if private entities do it, she informed me, but because the moneyz goes to unspecified, wonderful government services, we are all supposed to shut the fuck up and turn off our brains.

        1. Point out to this lefty that a government bureaucrat–William Mulholland–was responsible for draining the Owens River Valley into LA and really watch the fun begin.

      2. “Fascinating how a ranting leftie can suddenly demonize those who want to abolish the TSA –…”

        The Left takes ownership of the TSA. Daschle and the Senate Democrats insisted on it. “You cannot professionalize if you don’t federalize” and all that. Who is responsible ofr what is more complicated than who was President at the time.

        1. Left politicians? Sure. Although I think that’s a problem with politicians in general rather than the left in particular.

          I know plenty of people (as opposed to politicians) with strong left leanings who would be thrilled if we abolished the TSA immediately. It seems to be the consensus among everyone semi-sensible who’s tried to come up with a justification for group’s existence.

          Now if I could just convince that last few hold-outs that vast losses of freedom, massive wasted expense, and gratuitous violations of privacy, aren’t justified by tiny (read: imaginary) reductions in risk…

    3. I thought FEMA was evil and killed black people? Or does that just mean, to statists, that it needs more funding? Or that FEMA is only bad under a Republican administration?

      1. No, only under the Illuminati or Majestic 12.

  10. Without organizers, communities would just be people running around punching each other in the neck

    …shooting each other in the face.

    1. Rule #1, no touching of the top hats or monocles! Rule #2, that’s it! There are no more rules!

      1. finally, a simple plan for complicated times.

      2. No use of force.

        No lying when signing a contract.

        No breaking a contract.

        That’s my recommendation of Thielland’s constitution.

        1. *for

  11. I’m always seriously surprised by this sort of reaction to seasteading. You’d think that a dyed-in-the-wool progressive would simply say, “good riddance to bad garbage. These libertards can have their stupid oil rig in the middle of nowhere and I can keep my utopia” Clearly, the freedom to leave their “utopia” if you can is not part of the plan.

    I think I’d leave before David would –there is an awful lot of suck in here. If it keeps going the way it’s going, the freedom to leave for a seastead may not even be an option.

    1. Clearly, the freedom to leave their “utopia” if you can is not part of the plan.

      I’ve noticed that too. In addition to building a Maginot Line they’ll be building a Berlin Wall.

      1. If you try to leave, it proves you have false consciousness.

        1. Somebody has to pay taxes to support all those programs.

          1. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” requires the able to stick around and keep producing. Even in theory.

            1. or get shipped off to the gulag… or beaten… or made to disappear. God, who doesn’t love statism?

              1. Yes, they do have a tendency to kill or imprison the able, despite their clear need for them, even in their philosophy. I guess some parasites simply must try to kill their hosts, huh?

    2. You’d think that a dyed-in-the-wool progressive would simply say, “good riddance to bad garbage. These libertards can have their stupid oil rig in the middle of nowhere and I can keep my utopia”

      Sally Kohn is a communitarian who wants to ensure that “anti-social” elements are kept right where they are for use in her golden future. As Pol Pot could tell you, those who aren’t obedient under their new masters can always become a source of organic fertilizer.

      See? It’s fun to tell people what their beliefs are. Fuck you, Sally.

    3. From the comments:

      Peter Thiel is a maggot. and taking a corporation to an oil derrick has to be treason. He probably contributed nothing to Paypal’s business model; all he did was birth elon musk’s manchild, per the wikirecord. I can only imagine he wants to offshore before a VAT tax slaps paypal in the kisser

      Sums up the attitude.

      1. I look forward to that commenter starving to death!

        His/her dying in a fire is insufficient for my nefarious purposes.

        Ooo0oh self spoof!

      2. In other words,

        Keep that successful corporation here so that we can tax its success, you didn’t contribute anything to its success anyway and it’s not going to be successful for much longer anyway, because of all the taxes we need to take from it.


        Shorter: Stand still! It’s hard to mug you when you keep moving around like that.

        1. Every seasteading story comment section has someone inevitably calling the practice treason. How the fuck is it treason to leave somewhere.

          Were all those people claiming that they’d leave if Bush was reelected participating in sedition?

          1. Yea, they keep using that word treason like they know what it means.

          2. Emigration is always illegal in totalitarian regimes. Post-revolution France. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. Communist China. What do you expect?

            In other news, I’ll be starting a tunnel to Canada. Anyone want to help?

            1. You dig on one side; I’ll dig on the other.

      3. We fucking hate you and want you to….stick around.

    4. Socialism requires walls.

    5. Maybe you shouldn’t be surprised. The idea that humans have autonomy is utterly foreign to them. After all, the East Germans machine-gunned anyone trying to leave, and given they believe your labor belongs first, last, and always to the state, the exodus of anyone productive is a threat to the whole liberal enterprise. It is a strange sort of hive: all queens, and few bees.

    6. Personally, that’s what I say. I just hope they don’t call the taxpayer-funded U.S. Navy when there’s a problem.

      What will happen is it will either become a sea-borne death trap (‘cuz, yanno, safety rules are Liberal, Stalinist oppression an’ everything) or it’ll become a haven for organized crime (‘cuz interfering with trade is just so wrong!)

      If it ever actually happens, it won’t last a year before going to shit somehow or another. Most utopias do.

    7. When the Muslims ruled Spain, for a time they made it illegal for Christians and Jews to convert to Islam because it would have meant a huge loss in taxes. Under Islamic law, all non-Muslims have to pay their Muslim rulers a special pole tax called the Jizya.
      If you let the productive people escape who will the parasites feed off of?

  12. What’s more American than distrusting government, loving liberty, and wanting fiscal sanity? Jesus, it’s right there in ALL of the founding documents! And has been part of our character for most of our existence.

    1. Not if I have anything to say to my 11th grade US History class about it.

      1. Undoubtedly part of the problem.

        1. To be fair, most of them are too busy texting to let me even attempt to spread disinformation about the philosophy of the founding fathers.

          1. u mean the traitorous slavers teacher?

            1. Slavers some, but traitorous all. The Crown wanted for them what contemporary progressives want from us today!

              1. butt teach, can we be learnt morz bout bishpig & chainez warcrimez?

                1. There is no crime in profit, Billy.

          2. instead, they’ll go home and let Jon Stewart teach them history

    2. One of my favorite weird discussions I stumbled into the other day was some gang of lefties recounting the post-French-and-Indian War situation with the colonists — and citing this as proof that the founders were freeloaders! Liberals siding with the monarchists — hardly surprising, I guess, but rare to see it expressed so forcefully.

      1. Did they have anything to say about anti-immigrant sentiment among the Huron and Algonquin?

  13. We’re all Sarah Palin now. Pardon while I go Fuck myself.

    1. I was wondering why I had these tits…


        1. *queue porn music*


            1. ignore? u betcha!

  14. Clearly, the freedom to leave their “utopia” if you can is not part of the plan.

    You must be saved from your depraved urge to make unmutual choices. For your own good.

    1. Public Schools are the model here: you can go private but you still owe the same school property taxes.

  15. In the long run, rubbish like this inadvertantly does more good than harm. It’s sort of a reverse “A-is-A-Abandon-the-EPA” effect. When people realize that, contrary to the scribblings of the likes of Kohn, we’re not a conglomeration of monacled robber barons and the supporting cast of the Road Warrior (aplogies to Lord Humongus) they are often more inclined to listen to the libertarian argument than they are to most political doctrines. It’s surprising how often people realize that it’s just a response to their own complaints about government.

    1. Speak for yourself, if you please!

      1. A pox on you. Everyone knows that the pince-nez is all the rage among today’s stylish robber barons.

    2. The progressives slavers prefer manacled robber barons to our sort.

    3. thank you for the exemption.

  16. There is no better advertiser of libertarianism than Sally Kohn. The only argument she has is patriotism, the same argument that has been used in every other place where the people wanted to leave.

    It is pretty damning where liberalism in the mainstream has move to, when extreme leftwingers will defend organisations like the TSA.

  17. It’s sad how far the intelligence of the electorate has fallen so that they is beginning to beleive that libertarians will be their salvation; just like the German electorate thought Hitler would be theirs.

    1. This thread has already been Godwinned. Why did you even show up?

      1. I’m lonely…no one talks to me in the basement….and that bastard Lumbergh keeps trying to take my stapler.

    2. Well, when the great half-white hope and change fails, you’re not left with much else.

    3. Nice Godwin – Edwin. Just to clarify one thing, libertarians do not offer “salvation”, all it means is that people do not believe in politicians offering salvation anymore. If you want salvation look to religion not a politician.

      1. Hey, hey, some of us libertarians offer salvation. I will be willing to grant you salvation AND absolution upon your death for a paltry sum of money, and I’ll refund your money if it doesn’t work.

    4. This wasn’t me – but what he said.

    5. Couldn’t agree more. Everyone knows the sign of real intelligence is handing all of life’s pesky decisions to our overlords and masters.

      1. If you don’t, global warming will melt away even more jobs jobs jobs!

    6. I’ve yet to see Ron Paul say from the pulpit “Yes We Can!” and the masses repeat it after him…

      1. The chant I hear most often at Ron Paul’s appearances, is “end the Fed”, and it’s generally the crowd that starts it.


    7. Imagine the horror!!! Libertarians take over the government and…..leave you the hell alone!!! NOOOOOO0O!!!!!

      That’s just as bad as using the apparatus of the state to murder millions!!

      1. I’d rather Libertarians take over the government and dismantle it (and by “it” I mean all the extra-constitutional kludge that has built up over the decades.)

        What’s the point in electing Libertarians if they leave the mess intact?

        1. What’s the point in electing Libertarians if they leave the mess intact?

          I question whether anyone can remain a libertarian once elected.

          1. + none?

    8. that wasn’t me

  18. The Sally KWND piece is bad, but nearly every article on Peter Thiel/Seasteading in the past few weeks have been just as bad since the Details profile on him. Consider this one from The American Spectator.
    One of my favorite comments:

    Eddie| 9.1.11 @ 10:26AM

    Hilarious!! I was laughing my a** off AND so true. Another billionaire with TOO much money, too much time and too much stupidity to realize that there will never be a utopia(s). Hey, all he needs to do is look at those wondeful utopias of: Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc..Spend your money in better things like – helping your neighbor (displaced, lost things due to natural disasters) , donating to cancer causes or, here’s an idea, helping bring down the the national or your state’s debt. Rich idiot.

    1. I love the morons who think no government / very little government is utopian. It tells me that 1) their real view of government is pretty grim, since they’re admitting that paradise on earth is only denied by the apparent necessity of government; and 2) Hong Kong 1950-1999 didn’t exist.

      1. Or the idea that anyone who ever advocated for small government promised Utopia. We are not getting Utopia. That is the whole point you halfwits.

        1. Compared to the shit we’re having forcibly shovelled onto our heads at the moment, a libertarian ideal would be utopian.

    2. Well, he certainly is not an idiot but it does seem like people with a lot of time and money on their hands come up with harebrained schemes/ideas. Like the Clown of Omaha.

      1. Saying “I should pay more taxes” to a cheering mob in order to be fellated in a few Huffington Post editorials is more of an ego indulgence than it is any kind of “scheme.”

  19. What really gets me about all of these Op-Eds on seasteading is how many of them refer to Bioshock, Waterworld, and SOMALIa!1!!

    1. Well, the Seastead probably won’t have ROADZ…

      1. Roadz? Where we’re going we don’t need roadz.

    2. dont forget LIBYa!1!! which has become the somolian paradize of n africa !

      1. and ERITREa!1!!

    3. Of course Bioshock-land was a SOCIALIST dream, not a libertarian one.

      1. First BioShock was libertarian gone to nightmare, second was socialist gone nightmare. The socialist was to blame in the second, not clear freedom was to blame in first.

        1. I agree. The first one was more of a critique of a libertarian society and what it would be like if someone tried to “take over” or start a fascist revolution.

  20. Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem, straw man, non sequitur, straw man straw man ad hominem, therefore non sequitur.

      1. i c what u didnt do there

    1. That’s totally unfair. Sally totally incorporated some tu quoques and guilt by associations in there as well.

      This is a sophisticated writer we’re talking about here.

    2. Hey, I’m getting troll responses now! I think that means I’ve been promoted!

      1. Looks like sleeping with the boss finally put you ahead!

  21. I get a laugh with how libertarians propertarians call everybody “Statists,” yet they are everlasting Statists themselves.

    Ever hear of a libertarian propertarian that really wanted to live in a real (not Libertard cargo-cult fantasy) Non-State sociopolitical typology?

    For more than 99 per cent of human history people have lived in groupings that social scientists call “non-state societies.”


    1. Would the What Indian? like a nice blanket? For you, no charge!

      1. Here chief, take a long pull on this.

        1. Here cheif, take a long pull on this:


    2. For more than 99 per cent of human history people have lived in groupings where they used knapped stone tools.

      1. And things were peachy back then too!

    3. Look dude I know you liked the movie and Mary McDonnell was not without her charms….but you have to let it go! Even Graham Greene managed to move on!

      White Indian! I am Wind In His Hair. Do you see that I am your friend? Can you see that you will always be my friend?

    4. I took a shit on a white indian once.

    5. Very few advocate no government at all.

  22. From a source used in that Godesky article: “Dr Groves believes this reduction may have taken place as the
    relationship between humans and dogs intensified and the animals allowed
    for the diminishing of certain human brain functions like smell and

    Brain size is not uniformly reduced with domestication, said Dr Groves.
    The forebrain and the corpus callosum shrink the most while the midbrain
    and the medulla are least affected; in humans, however, the midbrain and
    the olfactory bulbs are strongly reduced.”

    Nice job you fucking idiot. The parts of the human brain that reduced were those related to smell and hearing; other parts grew. It’s adaptation, not “domestication”.

    1. From…..-holocene:

      “First, was the change global or local in scope? The samples here cover several far-flung geographic areas, but they do not cover all regions of the world. Beals, Smith and Dodd [6] reviewed the global evidence for endocranial volume and showed a decline in the available terminal Pleistocene to Holocene skeletal sample. The Late Pleistocene skeletal sample was in that case strongly biased toward Europe, an area that in contemporary humans has a relatively large average endocranial volume.”

      Well well well – Europeans, the ORIGINAL domesticated population, has “larger than average” brain size than other, less-recently domesticated peoples. OOPS!

      1. My propertarian brothers, here is a glimpse into the delightful world of anarcho-primitivism. Here, we see noted primitivist John Zerzan giving an interview to – a site openly espousing racist nationalism. Nice to know they keep good friends! LOL!

        You’ve said that the “symbolic thinking” of modern man, including language, mathematics and time, limits and oppresses our freedom. What do you believe led up to the development of these things?why did humanity choose civilization culture and not primitive culture? Do we have a choice at all?

        My guess is that the very, very slow movement of division of labor crept up on humans and set the stage for domestication. All of society moves along together so that it is hard to reverse things – which is a big reason technology never goes backward. The whole question of the symbolic is connected, I think, to the movement of alienation. Unless it’s just a coincidence that both seemed to have come along together.”


        “German anthropologist Hans-Peter D?rr made a study during the 80’s, which described primitive tribes in modern time displaying extreme social guilt over nakedness and sexuality. Aren’t there other countless examples of primitive tribes where social and cultural norms uphold power and gender structures as part of everyday life?

        Primitive is a fairly useless term. The watershed is whether or not people practice some domestication. This sounds simplistic but it holds true universally. Think of a behavior or attitude that we might call negative. Did it exist before domestication? No is the simple answer.”

        Zerzan, confronted with evidence that shatters his narrative, can only fumble around with semantics and then make a broad assertion based on no evidence. EXCITING!

        1. If Eve hasn’t eaten that damned apple everything would still be great.

  23. libertarians do not offer “salvation”

    Oh yeah?

    Rome under the Republic had a civic religion, consisting of the reading of entrails and other sensible precautions. The civic religion of the modern world is social engineering, which depends on similar techniques of divination?

    The members of the American economics profession, as [Thurman] Arnold contended, performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of “laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals.” However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice “transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government.” Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical ? and beneficial ? result of their deception was to throw a “mantle of protection ? over corporate government” from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic “symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.” But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained “the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man,” the effect was salutary ? “the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence.” It was this very freedom and independence of business professionals to pursue the correct scientific answer ? the efficient answer ? on which the economic progress of the United States depended.

    Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century, and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.
    ? Robert H. Nelson, ECONOMICS AS RELIGION

    1. Re; White Imbecile,

      Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century,

      “Social legitimacy”? What THE FUCK does that even mean? Was this guy on drugs when he said that, or was he deranged?

      […]and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.

      And… Look, White Imbecile! Black Helicopters!! Look!

    2. We will shoot some arrows into the White Indian. If he truly has medicine, he will not be hurt. If he has no medicine, he will be dead.

      1. I’ll search his body for wampum.

  24. Have some sympathy for these people. The entire enterprise of Democratic socialist government to which they have devoted their entire lives is crumbling before you. They are in a much tougher position than Libertarians. Libertarians have the wonderful advantage of being out of power and obscure, their ideas have never been tried in anything close to pure form. Liberals have used the US and Europe as lab rats for their Utopian dreams for going on eighty years now. And the result is complete societal bankruptcy. That is a pretty bitter pill to swallow. Their way of choking it down is to convince themselves that the whole thing is the fault of some evil “other”.

    1. Libertarians have the wonderful advantage of being out of power and obscure, their ideas have never been tried in anything close to pure form.

      The whole point of libertarianism is to be out of power and obscure.
      Government is to do as little as possible, leaving most of the power to the people.
      Libertarian ideas are not something to try in the sense of government doing something. Rather they are the opposite. Get government out and let the people do it.

      In that respect I would say the first century, maybe century and a half, our government was kinda libertarian in that it wasn’t doing stuff that should be left to the people.

      To say “their ideas have never been tried” is to say you make things dark with a flashlight, or cool things down with a stove.

      1. You miss the qualified “in anything close to pure form”. Early 20th Century America, while a hell of a lot freer than today in many ways, was not libertarian by any stretch.

        1. Has any political idea ever existed “in anything close to pure form”?

          1. No. And don’t get me wrong. Libertarians do have the advantage of about five hundred years of freedom and prosperity to point to and be able to say “gee the closer you guys get to our ideal the better you seem to do”. Liberals in contrast have a hundred years of failed socialist programs to contend with. Again, cut liberals some slack. It is not a good time for them.

            1. The paradox of libertarianism is that it requires that those in power do not want to control everything, yet people who do not want to control everything do not seek power.

              1. The paradox of libertarianism is that it requires that those in power do not want to control everything, yet people who do not want to control everything do not seek power.

                Hey! Somebody gets it!

                Libertopia will arrive just as soon as we evolve ourselves a politician with just these supra-human characteristics.

                Libertarian ideals are what, 500 years old now? How long does evolution take?

                Sit back, relax, have a beer. Your hang over will be long gone by the time the stage is finally set.

            2. Liberals do not want freedom and prosperity.
              They want equality.

              Freedom and prosperity means some prosper more than others. This creates envy and jealousy.
              They see someone with more stuff than someone else and it makes them angry. It’s just not fair. Not fair not fair not fair!

              What good is prosperity if some get to enjoy it more than others?
              Not fair not fair not fair!

              NOT FAIR!

              So to them freedom and prosperity is bad. Freedom means people can do things without asking permission. Liberals hate that. That could lead to prosperity, which could lead to wealth inequality, which would lead to envy and paralyzing anger.

              Liberals despise libertarians.

              1. Liberals do not want freedom and prosperity.
                They want equality.

                Clearly, liberals have not read The Buddha. Because as the Buddha said, the root of all suffering in this world is the frustration of wants. And the solution to the frustration of wants, is to stop wanting.

                Only rocks and other inanimate objects have no wants. Hence the Buddha implores us all to strive to become our very best rock-like selves.

                Just sayin’, but now I forget why I even started saying it. In any case I am better off for forgetting because it would massively frustrate my want if you didn’t completely agree with me. About whatever it was I started out thinking I was going to say.

                What I mean is that I no longer mean anything and I really mean it. I mean that I want to BE like a ROCK and I mean THAT oh dammit there it goes again.

          2. I’ll vote for communism, but I’m sure the boosters of said ideology would not agree.

    2. Some evel other which, as you noted, does not and has not ever had any real input in to western politics.

  25. Have some sympathy for these people. The entire enterprise of Capitalist Socialist government to which they have devoted their entire lives is crumbling before you. They are in a much tougher position than Libertarians. Anarcho-Primitives have the wonderful advantage of being temporarily obscure, their ideas have been tried in pure form for 99% of human existence. Capitalists have used the US and Europe as lab rats for their Utopian dreams for going on eighty years now. And the result is complete societal bankruptcy. That is a pretty bitter pill to swallow. Their way of choking it down is to convince themselves that the whole thing is the fault of some evil “other”.

    1. Tried it for 99% of human existence of poverty, misery and a forty year lifespan. Yeah, we have definitely tried it.

      1. Re: John,

        You know, some of White Imbecile’s screeds leave the same kind of uneasy impression than those paintings schizophrenics do for therapeutic purposes. They’re interesting, colorful, sometimes with a modicum of genius behind and, at the same time: sad, twisted, chaotic and disturbing. Clearly, a window to the poor soul’s psyche – that would be White Imbecile’s.

        I truly feel sorry for White Imbecile – he really thinks the whole world was explained to him by some neo-Rousseauian charlatan in college and his own derangement has only served to exacerbate his paranoia.

        1. At first I thought he was one of the regulars or Dan T coming back to troll us. But now I think you are right. He believes this stuff, which is really, when you think about it, sad.

          1. The fact that he believes what he’s typing, but refuses to go live as an anarcho-primitive is reveals his true character. He’s a 2nd degree hypocrite, telling others to go do something, but refusing to do it himself.

    2. Young, Pleistocene-era girl roughly 10 years old approaches her father:
      Cave girl: Look dad! I discovered something! When you have two rocks, and two more rocks, you have FOUR ROCKS!
      *Caveman dad, eyes slowly widening in terror and rage, mouth starts foaming*
      *Bashes daughter’s brains against rock. Hands still covered in the warm ichor of his offspring’s grey matter and skull bits, he becomes aroused, and starts slowly pleasuring himself*
      Caveman Dad: Ah man that feels good… wait, WAIT! SHIT! I communicated with her using LANGUAGE! FUCK! I’M A SLAVER TOO! NOOOOOOOO.
      *Caveman dad then impales himself, anus first, on wooley mammoth tusk*.
      The End.

        1. Proto-Shakespeare.

  26. We’re obviously past the “first they ignore you” stage. To me, it kind of feels like we’re transitioning between “then they laugh at you” and “then they fight you”. Am I being too optimistic?

    1. Nope.

      I’d say we’re definitely entering the “then they fight you” stage. Almost daily some liberal rages on against libertarians as if we had any fucking thing to do with the shit that is modern politics. Like we’ve been in charge or something.

  27. It’s the confusion between limited government and no government, as though all libertarians are anarchists.

  28. Don’t like the idea of tax dollars paying for public schools or highway construction or Medicare?or don’t like the idea of taxes at all? The brave new floating world offers just the solution. And if the self-appointed creators wish it, there would be no restrictions on guns or automatic weapons. Or, for that matter, no prohibition against murder. Pesky “moral suasion”!

    I would’ve thought that having a populationn armed with guns makes for a de facto prohibition on murder (as in “try murdering me, bud – i’ll take you with me first!“); but I guess one can “murder” a person who is just as well armed and willing to defend his life, at least in Sally’s twisted mind.

    1. A whole society armed with guns without any law enforcement turns into a tribal society complete with blood feuds. But of course Libertarians are not anarchists. They would never argue that the government has no place enforcing murder laws.

      1. Re: John,

        A whole society armed with guns without any law enforcement turns into a tribal society[…]

        That is ridiculous, John. Let’s say that you come in to a town in the middle of the night and you don’t see a single police officer around or anything that would lead you to at least suspect there’s “law enforcement.” When you get near people’s homes, you see all of them have NRA stickers in their windows, daring you to break in – WOULD YOU?????

        The problem is that you readily assume people would stop being rational human beings the very moment there’s no government. That is a Tony-like argument. Who do you think populate government if not the same fallible animals you so fear – i.e. human beings?

        1. I would only assume there are police there because of my prior experience in this country. If I was in say (forgive me saying it) Somalia, I wouldn’t assume there were police there.

          There are lots of examples of states that don’t have any central authority or law enforcement. A good example is medieval Europe. Medieval Europe didn’t have nation states. The Kings were generally too weak to control their nobles. So the world divided itself into the kingdoms of local thugs who spent their time extracting taxes and waging useless wars against each other. People supported the rise of powerful monarchies because they were the only way to stop the local thugs and roving bands of mercenaries from terrorizing people. Go read a good history of the Hundred Years War Sometime. It was horrible. There was no central government to control things. So the nobles did nothing but tear ass around Northern France and burn down villages and besiege towns. And even when there was peace, the mercenary soldiers would just continue looting and burning and demand protection money to go away. Read about a guy named Sir. John Hawkwood and what he did to Northern France and Italy sometime and then come talk to me about how rational and peaceful people are in a place that has no central authority whatsoever.

          The second place we have seen what it would be like with no law enforcement is places like Sicily and Ireland where the local populace didn’t trust the government and refused to cooperate with them or go to them for justice. The result was mafias taking over the justice making function of government.

          1. oh, i know… how about reading up on the anarchic Wild West, or actually look into Somalia instead of regurgitating Kohn’s twin sister Maddow– Somalia jumped from an oppressive communist dictatorship, snatching innocents from the field for speaking against the bloody tyranny, into a thriving tribal market anarchy. The so-called warlords exist to keep any one tribe from dominion over another, as anyone from Somalia can attest. They have their own form of government circled around family and want the UN and IMF out of their country.

        2. the real world ways otherwise. You pretending to be blind to the aggregate behavior of humans won’t change that. If you truly believe what you say, it’s because you’re an aspberger-case and truly do not understand humans

          “The problem is that you readily assume people would stop being rational human beings the very moment there’s no government”

          Nobody ever said that. The problems are systemic. Even a few outright thugs can cause huge systemic problems throughout large populations by discouraging investment by removing predictability.
          More importantly you’re guys’ philosphy cannot even begin to address that people in the first place DISAGREE ON WHAT THEIR RIGHHTS ARE. This is a huge problem when you also believe you automatically have the right to use any level of force over any tiny infringement on your rights. In a world where vast groups of people disagree on what their rights are, this leads to everyone duking it out until the strongest’s ideas become dominant.
          Not to mention disagreements on findings of fact. The black panthers would violently defend OJ SImpson regardless of what anyone said he did, for example. Othe groups would have to fight them to get reparations for the victims, let alone imprisonment.

          Combine THAT with the fact that plenty of people will convince themselves that whatever is in their best interest at the time is actually good/what they believe, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

          This is why governments are at heart a monopoly on JUDGEMENT and the DEFINING WHAT RIGHTS ARE. Whether they’re tribalistic, or centralized, land-border-based with taxes, THEY’VE ALWAYS EXISTED. It’s a matter of SOME SOCIAL CONVENTION BEING NECESSARY. People need predictability if they are to live together, using/sharing the same property (land or otherwise) and working together. EVERY SOCIETY HAS HAD SOME SORT OF GOVERNMENT, no matter what you say. Even tribal nomads had the equivalent of governments. There is no such thing as a society without government/governance, except maybe a bunch of schizos that literally are incapable of thinking rationally. Your beef is with THE NATURE OF GOVERNANCE ITSELF.

          1. You just made a nice argument against anarchy Edwin. Too bad Libertarianism is not Anarchism.

            1. too bad for you it kind of is. Even the non-anarchist libertarians make the same mistakes. Where libertarians don’t make mistakes with their direct premises and the conclusions, they mistake what the policy prescriptions from there would be.

              The only meaningful definition of “libertarianism” is the highly purist philosophy that believes there’s some sort of objective code for rights that exists in the aether. In one online discussion, one poster said “Property isn’t some naturaly, provable metric. Obviously, you can’t make own-ometers”, and another poster said “There are plenty of things that we don’t know yet” and described how alcohol coming out of a still, for example, could be traced back to its producer by trace chemicals (which is not actually true, by the way). This was the same guy who was frequently saying that his ideas about rights and his alone were simply “consequences of the nature of the world”. The way he framed it anytime anybody disagreed with him, it wasn’t a disagreement, the other guy was factually wrong.

              Anyway, kind of a long example, but you get my point. Trying to frame free-market Republicansism as libertarianism is bullshit, and an attempt to make it look like there are more libertarians than there actually are. The only consistent, meaningfully differentiating hallmark of libertarianism is this highly axiomatic purist nonsense. Everything else is some form of free-market-ism, which can be heralded for utilitarian reasons, for any number of goals.

              For example, I’m not outright FOR all the forms of welfare that Tony/liberals are for. Do I think they should be there? I don’t know. But I do know that their recommendations to achieve them are terrible, and instead such programs should work more with vouchers, or voucher-like, to maximize consumer choice and the benefits the market brings. And moreover, I’d be willing to compromise on taxes, but I’m not a moron and I can do math so I know that the main problem is spending, not tax revenue.
              You guys would love to frame guys like me as “libertarian” so you can claim more popularity than actually exists, but it’s not true.

              1. I would agree with you that pure doctrinaire libertarians, the kind that are true trans-nationalists and think mankind can be perfected via freedom, are nuts. But most “libertarians” are not that extreme. And there is definitely a continuum.

              2. Hey Edwin, hey man. Hey Edwin, remember, do you remember that time you got them losedopians to admit they’d kill a kid stepping on their lawn, remember that? I remember that, do you remember that time? Yeah, man! That was freakin’ awesome. You totally owned that thread, man! I just keep reliving it in my head, dude. I remember that, man, you remember that time?

                You should link it here, and let these fools feel the wrath…again!

              3. Libertarianism is the principle of self ownership and the principle of nonaggression and nothing else. I for one, being a libertarian, believe in self ownership and non-aggression. I have to assume any non-libertarian believes some individuals are owned by other individuals and is an advocate of aggression against others. To me both of those things are pretty hard to defend and anyone who does defend being owned by or owning others and the right to aggress against others is a horrible person with whom I would not want to associate. I wish people who believe in the right of aggression and the ownership of others would at least have the honesty to say so. It is a fact – anyone who is not a libertarian believes in the right of some to aggress against others and in the right of some to own others, because those two things (actually, it’s one thing – self ownership) are the defining principles of libertarianism.

                1. me/dwc

                  bullshit words games. No one believes other people own other people or believe in agression, at least no more than you do. You’re presuming your definition – the assuming the premise fallacy. Libertarians disagree with agression AS THEY DEFINE IT. But in the most literal sense defense of property is agression. If someone’s stealing something, and you attack him to stop him, YOU are the one INITIATING VIOLENCE. In the most strict literal sense it is you. You will even find such use in biological texts (animals defend their property too, but they do indeed call such actions “agression” in order to be consistent and exact in the behaviors they are talking about)

                  Massive and easily disproven assuming the premise fallacy

                  1. Libertarians do not claim to be pacifists, idiot.

          2. Not against social conventions such as private property, freedom of speech, freedom from the power of politicians. Some people want predictability, some do not, some want to be individuals not a tribe.

            1. To any extent that any group of people recognizes the same ideas of property, they have a government. Even if they don’t always outright enforce it and sometimes leave enforcement to be a private matter, the fact that they share the same idea about who had what rights in what types of situations is the equivalent of a government.

              Even our society is not a monopoly on force, but on judgement. You can hire security companies and detectives as much as you want. You can even personally enforce, as long as what you’re enforcing is what the rest of us, via the courts, recognize as what your actual rights are

              Even without a centralized government we’d still have common law. Common law came even before central govs

              1. I am not against government, I am against tribalism, I want more of them. Instead of having only 200 governments in the world, I support having 2000 governments in the world, and once that is achieved 20 000 governments, and so on (spot the pattern). The more the better. The more there are, the more people can choose from. Also the smaller the governments the more accountable they will be and the less they can hide their corruption by playing class politics.

                1. Well that seems kind of silly. While a range of choices keeps things competitive (and yes, there is competition among governments to attract citizens), it also disrupts commerce because of the differences in rules and the difficulty of businessmen in dealing with that (ditto on the social front, I guess).
                  So clearly there must be some balance.

                  And frankly, there are different segments of life with their own governance that different countries may share. Property rights, in general, is a big one. Different countries have vastly different details regarding what they consider is involved in property rights, but the general idea is pretty stable and uniform throughout the world. So more governments doesn’t always necessarily mean more sets of rrules.

                  And frankly, if that’s the your only basis, then you aren’t really libertarian; you just believe competition and choice can be important in governments. That’s just one aspect to consider in civics, that isn’t really libertarianism.

                  1. The “disrupt commerce” argument is what created the Euro, which funny enough has disrupted commerce like never before. The size of the country does not matter, easily shown by examples such as Luxembourg, Singapore or Hong Kong. If your only argument against many states is the commerce problem you will have to ignore the real world, where it really does not matter, in fact the opposite is true, the bigger the worse commerce gets.

                    1. if you were paying attention, I wasn’t arguing against many states. I was pointing out that the concept you proposed is a general one and still leaves you outside the camp of libertarianism (and that’s not a bad thing)

                      If your argument for many smaller states is utilitarian like that then it is NOT libertarian, and congrats, you’re a reasonable person, not a libertarian.

                    2. So libertarians by your definition don’t equal reasonable (drink!) people? Sounds most unreasonable.

        3. The problem is that you readily assume people would stop being rational human beings the very moment there’s no government. That is a Tony-like argument.

          People like Tony would stop acting like rational human beings because people like Tony are not rational human beings.
          They’re animals. Slaves to their emotions and impulses.
          Only threat of government violence keeps them from acting on their class envy and stealing everything that isn’t nailed down.

  29. Shouldn’t White Indian be sympathetic to libertarian ideas? I mean, if he truly wants a stateless society then libertarians seem a natural ally.

    Unless he buys Marx’s bullshit about taking the opposite direction to a stateless society.

    1. It is the latter. The only way to have such a society would be to literally have new people. Suppose that we all went back to hunter gathering. There is a reason why we stateless people stopped being stateless. It is because if I organize my group better than you organize your group, I am going to come kick your ass, take your shit, and enslave your women. The only way to stop me is to form a state yourself. So instead of the new socialist man who forgoes owning capital and exploiting others and only works for the collective, white idiot wants new stateless man who lives off the land and refuses the temptation of forming large groups and conquering others. It is just a new and even more pathetic spin on the original dream of Marxism.

      1. I have run into a few real life individuals that actually believe what White Indian claims to be for. What I found to be funny, was their lack of understanding of aboriginal societes. They suffered from a pc education that taught them that American Indian tribes where all the same. The reality was that each tribe had their own unique culture and belief system. Some tribes were realitively peaceful while other tribes warfare & genocide was a way of life. There was a huge difference between the way the Cherokee tribe lived & the way the Comanche tribe lived. Unfornately, these fools have no knowledge of that & probably would refuse to be believe it was true.

        1. None of them were peaceful. The Cherokees lived in a nice place like Western North Carolina and North Georgia and the Comanches lived in a much tougher place like the plains because the Cherokees were big and bad enough to take the better place to live. The Sioux were originally in Minnesota and further east before that. The only reason they were in the black hills was because they got their asses kicked out there. Such is the human existence.

          1. Of course all the tribes had wars. They fought & enslaved each other. That is unfornately human nature. But some tribes took it to another level. The Comanches for instance practiced genocide on a level that few people nowadays understand. You are right they did live in a harsher climate than the eastern tribes. But not all of it was a desert wasteland. The Comanches at one time ruled an empire that included Colorado,Oklahoma,Texas,Mew Mexico & Arizona. They are the reason the Spanish never gained a firm grasp on the Western North America like they did in Central & South American. Mainly because the Comanche warriors fought mounted and were superior fighters compared to unmounted conquistidors. They literally drove the Apaches(& numerous other tribes) & Spanish out of Texas. It wasn’t until the late 1800’s when breach loaded firemans became widespread that the Comanches were at disadvantage. For a tribe of only 20,000 they were extremely powerful.

      2. Yes, libertarians ignore that one of the most important reasons for centralized civilizations is simply the war issue.

        Doubtless derps like Old Mexican would like to use that to levy an accusation that statism is war-like, but it’s just something that we have to deal with in the world. A society can only control it’s own funtioning, not other societies’ funcitoning. If those other guys are going to come and trty to attack you and take your shit, there’s nothing you can do about it other than stop them violently, either through the implicit threat they might lose, or outright beating them if they do actually attack.
        And unfortunately it comes up on a regular basis for homo sapiens.
        Hell, even chimps wage war, they found out recently.

        1. Don’t distract the anarchists with silly history lessons. History lessons are a statist propaganda tool.

          All tribes were nice and peacful and all was bliss. But then came the Evil State, for which Nature had provided no particular need.

          You know, it’s like when the Devil shows up out of nowhere in the Garden of Eden. Utterly inexplicable.

          Just tell them that God has a plan.

  30. Non-State sociopolitical typology is the Original Affluent Society.

    What is nasty, brutish, and short is agricultural civilization, with half its people living in abject poverty, a third starving or hungry and only a few at the Center of Empire (arrogantly called the “first world”) taking most of the advantages of extracted wealth via their Economic Hitmen.

    1. David Kaplan “The Darker side of the Original Affluent Society”

      “Who Is the “Original Affluent Society”? Ipili “Predatory Expansion” and the Porgera Gold Mine, Papua New Guinea”…..lub01.html

      Also look into: Cashdan, Elizabeth, “Hunters and Gatherers: Economic Behavior in Bands”, in Stuart Plattner (editor), Economic Anthropology, Stanford University Press, 1989, pages 21-48. She notes that the research Sahlins relied upon was taken during the time of the season when the Bushmen generally worked the least.

      The “Original Affluent Society” is a fraud. Sahlins only maintained his position due to the city-state institution of tenure.

    2. so, white Indian, your argument basically just rests on outright falsehoods about the quality of life way back then, eh?

      We have plenty of accounts, not to mention forensic evidence, that shows that life in those societies sucked, and that civilization was much better/more secure and predictable in the long run.

    3. What is nasty, brutish, and short is agricultural civilization, with half its people living in abject poverty, a third starving or hungry…

      Name one, just one, anarcho-primitive society that had a higher mean quality of life than the world has today. Just one.

    4. Shouldn’t you be out grazing on the lawn or something?

  31. Marx and Mises both agree that the agricultural City-State, one that dominates the surface of all productive soil and puts the food under lock and key (as a means of getting people to work for the keyholders) is great.

    All they’re doing is squabbling over the key.

    1. People have to work for their food either way moron

  32. ? Too bad Libertarianism is not Anarchism.

    ? I mean, if he truly wants a stateless society then libertarians seem a natural ally.

    Which way is it, boyzzzzzz? LOL

    It seems most libertarians propertarians desire just enough Big Government to invade and occupy Land and defend their Privation Property fetish, but no more.

    Guess what happens when you get that much Big Government? Moaarrrr!

    1. You’re against occupying land? How do you propose to hunt and gather without occupying land? Once you decide to occupy some land for hunting and gathering, what will you do if someone else wants to occupy that same piece of land too? What if his stick is bigger than your stick?

      1. White Indian is a troll. It is pointless to debate him.

        1. I figure I should at least give him a chance. Just one chance.

  33. This crazy bitch Kohn thinks God gave us FEMA and the TSA. Then God must be really MOTHER FUCKING pissed at us.

  34. I still don’t get why they don’t switch to the idea of using a “host” as a nation. Let every libertarian buy a ship and sail together. Creating solid ground in the ocean is a pipe dream.

    Or it could be a bunch of barges that hook up together. They could be towed for mobility, if necessary.

    1. Just buy a surplus carrier, strap a few tankers to it and invite the little people to tie on…

      1. Reminds me of this book called Snow Crash.

        1. The Law!

          Now that was some cool shit.

          1. That was the book I was reading when my wife-to-be, in the cute black dress, asked me what I was reading. So it will always have a spot in my heart.

    2. What’d be really fucking dandy is if I could USE MY OWN FUCKING PROPERTY TO ENACT MY OWN LIBERTARIAN DREAM for myself.

      1. You think you actually OWN your property?

        If so, there’s a lady in New London who would like to talk to you.


        Sorry, couldn’t resist.

        1. you clearly do own property, and have plenty of lee-way with what to do with it

          just because a property scheme doesn’t match your exact personal purist specificactions doesn’t mean you don’t still own the property. People pay millions of dollars to own houses in the most expensive blue states (which you guys complain as thge most statist), regardless of how many regulations are in place that you guys bitch and moan about, from zoning codes to building codes. You think all these people are buying nothing? If you think that, then you sir, are the idiot

          1. Ask Suzette Kelo how she feels, Edwin.

            1. Ugh… Susette. Typo.

  35. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but I don’t think any kind of seasteading or other non-state society has a prayer of surviving for any length of time unless it can stand off an American carrier task force.

    I take it as a matter of faith that the US government as it currently exists could not long tolerate a true sea-steading operation.

    Meaning, I believe, that it will need nukes, as there is no way a very small society could field a conventional force that could do the job.

    1. Perhaps you are being too cynical. Just like aircraft carriers are not being sent to tax havens, if the sea society actually did exist, it would be hard for any government to initiate force if there was no evidence of a threat.

      1. Those raft-living heathens were trying to buy African yellow-cake uranium.

        Trust us.

      2. You don’t get it. Their very existence as a competing political life form is the threat.

    2. There’s a guy who has a de facto country off the coast of England on an old WWII built platform in the sea. A judge in th UK ruled that it was outside their waters so their gov couldn’t d anything about it.

      I think he/they call it the principality of Sealand

  36. “Critics always seem to ignore the latter half of the idea. Imaginary anarchy, racism, and hedonism ensue.”

    You forgot cannibalism.

    That’s what libertarians were accused of over at, ahem, Project Reason, when I suggested in one forum that deregulating health care would be a good idea.

    I volunteered as the village lunatic after witnessing the usual nitwitism about how only lunatics could want deregulated health care. Apparently wanting to buy a $4 month’s supply of simvastatin from a pharmacy without having to pay $200 to get a permission slip from a doctor deputized as a government bureaucrat is a gateway freedom to cannibalism.

    1. Pass the Sweet Baby Ray’s, Davis. This Teamster meat is hella tough.

  37. From the comments:

    “Sally, it sounds as if the the Libertarians would like to see a comeback of the feudal age and serfdom. It is refreshing to read an a contributor who presents facts and not opinion. Thanks”

    “Rusted angel, haven’t you seen diamonds are forever? do you want a corporation on a oil rig where your minions run a business for you? or are you an evil genius who likes to stroke a white fluffy cat? do you want to build a space elevator?
    just like moonraker, diamonds are forever is nothing like the book. have only seen tinker, tailor, soldier, spy so i can’t commment on that. soldier sailor richman poorman beggarman THIEF.”

    “This is precisely why Obama won’t propose substantial mortgage relief after the recess. He needs to twist the republican’s arms about corporate taxes and a vat tax on the debt ceiling committee and that will let him save mortgage relief mostly for the campaign trail, combined with a tax hike on the wealthy.
    Peter Thiel is a maggot. and taking a corporation to an oil derrick has to be treason. He probably contributed nothing to Paypal’s business model; all he did was birth elon musk’s manchild, per the wikirecord. I can only imagine he wants to offshore before a VAT tax slaps paypal in the kisser. Anyway to build a water-based corporate hell, Thiel has to love his business more than his person. Shame he can’t sleep with it, and it won’t give him (em)sympathy. He can only tell St. Peter at the pearly gates that he worshipped Mammon and hope he doesn’t get dropped into exquisite torture.”

    Fortunately, these comments are actually outnumbered by comments calling out Kohn for her idiocy, and presenting reasonable rebuttals. And then there is this, from our own new Troll of the Month:

    1:03 PM EDT
    Libertarian Diktat:
    ? Moving forward, the only acceptable term to collectively define people is *the market.* Any collective group of people other than the market do not really exist. And are really bad.
    ? Everything is to be perceived as *property,* and only as property. Everything. Children, yourself, ideas, dreams, emotions, feelings, squirrels, parties, democracy, rivers, people, time, cameras, logic, economies, air, history, love, pollution, terrorism, hangnails, songs, exegesis, reason, communities, birds, firelight, orgasms, teen spirit, team spirit. Everything. If it isn’t pwned, it doesn’t exist. The law of identity is A=A=pwned.
    ? People who want to control everything are bad socialists. People who want to *pwn* every single atom dead or alive in the universe are fair and square capitalists.
    ? *Freedom* would be maximized if a single productive producer owned the whole world, and all living beings had to *contract* with him in a mutually beneficial agreement (Win-Win) to eat. And drink water. And breathe. Because if you’re not paying for the air in your lungs, you’re a lazy moocher.
    Posted by White_Indian | Report as abusive”

    So White Indian doesn’t really give two shits about his stateless utopia. He just really hates (his strawman-loaded misinformed cartoonish version of) libertarians.

  38. What’s wrong with ensuing hedonism? Personally, ensuing hedonism has always been my plan.

  39. Right, anyone who opposes an interventionist, crony-capitalist/socialist government is JUST LIKE the folks living on a man-made island off San Francisco. Sure. Whatever you say, lady.

    With regard to her reference to the Declaration of Independence, an excerpt of the official transcript reads:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    (Emphasis obviously added.)

    How else would one interpret that other than as the right of people to abolish government when the government violates the social compact? Is her vision of some other interpretation evidence of some alternate dimension? Are we talking quantum physics or something? To steal and modify a line from My Cousin Vinny, are we to believe that the English language works differently in liberals’ minds than anywhere else in the universe?

    I have ZERO interest on living in some sea-steading community, but I’d be all for a state secession movement that sought to return limitations on government and shift people’s focus to individual initiative and private sector accomplishment. Such a move would be ENTIRELY constitutional and would also assist any states that didn’t come along for the ride, by DEMONSTRATING (hello, competition) that government which governs the least, governs best. But I digress… Yeah, the Reuters woman is an idiot. But what about NEWS…you know, stuff we WEREN’T already aware of????

    1. Such a move would be ENTIRELY constitutional and would also

      instantly start a war.

      1. “instantly start a war.”

        With whom?

        1. That union from which you wish to succeed.

          You’ve heard of Civil War 1.0?

  40. “no prohibition against murder”

    Yikes, a Murder Park. I’d stay away.

  41. You can agitate your War Chief Obama to nuke that oil-rig platform with killer drones — right and proper use of communal resources, right?

  42. I am a libertarian who plays paintball . . . maybe she was talking about me

  43. It’s actually pretty simple.

    Think of liberals as children who never grew up to be adults.

    They live in a world which revolves around them, a world of government as the caring parent… and of frightening and vague monsters under the bed that THREATEN this existence.

  44. “But if America becomes a place where government has its coercive hands in every aspect of life and business?the kind of America that Kohn envisions?then seasteading is going to look mighty attractive.”

    Isn’t that what this is really about? It really eats Kohn et al that someone would be able to just say no to these liberals’ grand schemes and just pick up and move away. “How could those selfish S.O.B.’s say ‘Kiss off’ to me and my precious utopia! Listen Citizen if you could just work and pay taxes and I could continue scribbling we could collectively arrive at the promised land! Treason will not be tolerated! Do not climb that wall you unpatriotic scumbag!”

  45. “Thoughtful leftist” – Oxymoron alert !!

  46. I can understand why a hack like Sally makes shit up like this. Actually trying to form a cogent argument against leaving people alone if they’re not violent is hard!


  47. She may have gotten the idea from me. I have long advocated a variation of human hunting, although, because I am not libertarian, my approach involves the use of state agencies to monitor and control it. I think we should be able to buy tags for college professors and liberals, but I think that in the case of public school teachers and union officers, it would be more like the earned income tax credit. You buy the tag, so the state is guaranteed a certain amount of money, but if indeed you bag one, you get a tax credit that exceeds the amount you paid for the tag such that you receive a bounty for the scalp and hands you are required to turn in for identification purposes.

  48. I’m a socon, and so on occasion I find Libertarians annoying, although on balance they are useful. What I don’t find is them so dreadfully scary that I have to make up whacked out stories about them.

    But, evidently someone does find Libertarians terrifying beyond reason. Maybe we can look forward to a movie about Ayn Rand coming back from the dead, in a slasher flick, aimed at innocent gov’t ‘crats. That would be awesome (as in hysterically funny).

  49. If America becomes the kind of country that Kohn envisions – then it won’t be American any longer.

  50. If America becomes the kind of country that Koch envisions – then it won’t be American any longer.

  51. Sally Kohn is a dumb cunt.

    When her beliefs run this country into the ground, she will get a brief taste of justice. The rest she will get in the after-life.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.