Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck Begs/Harangues Libertarians to Accept Him & Others Who Are 'trying to honestly learn'

|

Is this a libertarian diagram? ||| Wikimedia commons
Wikimedia commons

Ann Coulter's libertarians-are-"pussies" remark provoked a lengthy, rambling, and very interesting response recently from broadcasting provocateur/entrepreneur Glenn Beck.

I recommend you listen to the whole 18 minutes, in which Beck, who has been identifying more and more with the "libertarian" label, complains bitterly about being subject to withering philisophical "litmus tests" by skeptical libertarians and Ron Paul supporters (some of whom he calls "more fascist than anyone in the Republican Party"), declares his full-throated support for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) as a presidential candidate ("Rand Paul is your best shot right now"), apologizes for originally being in favor of the PATRIOT Act and warantless wiretapping ("Boy, what a fool I was"), mentions that he's been having plenty of off-air conversations about libertarianism with Penn Jillette, and above all beseeches libertarians to take advantage of their historic opportunity to change the direction of the country. This excerpt captures the spirit:

The existence of this makes me immediately like Glenn Beck more. |||

Libertarians, I'm begging you, please: See the opportunity you have with about thirty percent of this nation; maybe sixty percent of this nation. They will come your way. They live in that space. Until you go and say, 'There's no other way but this way!' No one wants to hear that. You don't want to hear that from the people in Washington in the Republican or Democratic Party. Don't give us another choice where it is all or nothing […]

And recognize that we're not always perfect. Some of us are coming a little late to the game. And we apologize that we're not as smart as you are.

Some of this comes as a response to an open letter last month written by Mediate's Andrew Kirell entitled "Dear Glenn Beck, Please Don't Call Yourself a 'Libertarian,'" and also to Students for Liberty President Alexander McCobin's  recent statement that "If Glenn wants to call himself a libertarian, I am happy to accept him as one…on the condition…that he comes here to our community and proclaim 'mea culpa' for his past defenses of social and neo-conservatism." Kirell has responded to Beck's comments here; McCobin here. Excerpt from the latter:

the substantive point I was trying to make was apropos: for more than a decade, you worked very hard and very successfully at branding yourself as a key figure in conservatism, not just economic conservatism, but also social and neoconservatism. Not only are these not libertarian positions, but to associate libertarianism with them makes it that much harder to introduce libertarianism to more people, especially young people who are turned off by conservatism. After you spent over 10 years denouncing libertarianism, actively working against our causes, and building up a certain reputation for yourself directly opposed to our ideas, I think it's reasonable for me and other libertarians to be skeptical when you suddenly claim to be a libertarian. I really hope you have changed your views and that you are committed to libertarianism (your segment on Friday included more renunciations of your past conservative positions than I have ever heard from you, which I admire). However, it's going to take more than new window dressing for me and many others to believe that you're a libertarian. Show us that you're libertarian through the positions you take beyond conservatism, the groups you support, the people you invite to your show, indeed, even just in the conversations you are willing to have.

Some links before I add my own two cents after the jump: Greg Beato on "Glenn Beck's Experimental Melodrama"; Michael C. Moynihan on his "reductionist view of history"; Tim Cavanaugh defends "the sense that he's bringing you his findings as fast as they come in," I attack his "ridiculous misreading" of George Soros, and Nick Gillespie reports for Reason.tv on what he saw at Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington, D.C.

Missed a few there…. |||

My feeling on Glenn Beck and his now-more-libertarian The Blaze network (where I guest semi-frequently on the nightly newscast, including tomorrow), is basically the same as whenever I hear anyone embracing or engaging more libertarian viewpoints: Cool. I like libertarian ideas; am eager to see them discussed widely, and I'm confident that the basic broad philosophy will withstand association with anyone claiming all or part of the word. I understand that many libertarians, particularly the ones who (unlike me) are grounded more squarely in a philosophical strain, have the interest and occasionally the incentive to engage strenuously in quien-es-mas-libertarian debates, but that's not my bag. Neither is dropping the self-descriptor just because this or that unclean person or faction is waving the flag.

An overlapping personal feeling here regards the uses of hyperbole, a bread-and-butter staple of Beck's in all his political permutations, but also a habit for a non-trivial number of libertarians. I'm agin' it. I think a lot of seemingly philosophical intra-libertarian divides quickly boil down to how much rhetorical bomb-throwing and conspiracy dot-connecting you can comfortably stomach, or conversely, how much ceding of the offensive status quo you can tolerate.

I think the far more interesting question here isn't whether Glenn Beck can or should use the L-word, it's whether he's right about the 30-60 percent number and libertarianism's "historic opportunity" to win hearts and minds right now with political tactics that resemble Rand Paul's more than those of his father. I'm too old to be optimistic about politics, but I agree that it's at least a fascinating story to watch.

Original link (whatever it was!) via the always-interesting Twitter feed of Julie Borowski.

NEXT: 3D Printed Rifle Receiver Fires Hundreds of Rounds

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

  1. If people are now in the business of writing various douchebags to request they stop claiming to be libertarians, can someone please write Bill Maher?

    1. Still don’t understand how anyone finds Bill Maher entertaining. What a douche.

      Also, Greg Gutfeld should stop calling himself a libertarian.

      1. At least Gutfeld is in the ballpark, unlike Bill Maher and Beck v1.0

      2. Maher is kind of funny the first time you watch him. The second time is ok. Then you just start hating him. There’s no way a libertarian can watch him weekly without wanting to kill something. I don’t know how Nick survives his forays into that man’s world…

        1. Someone has to. Otherwise, Maher goes unchecked…

    2. What the hell would Nick Gillespie do on Friday nights then?

    3. Does he still call himself that? Fuck that guy.

      1. No. He stopped when he realized that libertarians weren’t just about legalizing weed and hookers, but believed a bunch of ridiculous, evil culty bullshit about economics and the welfare state.

        1. You’re not a very good Tony.

          Sorry, but really, you need to try a little harder. 🙂

        2. Fuck off, sockpuppet.

        3. You mean he stopped when he realized that he had no idea what the word ‘libertarian’ actually meant.

        4. Try harder, moron.

        5. What “evil, culty bullshit about economics” do we believe? That people respond to incentives and disincentives? That the supply and demand model of price determination is accurate?

          1. Pssst. It’s not a real person.

            1. Just ignore the both of us. I’m doing this for my own perverse enjoyment.

              1. FUN IS NOT ALLOWED

                1. Not even perverse fun?

                  1. Look, unless you can heat water to 212 degrees, I’m not interested.

          2. That people should be slaves to the outcomes of a laissez-faire economy. It’s evil because it ignores the well-being of human beings in favor of worshiping market outcomes as innately morally good. It’s cultish because it ignores evidence about what actually works and rejects thoughts and thinkers outside of its tiny, third-rate pantheon. Bullshit is kind of implied by the rest.

            1. “That people should be slaves to the outcomes of a laissez-faire economy”

              If you’re going to define the word “slave” that broadly, then everyone is always going to be a slave, especially in your system where outcomes are decided by TOP.MEN. A laissez-faire economy does not ignore the well-being of human beings. It’s all about people voluntarily interacting to improve their well-being. Free-market capitalism is by far the greatest generator of wealth the world has ever seen.

              “It’s cultish because it ignores evidence about what actually works”

              Define “works.” And projection much?

              “and rejects thoughts and thinkers outside of its tiny, third-rate pantheon”

              Given that in Tonyworld, a third-rate thinker seems to be anyone who isn’t a leftist, I don’t think that says much

              1. I used the word “slave” because I meant to imply that calling something “freedom” doesn’t automatically make it not an imposition. No democratic populace anywhere has ever wanted a laissez-faire economy if they understand its implications. So to have one would be an imposition on people’s will. That’s tyranny.

                Capitalism is an important component of a system that generates wealth and prosperity. So is government, and measuring their relative importance is the debate of our time. But you just try free-market capitalism without governance or the application of popular will and see how people like it. The scary thing is I don’t think you care if people like it or not.

                1. “I used the word “slave” because I meant to imply that calling something “freedom” doesn’t automatically make it not an imposition”

                  Oh yeah, I forgot I was talking to Tony. Not giving is taking, preventing the initiation of force is tyranny, etc

                  “No democratic populace anywhere has ever wanted a laissez-faire economy if they understand its implications.”

                  What are those implications? The best awful historical examples cited by progressives are almost all examples of places that were impoverished shitholes forever until something close to free-market capitalism came along – and the progressives criticize it for not instantly bring unlimited prosperity to everybody. Not to mention you just used the fallacy of appealing to popular opinion in an argument.

                  “The scary thing is I don’t think you care if people like it or not.”

                  I don’t think somebody not liking something gives them the right to initiate force against someone else

                2. I used the word “slave” because I meant to imply that calling something “freedom” doesn’t automatically make it not an imposition. No democratic populace anywhere has ever wanted a laissez-faire economy if they understand its implications. So to have one would be an imposition on people’s will. That’s tyranny.

                  Shorter: Freedom is Slavery.

            2. That the guy who uses the word “proletariat” without giggling, who calls “progressivism” a coherent political philosophy, is calling some of the only measures not tried bullshit, while adhering to a set of absolutely ridiculous and failed sets of policies is kinda precious.

              1. I don’t adhere to policies, I believe in a pragmatic approach. If a laissez-faire economy demonstrated the ability to maximize human well-being, I’d embrace it. Since it demonstrates only the ability to stratify society into an unproductive, corrupt, parasitic/plutocratic shithole, I have to politely decline.

                There are goals and there are proposals to achieve them. What the world has no time for is ideology, whose only goal is to perpetuate itself.

                1. “Since it demonstrates only the ability to stratify society into an unproductive, corrupt, parasitic/plutocratic shithole, I have to politely decline.”

                  Citation needed

                  “There are goals and there are proposals to achieve them. What the world has no time for is ideology, whose only goal is to perpetuate itself.”

                  Cause you totally don’t have an ideology

                2. Horse hockey. You are an ideologue, judging by your pronouncements. There is nothing pragmatic in what you advocate here.

            3. libertarianism isn’t widely accepted in DC because your slave master wants everyone else to join you, but we don’t want to. that makes us outsiders.

            4. “It’s evil because it ignores the well-being of human beings in favor of worshiping market outcomes as innately morally good.”

              THAT illustrates the difficulty of discussing libertarianism with people who think they understand the philosophy.

              Markets are neither moral nor immoral–people are moral or immoral.

              Philosophically speaking, libertarians believe it is immoral for people to use force to control the ways in which others interact economically–even if the majority of people might consider the results to be “good.”

              Conversely, libertarians believe if a market free of coercion results in harm to some human beings it is not the fault of the market.

              In other words, it is the use of force libertarians object to, not results of market outcomes–go or bad.

        6. Re: Tony,

          but believed a bunch of ridiculous, evil culty bullshit about economics and the welfare state.

          ‘Evil and cultist’ things like believing stealing is wrong! Why, the nerve of those people!

        7. No. He stopped when he realized that libertarians weren’t just about legalizing weed and hookers,

          Translation: Maher has no over-arching understanding of levers-to-power.

          but believed a bunch of ridiculous, evil culty bullshit about economics and the welfare state.

          No, it’s not evil or culty at all to believe that debt = prosperity, and stock-splitting your dollar until the value of your wealth approaches zero = progress.

          1. I don’t believe in reckless deficit spending. I’m not a Republican.

            1. Re: Tony,

              I don’t believe in reckless deficit spending. I’m not a Republican.

              Obama is a Republican! You heard it first here, boys!

            2. Straw man, straw man. I found it. Where’s my prize?

      2. I seem to recall Maher directly saying that he no longer considers himself a libertarian a number of years ago but I can’t find the quote–while looking for it I came across a more recent bit where when asked about it he responds “I’m, I’m not afraid, it’s not, I’m not afraid to say European socialism works.”

        As I recall during the time he declared himself a libertarian, it was briefly in vogue–and if you ask me this had less to do with actual libertarian principles and more to do with seeing it as just another angle to attack Bush from. See also: so-called “anti-war” groups disappearing when the wars are still going but no longer headed by Republicans.

        1. “I’m, I’m not afraid, it’s not, I’m not afraid to say European socialism works.”

          I’m not afraid to say it either. I’m also not afraid to say that up is down, left is right…

          do with actual libertarian principles and more to do with seeing it as just another angle to attack Bush from.

          …but not associate yourself with card-carrying Democrats…

          This is exactly it. Maher wanted to remain “above it all” so he chose libertarianism because he does make an occasional off-color joke and supports some drug legalization (which offends the card-carrying democrats), and joining hands with Greens is just… creepy.

    4. ha ha

      Maher thinks he’s a libertarian? He is out of his mind.

    5. Maher is nothing more than a died-in-the-wool, hidebound, “progressive.” Nothing I have ever heard him say could lead to any other conclusion.

      1. Though Libertarians might not agree who is a Libertarian, they do seem to agree Maher isn’t.

        I suppose that’s progress.

        1. His position on profits in the medical field is beyond childish.

  2. So if Beck would take Kirell and McCobins advice, and casts out his previous neocon ways, would this help or hurt the LP?

    Second question, in the form of a statement: The Libertarian “Party”? Seriously?

    We are so boned.

  3. …some of whom he calls “more fascist than anyone in the Republican Party”…

    I think the problem is that he’s thinking in the context of partisan political parties. I’m guessing, without having seen the full quote yet, that he’s complaining about not being let in, but there’s no libertarian clubhouse. You’ll get praise on whatever topics you are deemed strong on individual liberty, and you’ll be excoriated on those areas you are not.

    1. (Partisan political parties isn’t redundant; it’s alliteration.)

      1. A nice one.

      2. Try “petty partisan political politics.”

        1. “picked a Pol Pot porking Peking poontang.”

    2. A person inclined to partisanship wants to join what he perceives as a new club that he doesn’t realize isn’t partisan and he can’t grok how that works. So he gets butthurt. Yawn.

    3. He should be able to grasp this concept. He’s a Mormon. How would it sound to him if I said, “I want to be a Mormon, but I don’t believe that Joseph Smith received revelations.” You might be something at that point, but Mormon isn’t it.

      Also: Joseph Smith was obviously a Skyrim vampire who hadn’t fed in a couple of days.

  4. http://moelane.com/2013/02/15/…..-munchkin/

    Interesting take on why Obama is so good at keeping his approval ratings above 50%, but so bad at every single other thing he has ever attempted.

    1. I think that is about right. That is all he knows how to do. He is totally destroying the Democratic Party at the state level outside of the bluest states. He has ensured they are unlikely to take the house until well after he leaves office. And they have only kept control of the Senate because of some atrocious candidates on the GOP’s part.

    2. Great, we really are in one big video game.

    3. Bad at what he attempts, my ass.

      This creep’s goals are to stick it to all the people who he despises, to bankrupt and destroy the country, and possibly even worse.

      And he’s succeeding at it beyond anyone’s worst fears and nightmares.

      1. These debt apocalypse fantasies really need to die.

      2. Yeah, I don’t think Obama is purposefully trying to ‘bankrupt and destroy the country.’ Incompetence is more likely than evil.

        1. Nope. Everything that he’s doing and all of the awful outcomes that result from them are being done completely intentionally.

    4. TLDR version: campaigning is his only skill, so he either tries to campaign his way out of every problem, or tries things arbitrarily and hopes for the best.

  5. Strangely enough, this reminds me of the story of Jesus and the rich young ruler, the guy that wanted to know how to get into heaven and Jesus tells him to honor the commandments and then give up all he possesses to the poor and go follow him.

    In this case Beck doesn’t want to give up the neo-con, social-con, hyper-partisan hand-wringing.

    1. Or maybe some people just actually disagree on those issues.

      1. There’s a large difference between what I think is fit for myself and what is fit for everyone else.

        Just because I don’t buy penny stocks (because I suspect that they’re mostly pump-&-dump ops), it doesn’t mean that I think no one should be allowed to buy penny stocks.

        Just because I’ve stopped drinking alcohol (because I couldn’t cope with the hangovers anymore, and drinking little doesn’t interest me), I don’t think that everyone else ought to go completely dry.

        There are numerous issues I can disagree about with any one person; and that is as it should be. The sole interesting question for me is: does the other person willing to employ violence (especially state/govt. violence) to make me “see the errors of my way” & get me to behave according to his/her views of appropriate behaviour?

        1. Who is willing to employ violence to stop you from drinking? Nanny Bloomburg?

          1. Well, there was Prohibition once in the USA, wasn’t there?

            I’m sure you understand my point: the rules I deem fit for myself I don’t think others should be forced to observe. Conversely, I’m not interested in other people trying to force their rules on me.

            1. ^This is why I am a Non-Believer.

      2. Yeah, that’s the point.

        Since he disagrees on those issues, he shouldn’t expect to be embraced as he would be if he didn’t disagree on those issues.

      3. Or maybe some people just actually disagree on those issues

        Yes and…?

      4. Or maybe some people just actually disagree on those issues.

        If I disagree that Jesus was born of a virgin, was the son of God (but also was God), and bodily rose from the dead three days after being crucified, am I still a Christian?

        Not to go all No True Scotsman, but if you’re Malaysian you’re not a fucking Scotsman. Probably.

  6. I am happy to accept him as one?on the condition?that he comes here to our community and proclaim ‘mea culpa’ for his past defenses of social and neo-conservatism.

    Ah, yes. Because forcing people to engage in their own walks to Canossa is a great way to build support around your ideology among people who are sympathetic, but not completely sold.

    By the by, while I would agree that Beck is not quite a libertarian he hasn’t been much of a social conservative nannyist (or a neo-conservative) either. He has been for decrim and legalization of pot for a long time, for instance. I don’t quite get where the socon jabs are coming from, though I’ll concede that I don’t pay much attention to Beck.

    1. It is the funny thing about Libertarians. Most movements hate apostates more than anyone else. Libertarians hate converts most of all. There is no one Libertarians hate more than someone like Beck who is on the other side and comes around to agreeing with them on some things.

      1. Bullshit. We hate each other the most of all, but we hate everyone else the most of all.

        1. The heretic is always worse than the infidel.

        2. Uh…what about Michael Bay?

        3. I hate you, almost as much as I hate John, almost as much as I hate Glenn Beck!

          1. I hate everyone equally.

            1. Equally? You’re a damn commie, distributing your hate evenly! You’re going to give some hate to people who did nothing to earn it!

              1. They may not have earned it, but they sure as hell deserve it.

      2. “Most movements hate apostates more than anyone else. Libertarians hate converts most of all.”

        That’s a good point.

        Contrast David Brock’s treatment when he switched to being a prog. No carpet was red enough to roll out for him, and he got a gig bashing the right.

        When the neocons left the Democrats and joined the Repups and conservatives, they were so warmly embraced they soon got leadership positions.

        The right and left realize that there should be more joy at the return of one lost sheep than in the support of 99 people who were always in their movement.

      3. That’s not it. Libertarians are culturally liberal. Beck is (or is at least perceived to be) culturally conservative.

        If you could get Beck to embrace gay marriage and start publicly smoking weed and wearing funky hats, libertarians would embrace him.

        1. But of course Beck really isn’t a SOCON. He never was. But yes, he is not “cool” and sadly that seems to count for a lot.

          1. He’s not a SoCon?

            So has he publicly argued in favor of gay marriage? Is he pro-choice?
            Does he want to legalize drugs?

            Or has he kept his mouth shut about those things so his SoCon viewers won’t abandon him?

            1. So now anyone who doesn’t publicly argue for gay marriage is a SOCON? Who are you hazel, Tony?

              That is idiotic.

              1. If he wants to prove that he’s really a libertarian, then it’s important to demonstrate that he agrees with libertarians on more than just the subjects that Libertarians and Republicans agree on generally.

                1. He has to agree with Libertarians on what he doesn’t agree with Libertarians on, or we’ll refuse to play with him.

                  Submit. Kneel. Worship our Ideals, or be cast out!

            2. Or has he kept his mouth shut about those things so his SoCon viewers won’t abandon him?

              Maybe he is a secret communist too. What other secret SOCONS are there Hazel? Good grief.

            3. No, no, and yes.

              Incidentally, the exact same answers apply to that Great and Pure Libertarian, Ron Paul.

            4. “So has he publicly argued in favor of gay marriage?”

              Kind of. From his Wikipedia page:

              In an O’Reilly Factor interview in August 2010, when Beck was asked if he “believe(s) that gay marriage is a threat to [this] country in any way”, he stated, “No I don’t?I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: ‘If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?'”

              Someone recently posted a video interview between Glenn Beck and Penn Jillette, and Beck said something similar, that the government shouldn’t even be in marriage.

              (I, by the way, passionately dislike Beck, as a person.)

          2. I’d also recommend growing some really knarly lamp chop side burns.

          3. I considered the cool factor, but that’s not my objection. My issue is that Glenn Beck did the exact same thing after the 2008 election, when no one wanted to be a Republican or even conservative. He did the libertarian thing for about a year or two, then went right back to where he had been.

        2. Libertarians are culturally liberal

          Except for the Paul family, most of the Lew Rockwell bunch,all those young women at Students for Liberty…

          1. Ron Paul isn’t out there driving a pickup truck with a confederate flag on it to a NASCAR rally.

        3. Libertarians are not ‘culturally liberal’. Liberals are ‘culturally liberal’ and there’s a buttload of them inside the loosely knit group that calls itself ‘libertarian’. You can tell who they are because they argue for the right things, but for the wrong reason.

          I support the idea of gay marriage because I think the state shouldn’t be involved in telling individuals the sex of the person they choose to marry. Libertarian. Liberals support gay marriage because everyone should have equal rights.

          I’m for legalization of drugs because I think it should be up to the individual what they put in their bodies. Libertarian. Liberals are for various forms of marijuana legalisation because it should be medically available to those in need, because it can be taxed and regulated, because it will keep our black youths out of jail…..

          But somehow, liberals support for these liberties always allow for some little expansion of the state.

          Libertarians are culturally libertarian. And we’d do a lot better if we’d hold to that description and stop letting the TEAMs define us as something that is neither nor, yes?

          What I want from Beck, or any libertarian, is a clear feeling that they understand that liberty belongs to the individual, and that government, and the state should be strictly limited.

          1. This.

        4. Not necessarily. Ron Paul is culturally conservative, and I don’t think anybody would question his libertarian bona fides. Libertarians generally just want to keep the state out of such culture war issues. Hence many libertarians favoring getting the government out of the marriage business altogether.

      4. Because every two years, one party or the other “comes around agreeing with us on somethings”. This around-coming always evaporates mysteriously the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in November.

        It’s hardly suprising that people are a supicious that Glenn Beck is merely the overture to the 2014 edition of the biennial farce and expect to see actions rather than mere words before we trust his sincerity. “Words are Wind.”

        1. “…expect to see actions rather than mere words before we trust his sincerity”

          He hosts a talk show. What action are you expecting? He has to give a blow job to be a libertarian?

          1. Publically take the libertarian side in a case where there’s a personal cost to him for doing so.

            1. Does the war on drugs count?

            2. I am sure that will be happening very soon.

            3. You mean like taking bold stances in the Reason comments section?

        2. Actions such as…?

        3. Because every two years, one party or the other “comes around agreeing with us on somethings”. This around-coming always evaporates mysteriously the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in November.

          Fucking dead on.

          1. “Because every two years, one party or the other “comes around agreeing with us on somethings”. This around-coming always evaporates mysteriously the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in November.

            Fucking dead on.”

            There is no “Glenn Beck” party

            1. Yes, there is. It’s called “The Republican Party.”

      5. My personal opinion is that there is a strong contingent in the libertarian movement that would just loathe having an actual impact on policy or the mainstream, since they know that any implementation of libertarianism is going to fall short of their Platonic ideal. IMO, that’s why quite a few libertarians will go out of their way to denounce Milton Friedman, Hayek, Rand Paul, and others as un-libertarian — how dare they endorse real-world policies and politicians that might be more liberty-friendly! And if the ideology gets popular, why, then some hick/Cosmo/[insert disliked group] might believe part of what you believe, and hopelessly garble the rest!

        Pariah status is exactly what some of these people aspire towards.

        1. Immaculate Trouser for the win!!

        2. Libertarians don’t want to embrace people in power who will use the banner to expand the state and restrict liberty.

        3. How could I possibly speak for all libertarians.

          but, I agree, I don’t want to see the state expanded, but shrunk.

        4. I agree one hunjid percent

        5. It’s because when one small amount of deregulation happens (but the other 50 kajillion regulations are left on the books), libertarianism is blamed for the shitstorm that happens because of the one repealed regulation (while the other 50 kajillion regulations are ignored).

          See also: stories about how the GOP has been overtaken by the hardcore libertarian ideology of people like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, and George W. Bush.

      6. There is no one Libertarians hate more than someone like Beck who is on the other side and comes around to agreeing with them on some things.

        The problem in Beck’s specific case is that he can’t decide where he stands.

        He goes back and forth. One day he hates us, the next day he says he’s one of us, the next day he hates us again, the day after that he can’t understand why we don’t like him.

        1. No Fluffy. Libertarians hate anyone who hasn’t been “into the band” since the beginning.

          1. I should hope continued support of the Iraq war disqualifies you.

          2. I don’t.

            If all of the Victoria’s Secret models converted tomorrow, I’d welcome them enthusiastically.

            As just an example.

            1. a rare point of agreement.

          3. Fluffy is right. Beck has been very inconsistent in his attitudes towards libertarians.

          4. I reckon all of you must hate me than.. i’m a dumb lefty wannabe

        2. Even when he is one of us, he seems to be approaching us as savior rather than convert. He’s not admitting he was wrong and then trying to see what he can do for us, no it’s more like “well, you guys can finally breathe easy because The Great and Powerful Beck is here! Now here’s what I want you to do for me…”

          1. I haven’t gotten that vibe from him at all in the Jillete interviews I’ve watched.

            You can say a lot of things about Beck, but his shtick is that he’s an everyman who wants to learn from the guests that he invites on his show, not that he’s an expert.

          2. “apologizes for originally being in favor of the PATRIOT Act and warantless wiretapping (“Boy, what a fool I was”)”

            Read much?

          3. Yeah, this is completely wrong, Stormy. I mean, not even close.

            1. No it’s not. He’s just exhausted the oppurtunities in fleecing neocons by selling them overpriced gold coins, so he’s moved on to a new scam, selling crappy real estate to Libertarians:

              http://blogs.dallasobserver.co….._2_bil.php

              1. That has nothing to do with what you wrote.

      7. The quote you are looking for is a paraphrase from Eric Hoffer =

        “An apostate is always more reviled than a heretic”

        I have a personal quote which I’ve used on occasions (particularly with Arabs) =

        “The only people Arabs have greater problems with than The Jews, are Other Arabs”

    2. “Ah, yes. Because forcing people to engage in their own walks to Canossa is a great way to build support around your ideology among people who are sympathetic, but not completely sold.”

      Obeisance to the proper community is the libertarian way, is it not? God damn this is some stupid shit.

    3. Gratuitously bashing Glenn Beck is required in order to get into the right cocktail parties…

      Real criticism is great, and welcome! However, there are times when a content-free jab just seems like it’s requisite. We should be above that.

      Tf Penn Gilette will chat with him, why not us? Penn is, like, the atheist Jesus, in my eyes. 😛

      1. However, there are times when a content-free jab just seems like it’s requisite. We should be above that.

        And yet you used the term “cocktail parties”.

        C’mon, son!

        1. LOL

          Someone’s awake, anyway. 😀

          1. I haven’t poured myself a pre-dinner cocktail yet. I’m thinking a highball of some sort or a whisky sour.

            1. Every evening, there’s a cocktail party at my house. It’s not crowded, exactly, but there is liquor.

              Got some Old Raj on sale recently. That stuff is great, and well worth a try.

              1. Nice. I’ll have to pick it up during G&T season.

            2. I try to have at least one whiskey sour every day. Either that or a stout, depending on my mood.

            3. Home brewed IPA here, but cheers!

      2. Surely you mean beer-swilling tailgaitin’ hootenannies. People who go to cocktail parties never think of Glenn Beck at all. He’s, obviously, the very definition of a charlatan.

        1. Where are the charlatan-free parties? I’d like to attend some!

      3. Yeah, I’m willing to give Beck a chance. I’d much rather that we debate with him where we disagree than go full-on rejection because of the disagreement.

        I always think it’s much more useful to speak of to what degree someone’s libertarian rather than if they’re libertarian or not. Part of our appeal is the acknowledgement that political belief isn’t categorical, it’s a matter of degree.

  7. If we were progressives or Christians we would be embracing him with love and forgiveness to solidify his conversion.

    But that would be icky.

  8. Don’t know much about Beck, except that he likes to draw diagrams, but I sense some purity-testing gone out of control with some of these criticisms of him. Seems like he’s a popular entertainer, like Obama and Obama’s Hollywood supporter, except Beck is skeptical of arbitrary govt rather than a cheerleader of it.

    If the progs make good use of their entertainers, why not the anti-progs (however they describe themselves)?

  9. Here is my problem with Beck claiming to be a libertarian. Even if he is on the up and up and has had a change of heart to at the very least a more libertarian position, because of his acceptance (and even promulgation) of whackjob conspiracy theories and his ridiculous over the top partaisan hyperhole he has set himself up as little more than a hyperhartisan buffoon on the national stage.

    Sure he has his followers but no one takes him seriously and any position he attaches himself to instantly loses credibility because of his association.

    So Glen, we love that y’all had a change of heart, but if you really want to do this liberty movement a favor you gotta shut your mouth about it and fade into the background for a while.

    1. Couldn’t the same be said of Ron Paul? Paul has a hell of a lot of followers. But his appeal beyond them is pretty limited rightly or wrongly.

      1. The Ronulan Commander, Luap Nor? Or so I have seen him described by some TEAM RED folks.

        Yeah, I see what you mean, there.

      2. But Paul has had far more success than any recent political figure in getting a libertarian message out on a national stage. Beck can’t say the same thing

      3. Here is the thing though, even with his 2 Presidential runs Ron Paul never really achieved much penetration into Mass Culture, to the extent that the mythical “average american” thinks of him at all he’s just that kinda weird congressman who wants to audit the fed, his public persona is more “kooky but lovable uncle” than unhinged possible dangerous partisan idealogue

    2. “because of his acceptance (and even promulgation) of whackjob conspiracy theories and his ridiculous over the top partaisan hyperhole he has set himself up as little more than a hyperhartisan buffoon on the national stage”

      Like the LP doesn’t have it’s share of 9/11 truthers. Really

      1. Like the average american even realizes that there is a libertarian party.

        It is not about what he believes, it is about the persona that he has cultivated for himself in the media

    3. We are talking about the same movement that embraces Rothbard and Raimondo, right? At the very least, I don’t hear constant denunciations of those two, despite the fact that both have said things that are easily more unpalatable than anything I’ve heard Beck say.

      1. Yeah, the entire liberty movement is going to buy that bullshit.

    4. Rasilio| 2.27.13 @ 3:57PM |#

      Here is my problem with Beck claiming to be a libertarian….

      Pretty much agree with the assessment. My issue is not his sincerity = its his character. He’s a goddamn opportunistic hyperolic political hack who will desperately jump in front of whatever parade he can find if he thinks it will make him seem even slightly ‘relevant’ to the national discourse. I personally think he – like others in the business of political punditry like Rush and Keith Olberman – is simply a washed up sportscaster trying to make himself a celebrity by Any Means Necessary. I don’t see why anyone should care about him. He’s a twit.

  10. I must say, it’s times like this that I’m really glad I’m not a libertarian. Your infighting is just ridiculous.

    1. Sez you!

      You are a libertarian, ’cause I say so!!! And if you disagree, you have only fallen into my infighting trap.

    2. I don’t know what I am, but I’m sure as fuck glad I’m not one of you.

      1. Yes, I agree you’re not human.

    3. Yeah, because blindly agreeing with your leaders and all of your party members is soo much better than openly discussing your differences.

      1. Are you being sarcastic or just stupid?

        1. Pretty much everything I say is sarcastic.

      2. Leaders? Party members?

        1. I am the King of the Anarchists! Aren’t you?

          1. Whatever. I’m the queen of them.

            1. Bullshit. I am.

              1. Shh, if other people see us fighting anarchism will become impossible and we’ll both disappear in a puff of smoke.

                And then no one gets to be queen.

            2. I’m the Postmaster General of anarchists.

  11. What is this, like the 3rd time Beck has gone through this act?

    Maybe he really means it this time? Bet he still ends up supporting the establishment choice in 2016. (Rubio?) “Something, something, electability…”

    1. That might be a good test – if he falls in main-GOP-line, we’ll see he is no so much a libertarian.

      1. My memory is vague, so I’ll fact check myself later and be sure to not respond anymore if I turn out to be wrong…

        Seem to recall Beck saying really nasty things about Ron Paul after the Rudy Giuliani – Ron Paul faceoff in a 2007 debate. Then Beck said really nasty things about a specific Ron Paul supporter. Then came the tea party, which he instantly latched himself on to. Sure he said a lot of nice things, but still ended up supporting anyone but Paul in 2012.

        I should be able to dig up some applicable Beck quotes from those times to better make my point.

        1. If uncritical support of Ron Paul is the litmus test, then count me out.

          I voted for Gary Johnson both in the primaries and the general for very good reasons, not least of which are several Paulian statements and supporters which rubbed me the wrong way.

          1. I highly, highly doubt that Beck’s problem with Paul was the same as your problem with Paul.

            Especially in the context of Beck sticking up for Giuliani.

          2. Yeah see, that’s not what I’m saying.

            Beck didn’t respectfully disagree, he literally insulted RP and his supporters.

            I’ll be back after I have a chance to dig up some quotes. I generally agree with your point about the cult of personalility surrounding Ron Paul. Really irks me when people grill Rand or Amash over the same things that Ron Paul did in the past, like endorsing less than ideal candidates.

          3. I’m pretty sure Beck didn’t support Johnson

            1. Beck didn’t fucking know Gary Johnson existed…..

  12. You catch flies with honey, not with vinegar.

      1. While I think xkcd is extremely overrated, I have to admit that one was funny.

      2. It’s true too. One time after I evicted a deadbeat tenant I discovered the house infested with fruit flies. I took a few jars, poked a few holes in the tops, and filled them half way with apple cider vinegar. Came back 2 days later, and had jars full of fruit flies, and none buzzing around the house.

  13. Does it really matter what libertarians think? Why does he have to be “accepted” by them? He can call himself anything he wants and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

    To be honest, I’d rather that Beck not call himself one, just out of brand protection and what little respectability the libertarian image has. It was bad enough that Bob Barr pulled this schtick.

    We need more people like Penn Jillette publicly proclaiming their libertarian beliefs. He isn’t that polarizing, can back his game up with solid ideas and solutions and he’s respected by a pretty broad range of people. But, Beck has already solidified an image as a frothing TEAM RED apparatchik and this will do nothing to rehabilitate that image or improve libertarian’s image.

    1. A cosmotarian is defined as someone who thinks Penn Jillette is less polarizing than Glenn Beck.

        1. Or, if you’re a cosmotarian, SMOKE REEFER!

      1. Jesus Christ, you’re stupid.

        1. At least *my* goat is still a virgin.

      2. A moron is defined as anyone who uses the term cosmotarian.

        1. I could always say “left-libertarian” instead.

          1. But I can’t help notice that a Google search disclosed several self-proclaimed cosmotarians.

          2. Cosmotarian isn’t the same as left-libertarian. Indeed, the average Cosmo is much closer to mainstream libertarianism that paleo-libertarians who consistently refuse to remove that one foot they keep firmly planted in the paleo-conservative camp.

            1. Cosmos are as real as paleos, and if paleos try to keep a foot in the paleoconservative camp, cosmos certainly seem to be trying to keep a foot in the culturally-liberal camp.

            2. Cosmos are almost all consequentialists.
              Other than Ron Paul Newsletter reactions I think the best “cosmo/paleo” litmus test was W’s ban on fed funding for fetal stem cell research.Anther Cosmo characteristic is assuming “all true libertarians” are pro-choice atheists. Pro-life paleos of faith never assert you have to agree with them on those issues to be libertarian.

              1. Really? I’m a pro-Life Buddhist and I get scream at for being a cocktail swilling Cosmo for, well, swilling cocktails. But also for having the audacity to believe that Mexican immigrants shouldn’t be summarily executed on the spot if they don’t have the proper paperwork filled out.

                1. Yokeltarians get really mad when mainstream libertarians don’t foam at the mouth in each and every social situation.

              2. Yeah, sorry SIV, bit I think the term cosmotarian means something closer to “anyone who I don’t like or who holds positions different from mine while still claiming to be a libertarian” than what you said.

                1. Nah,

                  Cosmos are dumbshits that can talk themselves into stupid positions, like think that Roberts decision was on Obamacare was correct or that Wayne LaPierre is a pro-gun hysteric.

                  1. No, LaPierre is an anti-speech hysteric.

            3. There are no ‘left’ libertarians.

              The endgame of the ‘left’ is a state so extensive and pervasive that it’s component parts(those things that were once lionized as ‘The People’) can no longer even think in ways that do not run in accord with the wishes of the State.

              Libertarians avoid that path. To succeed, liberty does not need to become the fellow traveler of the ideology that seeks it’s utter destruction.

      3. I did LOL at this.

      4. Penn Gillette, in a totally non-polarizing way, stars in a video captioned “Penn eats pig with Jews! How to go from Hasidic to atheist.”

        http://failedmessiah.typepad.c…..g-456.html

      5. Penn Gillette and Glenn Beck talk Atheism, Libertarianism and Church/State:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZnE1XEv0xU

    2. Re: JW,

      Does it really matter what libertarians think?

      It really doesn’t. But Freedom of Association being what it is, he can’t make any of us like him just because he fancies himself a libertarian. In order to call himself that, he has to be convinced that liberty IS the greatest political goal to achieve.

      In the meantime, his self-labeling runs as hollow as Tony calling himself a person. It just doesn’t sound right.

      1. My only objection is what it does to the brand image, but fuck-all what I or anyone else can do about it.

        Of course, people have been thinking for years that LaRouche was a libertarian. “No, he’s always run as a Democrat.” That would get under their skin.

        1. “My only objection is what it does to the brand image”

          I didn’t know the image of “loser” could be tarnished. What difference does it make, if the man wants to use his media to promote someone like Rand Paul and doesn’t fuck it up? When he says something wrong then complain, just like when Ron Paul says he’s pro-life. Fuck brands.

          1. Re: CampingInYourPark,

            just like when Ron Paul says he’s pro-life.

            You mean you’re not?

  14. […] mentions that he’s been having plenty of off-air conversations about libertarianism with Penn Jillette[…]

    Well, should have said that before! Let’s embrace the new brother into the movement – he has off-air conversations with Penn, after all!

    Fuck.

  15. Is it OK if I think both sides are right here? Yes, there are libertarians who revel in their political relevancy because they don’t want to get their hands dirty, but also yes, it is OK to be skeptical of Beck, because he was arguing all-in on Romney this season.

    1. Yes, it is okay.

    2. Of course not! You have to pick a side! Isn’t that what libertarianism is all about, after all?

  16. everyone is a libertarian when it comes to themselves. the ones who extend the courtesy to others are the non-hypocrites.

    1. we would all be better off if people followed this principle.

  17. Some folks are confusing “liking” Glenn Beck or giving him the keys of the kingdom with being more accommodating.

    It seems to me that the critics of Beck cited in the article are less interested in actual dialogue or figuring out whether Beck is/is not a libertarian, and more interested in point-scoring by having Beck pay his dues to these organizations by stroking their dicks.

    A statement outlining differences of opinion or silence would have been preferable to that kind of high-handed treatment, and while I hardly agree with Beck on everything, he has a good point: it does us no good to have these King of Libertopia high-handed fights when the enemy is up yonder over that hill.

    1. Part of the deal is recognizing the enemy. You and Beck have some way to go in that department.

      Take the military. If you want to be part of the liberty movement you have to be like Laurence Vance, Will Grigg, Eric Peters et al and call soldier boys bullies, cowards, killers, moochers and parasites.

      One is not a “hero” because one joined a state sponsored military or para-military organization.

  18. For a decade, he built his empire around neocons. Once he starts seeing that he is losing more neocons than gaining libertarians, he’ll go back to his old ways.

    Beck is merely testing the waters to see if he can mix neocons and libertarians to make an even bigger audience for him. It won’t work….he has said far too much against libertarianism to make it sound like any sudden political shift is actually genuine. He still attacks democrats almost all of the time, and the most criticism you’ll ever hear from him on republicans is “they’re no better than democrats”

    His christian nationalism and overwhelming favoritism toward the jewish lobby isn’t going to help him, either

    1. Tell us more about the JOOOOOOOS. That shit never gets old.

      1. apparently 3 billion in aid to kill Palestinians isn’t a big deal to you

        1. Yep. That’s exactly what’s happening. 3 billion dollars for the Israelis to build death camps where they harvest the organs of Palestinian children to sell and the blood of Palestinian women for their matzo.

          1. a bit overdramatic, but the camp part (Gaza) is correct

            1. Gaza is part of Israel again? When did that happen?

              1. when I screwed your mom last night

                zing……….

                1. I hope you didn’t film it, for Gaza’s sake.

                  1. why does porn always have to kill something in regards to religion.

                    But no I didn’t…the meat wasn’t kosher

          2. Mat Zo… an isreali Trance/House producer.. idunno i just had to mention that.

        2. Made even worse by the fact that the 3 billion is in fiat currency, which as we all know is an invention of the Hebrews to weaken us against the imminent Lizard People invasion.

          1. If you think Donald Rumsfeld was the only one….think again

          2. This^ (immaculate trouser is exactly what i think of all these Zionist NWO Illuminutty types, who even if you are a fuckin anarchist.. you are still a sheep unless you believe that the satanist alien children sacrficers are coming and SEVVENNEEEN SEVVENNNEHH SIXXX WILLL OCCCURRR AGGGGAAAINNNN!!!

  19. I’ve been a semi-regular listener of Beck’s since his was just a local show here on WFLA. As such, I have noticed him slowly becoming more libertarianish over the years. I have long suspected that Penn Jillette is largely involved in that conversion, because it seemed to start about the time that they started referring to each other as friends. As a convert myself, perhaps I am more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than those who have apparently been right-thinking libertarians since birth. Is Beck a libertarian? Not yet, but he’s closer to it than he has ever been, and I tend to like anybody who is on my side more often than he is against me. He may never be a real libertarian, but isn’t a liberty-leaning conservative better than a regular conservative?

    Don’t let the perfect blah blah blah …

    1. Re: Mensan,

      Is Beck a libertarian? Not yet, but he’s closer to it than he has ever been,

      You mean he’s kind of libertarianish, don’t you?

      1. Isn’t that exactly what I wrote?

  20. “I’m a libertarian, baby, so why don’t you love me?”

    1. because he wants reassurance that everyone will love and adore him. His motive is to be leader

        1. too cryptic

  21. “I’m confident that the basic broad philosophy will withstand association with anyone claiming all or part of the word.”

    In that case, you might as well call yourself “liberal.” After all, the original sense of “liberal” was more-or-less the sense of “libertarian” now, and we all know that the basic broad philosophy withstood association with anyone claiming all or part of that word. The unfortunate thing is, if you follow the word in hopes of finding/understanding the philosophy, will you achieve your goal? The word “liberal” no longer leads you to those who espouse what we now call “libertarianism.” In fact, a completely different “philosophy” has supplanted it, as if “liberal” were a URL that has been hijacked to point to a different web-page. If too many people, who diverge too far from “the philosophy,” call themselves “libertarian,” then the same fate will befall that label, too. Some people who apply libertarian “purity tests” just like to “win” arguments and put other people down. Others merely want nouns to establish useful and stable identities for objects and entities (including political philosophies). When “libertarian” is seen to apply equally well to Bill Clinton, Clint Eastwood, Glenn Beck, Bob Barr, and a host of others from across the political spectrum, it means nothing, and real liberals/libertarians/etc. need to find another signpost to lead others to them. Some of us are tired of that never-ending story.

    1. “Bob Barr”

      You mean, the nominee of the *Libertarian* Party in 2008?

      1. Eduard and RG make my point, while others here remind us that Bill Mahrer is among the “host of others,” to whom I alluded. It is possible for people who are largely libertarian in philosophy to take some very UNlibertarian positions. It is also possible for those who are largely not (or even ANTI-) libertarian to take some libertarian positions. That’s OK, and perfectly natural and understandable. But when one asserts that he or she IS a libertarian, that does and SHOULD set a high bar. There must be a standard, an ideal, which NO mortal person is expected to attain. The closer you get to it, the more you earn the right to use the label to describe yourself. The more you diverge, the less right you have. More importantly, it is OK to point out someone’s level of divervence. This should, of course, for the most part be done constructively and with respect. I think it is in this last area where most criticisms I have read and heard of Beck have fallen short. On the other hand, when those with high profiles and big megaphones self-identify as “libertarians,” the process of criticism is especially important, as such people woll be taken as exemplars, and their divergences accepted as norms that change the meaning of the label.

  22. I didn’t really notice Glenn Beck until after the 2008 election, probably in early 2009, and he was already making significant libertarian noises then.

    It doesn’t matter to me whether he’s pure libertarian. If he can convince some of his conservative fans to adopt libertarian positions on even a few issues, then he’s alright by me. I remain doubtful on that, however. The problem is that his profile has dropped dramatically since he left Fox News.

  23. Beck was ok, albeit sort of goofy, before he jumped off the deep end with the religious thing.

    He seems to fail to recognize that Libertarians are not very fond of including SoCon issues into our politics, and he also is afraid of the WOD issue, which pretty much rules you out as a Libertarian when you can’t speak out on an issue that important to the cause.

    I used to actually defend the guy to some extent, the way some are doing here now, for being somewhat libertarian leaning, but I mean, come on, there is only so long you can claim to be learning to be Libertarian while heading slowly back in the opposite direction.

    1. Beck has a extremely difficult time relating to the young crowd. I think just last week he attacked the WWE, and the organization retaliated back. And before that, he was talking about violent video games as some sort of demonic plague.

      He has no clue what demographic he is trying to target

    2. That sort of misses the point, though, Hyperion. Beck doesn’t have to convince us of anything. The value is in whether he can persuade conservatives to take more libertarian stands…on pretty much anything. Conservatives will listen to him in a way they won’t to John Stossel or writers from Reason.

      He could point out that you can still have socially conservative opinions and be libertarian. Just because you don’t want to interfere in somebody’s lifestyle doesn’t mean that you have to approve of it.

      His utility may be diminished in that regard, though, given his reduced media visibility.

      1. I didn’t miss the point. I was merely giving my own opinion of the guy. In my opinion, he lost his legitimacy with most Libertarians when he went so far down the SoCon path.

        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any problem with religion, and maybe you can be both religious and Libertarian, but you can’t combine religion with politics and hope to maintain credibility with Libertarians.

        1. My opinion of the guy is that he’s a shameless opportunist. As such, I don’t believe he has particularly deep political convictions at all.

          However, I don’t really care about that if he can swing some religious conservatives away from believing they need to control others’ behavior. I doubt he can do that.

          1. My opinion of the guy is that he’s a shameless opportunist

            I don’t discount that theory at all. Which is maybe why he jumped all over the SoCon image when he perceived that the Tea Party movement was at it’s heart, SoCon, and also at the time looked like a real juggernaut.

            And I am a believer that the Tea Party, which was once mostly Libertarian, did get in part co-opted by the SoCons and it done a lot more damage to the TPers than the liberals could have ever done.

            After all, Rick Santorum did get a lot of TP support, that’s just not cool on so many levels.

            1. The Tea Party was always SoCon; it was just a way for the usual suspects to go after Obama without ever having to address the failures of the Bush administration by pretending the world only sprang into existence on January 20, 2009. Unfortunately, a bunch of libertarians made the mistake of taking them seriously and ended up being useful idiots for a few years.

              1. Except the Tea Party started before Obama was prez.

      2. I don’t know if I am “religious” but I am a practicing Christian.

        Because of my faith I can’t justify practicing the sort of discrimination against another person. I don’t have to agree with someone to not want the government to coerce them into “agreeing” with me. I know I am a minority in the faith but that is how I come to some of my conclusions.

        1. I always considered the religious folk to be the ones that attend an organized religion every week, and tell everyone else that they need to do the same, or bad things will happen. And also, they like to use government to enforce their morality.

          That is what I consider religious.

          Just believing in something or following a set of values that you consider moral and increasing the value of your life and others, I would call that more of spiritual, rather than religious.

          But that’s just my take.

          1. I go semi-weekly but attendance is for my (and my family’s) benefit not for “credit.” As for rules, I believe that Christians over-emphasize rule following and that diminishes grace.

            Religion is a personal relationship, that by definition can’t be imposed by the state. Even if the “rules” could be imposed, why should they? If my God is who I believe why would He need the state or my help?

            I think it is a sort of cheap and lazy proselityzing for religious folk to get the state to impose their views. It saves them all that messy business of loving other sinners, comforting those who are hurting and sharing their resources.

            Sorry to turn this to theology…

            did I mention I don’t care for Beck and am nauseated by Maher?

            1. Quaker?

              1. I am not sure there is a definition for me.

                I just return to my first principle which is non-coercion.

                My mother is scandalized, she raised a beer drinking Christian libertarian and a Democrat (my sister).

  24. Beck can never be considered a true-believing libertarian until he starts focussing on the really important issues like “doobie” or “abortion rights” or the freedom to marry your pet orangoutang. Frankly, I’m surprised Ron Paul ever made the grade.

    1. Re: minarchist,

      Beck can never be considered a true-believing libertarian until he starts focussing on the really important issues like “doobie” or “abortion rights” or the freedom to marry your pet orangoutang.

      That’s an interesting take. What exactly is your problem with marrying your pet orangutan?

      1. Hey, at least we’re keeping marriage in the family.

  25. Beck can never be considered a true-believing libertarian until he starts focussing on the really important issues like “doobie” or “abortion rights” or the freedom to marry your pet orangoutang. Frankly, I’m surprised Ron Paul ever made the grade.

    1. Have you maybe thought that there’s more to pot legalization than just wanting to smoke pot? How about one less thing the cops can use to throw you in jail….how about the money we are pissing away to go after such non-violent people?

      1. How about deciding what you can or cannot put into your own body, you know, assuming that you own yourself?

        1. This is the right answer–

          How about deciding what you can or cannot put into your own body, you know, assuming that you own yourself?

          And this is the wrong one–

          Have you maybe thought that there’s more to pot legalization than just wanting to smoke pot? How about one less thing the cops can use to throw you in jail….how about the money we are pissing away to go after such non-violent people?

          The first begins and ends with self ownership. It admits that anything may be put into one’s own body.

          The second refers to ‘legalisation’, and allows that there are legitimate reasons why one might be put in jail. It proceeds from a rejection of self ownership. While a deeper understanding of the issue may exist in the writers head, the formulation allows for some small bit of state control.

      2. How about the fact that the 4th ammendment needed to be gutted to make way for the WOD? Or the right to an attorney or even a trial? You think they are going to keep their nice SWAT teams and civil forfeiture proceedings for the WOD only?

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

    1. What is this? Libertarian International?

      You do know that there are no libertarians outside of Murika, right? Or do you need our resident war mongers to come and tell you?

  27. I don’t care if Beck is a true “libertarian” – whatever the hell that means. The point is, he’s a kook who uses the language of liberty and freedom while espousing crazy conspiracies and acting like a nutcase. I watch his GBTV, or TheBlazeTV and recently he agreed with Cruz that Obama is the most radical POTUS we’ve ever had…

    Seriously? Wtf has he done that’s all that radically different from his predecessors? And besides, I think Andrew Jackson forcibly removing thousands of Indians is pretty radical…Jefferson and the disastrous Embargo Act was pretty radical, as was Adam’s Alien and sedition acts. Lincoln starting a war with half the country? How about Reagan illegally giving weapons to radical South American rebels?

    But no, Obama is most radical because….Obamacare. Increasing marginal tax rates. Talking about gun control. Big deficits. Hollywood. Kenya. Black.

    Get real Beck, neocons, libertarians, republicans, etc. Obama won and the progressives are winning because some on the right are backing like lunatics for whatever reason – publicity, narcissism, or a genuine ignorance of the state of American political affairs.

    1. you obviously just came here to troll, so have a picture of some kittens:

      http://www.warrenphotographic……ground.jpg

    2. Obama won and the progressives are winning

      Awww, look at that, it’s a wittle team cheer-bot, isn’t that so cute?

    3. “Lincoln starting a war with half the country?”

      OMG, a neo-Confederate Rockwellite troll!

    4. Be certain, your blue teamers will step on their poncho liners soon enough. The pendulum will swing again in the other direction.

      I am just hoping, eventually, that disinterest in the peaceful activities (whether economic or social) of your neighbor will become an American principle soon.

      1. It’s the freeper vote that is keeping Team Blue afloat. Without it they would be minorities now in both houses, and likely out of the White House.

        As long as they can keep the hand outs increasing, they will maintain a large degree of power. And the GOP are not going to stop them from spending, that’s for damn sure.

        1. Yes, most Americans are what I call passive-progressive. They passively accept the “conventional wisdom” and don’t bother investigating deeply. Eventually, they will tire of the coercion (or at least that is my hope).

      2. Yes the pendulum will swing, but it’s got a long way to go until liberals are so powerful that they radically overreach. Nobody’s even talking about anything that’s not a center-right policy idea. Like Obamacare. A definitional aspect of the right’s radicalism is its labeling everything done by modern-day squishy near-right Democrats as Leninism. They’re dwelling in the sewers of crazy town right now–to such an extent that they’ve now abandoned concern even for political success. That’s a dangerous combination. Radicals, by definition people who think they are completely right about everything, have little use for public support.

        That’s why liberals aren’t your problem right now. But reading these boards give one the impression that the most imminent threat isn’t a far-right fringe taking over a major political party, but the sandal-wearing dreadlocked hippie who wants a little less pollution in the air.

        1. You mean Republicans and Democrats are basically different shades of the same flavor of left statist?

          No shit, tell us something we haven’t been saying for FUCKING YEARS.

          1. No, no, those guys who want to see changes to the budget are far-right fringe kooks who don’t understand that QE is wonderful and central planning is the wave of the future.

  28. Damn, I missed a good Beckerhead thread. Christo-Fascism is so NOT libertarian.

    1. That’s what you get for keeping your head up Obamas ass all day.

  29. I think my copy of “How to Win Friends and Influence People” is out of date. I can’t find the chapter that tells you to call the object of your influence “worse than Nazis”.

  30. Right after Glenn Beck promoted Road to Serfdom on his show three years ago, it shot to #1 on the Amazon bestsellers list for a week. By that alone, he’s probably done more to spread liberty than most libertarian talking heads ever will. He’s obviously not as ideological pure as I’d like him to be, but he’s interested and is talking through his “conversion” in a way that most pundits don’t do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.