Libertarianism

Ann Coulter: Libertarians Are Pussies

|

courtesy Fox Business

Last night's episode of Stossel was filmed at the International Students for Liberty Conference, held last weekend in Washington, D.C.

It's a great show (and there's another episode to come that was also shot at the ISFLC), filled with genuinely interesting segments featuring Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), former Reason scribe Radley Balko (now at Huffington Post), and more (Gary Johnson, David Boaz, John Bolton, and Dennis Kucinich!). Watch more here.

The segment with Ann Coulter is above; click to watch. I enjoy Ann Coulter's rants, perhaps especially when she is trying to antagonize libertarians. In the above click, she does so most emphatically around the 1.55-minute mark, when she calls libertarians pussies (there's a long bleep there, thanks to the worrywarts at Fox Business). Oddly, La Coulter's slagging is occasioned not by libertarians' non-interventionist chops but by…our stance on the drug war.

"Libertarians and pot!" says an exasperated Coulter. "This is why people think libertarians are pussies. We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist. The government is taking 60 percent of your money. They're taking care of your health care, of your pensions, they're telling you who you can hire, what the regulations are gonna be…and you want to suck to your little liberal friends and say, 'Oh, we want to legalize pot. You know, if you were a little more manly, you'd tell the liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."

courtesy Independent Institute

Coulter has a long history of impugning the manhood of real and imagined ideological opponents. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, National Review stopped carrying her column after she advocated the deportation of all Arabic aliens in America and more; she responded by calling the NRO crew "girly-boys."

It may not have the rhetorical power of "I'm Spartacus!" but I'm happy to declare "I'm a pussy!" That is, if being in favor of pot legalization, a restrained foreign policy, marriage equality, non-mandatory health care, voluntary association in the workplace, open borders, and other libertarian positions means being a pussy.

And you, gentle readers of whatever sex and whatever disposition: Are you pussies, too? Here's hoping.

Related: Last year, I debated Coulter at a dinner hosted by Colorado's great Independence Institute. Transcript here (also includes Matt Welch chewing the rag with Jonah Goldberg at an AEI forum).

Hat tip: Reason's great 24/7 newsfeed. Subscribe!

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.

613 responses to “Ann Coulter: Libertarians Are Pussies

  1. Lida Kudrow is dating Cornelius?

    1. Cornelius who?

      1. Planet of the Apes reference.

      2. Cornelius: [reading from the sacred scrolls of the apes] Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil’s pawn. Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother’s land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.

        1. Cosmotarian ape.

          1. Only for people. He’s an ape libertarian.

            1. This place has gone to shit since Caesar was editor.

            2. Dr Zaius was an Ape paleocon. I hate those hippie chimps.

              1. Do ape hippies shave their beards off?

              2. Dr. Zaius. Dr. Zaius. Dr. Zaius. Rock me Dr. Zaius.

          2. Take your stinking laws off me you damned dirty yokeltarian!

        2. “Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. “

          You know it is kinda funny that the progtards who wrote that back in the 70’s have never watched the animal kingdom where there are PLENTY of examples of other species killing for sport, lust, and greed

          1. Or a kitty-cat in their neighborhood.

            1. My kitty-cat is in jail, never to be allowed outside to create mayhem and wanton slaughter.

          2. Yeah. Especially other higher primates. Those guys are vicious.

          3. The Lawgiver was not a “progtard”.

          4. In the 1970’s Jane Goodall documented one clan of chimpanzees waging a war of extermination against another clan. It wasn’t just about land; the victorious clan pursued and systematically annihilated every member of their victims’ clan.

            When she initially published a paper describing the episode, there were a large number of people who desperately wanted her to be wrong.

        3. The apes always reminded me of Soviet era commies.

    2. A planet where Apes evolved from Ann Coulter?

  2. Yes, standing on principles and defending freedoms that don’t hurt other people is such a pussy position.

    It’s so tough to gang up on harmless people and to make them do things you want them to do and to steal their money to pay for it.

    1. Your sad devotion to that ancient Libertarian religion has not helped you conjure up a Presidential election, or given you enough clairvoyance to know what women really want…

      1. Ke$sha! Release Him!

      2. Libertarians don’t abandon their values just to be palatable to the 2 party system, that’s the job of “Social democrats” and “Conservatives”

        1. yeah but most of us will abandon them (or at least pretend to) just so we can get a date

          1. yeah but most of us will abandon them (or at least pretend to) just so we can get a date

            Maybe that is what Im doing wrong.

            1. I’m not tall, and my looks peaked in third grade, but I never had trouble getting a date.
              A sane date, though…

              1. So you are saying you have money?

                1. Not enough to make that a deciding factor.

                  As backward as it seems, once you relax and talk to them like buddies, they stop parking you in the Friend Zone. After that, it’s mostly a matter of going where you’ll meet the kind of women you like, and not hesitating.

                  Way back when, a kid I grew up with would walk up to women (like in a mall) and just tell them what he wanted. He got turned down a lot, called a lot of bad words, and slapped a couple times a day. He also had a lot of sex for the times. Later he smoothed out his techniques and had a book written about him and others like him.

                2. How much money? It’s possible I may be available for dating. For the right price.

        2. Come on, man. Libertarians are a two party system. You got your Cosmotarians on the left and your Yokeltarians on the right.

          1. Bob Dylan remake?

            1. Stealers Wheel?

          2. Cosmotarians to the Left of us, Yokeltarians to the right and wr’re stuck in the middle with Sloop?

          3. The divide is important. Just look at any article on the subject of race, sex, or intelligence. Could these people ver collaborate or get along with each other?

            1. Survey says:

              meh

      3. “Your sad devotion to that ancient Libertarian…” religion is when you believe in something without reason, like gods or the state. We have no proof any god exists. We have no proof that the state is anything more than a group of violent men who demand special rights to arrest and kill others that regular people are not allowed to do.

        “religion has not helped you conjure up a Presidential election,” you can’t reform a criminal organization from the inside. Just imagine if you were a capo who said “how about we don’t kill people anymore?” the other mafiosos would laugh at you

        “or given you enough clairvoyance to know what women really want…” apparently the many libertarians with successful marriages did not get this memo

        1. Apparently someone has no sense of humor and has never seen a Star Wars film.

        2. “or given you enough clairvoyance to know what women really want…” apparently the many libertarians with successful marriages did not get this memo

          One of the great secrets in life is not to give women what they want. Let them give you what you want. They’ll be happier that way.

      4. what women really want

        To be on top.

        1. Until they don’t . . .

        2. Or in the middle.

      5. Ann probably has more hair on her chest than Pro Lib. I’m also pretty sure she could kick his butt…. Just saying.

      6. Do most of them even know what they want?

        The only true way to tell is what economists call revealed preference. Coulter’s shown hers, and it’s not ours.

    2. Well, she is right. If you only talk about pot, gay marriage and food trucks, not saying a thing about repealing CRA 64, abolishing the EPA, DEA,FDA and a host of other agencies, you are a pussy.

      1. Agreed. She made some other points in the first few minutes that I watched that strike me as valid.

        I agree with her that same sex marriage is not an equal opportunity issue because a gay man and a gay woman can marry the same as a straight man and straight woman can marry. But Stossel to his credit, goes ahead and phrases it appropriately saying “we believe people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn’t infringe anyone else’s right to the same.” Same sex marriage for me is a liberty issue, not an equality issue.

        But I do agree with Coulter on “making divorce harder.” She seemed to upset a good amount of the audience with that statement, but I do believe that a marriage contract is exactly that, a fucking contract. And breach of that contract by a party to that contract should impact the resulting financial judgement that occurs from the ending of that contract.

        1. And so I watched the rest of it and noticed the question toward the end from the “independent woman” going through a divorce who is still finding it “very difficult a year into the process.”

          I think what Coulter is trying to hint at with the making divorce harder isn’t making the process take longer or require more legal fees: it’s finding the party at fault for breach of fucking contract. If that chick’s hubby was porking something on the side, he’s at fault and should receive no financial compensation. If she breached the contract because she “needed to find herself” (most likely due to 2/3 of divorce being female initiated) she shouldn’t get a fucking dime out of him even if he earns a mil a year and she doesn’t do shit.

          The reason men are more skeptical of marriage these days is because the system is set up in such a way where women are financially and custodially incentivized to initiate a fucking divorce, breach a contract, and reap the rewards from it. It’s twisted and it’s contrary to contract law in all other spheres.

          1. … aaaaaand when there is little documentation and lots of he-said she-said, I’m sure that extra-difficult process will be really helpful.

            If they make divorce harder, they’re going to see a lovely uptick in murders.

            1. Was spousal murder more frequent before the introduction of no-fault divorce?

        2. If you believe that it is a liberty issue, then you should believe that government should NOT endorse any marriage. Marriage existed looong before gov. began licensing it and I do believe it would survive just fine if government would get out of it now – gay or straight. Not to mention, it would make all gay marriage arguments moot.

      2. Since when have libertarians hidden their opposition to those things?

        1. The problem may be that you only ever see libertarians on TV or in the news cycle when some lefty tool wants to trot them out to talk about gay marriage and drugs. Reason is fairly well represented on MSNBC proudly serving in that role.

      3. Her actual argument, freed from invective, is similar to the libertarian critique of Beltway libertarians.

      4. Amen Chris. It sometimes seems the Libertarian’s are absent on all of those issues you mention.

    3. She wasn’t saying libertarians are pussies for defending freedoms, she was saying they’re pussies for focusing 90% of their efforts on defending the one freedom that’s not likely to offend liberals, instead of focusing 90% of their efforts on the other freedoms that are likely to offend liberals.

      1. Which is patently false

        1. Mike Godwin works here, so I wouldn’t be so sure.

        2. I see little evidence that it is false Cali.

      2. Few things would make such drastic changes as ending the drug war and, unlike a lot of other things we Libertarians would like to do, ending the drug war is more accomplish-able. So, it makes sense to focus our efforts on a path that is most likely to succeed and cause the greatest change.
        Just think of how much ending the drug war would do to slow the advance of the police state, think of all the money that local police departments would no longer receive or need.

        1. think of all the money that local police departments would no longer receive or need

          Local police departments need all the money they can get and anyone who says that they don’t need it is a cop-hating anarchist who wants to see drugged-out children waging war on each other with assault rifles using 30 round magazines.

          And barrel shrouds.

        2. Thanks for confirming Ann’s rant, rickl.

  3. I think somebody feels like she needs a widdle attention…

    1. Maybe she just wishes she had one.

      1. She seems to cultivate that impression.

        1. That’s okay. She still has an anus. Rear entry’s better than looking at her face.

          1. No rape jokes please. This isn’t Real Time or Letterman.

  4. And you, gentle readers of whatever sex and whatever disposition: Are you pussies, too? Here’s hoping.

    Well they say you are what you eat

      1. Winnwe, winner, p***y dinner?

        1. dammitall should be Winner, winner….

          1. Weiner, weiner, p***y dinner!

            1. I got my red wings. Does that mean I’m a Communist?

  5. I wonder how much of what Coulter says is what she really believes and how much is just trash talk to get everyone all fired up?

    1. Oh, it’s mostly the latter. It’s her schtick.

      1. That’s why I muted the TV during her segment. Why waste my time listening to her BS.

        1. It’s her schtick, she’s said it before that the only reason she makes television appearances is to sell books. Her capitalist drive is healthy.

          1. Can’t fault a rational human for that

      2. I certainly hope so. I can’t conceive of how a person could honestly believe that marijuana is socialist.

    2. A lot of it is trash talk. She is a great writer of insults. But she hits on a serious point. What should libertarians do? Should they try to be polite and get along with liberals and try to win them over by emphasizing things like gay marriage and pot and down playing things like free markets and free association or should they tell liberals to go fuck themselves and emphasize it all in an unapologetic way?

      Coulter’s callout no doubt hit a nerve at Reason because their staff tends to be the former.

      1. *gulp*

        I agree with John to a limited extent. I don’t want to overstate it the way he did, but if you aren’t willing to look a liberal in the face and say “I believe that a business owner has the right to fire a black/gay/female/male/white employee because he/she is B/G/F/M/W”, then you are wincing from confrontation.

        1. How am I overstating anything? You just repeated what I said.

          And for the record, I think trying to compromise with liberals is a fool’s errand. Their totally unwillingness to hold the Obama administration accountable for his actions on marijuana and targeted killing proves that. They don’t consider these issues to be that important. Sure, a lot of them would prefer a pot to be legal and for things like the Patriot Act to be repealed. But ultimately, they will never give up anything else to achieve those and are happy to sacrifice those issues if it means their side gets to be in charge and they get big government.

          1. And for the record, I think trying to compromise with liberals is a fool’s errand.

            I agree, but so is trying to compromise with conservatives. Like it has been pointed out here several times recently: we are finally getting a minute amount of spending cuts, and rather than embracing it, conservatives are shifting blame for it. Conservatives don’t care about cutting spending any more than liberals care about civil rights.

            1. Yeah, but conservatives can be converted. And it’s true that conservatives don’t care about cutting spending, but that’s largely Washington. One thing I think is true is that liberal politicians are more libertarian than their constituents, whereas conservative politicians are less libertarian than their constituents.

              1. “Yeah, but conservatives can be converted.”

                So can liberals. I think some people here get the impression at times that the average liberal is like Tony or a Huff Post user. Most aren’t that into politics (same goes for most people on general). While I was a conservative before I was a libertarian, I know plenty of others, both in real life and on the Internet, who were liberals before.

                “One thing I think is true is that liberal politicians are more libertarian than their constituents, whereas conservative politicians are less libertarian than their constituents.”

                I don’t think this is true. I think liberal politicians are less likely to support things like drug legalization or civil liberties than their constituents are. I think pols in both parties are less libertarian than the general pop

                1. As a former conservative, I will say that conservatives (not necessarily the SoCons’)are usually more open minded and empathetic to other’s rights when they are shown more than their own perspective. [Most] Liberals seem to get on their own collectivist bent and require way too much effort and re-educating to get them to actually consider government in a way we would consider ‘rational’. There are always plenty of exceptions, but those are the general conservatives/liberals I, personally, tend to come across.

                  1. I should rephrase my bit about ‘re-educating’ liberals…I mean undoing the institutional brainwashing done by the public educational system.

            2. Nope. Sequestration is still just cuts in the proposed increases.

              1. That has nothing to do with my larger point, which is that conservatives are trying to shift blame for them.

                And I do mean conservatives and not the GOP. The conservative blogs are playing the politics of this as well.

        2. Why not reframe the statement to gang up on the majority? “I believe that a non-profit organic business owner has the right to fire one of her employees because he is a straight white male.”

          1. They’ll suggest an exemption that allows non-profit organic business owner and only non-profit organic business owners to fire one of her employees because he is a straight white male and only because he is a straight white male.

            1. Straight white males are a minority.

                1. Don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t condemning it, just saying the debate tactic wouldn’t work.

              1. But delicious when seasoned appropriately.

          2. Because that’s pandering and because of what KPres said above.

            “Of course there should be a safe space for gays only! But straight people have been exercising their privilege for far too long and the State needs to level the playing field”

            1. the State needs to level the playing field

              The only level playing field is a cemetery. And the State is expert at making those.

              1. I’m stealing that for future use without attribution.

              2. The 20th century is a nice monument to that boneyard.

              3. Well said, RCD.

            2. Of course it’s pandering, but so is “I believe a business owner has the right to fire a black guy for being black.” You’re just pandering to different sets of idiots.

              1. No, actually, that is not true.

                1. How is that not true?

        3. It depends on the context and conversation. Do you have time to follow that up with “…but it’s OK, because markets punish business owners who fire people for irrational reasons, anyway. There’s no need for the state to get involved.”, or will you get cut off in a fit of slobbering rage?

        4. But better to frame it this way:
          I believe black business owners have the right to exclude whites from their business.

          Let them sort that out.

        5. This is actually why I can’t identify as a libertarian. Herd mentality is a problem, imho, and leads to tyranny of the masses in the private sector. If you start allowing employers to fire people for those reasons, a good sized majority will as well. If a man can’t get a decent job because he’s black, well, he can’t very well pull himself up by his bootstraps, can he?

          1. regaya,
            See KPres’s comment above.

      2. John has never interacted with the LP I see.

        1. Big “L” libertarians (at least at the local level) couldn’t agree on the color of the sky on a clear day at noon. Which is why I can’t be arsed to join the party.

          1. robc’s 2 rules of libertarianism:

            1. Everyone agrees with libertarians about something
            2. No two libertarians agree on anything

            1. as always rob, so true.

              Still, bringing a little reduction in tone of the big L rhetoric is a good thing in my mind. Of course I still believe in the fantasy that most people aren’t completely lost yet so our rhetoric would matter.

            2. Also, “There are slightly more versions of libertarianism than there are libertarians.”

              1. I have at least 3 versions, myself. I rotate to match the style of monocle I am wearing that day.

            3. Should that be ‘No two libertarians agree on EVERYTHING’? Or do you really mean anything?

      3. Yo, fuck the statists. I think 90% of the laws oppressing me don’t serve any moral, ethical, or even utilitarian purpose for me.

        1. You misspelled “No”. And also “you, cut spending”.

      4. John translation: Don’t suck up to liberal. Suck conservatives, their cocks are so much more tasty.

        1. Yeah Audrey, that is exactly what I said. Don’t let the fact that the subject of conservatives never came up in the post stop you from thinking that. Because God forbid you ever allow rational thought to get in the way of your smugness. No we can’t have that.

          And for the record, I don’t think libertarians should be apologetic to conservatives either. They should be the small government conscience of the right. And most libertarians would agree with me on that. There only seems to be an issue about compromising with liberals because for some unknown reason some libertarians are concerned that nitwits like you like them.

          1. They should be the small government conscience of the right.

            No, libertarians dont need to be on the right or the left.

            1. They are on the right the same way socialists are on the left. That is just what they are. There is no “center”.

              1. 2 dimensions John.

                Libertarians are neither right nor left, we are top.

                1. I don’t really see that, because the distinction between social liberty and economic liberty is an illusion. Everything gets traded, even if it doesn’t get traded for dollars. So any statism is always the same thing…a trade restriction.

                  1. By this logic, which I agree with, R’s and D’s are on one end of the spectrum and libertarians are on the other. Two sides, same coin. John, your rebuttal?

                2. and when they are the majority, everyone else has to suffer being the bottoms

                3. If this is true, and if
                  neoteny| 2.22.13 @ 8:04PM |#

                  what women really want

                  To be on top.

                  is also true, then shouldn’t there be a lot more lady libertarians?

              2. Look at a political diamond John, libertarians always come out on top… or alternatively.. we don’t go left, nor right, but forward.. Or alternatively, we rise above totalitarianism (which is usually on the bottom)…

                1. “forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!”

                  1. As I view it, left-right can concern economics (controlled – free), governing philosophy (radical – reactionary), and traditionalism (progressive – conservative). In this regard libertarians end up as far right, far left, and both or neither depending on the issue (though since America was ostensibly founded as a government with limited powers our tone tends toward conservative).

                    It’s kind of a silly issue though; where you end up on the spectrum has more to do with time & place than ideology & philosophy.

                2. Look at a political diamond John, libertarians always come out on top…

                  True, but the Nolan chart (the “political diamond”) was developed David Nolan, who was a libertarian.

                  1. Because instead of arbitrary issue assignment it is designed around More government vs. less government. That is why Liberals and Conservatives are both statists. They both believe in having a big government control personal lives but for different things.

                  2. If it was developed by Team Red or Team Blue, libertarians wouldn’t be on it. However, Communists and Fascists would be.

          2. They should be the small government conscience of the right.

            Almost like a pet.

          3. Be gentle. She’s a proglodyte. You have to grade her on a curve.

        2. Audrey, there’s a lot of sucking up to liberals among libertarians. Yes, it’s just as bad to suck up to conservatives, but the former is more pervasive and more accepted.

          Bottom line: that liberal gay guy who smokes pot and hates war likes indie films is still a fucking statist who is comfortable with the government taking your money and shrinking your liberty (and, if “necessary” taking your life).

          You want liberal? Watch the tapes of Chucky Schumer defending the ATF after Waco.

          1. The trick with sucking up Liberals is duping them into hating themselves which I think is easier to do because of their obvious self-esteem/envy of others problem. It’s difficult to do, but I’ve seen a once zealous Obamabot laid low by his own hypocrisy. Granted it was only asshole, but those tears were yummy and sweet.

          2. How about the tapes of Menendez taking advantage of poor island gals, or Clinton taking advantage of poor Ozark women. Or Kennedy. Or Spitzer.

      5. We dont have to play down ANYTHING. Not free markets, not pot legalization, not open borders, not ending welfare. NONE OF IT.

        Why cant we be upfront and honest about it all simultaneously?

        1. You can. And that is one approach. I call the abolitionist approach. When William Lloyd Garrison started the American abolition movement, literally no one in the country ever thought of ending slavery. Some people didn’t want it in their state but no one ever thought of just ending it. He was really a majority of one or certainly a few. And he was nearly killed several times for his trouble.

          1. That is exactly what “Fuck off, slavers” is all about.

          2. William Lloyd Garrison always gives me a semi. nohomo.

            1. Garrison wanted the North to secede from the Union.

              I just find that amusing.

              1. And IIRC, he was okay with letting the south leave. A man true to his principles.

                1. okay?

                  He opposed the war.

                  He was more than okay with the south leaving.

                  1. Actually, have to correct myself here. Once the war started, he supported it as a means to free the slaves. But before it started, he was okay with letting the south just go.

                    One of his sons fought in the war. The other 3 were conscientious objectors.

          3. When William Lloyd Garrison started the American abolition movement, literally no one in the country ever thought of ending slavery.

            Bullshit. Several countries had already abolished slavery, and there were people who tried to abolish slavery in the Constitution.

            I guess that clause about Congress not being allowed to restrict slavery until 1808 was just an accident, huh John?

        2. I am. It sometimes leads to fisticuffs, which, by the way, I find enjoyable. I have no incentive to back off.

      6. I think it is good to emphasize things in a somewhat diplomatic way, but without compromising. Emphasize things like how much business regulation screws over poor people and try to explain how welfare and housing projects and such makes things much worse in the long run. Even if you can’t convince them on all points, it makes for a more interesting and potentially productive conversation.

        There are still some small vestiges of an anti-authoritarian left, and liberals do turn libertarian from time to time (there are quite a few regulars here, myself included, who came to libertarianism from the left).

      7. I don’t give a flying fuck what liberals think about me or libertarianism. I’m against the drug war because it is the root of all that is wrong with the way American’s see government, both left and right.

        1. I agree with you, except for your apostrophe.

      8. Like 10% of the population at most is libertarian. We’re not in a strong bargaining position, so “telling them like it is” accomplishes nothing. You have to massage things if you want to get anywhere.

        I don’t exactly see Coulter or her neocon pals telling off social conservatives on the issues where they disagree either.

        1. Like 10% of the population at most is libertarian.

          Cato had a survey or somthing a few years ago that put the number at 55%. Not radical Rothbardians, of course, but those that broadly fit the definition.

          1. I think it actually came out with four groups, libertarians, liberals, conservatives and populists, who each had between 15% and 30% of the population.

            The poll where libertarian was 49% was of a Virginia tea party conference where they were half of the tea party.

        2. Is Coulter not a social conservative?

        3. Actually, she has weighed in on a few social conservative issues. Just not very often.

      9. Reason definitely runs plenty of articles on things like gay marriage and pot, and probably do try to slant those articles in a way that appeals to liberals, but I would hardly say they play down free markets.

        1. Like when Godwin lectured us on how Obamacare is really laissez faire after all?

      10. Should they try to be polite and get along with liberals and try to win them over by emphasizing things like gay marriage and pot and down playing things like free markets and free association or should they tell liberals to go fuck themselves and emphasize it all in an unapologetic way?

        You live in such a fantasy world.

        Since you “conservatives”, like the liberals, endorse a huge unpaid-for government that infringes on individual rights, I think I’ll continue to tell you all to go fuck yourselves, just like the other 99.9% of Libertarians, and you can continue to think that I’m taking the other side of the retarded partisan duopoly, like 99.9% of you Republitards and Demotards do.

      11. A true Libertarian would not argue for gay marriage, but to get government out of marriage and out of our lives.

    3. I wonder how much of what Coulter says is what she really believes and how much is just trash talk to get everyone all fired up?

      Are you suggesting she is a sensationalist “Shock Jock”, like Howard Stern?

      1. Correction

        Like Howard Stern used to be.

        1. Maybe she will be a judge on Dances with the Stars?

    4. I honestly wonder how much she is aware of what she says at the time she says it. She comes off to me as someone with the gift of gab who disconnects the rational part of her brain and lets her creativity flow when she gets on a rant. Makes her somewhat entertaining to watch but ultimately vapid

        1. True. I’ve read a few of her books. She connects with a visceral hatred of socialists, which I understand. So everything she says is colored with that hatred and not necessarily through an ethical lens the way libertarians take positions. She’s a by the book neo-con with a gift for gab and fiery rhetoric.

          1. She’s a by the book neo-con with a gift for gab and fiery rhetoric.

            She’s also German/Japanese-style disgusting in bed. Don’t ask how I know.

    5. I’m not sure she knows the difference any more.

    6. From the comments here, I would say she has found you guys hot button, pussies.

  6. As initially Team Orange as I want to go here, she may have an inelegantly stated point. For tactical reasons, many of us do in fact cloak (or at least downplay) our opposition to the private-businesses sections of things like the 1964 CRA, the ADA, the ADEA,etc.

    We have to start hammering home freedom of association.

    1. That’s so overstated, though. Look around here, are we always on about drug legalization to the exclusion of other issues? Hardly. It’s part of the discourse, but not all of it.

      1. Very true. It is almost a Cocktail Parties argument coming from her, but I do see some of our leading lights “sucking up” to liberal power structures. I don’t actually blame them – it’s a function of laziness and being surrounded by it.

        1. This has been said a billion times here, but, except for specific battles, we can’t align with the left. They are fundamentally statist and anti-individual. They don’t always realize that, but it’s inherent in their philosophy.

          There is a more fertile ground for converting some right-wingers to more libertarian viewpoints, but many of them are really statists to the core, too. Which means that we can’t generally align with them, either.

          1. “There is a more fertile ground for converting some right-wingers to more libertarian viewpoints”

            I understood some of her point here. And she did make a concession regarding drug legalization. End the welfare state and she has no qualms about it. It’s the same with some of us and the open borders debate also.

            1. The difference is that ending the WoD would almost certainly be a net spending benefit compared to the marginal increase in welfare spending because of legalization.

              1. “The difference is that ending the WoD would almost certainly be a net spending benefit compared to the marginal increase in welfare spending because of legalization.”

                Not sure you can convince a large number of people that have been fed years of propaganda telling them modern civilization will end with drug legalization that.

                1. No, but if the standard is convincing those people, the game is over.

                  There’s no way to support the assertion that drug legalization would result in more marginal welfare spending than we current spend — police, prisons, ruined lives even without incarceration, militarization, civil forfeitures, as well as the intangible cost to the 4th — on the WoD. That doesn’t even count the revenue from taxing it like alcohol. Even apart from the freedom issues, the monetary issues are in favor of legalization.

                2. True. Sieg heil, etc..

              2. I agree there is more fertile ground with converting red team – I am former red team. I believed in small government. Exchange theory. Supply and Demand. The rights to interest. I was a devout Constitutionalist, believer in negative rights. Before I understood a more libertarian based ethical approach I still had some libertarian underpinnings. I did not connect the inconsistency of my ethics when it came to the military, drug war, and several key civil liberty issues. This is a much better place to start.

                Blue team, while they also have many inconsistencies, generally share an authoritarian vision contrary to negative rights, capitalism, small government, and civil liberties.

                Just as Ann Coulter gave some ground on the drug war, you can get many Red Team to start seeing some of the ethical arguments. The Tony’s of the world are incorrigible because they envision a world of enslavement. Red does not envision this world; they just don’t understand how inconsistent many of their beliefs are. Call me naive in my belief we have converts on team red to make, but I can work with inconsistency, but I can’t deal with enslavers.

                1. Welcome, aboard, grey! I can say sincerely that it’s good to have you with us!

                  1. Thanks. Reason blogs are more educational than the articles. Turned on to Locke, Hayek, Bastiat all from the Reason Blogs.

                    1. Just don’t spend too much time on the comments sections. They are a time-wasting cesspool of trolls, slashfic, and overanalysis of science fiction and fantasy media.

                    2. …and the reason nobody takes libertarians seriously.

                    3. Brandon, don’t forget the fan-fucking-tastic profanity.

                    4. The profanity is the main mother-fucking, God-damned, son-of-a-bitching attraction.

          2. Constitutionalists are a large subset of conservatives.They may not be libertarians but they will support limited government on principle.

          3. we can’t align with the left. They are fundamentally statist and anti-individual

            …so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

            There is a more fertile ground for converting some right-wingers to more libertarian viewpoints, but many of them are really statists to the core, too.

            …which means I clearly cannot choose the wine in front of me.

            1. It’s inconceivable! I just watched TPB with my seven-year-old son, and now “It’s inconceivable!” is his favorite phrase.

              1. I’d let my kid drink whiskey if he started doing that. Rail, not top shelf, but whiskey nonetheless.

                1. Just put a nipple on the bottle. I’d use the intervenous method.

        2. And they don’t “suck up” to the conservative power structure?
          Sure, it’s fun to wave freedom of association in the face of a liberal, just as it’s fun to wave open borders or nonintervention in the face of a conservative. But seeking common ground, instead of confrontation, with both is more politically adept.

          I think that which way you think the Reason staff leans, left or right, might really say more about your own biases than theirs.

          1. That said, I agree with Pro L that we really can’t align with either except for a few issues.

            1. Align with each side when it to our advantage and disalign when it isnt.

          2. I think that which way you think the Reason staff leans, left or right, might really say more about your own biases than theirs.

            That’s unpossible!

            1. Mike M., below, is my exhibit #1.

          3. I think that which way you think the Reason staff leans, left or right, might really say more about your own biases than theirs.

            Pretty much.

  7. Next time Coulter wants to “debate”, she should just go to Media Matters, she’d be in good company that way and neither side would have to deal with those pesky trivialities like logic or reason.

    1. No, really?

      1. Come on. Are you saying you wouldn’t?

        1. Weren’t you just yesterday one of the people whining about how this always happens?

          1. I said it needed to be toned down.

            Given that Ms. Coulter is the one who set the initial tone, I feel it’s appropriate to respond in kind.

            1. You think saying you’d fuck Ann Coulter is toning things down? Ewwww.

              1. Some guys are tranny chasers. NTTAWWT.

                1. In which one of these four pictures on her wikipedia page do you think she looks like a man?

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

                  1. Trick question, right, ’cause Ima gonna’ say “all.”

                    1. Wow. Well do me a favor and send all your rejects my way because if that’s what you consider too ugly to even bang you must have super models hanging all over you. Good for you man.

                    2. Nowhere did I say anything about “too ugly,” but I would hold out for “post op.”

                  2. The ones where her hair isn’t covering her GIGANTIC ADAMS APPLE?

                    1. That’s her throat, which you can see in her neck because she has no body fat. I just met her at a book signing in DC where we drove her nuts by wearing Gary Johnson buttons. She literally does not have buttocks, at least not visible through a dress. I actually worried about her.

                  3. Man hands and an Adam’s apple. I’d really have to look at the feet before I could tell for sure. I’m guessing she’s got Flintstone feet.

                    That’s a man, baby!

                    1. Adam’s apple, big hands, big feet, penis: Only one of these things is a deal-killer.

                    2. That’s why God made doggie-style.

                  4. I will say, if she was 20 years younger and I was 20 years older, and drunk, I would consider it.

            2. I would and she could call me whatever dirty names she wants while I am. I try and avoid arguing with liberals not because I’m a pussy, but because my experience has been that it is a complete waste of time. Quite honestly the same thing goes for a lot of conservatives as well. They’ll agree with all of my individual points about the drug war but then fail to agree with the conclusion that it needs to stop. argh.

              1. Ditto. I can usually argue a conservative into at least saying I have a valid point. With liberals I get a bunch of emotions and blather.

                1. But I find it’s much easier to shame liberals than conservatives. Start pounding on Obama’s killdrones and Team Blue liberals shut up rather quickly about the sequester or raising taxes and turn the conversation to sports.

                  1. Yeah trying to shame “conservatives” over no knock raids usually elicits responses of “Well, have to break a few eggs…” or “Well the Cops were just doing their jobs…who cares if they murdered an innocent child.”

                2. Usually proglodytes just engage in name calling.

              2. I’d hit it so hard she’s be speaking in tongues like de Niro at the end of Cape Fear … wait, is that the image I wanted?

        2. No way, even if that makes me more of a pussy.

    2. With those elbows, you’ll put your eye out.

    3. I would not.

  8. – We are what we eat?
    – We are of the order Feliformia of Carnovra?
    – We are a tall thin seeding flower distributed by wind currents?

    I just don’t understand these kids these day.

      1. man in the boat

        Someone really should do a Weird Al stile parody of “Man in the Box”.

  9. Libertarians are pussies but chickenhawks like Dumbya and Dickless Cheney are real men, right Ann?

    1. Don’t worry, she wasn’t talking about you.

      1. Buttplugs and pussies don’t mix.

        1. Or at least you should wash them in to soapy water first.

      2. Obviously. He isn’t a libertarian but a Leftard.

  10. if you were a little more manly, you’d tell the liberals what your position on employment discrimination is.

    Or you could just go right to first principles, like self ownership.

    Blathering ninny.

    1. Didn’t Rand Paul do just that? One of the most prominent libertarians?

    2. She must not read the comment section here, anyway. But she does have a point. I don’t see Rand Paul talking about the CRA anymore, do you? It’s not really being a pussy though, it’s good politics.

      1. Yeah, there is no fucking way the CRA is getting repealed. There is no point spending a lot of time talking about it. If you are asked a question, answer it, but there is no need to unnecessarily have idiots think you are racist if you are trying to get somewhere in politics.

  11. I really can’t get to mad at Ann “The Man” Coulter, because she doesn’t know any better. It’s like getting mad at a baby for pooping in their diaper.

    1. Attention whore gonna whore.

  12. Given the choice between Ann Coulter and Missus Biden…

    I think I’d ask to borrow the shotgun.

    1. Take both. But remember: pics or it didn’t happen.

    2. Really? Do you know where Missus Biden has been?

  13. We’re living in a country that is 70 percent socialist. The government is taking 60 percent of your money. They’re taking care of your health care, of your pensions, they’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations are gonna be.

    All of which the GOP supports 100% in all the ways that matter.

    So if we’re going to tell our “liberal friends” to fuck off over these things, won’t we have to tell our GOP friends the same thing?

    1. No, when the GOP shoves through Medicare expansion its all OK.

      The LP-GOP alliance, you know.

      1. And when you shove ass beads in your butt, it’s OK, too.

    2. The GOP isn’t very popular (to say the least) with their own base right now because of that shit.

    3. As much as the republicans suck, they cut my federal income taxes. It’s Block Yomomma and his left-wing asshat friends at the New York Times that are demanding that my taxes be raised, in spite of the fact that taxes were just raised less than two months ago.

      1. “Block Yomomma”. That never gets old.

      2. Since they didn’t cut spending, they didn’t actually cut your taxes. They just replaced visible taxes with invisible taxes in the form of inflation. You’ve just been tricked into thinking you’re wealthier because you have a slightly bigger pile of far less valuable dollars.

    4. I think Coulter herself may support “civil rights” laws that violate freedom of association for African Americans only. Because “we” owe “them” a special consideration because of “our” history.

  14. It’s certainly not fair to tar all libertarians with a broad brush like this, but her statement does apply to a great extent to the Cosmos who, unfortunately, dominate Reason magazine now.

    The stories that they choose to ignore are what betray their hand. A former democratic member of Congress, Jesse Jackson Jr., just pleaded guilty to embezzling campaign funds with his wife, and is going to be sentenced to prison. Reason’s refusal to even so much as mention a major like this story in a morning or evening link can only be described as pussy-like.

    1. I think it has more to do with the fact that the guy disappeared so long ago most of us forgot he was alive.

      Laughing at JJJr is like laughing at Gabrielle Giffords. 2011 called and says meh.

      1. Nice try, but you’re going to have to do a lot better than bullcrap like this.

        1. Especially given the kerfuffle over the Ron Paul newsletter in the ’08 election. If you really want to go down the “old news” road, I’ll tear you to shreds on that.

          1. You should see how fast Mike M. can run on the last Friday of the month!

          2. Uh, JJ Jr. has nothing to do with anything. It is just common criminality and stupidity. It is totally irrelevant. Ron Paul was a libertarian running for president. The scandals (or whatever) surrounding him are much more relevant to a libertarian magazine.

          1. The 24/7 Newsfeed doesn’t count. Nobody here even freaking reads 24/7, much less comments on there.

            1. https://reason.com/blog/2012/11…..reputation

              Just because you can’t read doesn’t mean Reason hasn’t covered it.

          2. Here’s his house which was for sale and I am sure now will be again

            http://slideshow.mris.com/slid…..7734096331

    2. What does the Jackson episode have to do with free minds and markets? You just want Reason to be the Drudge Report with slightly better page design.

      And there’s nothing wrong with being cosmopolitan.

    3. COSMOTARIANS won’t write about what I want them to write about!!!!!!! PUSSIES!!!!

    4. A crooked politician is a major story? Do you wake up in the morning astounded that the sun rose in the East?

    5. A former democratic member of Congress, Jesse Jackson Jr., just pleaded guilty to embezzling campaign funds with his wife, and is going to be sentenced to prison. Reason’s refusal to even so much as mention a major like this story in a morning or evening link can only be described as pussy-like.

      …or it could just be that nobody gives two shits about Jesse Jackson Jr. Or maybe because it’s already common knowledge that he’s a crooked little scumbag. Who the fuck cares? (Other than you)

    6. What’s funny is that his two million dollar DuPont Circle home is walking distance to their office. They could do a video.

  15. And Ann is correct, libertarians frequently frequently “soften” their voice to make in-roads with progressives. Just look at the “liberaltarian” failure.

    1. Did any libertarians support the liberaltarian concept?

      The reason it failed was it was a 100% liberal idea.

      Every libertarian laughed at the entire concept.

      1. Only if you define away any libertarians.

        Just check out BHL sometime, plenty of libertarians support it

        1. I dont consider True Scotsmen a fallacy. 🙂

          1. And that’s why you aren’t a True libertarian.

            1. “Anyone who cares about ideological purity isn’t ideologically pure!”

              1. Even Rothbard gave the title “libertarian” to those who weren’t “pure” (i.e. agreed with Rothbard).

                Even with that, what constitutes a libertarian is still disagreed upon even amongst those who claim the label.

                1. Which logically means anyone who claims a particular person or group isn’t libertarian no longer qualifies as a libertarian! Brilliant!

                  1. Or, OR! it means people can say things that aren’t true. Shocker.

                    1. No, it’s pretty much just an assertion that his claiming some other people aren’t libertarian means he isn’t a libertarian. “Believing in No True Scotsman (emphasis on ideological purity) = not a libertarian”.

                      If anyone here has been shown to be lying, it’s you for claiming that’s not what you said. Here’s a tip for you: IT’S ALL IN THE TEXT ABOVE YOUR LIE. Do you really think everyone here is stupid or illiterate?

                    2. “Do you really think everyone here is stupid or illiterate?”

                      I’m very inclined to believe that you are one of those very things.

                      To help you: No, I don’t believe one has to believe in the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to be a libertarian, that was a joke. The point was to illustrate that there are varying definitions of what constitutes a libertarian.

                    3. No, I don’t believe one has to believe in the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to be a libertarian, that was bullshit passed off as a joke. When that didn’t work, I lied my ass off about what I said, in plain contradiction to what everyone looking at this page can plainly read.

                      There. Much more accurate.

                    4. I don’t understand darius, if it *was* bullshit passed off as a joke (as you agree), then why would I have to lie my ass off at all?

        2. My first brush with libertarians where through a Liberaltarian and I thought libertarians were just another wing of the socialist left and quickly dimissed libertarianism as having any value.

          Libertarians need to be very wary of letting either party co-opt them.

          Liberaltarians are no different than team red or team blue in the ability to throw reason and ethics out the window to get to a dubious outcome.

      2. Did any libertarians support the liberaltarian concept?

        Just Cato, reason,a bunch of those academic “political philosophers” who think they are some sort of libertarian establishment, a bunch of people who used to comment here…

        1. They weren’t real libertarians though!!!

        2. Reason supported the liberaltarian concept? You might want to use the search engine, pally.

          1. FACT PWNED.

          2. True, Reason was never a card-carrying supporter of the liberaltarian concept. More like a dupe or fellow traveler.

            1. I see, so even though Reason has actually attacked the concept, they were still a fellow traveler because you say so.

              1. As Matt suggested,use the search engine:

            2. You are so pathetic.

            3. Here again, the fact that Mike Godwin is a contributing editor kind of undermines the idea that Reason opposes the liberaltarian concept.

              1. Screw “liberaltarian”. I like the idea of taking back the label of classical liberal. It confuses those on the left, and besides most of those who self describe as “liberal” these days are anything but.

    2. But if we’re not allowed to ever talk to anyone who supports massive amounts of federal regulation, who supports 50% total tax rates, who supports government control of health care, and who supports government intervention in hiring decisions, we can’t talk to any significant Republican politician.

      We can’t talk to either of the last two GOP Presidents.

      We can’t talk to the party’s last two nominees for President.

      We can’t talk to any current GOP governor.

      We can maybe talk to two or three current GOP Senators, but the rest are right out.

      We have to “soften” our voice with everyone. Or at least restrain the jeremiad and try to compromise.

      1. That might be correct, it doesn’t mean you aren’t a pussy though.

      2. Soften? That’s why nobody takes libertarians seriously.

      3. Or, when we talk to everyone, we end every conversation with “Fuck off, slavers”.

        Talking doesnt have to be pleasing to the talkee.

        1. That’s the first thing I say to the wife and kids at breakfast each morning.

          1. You call your wife and kids slavers? Well, yeah, I guess I can see it.

  16. I’m a straight pussy, but Ann could eat crackers in my rack all night long.

    1. I wouldn’t say that, but she could suck my cock in the bar bathroom.

  17. I think that which way you think the Reason staff leans, left or right, might really say more about your own biases than theirs.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, there, Sigmund!

  18. Yaaaawn. Oh noes, somebody called us names?

  19. Call me a cosmo, but I think that it will be easier, in the long run, to win over the left than the right. I think that’s why the “progressive” “leadership” hates us with such a white-hot passion. They realize that if their minions ever really tune into what we’re preaching, they may lose their flock.
    So, while I may have winced at “liberaltarian,” I didn’t laugh.

    1. Plus it’s always good to pick the winning side.

      This will never ever be an economically libertarian country or world. Because the concept is essentially unworkable to the point of nonsensical. A laissez-faire market always falls apart, in both practice and theory, and all the more spectacularly in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent economy.

      Libertarians are good for reminding liberals when they’re not being vigilant enough on civil liberties and when they get overzealous with the nanny state. But you should really just amputate your grand economic designs from your body of political aims.

      I guess I’m saying you need to become liberals and help us defeat the right-wing extremists who are trying to destroy the planet via sheer stupidity.

      1. I didn’t laugh.

        But for Tony, I make an exception.

      2. Plus it’s always good to pick the winning side.

        Shorter Tony: Might makes right.

        The morality of an animal.

        1. Humans are animals. Just not often a type of animal clever enough to know that feeling right in your heart has no effect on the world whatsoever if you don’t ever actually win any political power.

          1. That warm, cozy feeling deep down in your heart is worthless unless you can make everyone else feel it too. Even if they don’t want to.

          2. Humans are blessed with the capacity for reason.

            Human beings actually use it. Human animals like you do not.

            1. I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when my fear is gone I will turn and face fear’s path, and only I will remain.

              1. So in terms of DUNE politics would the libertarians be the fremen? They do tend to rally behind leaders named Paul after all.

          3. Shorter Tony: Might makes right.

            1. Shorter you guys: I’m right because my mommy says so!

              1. Nice. I’d ask if the other preschoolers taught you that one, but they probably know better.

              2. Shorter you guys: I’m right because my mommy says so!

                O — K.

                (Slowly backs away…)

            2. No, I disagree. I think the shorter Tony is this:

              “Hey, once people start waving the guns of the state around, all that matters is getting on the ride side of the gun. We’re already waving the guns around, so get on board with the program.”

              It’s so inspiring, really.

              1. “Hey, once people start waving the guns of the state around, all that matters is getting on the ride side of the gun. We’re already waving the guns around, so get on board with the program.”

                Might makes right.

                1. Yeah, you’re right: pretty much.

              2. No, Tony won’t change sides. He just wants his side to have all the guns.

          4. Tony said:

            Just not often a type of animal clever enough to know that feeling right in your heart has no effect on the world whatsoever if you don’t ever actually win any political power.

            I guess the counter examples of this are Socrates, , Ghandi, and scores of others.

            But don’t worry: to stupid people, who has the guns and is pointing them is usually the most important thing.

      3. A laissez-faire market always falls apart, in both practice and theory

        “Results in outcomes Tony doesn’t like” and “fails” are not synonyms.

        I will agree that a laissez-faire polity will never exist in the future, but only because I concede that people are scum, and unwilling to live within the limits of what they can earn by free exchange. And a certain percentage of those people will be able to accumulate enough political power to force exceptions for themselves at the point of a gun.

        That will always be with us.

        1. This is why libertarians never get invited to good parties. The insufferable “I’m so morally pure and most everyone else is weak and craven” bullshit. You might as well be a fundie with pamphlets.

          It’s beyond me why it never occurs to libertarians that people can act in total rational self-interest by favoring collectivist approaches. No, it’s always about their moral depravity and your moral righteousness.

          1. The insufferable “I’m so morally pure…

            This is precious, coming from Tony.

            1. Just yesterday I was being accused of moral nihilism. I don’t know what I am anymore!

              But seriously you guys are really quite priggish.

              1. I proudly cop to “elitist.”

              2. Just yesterday I was being accused of moral nihilism. I don’t know what I am anymore!

                I think I called you amoral, which I could actually respect except that you’re also outrageously duplicitous and hypocritical, which means you’re a nasty combination of morally vacuous and gratingly sanctimonious at the same time.

                Hope that helps!

          2. Tony:

            It’s beyond me why it never occurs to libertarians that people can act in total rational self-interest by favoring collectivist approaches.

            Oh, it does occur to us.

            What doesn’t occur to us is, why does every collectivist approach that Tony favors require grabbing the guns of the state, pointing them at others, and forcing them to be a part of the collective?

          3. [I]t never occurs to libertarians that people can act in total rational self-interest by favoring collectivist approaches.

            We see it plenty. We don’t feel that such collectivist approaches should to be forced upon those that don’t agree with said collectivism.

            Hell, look at the evolution of the health payer system: people generally figured that it’s better to form groups to collectively pay for their healthcare so they all flocked (with a healthy push from Uncle Sugar) to various payer companies. That’s just fine as far as we’re concerned.

            The problem is that those who didn’t benefit from the collectivism stayed away from it, and the collective apparatus demanded that someone step in and force the non-collectivists to help subsidize their failing enterprise when the system began to break down. That’s something that we are adamantly against.

            1. I don’t know why he thinks we think collectivism can’t be in one’s self-interest. Redistributing wealth to me is absolutely in my self-interest.

              But politics isn’t the place for self-interest, it’s the place for principle. Markets are the place for self-interest. See Tragedy of Commons.

            2. Well I don’t believe radical individualism should be forced on people who don’t agree with it either. May the better man win, I suppose.

              Your system is just as much an imposition as mine. It just happens to result in widespread misery for most people.

              1. It just happens to result in widespread misery for most people.

                Yes, your system does indeed….

                1. …and has, for thousands upon thousands of years. Tony doesn’t realize that, deep down, he’s the most reactionary of us all.

              2. Tony:

                Well I don’t believe radical individualism should be forced on people who don’t agree with it either. May the better man win, I suppose.

                Yeah, I’m sure that former slave owners in the south really didn’t appreciate the radical individualism that was forced on them. I cry tears for them constantly.

              3. Well I don’t believe radical individualism should be forced on people who don’t agree with it either.

                No, our system is intrinsically voluntary, not necessarily individualistic. You can be a part of any collective you want, you just can’t force others to join.

                “May the better man win, I suppose.”

                Might makes right. What is that, 5th time this thread?

              4. Well I don’t believe radical individualism should be forced on people who don’t agree with it either.

                What does the word “force” mean to you, exactly?

                1. If you want people to be free when they WANT to be slaves, you’re “forcing” freedom on them.

              5. “It just happens to result in widespread misery for most people.”

                No it doesn’t, and there’s no historical evidence that it does. The classical liberalism of the enlightenment was revolutionary for human well-being. The reactionary Communist counter-revolution of the left was a disaster.

              6. Well I don’t believe radical individualism should be forced on people who don’t agree with it either.

                “Radical individualism” is a straw man invented by small minds who do not understand that people can voluntarily work together towards a common goal without the violence employed by collectivists.

                1. Tony believes that cooperation can only be achieved by force. And then he calls us Orwellian.

                  1. Tony believes that cooperation can only be achieved by force.

                    He has actually said so in so many words.

                  2. “Tony believes that cooperation can only be achieved by force. And then he calls us Orwellian.”

                    Kind of Orwellian, isn’t it?

                    1. War is Peace.
                      Freedom is slavery.
                      Ignorance is strength.
                      And…
                      Force is Cooperation.

              7. Not forcing someone to participate in an activity is force.

                Freedom is slavery.

                War is peace.

                Ignorance is strength.

                No means yes, and yes means harder.

                Anything else to contribute, shit for brains?

                1. Lol, shit. Should have read all the way to the bottom.

          4. Sorry, Tony.

            There is no way out of it.

            When you say the words, “The free market failed, so we need government to correct it,” that directly translates to, “The wrong people lost money, so we need men with guns to take money from unwilling people at gunpoint and make those losses whole.”

            It’s beyond me why it never occurs to libertarians that people can act in total rational self-interest by favoring collectivist approaches.

            Which people?

            What approaches?

            You’re just repeating the content of what I already said, but using different words.

            “It is in my self-interest to take a collectivist approach” expresses the same concept as “I do not get the outcome I want by voluntary exchange, so I am going to get myself a different outcome at the point of a gun.”

            Because I won’t take a collectivist approach with you voluntarily. Nor will millions of others. So how do you do it? And what do you get out of it? You do it with guns, and what you get out of it is stuff you wouldn’t have gotten by voluntary exchange.

            Stop fucking repeating me and then telling me I’m wrong.

            1. Many thieves are acting logically.

          5. Tony said:

            This is why libertarians never get invited to good parties.

            This explains why I get bored so much at parties. It’s usually hanging around a bunch of idiots who love the status quo and can’t think outside the box. “Oh, you like Taylor Swift? And Barack Obama? Me, too! Aren’t they so awesome and totally different than anything we’ve ever seen or heard before, even while they both remind us of practically eveything we’ve already seen and heard over and over again, in this never changing, status quo, pile of shit, that we talk about as if we’re headed towards a brave new world? Try the cheese squares over there! They’re amazing!”

            1. I like cheese squares.

            2. Surely nobody actually likes Taylor Swift.

            3. I’d wager the parties my wife and I attend are better than anything Tony can imagine even exists. But then his imagination can’t encompass even the word LIBERTY.

          6. “It’s beyond me why it never occurs to libertarians that people can act in total rational self-interest by favoring collectivist approaches.”

            You left out the part about forcing people into your collectivist approach. At gun point if necessary.

          7. It’s beyond me why it never occurs to libertarians that people can act in total rational self-interest by favoring collectivist approaches. No, it’s always about their moral depravity and your moral righteousness.

            And once again Tony demonstrates that he’s arguing against the caricature of libertarianism that exists in his tiny mind, rather than against actual libertarianism as it exists in the world.

            Here, have a free clue: there is a difference between voluntary collectivism and coercive collectivism. No libertarian has ever opposed the former.

          8. A good party doesn’t include statist assholes. Teams Red and Blue are the pricks knocking on the door with a search warrant.

      4. Fuck off, slaver.

      5. “A laissez-faire market always falls apart, in both practice and theory, and all the more spectacularly in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent economy.”

        There was an empirical study done in the 90s that showed that GDP growth is maximized when government is around 20% of GDP, and there was a selection bias in that there weren’t any examples where government represented less than 20% of GDP. Not to mention the fact that the US became the world’s dominant economy when government was less than 10%

        So this point is just wildly wrong.

        1. So this point is just wildly wrong.

          Gee, where’e my shocked face?

      6. Tony:

        A laissez-faire market always falls apart, in both practice and theory, and all the more spectacularly in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent economy.

        That runs counter to so much historical evidence that it’s laughable. Capitalism has produced the most rapid growth in production, technology, and quality of life that the world has ever seen, long after powerful governments had been given plenty of time to produce as much for their people, if they could and chose to.

        The founding of the United States was the most laissez-faire economy in the world at that point. If what you’re saying is true, it would have almost immediately fallen apart. Hong Kong and Singapore should be hell holes. This is not the case.

        Instead, the hell holes are North Korea, Cuba, et al, places where laissez-faire is no where to be found, to any extent.

        1. It must have been really laissez-faire at the founding to counteract the fact that a third of the population was not exactly being laissez-faired.

          If we’ve been on a downward slope toward counterproductive statism ever since, then why the huge increases in GDP and standard of living over that time? You can attribute some of it to capitalism, of course, but there was a strong federal government present at every step. I don’t argue they are in competition, but enhance each other.

          Authoritarian countries are irrelevant to this discussion since nobody is advocating for their systems.

          1. You can attribute some of it to capitalism, of course, but there was a strong federal government present at every step.

            A politician is someone who sees a parade, and then shamelessly runs to the front and acts like he is leading it.

            Government is necessary in the economy to protect property rights, enforce contracts, and allow for resolving disputes without resorting to violence. Other than that it does more harm than good.

            1. Ever consider that maybe you need things to be simple so that you can understand them, and that you’ve latched on to a theory of life that says truth and simplicity are somehow linked?

              1. You’re the one who oversimplifies. We recognize the complexity, which is why we’re skeptical that bureaucrats can engineer good social outcomes.

              2. Everything, no matter how complex, can be broken down into smaller and simpler parts. That is how complex problems are solved. By breaking them down into smaller and smaller component parts until they can be solved.

                Your insistence that things must remain complex tells me that you are a very poor problem solver.

                1. Everything, no matter how complex, can be broken down into smaller and simpler parts. That is how complex problems are solved. By breaking them down into smaller and smaller component parts until they can be solved.

                  Yay! +1+1×2+5×6/3+6×9/4+5+2×4/9+5

                  1. Here we go again….

                    7 + 7 * 7 + 7 / 7 – 7 = ?

                    1. 7 + 7 * 7 + 7 / 7 – 7 = ?

                      Umm, guessing 50?

                    2. Umm, guessing 50?

                      Someone understands operator precedence!

                  2. 1+1×2+5×6/3+6×9/4+5+2×4/9+5

                    WHY DO YOU INCLUDE FRACTIONS!?!?!?!?! NOW NOBODY WILL GET IT!!!!!

                  3. Well what’s the value of Yay! ?

                2. Silly physicists, thinking the universe can be represented by 16 basic particles.

                  1. You consider the cutting edge of physics to be simple?

                    1. No you idiot. But physicists are unsatisfied with the Standard Model. Why? Because they think they’re equations should be simple!

              3. Tony:

                Ever consider that maybe you need things to be simple so that you can understand them, and that you’ve latched on to a theory of life that says truth and simplicity are somehow linked?

                And this is from a person who claims to arrive at his politicial views by determining what exact policies globally optimize the happiness of mankind?

                I’d like to see the model, cost function, and decision that goes into that.

                1. You think that’s a simple proposition?

                  1. Tony:

                    You think that’s a simple proposition?

                    No, it’s incredibly complicated. Probably one would have an endless debate on how to model the system, much less define a cost/reward function, and then propose optimization strategies.

                    However, since it’s the central tenet of your philosophy, I’m sure you have it all figured out. So why don’t you lay it all out for us and show us how simple or complicated it is, please? The more complex, the more realistic, I would think.

                    If it’s analogous to control theory, just define the state variables, outputs, and inputs for the system. We can go from there.

          2. The average growth rates since 1929 – hell, since 1917 – have been much lower than what we experienced before.

            If average growth from 1914 – 2014 had been the same as average growth from 1814 – 1914, we’d be the Culture.

          3. Tony said:

            If we’ve been on a downward slope toward counterproductive statism ever since, then why the huge increases in GDP and standard of living over that time?

            This is like asking, “If, after being cured of a debilitating disease, I’m still going to die someday, why do I feel so much better?”

            You can attribute some of it to capitalism, of course, but there was a strong federal government present at every step.

            Oh, you consider that a strong federal government? Responsible for the awesome growth in GDP? Well, then, let’s go back to it. Let’s repeal the 16th amendment, interpret the rest of the constitution as we did before FDR and Wickard v. Filburn, and enjoy what you describe as a “strong federal government.” Sound good?

            Authoritarian countries are irrelevant to this discussion since nobody is advocating for their systems.

            Hey, don’t trash talk them: these are shiny examples of communist glory. I’d show you examples of communist states that aren’t hell holes, but I can’t find any. How’s that for not working in theory and in practice?

            1. ” I’d show you examples of communist states that aren’t hell holes, but I can’t find any. How’s that for not working in theory and in practice?”

              Well obviously those Lefties didn’t have good enough intentions. If they did, then we’d all be living in a Soviet Utopia.

              Or perhaps they didn’t have enough guns. It could have been that too.

            2. Laos isn’t a Communist hellhole. The government is too lazy to cause any trouble.

            3. Laos isn’t a Communist hellhole. The government is too lazy to cause any trouble.

              1. Gaoxlaen said:

                Laos isn’t a Communist hellhole. The government is too lazy to cause any trouble.

                While their economy is growing, 85% of their employment is in agriculture. I’m glad they’re lessening government control and encouraging private enterprise. Lucky for me, one of the perks of living in a country which has had a (relatively) free economy for several generations is that I don’t have to work everyday in fields and pig shit, which is a common feature of planned economies.

      7. Plus it’s always good to pick the winning side.

        You are a disgusting person.

    2. Progressives hate libertarians because they are hostile to liberty. They feel that everything must be controlled. The more forcefully the better. There really is no common ground with them.

      1. Conservatives hate liberty more.

        In a free secular world abortion, prostitution, drugs, gays, etc are unchallenged by the right.

        On taxes the two differ by a few points at the top end.

        1. “On taxes the two differ by a few points at the top end.”

          Laughable. The Progressive program calls for 70% tax rates.

          1. Proof that Obama is no Progressive (happily so).

            Actually, the Dem platform doesn’t even say that.

            Did you get that from Fat Rush?

            1. No, Obama is an incrementalist. He doesn’t propose 70% rates because he knows he can’t get that, so why wast the political capital? That doesn’t mean he doesn’t want that.

              And no, I got that from history, because those are the rates that progressives have stopped at in countries they controlled (see Sweden in the 80s and France today). I believe what they do, not what they say.

              It’s also where they think the Laffer curve peaks at so they’d probably tax 100% if they felt it would work.

            2. “Actually, the Dem platform doesn’t even say that.”

              Yes, because they wouldn’t get elected if it did.

        2. Conservatives are openly hostile to certain personal liberties while giving lip service to economic liberty, and progressives are openly hostile to economic liberty while giving lip service to certain personal liberties.

          1. Liberals define economic liberty meaningfully, not just “freedom from government.” Your use of “economic liberty” is basically Orwellian. It’s liberty for those with economic power, and misery for everyone else.

            1. Appeal to emotion much?

              1. This incessant obsession with my emotions is so far off the mark it’s not even funny. I had emotions once, but I got rid of them because all they did was cause trouble.

                1. Animals have emotions. Dogs can be happy or sad.

                  Dogs cannot reason. Human beings can.

                  I do not consider you to be a human being. You’re just an animal like a dog.

            2. Your use of “economic liberty” is basically Orwellian.

              I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried!

              1. Wow! And you’re like a writer and stuff, so you should be really good at making stuff up.

            3. In a system of true economic liberty, would misery still exist? Other than as the jealousy those at the bottom feel towards those at the top?

            4. In other words, “I have to take your stuff, or I won’t feel free.”

              But still you insist I’m wrong to frame it as an issue of moral purity.

              OK.

              1. You have to take my stuff to pay for the government services you care about and that you insist are essential to liberty, e.g., property rights protection. I just think the same logic can extend to people with interests other than having their shit protected by collectively funded armed people, like say the interest people have of not starving or not being ignorant.

                1. Quit saying that you think. You do not think. Human beings think.

                  You feel. Like an animal.

                2. “You have to take my stuff to pay for the government services you care about and that you insist are essential to liberty, e.g., property rights protection.”

                  I don’t really think the state has to pay to protect property. Police and such can be privatized. Lawyers already are. But somebody has to write the property laws.

                  That being said, the fact that the state does provide police protection and what-not, benefits the poor at the expense of the rich, not the other way around. Rich people could afford their own security, while poor people would SOL.

                3. Keep all of your stuff. I’ll protect my property via alternative means, simple as that.

                4. You naturally see no difference between protecting what is *already* someone’s and using that protection to *take* what was someone’s.

                5. God you are such a quisling little fuck.

                  PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION APPLIES TO EVERYONE YOU FUCKWIT.

                  1. So would a right to healthcare.

                    1. For the thousandth time:

                      YOU CANNOT LAY CLAIM TO ANOTHER HUMANS BRAIN, BODY, OR ABILITY.

                      Unless all medical staff are going to be machines, saying you have a right to medical care means you think that RN or GP should HAVE to treat you. That is straight up slavery.

                    2. It’s not slavery at all. Slaves don’t get paid.

                      It’s a social norm that the injured are treated regardless of ability to pay. I happen to think it’s a good one, because I could some day be injured and lack proof of insurance that day. The Hippocratic Oath is not a slave contract. Jesus man get a grip.

                    3. It’s not slavery at all. Slaves don’t get paid.

                      So the mistake the pre-Civil War slave states made wasn’t forcing people to go work in the fields against their will, but merely not collecting taxes from non-slave owners in order to pay them a stipend? Got it.

                      You are such a disgusting, immoral, soulless piece of shit. You really are.

                      Oh, also, the Hippocratic Oath… yeah, that wasn’t a contract between health care providers and the government. It was a covenant among physicians. Kinda like a guild. Or *gasp* corporate bylaws. If you want doctors to actually live by that oath, they’d actually have to forgo accepting money from the government. And also stop performing abortions. I didn’t realize those were things you support.

                    4. I should have right to medical care. I should be allowed to walk into a pharmacy and buy what I think I need WITHOUT a government-violence-backed permission slip.

            5. “Liberals define economic liberty meaningfully”

              No, liberals thing economic liberty and economic power are the same thing.

            6. No. Economic liberty means being able to sell whatever good or service you have to offer to any willing buyer on mutually agreeable terms. It’s pretty fucking easy to understand.
              This is the thing that bugs me the most about peopel who favor lots of regulation of commerce and business. They don’t see or don’t care how much it hurts ordinary people. Rich people and big corporations can hire lots of lawyers and deal with regulation just fine, and often find ways around it. A poor person who wants to start anything fancier than a sole proprietorship faces loads of regulatory hurdles that they are not equipped to deal with at all. Even if they can get all their papers filed and taxes paid, their potential wealth creation and ability to provide work to other people is significantly curtailed. If we want the economy to do well and poor people to be able to improve their condition, we should be making it as easy as possible to start a business, hire employees and sell whatever it is that you can produce or do. Instead we get policies that almost seem like they are intended to discourage small businesses and job creation.

              1. And work.

    3. How? The left has done an excellent job ingraining generations with entitlements and other “rights.” Stopping that run-away looks quite delusional to me.

  20. To Whom It May Concern:

    Please tell the voices in your head to shut the fuck up.

    Thx

  21. Ann Coulter’s only goal is to get people talking about Ann Coulter. Something she is very good at.

  22. I think that it will be easier, in the long run, to win over the left than the right.

    If there is ever a resuscitation of the “Question Authority” school of liberalism, this could be true. To be honest, I’m not holding my breath.

    1. The “He can’t even run his own life
      Be damned if he runs mine,” school.
      It’s still out there, I hope.

      1. I’m pessimistic. The American left has become more authoritarian over the last 20 years. That argument might have had some sway on the left during the Reagan years, but not since.

        1. Example A: Tony with spaces.

        2. They used to want to differentiate themselves from the communists, ie, “let the commies work the far-left (what we really want) while we pretend to fight the power.” But after the fall of the Soviets, that strategy crumbled, so now there’s no reason to pretend anymore.

  23. The majority of liberals and conservatives have zero principles. There is abosultely no benefit to aligning with them.

    Pointing out their hypocrisy and the sheer stupidity of their ideas is the only way to go.

  24. Posted earlier:

    Her argument on drugs is so insipidly stupid on its very face. We’re already paying for the welfare and healthcare of drug users Ann, get a fucking clue.

    My opposition to the WoD has absolutely nothing to do with appealing to my “lefty” friends (because I don’t have any, and wouldn’t appeal to them if I did), it has to do with how massively fucking expensive it is, and how it has been used to justify huge increases in State power with the associated decreases in individual liberty (beyond being able to choose what chemicals the individual can ingest).

    I’m amazed that nobody in the audience challenged her by forcing her to justify America’s massive prison population, or the increases in police power at the expense of personal liberty. She’d have been forced to show her true colors then, that she is a collectivist liberty-hating freak who only differs from her “opposition” in what she wants to control.

    And she must be intellectually incapable of multitasking….

    1. My argument on drugs is pretty simple.

      Do you or do you not own your own body?

      If your body is your own property, what business does the government have in telling you what you may or may not consume?

      1. If your body is your own property, what business does the government have in telling you what you may or may not consume?

        Your house is your own property and the government can tell you what you may or may not do with it.

        1. We’re all slaves.

            1. Try not paying your property taxes, slave.

            2. Then why are you telling your wife and kids “fuck off, slavers?”

      2. “If your body is your own property, what business does the government have in telling you what you may or may not consume?”

        I don’t think her point about this was without any merit at all. Since the collective has taken responsibility for your health, do you still own your body?

        1. That is the collectivist view.

        2. I don’t think her point about this was without any merit at all. Since the collective has taken responsibility for your health, do you still own your body?

          Which illustrates my point, that she is a collectivist fuckwit.

        3. I didn’t ask the collective to take responsibility for my health, so they can go fuck themselves.

    2. Or singletasking….

  25. I was watching it last night, and to be fair, Dennis Kucinich wasn’t getting much love, either.

    1. Google Mrs Kucinich. He gets plenty of love.

  26. This will never ever be an economically libertarian country or world. Because the concept is essentially unworkable to the point of nonsensical.

    Now you’re just making shit up.

    Does this mean I owe randian a nickel?

  27. So Coulter would have libertarians — obviously a group without many friends in high places — abandon a basic rule of diplomacy (focus on areas of agreement first) whilst we seek friends to try to make some progress on certain goals?

    Methinks Coulter is simply self-interested in ensuring that libertarians remains always and forever a fringe group, and our issues remain unaddressed.

  28. What I took away from it isn’t that she thinks pot legalization’s wrong, but that she thinks libertarians are focusing on the wrong issues.

    1. That’s just the one issue. Libertarians are also against all of the government departments she named, too.

    2. What’s silly is the claim that speaking up on that issue somehow displaces speaking up on other issues. No one’s that stupid, she just likes spewing nonsense.

      1. Well, if it gets to the point at which you’re slipping into bed with other ideologies based on a common position, you are in effect alienating that ideology’s opponents and lessening your chances of success on issues you share in common with them.

        So, you urge libertarians to vote Democrat based on immigration and gay marriage (as in 2006-08) and you can kiss gun rights and school choice goodbye.

        1. This is short-sighted. By switching affiliating back-and-forth, you become a swing vote, making you more democratically effective than your numbers would indicate. Special interests are a public choice nightmare for exactly that reason.

    3. I took it to mean she’s saying that libertarians are wrong to criticize Republicans for not favoring pot legalization, when these other issues are so much more important.

      Despite the fact that the GOP sucks on those issues, too, so even if we forget pot and focus solely on those other issues, we’d still have to want the GOP dancing at the end of a rope.

      1. The Dems don’t favor pot legalization either.

  29. Libertarians are the beta males of politics. We try to be the nice guys standing up to the alpha jackasses who slap the women around and tell them what’s what – and we always get left for one on prom night. Now our date’s is in the backseat of a car getting raped by Bobby Meathead and will come crying on our shoulders tomorrow about how he used her and how much she really wants a nice guy. We comfort her and hold her, but we don’t ever get the sloppy seconds because in her mind we’re “just friends” and deep down she thinks we’re nerds and that Jimmy Jerk guy over there has a sexy bod.

    1. No rape? Speak for yourself.

      1. You and Steve Smith act all alpha, but we all know you guys only go as far as rough consensual roleplay.

    2. Jesus fucking Christ that’s…..troubling.

      1. Bobby Meathead = George W Bush
        “crying on our shoulders” =
        Anti-War/Anti-Patriot Act Movement
        Jimmy Jerk = Barack Obama
        “Let’s just be friends”

        Bobby Meathead = Barack Obama
        “crying on our shoulders” = the Tea Party
        Jimmy Jerk = Santorum/Romney/Gingrich
        “Let’s just be friends”

        It’s an sad, endless cycle.

    3. So, you’re saying that if libertarians start slapping women around, we’ll start having electoral success?

      I’m sure that’s the problem, and nothing else!

      1. No, it’s just the nature of what libertarians are. We want the government to stop being a dick, voters pay lip service to the concept when they’re out of power and then always pick the biggest power-hungry creep around on election night.

    4. Oh FFS take that Roissy bullshit somewhere else, please.

      1. Uh, it was a metaphor, dude.

      2. I think the Roissy shit is remarkably applicable to male-female dynamics, but in the case of political behavior, it ain’t.

        We’re actually the real assholes: fend for yourself or starve is fucking alpha. We favor it because we know we can fend for ourselves and if we can’t we deserve to starve.

        1. “fend for yourself or starve”

          But that’s the stereotype of libertarianism and not the reality. In reality, cooperatism and charity will replace many of the functions of government for those who can’t fend for themselves. These things have been stunted by government and will likely fix problems far better.

          1. Perceptions matter. And the perception of principled libertarians is very much this. Sure, we assert a consequential benefit of more effective and empowering charities in the absence of the state govt cheese, but those who oppose us don’t see it happening and therefore believe us to be exactly the kind of asshole I referenced.

  30. Coulter is right to the extent that she critisizes libertarians for not seeing the big picture.

    We are drowning in a socialist welfare state and crony-capitalism, and libertarians focus is on pot.

    Obama wants to annul the 2nd Amendment and libertarians can’t stop talking about gay marriage. Yeah, I don’t care who you marry — none of that is the business of the Federal Government, but come on. Is this really where we want to focus?

    Coulter says get rid of the socialist welfare state, and they we’ll talk about drugs. I feel the same way aoubt immigration. Get rid of the welfare state, and we’ll talk about open borders.

    And while non-interventionism is an appealing philosophy, the primary Constitutional function of government is defense of the republic. Sometimes that means taking the battle to the enemy.

    There is common ground here with Republicans, so let’s focus on the big picture.

    1. Even though the two are not mutually exclusive and Reason and Cato cover all these concepts extensively, there’s a reason for the political wing to prioritize pot. Pot legalization is quickly becoming a majority opinion, whereas the dismantlement of Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps isn’t at all. Even a slightly more market-based alternative can’t win an election, much less a true libertarian solution.

    2. We are drowning in a socialist welfare state and crony-capitalism, and libertarians focus is on pot.

      The War on Drugs has done more damage to liberty in this country than anything else in the past 50 years.

      1. Great, so we can all bring our stash to the gulag.

        1. Derp. Yes, clearly this has nothing to do with the evisceration of the 4th and 5th Amendments, the massive growth of the prison-industrial complex, the militarization of police, etc. We just want to get high. Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Plus there are far more people in jail for drugs than any other illegitimate law. That pretty much seals it for me.

      2. Qualify that statement.

        1. 4th and 5th Amendments eviscerated? Check.
          Militarization of police? Check.
          More prisoners-per-capita than any nation on Earth, by far? Check.
          Gun control laws as a result of the Drug-War-fueled violence? Check.

      3. “The War on Drugs has done more damage to liberty in this country than anything else in the past 50 years.”

        Bullshit! The War on Drugs is a sideshow.

        The War on Poverty has done more damage to liberty in this country than anything else in the past 50 years!

        1. Nope, two sides of the same coin.

    3. But the Republicans don’t want to get rid of the welfare state, or shrink the federal budget, or end government involvement in health care, or end the legal prohibition on employment “discrimination”.

      So where’s the common ground? There’s common ground on the 2nd amendment (in some instances, but hardly universally with GOP pols) but not on any of the issues Coulter listed. Not one of them.

    4. Since when did actual elected Republican officeholders express any desire to get rid of the welfare state? Other than (maybe) Ron Paul, I’m guessing Robert Taft was the last member of that species, back in the 1950s.

      Paul Ryan is hailed as a budget hawk by Republicans, and the guy’s actually trying to save the welfare state, not end it.

      Besides, the flaw in your (and Coulter’s) thesis is the notion that we can only work on one subject at a time.

    5. The Second Amendment is another perfect example of how the Cosmotarians can be total pussies. Have you read some of the squishy garbage Gillespie has written on the subject in the last couple of months?

      1. I don’t read every word of every article, but Reason seems to be pretty solid on the Second Amendment.

      2. Have you read anything that Sullum or Tucille has written, or do you only notice the shit you don’t like?

        1. I don’t recall what Sullum has said on the subject, but Tucille is definitely one of the good guys, he’s one of the few real bright spots here. He’s not in Hollywood or the Capital Beltway; he lives in Arizona, so you know he’s not a cosmotarian pussy.

    6. I think a lot of people put way too little importance on drug legalization. Locking someone up for possessing or selling drugs is exactly the same thing morally as if I randomly abducted someone off the street and locked them in my basement. There is absolutely no difference. And it is a very big problem that that happens daily and few people seem to care much. And that isn’t even getting into the thousands of people who are murdered every year because of prohibition.

      Two wrongs don’t make a right. The existence of a welfare state does not justify me locking random people up in my basement.

    7. We are drowning in a socialist welfare state and crony-capitalism, and libertarians focus is on pot.

      Conservatives in power have shown little inclination to get rid of crony capitalism, other than occasionally to use it as a stick to beat the Dems with (like in Solyndra). As for the socialist welfare state, I saw a lot of Republicans waving “Get your govt hands off my Medicare” signs during the TP era.

  31. “minarchist” is exhibit #2.

  32. Look at all the butt hurt. Ann Coulter is a shit-stirring provocateur. It’s earned her a very good living. But she’s just a windbox who has zero inflience in real life. “But she spoke at…!” So? Did she influence anyone to change their opinion or leap to action? No – she throws red meat to the true believers. They’re already with her. So she’s a one-woman (man? no pussy) USO tour for mouth-breathing “conservatives”. I admire her ability to make mega bucks doing this. Otherwise? Whatever.

    1. Actually, she’s alienated a lot of conservatives in the last few years, especially with her relentless promotion of Romney during the last election–she ended up defending Romneycare, which was quite a feat.

      One thing I’ve noticed about her is that she tends to ratchet up her shit-stirring over time in order to remain “provocative.” She wasn’t quite that manic back in the ’90s.

      I have no idea what she really believes, and frankly, I couldn’t give a shit.

      1. She wasn’t quite that manic back in the ’90s.

        I remember her appearances on Politically Incorrect, and she seemed hyper and mouthy on assorted topics then too.

        1. Yeah, but she’s taken it to a new level over the last decade.

      2. Ann was way more over the top back in the 1990s. She’s establishment now.

      3. She probably alienated more conservatives with her GOPRoud speaking engagements than the Romney endorsement. Romney didn’t get the GOP nomination for no reason – give or take on a few issues, he’s pretty much what conservatives want.

  33. Libertarians are the beta males of politics. We try to be the nice guys standing up to the alpha jackasses who slap the women around and tell them what’s what – and we always get left for one on prom night. Now our date’s is in the backseat of a car getting raped by Bobby Meathead and will come crying on our shoulders tomorrow about how he used her and how much she really wants a nice guy. We comfort her and hold her, but we don’t ever get the sloppy seconds because in her mind we’re “just friends” and deep down she thinks we’re nerds and that Jimmy Jerk guy over there has a sexy bod.

    My, how enlightening.

    1. Are you pussies, too?

      He’s answering Nick in the affirmative.

      1. I’m not impugning the manhood of individual libertarians like Coulter is. I’m pointing out that, in effect, voters react to our philosophy in the same way girls say they want a nice guy and a gentlemen but always end up going for the tattooed bad boy with a Harley who will beat her up, cheat on her, etc.

        1. I think PB’s point is that you chose a very specific analogy that may be revealing in some way.

          It’s inapposite because first off, liberals hate us more than conservatives, we’re not “just friends”. Second off, our goal shouldn’t be to get elected but to change policy, so the sex:election part of the analogy fails too.

          1. Pretty overexaggerated to be that revealing, although I don’t deny some level of kinship to my metaphoric example.

            It’s inapposite because first off, liberals hate us more than conservatives, we’re not “just friends”.

            Right now when conservatives need a shoulder to cry on, maybe.

            My example was more directed towards political independents who always show libertarian tendencies in the polls and then fall in bed behind the biggest statist on election night.

  34. It’s obvious that we can’t take “X” step toward liberty (which I really don’t give a fuck about) until we take step “Y,” which, in my opinion, is crucial!

    1. Exactly. “We don’t have enough energy, interest or time to focus on that! Clearly we can’t do both! Therefore – what I want or – PUSSY!”

      Yeah, OK.

      This should be part of the drinking game – I don’t think it is already. “Libertarians – you’re the guys who want to legalize pot, right?”
      And only that, fuckers! Only that!

    2. “It’s obvious that we can’t take “X” step toward liberty (which I really don’t give a fuck about) until we take step “Y,” which, in my opinion, is crucial!”

      For those that didn’t watch the piece, this sums up Ann Coulters position perfectly.

  35. Ann Coulter is a neocon pussy for not enlisting in wars that she’s rooting for.

    1. Yes, I’m sure a 51 year old woman who doesn’t even look like she could lift a fountain pen would be a great help to the military.

      1. She was in her 30s when they started.

        1. I’m sure a 31 year old woman who didn’t look like she could lift a fountain pen would have been a great help to the military.

          1. Unless, of course, she was a strapping young man at the time.

        2. If you’re starting with Afghanistan, that began in October 2001, which would have been 2 months shy of her 40th birthday.

          Plus, women weren’t allowed in combat until this year, so I’m not sure how being a line cook or running ethernet cables or loading artillery on a ship 100 miles away from the action would have brought the consequences home for her anyway.

  36. Keep on blowing the cops, law and order Republicans. And call us ‘pussies’ if that drowns out the voice in your head that tells you that you are a coward. I don’t care what emotions got you to where you believe it is okay to throw people in jail for victimless crimes, I just understand the reason that doing so is immoral and I wont be a party to evil if I can help it.

  37. Coulter has it almost exactly backwards. The funny thing is that pot legalization is probably the *most* popular libertarian belief these days. Even a fair number of Republicans are now either in favor of it or don’t really care anymore.

    But most of the more far-reaching libertarian ideas like eliminating the surveillance state, shrinking the welfare system, and reducing our worldwide military presence have almost no adherents beyond self-avowed libertarians.

    1. This is kind of how I see it.

      Not to defend Coulter on what she said, but to defend Coulter on what she said, she just seems frustrated at the fact that Libertarians seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about Pot legalization while our government continues to strengthen its grip around our collective necks.

      To be sure, Coulter’s no-limiting-principle hawkishness makes her a pretty massive hypocrite in the realm of bigg(er) government.

      But my frustration for years about libertarians (raises hand) is that we’ve been losing extremely important battles, and will continue to do so, even the realm of marijuana legalization.

      I admit I’m a little bit heartened by what I’m seeing in CO and WA, but Californias experience is almost exactly what I predicted: That legalization would almost be worse than when it was illegal.

      But going back to Coulter, in her statement (I haven’t watched the video, just read the post) she seems to be annoyed that we’re not talking about bigger issues. I think locking up tens of thousands of people a year for posessing a weed is a pretty big issue, it’s just not to her. But the issues she details are, in fact, pretty big too.

      1. she just seems frustrated at the fact that Libertarians seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about Pot legalization while our government continues to strengthen its grip around our collective necks.

        And what the hell are the conservatives doing about it? Saying hands off my Medicare, cheering on more drone murder, and bitching about tiny defense cuts. She needs to look in a flerking mirror, assuming it wouldn’t crack immediately.

        1. I agree with everything you say.

          1. I mean, on this particular post at 12:46 pm on this day of our lord, February twenty second, two thousand thirteen… A.C.E.

      2. When speaking with someone who is “progressive” it is often useful to initially highlight areas of consensus to gain a measure of trust and fraternity, proceed to identify the reason that consensus exists, and from that point, one can use the same fundamental logic that the prog applied in MJ legalization to other policy areas and potentially persuade a person by showing that a consistent thought and value system that supports policy prescription X would also support policy prescription Y.

        Of course, I find it generally futile because for the most part, liberals who agree on policy prescription for gay marriage or the drug war generally do so not out of principled beliefs in liberty but rather out of favoring a former taboo while disliking the things that taboo is replacing (many who favor MJ reform also favor onerous restrictions on cigarettes for example).

        1. Cigarettes are a leading cause of death in this country.

          It’s a pretty good business model when you can make customers chemically dependent on your product. It’s also a market failure of sorts.

          I smoke so don’t jump down my throat or anything. Just saying it’s not inconsistent to favor more regulation on cigarettes and less on cannabis–there is quite an imbalance.

          1. It’s a pretty good business model when you can make customers chemically dependent on your product. It’s also a market failure of sorts.

            Well, then, every business should just drop what they’re doing and get into agriculture, since we’re ALL addicted to food! And moreso than the smoker! What a great business model!

            God I hate you. Cigarette manufacturers do nothing but provide a service to people who want it. It’s not a market failure of ANY kind.

          2. Sure cigarettes have a certain health risk associated with them. So does pot frankly. It may not be as physically addictive as nicotene, but if you’ve ever known potheads, it can be a difficult habit to break for some due to psychological dependency. And it’s worth noting that the assertion of cigarettes as a leading cause of death is to some degree questionable in my mind. Per the CDC, 158k people died from lung cancer last year. Most of those are likely directly related to cigs. But the 300k figure cited for cigarette fatalities often includes heart attacks and strokes of smokers. While smoking certainly may have been a contributing factor to their heart conditions, it’s worth noting that there may be other factors that have as much if not a greater contribution: diet, exercise, etc.

            Also, the figures on smoking deaths are a lagging indicator if you will. Most of the people perishing from cigarette related illnesses today were smokers at a time when smoking was far more prevalent and the amount of cigs a person consumed in a day was far higher (my dad was a 3 pack a day smoker in the 80’s, few smokers these days get over 2 packs as a regular consumption).

            1. But the broader I point I was making was that if someone’s position on weed is that you should be free to put into your body what you so choose, then a libertarian speaking with prog holding that belief may be able to make consistent liberty cases in other areas that will persuade someone to adopt a more libertarian policy prescription there.

              1. I believe people should be able to put into their own body what they want, including cigarettes. I am torn when it comes to mandating smoke-free workplaces, but only because I like to smoke in bars (employees probably have a legitimate right not to be subjected to it).

                My point is that cigarettes and cannabis are different kinds of things in terms of social harm, yet absurdly they are regulated in a way inverse to that reality. Liberals may unhypocritically be in favor of less strict regulation of cannabis and more of nicotine cigarettes.

          3. Cigarettes are a leading cause of death in this country.

            So?

            It’s a pretty good business model when you can make customers chemically dependent on your product. It’s also a market failure of sorts.

            No one made me dependent on cigarettes. Any more than anyone making me dependent on alcohol.

            I mean… oh jeez.

            1. The addictive quality of cigarettes was not just a happy accident for cigarette manufacturers. Starting smoking is a choice. Being addicted is, by definition, less so.

              1. Cannabis is addictive too. True, much less addictive than nicotine, but matters of degree don’t really matter to our government overlords.

                If we determine that cigarettes just “aren’t fair” ’cause they’re Addictive! then the same argument can be made, to some degree about cannabis.

                1. I consider addiction to be a medical issue and that’s how government should see it. Addiction treatment should be part of universal healthcare. So government should allow us to do whatever drugs we want within reason (since we do them anyway and aren’t going to stop barring some fascistic crackdown), then make treatment programs available for those who seek them. Win-win-win.

          4. Fun Fact: Oral sex has outstripped smoking as the leading cause of throat cancer (Yes, I know there are other smoking related illnesses). This is

            Oral Sex May Cause More Throat Cancer Than Smoking in Men, Researchers Say

            1. Maybe they should ask their partners to bathe?

            2. So that’s how I’m going to die.

              1. Pitching or catching?

  38. Did she say something offensive? If only what she said was true. Pussy rules the world.

  39. Ann, we know your warboner is the biggest in the room. You’ve made that perfectly clear.

  40. I am Pussycus!

  41. So if we’ve generally stopped paying any mind to the Westboro Baptists, why do we still give so much attention to their greatest closet member?

    The only difference between Anne Coulter and Shirley Phelps-Roper is about $100,000 worth of cosmetic modifications.

  42. As an ex-libertarian now registered republican I know where Coulter is coming from, and she makes sense. She’s very proactive, and I think that’s her trademark. It’s ironic: she wrote a book called demonic that talks about mob rule, and yet she riles up the right-wing mob all the time.

    She’s right. Libertarians like to pander to liberals in their approach to wars, pot legalization, gay marriage, and in many cases abortion. Liberals portray themselves as the cool party, the party of progress, and even the party of freedom (because giving people welfare frees them up to focus on other things). So libertarians suck up to them, and liberals often look fondly upon libertarians. I’m amazed at how the left admires Ron Paul and has nothing bad to say about him.

    But libertarianism is more than that. It’s truly about getting the government out of our lives. It’s about repealing Obamacare and replacing it with nothing, repealing unemployment insurance and replacing it with nothing, not extending the violence against women act (there is lots of duplication ), repealing OHSA and replacing it with nothing, standing up against Obama’s gun rights grabs, etc. But libertarians don’t emphasize these because they’re pussies and don’t want to come across as uncool.

    1. Besides, all the other issues are more important. The economy and the debt are much more important.

      1. Freedom is always the most important issue. Where would you rather live, a country with low taxes run by Michelle Bachmann, or a country with high taxes run by Bill Clinton?

        1. If the government takes your money you can always make more. If they take your freedom, you can be jailed.

          1. If they take your freedom, you can be jailed.

            Or, in the case of the Bill Clinton justice department, you could have your head blown off your shoulders by a government-employed assassin while you’re standing in your home holding your baby because your husband may or may not have illegally sawed off the barrel of a shotgun. If Michelle Bachmann throws me in a conversion camp and then puts me in jail at least I might have the prospect of getting out if somebody else gets elected. What’s your recourse when a US Marshall sniper sneaks onto your property and puts a bullet through your fucking skull you goddamn idiot?

            What the fuck is with the Reason commentariat and sucking Bill Clinton’s cock? The fucking militarization of the police that you constantly rage about took a big old giant sprint forward during his administration.

        2. Michelle Bachmann anytime. She is not taking away my freedoms. In fact by believing in low taxes she is giving me freedoms. She also sponsored the light bulb bill to repeal the energy efficiency requirements of light bulbs, simply because government shouldn’t be meddling in that kind of stuff. Freedom rules!

        3. Low tax Michelle Bachmann would beat high tax Bill Clinton any day. High taxes will automatically generate large intrusive government no matter who’s in charge. Low taxes keep government small and less offensive.

        4. I’d rather have neither, but if limited to those choices, than Bachmann, hands down. She wants to restrict sexual speech and violate property rights pertaining to hallucinogens. Clinton wants to restrict political speech and violate property rights pertaining to weapons. He intends to infringe on your freedom in a way that makes it easier for your freedom to be infringed *more*. Bachmann merely wants to infringe on your freedom in a way that spoils your fun.

          In short, he’s dangerous, she’s just a wet blanket.

          1. sexual speech

            Phone Sex? Porn?

            1. Yes. As opposed to political speech, restricted by things like “campaign finance reform.”

        5. Freedom is always the most important issue. Where would you rather live, a country with low taxes run by Michelle Bachmann, or a country with high taxes run by Bill Clinton?

          Because 2001 was exactly the opposite of 1999?

      2. War, the drug war, etc affect the economy and the debt. And Republicans (with a couple exceptions) are terrible on those issues too

    2. Drug war: There will be health problems with sustained pot use (it will be discovered soon), heroin, etc. As long as we’re going to treat people for health problems due to excessive drug use, we have a right to ban or restrict it. I agree that the mandatory sentencing goes too far, asset forfeiture as it is written sucks, pot should be a Schedule 2 or 3 drug, and that money we give to other countries to fight the war is money wasted.

      Gay Marriage: I’ve been for it since I understood the concept of marriage. In theory it would be good for the government to only support civil unions, just remove the loaded word marriage, but then again civil unions is the same as marriage by another name.

      I’m also struck as to why there are so many gays but fewer lesbians. My theory is that many of the people who are gay are probably just bisexual or bicurious, and have suppressed their straight inclinations. If a girl catches her boyfriend/husband with a guy (even if it was in the past), she’s devastated and that’s the end of it, even if it was just a one time thing. Men are more open minded about their girlfriends/wives. Then another reason: men are more likely to throw themselves into social movements. Maybe it’s the testosterone or something. Most of the fighters in the Arab Spring, in the civil rights marches were men. So men might be throwing themselves into the gay equality movement, which is cool, but I suspect many of them are not gay.

      1. “I’m also struck as to why there are so many gays but fewer lesbians.”

        *Citation needed*

        1. Anecdotal evidence. A poster on dailycaller.com who is gay agrees with the statistic just based on what he sees, but disputes my “throws themselves onto social movements” theory. Of course, my theory might very well be bullshit!

          Also I read various postings on the internet where others said the same. For example at http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/781006 they say “Science says that 4 – 6% of all men are gay and 2 – 3 % of all women are gay”.

          1. There’s no source for that post, and in any case, I’d say that if there are fewer lesbians than gay men, then it may also be true that there are more bisexual women than men.

            1. yeah, the most recent research says that sexuality is not either/or but a scale. So although there are more “pure” gay men, a majority of women are more “bi-sexual” while a majority of men are much more “pure hetero-sexual”. And no, I don’t have any citations, but if anybody does a minimum of Google searches they can find the same articles that I read

      2. “As long as we’re going to treat people for health problems due to excessive drug use, we have a right to ban or restrict it.”

        No you don’t. One tyranny does not justify another. Not to mention, the cost of the drug war, lost tax revenue, and the fact that it prevents very little drug abuse, means that it is a huge net drain on the budget.

    3. A proper libertarian response to gay marriage is this: I support gay marriage, but not laws that make it illegal to fire a gay person just because they’re gay (and I would repeal protections for minorities and the disabled too) because that would lead to turning gays into a victim class, lazy people who deserve to be fired suing when they are and winning because companies tend to settle. I also disagree with city funding of pride parades, but welcome private individuals and companies to contribute. But libertarians are pussies and don’t want to antagonize liberals.

      Wars: The left’s approach is that war is inherently bad, the the US is colonizing the world to its illegal benefit, the poor countries are inherently peaceful and if we just get out of their lands and give them a chance they will rise up like in the Arab Spring. The libertarians approach is that war is sometimes necessary, but only when we are directly attacked. Most of the third world is corrupt, but we’re not going to get involved because doing so would bankrupt us, further invite attacks upon us, and lead to an eroding of our liberties (as with the Patriot Act). Unlike Coulter I support the war in Afghanistan (although it was too long) as Bin Laden evidently went hiding there. Iraq was a mistake.

      Libertarians says Iraq was a trillion dollar mistake. But they fail to add that social and medicare and mega-trillion mistakes.

      1. So in lieu of the social engineering of forcing workplaces not to discriminate, you prefer the social engineering of punishing potential laziness and victimhood. Not sure how that’s more or less libertarian though.

        1. No I’m saying that companies will hire gays if they get the job done. If they fail, then like any worker they should be fired. By having a law to protect them, it will allow gay workers who do nothing (and I know some who work hard and some who don’t — like 3 hours a day) to not get fired, because if they get fired they will scream lawsuit. It’s up to the company to decide how to handle their employees. If they discriminate for no reason they will go out of business. You might consider this to be social engineering but I don’t.

          1. I’m not gonna say I haven’t held the gay card in my back pocket… just in case.

            But worrying about anecdotes of abuses by minorities when the only reason minority protections have to be in place at all is because of a history of systematic discrimination against them is to lack perspective. Life, generally, is still not easier for minorities than heterosexual white miles.

            I appreciate that the entire conservative and libertarian movements in this country are predicated on white male victimhood, but it remains as absurd as it ever was.

            1. Why would someone pay $ 100 to a WASP if he can get the same for $ 50 from a minority?

            2. Silly gibberish from a half wit.

        2. “you prefer the social engineering of punishing potential laziness and victimhood”

          Leaving people alone is NOT social engineering.

          That phrasing was clearly written by someone who doesn’t have the first clue as to what the phrase “social engineering” actually means. Words have actual meanings. If you don’t understand a concept, look it up first, before you right down a post.

          1. I agree with JWatts. Social engineering is engineering when done by government. I imagine some companies would engage in social engineering (not hiring gays simply because they are gay), but they would go out of business.

      2. “The left’s approach is that war is inherently bad”

        In what alternate universe do you reside? A portion of the left may believe that, but there are a ton of leftists who have supported wars, including some really bad and unnecessary ones

        1. I live in the universe of the Bay Area. I used to live in San Francisco for a few years. It’s really hard core left out here. A lot of people here and on MSNBC buy into the notion that the US is a bully.

          There is also a romanticized sense that the victim countries are fundamentally noble, full of noble peaceful people. That’s the problem I had with Avatar.

          My relatives in Texas who are democrat are not so hard core.

          Long ago leftists supported many wars, like the Vietnam war. They’ve since managed to rebrand themselves as the anti-war party.

          Now we hear about Obama’s drone strikes. I don’t know why people are so mad NOW because the US patriot act authorized this killing without due process, and reason magazine reported on this (thanks :), and people should have been mad THEN. And we should have had big press about it THEN, when Obama signed the bill into law.

          1. You don’t remember how mad the Left were over the Patriot Act then? They’re not really all that mad now because they’re hypocrites.

            I also remember when the Republicans didn’t give a damn about the “god damn piece of paper” known as the Constitution that was standing in the way of them violating civil liberties in the name of security, and that offended liberals. I remember when they kept passing all kinds of unfunded mandates and new awful federal programs like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. So pardon me, but I reserve the right not to trust either party ever because they’re both terrible and anti-libertarian.

            1. Yep, the left was in outrage about the first Patriot Act that Bush signed, but were quiet when Obama signed its reauthorization.

              Medicare part D was a “gift” to seniors to buy their vote. That’s in part how Bush got re-elected.

              But when republicans did all these things — medicare part D, no child, doubling food stamps rolls, wars — they were behaving as big government democrats.

              1. They were behaving as big government politicians. Democrats don’t have a monopoly (and never had) on big government

            2. “You don’t remember how mad the Left were over the Patriot Act then?”

              And yet they always seem to forget that the Democrat majority in both houses voted in favor of it.

          2. “A lot of people here and on MSNBC buy into the notion that the US is a bully.”

            If you add the word “government” after “US” I would agree with the bully statement, both domestically and abroad. Conservatives for some reason confuse government with society when it comes to foreign policy, even though they criticize liberals all the time for doing the same thing on domestic issues.

            And as we’ve seen, many liberals are ok with war, as long it’s run by the “right people” for the “right reasons.” Few mainstream leftists opposed Afghanistan, many supported interventions in Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia in the 90’s, most supported Libya, the drone strikes, etc. Iraq’s the only war in recent memory that was opposed by most liberals

      3. “I also disagree with city funding of pride parades, but welcome private individuals and companies to contribute. But libertarians are pussies and don’t want to antagonize liberals”

        This is exactly the problem with Coulter’s and your arguments. You get bent out of shape when we emphasize ending the war on drugs, which is a central value at the core of libertarianism that requires no pandering to the Left, yet want us to emphasize ending city-funded gay parades, which all libertarians rationally oppose but is in the schem of things extremely low on the docket of real world concerns.

        But supposedly we’re the one missing the big picture…

    4. Seriously, where do you get the idea that libertarians don’t talk about repealing regulations, eliminating agencies, cutting taxes and the budget, stopping and repealing gun control, etc? The fact that they also talk about other stuff doesn’t mean those things are give a ton of attention

      1. It’s a matter of emphasis. Libertarians like to define themselves by their positions on gay marriage, drugs, wars, and abortion. All I know is that if MSNBC and the left hate Romney for wanting to repeal and replace Obamacare, and leave the department of education in place but reduce their budget — then they ought to really really really despise the libertarians for wanting to just eradicate both of these things.

        1. “It’s a matter of emphasis. Libertarians like to define themselves by their positions on gay marriage, drugs, wars, and abortion.”

          Says who? You? What libertarians are you talking about? Reason runs all sorts of articles every day. If a liberal were to read the posts here from any given weekday, they’d find numerous examples of views they disagree with on health care, spending, debt, taxes, regulation, etc. Go to Lew Rockwell and you get full-blown anarchism. Was Ron Paul’s campaign all about gay marriage, pot, and war? Did he not talk about the Fed, the debt, spending, etc?

    5. So libertarians suck up to them, and liberals often look fondly upon libertarians.

      We suck up to them by emphasizing the points where we agree with another party in order to we can build coalitions and get our shared principles passed into policy?! No way! That’s called politics.

      It’s hilarious all the right-wingers on here who claim we’re left-sympathizers because the Left sometimes agrees with our values when it’s politically convenient for them to work with us, and at the same time all the left-wingers on here who claim we’re right-sympathizers because the Right sometimes agrees with our values and it’s politically convenient for them to work with us.

      1. OK, libertarians can build coalitions with democrats to get some things done, like ending or scaling back the war on drugs. But what do they get in return? They should get some tax or spending cuts in return.

        Anyway there are no libertarians in major office, so it’s hard to see what compromise is happening. I suppose Flake, Rand Paul, etc are libertarianish so we could look at what they got from the left for supporting policies like ending the war.

        All I know is that if the left dislikes republicans, then they ought to really really really despise libertarians because libertarians want to end all sorts of programs outright. Whereas republicans like Romney want to replace Obamacare, keeping the “good” parts and throwing out the rest.

        1. Scaling back the wars and the war on drugs IS a spending cut. Libertarians need not opt in to one party or the other. We’d be better suited as free-range coalition tiebreakers.

          1. But we’re closer to the republicans on most issues. That’s why I’m registered republican.

        2. Do conservative Republicans ever give anything to libertarians on issues like the WOD, civil liberties, wars, defense spending, etc? Did conservatives support by far the most pro-free market candidate (Paul) in the primaries? No they didn’t, because they didn’t like his views on other issues

        3. OK, libertarians can build coalitions with democrats to get some things done, like ending or scaling back the war on drugs. But what do they get in return?

          An end to the war on drugs, maybe?

    6. “She’s right. Libertarians like to pander to liberals in their approach to wars, pot legalization, gay marriage, and in many cases abortion.”

      I believe in those issues because I don’t believe in allowing a governing body to disctiminate against segments of the population, nor in deciding what consenting adults do with each other or to their own bodies, particularly over somethin as harmless as pot.

      No pandering, no wanting to be cool. Just common fucking sense.

  43. Standing up for your principles, even when it means siding with people who you usually disagree with, is being a pussy?

    Whereas cravenly caving in to policies you find reprehensible is being manly?

    1. No, being so afraid of terrorists and people with different lifestyle choices that you take a leak on the Constitution makes you a manly conservative.

      1. Coulter’s been playing GOProud’s fag hag for the last couple years, so I don’t know if that’s a relevant issue anymore or if she was just pandering for the election.

    2. To my mind, the being a pussy part comes from not emphasizing the republican side of the libertarians, which is the call for lower taxes and regulation. They’re afraid of being uncool. Years ago when Bill Maher learned that libertarians want to legalize pot, he started calling himself a libertarian. Sounds cool. But real libertarians are also about policies unpopular, such as repealing the welfare state, or at least scaling it back. But they don’t emphasize this because they are afraid of looking uncool.

  44. …being in favor of pot legalization, a restrained foreign policy, marriage equality, non-mandatory health care, voluntary association in the workplace, open borders…

    So in other words, we do support employment discrimination. She was right.

  45. I would wager the total quantity of female genitalia in a room full of NFL lineman and a room full of NFL linemen plus Ann Coulter is identical.

  46. That’s funny, when I want to freak out my conforming-non-conformist liberal friends, I tell them that, yes, polygamy/-ny SHOULD be legal.

    For someone who is into bands like the Dead and Phish, you would think she would be more, um, sensitive to certain individual’s medicinal proclivities.

  47. No, I’m not a pussy. Also not a Coulter fan, though I agree with some of her points.

    Your focus on fashion-statement, hippie issues is annoying – and useless. Myself, I don’t care if people smoke dope, gays marry each other, people eat “raw foods” and so forth, but I have to rate those things as being of much lower importance than reducing the dependence of people on government programs. Specifically, when Libertarians vote for someone like Obama because they think that doing so will help their aspirations for gay marriage and dope legalization, I throw up.

    One area where I completely dismiss everything said by Libertarians is national defense. I’m no fan of the TSA, I don’t like nation building, and I think the government has exaggerated the terror threat enormously – but if we followed the advice of the Reason staff, we’d all play the role of Poland in 1939, well within my lifetime. When you people speak on defense and foreign policy, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    However, I will support all efforts to oppose socialism, fascism, and cronyism regardless of sideline disagreements.

    1. “but if we followed the advice of the Reason staff, we’d all play the role of Poland in 1939, well within my lifetime. When you people speak on defense and foreign policy, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.”

      Who exactly is going to play the role of Nazi Germany if we don’t constantly invade other countries?

      1. The Nazi invasion of Poland was blowback then?

    2. I really agreed with this comment, especially this…… “When you people speak on defense and foreign policy, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.”

      I find it ironic that libertarians love gun rights but many seem to hate the fact that we have a national defense. Yes, we overextend ourselves but many libertarians are outright pacifists…..which is a fine moral philosophy but does not deter people who are trying to kill you.

  48. Ann Coulter’s a cunt. Guess she’s one of us.

  49. This is such a perfect set-up that I can’t resist.

    I am a Libertarian. So it must be true that you are what you eat.

  50. Ann Coulter is a blowhard just like Bill O’Reilly, Shawn Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any other media whore pundit for that fact!

  51. Well, I really dislike watching Ron Paul and Michael Moore showing how much they liked each other

  52. Granted, Anne Coulter has a bit of a sledgehammer way of making a point, but I get it. Nick, Penn Jilette, John Stossel, the Judge and all the libertarians I have been exposed to on FOx, Reason and other places can make the case on any subject. They are the ones bringing me toward libertarianism. Its the people I meet in town and on facebook, that either obsess over pot or wear Alex Jones t-shirts.

  53. So, I’m guessing salvaging the word “liberal” is now a lost cause. Never mind that it doesn’t mean what everybody uses it to mean. Which, essentially, leaves no word whatsoever for what it means to actually be liberal. It can not seriously be argued that authoritarian statists/progressives are in anyway “liberal”. If words don’t mean anything anymore (or worse, mean their own opposites, in true Orwellian fashion), then what the fuck is the point of even trying?

  54. I wouldn’t call that the most flattering portrait of Nick Gillespie I’ve ever seen.

  55. How can Nick Gillespie call himself a libertarian if he supports the gay marriage cause? A true libertarian would recognize the fact that gay marriage is the wrong cause: nobody should have access to a special set of rights by virtue of belonging to some special group. Therefore, it is not right that married couples should have any kind of special rights or privileges in comparison with unmarried couples. It is not the job of the state to encourage one lifestyle or another with special “rights” and financial breaks as rewards.

    The gay marriage cause is effectively saying “we want access to the same discriminatory privileges that straight married couples have access to, and we don’t care that unmarried couples are denied the same rights.” This isn’t a libertarian cause at all, and any libertarian who believes that it is should be ashamed of themselves, because they have abandoned their core principle of true equality in order to jump on a fashionable bandwagon that they have clumsily decided is about “equal rights.” It most certainly isn’t. Libertarians should be fighting to end marriage rights, not campaigning for more of them.

  56. I’m not gonna read all the 500+ posts, so if no one has said it yet:

    “you are what eat”

    1. You are at best the 4th.

  57. Again, Coulter is right.

    The left is not interested in Liberty, at all. So, playing kissy-face with them on pot or gay marriage is weak and stupid. The left doesn’t see gay marriage from a libertarian standpoint. They are not your friends. Leaving other people alone is not a part of their vocabulary. They want taxpayer funding for it. They want it in state-approved textbooks for staterun schools that hand out fisting-kits to 4th graders which are environmentally friendly and reduce carbon per EPA guidelines. The liberals got pot legalized in Oregon. They are also proposing today to ban firearms in Oregon and to search homes for them without warrants (HB 3200). Super, you can be legally stoned when Janet Reno batters down the front door to your home to take your AR-15.

    Focus on the big picture. Eat pussy, don’t BE a pussy.

  58. It’s sad to see someone who wants a dick that wasn’t born with one.

  59. Frankly, I couldn’t care less about Ann Coulter’s notion of manhood. What would she know about it?

    She is a waste of a great piece of hardware. Two, if she’s got more of a brain than she’s using.

  60. It’s almost hilarious to listen to someone who defended Romneycare, most of Bush big government programs, and executive power claims, screech about a Government takeover. It’s like Bill Maher bitching about a “right-wing bubble”, I can’t take any of it seriously.

    But, putting the obvious hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance aside, I actually agree with Ann Coulter, that there are more important issues than pot and gay marriage. I just don’t think the leadership of her party nor the many of the “conservative” punditry class give a shit about the issues she listed. Which is why I once again agree with Ann Coulter that we should join the Republican Party, but unlike what she wants, (obedient children who’ll be seen and not heard), we should continue the process begun in 2010 with Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Justin Amash.

    Running libertarian conservatives in primaries and winning those primaries then the general elections should be one of the main goals of libertarians in politics today. So far this has proven to be pretty successful, with the above mentioned names and others in 2012 like Thomas Massie, Kerry Bentivolio, and Jeff Flake.

    We should also continue to work with whatever allies we can find (Dems, Repubs, or Independents) on an issue by issue basis. Because trusting and relying solely on Republicans to fight for libertarian priorities, is like trusting Democrats, there is no evidence to trust any of them, so don’t.

  61. I wonder what people she is referring to that think libertarians are pussies. Probably just her.

  62. Libertarians are pussies because they’re feckless amoralists.

    1. Would that be subjective or objective morality of which you speak?

      1. Libertarians are indeed subjective in that they don’t have a defined moral-philosophical basis besides the narrow notion of “non-aggression”. Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy and morality is what libertarians must adopt if they want to become coherent agents against the statist/collectivist/altruist philosophy that dominates mainstream culture and political parties.

  63. I’m somewhat disappointed that the smartypants libertarians here at Reason can’t see that what Ann Coulter is calling “pussy” about libertarians is not so much the opinion about pot, but rather the lack of COURAGE to confront the communist liberals on liberal discrimination laws in addition to agitating about pot.

    I noticed this about Kalifornia Libertarians a long long time ago. It is very obvious that the libertarians here are worth less than a bucket of cold spit because they only want to APPEASE the liberal communists and never ever confront them over anything that might rile them up. Pot legalization does not rile the commie libs up the way any number of other more important issues would. I happen to be one of those who hates the constitution-destroying drug war, but it is only one of a shitload of constitution-destroying things being thrown at us, and not necessarily the most important.

    1. I can’t speak for Communist California, but liberals are confronted on every libertarian issue that I’ve seen ‘here’ on the Reason Blogs. Taxes, eminent domain, food nazis, drones, emigration, and in every other topic of the day blue team is under assault for their role.

      You’ll have to show me where this supposed pussification is occuring. There are small areas of libertarian overlap with blue and red team, these areas of overlap don’t make anyone ‘pussies’.

    2. Dearest James,

      Name calling is the clearest indication of an inability to debate. You are, no doubt, mentally dull. Libertarians are not without courage you dolt. We are the ones standing up to the moronic notions of both parties.

      We don’t want to police the world. We don’t want to pay for endless entitlements. And, for the love of God, we don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own home. (Yes, Jimmy, this is a reference to pot).

      You, sir, are a statist. You want big government so long as it agrees with you and does what you want. But, what happens if other people take office?? Then what? Doh!!

  64. Would it be fair to call Ann Coulter a war-mongering, police-state-supporting cunt?

  65. like Ethel explained I’m dazzled that a mom able to make $6467 in one month on the internet. have you read this site and go to tech tab http://qr.net/j93R

  66. Some people say that libertarians are un-American. If that’s true then I’m proud to be un-American, but at least I know I’m free.

  67. She’s spunky. Her political position is reflected beautifully in her prattle. Pussies are quite delectable, by the way, Coulter. I like mine with long legs.

  68. I see Ann Coulter finally crawled out from between Mitt Romney’s butt cheeks- even if it was just so she could insult us.

  69. The pot calls the kettle black.

    Ann Coulter is more entertainment than serious political commentator. Put her on late night cable TV opposite Conan “No Gonads” O’Brien and stop having her appear in so-called conservative media. She is more about selling her dribble than serious politics; and, she is rather boorish. Once stellar, she has become subterranean and superfluous.

  70. Woah, I didn’t know Open Borders was a Libertarian position. Insane.

  71. Ann Coulter makes me chuckle. Does anyone take her seriously? She’s right at the top of that list with Rachel Maddow. The “No One Cares Top Ten”. Well educated, well heeled, full of opinions and zero, and I mean zero, accomplishments outside of government or education. Whether your a hack prosecutor or a snide Rhodes scholar, it still doesn’t change the fact that you have no real experience at anything of import.

    Ann Coulter is the equivalent of the barking terrier. It’s annoy. Loud, even. But its just another rat dog barking out of ignorance and fear.

    Ann Coulter ?!?!?!?!?! Y A W N n nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.