Paul Ryan

Libertarians Are Now the Off-Limits "Others" (for Certain Tribes)

|

Paul Ryan

When I lived in New York City, it was pretty common to hear somebody say, "I could never date a Republican." The speaker wasn't necessarily political at all, and rarely ideological in any real sense. But, in trendy, educated circles in New York City, Republicans were an alien "other," and you could firm up your tribal bona fides by declaring your unwillingness to engage in romantic relations with a significant percentage of the population for political and ideological reasons. So, I guess a piece in New York magazine comparing freshly minted Republican vice-presidential aspirant Paul Ryan to "your annoying libertarian ex-boyfriend," means those of us described by the other "L" word have transitioned from geeky policy nerds to the new forbidden fruit.

In New York Magazine, Ann Friedman warns against the ideological lurker in the romantic landscape that is Ryan:

In the dating world, an infatuation with Ayn Rand is a red flag. You might not see it right away: Your date is probably conventionally attractive, decidedly wealthy, and doesn't really talk politics. But then you get back to his apartment, set your bag down on his glass-topped coffee table, give his bookshelf the once-over — and find it lined with Ayn Rand.

You think back to your conversation at the bar: He treated flirtation like a conquest, a rationally self-interested sexual manifest destiny. He had some dumb pickup-artist questions and maybe a questionable accessory (a cravat? a fedora? a weird pinky ring?) but you overlooked these things, because he was quite charming.

But that dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged tells you everything you need to know. He sees himself as an objective iconoclast. He's unapologetically selfish, because it's only rational, he says. Sure, he grew up with money but he worked to get where he is today. He's all about individual responsibility but he just isn't, metaphorically, into wearing protection.

This is the part where you collect your shoes and bag and GTFO. …

Like the stealth-libertarian date, Ryan has managed to set himself up as an underdog, a savvy and "courageous" hero railing against the status quo, even though his policy proposals would hasten our trip down the path we're already on, creating even greater inequality. He might look cute from across the bar, but we already know what's on his bookshelf at home. And guys like him never get a second date.

Never mind that Paul Ryan makes a lousy stand-in for a libertarian, with an awful record on civil liberties, peace and restraining government spending that puts him, in real terms, well inside the inch-and-a-half of the ideological spectrum considered to represent respectable opinion by the threadbare editorial boards of the East Coast. He's at the smaller-government end of that spectrum, and he occasionally quotes Ayn Rand (when he's not fleeing from her). That makes him a "libertarian" and therefore off-limits to true-blue tribalists.

By the way, among the perfectly acceptable dating options in the social circles in which I moved during my New York days were several obnoxious socialists, a snotty Trotskyite and a self-described nihilist who is now doing time for a high-profile violent crime. Yes, these are stand-out memories from a large group of otherwise perfectly decent human beings with a wide range of viewpoints. But, by contrast, even if it connects me with Paul Ryan, I think I kind of like Friedman's take on libertarians as incarnations of sinister, alternate-universe Bruce Waynes.

Ann … Ann … Look into the dollar-sign pupils of my eyes. You know you can't resist …

NEXT: Thousands of Women Rally in Tunisia

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

  1. Hm, being an annoying libertarian ex-boyfriend myself, maybe I will vote for Romney.

    1. I’m going to read Atlas Shrugged again, at the very least.

      Or not.

  2. What better proof is there than this article that for the left, the personal is the political? I can’t even imagine going through life like that. What internal poison.

    1. I should share my recent (last night) experience with a liberal. I was invited to join a political discussion group on FB. The stated goal of the group is to have an assortment of people from all points of the political spectrum to discuss the issues of the day. When I joined, I received a big message saying that I absolutely had to respect the personal beliefs, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc of all group members. Fine, whatever.

      I made a comment along the lines of “cut spending” in response to a thread started by the group administrator about how we were supposed to balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time. The admin (a liberal) responded by saying that my position was “bullshit”. I replied that I thought we were supposed to be nice, but then went on to make another point. The admin again called my position “bullshit”. I said thanks for respecting my beliefs and quit the group.

      A couple years back, I tried to have a conversation with a left winger, who instantly accused me of not understanding what it was like to be poor because all I wanted to do was watch my 70″ flat screen TV.

      1. I was invited to join a political discussion group on FB.

        Here’s the part where you failed.

        1. Facebook is where *HE* failed.

          2/3rds of users are women per FB.

          1. Yeah, any man that spends his time in an area that is 2:1 women:men is a faiiilure.

            What a stupid queer he must be.

        2. *hanging head in shame*

          8/14/12 NEVUR FORGET!

      2. not understanding what it was like to be poor because all I wanted to do was watch my 70″ flat screen TV.

        But I thought that was exactly what the poor wanted to do, and many of them actually succeed in doing just that (and little else).

        1. You’re born into class. It’s about pedigree. It’s about upbringing. It has nothing to do with your present circumstance.

      3. It’s all in how you phrase things. I’m able to talk any halfway reasonable Leftist into nodding their heads in agreement by accepting their premises and demonstrating factually/economically how their own policies are self-defeating and how libertarian policies would accomplish what they want much better. If they’re halfway intelligent and not being disingenous about their passion for progress, they will listen and take it to heart.

        Want to end poverty? Stop trapping poor people in the worst and least funded schools.

        Want to increase domestic jobs and stop outsourcing? Quit devaluing currency and raising minimum wages above the market value of the jobs.

        Hate corporate abuse and congolomeration? Remove the free government corporate protections and loopholes for their owners that socialize responsibility and result in moral hazards.

        Want the rich to pay their “fair share”? Get rid of a loophole-ridden system written by the elites and replace with a single, naturally progressive land value tax.

        1. “If they’re halfway intelligent and not being disingenous about their passion for progress, they will listen and take it to heart.”

          Wow. And how many fit that description? I find people like that don’t self-identify as progressive, but as independent/unaffiliated. Most progressives are either socialists, blind partisans or culture warriors.

    2. What better proof is there than this article that for the left, the personal is the political?

      When all you understand is force, then everything is political.
      If you like something, then everyone should do it. If they don’t then they should be forced.
      If you don’t like something, then nobody should do it. If they do then violence should be done to them.

      Since government has the monopoly on the initiation of force, and everything must involve force, then everything is political.

      1. What’s really remarkable about this is that they have the brass to call us “selfish”.

        I think the word I’m looking for is “projection”.

        1. All they understand is force.
          We don’t want drugs to be illegal.
          That means we want to force children to use drugs.
          We oppose the forced transfer of wealth.
          That means we want to punish any transfer of wealth.
          Everything is force.

        2. Actually this is very much the case.

          How many times have you heard a liberal or progressive talk about poor white rednecks voting against their economic interests by voting Republican or understanding why Rich people vote republican to protect their economic interests.

          When it comes right down to it it is because they cannot personally fathom anyone voting based on any criteria other than what is best for them (ir puts the most in their pockets) because that is all they care about themselves.

          This is also why attempts to roll back the welfare state are considered “selfish”, because a liberal could not concieve of anyone actually spending their own money for the benefit of another unless compelled to do so.

          They are basically selfish and self absorbed but they know it so they seek to use the power of the state to force everyone to behave in the way that will benefit them the most because they simply cannot understand that anyone could be any other way.

      2. the contradictions in liberalism are just too funny – its pretense about equality followed by its dismissal of contrary opinion and condescension to certain populations, its proclaimed fondness for diversity but only so long as different faces nod in unison to the same thoughts, etc etc.

        It’s like arguing with the committed church folks. They are the political version of reformed smokers.

        1. It’s like arguing with the committed church folks.

          It’s exactly like arguing with committed church folks. The only difference is that they worship government force, not an invisible man.

        2. It’s not liberalism. They merely hijacked a word with connotations of liberty for their authoritarian philosophy.

  3. This is the girl I missed out on?!?

    Ye Galt, what have I done?

    1. Why did I click that link?

      1. That’s got to be fake. Who uses a mug shot as their profile pic?

        1. IT’S IRONIC.

      2. To see what John would hit.

    2. When I was a kid I would fantasize that I was adopted.

      Holy shit, what a nasty cunt.

      1. Oh my god is this a real person?:

        By the time I hit junior high, I’d developed a sense of superiority about my dorkiness. It wasn’t that I didn’t mesh with the world, it was that I didn’t mesh with this world, with small-town Iowa. It was everyone else’s fault for not getting it. In cities, I was sure, everyone was just like me. Wearing Converse sneakers and shirts carefully rescued from thrift stores, listening to Bj?rk. I pictured myself a city kid, delivering my late-’90s anti-establishmentarian missives about how prom sucks and Leo DiCaprio isn’t that cute, everyone laughing jovially around me.

        Not only that, but she lurrrrves animated GIFs. She might be the worst person in the world. And I gave that award to Jann Wenner this morning.

        1. There are more real people like this than you think. When someone defines themselves as the opposite of something they hate, you get shit like this.

          It isn’t good. But it is funny.

          1. It’s understandable and acceptable for a 15-year-old small town girl to play Daria. It’s neither understandable nor acceptable for her to brag about it 15 years later.

      2. She’s challenging the Sugarfree’s favorite funny fatty for self-absorbed bitch of the year.

        1. Never. Friedman doesn’t use nearly enough !!!!! and ALLCAPS yelling and OMG IRONIC ITALICIZATION !

          1. You’re not giving her enough credit. She’s completely self-unaware:

            I decided I hated New York. In fact, what I hated was that I didn’t immediately love it. The things I assumed I would have in common with people in the city?books and music and food and politics, and all the other stuff that online profiles are made of?didn’t matter much. All those people with great taste I had dreamed of living among? Turns out when you get them all together, they can be kind of snobby. Or, worse, boring.

            1. To have developed such a ‘big city’ attitude while living miserably among simpler fold and then when you get there to be rejected because you are not worth anyone wasting their A game on. What a tragic life.

              1. I actually sympathize with her a bit on this. You grow up in some shitty small town, bored out of your mind, and you spin this fantasy that you’ll fit in someplace, maybe this place. And then you get there and realize the same assholes are everywhere, just as stupid, even if they are stupid in some different way.

                1. And then you realize that you’ve wasted your whole life up to this point on making yourself miserable with your shitty attitude, so you brighten up and find some hobbies and start smiling.

                  Oh, no, wait, she forgot that part.

                  1. And then you realize that you’ve wasted your whole life up to this point on making yourself miserable with your shitty attitude, so you brighten up and find some hobbies and start smiling.

                    Oh, no, wait, she forgot that part.

                    +1. That is the part people always forget. It isn’t that the small town is sucking you dry, folks…it’s that you’re so far up your own ass that you blame others for your own banality.

                2. There are plenty of places where people aren’t assholes, and are actually friendly and fun to interact with.

                  They aren’t the places that either disaffected small town kids, or big city hipsters, think about, usually.

    3. In LA, no less.

      I mean, in Barrow, AK, she could do pretty well, especially in the Winter. But Los Angeles?

      How many wealthy, attractive libertarians do you think have taken her home to see their Rand collection, really?

      1. Only if she survives the vampires.

    4. Hey, she totally chooses not to have good-looking, successful boyfriends, because she knows they’re really selfish inside.

  4. C’mon, Tuccile. You couldn’t work “It usually ends with Ayn Rand” into this post? What would your dad say?

    1. Too much an inside joke. And I’m not plugging his books until I see him plugging mine!

      1. Damn JD, that’s cold. The Kindle version is like $1.99. Help pops out a lil.

      2. Too much an inside joke.

        Seriously? You’ve been here for a few months now, right? Inside jokes are not unknown here, all I’m saying.

        For anyone who doesn’t get the joke. Also, because JD couldn’t or wouldn’t work a pimpin’ into this thread…

        1. You shame me, my friend …

          1. Isn’t that the entire purpose of the comments section?

          2. Ron’s been doing the “I bought gas yesterday at Exxon” (or whatever) disclaimer for like 3 years now. I still find it amusing.

            1. I like it too. “I used to own stock in a company that spun off a subsidiary that eventually went bankrupt and the former CEO started another company with offices across the street from the corporate headquarters of the subject of this article.”

            2. It’s the only worthwhile content of Bailey’s posts.

        2. JD couldn’t or wouldn’t work a pimpin’ into this thread…

          He’s got to go study with Doherty.

      3. While you’re here, Tuccille, what the fuck is the deal with the formatting of High Desert Barbecue on Nook? Why is it 6 lines of text crammed into a 2 in square?

        1. Is it? Shit. Do you have one of the tablet-style Nooks? I tested the formatting on a basic model Nook and on the PC reader, and it looked great, but those fucking things render differently from model to model.

          Email me and I’ll send you another Nook-readable ebook copy, a PDF or a Paypal refund, as you prefer.

          1. Don’t worry about it. I already read it, and it was really good, it was just a weird formatting deal that you may want to look into. I have a 1st-gen Nook that’s almost 4 years old, so it may just be an issue with that. I have the Nook app on my iPod, I’ll download the book there and see if the formatting is the same.

  5. Reading that New York Magazine excerpt hurted my brain meat.

  6. means those of us described by the other “L” word have transitioned from geeky policy nerds to the new forbidden fruit.

    Not another gay marriage thread.

    1. Yes, it appears Ann Friedman is a lesbian.

      1. No no, it was the selfish Objectivist one-time date that drove her to be a lesbian, because she isn’t on birth control…?

        I think I confused myself.

  7. To be fair, here’s the real reason liberal chicks shouldn’t date guys who like Ayn Rand:

    Because if we know you’re liberal but still want to date you, it’s because we don’t actually take anything you say seriously.

    I dated liberals back when I was single. And you know what? I thought it was just adorable that they tried to have political ideas.

    1. Corollary: if you are a liberal chick dating a well-read libertarian guy, you can bet your ass that he sees you as nothing but a sex object.

      If you like that, it’s fine. But liberal chicks like to think of themselves as something more than that. And they think that being a ranting bitch makes them something special.

      1. And they think that being a ranting bitch makes them something special.

        it mostly makes them someone you used to date.

        1. When I see a chick with an Obama Biden 2012 sticker on her car, I steer WAY clear, because I’ve dated those and I know how they “drive”.

          1. When I see those bumper stickers I always want to grab a can of spray paint and write WHY? on their cars.

            1. With most bumpers painted to match the car these days, they’ve already defaced their vehicles enough. No need for me to help.

              But I certainly think it. I mean, you don’t have to like Romney at all, to recognize that Obama/Biden is one of history’s suckiest administrations. Vote what you think is the lesser evil if you want; most of us end up doing that.

              But cheerleading for Obama/Biden? That strikes me as completely insane.

    2. I beg to differ (based on personal experience). There can exist a high degree of “common sense” and a reasonable moral code (don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t pamper your kids) in the same shell as one who is completely incapable of coming to the same rational conclusions about politics and economics as I can.

      Sometimes, it just works better to take the good with the bad.

      1. then you dated women who happened to be liberal or pretended to be liberal because it was easier that way, the optimal phrase being “common sense.”

        The committed ones are liberals who happen to be women. There is no common sense, there is no alternative viewpoint, there is no demonstrating conclusively where they are wrong because the left is driven by emotion rather than result.

        1. Back in the 80’s (my Reagan Republican days) I dated a liberal chick. She had a giant JFK poster in her dorm room. I told her how I admired him for the same reason I liked Reagan – giant tax cuts, defense build-up, didn’t take shit from commies, and banged lots of movie stars.

          It was a brief relationship and I may have ruined her JFK fantasy.

  8. But that dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged tells you everything you need to know.

    What, because he has managed to read a book all the way through? The horror!

    1. “maybe a questionable accessory (a cravat? a fedora? a weird pinky ring?) but you overlooked these things, because he was quite charming.”

      … but you should never overlook

      THE MONOCLE!!!!!!11eleventy-one!!!

    2. She’d be really confused if she looked at my bookshelves. Atlas Shrugged next to Das Kapital, Stranger in a Strange Land next to Capitalism and Freedom, and the Bible next to On the Origin of Species….

  9. Why would you want to date a New Yorker?

    1. Some of them are hot, until they talk anyway.

  10. Well I definitely feel ‘othered’ now. Now I will never get a date with Friedman or her kind.
    How depressing.

  11. Liberal chicks, conservative chicks, in the dark all cats are black.

    1. And some smell like Fisherman’s Wharf

      1. yeah, that’s true. usually the old

  12. I would have forgiven the entire article, BTW, if instead of a cravat as the secret libertarian monocle Friedman had given her imaginary date a monocle.

  13. And guys like him never get a second date.

    Ha! Speak for yourself, fat woman.

    1. She’s not fat. Just kind of high strung and worn out looking.

      In her fantasy life I’m sure she’s played by Parker Posey.

      1. Bullshit. She has cankles and her ass and thighs are covered in cellulite. You can tell.

      2. Waiting for Friedman?

      3. Not to mention her jowls. Look at her jowls.

      4. Whoa, wait, I just read the bio excerpt posted above – she’s younger than me?

        I had cut her some slack because I figured she wasn’t doing all that bad for her late 40’s.

        I hereby apologize to Parker Posey for insulting her.

        1. From what the Internet tells me, she’s 30. Which means she was 15 in 1997.

          She is both too young to have acted like this:

          Wearing Converse sneakers and shirts carefully rescued from thrift stores, listening to Bj?rk. I pictured myself a city kid, delivering my late-’90s anti-establishmentarian missives about how prom sucks and Leo DiCaprio isn’t that cute, everyone laughing jovially around me.

          And too old to keep acting like this:

          My long-distance pride was fully awakened a few years later, when I was living in Washington, D.C., and went to see Iowa’s preeminent musical genius perform. No, not Slipknot, but Leslie Hall, a former art student and Ames resident who raps about party dip and crafting over synthy beats she makes on her MacBook.

          It’s like she was a teenager in 1986 and is still one in 2012.

          I have my problems with Randriods, but none of them deserve this shit.

          1. Bjork in ’97? That’s like me being proud of listening to Alan Parsons in ’88.

          2. She’s THIRTY?

            She shouldn’t be complaining if she can get Deadheads to date her and bring her back to their van down by the river. Let alone cravat-wearing libertarians with actual apartments.

            1. Even going by the more flattering Google image search pictures, THIRTY? Yikes.

            2. Maybe in hexadecimal.

  14. “to support legislation that stems from a collective-good worldview, such as the Affordable Care Act.”

    Clearly has no idea what’s in that law. If you want to help people, enrolling them in Medicaid is an exceptionally poor way to do it.

    1. Fuck, nobody has any idea what’s in that law.

  15. He had some dumb pickup-artist questions

    If objectivists are as in love with themselves as the author implies, it surprises me to learn they’re using parlor tricks to score dates.

    It can’t be that she just threw a bunch of stereotypically unattractive qualities about nerds together with some surface-level stuff she learned about objectivists from a wikipedia page, right?

    1. If he was such a nerd, why did she go out with him in the first place?

    2. That’s what I think. I don’t think she even knows any libertarians or objectivists.

      1. She doesn’t have to. In group identity politics, you don’t need to know any individuals in a group. All you need is a blanket stereotypical description, and you’ve got every single individual pegged.

        1. u mean like this? –

          sarcasmic| 8.14.12 @ 2:29PM |#

          What better proof is there than this article that for the left, the personal is the political?

          When all you understand is force, then everything is political.
          If you like something, then everyone should do it. If they don’t then they should be forced.
          If you don’t like something, then nobody should do it. If they do then violence should be done to them.

          Since government has the monopoly on the initiation of force, and everything must involve force, then everything is political.

      2. I don’t think even marginally attractive guys ask her out on dates.

      3. but she did know a dude who had read Atlas Shrugged and owned a cravat!

        wtf else do you need man?

    3. That’s as close to acting “intelligent” as she can get.

    4. I have never met an Ayn Rand fan with PUA skills. Ever.

      Objectivism is essentially the perfect philosophy for Asperger’s sufferers, since it combines a hyper-rigid rules-based ethical outlook with complete disdain for anything and everything that can be achieved by social manipulation (as opposed to direct creativity).

      Here’s what actually generally happens: Objectivism gives you a reason to have an opinion on just about everything. And Rand hated a pretty broad swath of writers, politicians, artists, philosophers, historical figures, etc. So people who read Rand tend to end up hate-reading a lot of other material, or hate-studying a lot of other liberal arts-type stuff. I read Rawls, for example, precisely to learn how to hate him better.

      But that means that for the space of an introductory conversation, a Randroid can seem very interesting (and “charming”, as Friedman puts it) to Jane Liberal Arts Blue State Girl. Because all the books she’s read and all the art she likes and all the classes she’s taken have one thing in common: almost no man she meets gives a damn about any of them. But Randroids give a damn about those things and can carry on a conversation with her about them. “Sigh,” she thinks. “Wow, he’s interested in my opinion on Thomas Mann. Swoon.” It’s only later when she spots the tell-tale copy of Atlas Shrugged that she realizes that the reason he knows about Thomas Mann is because he fucking hates Thomas Mann.

      1. My best friend in college was this mythical Ayn Rand fan, woman-attracting person.

      2. She also hated libertarians, which is something lost on most people.

        http://www.aynrand.org/site/Pa…..bertarians

        1. Several liberals I know bring it up to me as if that’s some great refutation of libertarianism. I usually tell them to go take it up with somebody who gives a shit about Rand.

          1. I think of it as evidence that Rand was pretty much just an irascible person who could only possibly ever agree with one person at any given moment: Ayn Rand.

            If someone tries to tell me that I think exactly X because Rand or Rothbard or someone wrote X, I can only roll my eyes.

      3. +1 Fluffy. Would read again.

        1. I read it three times, in fact.

        2. I read that outloud to my GF I found it so hilarious.

      4. I like Thomas Mann. The Magic Mountain is a great book. So is Dr. Faustus. What is wrong with Thomas Mann? Who did he bother?

        1. You know, I can’t even remember any more.

          But if I took an hour or two to rummage through the Ayn Rand newsletter archive I’m sure I could come up with something.

          I remember her being very agitated about it. Picture reading something that sounds like it was written with a lot of gesticulating with a cigarette holder and snarling in a Russian accent.

          1. Picture reading something that sounds like it was written with a lot of gesticulating with a cigarette holder and snarling in a Russian accent.

            *swoon*

          2. The Sunday New York Times review of The Fountainhead compared it to Mann’s The Magic Mountain, a comparison that outraged Rand–because she considered the Mann novel ponderous (I’ll give you a moment to stop laughing) and mystical.

            1. I’m still laughing.

              1. …and I say that as someone who would, if asked what one book someone MUST read in 2012, would answer “Atlas Shrugged”…

                Still laughing.

                Will update.

            2. Well, Rand isn’t ponderous in quite the same way as Mann is. I will, er, give her that. But the mysticism part doesn’t surprise me at all.

              I feel like one thing these now-Ayn-Rand-obsessed folks have absolutely no idea about is that Objectivism is an all-encompassing philosophy. It’s not just political; it’s not just “selfishness”; it will also tell you what kinds of art are good and not good and such. They would probably have a lot more fun with its craziness if they knew that.

              1. My thinking is certainly influenced by Rand and Objectivism.

                But Objectivists make Islamic or Christian Fundamentalists look like freethinkers.

                1. Does Objectivism have denomination yet? I would love to see a Missouri Synod Objectivist locked in a small closet with a Pennsylvania Reformed Objectivist duking it out over full immersion versus spinkled selfishness.

              2. Objectivism is an all-encompassing philosophy

                So is the sort of feminism I’m sure Friedman supports.

                it will also tell you what kinds of art are good and not good and such

                Ever heard of The Bechdel Test?

                “ONLY ZESE MOVIES ARE RIGHT UND PROPER!”

                1. This one is especially rich, how they’re talking about how the astronauts’ wives don’t count as women.

                2. Oh SF, do you really think I could exist in litblogworld and not know all about the Bechdel test? It ain’t just about movies anymore.

                  1. I was hoping you didn’t know, nicole. Hoping you had been spared.

                    1. It’s truly shocking how obsessed lit-peeps are with identity politics. Many fellow bloggers give themselves reading quotas for women and “POC”s. And if you haven’t heard about things like VIDA…well…you could Google it…

              3. ^This.

                It’s not only all-encompassing; it’s also morally totalizing.

                In other words, it doesn’t just purport to explain everything; it also morally judges everything.

                If you like the wrong art, you are to that degree a bad person.

                It’s about 100x more radical an outlook than mere libertarianism. The political liberty aspect makes casual observers think it’s a kind of semi-anarchy or libertinism, and nothing could be further from the truth.

                1. Yes, Fluffy, exactly. I never read any of Rand’s nonfiction, and I can’t really imagine what her work on aesthetics must be like. I almost want to check it out. But sometime when I’m like, so happy and chill that it can’t possibly rile me.

                  1. The Romantic Manifesto starts off interestingly, but goes off the rails pretty quickly.

      5. first what is PUA

        Personal Use Assessment?

        secondly:

        hate-studying

        that is a funny fucking hyphenated word. I’ve been blessed in life in that I’ve tried to hate study some things in life, but it better be really fucking short, or I just bored and quit. It’s like if I was reading Euclid and noticed that he fucked up in one of first 5 axioms, why the hell am I going to bother to read the rest of that crap.

        1. PUA = Pick-up Artist

          “Hate studying” – a term used to describe the phenomenon that Objectivists are the only people on Earth who have read Kant in the original German.

          1. Kant is indeed the best example.

            The only people in America not pursuing philosophy degrees who read Kant for fun (and hate-studying counts as “for fun”) are Randroids.

            1. LIES.
              I’m not a Randroid. It’s just a hobby.

        2. PUA stands for Pick Up Artist.

          I thought it was silly that Friedman was claiming that some Randroid ran Game on her because that’s about as likely as Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory running Game on her.

          why the hell am I going to bother to read the rest of that crap

          Because of the exquisite joy of the hate. Feel the hate flow through you, Luke.

          1. Hmmmm …. there is something in there that explains why I like Murray Rothbard so much. A lot (not all) of his stuff is, directly or indirectly just a summary of his hate reading. I somewhat enjoy the dark-side-hate you are talking about, but am far too lazy to work for it my self.

            1. Early Rothbard was well-researched hate. If you got past the hate, you could learn something.

              Late Rothbard is just hate for hate’s sake.

              1. Don’t read post-1980 Rothbard.

            2. Just to collapse this thread into a singularity of hate, here’s Rothbard mocking Rand:

              http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

          2. I thought it was silly that Friedman was claiming that some Randroid ran Game on her because that’s about as likely as Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory running Game on her.

            This.

            Also, I have my doubts that Friedman is self-aware enough to realize when someone is running Game on her in the first place.

  16. He’s all about individual responsibility but he just isn’t, metaphorically, into wearing protection.

    What does that even mean? Do Objectivists not wear condoms? I have never heard that. How does one exactly metaphorically not wear protection?

    1. It doesn’t mean anything. She’s imagining a guy she doesn’t like and projecting all of his imaginarily unlikable qualities onto a system of ethics she doesn’t like. And I’m sure something something abortion.

    2. Medicare is the condom we all wear. or something. and food stamps are our IUDs.

    3. Maybe he’s all about personal responsibility because he’ll support the kid in the unlikely event his seed finds purchase in your rocky, rocky insides.

    4. Objectivists most certainly would wear condoms. Giving her your sperm would be an immoral act of altruism.

      1. I do not avoid women, but I do deny them my essence.

        1. “Look, yes, I have banged hundreds of broads, internationally, but know this: I wrap my rascal TWO times ’cause I like it to be joyless and without sensation, as a way of punishing supermodels.”

    5. Also they run really fast, are afraid of the dark, and LOVE pimento loaf.

      1. That was my random stereotype generator. In case it seemed to make no sense.

    6. It means that Randroids will read anything, not just the stuff on the official progressive reading list. Gotta protect your brain from all those nasty ideas.

    7. He’s not into forced metaphorical sterlization, you mean.

  17. Your date is probably conventionally attractive, decidedly wealthy,

    And monocles! Don’t forget the MONOCLES!

    1. Monocles? You mean the famously confirmed bachelor of ancient Athens, who always seemed to be a bit listless?

  18. “give his bookshelf the once-over ? and find it lined with Ayn Rand.”

    Lined? Just how many books did she write?

    1. My reaction, too.

    2. Not many. But they’re all so damn big it doesn’t take more than three to totally fill a shelf.

    3. I’ll give her that. If the bookshelf is actually “lined” with Ayn Rand, that probably is a red flag, at least in a statistically-significant correlation kinda way.

      She probably means “has read Atlas Shrugged, and didn’t hate it” though.

  19. My long-distance pride was fully awakened a few years later, when I was living in Washington, D.C., and went to see Iowa’s preeminent musical genius perform. No, not Slipknot, but Leslie Hall, a former art student and Ames resident who raps about party dip and crafting over synthy beats she makes on her MacBook.

    BAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

    1. Warty’s in love! Like Stan Marsh, he pukes when he likes a girl. Or if he’s just eaten a girl. Warty pukes a lot.

      1. Yup. Eating a girl, eating out a girl, eating in a girl. All are emetogenic.

    2. Sweet holy motherpunchingfuck, that woman is completely mad.

    3. When I hear shit like this, I turn to my wife and make the jacking-off signal, because that’s all somebody who talks like this is doing.

      1. That was the female jacking off signal, right?

  20. Y’all cut her some slack. Geez just imagine the vaginal chaffing from humping those strawmen. Who wouldnt be off their game?

    1. Saw your tweet on that. 😀

      1. I am sure she will fall in love with me instantly.

  21. “So make a deal.”

    “What kind of a deal?”

    “A DEAL deal. Maybe the guy’s a Republican.”

  22. Vote for the smartest guy in the room:

    BIDEN IN 49% BLACK DANVILLE, VA: ‘THEY GONNA PUT Y’ALL BACK IN CHAINS’

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..y-response

    1. heard that on the radio. The man cannot help himself. Of course, that soundbite will make exactly zero of the mainstream newscasts and appear in exactly zero of the major dailies.

    2. I wonder if Debbie Wasserman-Schulz will say that she doesn’t know if Biden is a Democrat or not.

      1. Now THAT’S the thread winner.

    3. I love Joe Biden. In a just world, all of our politicians would just be minor variations on Joe Biden.

  23. Damn, linking this in the morning links thread 6 minutes before it goes up does’t qualify as a hat-tip, eh? Oh well. I still have things to dream of!

  24. Objectivists most certainly would wear condoms. Giving her your sperm would be an immoral act of altruism.

    threadwinner!

  25. that dog-eared copy of Atlas Shrugged

    She was scannnig the bookshelf for a dog-eared race card and found a Rand novel instead. Oh, the horror.

    Question: Are there really liberal women this stupid?

    Answer: They are all this stupid.

  26. Why would someone who saw himself as a feminist?”who was really good with women,” according to one former girlfriend?become an abuser of women, the kind of man he once scorned?

    Safety tip for the ladies. Never ever turn your back on a man that calls himself a feminist.

    1. I call them “yoga assholes”. They are the guys who take women’s studies classes to meet chicks

  27. I just want to add a:

    “Shut the fuck up, you crazy bitch! No one cares! NO ONE CARES! if you live or die. Just don’t reproduce and give the world your shit-stained offspring.”

  28. “. . .give his bookshelf the once-over ? and find it lined with Ayn Rand.”

    Its a pretty small bookshelf if it can be filled with all *30* of the books she wrote.

  29. I’m forbidden fruit now? Awesome! The ladies love the forbidden fruit! [brushes lunch crumbs off of belly tray]

  30. I’ve found that any person who is deeply and fanatically committed to his worldview can be a pain in the ass. If Friedman thinks that only guys who’ve read Atlas Shrugged are like that then she needs to get out more and meet some people outside her immediate circle.

    1. This is not really about politics or ideology. She is trying to give the impression she has actually been on a date.

    2. Actually the real problem is that a lot of left-liberal women are the mirror opposite of that guy. It’s just that they are obsessed with Naomi Klein instead of Ayn Rand.

      Whenever a couple of strong-willed people who are obsessively commited to their particular political ideology meet, they end up butting heads.

    3. Ya get out there in the world. Meet all different kinds of assholes!

  31. You think back to your conversation at the bar: He treated flirtation like a conquest, a rationally self-interested sexual manifest destiny. He had some dumb pickup-artist questions and maybe a questionable accessory (a cravat? a fedora? a weird pinky ring?) but you overlooked these things, because he was quite charming.

    Holy fuck, I’ve been discovered.

  32. Oddly enough, I have found that a lot of liberal men have the hots for libertarian women. All you have to do it pull out a gun or talk about eating bacon and they’re in love.

    1. It’s really the liberal women who are horrible.

    2. It’s probably a huge relief or contrast from the usual.

  33. To paraphrase George Carlin: Did you ever notice that women who are opposed to libertarianism are women you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place? There’s such balance in nature.

    In real life I’ve met Trotsyites who were worth a tumble. If you don’t mind the smell.

    1. Did you ever notice that women who are opposed to libertarianism are women you wouldn’t want to fuck date long term in the first place?

      There are a whole lotta cute, brainwashed chicks in their early 20s out there. And short-term means never having to put up with their shit.

  34. Thanks for the article.

    For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.org ….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.