The Disturbing Agenda of Occupy Wall Street

Why the protestors are wrong to favor forced equality over liberty


The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, obsessed with fairness, has benefitted from the lack of it. The protesters don't think so—but that is because many of them have not thought enough.

The demonstrators resent disparity. So consider the disparity in coverage of OWS and the Tea Party. A single (still unsubstantiated) allegation that someone in the crowd at a 2010 Tea Party rally in Washington hurled a racial slur at Rep. John Lewis sufficed to prove the entire movement a kissin' cousin of the KKK. But that "Google Wall Street Jews" guy? A lone nut. As for the signs calling for the "death of capitalism" and telling Wall Street bankers to "Jump, you [expletives]" and declaring "capitalism can't be fixed—we need revolution"? Unrepresentative, surely. Ditto the 5:30 Oakland seminar on Marxism 101, and the dude in the Lenin T-shirt, and. . . .

Don't feel bad if you missed such tidbits on the nightly news. Every movement has its whack jobs, but those on the left get politely overlooked.

(Article continues after video.)

See also: the asymmetry of municipal authorities' approach to free speech. The Richmond Tea Party is justifiably cheesed off that it had to shell out thousands of dollars for permits and whatnot to hold rallies in Kanawha Plaza downtown, while OWS protesters squatted there for more than two weeks free of charge. Tea Party groups elsewhere have reported similar disparate treatment. As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted last week, "Tea Party co-founder Julianne Thompson . . . has made a request in writing after being denied permission to hold an event downtown because city officials said there was too much red tape and cost involved." Yet Atlanta's Democratic Mayor Kasim Reed issued an executive order granting special permission to OWS protesters to camp in Woodruff Park until Nov. 7.

Cops in Albany have refused to enforce a curfew near the capitol. A Tennessee magistrate has been refusing to approve warrants for OWS protesters arrested in Nashville. In Oakland, Mayor Jean Quan actually marched with the protesters a few weeks ago. Safety and sanitation issues eventually led to their eviction; they responded by throwing paint, bottles, M-80s and other items at the cops. The cops responded with force, and an Iraq veteran was seriously injured.

Reaction among OWS sympathizers was electric, with many denouncing police brutality.

Yet a survey by Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen of OWS protesters in Zucotti Park showed 31 percent "would support violence to advance their agenda." That figure is incorrect; it is closer to 100 percent. Never mind the occasional guillotine poster, this week's rioting in Oakland, or the sometime enthusiasm for mass-murdering Bolsheviks. OWS demands more government redistribution of wealth—a process entirely dependent on the use of force. (Just ask actor Wesley Snipes, currently doing a three-year stretch in the federal pen for tax evasion.)

Then there is the hatred of capitalism ("DEATH TO CAPITALISM"; "CAPITALISM DOESN'T WORK"; etc.). The alternative to a free market is, of course, an unfree one, requiring that somebody make sure people do not go around exchanging goods and services through mutual consent. How do you stop consensual activity? Take a wild guess.

All of this makes it abundantly clear that OWS prefers forced equality over liberty. Many people do. But the OWS protesters seem singularly obtuse about what this entails. As J.R. Lucas observed some years ago, equality has more than one dimension, and efforts to tame economic inequalities can produce bureaucratic empires that crystallize "an inequality of power . . . more dangerous than the inequality of wealth to which objection was originally made."

Granted, political inequality may not greatly disturb the consciences of OWS protesters, who in some locations have adopted a "revolutionary progressive stack," which "encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups [to] speak before men, especially white men." Lining up speakers by race and gender might not seem fair on an individual level. But for much of the radical left, individuals are irrelevant: The class struggle is all that matters, and the only way to end domination by one class is, apparently, to impose domination by a different one. Vladimir I. Somebody-or-other called that the dictatorship of the proletariat, if memory serves.

But then, serious thought about fairness is meager among OWS protesters—whose top concern, based on a textual analysis of the 99 Percent blog, is student debt. Repaying loans can be hard, and this evidently makes the obligation unfair in the eyes of many demonstrators. But loans are made because borrowers promise to pay the money back. If borrowers break their promises, the loans will dry up, which would not be fair to future would-be borrowers. The keeping of promises is a basic moral duty—and a self-imposed one to boot. But it can seem unfair, if you have the moral philosophy of a 4-year-old.

The OWS focus on money and economics only exposes the poverty of its quasi-Marxist critique. Equality has more than one dimension. William Niskanen, who died last week, once invited us to consider two young men: "One . . . is healthy and handsome, spends his days on the beach, has his pick of young women companions, and makes $10,000 a year. Another . . . is confined to a wheelchair, has congenital body odor, has never had an intimate relationship, and, with no other life, makes $100,000 a year as an expert computer programmer. In this case, who is worse off? Who should redistribute what to whom and how?"

The OWS "progressive stack," redistributing the right to speak, already has provided a partial answer. For a fuller one, look up Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron." It is supposed to be satire. Turns out it was prophecy.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Global Temperature Trend Update: October 2011

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. Thanks for the worthless TEAM RED article, Hinkle. Want some cheese with that whine?

    1. Yeah just because the movement seems to be run by people who believe in a genocidal ideology doesn’t mean anything.

      1. This is just yet another piece of the leftist narrative that all corporations and wealthy citizens are some kind of economic libertarians who advocate for deregulation all day.

        When you point out to them that entrenched interests love regulations, they call you ignorant. Really, it’s not even worth it…

        1. You want the agricultural city-STATE, complete with Rothbardian police power, to restrict the free movement of peoples by using artificial lines of demarcation.
          Officer, am I free to gambol?

            1. Is this seriously going to be every single thread? Has anyone e-mailed Mike Alissi or someone in a position to put an end to this yet?

              1. Every fucking thread. That and the “you just work for Koch”. If Reason is not careful these assholes are going to ruin the site. Expect it only to get worse. I am actually surprised an openly libertarian site without registration hasn’t already been overwelmed by lefty trolls.

                1. Sweet combo.

                2. They wouldn’t be nearly as bad without the Glibsters spoofing and mocking them.

                  Why Epi in particular thinks it’s a good idea to respond to all-caps text walls with all-caps text walls is beyond me.

                  1. It’s FUN, Tulpa. But to each their own.

                    BTW, I apologize for you thinking I called you Team Blue over in the Why Do Muslims Kill People and Burn Shit When Someone Draws Mohammed thread.

                3. I have to agree with John on this one. I’m actually pretty conservative when it comes to dropping the ban hammer. People like Tony, Derider, MNG, Slappy, etc. actually add a little in terms of keeping things ‘interesting’ around here even if some of them are disingenuous as hell.

                  WI OTOH brings nothing to the table and is always off topic. When I see a thread with 500 comments and 50% are referring to the ‘City-State’ I move on. This shits gotten old fast, and I’m not quite sure why the ban hammer hasn’t been dropped. Are our Reason overlords totally oblivious to the commentariat’s annoyance?

                  1. Reason overlords are totally mesmerized with how being anti-state is acceptable to MWG, but being anti-city-State, while being more consistent and inclusive of the whole cultural package, is not acceptable to MWG.

                    What is being observed is a very bad case of libertarian schizophrenia, that is, an inability to accept the reality that the state is merely an inseparable part of the agricultural city-State.

                4. How is my being consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate-property, and anti-State a problem to you, John?

                5. It wouldn’t be very “socially liberal” of Reason to ban trolls, I think that’s the justification.

              2. My conspiracy theory – Matt is waiting for Reason Donation Week. If we can pony up a hundred grand they’ll finally ban her. It’s a plan more devious than holding Lobster Girl hostage.

                1. Maybe so. But she is succeeding in making it impossible to have a discussion on many threads. Look at this thread. What a mess.

                  1. And I stopped using Reasonable because it kept blanking the entire page. Also it doesn’t have basic, easy to program features like that would be useful for blocking name-changing trolls.

                    1. What kind of algorithm would one use though?

                    2. Blocking names by regular expressions rather than simple strings could deal with a lot of the name-changers.

                      Blocking comments with more than a maximum number of characters, and more than a maximum number of words with more than one capital letter, would help control the walls of text.

                    3. Comrade, I love your ideas.

                    4. How is my being consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate-property, and anti-State a problem to you, Tulpa?

                      And I’d be glad to keep White Indian. In fact, I’m all for registration myself, because Libertards steal my name to spread disinformation, which is why I now change it all the time. I was given a private incentive to do so.

                  2. I only introduce reality, which does make it difficult to continue happily, ignorantly bullshitting each other about how evil the State is, when you are all tyrannical city-Statists at heart.

              3. …when WE say it’s Statism.

                Nice one there, Rev.

                1. Hilarious! Anarchists reap what they sow regarding the mindless, no-rules free-for-all that is the H&R chat room, and then display an utter lack of self-awareness by bitching about it.

                  1. I’m not an anarchist, but you’re just proving that you don’t know what anarchy means. It’s not a synonym for chaos. It doesn’t mean that free people are not allowed to choose whom they associate with. It doesn’t mean that those free people can’t ask a property owner to change their rules.

                    1. …and I think there’s an easier solution than banning the annoying, disruptive asshole. Stop responding to her. It’s gotten to the point at which the constant responses are as disruptive as the original trolls. To those who find it amusing, I’d like to ask that, with respect for those of us who come here for a short time every day, and would like to be able to enjoy some actual discussions, please stop feeding this troll. Surely, there are other places in your life where you can get your fix of mutual taunting.

                    2. You have to respond.

                      I’m consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate property, anti-State.

                      That’s hardly trolling around here.

                      It’s not me, but my introduction of the truth, that causes such ruckus.

                      The State is an inseparable part of the city-State.

                      The only people upset are those who must cling to their dear dogmas by avoiding reality.

            2. JUST STOP RESPONDING TO THE FUCKING TROLL! It will go away!

              1. No she won’t. No one will date her….trolling is her social life.

                1. True, and I was talking with my beautiful anarchist (not that pansy state anarchism at OWS either) wife the other day. I have observed that collectivists seem to be much more likely to be coyote ugly and somewhat slow. Not all but it’s pretty apparent, just look at your average OccuPant.*

                  I speculate they may, having had ill fortune in looks or brains they tend to look at the word this way. They weren’t responsible for being homely or dull, and they, being dull, generalize this to the rest of their life without much critical thought. They live life angry and having felt the ‘injustice’ of poor luck they want to inflict it on others. They want to make smart, attractive people pay.

                  * (the myth of the hot political chick is largely just that.. however they do tend to put out more.. they thus make good ‘training wheels’ for men to work up their self confidence)

          1. Is a fence an artificial line? How about a wall or a door? I’m coming over to your place tonight to gambol about your living room.



              BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!!!


          3. Libertarians are indeed as bad of city-Statist progressives as any of the “Leftists” they 10-minute hate.

          4. …proof of which you acknowledge the Officer is needed to give you permission to act.

        2. Not really. It is a religion. Below is a link to a great article on Isaac Deutscher. Deutscher was in many ways amazingly brilliant. He wrote Enlish as a sixth language and did it better than most of us could dream. He was also an unrepentent Marxist and a complete irrational fool until the day he died. Leftism really is some kind of ideological virus that some are never able to recover after being infected.


          1. He wrote Enlish as a sixth language and did it better than most of us could dream.


            1. 🙂

        3. “When you point out to them that entrenched interests love regulations, they call you ignorant.”

          The inevitable consequence of abolishing basic training in economics. They are hopelessly stupid and intractably uneducated.

          1. Sadly, many economists, at least in Intro. classes, would not even bring that kind of thing up. They will talk about supply and demand, and guns and butter. The guns and butter analogy is the typical progressives entire outlook on society. Resources can and should be controlled by the gov’t and it’s just a matter of choosing how best to redistribute them. When I was in college, all students had to take an Econ. class. I took the majors version but most took Econ 100 taught by Kalman Goldberg, a very progressive economist. I doubt they ended up as libertarians.

          2. The inevitable consequence of abolishing basic training in economics.

            Or basic training in common sense.

      2. I don’t see how you can say that; The OWS movement doesn’t really appear to be run by anyone. It just kind-of exists.

        I also don’t see how it will ever end. How can the government appease a movement with no real purpose or message. Until their complaints coalesce into something more concrete than “We’re tired of being screwed” it will just go on forever.

        1. It was started by the Soros outfit Adbusters and ACORN is doing most of the organizing. That counts as Marxist.

          1. It’s pure astroturf. Which is funny because that is what the liberals accused the TEA party of, which actually was a grassroots movement that people like Beck, Limbaugh, and Breitbart latched onto.

            1. Yeah. Well Limbaugh is an unserious idiot publicity monger on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. And an evil genius behind the Tea Party movement the rest of the week.

            2. It’s pure astroturf. Which is funny because that is what the liberals accused the TEA party of

              Pure projection, they assumed the TEA party was astroturf because that’s how they do it.

          2. adbusters always seemed more anarcho-communist to me. But then I haven’t picked one up in nearly a decade.

            1. I know there are people who use the term to describe themselves. But “anarcho” and “communist” cancel each other out.

              1. According to communist theory, communism is supposed to develop into an anarchy. Communist practice, of course, has always gone in the other direction.

                1. …capitalism is supposed to develop into a limited government utopia. Capitalist practice, of course, has always gone in the other direction.

                  1. “Capitalist practice, of course, has always gone in the other direction”

                    That’s like saying eating sweets leads to eating less sweets.

                  2. That’s kind of backwards. Generally lib theory isn’t for things so much as against. The more of government you can get rid of the more consensual arrangements must hold sway and the better off everyone is.

                    Utopia is a collectivist concept. Libertarians promote the best possible given human nature. And empirical evidence shows it is pretty good.

                    Collectivists merely reject human nature and pretend it doesn’t exist when it gets in the way of their utopian fantasies. Empirical evidence shows us as well the horrific results that tend to occur.

                    Capitalism (technically defined) is merely the result of freedom. If you are one of those who want to redefine the capitalism as the fascism or the ‘middle path’ that we see today because you think it benefits you then we can call it free markets.

                    But the key word is free. Free to succeed, free to fail. That is clearly not a utopian result. It is merely the best result possible.

        2. “The OWS movement doesn’t really appear to be run by anyone. It just kind-of exists.”

          Holy shit, we are witnessing an actual drum circle that has occurred spontaneously. Life is imitating parody.

          “I also don’t see how it will ever end. How can the government appease a movement with no real purpose or message.”

          We need death metal.

            1. and if you still want more. <iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”” allowfullscreen></iframe>


            got yer death metal right here

        3. There is somebody running OWS… Ted Kaczynski.

          1. Ted’s dead, but people LIKE him are in OWS.

            And worse.

            1. How much effort did it take to resist typing “Ted’s dead, baby”?

              1. I would’ve done it for t’ree-fiddy.

        4. Winter is coming.

          1. Hear me roar.

          2. No problem. They are already simply abandoning their tents at night and returning when the weather feels comfortable enough to continue putting themselves on display.

            1. In Lexington, KY, the tents had been abandoned last night until the weather was warm this morning.

              1. Candyasses.

                If they REALLY believed, they’d sleep outside.

                1. Say what you will about the Soviets, but at least they didn’t pussy out of communism just because it got a little cold!

                  1. Most Soviets didn’t have much more warmth indoors than outdoors, though.

                    Except for the ones in THEIR Top One Percent, aka party leaders…

                2. If they REALLY, REALLY believed, they’d freeze to death.

              2. I’m in Lexington and I didn’t even know we had an “occupy” movement.

                1. Same here, but then I was at Churchill Fri & Sat

    2. Anonymous|11.4.11 @ 1:35PM|#

      Thanks for the worthless TEAM RED article…

      This Message Was Brought To You By Cowardly Partisan Sheep.

      “Four Legs Good! Two Legs Bad!”

  2. But . . . but the media tells me it’s teabaggers and Palinistas who are the violent ones /stupid liberal fuck

  3. This revolutionary stack thing is pretty amusing. Did they borrow the stack term from CS?

    Reject bourgeois FIFO queues! Only stacks are truly revolutionary!

    1. Sounds like a sex position.

      1. FIFO: Frottage in, frottage out.

  4. “”The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, obsessed with fairness, “”

    I really have to disagree with that. As a resident of NYC, I can’t pitch a tent in a park and camp out for weeks. I would be removed.

    They are enjoying their own 1% status in that respect.

    1. What VIC, you mean if the Tea Parties had rioted and tried to shut down the port of Oakland or there had been multiple rapes and sexual assaults at its rallies, they wouldn’t have gotten favorable press? I am shocked.

      1. How the hell did you get that from my post?

        1. Vic you couln’t pitch a tent in a park any more than that Tea Parties could have rioted and had the media and still gotten the favorable press OWS continues to enjoy.

          I was agreeing with you by analogy.

      2. Oh wait, your imagination.

        1. Settle down Francis. I was agreeing with you.

          1. Oh ok, Hard to tell though since I wasn’t talking about Oakland or the press, or fairness in the press for that matter. That was a funny way to agree with it.

            But ok.

            1. Sometimes the analogy works, sometimes it doesn’t. Sorry to be obtuse.

              1. We’ll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They’ll see the flames for miles. We’ll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?… Or am I being obtuse?

              2. No problem. Sometimes the stuff comes across in print, sometimes not.

              3. I followed you, John.

                1. Me too.

          2. John|11.4.11 @ 2:03PM|#

            Settle down Francis…

            …”I told you, Don’t call me Francis!!”


    2. This. Nanny pussy Bloomberg only picks on targets that he knows won’t fight back.

      1. Well, duh!

        You don’t see many bullies picking fights with Mike Tyson, now do you?

    3. It’s all about positioning. Tea Party. Hmmm…well, the Boston Tea Party had something to do with the founding of this country, hence these are patriots, pro-establishment, so they’ll put up with the usual permit process. Occupiers, those are dirty hippies and hobos, anti-establishment, noplace else to live, can’t ask them for permits.

  5. 90% of the OWS movement is about getting laid, and high; the other 10% have some political extremist agenda.

    To keep this balance, send in more booze, and drugs

    1. I would imagine that is the case.




          1. You’re the only one she really gets mad at Epi… can only be unrequited love/lust!

            Hat tip!

    3. Bingo. If you wanna bang drums, screw and get stoned that’s fine. Just say that’s what you’re doing. Don’t try to force a smokescreen of policies that can easily be summed up by a hundred year history of death and repression.

      1. “If you wanna bang drums, screw and get stoned that’s fine.”

        Well, as long you keep doing all that in your mother’s basement.

        And stop whining about delusional claims you pretend to have against working adults.

    4. Or maybe its 90% want to fart in a jar.

  6. Now lets see these jokers toss out establishment dems in their primaries and throw up hard-core socialists to run, and see how far that gets them.

    1. That would be awesome. Or get the Green Party going strong.

    2. Isn’t Sen. Schumer (D-NY) known as the Senator from Wall Street? Let’s see them organize to beat him in his next primary.

  7. …not liberty. Oh, sure, liberty is a great talking point, the BAIT before the SWTITCH.

    “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

    ~Ayn Rand, United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974

    1. Cesarani states that “in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust”.[42] He quotes David E. Stannard, author of American Holocaust,[43] who speaks of the “genocidal and racist horrors against the indigenous peoples that have been and are being perpetrated by many nations in the Western Hemisphere, including the United States….”[44]

      1. Yeah because the natives being genetically cut off from the rest of the world since the end of the Ice Age and having no immunity to European diseases is just like sticking people in ovens.

        1. Indian Wars?

          Deliberate giving of Blankets infected with SmallPox?

          Keep evading, Libertard.

          1. To get the numbers up to make it worse than the holocaust you have to include all of the natives who died from disease.

            1. Deniers are legion.

              1. “American Holocaust”

                -is still a pissdrop in the bucket compared to the mountain of skulls Socialism has left in it’s wake.

                1. Quite literally in Pol Pot’s case…

                2. ” compared to the mountain of skulls Socialism has left in it’s wake.”

                  Shush. We only talk about holocausts that are hollywood disapproved.

          2. the blankets infected with smallpox scenario was incredibly limited and not very effectual because the vast majority of people that had no immunity to smallpox had already died. Atrocious? sure, but it doesn’t ratchet up the numbers considerably.

            1. skr, agreed.

              However, it is germ warfare.

              Imagine a terrorist killing Americans with, say, an ebola virus.

              Think about it.

              At any rate, the city-STATIST invasion of Turtle Island was a deliberate genocide, even without the smallpox blankets.

              1. Let us smoke a [WHILE].

          3. So why don’t you tell us WTF you want us to do about it today? None of my ancestors had any part of any that shit – just like none of them owned any slaves. So if all you’re gonna do is whine and bitch about atrocities that happened hundreds of years ago, go somewhere else to do it. Unless you have some specific idea to put forth – which it’s pretty clear you don’t. You just want sit around and do the equivalent of farting and belching loudly at the dinner table while the adults are trying to have a conversation.

            1. even today, enforced by city-STATIST aggression and threats of violence.

              As a city-STATIST, you are part of the aggression enforcing Gambol Lockdown occupation.

          4. 1. Trail of tears was bad. You have a point there.

            2. “Indian wars.” Not at all like sticking people in ovens.

            3. “Deliberate giving of Blankets infected with SmallPox?” The evidence for that is pretty thin. In fact, in the case of the Mandan smallpox epidemic of 1837-38–the one the most leftists like to trumpet–you would be hard pressed to find a living historian who agrees with that claim. It’s been discredited. It’s a myth.

            1. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: “Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.”

              Colonial Germ Warfare
              by Harold B. Gill Jr.

              Discredit that. Let me know when you have. kthks

              1. Desired effect of appeasing them? Wow. What else could it have meant that doesn’t make you sound paranoid?

              2. Assuming Trent’s invoice (wherein he revealed his murderous intention) isn’t spurious, the distribution of infected blankets during the siege of Fort Pitt is the very best evidence there is that the colonial armies used germ warfare. The link to plans discussed by Bouquet and Amherst is weak, primarily because of the chronology, though the mention of such a plan in the correspondence between those two men is worthy of note. If there were evidence that this happened in other places, it would be something other than an atrocity and a war crime. As it is, to say that this represents a crime against humanity would be tendentious, because although smallpox was widespread, evidence that colonial soldiers tried to infect native Americans with smallpox is isolated.

                The Holocaust was a crime against humanity. It represented a widespread and systematic attempt to murder all the Jews in Europe. Although a relatively small number of Jews took up arms in occupied territories, the tremendous majority of Jews who were killed were simply murdered according to a diabolical plan conceived at the highest levels of government and systematically, efficiently carried out.

                As strongly as you sympathize with Native Americans who were murdered, and as righteous as that sympathy feels to you, you would do well to distinguish war crimes from crimes against humanity. The evidence suggests that smallpox killed millions of Native Americans without any assistance from colonial armies.

              3. I’ve studied that specific case. Most historians agree that the blankets had little to minimum effect, and that the small pox infection most likely came from a nearby trading village, or would have anyway. Without an effective vaccine, the vast majority of indians who died from small pox would have died regardless of whether or not Europeans had attempted to fight or displace them. Simple contact, whether peaceful or otherwise, was enough.


        3. Bingo, something between 90 and 98 % of the native people died off due to disease that came with European explorers who were quite ignorant of modern germ theory. Was it terrible, yes, tragic, yes, planned, don’t think so.

          1. It was a genocide, and deliberate, city-Statist apologist.

      2. Coff, you’re forgetting Native American is a term created for convenience. It doesn’t include the fact that the Native Americans were actually hundreds of separate Nations. If you asked a Creek or a Choctaw or a Cherokee or an Onandoga or a so forth and so on, I think they might be a little perplexed by the term. That’s like calling the Ottoman invasions of Europe a ‘genocide against Europeans.’ Each individual indian nation dealt with and was dealt with by settlers on the terms of being separate nations. While there was some aknowledgements of Whites vs Natives, “Savages” vs Europeans, you can’t get beyond the fact that the English, French, Spanish, and Americans did determine their diplomacy based on each nation or confederacy of (like the Iroqouis). Blanketly declaring that the Settlers Had it Out for the Injuns ignores this detail.

      3. That’s all well and good but there’s nothing libertarian, minarchist or anarchist to do with that. Trail of tears and scalping were government policy.

        It wasn’t private citizens who did any of that shit. It was your beloved magical state.

        You say massacre I see state.
        You say genocide I see state.
        You say de jure slavery I see a state to provide the jure.

        No matter how you try to sneak up on a mirror, you will see a statist.

        Even the America’s statist ‘solution’ to de jure slavery was a massacre. In every nation in the world slavery ended of it’s own inefficient uneconomic collectivist weight. Only in America did we have to kill half a million people.


      1. Seriously, WHY are you responding to a nuisance with more nuisance?

        1. Judging by his posts, I’d say Cooter’s in love with Miss Rectal. If you think young love is a nuisance, I feel for you, Tulpa.

        2. Seriously, WHY are you responding to a nuisance with more nuisance?

          I’m with you on this one. There are a handful of people here who don’t give a shit about the nuisance they create. WI isn’t the only one shitting all over every thread anymore. The responses are creating as much of a nuisance as the original troll.

            1. X10

    3. Manic phase?

      1. Angry and desperate phase.

          1. Hilarious irony phase.

    4. I googled this speech.

      It does not contain the words ‘land’,’white’, ‘civilization’ or ‘continent’ anywhere.

      I guess fabrication is ok in the interest of the greater good?

      1. “The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army in the world has achieved it. You have.”

        -Actual excerpt.

  8. Has anyone seen this list? It’s definitely one-sided and missing some checks on the Tea Party column, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

  9. If these tards keep going any further in Oakland, some of them are going to end up in a morgue. Hell, in the last couple days we’ve got stories about someone running over a couple with his car, although the injuries were not serious, and a guy protecting his property with a shotgun.

    1. Sacrifices have to be made for progress to occur.

    2. Maybe we should ban cars and shotguns.

      1. Don’t give them ideas.

      2. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  10. whack jobs

    I have not reviewed the Bedford Handbook on this particular spelling/usage issue, but I would probably argue “Wackjob(s)” to be the proper noun, being derived from “wacko / wacky”; whereas the term Whack Jobs are referencing an act sometimes performed by Asian masseuses when customers request a “happy ending”.

    but perhaps the Ed. could clarify.

  11. You all realize, of course, what rather’s White Indian stupidity is really all about, right?

    Flood every OWS thread with this nonsense, and eventually Reason will stop posting about it because the threads become absolute train wrecks.

    She’s engaging in a low-tech denial-of-service attack on this website in order to defend her commie buddies out there with the signs.

    1. …not capitalist Bait-and-Switch talking points.

    2. It is going to work, is the problem. Low-grade DDoS attacks are, imo, threats the site and therefore justification for the ban.

      I think even if this wasn’t the motivation, there is justification for the ban. I prefer the guy who rips off my comment to wedge in between links for Puma shoes over this nutcase. At least Puma-Guy only does it once.

      1. Hell, I even prefer the oxygen allotropes. At least that (those?) troll(s) are amusing with their brief, barely comprehensible posts and odd use of brackets.

      2. I’m consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate property, anti-State.

        That’s hardly DDoS around here.

        It’s not me, but my introduction of the truth, that causes such ruckus.

        The State is an inseparable part of the city-State.

        The only people upset are those who must cling to their dear dogmas by avoiding reality.

      3. links for Puma shoes

        This would actually be useful.

    3. Is that the pattern? I thought the spamming was on pretty much all threads.

      1. It rises to a fever pitch on any OWS thread or anything tangentially related. And don’t think the Koch conspiracy theorist isn’t her as well.

        Considering the sheer volume of it, she probably getting paid to do it. She’s said in the past that she is unemployed with delusions of being a writer. Run a bunch a characters for practice, get that Soros money.


        2. I’m telling you its not me

          Now please post up some more slashfic, preferably involving coprophagia.


          2. Publish the IP above and we will see if Sugarfree is a liar
            -I bet most of us don’t need any proof

            1. No, publish your IP above! I’m the real rather, shoot her, not me!

              1. email me reason, and I will sign a release



          4. Do all people with dissociative identity disorder consider their multiple personalities to be different people?

    4. I think you are right. She does only show up at OWS threads these days. As I said above, it is really surprising that a libertarian site with no registration or bans hasn’t already been DNSed by lefty trolls.

      1. Sweet Combo!

        1. Posting stupid shit on every thread to make conversation hard or impossible, Free Speech.

          1. …after your stupid shit, John. Almost impossible.

            1. …after your stupid shit, John. Almost impossible.

              But you manage to do it every single time, primitard.

        2. See. Deride the thing that would put her out of business. Got to keep that Soros money rolling in.

          What’s more likely? A deranged unemployable “writer” becomes obsessed with a political website to the point that she posts hundreds of times a day, or some leftist organization–the side of the political spectrum obsessed with technological ways to dissemination information–throws a few hundred dollars (pocket change) to a ideological dipshit to disrupt a web-site that opposes them?

          1. A libertarian to admit that the city-state agricultural civilization requires a massive and oppressive STATE to function and thus expose his own stupidity?

            Or for an idiot to keep blaming people who don’t agree with him on being some kind of saboteur?

            1. That I am a crack whore who sucks off Soros online on a regular basis in order to keep my pipe filled with crack, or that I actually believe this bullshit so much I’m compelled to post it repeatedly on every thread on this site all the time?

          2. I kind of think it might not be rather. I think it might be the Orin/Max/Oh no not this again character. That troll always struck me as a striaght up movement leftist. The kind of moron who really would get paid by Adbusters to fuck up threads.

            Rather in contrast seems like a lone wolf. I think her denials might be geniune.

            Also, not that these posts are not White Indian. And rather never has any personal animosity towards me. The Orin/Oh no not this again troll hates me more than anyone on here. And note the OWS bullshit always includes something specificlly directed at me.

            I think there may be a second troll firing from a grassy knoll somewhere.

            1. …but nice try there, whiny Leftist John.

            2. I thought Epi or Sugarfree caught rather in a slip at one point where she let out that WI was her, but I could be mis-remembering.

              1. Yes, I did. Her denials are a load of bullshit; ignore them.

                1. Yes, I did. Her denials are a load of bullshit; ignore them.

                  A link to this event would be appreciated. Nothing personal but I don’t take strangers who comment on blogs word as the unvarnished truth.

                2. It’s beginning to sound like there needs to be a separate thread solely for the purpose of identifying trolls.

            3. A movement leftist isn’t going to come up with something like White Indian. That takes a deluded belief in one’s cleverness and an ability to write in character, like something certain talentless cuntpickles clearly have. There are certainly other trolls at work, but there’s one main one right now.

              1. It is just stuff like this

                I had such difficulty posting|11.4.11 @ 2:21PM|#
                …after your stupid shit, John. Almost impossible.

                That is not rather or white indian. That is 100% Orin/oh no not this again.

                Maybe rather did invent White Indian as some kind of lame joke. I am not sure. But the koch shit and the stuff on this thread I think is Orin.

                1. I get the idea that Orrin is just as brainless as he appears. I don’t think it’s him.

                2. I thought poster “oh no…” was rather. rather likes to change handles in the same style. John, it’s her, trust us.

                  1. “Oh no..” goes back years. Long before rather.

                    1. Perhaps “Oh no…” was the primordial troll handle?

            4. That’s fuckin’ bullshit, John.

              You should know that MNG hates you here more than anyone else.

              All the hate fucking you guys do and all . . .

            5. I think there may be a second troll firing from a grassy knoll somewhere.

              LMAO, good one.

      2. John, I won’t tell you again but I considered you fair, in the past. All these WI,’rather’, etc posts are not me.

        Anyone can Meebo, or email me to ask.

        SF, you are playing a game that I promise you, you will lose, and have company

        1. I for one believe you. Mainly because your primary accusers consist of SF and Warty who use this blog as their playpen, and Epi who I go back and forth on whether he adds more than he subtracts. Right now it’s a definite subtract.

          1. Side with a troll spamming multiple threads just to make a passive-aggressive gesture at me. Pathetic.

            I’m not substantive enough for you, Tulpa? Maybe you think I don’t make enough money to post here? The MNG of the right has spoken.

            1. SF, you insult people left and right and no, you don’t add much substance. That’s a perfectly valid complaint.

              Even if rather is WI etc., the correct response is to just ignore her/them. That’s not what’s happening.

              I don’t care how much money you make, you may well make more than me, I dunno.

          2. Thanks Tulpa,
            I’ve been privately emailed too. It’s just frustrating when I see some people really think that anyone has time to play how many characters? I don’t even know.

            It has to be more than one person, and coordinate by email-that I am sure.

    5. SugarFree|11.4.11 @ 2:06PM|#

      You all realize, of course, what rather’s White Indian stupidity is really all about, right?

      I had gathered that the person was a Spoof character invented to goad libertarians into non-sensical semantic debates about property rights, borders, and moral logic… basically, twisting definitions to try and make a purely-rhetorical -bizarro point suggesting that REAL liberty onviously requires eradicating private property and the nation state.

      Anyway… 1) How do you know ‘it’ is a girl? and b) your connection makes sense, but I’m pretty sure Ive noted White Injun posting the same stupid crap on other threads having nothing to do with OWS…

      I don’t deny you your thought, but I suspect the person is an annoying, facetious asshole *purely for its own sake*.

      I personally think the best policy is “Ignore”, in any case

      1. I would be fine with ignoring, but she handle-hops to specifically avoid the filters. (She self-identifies as female, so I refer to her with female pronouns.)

        It’s all rather. All. The time last month that she was gone, all of this shit went with her.

        I will never, ever go to any sort of Reason sponsored event.

        1. Whatever the case may be, the choice of advocating “huter-gatherer primitivism” as the sole-legitimate form of Real Libertarianism would be far more interesting if not for the fact the person is such a screaming douchebag.

          I wouldn’t mind a completely stateless world where, like Indians, we could gambol across hill and dale, and feast on the fruits of nature according to our abilities…and when one happened to gambol across the path of some shithead like White Indian, you could kill them and scalp them and skin them and not worry about any legal repercussions but for the potential revenge of their tribe-mates; who, if birds of a feather do flock together, are all also annoying pussies who seek only to irritate others, and have probably been decimated in raids by neighboring tribes.

          Because, as we all know… *Indians never fought with each other over property or boundaries*….

          1. I’m consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate property, anti-State.

            That’s hardly trolling around here.

            It’s not me, but my introduction of the truth, that causes such ruckus.

            The State is an inseparable part of the city-State.

            The only people upset are those who must cling to their dear dogmas by avoiding reality.

            1. White Indian|11.5.11 @ 8:16AM|#
              I’m consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate property, anti-State.

              and screaming asshole

              it does make a difference

    6. The sad thing is, it would take a marginally proficient web programmer about 8 hours to come up with a way to block the easiest and most common types of annoyance (all caps, long comments, etc) without having to go to a registration system, in a way that would require anyone who wants to circumvent to be extremely creative. And yet Reason doesn’t bother with it.

      1. The question is not how but why? …Wouldn’t you miss SF, BP helle, epi, pro lib, GM etc

      2. Yeah, but brief posts about gambol lockdowns are still annoying as hell (though I guess you could get rid of posts with the word “gambol”)

        1. As Sevo has said, don’t feed the vermin, don’t get vermin shit. I just ignore WI and scroll down until I find an unrelated comment.

          1. Tell that to COOTER.

      3. I’ve read a few of the posts and I think that she might be a “PBS” (shorthand for “Political Bot Spammer”) which is something that’s been gaining attention since OWS started gaining traction.

        Damn thing works similar to those damn “thread bots” that read a comment and then copy it further down the line with the ads wedged it. The only difference is that the bot looks for certain key words (i.e. libertarian, property rights or limited government) and then will spam you with a combination of comments that are appropriate to the original post or article. Notice how the little fucker keeps responding in a line by line fashion and not in paragraphs. Also, way too many of the lines she’s using are 100% verbatim, which means that she’s reading from a pre-written script. The bitch is just the start of the hot new trend to shut down opposition and stifle dissent.

        They’re also called “troll bots” (which is probably the term that will catch on) and I find it amusing that even “worker freedom” groups like ACORN prefer automation to putting socialist college students to work!

  12. At some point Libertarians need to admit to themselves that the left are simply better at protesting.

    1. As has been said previously, we have jobs, or are actively looking for them.

      1. I don’t counter that. Protesting requires a commitment of time. Time we’re not willing to make, because we have loans to pay off, mortages to make, rent to make and mouths to feed.

      2. …workshop, Church Lady?

        “We Don’t Want Full Employment, We Want Full Lives!”


    2. At some point Libertarians need to admit to themselves that the left are simply better at protesting spending weeks whacking off in the park instead of working.


        1. Weird.

      2. …much??????

        How’s that wage slavery working?

        1. Arbeit Macht Frei.

          Motto of:
          ? Libertarians
          ? Nazis
          ? Sundry other city-STATISTs who need to make people guilty about not working for the hierarchical elite.


      3. Why did everyone disagree with WTF? I would argue that the left are better at diddling around in swank, urban parks than getting jobs. Did I miss something?

        1. I think BP might have been aiming at rectal and just screwed up the threaded comments.

          1. Well, it was Cooter, but I’m sure he was talking to WI and not you.

            1. That darn cooter and his interwebz antics!

        2. BP saw “Libertarians need to admit” and some bold text and just assumed it was WI again. A decent guess, lol. I fell for it myself for a second.

    3. They’re just more annoying.

    4. The freikorps would respectfully disagree.

      1. As members of the National Socialist German Workers Party, yeah, like the left, they’ll be better at protesting too.

        1. I take your point but must stress it is far more nuanced than that. The freikorps pre-date the NS takeover of the DAP by quite a spell, fought both for and against the German state, and weren’t officially subsumed by the SA and SS until the early 1930s.

          1. I take your point too, but I mean, the freikorps were midwives to the “Final Solution” which was based on the idea that wealth was disproportionately controlled by the jews.

            Right or left, somehow it comes down to the belief that someone is hording a dollar that you would otherwise have.

            1. True dat. Related question. With all of the moral waivers for military recruitment that have been necessitated by our Mesopotamia and Kaffiristan misadventures, are we in danger of freikorps problem of our own when we ‘bring the troops home’ and a great many of them realize exactly how unemployable they truly are?

              1. If you mean a freikorps in the literal sense, I would say “no”. I think the things that were driving the freikorps were somewhat unique to Weimar Germany at the time (fervent nationalism).

                I think our society is a little too fragmented for those kinds of movements from veterans who themselves are a very diverse group.

                Having said that, will our economy continue to wither away to such a degree that the conditions will be right for roving gangs of violent misfits who blame their economic malaise on this or that group? Sure, I think it’s possible. I just don’t see violent revolutionary movements in our near future, though.

                1. A modern Hell’s Angels?

    5. Paul|11.4.11 @ 2:08PM|#

      At some point Libertarians need to admit to themselves that the left are simply better at protesting.

      “Better” ?

      If “better face-paint, puppets, more dumb hot chicks” GREATER THAN> “actually having a coherent point, political viability, etc” in Modern Protest Theory… then I’d guess you’d be right.

      I think the more germane point would be,

      “Libertarians are never going to be good at ‘mass movement’ activities because *we hate being part of clubs/TEAMS/groups*, and prefer to bitch in small circles while getting wasted and arguing whether Rush and Zappa suck or not, and whether the Ramones or Stooges are more awesome…

      1. to bitch in small circles

        This is a Mass [State] Society.

        Do you prefer Non-State sociopolitical typology like White Indian?

        Small is beautiful.

        1. Small is beautiful.

          And I suppose in your particular ethos and behavior, “petty” is divine.

      2. If “better face-paint, puppets, more dumb hot chicks” GREATER THAN> “actually having a coherent point, political viability, etc” in Modern Protest Theory… then I’d guess you’d be right.

        Yep, that’s pretty much what I meant.

        I didn’t mean to imply “more correct”, more salient, more intelligent. I merely meant better at the theater of protest.

      3. This is indeed true. Granted, every now and again a Madison or Coolidge come along who take part in politics, but the essence of libertarianism is a simple desire to be LEFT ALONE!

      4. As was mentioned up thread this protest thing is all about getting laid.

        Protests and beer are probably the two biggest aids to skinny hipster douches getting laid. They have to learn to grow patchy facial hair and mouth vague leftist gobbledygook and you are taking the beef bus to tuna town.

  13. Of course, that nasty government is the CAPITALIST”S CUT-OUT MAN TO BLAME, to Libertarians. Nice bait-and-switch there.

    For many years he worked for an international consulting firm where his main job was to convince LDCs (less developed countries) around the world to accept multibillion-dollar loans for infrastructure projects and to see to it that most of this money ended up at Halliburton, Bechtel, Brown and Root, and other United States engineering and construction companies. This book, which many people warned Perkins not to write, is a blistering attack on a little-known phenomenon that has had dire consequences on both the victimized countries and the U.S.

    Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
    by John Perkins

    Billions starving, but no connection to capitalism, right? “How Conveeeeeenient!” ~Church Lady



      1. Can somebody let me in on the backwoods jokes wrt to rctl?

        1. I don’t know what Cooter’s up to, either, dude.

          1. Damn that Cooter and his sneaky intarwebz shenanigans.

        2. My take on it is that since “rather” is widely suspected of being the author of the “White Indian” posts that the commentariat has created “COOTER” a faux-redneck character to court WI. WI claims to reject civilization, so they court her by offering her roadkill, etc – items which would provide clothing or food to a real primitive.

          It’s obnoxious all-around, but whatever.

          1. I’m consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate property, anti-State.

            The State is an inseparable part of the city-State.

            The only people upset and TYPING 100% IN CAPS are those who must cling to their dear dogmas by avoiding reality.

            It’s funny to watch. I’m anti-State and hated.


    4. Gosh, I just didn’t know that if I took that loan I’d have to pay it back! I never thought multi-national companies would have an agenda! They plied me with their sweet talk of lollipops and sunshine!

    5. Psychological Transference, LOLZ

  14. The fear here is palpable.

    1. Fear?
      These people want politicians to take more power for themselves.
      Why would politicians fear them?
      These people are a politician’s wet dream!

    2. haha. what a dope.

      Fear of disorganized communists who are such useful idiots they are all lined up to vote for their own oppression? yeah, not.

  15. I’ve spoken with a couple folks who there are the last Oakland “riot”.

    It is mostly composed of (willfully) homeless kids who like fire and aging baby boomers who never let go of communism; neither type is capable of listening to reason.

    There’s a few people there who have connected half the dots and are really mad about corporate privileges granted by government, but are mistakenly convinced that the solution is to get them in bed together even tighter than before.

  16. We’ve got to crack down on this Free Minds bullshit! It’s just a talking point anyway!


  17. If this were a Christian encampment the FBI & ATF would have already brought in flame throwing tanks, Flash grenades and the bullets wouldn’t be rubber. How do we know this just remember Waco.

    1. They had to destroy the compound – to save the children that were being molested.

    2. You make a good point. And remember, the Branch Davidians were on their own property the whole time.

    3. I agree Waco should never be forgotten (and add Ruby Ridge in there).

      But the treatment of the folks in Waco had more to do with the perception they were very outside the mainstream (a “cult”) than that they wer Christians. They got a treatment similar to what MOVE got in 85.

      1. Everybody loves a Philly barbeque

      2. So to me the lesson of Waco and Ruby Ridge is that whenever LE, in the course of moving against someone, starts a pr campaign trying to marginalize them, then look out. They are looking to build up rationalizations to beat and kill those people.

        1. Are red people shit?

        2. ^ Have to agree with MNG 100% on this one.

          1. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

        3. LE tried this recently with the Mormon compound. Nothing works the PR effect authorities want to justify beating and killing more than the child molesting thing.

          I’m suprised they didn’t use that one against Randy Weaver, but I guess they felt the Nazi card would justify anything.

      3. I think you are right about that. Also, the BATF pushed every button they could to strike at that compound. It is no coincidence the BATF claimed, with no evidence, that there was child molestation at the compound. Everyone knew child abuse was a hot button with Janet Reno.

        The Dividians were outsiders who had the misfortune of being chosen as a publicity cow for the BATF. It wasn’t that they were Christians.

        1. I’ve read that Koresh regularly went jogging outside the compound. Local police could easily have approached him in a non-confrontational fashion. But the BATF acted in a heavy-handed, provocative way. As a result many died.

          Again though, imo Ruby Ridge was actually worse (if possible), but, you know, that guy was a Nazi so it was supposed to be ok.

          This is why I’m sorry but as nutty as OWS comes off to me when the police and media start to paint them as these wacko, dangerous fringe I think “oh, they must be chomping at the bit to go beat and kill some of them.”

          If they are occupying private lands, kick them off, sure. But the ones on public land? Let them be. It’ll get cold and they will go away.

          1. He used to jog. And the local police knew him. They could have walked out and got him any time they wanted.

            I don’t think they are going to whack the OWS people. At some point they have to go home. You can’t just move into a public park and stay there. That is not fair to the people who live around there.

            And you can’t go down and break windows and stuff. I think the problem is that there are a lot of crazy dangerous people running around the streets of Big US cities. And OWS is becoming a haven for them. The original dumb college kids who started it had no idea what they were doing. There are a lot of people in big cities you don’t want to meet. You can’t start living in New York and handing out free food and not expect to have some crazy and dangerous people show up.

            At this point, I don’t think they are doing their cause any good by staying there. They are risking the crazies obtaining a critical mass and the whole thing spinning out of control, which would be bad for every one.

            1. Well, I don’t think they helped any cause from the get go. But in their defense I will say that the “breaking windows” stuff that I’ve read about has to be considered in conjuntion with the violence initiated by the police. A “they started it” thing is rarely helpful, but it’s interesting how much focus is on the breaking of windows and not the tear gas and nightsticks to the head of the cops.

              1. What happened at the Port of Oakland was not initiated by the police. They went down there specifically to shut down the port.

                1. After the police had beat the shit out of them, nearly killing some.

                  1. What does one have to do with the other? The police are attacking us lets go shut down the port? That seems highly unlikely. More likely is that they thought shutting down the port was a good thing to do.

                  2. “After the police had beat the shit out of them, nearly killing some.”

                    After the protesters had started throwing rocks and fireworks at them.

                2. “”They went down there specifically to shut down the port.””

                  Yet they wonder why their iPhone 4s hasn’t arrived.

          2. If they are occupying private lands, kick them off, sure. But the ones on public land? Let them be. It’ll get cold and they will go away.

            The White House is public land. I take it you wouldn’t mind random Tea Partiers taking up residence on the lawn outside the Oval Office window?

      4. The lesson of Waco is that is was time for ATF’s annual Congressional funding PR stunt.

  18. “OWS demands more government redistribution of wealth?a process entirely dependent on the use of force.”

    Wait a minute, isn’t the common defense of property, the enforcement of contracts, the combating of fraud, and more a process that if not entirely is commonly dependent on the use of force?

    1. There is a difference between initiating force and reacting with force.

      Redistribution requires the initiation of force.

      Those things you mention require the ability to react to an initiation of force/fraud with force.

      initiate != react

      1. Fraud is force? And not living up to a contract?

        1. Fraud.

          “This treaty shall stand as long as the rivers flow, the grass grows, the sun rises, or 90 days, which ever comes first.

          Gotta love contract small print.

          1. The Broken Indian Treaties memes on the left are often very simplistic. There were actually many good faith efforts to work with Indians and make honorable treaties. There were often multiple people who claimed to represent indian groups, some would sign then another would say they were the real leader and they never signed…Often the treaties were attempts to do the best that could be done by the indians given the demands of settlers, and those demands were not always based in the greed of the setters.

            1. Yes. And people also forget that lots of Indians took up the US government offers and quit being Indians and became farmers and such.

              It is a very complex and tragic story. What is sad is that popular history has simplfied and risks losing a really fascinating history.

              1. Poop poopy poop

              2. Which is very complex and tragic, and a big government program that Statist apologists are sure to use as a way of showing how benevolent the State is.

            2. many good faith efforts to work with Indians

              Bullshit, you city-STATIST apologist.

              “There was no room for Indians in Jefferson’s empire of liberty,” writes Jones. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself spoke frankly of what we would today call genocide. “We must leave it to yourself to decide [whether] the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal,” Jefferson once wrote to Clark’s older brother, the storied Indian fighter George Rogers Clark. “The same world would scarcely do for them and us.”

              ~Jonathan Kirsch, review of William Clark and the Shaping of the West by Landon Y. Jones, Los Angeles Times, 6/6/04

              The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.

              ~David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World

              When the Spaniards had collected a great deal of gold from the Indians, they shut them up in three big houses, crowding in as many as they could, then set fire to the houses, burning alive all that were in them, yet those Indians had given no cause nor made any resistance.

              ~Bartolom? de las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, 1542

              No historian would accept accounts of Nazi officials as to what happened in Nazi Germany because these accounts were written to justify that regime. Yet American historians are still subjective about their own history with a few exceptions. They try to justify and rationalize what happened, give excuses or lay blame on a few exceptionally cruel generals or wild frontiersmen. There were too many massacres for them to be accidental. There were too many buffalo for them to become extinct in a period of five years. Genocide is colonial policy, not accident.

              ~Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz (Cheyenne), The Great Sioux Nation: Sitting in Judgment on America


        2. You’re deliberately being an idiot. Not that you have to try very hard.

          1. Really? How is fraud force? Or non-compliance of contracts? Certainly the combating of fraud and non-complaince of contracts is largely dependent on force (government force in our world).

            You said “but initiating force and responding to it is different.” So I reply: ok, how is fraud or non-compliance with contracts “initiating force.”

            1. Yes I said that in the first sentence.

              Further down in the post I clarified with force/fraud. The / was intended to mean “and/or”, and anyone with a three digit IQ who is not being deliberately obtuse would understand this, so that leaves you out.

              1. Ok, so now tell me, isn’t the way governments in Minarchtopia would deal with non-compliance with contracts or fraud an “initiation of force?”

                See, everyone sans a White Indian anarchist believes that at times force can be justified even against those who have not initiated force. The high horse of libertarians turns out to be just a different style of shoe.

                1. Are you a moron or being deliberately obtuse?

                  I think it’s both, in which case you can’t really be blamed for being obtuse since it is in your nature as a moron.

                  1. We’ll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They’ll see the flames for miles. We’ll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?… Or am I being obtuse?

                    1. I’m curious as to why you cannot read or understand the third sentence in my 2:25 post.

                      Go back and read it. It’s OK. It won’t bite.

                  2. I’m curious as to why you can’t seem to answer the question if it is so obvious.

                    I’ll ask it a third time: isn’t the way governments in Minarchtopia would deal with non-compliance with contracts or fraud an “initiation of force?”

                    1. I’m curious as to why you cannot see how the third sentence in my 2:25PM post modifies the point made by the first.

                      Go ahead. Read it. The third sentence. It’s OK. You can do it. Really. It’s OK.

                    2. I’m curious as to why you cannot see how the third sentence in my 2:25PM post modifies the point made by the first.

                      Go ahead. Read it. The third sentence. It’s OK. You can do it. Really. It’s OK.

            2. I agree with you that fraud is not really force. However, like force, it makes the functioning of a free market impossible. Running a background check on every transaction one makes would be prohibitively expensive. So a minarchist govt would have to punish both force and fraud.

              1. I see fraud as robbery just, as if you held a gun to my head.

                1. I see fraud as robbery just, as if you held a gun to my head.

                  It’s not reall force unless you pull the trigger. After all, you still have a choice whether or not to comply with the wishes of the robber. 🙂

                  1. Also, fraud is ‘forcefully’ severing a contract an existing contract. It does not involve physical force, but it is contrary to prior agreements and expectations. It falls under the same category as unarmed robbery, pickpocketing, etc., just at the white collar level (usually).

            3. Now for the grand prize: Define “fraud”?

            4. “How is fraud force?”

              Of course fraud is force, in the exact same way robbery is. Fraud is robbery by another name. If you were defrauded, you were wronged, and therefore someone initiated force against you.

              I have to agree with sarcasmic, MNG. You are just being a dick.

      2. The Trail of Tears was a coerced redistribution of wealth by capitalist initiation of force.

        The agricultural city-STATE is invasive and occupational.

        Libertarians love it, with a sprinkle of “freedom and rights” talking points.

        1. Dude, I think the Trail of Tears was initiated by the government, you know, army troops.

          1. ….to blame, when needed as a debate convenience.


        2. The agricultural city-STATE is invasive and occupational.

          So was the Original Affluent Society, though you scream that it never was.

    2. The Trail of Tears was a coerced redistribution of wealth.

      The agricultural city-STATE is invasive and occupational.

      Libertarians love it, with a sprinkle of “freedom and rights” talking points.

      1. So what you’re saying is that there can never be a point where society develops past its violent tendencies through intellectual and philosophical endeavors. Only a return to the nomadic lifestyle ensures freedom for all, coupled with an early death from pre-ACS diseases and dangers.


        1. NO. Don’t put words in my mouth, nuclear weapons boy.

          Ever hear of diseases of civilization? Agriculture makes us sick.

          Documented here:

          The data reviewed in preceding chapters suggest that prehistoric hunting and gathering populations would have been visited by fewer infections and suffered lower overall rates of parasitization

          Health and the Rise of Civilization
          Mark Nathan Cohen
          Yale University Press

          Empirical data beats Hobbesian mythology, every day. Except to support your religio-economic ideology.

          1. I call your primitivist bullshit with religious bullshit and raise you with


            1. Both religio-economic dogmas must ignore and deprecate the simple fact that empirical data shows humans did NOT evolve into a Hobbesian dystopia.

          2. Tool Of the State — Educated by the State — Employed by the State — Living Fat off of Taxpayer Dollars. Not credible.

            1. Tool Of the State — Educated by the State — Employed by the State — Living Fat off of Taxpayer Dollars. Not credible.

          3. NO. Don’t put words in my mouth, nuclear weapons boy.

            Or else what? You’ll bitch about your swank lifestyle some more?

          4. Tell me where there are herds of iPads ready to be hunted and then I’ll join you.

  19. Hey guys, what’s up in this thread? I’m going to try and shit all over it because frankly rectal is getting all the attention and I’m jealous. For my first act, I will act deliberately obtuse and pretend like I can’t understand the difference between initiating force to take something and using force to defend yourself. If you don’t respond to me, I’ll have to find some other way to kill time like beating off to goatse.

    1. 4 sentences and no substance. I’ve consulted the actuarial tables, and I’ve determined that I make more money than you.

      1. I guess Warty’s done trolling feminist websites for nuggets of silliness that he can post with insights such as “Oh for fuck’s sake!”

        Keep it real Warty one.

        1. Less than four sentences. No substance. Try harder next time. FOURTH SENTENCE>

          1. Listen, Moon. I make a lot more money than you, and I expect higher-quality internet postings than this. Consider yourself warned. Warned.

          2. What sad lives and/or impotent lil’ white hot rage you GOPers must have to get such mileage out of this…Epi said people that post around here must not have real jobs, I said he posted a lot and then he insisted he had a real job maybe I didn’t. I said I did, one that likely made more than he did. I wonder why this upsets the GOPers and the Three Stooges so much? Perhaps youre not the well-rewarded productive ubermen of your dreams?


  20. The whole Occupy movement is doomed to fail. Why?

    1) The typical attendees have comparatively lower-than-average voting percentages.

    2) They fail miserably at connecting with anyone on the fence about the issue. How many people were initially interested by the anti-bank message only to leave once the broad anti-capitalist message moved to the forefront.

    3) The majority of those involved already live and vote in districts that swing heavily Democratic anyway. No new ground stands to be gained in the electoral college.

    Touchy-feely hippie jamfest, man!

    1. The whole libertarian movement is doomed to fail. Why?

      1) The typical libertarian have comparatively lower-than-average voting percentages.

      2) They fail miserably at connecting with anyone on the fence about the issue. How many people were initially interested by the anti-war message only to leave once the broad anti-government message moved to the forefront.

      3) The majority of those involved already live and vote in districts that swing heavily Republican anyway. No new ground stands to be gained in the electoral college.

      Touchy-feely capitalist-wannabee jamfest, man!

      1. …and counts coup on your silly talking points.

        If you were for real freedom right here on Turtle Island, we would get along famously.

        Instead, you have fear of wilderness, and must bootlick the city-STATE and plead for the heavy hand of government to protect your precious rights Gambol Lockdown.

        1. Gambol lockdown? Yeah, I heard about that new feature in the next version of windows. It’s supposed to prevent those annoying pop-unders.

          1. My new band name

        2. WI for overposting, grandstanding and playing the clown instead of gamboling freely….

          1. WI because they are revolted by authoritarian scolds.

      2. Actually, it’s our anti-social tendencies and aversion to large groups of people that doom us to political oblivion, but whatever floats your boat.

        1. It’s not an aversion. Mass society is a failure because of an evolutionary neurobiologial limit known as Dunbar’s Number.

          Great intro here, especially for old fuckers:

          Dunbar, technological advances, and the failure of social structure
          Published on October 14th, 2011

          1. A variant of the old Marxist theory of technological unemployment. Not even original.

            Boring……. Try harder

            1. …is science based on empirical data. I don’t think Marxism is, but if you want to think so, enjoy your delusions.

              Could it be….Marxism? ~Libertarian Church Lady

              1. the research is based on non-human primates ffs. It also doesn’t take into account technology that facilitates contact management. So what empirical data regarding humans is there?

                1. the research is based on non-human primates ffs


                  British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, studied humans. Hint: Anthropologists study humans.

                  He does compare other species data with human data.

                  Maybe you’re confused.

      3. Nice original thought there. So much for that famed liberal intellectualism….

          1. WI is a nitwit, libertarian

      4. #1 and #2 are spot-on.

        #3 is almost certainly false, particularly for Reason libertarians.

  21. Godzilla: Go it alone libertarian icon or cold blooded monster?

    1. Nuclear-enhanced Gamboler

    2. Monster Island didn’t have a government?

      1. I think the UN attacks him on several occaisions.

      2. What he meant to say was that Monster Island was really a peninsula.

    3. I believe I am uniquely suited to respond to this question.

      I am a zoroastrian who occasionally engages in seemingly destructive behaviors in order to better illustrate the stark contrast between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.

      My political beliefs are narco-syndacalist.

      1. This explains why he smashes public housing?

  22. C’mon, the “Jump you fuckers” sign was one of the funnier protest signs I’ve seen!

    1. It really is.

  23. The OWS people would “would support violence to advance their agenda.”

    Luckily they suck at violence. on the other hand, many of us “Leave me alone / Constitutionalists / Libertarians” are really good at it.

    1. Call me on the red hotline courtesy phone, Old Soldier.

  24. I drop by my local Occupy frequently and ask at random “if you get X on Friday, what happens on Monday?” where X is bank regulation, tax reform, ending the Fed,…, blowing up hydro-electric plants. Seriously, there is a book study circle that thinks we should start blowing up hydro-electric plants. But the only answer to this question is a generic and meandering list of evil windmills that deserve to be tilted at. When I ask “What can we do in either the R or the D primaries to affect change?” … no answer. I could go on but you get the idea. No tactical sense – not even an urge to begin to think about tactics other than the camera friendly closing of bank accounts. But the worst thing is the constant presence of crazy homeless people off medication that are hopelessly toxic to any reasonable mode of behavior. They get shushed when they (predictably) act out but they are essential to the body count at 3am so they are (more than) tolerated.

    1. But the worst thing is the constant presence of crazy homeless people off medication

      But enough about the Working Committee leaders . . . .

    2. I think the dams are the target more than the electric plants. (Obviously the electric plant goes if the dam goes, but it’s not the target).

      Dams do have some pernicious effects on the environment, particularly upstream.

      1. Yeah, I’ve met environmentalists who feel that dams are much worse, especially where they impact a habitat with several endangered species, than fossil fuel-fired thermal power plants.

    3. I did see a huge “Ron Paul for President” sign (an official one, to boot) in the gathering in Philly tonight.

  25. Stupefy isn’t a movement. Or rather, it might be one in the bowel sense.

  26. MNG asks why force should be used to redress fraud/enforce contracts.

    Really, he’s asking why force should be used to protect property rights. Fraud and breach of contract are both a violation of the victim’s property rights, after all.

    The answer, I think, is pretty simple: if you don’t use force to protect property rights, then you don’t have defensible property rights. Someone who violates them can just keep their ill-gotten gains by refusing your polite requests for restitution.

    Example: Someone trespasses on your property, and even starts to build a house there. You ask them to leave. They don’t. You get a court order for them to leave. They don’t. You win damages from them. They refuse to pay. Without recourse, ultimately, to force, you have no way to protect your property.

    1. How can a strong-state supporter be anti-force? I mean, that’s what government is all about.

    2. Fraud and breach of contract are both a violation of the victim’s property rights, after all.

      How so? The victim in both cases gave up their property voluntarily. Not having full knowledge does not make an act involuntary.

      We would never say that a woman who had sex with a guy who claimed to be a lawyer was raped, would we?

      1. Not having full knowledge does not make an act involuntary.

        If a different choice would have been made had full knowledge been available, and full knowledge is not available through deliberate deception or obfuscation, then I would say that is a violation of something.

        1. So a woman who sleeps with a man who lied about his occupation/income/vehicle has been raped?

          1. In general fraud and breach of contract involve money changing hands.
            Which makes your example pretty dumb.

            1. But that’s exactly what I’m saying: If one party’s lying renders a monetary transaction non-consensual, how does it not do the same to a sexual encounter? Consent is consent regardless of which situation we’re talking about.

          2. Is someone who was defrauded out of money a victim of armed robbery?

            1. Is someone who was defrauded out of money a victim of armed robbery?

              No. Closer to *unarmed* (no force necessary) robbery. If I sneak into your house and steal your television, I did not use any force against you. (I may have done you a favor if you watch MSNBC.) What I did was violate the implicit contract that I don’t enter your home without permission and you don’t enter mine.

          3. no Tulpa. A woman who sleeps with a man who lied about his occupation/income/vehicle can’t claim rape. She COULD claim that she was defrauded, but that doesn’t mean her case would hold up in court.

      2. Fraud is a sort of breach of contract (I am not delivering what I promised to deliver because I lied), and breach of contract is a species of theft (I have taken your property without paying for it in full).

        Unless you’re the sort who thinks that leaving your door unlocked means that you consented to the thief walking out with your stuff, a victim of neither fraud nor breach consented to having their property taken. What they agreed to was a deal; a deal which was broken by the other party.

        1. Or, Tulpa, you can think of it this way.

          What matters isn’t whether you handed over your property “voluntarily”. After all, “voluntary” actions include damn near everything you do, many of which you would not think justified having someone take your property. Example: You “voluntarily” walk into a room and look at a painting. There is no sign or other indication that the painting can be viewed upon payment of a fee. The owner demands a fee, based on your voluntary action. Do you owe it? Why not? You acted voluntarily, after all.

          Your property rights are violated when someone takes your property without your consent, so what matters is whether you gave fully informed consent to the other person taking your property. In both fraud and breach of contract cases, you have not. Ergo, your property rights are violated.

          1. That example doesn’t really parallel what we were talking about. You’re talking about someone swooping in and demanding something you never agreed to.

          2. I mean, in that example, there’s no fraud on the part of the owner; he’s simply making a demand that he has no right to enforce.

            1. But why doesn’t he have this right?

        2. If I say to you “I will give you this shovel for $10” and you agree, I give you the shovel and you give me $10, and then you go home and start digging a hole and the shovel handle breaks in half because it was previously broken and glued back together, you can sue (and possibly have me arrested) for fraud.

          But the contract we made was not breached. I did give you a shovel, albeit a useless one.

    3. If you see no difference between the initiation of force for the purpose of redistributing wealth, and use of force in reaction to the initiation of force or fraud, then you’re going to have a difficult time wrapping your head around libertarianism.

      1. Indeed, but whether a particular use of force is “initiation” or “response” can sometimes be non-obvious to evaluate.

        1. Come on. It’s not a chicken/egg thing.
          Some things are pretty obvious.

          1. Yes, when the response is immediate it’s likely to be clear cut. But when it’s not, things get murky.

  27. Anyone who claims they speak for 99% of the population is either Kim Jung Il or the village idiot.

    Should this movement actually go anywhere, which is as likely as Richard Dawkins becoming Pope, the first people to die will be them, not the rich capitalists they think will be guillotined.

    1. Anyone who claims that 1% owning 40% of the wealth isn’t something that needs to be addressed is either Kim Jung Il or the village idiot.

      1. You would prefer a system where 1% (the political class) owns 99% of the wealth?

        That’s socialism.

        1. Both are quite similar manifestations of political control within city-STATISM.

          1. Both concentrate wealth and power to a few elite.

          2. Both rely on wage slavery, hierarchy, and central planning.

          3. Both collapse when the top gets too heavy.

          They differ in that communism does it all faster, and collapses faster.

          Both are a cancer on society, but communism is a fast cancer, compared to capitalism being a slower cancer.

          So, White Indian says: Yay! for slow cancer! It’s preferable! But I’d rather not have the city-STATIST cancer blighting the Land.

          1. but always SPAM-links to Statist Tools for supporting arguments.

      2. Anyone who claims that the government absolutely must “do something” about 1% owning 40% of the wealth is either Kim Jung Il or the village idiot.

        1. Anyone who claims that we must ignore 1% owning 40% of the wealth is either Kim Jung Il or the village idiot.

          1. Did Pssty Woo-Woo Man just bitch about wealth envy bullshit again? I was busy taking a shit… and not on the living-room floor, like PWWM does.

  28. …are all my CAPITAL LETTER slave boys, who follow me everywhere i go. Well, they have to, with the…um…arrangements as they may be. *snicker*

    Please welcome them.

    Here’s one, in action. Want to meet the rest?

    It really is fun putting that libertarian voluntary slavery stuff in action.

    Our contract took away their tiny letters. They do obey so perfectly.


    2. This is irrefutable evidence that rater=WI. rather ALWAYS talked about her “boys” and usually included heller into the mix.

      The jig is up, “lady”.

      1. Weak circumstantial evidence. I still say that Grand Unified Troll Theory is unsupported and that actual troll behavior better conforms to the Standard Model.

        All-Caps Cooter is just about to pass the threshold where it is even more tiresome than White Indian. Give it a rest, guys, you’re not helping.

  29. This comment thread is the best evidence yet on H&R of why most sites moderate comments.

    Too bad we can’t have nice things anymore.

    1. They must want it this way. Why? I have no clue.

    2. I can see why you wouldn’t want to tie up employee time actively moderating comments (although Lucy is free to moderate me anytime she wants).

      But, registration doesn’t tie up resources, and would solve our little infestation.

      1. I’m not sure I entirely like the registration idea. Spoof handles are occasionally useful, and sometimes hilarious.

        I think an IP ban might be a better solution.

      2. Or just stop feeding the troll. It’s a system that’s never really been tried.

        1. We are libertarians and for the most part believe people can solve problems by themselves with minimal authority/rules. We constantly claim that people will band together to act in their own best interests. Here is an idea…let’s prove it.

          Instead of pushing for moderators or registration… let’s treat this WI situation as a libertarian experiment. Let’s stand by our libertarian ideals and solve the problem on our own. Let’s ALL agree to NOT interact with WI at all. Would you post all day, every day if no one would respond to you? I doubt it.

          Let’s all agree to NOT FEED THE TROLL!

          Problem solved…in a libertarian manner.

          (Yeah, I know I’m a day late on this and no one is going to read it. I’ll try to re-post on the first thread out Monday AM)

  30. The Tea Party supports the threat of state violence to deport undocumented workers.

    Therefore 100% of the Tea Party supports violence.

    Did I do that right?

    1. You need censored.

    2. Ooh. Factpwned!

    3. And perhaps even more to the point, Hinkle’s logic fails to distinguish OWS from anyone who supports any amount of taxation. Presenting an understanding of taxation as the use of violence to achieve an agenda essentially makes the degree of taxation irrelevant. That is, if someone puts a gun to my head and demands $100, I don’t really consider that any less a crime than if they demand $1000 – the act that is wrong is the violence, and the amount of money being extorted is trivial. Since the vast majority of people, probably even most libertarians, are willing to accept some level of coercive taxation in order to perform certain government functions (achieve our agenda), Hinkle takes any force out of the argument that government should be smaller and taxation should be lower. He basically makes himself into the left’s strawman – a libertarian who thinks taxation is tantamount to Bolshevism – and prevents anyone from listening to serious arguments about why what OWS wants is dangerous.

      1. If the State were a child, I would molest it.

    4. Yes, you did. And libertarians are pro-immigration and free borders so you must be confused about what forum you stumbled into.

  31. ” If borrowers break their promises, the loans will dry up, which would not be fair to future would-be borrowers.”


    Does not follow.

    Sorry, man.

    Just doesn’t.

  32. It’s like a drum circle. Sure, it’s an expression of free speech, even though its content-free. It’s perhaps the ultimate expression of selfishness, denying others the ability to have a conversation.

    Registration now.

    1. Comrade, your disposition for controlling the free exchange of ideas is so precious.


  33. …of the regulars here. Which is why they’ve got their panties in a twist.

    His ideas are powerful medicine.

    He is the singular person here who is consistently anti-Statist, anti-aggression, pro-freedom.

    He has volumes of empirical data from scholarly articles and texts.

    His detractors have no choice but to respond.


    2. “He has volumes of empirical data from scholarly articles and texts.”

      Most of which are written by STATIST TOOLS, educated by the STATE and/or employed by the STATE.

      “His ideas are powerful medicine.”

      Only if you consider Spam medicine.

      1. STATIST TOOL!

        1. …on PeeWee Herman’s bicycle…

      2. …a STATIST TOOL in denial.

    3. what I think. LAUNCH!

      1. Obama, Libertarians, all city-STATISTS.

        Can’t get along, but then that’s just a character of city-Statism.

        1. Support him then….

          1. ….nobody can correct the delusions in your head, except you.

        2. U no wat I mean!!

    4. WI = Paid $oros Troll…

      1. Reason = Paid KOCH Whores…

        At least trolls aren’t whores. LOL

        1. Are you going to call the Law to arrest them???

        2. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        3. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        4. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        5. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        6. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        7. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        8. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        9. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        10. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

        11. WI = Paid $oros Crackwhore Troll…

    5. WI never advocates DEFUNDING the STATE, because all of WI’s favorite STATIST “anarchist-free-range-egalitarian” professors/writers would be out of work…..

      1. Defund the State.

  34. Mental illness. Srsly.

    Ignore it and it will ultimately go away. This will take both time and effort but it will be worth it.

    Registration now, pleez.

    1. Ignoring doesn’t work, because some idiot will always respond. Some sort of registration is the only way.

      1. Because WI is consistently pro-freedom, anti-aggression, and shows Libertarians to be just big talkers.

        Libertarians are shown to be pro-State, pro-regulatory, pro-confiscatory.

        It isn’t pleasant to be proven a liar.


        2. …Exploration and Discovery by the closest thing to real neoBarbarians left in North America: Oil wildcatters in the northern uncharted wilds.

          1. to sissified STATE University armchair anarchists completely dependent on tenure and state pension.

            1. Oh, looky! White Idiot DERIDES *anarchists* while overlooking the actual anarchists in OWS.

              Some of them are even raping their fellow travelers.

              Yeah, way to go, Occutards.

              1. I should have clarified by saying “as opposed to WI’s favorite sissified armchair anarchists”. No one believes that WI would actually invest in an oil company, right? But, ya never know.

      2. …some idiot will always respond

        Peer pressure. Politely ask the responders not to…without acknowledging he who shall not be named.

        Libertarians…demanding registration? Huh?

      1. but actually there is no registration at Reason as opposed to your Mother Soros Bought and Paid for Minds Site.

  35. I see that the hardened capitalists at the CBOT dropped a fistful of McDonald’s employment applications on protesting Occupados.

    Hilarity, I’m sure, ensured.

    1. The nearby banks, fast food joints, Starbucks and Whole Foods should put HELP WANTED signs in the windows to see what happens. Or a building subcontractor could troll with a DAY LABORORS WANTED $11 Hour Cash sign.

  36. Libertarianism is a quaint notion held by a small number of whiners that is built on a moral house of cards.

    The philosophical jump required to assume that “initiating force = bad in all cases” is gargantuan and not supported by anything approximating empirical data, like all moral constructs. It’s a belief, just like a religion, as are all political affiliations. The danger is in believing it represents the truth as opposed to just something you prefer. OWS wants something different than what you want. Deal with it. Deal with the fact that they’re out doing something about it, and the libertarians continue doing what they do best. Sitting in the safe confines of their echo chamber of beliefs. Enjoy!

    1. Oh, you’re cute. Stick around.

    2. Would you like to have sex with me, Nicholas? I’m an equal-gender type.

      1. Let’s see if I understand Nick, here:

        Anyone left-of-center with a grudge = legitimate grievancer

        Anyone else = whiner

        Yep, that should cover it.

        1. Nope, anyone who is proactive in the pursuit of their particular desires is legitimate. Anyone who sits with their friends on a comment board and complains is a whiner.

          Got it?

          1. These people are not my “friends”.

            Riddle me this, in what instance is an “initiation of force” warranted?

            1. Whenever you are being proactive in the pursuit of your particular desires?

            2. When I push my wife out of the way of an on-rushing car causing her to fall and possibly get hurt?

              1. And there’s the sound of a pin dropping.

                “The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at”
                -Mises, L. 1998 [1949]. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.

                1. That’s a sick example, Nick.

              2. That’s “initiation of force” the same way the Heimlich Maneuver, or CPR is. A bullshit example.

                1. He asked for an example. I gave him one that clearly shows that “the initiation of force =\= always bad”. I know it stings when your convenient and simplistic moral belief system is so easily subjugated.

                  1. Ouch… how it stings.

                  2. What’s your point, Nick? Or did you just come here to *whine* about libertarianism?

                    You sure as fuck aren’t doing anything proactive.

                    1. Would we be “proactive” if we were instead having this conversation in a tent, in Zucotti Park?

                    2. Over some Soros-funded foie gras and truffles!

                  3. that just doesn’t qualify as initiation of force in most people’s minds. It is not a good example, or you are joking and I’ve been had.

                  4. Rectal your [TENDENCIES] are showing. Stay off the poker tour….you have a tell!

              3. Wow, we have been totally PWNED.

          2. You know who else was proactive in the pursuit of their particular desires?

            1. Huldrych Zwingli?

          3. Nicholas, try not to confuse “mockery and abuse” with “complaining.”

          4. How do you know that’s *all* we do? Did you ask everyone here?

            What did YOU add to the conversation?

          5. So this is all that any of us does? If that’s as good as your clairvoyance gets, Carnac the Magnificent, then please do keep your day job.

          6. A bunch of squatters, doing nothing the whole day but whine about capitalism is your definition of proactive ?

              1. Good one, NS.

            1. A bunch of squatters, doing nothing the whole day but whine about capitalism is your definition of proactive ?

              The difference is they are getting covered by the media. “Proactive” means getting better PR is all, which is much easier if you lean left.

      2. Sorry, I don’t fuck idiots.

          1. I am DISappoint.

            1. that hurts in the wrong spot.

        1. I did.

          1. Yeah, I once fucked Ayn Rand while wearing a Stalin t-shirt.

            1. It’s true! I was there!

        2. You make a lot of man friends. You know who’s a man? Charlie here, he’s a man. You know who else? Me. I’m a man.

    3. “OWS wants something different than what you want”

      Do you oppose the WarState? Do you want to Impeach Obama to stop the wars and corporate handouts and cronyism. Do you oppose looting the taxpayers to pay for endless bureaucracy?

      That’s what I want. Is that different from what you want?

      1. If OWS just wants a fatter “share” of the welfare nation in return for a blind eye to the WarState, count me out.

      2. Well, I want something a lot more sophisticated than Impeach Obama, taxes = bad.

        1. You want manifestos? Write ’em yourself.

          I suspect you’re a Team Blue cheerleader.
          Time will tell, but indications lean forward.

        2. How about just a kiss on the cheek?

        3. I am just hoping that you will share your ice cream.

        4. You really didn’t even answer. Can’t you at least find common ground with intransigent opposition to the expanding WarState, government corruption and expansion of the security apparatus at the expense of civil rights?

          If you are an OBAMA-2012 type of person, you really can’t oppose the above while being consistent, moral constructs or no.

          Personally, I like OWS getting in the face of authority even though a lot of their “demands” sound like a desire for more power to the authorities. Contradictory? We’ll see, if the “Kent-State-Moment” arrives. “Everybody sayin’ hooray for OUR side.”

          1. One more thing, just rhetorically…where was OWS (employed?, I joke) during the Bush years where it would have made a difference. See, because Bush would not have given the go-ahead wink of support the way Obama has…(does Obama want his wars that badly?)

            1. I’m curious… if this OWS thing turned into widespread, full-out rioting… would Obama drop the martial-law shithammer, or would he just let building burn?

              Come to think of it, burned buildings will need new windows… *cue Paulie Krugnuts*

              1. Obama would wait for the poll numbers to come in first.

                Or maybe not. He’s a lot braver when it’s a fight between Predator drones and unarmed people.

                1. But would Barry use Predator drones on Occutards, on American soil?

    4. Hey Butthead, this guy might be dumber than us

  37. How about Lavender skewered Artic Char with English pea puree, Thumbelina carrots, haricots verts and yellow beans in a chervil bouillon?

    1. …followed by Impeach Obama, taxes = bad.

      1. that would be a bitter concoction.

  38. Socialism at its height!!!

    When people leave profit-making banks for non-profit credit unions…this shows where the FREE MARKET FAILED !!!

    A non-profit organization offers better services (for less) than profit making places !!!


    1. Sorry. Couldn’t just let Pasty Idiot here outshout me all the time.

    2. I used to belong to a nice credit union. I switched when they changed some of their policies and closed my local branch. So far, I haven’t seen a credit union that can outdo what my awful megaBanc does — for my basic checking acct megaBanc is fine. But a credit-union being a triumph of big “S” Socialism? Private parties cooperating for for mutual benefit, maybe. They can sometimes offer better loan rates but not always. The management and staff still gets paid….

    3. Buh? The free market includes choices made on any criterion, not just price. Boycotts and Buy Local campaigns are (when not imposed by force) free market activity. Corporations are mostly free market (the charter is essentially an open process, the limited liability is something we can and do argue about), and so are voluntary co-ops. For-profit businesses and non-profit businesses are equally part of the free market.

      The only requirement of a free market is that people are free to trade, or not trade, goods and services as they wish, subject to personal and property rights.

      Don’t confuse “free” market with “economics 1 textbook” market.

  39. Alice Bowie|11.4.11 @ 7:41PM|#
    “Socialism at its height!!!
    When people leave profit-making banks for non-profit credit unions…this shows where the FREE MARKET FAILED !!!”

    It shows that the regs allow credit unions to offer better deals on some instruments than banks.
    There is no banking entity which operates in a free market.

    1. and other fantastical Saviors

  40. ? I’m consistently pro-freedom, anti-regulation, pro-legitimate property, anti-State.

    ? I bring incontrovertible evidence from anthropology and archeology that the workings of the State are an inseparable part of the agricultural-city-State. The only people upset are those city-Statists who must cling to their dear dogmas by avoiding reality.

    ? If you think I’m repetitive, I only bring up the agricultural-city-State when somebody is pissing and moaning about the State. Complaining about the State, but loving the city-State (civilization) is like complaining about noise, but loving jets.

    ? Don’t respond to me if you can’t grasp the simple truth that civilization is the aggressor. It’s like I’m at a Boeing company picnic, and people are complaining about the noise ruining the picnic, and when I mention the noise is an integral part of the jets flying above, they go apeshit on me.

    ? I change my name, not to cause confusing, because other people steal it and deliberately spread disinformation under my name, thus I was given a private incentive by libertarians to use the “name” as a “header.”

    1. Ah Rectal…your delivery from “” arrived. You sound calmer…clearer! Whats the doctor say about your health? I know you were down for a while….not free to fully engage in your gamboling! Better now?

    2. ? I bring incontrovertible evidence from anthropology and archeology

      …”and from my behavior, that i am a sociopathic fuckstick determined to do nothing but demonstrate that any ordered gathering of people can be disrupted by persistant douchebaggery!”

      ? I bring incontrovertible evidence from anthropology and archeology

      …”which is patently false on the face of it by every single instance of social evolution! If there were any merit in my ideas, they would have actually survived beyond the paleolithic age rather than have died the second anyone realized they didn’t have to gambol for their next meal, but rather trade with their neighbor to get it….”

  41. I’m all for registration too.

    Libertarians here act like a bunch of fundamentalist when I point out to them that the Hebrew priestcraft plagiarized Ugaritic clay tablets written 600+ years before the Torah.

    Lots of emotion and froth, not much reason.

    That’s what I see here. And libertarians are willing to shit up their own comment sections, and then try to blame the bringer of the truth.

    1. How cute! It sees itself as The One True Source of Truthy Truth.

    2. Instead, fart in a jar and save it for later. Think of the possibilities.

  42. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $81/hr on the internet. She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her income was $8779 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read about it on this site NuttyRichdotcom

  43. Ha ha.

    More pathetic lies about OWS from the authoritarian bootlickers at Reason.

    I swear, this is one pet website of heavily subsidized oil billionaires that never lets me down.

    I can’t decide which is more enjoyable: the slow and steady expansion of OWS and its pressure to reclaim democracy, or the litany of increasingly worried harrumphing about it from you creeps.

    Ha ha.

    1. brofist.jpg

      bump it

    2. Ssshhhhhh!!! Let them think we want democracy! You know, as well as I comrade, that we prefer a one percent communist dictatorship!!

    3. You’re disgusting as always, Orel.

  44. Now that Reason appears to have been thoroughly infested with humorless douches like every other interesting political site, I’ll guess I’ll go back to Send me an email when things are fun again.

  45. Now that Reason appears to have been thoroughly infested with humorless douches like every other interesting political site, I’ll guess I’ll go back to It was great while it lasted! Send me an email when things are fun again.

  46. Another useless article from a useless political ideology.
    Its a good thing that you people are losing this battle.
    OWS isn’t going anywhere and theres nothing that you can do to stop it!

    1. extended forcast for monday 11/7 thru monday 11/14……severe weather stormfront fast approaching…..daily highs in the low teens and nightly lows in the upper minus teens…..dangerous high winds possible bringing in freezing rains by mid days and heavy snow squalls at night………and now a word from our sponsor:
      …..” hello, i’m algore….”

  47. I’m George Soros and I approve of White Indians message. (I should since I am paying for this garbage!!)

  48. This is bullshit.

    The revolution is not about death of capitalism and free market.
    It s about free political institutions doing their job.
    Why the protestors are wrong to favor forced equality over liberty

    Dear A. Barton Hinkle , if you like free market, I am sure you would support free political leaders.

    Since political leader are tied with wealthy lobbyist, we need a revolution to restore their leadership. I am sure you are not so naive to believe that the law are voted for the sake free market rather than to serve the lobbyist.

  49. yeah, the wall street really have to do’s our street.

  50. Why is this article so unreasonable???

  51. It’s about time someone at least scratched the surface of the mind-boggling hypocrisy of the kid gloves treatment that’s been given to OWS.

    The local news in my area actually ran a portion of an interview where one of the (illegally) camping protesters was given the chance to put out a request for food and supplies.

    The media entirely ignored the large role that fringe Larouche-PACkers played in smearing the Tea Partiers, and some entirely imagined connection between a target-symbol and Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting led President Obama to call for “toning down rhetoric”.

    You don’t have to be on a side to see how disgusting the hypocrisy has been. You only need a memory and common sense. The radio right-wingers aren’t even giving it the full-throttle thrashing it so entirely deserves.

    It’s just preposterous.

  52. This article is a bunch of vomit.
    No matter where you are on the political spectrum it is clear that Wall Street and the greed that is prevalent in the financial industry everywhere has driven the world economy to the brink.
    Money is just infrastructure for the activities of humankind but it has been perverted to become the only important obsession by a few.
    Never forget that the foundation of our civilization was made by people who could take basic raw materials and add value and create something.
    We need to get back to basics, give the honors to engineers, scientists and manufacturers and put the bankers and bean counters back in the back office where they belong.

  53. Credible sources or STFU

  54. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

  55. OWS. Occupy all of the streets – they are yours.

    Fairly Tax the 1%. To whom much is given, much is required.

    Wealth inequity will be the ruin of America.

    Get in the streets and stand with the OWS movement.

    Move your money from the big banks to credit unions and local banks.

    Reenact Glass-Steagall.

    The GOP is for the rich.

    The Dems are for the middle class.

    1. I have yet to see anyone who natters about Glass-Steagall able to articulate what the hell this had to do with anything. I can explain exactly what the problem was and is and I don’t have to appeal to magical thinking. If you think it was Glass-Steagall you are profoundly ignorant of the world you live in.

      The Dems are for the middle class.

      Lol right. Citation seriously needed;)

      I am middle class. What have the dems done for me?

      And even if they had, that would be wrong, to do something for me they had to do something to someone else.

  56. Actually, 4 year old generally understand that they are not allowed to push someone or take their toys. Even when they do, they realise that it is wrong. As for the OWS crowd..

    1. Hi Albin,

      We also teach our children to share.

      We compliment our children when they share their toys, behave nicely and play well with others.

      Then when they grow up to be bankers on Wall Street and do not share well, do not want to fairly pay taxes like the rest of America and treat others poorly – we reward them.

      That is inconsistent.

      Please watch this Ted Talk:
      Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies

      1. Unless you teach your kid to handcuff and jail the other kid when the other kid doesn’t share as much as your kid thinks he should then you are not teaching social justice.

        Nor should you.

        Sharing is great. No one is against sharing. The complaint is with people taking what doesn’t belong to them.

        Children naturally protect their property, and naturally share it. There is nothing incompatible with these urges. These are natural human behaviors and salutary ones.

        The antisocial children are the ones who take.

        I hope you do not raise your child to do that. Teaching a child to covet is going to make for a child doomed to unhappiness, at best.

      2. Oh and another thing. Economic inequality is what allows for increased standards of living. Some modes of production are more efficient with more capital. If that capital can never be accumulated society is doomed to the least efficient modes of production. When I say inefficient, you should hear “my child has to work so we can eat”. Someone has to save.

        In a free market capital accrues to those who create wealth for everyone by making their labor more productive. Put simply the Walmart you probably despise means you have to spend less of your life laboring to provide food and staples for your family. You can in turn save, or you can loaf. But you have that choice.

        You do not have that choice in a low capital society, like Cuba or Zimbabwe. You will work hard and live short, if you are lucky. But you will be ‘blessed’ by rarely having to see anyone with more than you.

        There’s your economic equality. That’s what economic equality does.

  57. You are not only deluded, you are warped. There are nuts everywhere, but the Tea Party has been accused of being a racist organization not because of a few nuts, but because the entire organization stood by while prominent members were being racist, because they nominated and supported racists and birthers for Congress and because they overwhelmingly support old, white, rich men. That’s why. It’s fact. Face it. OWS is new, nobody speaks for the movement yet, but it’s not going away. This country is only working for a few, we need it to work for all, by whatever peaceful means necessary.

    1. Who in the tea party was racist that was not denounced? The TP rigorously policed itself and continues to do so.

      OWS is absurdly racist and no one in OWS says a thing and the media ignores it.

      And birther? That’s a complaint? That ‘offends’ your little senstitive artist psyche?

      Birthers are silly, but people believe you can borrow your way out of debt too. If being stupid is a sin then OWS is in real trouble.

  58. man, you really don’t understand whats in front of your own face. i question how you made it this far but then i realize your a puppet driving on a pre-made track. have fun “living” that life.

  59. Reason=New York Post for people with a 9th instead of 5th grade reading level. It’s really getting incredibly hard to tell whether people who write articles like this are being intellectually dishonest for some of that sweet, sweet Koch Brother $$$ or if they’re honestly just delusional. I’m sure it varies from case to case. A handsome man making $10,000 and a parapalegic making $100,000 is totally equivalent to, let’s say, a family of four trying to live on $22,000 and a single derivatives trader making $30 million…no false equivalency there whatsoever. And I agree, media coverage has been really biased…300 something Tea Partiers show up somewhere and the footage gets edited to make it look like thousands…7,000 OWS protesters show up somewhere and it never makes the news at all. Btw, Americans are supporting OWS way more than the Tea Party, so you guys have lost, and the liberatarians who aren’t total assholes/reactionary morons already jumped ship from your Cato Institute Koch Brother crony capitalist Dick Armey shitshow a long time ago. The sophistry in this article isn’t even that impressive…shills gotta step up their sophistry game, yo!

    1. 300 something Tea Partiers show up somewhere and the footage gets edited to make it look like thousands…7,000 OWS protesters show up somewhere and it never makes the news at all.

      This statement shows you’re completely delusional. The media is in love with OWS. The media hides all of the violence and racism and vandalism in OWS.

      The same media was dying for any evidence of violence or racism from teabaggers.

  60. I love all the omissions in this article. About how leaders of Tea party groups where found to be the racists.

    The 5 year scientific study that found that Tea Party people are racists Republicans from the religious right.

    Also the guy with the anti Jewish sign has been their for years.

    The people in Oakland causing trouble are from the black bloc and attacked OWS protestors trying to stop them, yes there is video of it.…..y-oakland/

    Then if I read this right your advocating that sharing of knowledge and teaching is somehow bad? We shouldn’t let anyone learn and form their own opinion right?

    1. “5 year scientific study?” Uh huh. A five year scientific study presumed to know the motivations and political leanings of every single member of a group comprised of individuals? Science has come very far today.

      My,toyotabedzrock, but aren’t we hypocritical of the “religious right,” when we attribute mind reading capablities to modern science.

      1. Rofl that must be some serious science to have a 5 year old study on a 2.5 year old movement.

        And what leaders in the tea party were “found to be” racists?

        Teabaggers have been vigilant in self policing since the movement started. They had to. There is video after video of plants expressing racism being ostracized by teabaggers.

        On the other hand no one in OWS is repudiating the rampant racism in the movement.

  61. thank you a lotsssssssssssssssssss

  62. Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the web the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while people think about worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people could take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.