Libertarians' Awkward Bedfellows
Coulter's comments may have been harsh, but she has a point.
Last week, Conservative pundit Ann Coulter told me and a thousand young libertarians that we libertarians are puss—well, she used slang for a female body part.
We were in Washington, D.C., at the Students for Liberty conference, taping my TV show, and she didn't like my questions about her opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization.
"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions… who you can hire… and you (libertarians) want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, oh, we want to legalize pot?… If you were a little more manly, you'd tell liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."

We do, actually. We say employers ought to get to choose whom they hire. They created the business, so they should be allowed to discriminate against stutterers, TV hosts, old people—anyone they don't want.
But Coulter has a point.
Government rarely makes a dent in people's drug use or their ability to partner with people of their own gender.
"Seventy percent socialism" does much more harm. It kills opportunity and wrecks lives.
But Coulter doesn't just want to downplay "liberal" parts of the libertarian agenda. She opposes them.
When I asked why gays can't marry, she said, "They can—they have to marry a member of the opposite sex."
I see why the students were annoyed by Coulter's shtick.
If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.
Fortunately, some Republicans are onboard with that. Another of my guests was Justin Amash, congressman from Michigan.
The young libertarians admire him, in much the same way they admire Republicans like Sens. Rand Paul (KY), Mike Lee (UT), and Jeff Flake (AZ); Gov. Gary Johnson (NM); and new Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.
Amash focuses on government spending. He has pictures of libertarian economists like Murray Rothbard in his office, and he warns that big government—including military spending—will bankrupt America. He's not afraid to call for cuts in popular programs like Medicare, Head Start, and food stamps.
After Amash's complaints about government spending, establishment Republicans in Congress kicked him off the budget committee. One said it was because of the "a--hole factor… inability to work with other members."
I asked Amash about that.
"It might be because I wanted to balance the budget," says Amash. "The level of government spending is so insane."
It is. Even if the sequester cuts happen—cuts the left calls "brutal"—in eight years the feds will still spend $5.3 trillion annually … just a little less than the $5.4 trillion they will spend if no cuts are made.
The "brutal" sequester is anything but. Even the much-feared Paul Ryan budget plan would only reduce the federal debt in 2021 from the $26 trillion President Obama projects to… $23 trillion.
So with our economic house in such disarray, Coulter is right to avoid getting bogged down in fights over drugs and homosexuality. But I prefer the way Amash handled the libertarian-conservative conflict.
Michelle Montalvo of Temple University asked him to "comment on your faith and how you reconcile that with your libertarian beliefs? There are stereotypes about libertarian students, that we're Republicans who love to do drugs, (but) we're not all godless."
Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian… and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."
The young people at the conference worry about the economy. They worry less about drug use and gay sex—most have come to see those as socially acceptable.
Instead of insulting libertarians or kicking them off congressional committees, it's time for Coulter—and other Republicans—to stop suggesting that those who want the government out of their personal lives are morally suspect.
Then we can concentrate on the important things.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
NO! The term pussy came from scaredy cat.
Can't it be slang for both?
"Quit being a pussy and go talk to her so you can get some pussy!"
Yes it can. Depends on the context.
Just sick of pussies being offended when I call someone a pussy.
The word got a bad rap. I think we should bring it back. That and "Huzzah". I always liked that word and ya just don't hear it much anymore.
Or use "pusillanimous." Which a much more likely source for "pussy" given that they have the exact same definition.
It lacks the connotations of "pussy."
Only if you assume "pussy" always must have connotations that include lady business.
When I tell someone to not "be such a pussy" I'm never suggesting they are transforming in female genitals.
Really, if you think about it, it really began with men telling each other not to act like a woman--i.e., one with a pussy.
Don't be such a vagina, PL.
Huh? The sheath formed by the basal part of certain leaves where they embrace the stem? WTF?
Actually I'm suggesting that you are where I keep my sword.
Ewwwwww. TMI
Save that for when you and Warty roleplay.
Well done. It comes from an Old Latin word for 'sheath' as in "a sheath for your sword". So really, the word 'vagina', the proper anatomical term, was originally a slang word about 2500 years ago. I'm sure back then, the morality police were crowing about the debasement of their language.
I'd huzzah any pusillanimous pussy getting called out!
wiki linky
Citations are tools of the patriarchy. [grumble]
It would have been funnier if Coulter had just hauled off and clocked him, like this guy did.
It would have been funnier if Coulter Stossel had just hauled off and clocked him
Exactly - A good smack would teach the bitch different.
Better if Stossel clocked Coulter.
Insulting someone's manhood is pretty much an invitation to get smacked in the face. Male or female on longer matters, your going to get smacked. Only option is open or closed fist.
I'm wondering why being a bully and hitting someone who poses no threat to you is funny. But, that's just me.
I guess nobody to Stossel that he was part of the show.
Worked for the stooges three
Playacting notwithstanding.
In fact, we should wonder if justice requires giving Coulter a good, hard smackdown.
It would have been funny if Stossel had come back with a folding chair and hit him in the fucking head as hard as he could. However, you have to be sure you hit him really hard as you'll be in big trouble if he doesn't go down.
Actually Stossel came back and hit him with a lawsuit as hard as he could. Probably hurt the sorry sucker-punching bastard alot more.
Instead of insulting libertarians or kicking them off congressional committees, it's time for Coulter?and other Republicans?to stop suggesting that those who want the government out of their personal lives are morally suspect.
but Repubs will never do that because their socon wing is just as willing to use govt force as the biggest liberal nanny. The Coulter wing loves big govt when it pushes their preferred outcomes. The notion of grownups being free to make their own choices - even ones Annie dislikes - is almost as foreign to her as it is to the MSNBC folk.
If only there really were a major party committed to limited government.
?If only there really were a major party committed to limited government?
Sez the guy who supports a party that garners, what 1.5% of the vote come election day?
How about if only the electorate were committed to limited government? How about we follow the advice of that Stalinist Berthold Brecht - it?s time to dissolve the people and elect a new people.
But of course no SOCON that I know of is pushing a return to sodomy laws. Coulter is right. Gays can get married. We are arguing about the right to get permission from the government to do so.
Oh bullshit. The second Coulter get's Obamacare repealed she's right back on the no ass-fucking bandwagon.
You read her mind? Show me one single instance where she has said sodomy should be criminal. For her to be back on this bandwagon she had to have been on it in the first place.
Don't worry Francisco, the Supreme court has said you can ass fuck all you like. NTTAWWT
THe right to consensual sodomy is greater than two wolves and a sheep saying otherwise.
Thank god Anthony Kenedy at least got that right in Lawrence v. Texas.
John, I DO REMEMBER Laura Ingraham whining on her radio program ("your healthy radio addiction") about judicial activism and the threat it poses to democracy after Lawrence was decided.
I bet we could find Legs similarly whining after Lawrence.
BTW, who do you find more physically appealing, Coulter or Ingraham?
I really don't see how the constitution establishes a right to buttfuck. But I guess the constitution is only important when it agrees with us!
10th Amendment
The constitution doesn't establish ANY rights. It describes some and protects all of them.
Um...the Constitution doesn't ESTABLISH any rights. Our rights are innate. The Constitution limits government. So yes, my friend, you do have the right to take a big dick up your ass if you so choose.
Okay. So where does the constitution limit the state government's ability to tell people they can't buttfuck? Read the tenth amendment.(The topic here is Lawrance and whether or not following the original intent of the constitution is important.)
THe right to consensual sodomy is greater than two wolves and a sheep saying otherwise.
I don't even know what that means. And as far as Ingram. One, I don't listen to her so have no idea if she said that. And two, even if she did, saying something is not protected under the Constitution is not the same as saying something should be banned.
Now, how's about sticking your fuckmeat up my ass?' I felt beaten.
'OK, OK..'
'Now, don't be like that. Listen, do you know what it means when someone says put it in slowly and gently?'
'Yes.'
'Good. Then do it the exact opposite of that,' she said, smearing lotion on my uterus poker. She noticed what must've been my glum look, rolled her eyes and sighed. 'OK, what do you think of the war on activist judges legislating from the bench, Libby?'
I perked up.
'I think lackey judges legislate from the bench too, the Administration just prefers their decisions.'
'Pat Robertson thinks activist judges pose a greater threat to America than terrorists,' she said smugly.
'I read that. Well, he's a man who believes Adam & Eve had three sons and populated the Earth, he must be right.'
'Anti-Religious rhetoric. That's hot.'
I fucked Anne Coulter in the Ass 2: Electric Bugaloo
Anal doesn't necessarily mean gay.
...and the special government goodies that come with marriage such as social security benefits, medicare, certain tax benefits, etc.
It is and always has been "All about the Benjamins."
And the total ass fucking married couples with two incomes get in taxes and the fact that you can't break up without the permission of a judge. Yeah, marriage is just such a special benefit.
The marriage tax penalty does not apply to every situation and depends their individual tax position. Most married couples (including myself) do, in fact, pay less tax then they would if they filed separately.
I work for the railroad and pay railroad retirement tax rather than social security, and since I am married I get a pension and my spouse gets an additional pension even though I don't pay anymore in the retirement than someone who isn't married. To say there are not government financial benefits to marriage is just absurd.
As far as asking the judge for permission; merely a technicality. I know of no one of who has been denied a divorce, but who knows maybe it happens.
The legal difficulties with divorce have to do with child custody, division of property, alimony etc. Just like any other contractual agreement getting out of it can be a headache.
All I'm saying is a better position is to end the government's subsidization of marriage and allow individuals (hetro or homosexual) to enter into any type of agreement they would like marriage or otherwise.
sounds like you have some privileges that should be withdrawn entirely, rather than expanded on.
At least she's doing something new with that lank, outdated mop of hair on her head.
She looks a lot better. That straight hair looked horrible.
Now all she needs to do is gain 20 pounds and sew her mouth shut.
......and sew her mouth shut.
But how will she bite the heads off the live bunnies she uses to punctuate her arguments?
Or suck me off.
Not much she can do with that hideous horse-face though. Add the sour look she always has on her face and the piss-poor reasoning and mean-spiritedness and you have one truly horrible human being. Not that she doesn't have company.
The inconsistency of red and blue team ethics and principles is the problem that needs highlighting, not that we have a few shared goals with either Red or Blue team.
Bingo!! I feel my ideology is solid, logical, and based on principle. I just can't see myself compromising logic and principle just to gain more power. That seems to be the opposite of being a libertarian.
But then you will never be in power because no one is ever going to completely agree with you on just what logic and principle dictates.
Works for me.
Then don't bitch when people you don't like are in power.
Excuse me? So if they guy you vote for loses, you don't have a right to bitch about the guy who won? What the fuck, dude?
Not to mention that I used the first-person pronoun, which means I, personally don't seek power in my life. So you're also saying that I don't have the right to bitch about the powerful because I myself don't seek power? Again, what the fuck?
Also, I never said that anyone has to completely agree with me on what constitutes a logical argument. All I said was that since I see my ideology as logically consistent and principled, it doesn't make sense for me to get into bed with people whose basic notions of right and wrong fundamentally disagree with mine. So, unless I compromise my own principles, I have no right to bitch?
What. the. fuck.
If I read John correctly, if we don't compromise our ethics we should no longer promote our ethics our oppose those behaving unethically? By not be a party of compromisers, we should be the party of SILENCE?
I think not, how about we continue to promote our principles and ideas. We can be the beacon of reason.
Tulpa stumbled on this the other day. Claimed utilitarianism was superior to the NAP.
As I thought about it, I realized both Republicans and Democrats are, in fact, the same thing...utilitarians. They are both willing to trample the rights of the minority for their irrationally perceived "greatest good." All they disagree on is the definition of "greatest good."
The only difference between Tulpa and Tony is what shit to ram down other's throats.
Everyone is a utilitarian to some degree. If you believe that principles always trump results, then there can be no harm no matter how great that would ever get you to abandon your principles for the sake of practicality. That sounds so wonderful until you actually think about what it would mean in practice.
Yes it would be a disaster if people actually lived up to moral principles.
Please, good sir, provide an example of how adhering to the NAP brings about the apocalypse.
Funny you should phrase it this way. David D. Friedman has proposed just such an apocolyptic scenario (I paraphrase):
Suppose that a large meteor is hurtling towards earth that will wipe out most/all of humanity if it impacts. The only way to avoid the impact is to make use of one particular laser weapon. This weapon is owned by a known misanthrope who has clearly and publicly stated that he does not wish his laser weapon to be used to avoid this apocalypse.
If one abides by the non-aggression principle, it would be wrong to forcibly use this weapon - even to save humanity.
I think these examples are kinda silly, it's always the same argument, phrased in different ways:
Assume that you have the violate the NAP to prevent all of humanity from being destroyed. How great is that NAP now, huh?
First, if the argument hinges on embracing incredibly improbably and ridiculous assumptions, how great of an argument is it?
Also, it's just a silly way of begging the question: If we have a problem with the destruction of humanity, why is that? If we've already determined that avoiding the destruction of humanity is the "greatest good", then we're already utilitarians by unstated assumption prior to the argument, so what does this argument tell us, that we're not already assuming? All it tells us is that strict interpretation of the NAP may be incompatible with utilitarianism that insists on avoiding the destruction of humanity at all costs.
There are other problems with it, in terms of whether or not it's even accurate to equate utilitarianism and trying to guarantee any outcome, since everything should be dictated by cost functions, anyway.
(cont'd)
If you're a utilitarian, and you insist on not destoying the world, you have to show how this is in the "greatest good."
Well, what if everyone's miserable? What if we're enslaved by an alien race, living horrific, short, painful lives? In that case, we pull out our Utilitarian Happiness E-Meter, and, if it tells us that we're all better off dead, then the person who owns the laser is required, if he has this knowledge, to allow humanity to be destroyed, despite the wishes of anyone else. So, utilitarianism is no guarantee that you're able to take over the laser and save the day.
Of course, you have to make up silly assumptions to demonstrate this, but that just puts it on par with the original argument.
I would not disagree with a claim that the NAP is a generally good moral guideline. But for it to be a stand-alone moral code, it must handle all possible situations, likely or no.
I didn't mention utilitarianism in my previous post. I'm not assuming that saving humanity is "the greatest good". But if you believe that there are no circumstances under which violating an individual's rights is morally justified, I'll conclude that you're crazy or full of shit. In the (admittedly outlandish) scenario I posted previously, would you believe it to be morally wrong for someone to forcibly use the laser weapon to destroy the approaching meteor?
I am not a utilitarian. I am unsatisfied with any single moral code I've studied. I believe consequences matter a great deal. I believe that principles also matter. I think it fabulous that libertarianism has strong principled and consequentialist justifications.
HE Pennypacker said:
Right, but does "handling all possible situations" = "always giving you the answer you intuitively think is correct"? This is just an appeal to consequences: a moral rule is wrong because it leads to undesirable conclusions: If the NAP is true, then I can't aggress against people to save humanity, so it must be false.
Well, where is it written in stone that the truth means always being able to do whatever you want to do, or have any consequence you want to have?
That's why I jump to utilitarianism: there has to be some reason for the consequence to be preferred, other than just subjective preference.
This is just an example of an appeal to ridicule. Sorry, but when your argument is the equivalent of a monkey throwing poop, I think you've lost your way.
HE Pennypaker:
Also, I suspect you're assuming that concluding its wrong to forcibly use the laser weapon to destory the approaching meteor implies that one is required not to do it.
Well, I think it's wrong for someone to be careless and break a window out of my car. What does this imply? If someone breaks my car window, they owe damages.
If the laser is his, and he insists on not using it, does that mean that peoplea are obligated to allow the earth to be destroyed? Or, does it mean that they can forcibly use the laser, but now they owe the guy damages?
The NAP doesn't necessarily have to be as rigid as it's often portrayed to be.
I think intuition is a very important check on the desirability of a moral code, for practical and aesthetic reasons.
Consider the meteor scenario. I take it that if you (or nearly anybody else) were in such a scenario, you would very much wish that someone would forcibly use the laser weapon. Yet, if you believe in the NAP, you would also believe that anyone who did so would be in the wrong. This is an aesthically unappealing property of a moral code, for sure.
It's also a practical barrier to promoting a moral code. If your moral code results in scenarios that frequently conflict with people's moral intuitions, it will be difficult to persuade them that it is correct or worth their while to adopt.
As to NAP proportionality, I have neglected it because it doesn't change the wrongness of the act, only the rightness of responses to a wrong act. For proportionality to be relevant, you must first admit that the person who forcibly uses the misanthrope's laser weapon is in the wrong. That in and of itself is, I submit, unintuitive in this scenario.
HE Pennypacker:
But, if we have to shove people into ridiculous assumptions about the scenario, before we can even appeal to their intuition, what does that say about the strength of the argument? If the NAP seems counter-intuitive in the meteor scenario, it seems very intuitive in other scenarios (i.e., if I want a toy laser from a child, and he won't give it to me, can I beat him up and take it?). So, what does that tell us?
Moral codes that are asthetically appealing to our intuition are subjectively satisfying, but that says nothing objective about them. This is just another appeal to consequence: you might as well say that irrational numbers don't exist because, that way, math is more asthetically pleasing.
(cont'd)
Again, then, why should we reject a moral code based on assuming ridiculous scenarios, like meteors and lasers? Following these appeals to intuition, I'm supposed to reject the intuition of the NAP preventing me from murdering and stealing in everday life because, if there's a meteor coming to earth, and one guy has a laser, I can't take it and save the day? If persuation is the goal, instead of truth, I think it still misses the mark.
(cont'd)
The meteor scenario seemed fitting becuase of Francisco d Anconia's use of the word "apocalypse". But scenarios need not be outlandish to demonstrate shortcomings of the NAP as a moral code. I'll give a couple examples that are unusual but not outlandish.
Is it wrong for a physician to operate on an unconscious person to save his life? He is unable to consent, so NAP would suggest that it would be wrong.
Is it wrong to push a seemingly distracted person out of a dangerous situation (an automobile collision, for instance)? There is no time to ask for consent, so NAP would suggest that it would be wrong.
Other moral codes address this with the concept of hypothetical consent. If actual consent is not possible, and a hypothetical person would consent in such a situation, that action is at least morally permissible (if not morally desirous). This doesn't seem to mesh well with the NAP. What if you foiled a suicide attempt with your actions? What if you accidentally made matters worse by your actions?
If you want to switch to other scenarios that present other problems with the NAP, we can. I'm not sure we'll have time here to go through every possible one, and I doubt I could assert a moral philosophy that wouldn't lend itself to such a discussion.
However, most of these points just seem to be interesting arguments that don't really get to the heart of the NAP. And when they do, the arguments are just more appeals to consequences.
That's an interesting question: Is it wrong or right?
If we define the NAP as the idea that aggression is wrong (i.e., the initiation of threats or violence), then, does operating on an unconscious person constitute aggression? That's an interesting question, and how you answer depends on how you apply the NAP. However, this is a separate question from the validity of NAP: the NAP doesn't fail as a moral principle just because it's sometimes hard to tell what is aggression and what isn't. One can choose to define aggression in different ways, and then apply the NAP, without contradiction.
(cont'd)
Given whether or not you consider it aggression, if the NAP suggests that it's wrong: so what? Do we absolutely know that it should be right, so that, when the NAP says it's wrong, we know that the NAP is presenting us with a contradiction, like falling into an accident fallacy? If we do, then great: you've demonstrated that the NAP is wrong.
However, you clearly don't know it's right or wrong to operate on the guy. The NAP just suggests it's wrong or right, given one interpretation of aggression, and you don't like that. Again, it's just another appeal to consequences: you want physicians to be able to (or prevented from) operate on unconscious people to save their lives, the NAP suggests this would be wrong (or right). That bothers you, so you reject it. The fact that you can argue both ways demonstrates the subjectivity here: there's no clear, objective contradiction presented.
(cont'd)
Again, it's the exact same kind of argument, just a different topic. Is this aggression? If so, should it really be right/wrong/permissible/desirable? Unless we know for sure that it's one of these, but the NAP tells us it's the other, then this is just an interesting discussion about whether or not it's really right or wrong to intervene in situations like this. It doesn't really tell us anything about the NAP that's not dependent on whether or not one considers this aggression, and that seems like a very open question.
(cont'd)
Really? I don't quite understand that.
Assume that "hypothetical consent" is a valid, defined concept. The NAP just prohibits aggression. Is acting with hypothetical consent an act of aggression? One would think that, if it's a valid concept, then, no, it's not, and actions taken with hypothetical consent are hypothetically non-aggressive, and hypothetically permissible. For whatever that's worth, which is debatable. Again, that's a question about the concept of hypothetical consent, not the NAP.
It's unambiguous that cutting up an unconscious person is ordinarily a violation of his rights. Only with that person's consent is it morally permissible. The (not uncommon) case where consent is not possible presents a challenge to the NAP. I think the vast majority of people would agree that the physician who saves the unconscious person's life is not doing wrong. It would be a blow to any moral code that claimed otherwise. And to accomodate the moral validity of this scenario into NAP requires some additional rules or nuances. And the more rules and nuances one adds, the more likely one is to use NAP to jusify non-libertarian acts.
We certainly could go on for some time considering potential objections to the NAP. I'll leave it here for this thread (feel free to have the last word). It's been an enjoyable discourse.
That depends on what you mean by "ordinarily". If you mean "most frequently", then I disagree. If you count surgeries as cutting unconscious people, then these probably far outweigh occurrences of cutting than stabbing unconscious people. I would bet that most cutting up of unconscious people is, therefore, not a violation of rights.
I don't see this yet.
This is an example of argumentum ad populum. Also, if we want to think along these lines, I think that most people would think that a physician who saves the unconscious person's life is not aggressing against the person. Therefore, he would be acting in a manner consistent with the NAP, and not doing wrong by the NAP. Am I required to consider his actions aggression? If so, why?
Actually, argumentum ad populum isn't really a blow to anything.
Yes, if one is going to make it more complex, one should have good reasons why, and not simply special pleading. However, am I required to think of a surgeon as an aggressor against his patients? If I don't, am I really making it unreasonably complex?
I've enjoyed it too. Take care.
It depends on how far away the meteor is. I'm not that pricipled.
"This weapon is owned by a known misanthrope who has clearly and publicly stated that he does not wish his laser weapon to be used to avoid this apocalypse."
Why must these collectivist thought experiments rely on irrational actors?
It's fine to be a utilitarian with your own principles, but monstrous to be one concerning other people's lives.
Not as monstrous as imposing nonutilitarian principles on other people.
Yeah, dipshit. It's just monstrous leaving people alone and not taking from them by force.
Immoral pig.
Yeah, fuck the minority!
Right in the GD ear!!1!1!!!!1!!!
Fuck off, sockpuppet.
yep, stealing from people to make yourself feel better is just wonderful.
Sugar daddies by proxy.
Sorry, but that last part just doesn't seem right. Tulpa may have some blind spots, but to put him in the blind bleating statist camp that Tony defines seems a stretch.
Claimed utilitarianism was superior to the NAP.
You can cram NAP into utilitarianism by basing your utility calculation purely on minimizing aggression. And some believers of NAP believe in it not from an axiomatic/natural-rights perspective, but because they think shit just works out best when NAP is observed.
So if I have to pick a side I'm a natural-rights NAP kinda guy, I've always though it was a pretty unimportant dichotomy to get all worked up about.
THIS.
The NAP and utilitarianism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the way that Hayek is labeled by some as a rule utilitarian because of the way he argued against aggression.
It's just a strawman to assume that the NAP excludes considerations for the greatest good, and it allows people like Tony to morally brow beat people for being so moralistic.
If you believe that freedom and the Golden Rule (another way of thinking about the NAP) will result in the greatest good for the greatest number then it is not incompatible with utilitarianism at all.
But it makes more sense from a moral perspective to have mostly NAP with a dollop of utilitarianism thrown in than the other way around. Because no one really knows what is best for everyone else. What is that expression about busybodies? Actually there are several but I can't recall them at this moment.
I just can't see myself compromising logic and principle just to gain more power.
If you found yourself anywhere close to gaining that power, you might think a little differently.
I have lived and worked in the DC area for 23 years. I know exactly how these people think and work. I am very close to the halls of power.
"it's time...to stop suggesting that those who want the government out of their personal lives are morally suspect."
The frustrating thing is, I think a lot of these people have already figured this out, but after spending their entire lives preaching to the choir they don't have the balls to admit it. So who are the real pussies.
That - and many of these people are dependent (or think they are) on government themselves.
They are too scared to take the government teat from their mouths.
"Then we can concentrate on the important things."
Exactly. A big part of the Republican Party's problems have been due to getting bogged down by the (primarily) "Religious Right" in these absurd anti-liberty debates over what the government can and can't tell individuals to do or not do in their own homes, with their own bodies, etc.
You assume they ever really believed it and weren't pandering to a particular constituency who perverted their own religion into a coercive government force.
Nah, riling up the religious right with Godless bogeymen out to sodomize their little boys and bring'em all to Hollywood is a lot easier than trying to answer to the fact that when it comes to using taxpayer dollars to buy themselves and their cronies free shit, they're only marginally better than the Democrats.
I don't disagree, except that perhaps that I wouldn't think they are better but worse. "Progressive" Democrats at least are honest about their plans (for the most part); they don't pretend to be for smaller government. I just mean that using religion as a cudgel to bludgeon other people into submission to your policy preferences is abhorent.
Honestly, I don't know that I can cite religion as any better or any worse than the myriad of cudgels progressives use ("the world is gonna DIE!!!1!", "you're just GEEEDYYYY!!!1!", "if you don't agree, you're just SHEEPLE!!!1!", etc.) to bludgeon others into submission.
And on some level, my impression is that a lot of the socons are a lot more worried about secular progressivism being foisted on them than they are eager to foist their values. Doesn't exactly excuse it, but it at least suggests there's a possible common ground. Someone trying to co-opt societal coercion to prevent being coerced can be persuaded of "How about nobody foist anything on anyone?" a lot more easily than someone who views the coercion as an end in itself.
Let me add, I'll grant that I'm in New York City. I really only run into a socon maybe once every couple of months. Proglodytes are a constant stream and they basically own the political environment. If I lived in the Florida Panhandle or suburban Tulsa or anywhere in Jesusland, I might see things differently.
"A big part of the Republican Party's problems have been due to getting bogged down by the (primarily) "Religious Right" in these absurd anti-liberty debates over what the government can and can't tell individuals to do or not do in their own homes, with their own bodies, etc."
You sir (or ma'am) are incorrect. The biggest you reason that the Republican party is falling apart is because no one can tell the difference between them and their statist counterparts.
The differences most principled conservatives and libertarians may have pale in comparison to the absolutely absurd positions of the authoritarian leftist agenda.
Imagine the female flight from this website if she had called Stossel a cunt.
Also, kudos to Stossel for making an article intro that actually grabbed my attention.
The govt takes 60% of our money, huh? Okay, here's a thought experiment, toss Coulter the keys and see what that number is when her kind are in charge. It's one thing to attack libertarians for picking the wrong battles, but another to suggest that repubs would actually reduce that 60% figure.
Haven't yet!
Coulter has made a fortune over the years by serving up red meat to social conservatives. Coulter is smart enough to know that the drug laws are problematic and that the reformers have the better arguments. However, if she comes out against the WOD, she would alienate her low IQ social conservative audience. So she uses welfare reform as an excuse not to change the laws, not because she believes that but rather that allows her to still support the WOD and keep the money coming in from nit wit right-wingers.
If, in fact, her shit is all an act to make money...I'd have significantly more respect for her.
Don't know if it is, but her behavior is certainly consistent with such a theory.
Truth
Has anything Ann Coulter ever said or written done one thing to advance her alleged cause?
Psycho conservatism is causing her party to lose elections. Actively alienating minorities of all kinds and calling (at least) half the country parasites (unlike that productive paragon of capitalism Ann Coulter) doesn't seem to be working, oddly enough.
The only way Ann Coulter will ever make sense as a being is when she confesses on her deathbed that it was all a ruse to destroy the Republican Party.
I heard Coulter on Red Eye say that gays don't really, actually, for real, want to get married, so we shouldn't worry about it.
I heard her say that libertarians only care about legalization because they want to smoke pot.
I hear her say pornography is not protected under the first because an erection is not speech.
I don't like Ann Coulter and her opinions on libertarians. So why bother with her?
She also said that womanizers like Tiger Woods " didn't get laid in high school" as if they should have. Is she a fake social conservative or just trying to be "cool" on Red Eye? After I heard that I just stopped caring about what she has to say.
There was some general truth to that in gay culture pre-AIDS but I have not met a hedonistic oriented homosexual in over a decade. The only time it even makes the news is when someone like Andrew Sullivan does something audaciously hypocritical like advocating for gays to abandon multiple partners and the lifestyle that goes with it for traditional social norms while putting out ads for anonymous bareback sex. From the people I know, he is an exception for over thirty gays, and there is something seriously wrong with that dude.
But the point, even cultures change, and Coulter seems to be grasping to something that may had some flesh to it at one time, but has long turned to straw.
Gay men are probably more promiscuous on average than straight men, and probably always will be, since they're men. And lesbians may be the least promiscuous of all by that logic. So combine gay men and lesbians and it probably balances out (lesbians always get left out of this conversation for some reason). Of course it's a completely irrelevant line of inquiry when the problem is a lack of equal legal rights.
Tony implied that gender is innate! Much better than many cosmos here.
Do gays really want to get married?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01......html?_r=0
"A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many."
Where would we be without studies?
Totally ignorant?
Adrian Turcu:
Well, duh. Has she ever tried smoking pot? It's really fun. It would probably do her some good, maybe she'd loosen up.
I'm not sure it's an insult. My spidey sense has long been telling me that Coulter has no problem with pussies at all. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Coulter was really terrible on the show. She was hugely defensive and her answers sounded extra crazy. The kids were laughing at her. Loved it.
A pronounced Adam's apple does not necessarily make Ann Coulter an expert on manliness but it's a notable start.
But they have a point. Look at any article here about those subjects, and it's ripe with PC lefty claptrap. Like calling whores "sex workers" and talking about the "culture war" as if libertarians are on the side of the left.
Cosmotarians don't just want gay marriage so everybody can have equal access to another bag of government goodies. They want cultural acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. They want cultural acceptance of single parenthood and sluts. And they have called for anyone who disagrees with them to be purged from the "libertarian movement."
Of course republicans want to ban sodomy. They also want to ban all religions other than Christianity. They want to censor blasphemous speech too. They hate free speech. I think I read it in The Nation sometime.
Nah, you are just reactionary.
Indeed I am.
Yeah, that's it.
I'll always be a bigot. I'll always see marriage as an institution by and for heterosexuals. I'll always see homosexuality as immoral and disgusting. Though I really don't see why we should defend marriage considering the state of it right now. Women of today are far too slutty and entitled to be marriageable. They'll leave you and ruin your life for their stupid, irrational, female reasons. Then you'll be a divorced dad resisting the evolved urge to shoot dead the latest guy who makes the female tingle down there.
Here's a libertarian view on gay marriage:
http://takimag.com/article/let.....z2M81kVpiq
So, by not supporting the pusillanimous Mitt Romney, Coulter would consider you a pussy? What kind of under the counter cleaners has she been mixing her coke all these years?
When they say "get the government out of our bedrooms," what they really mean is "give me the right to murder my unborn child and give me just as much free shit as a reward for sodomizing my "lover" as you give to two ordinary people who are actually married." The vast majority of people on the "right" think you should have the right to fuck whoever the hell you want. They just don't believe you have the right to kill people fetuses and that marriage should be an institution preserved for those that can actually raise a child the way people evolved to be raised.
I saw her part in full. What she is missing is the basic tenet of objective thinking (what some would call Libertarianism).
She stated opposition to the socialist state as primary, but then denied liberty on other issues. Liberty is the issue.
I AGREE with her about gayness. Marriage does require law, as divorce' will testify to.
Homosexuality has always existed. The idea of homosexuality as a stable union has not.
Objective individuals (I believe) will trace the idea of gay marriage to AIDS (monogamy as a way to not get/spread the disease), and the sympathy garnered for individuals who suffer(ed) from, or were discriminated against during the AIDS crisis.
Gay marriage is new, it's hip. But how many will wed once AIDS is vanquished?
We'll see. Give it time.
See this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01......html?_r=0
There's a lot of talk about Ann Coulter but not much about the point she made:
"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions... who you can hire... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, oh, we want to legalize pot?... If you were a little more manly, you'd tell liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."
It's a good point. Whine all you want, but the Left is attempting and slowly succeeding at implementing an all encompassing State. I understand it's important to stand on your principles. On the other hand, which do you consider a more likely threat? A return to 1920's morality or a government that dictates your life style because they pay for health care and they have a right to tell you what to do.
The Left absolutely believes they are smarter than every one else and that dissent from their point of view is either dishonesty or stupidity. And probably evil.
Just look at what Tony writes. It's not an unusual Leftist point of view. He really believes he's correct and that the government has every right to use any force necessary in order to achieve the aims of state.
No I don't. I believe merely in bringing the United States' social safety net, education, and healthcare standards at least up to the level of countries that have better quality of life metrics.
It's ridiculous for libertarians (the non-anarchist ones) to get on a moral high horse about state force. The only things libertarians want the state to do involve shooting people or locking them up.
And whenever shitbags like you say, "Social Safety Net", you mean precisely what JWatts suggested.
Tony said:
Libertarians are in favor of state force. They are in favor of state force almost exclusively when that force is actual, as in shooting and locking people up. You thus cannot argue that you are against a social safety net because it is accomplished via state force. Being for real force and against metaphorical force is an absurd position. You have to come up with another argument. You do have one, the moral/work ethic bit, but of course that breaks down under the slightest scrutiny too.
Tony said:
They're not making arguments. They're stating the conclusions of their beliefs: that using violence is only permissible for some goals, and not others. Surely, you don't disagree with that, because any argument against it would also crumble under the slightest scrutiny.
It's just the same old strawman again:
1. Libertarian says that government doing is a morally wrong application of violence.
2. Tony claims that the libertarian is saying that the government is wrong because of the violence.
3. Tony incenerates straw man, and claims moralistic victory over the moralizers.
It's like a broken record: learn to read for comprehension, and try something else.
using violence is only permissible for some goals, and not others.
But this is begging the question. If the goals are bad because violence is used to obtain them, then you can't be for the other goals. You reject that argument. So if the goals themselves are bad, then why not just say so and leave the inescapably inconsistent bit about violence out of it?
The answer seems to me to be that you don't want to just come out and say people should go without education and healthcare if they're too poor or unlucky to access it (including children who chose their parents poorly). Even though that's the obvious outcome of your program, you guys hardly ever just say that. Instead you distract with inconsistent question-begging bullshit about state force.
Tony said:
Sorry, go back and read for comprehension. I explicitly said that this is not being said.
A good goal does not justify violence to achieve it. For example, solving the problem of the hungry poor people by killing and feeding the elderly to them, is morally wrong. However, if you're being attacked in an ally, and you fight back, that's morally right.
If you stuggle with this, then I'm really not sure what to say to you. Civilized conversation seems out of the question at that point, however.
First off any claims about moral truths are subjective. I think it's moral for society to provide universal healthcare. You think that's immoral but that it is moral for society to provide universal police protection. Both cost money. Both are meant to improve people's lives. What's the difference? Only an assertion.
You've clearly said that a good goal does justify violence to achieve it. You just want to get to say what goals are legitimate, which, again, is mere assertion.
Tony said:
This statement is self-contradictory and contradictory to so much of what you have already said, at so many levels.
1. Your argument is a self-contradiction. The claim "any claims about more truths are subjective" is a moral claim. If it is true, then this implies that it, itself, is a subjective claim. This implies that there are circumstances in which it is not true. This implies that all moral truths are not subjective. The statement self-destructs.
2. You've frequently moralized about the superiority of seeking the "greater good" instead of (strawman versions of) libertarian-oriented ethics. This is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism != subjectivism: it is a form of objective ethics (i.e., objectively maximizing human well-being). Therefore, you've just contradicted yourself. You can't be a subjectivist and a utilitarian.
3. If you really want to change your mind and try to embrace subjectivism, this implies that all of our claims of morality and ethics have no truth value. You might as well tell us that you like vanilla ice cream, and so we all should, too. We may like your claims, or dislike them, but no one should feel that logic or reason compells someone to agree with you, because it's all a matter of opinion.
If that's where you want to go with this, then, OK. Just don't be shocked if people stop paying attention.
Tony said:
I'd say a good goal is necessary to justify violence, but not sufficient. I'm not sure you understand the difference.
We can keep trying to explain it to you, but we can't make you understand.
If you stuggle with this, then I'm really not sure what to say to you.
"Fuck off sockpuppet" seems to be the general consensus.
Tony, despite having had the difference explained to him literally dozens if not hundreds of times, refuses to acknowledge any distinction between minarchist libertarianism that grants government a monopoly on force as an arbiter of justice, and his utterly misrepresented caricature of stateless anarcho-capitalism (which still grants monopolies on force, just on a smaller, more cooperatist scale). You can only be ignorant until you've been informed. After that you're just stupid.
Would your minarchist or anarchist bodies with monopolies on force (government by definition) be allowed to use that force to extract taxes to pay for universal healthcare. Or are they forbidden for using it in that way, and can only use it for extracting taxes to pay for shooting and imprisoning people?
Do all the choices require taxes? I think that's a false choice.
It is definitely a false choice. There are other ways to fund government than through taxes.
Re: Tony,
"I Project, therefore they are."
When is force not actual?
Somebody should sue his alma mater for a refund.
Who is begging the question now? You can have social safety nets withOUT the state. Did you know that?
You say that only because your scrutinies are all slight, never deep... or smart, or anything of the sort.
Interesting semantic-philosophic question. Can one know something that is untrue?
We solved hunger in this country at one point. Now, after program cuts, we have alarming levels of hunger. Now private charities are begging for government support because they just can't handle the load. You can look this all up. Private charities have never, ever, demonstrated an ability to provide a society-wide safety net. It seems evident that such a system is just incapable.
Again, a hand-waving distraction from the real-world outcomes of your evil ideological premises.
Lol. Government crowds out the charity business by taking over all of its functions and paying for it with taxation, and then when private charity has been crowded out by government and the tapped-out populace can't afford the burden of both tax-enforced charity and the private variety, it is a demonstrated failure of private charity.
Only in fucking Tony-land...
Can one know something that is untrue?
Everything you "know" is untrue, so... QED I guess.
I'd love to see the studies that support your hypothesis, PM.
Or is this just more pulling claims from your ass and hoping it distracts from the awful truth of what your society would actually look like?
I'd love see the studies that support yours, sockpuppet.
Or is this just more pulling claims from your ass and then demanding a higher standard of evidence for other arguments than your own?
Btw, if people actually ARE going hungry in a country that has fully embraced a social safety net, is there some "awful truth" about YOUR society?
People aren't going hungry in any country whose system I'd endorse. The US has a relatively meager welfare state. It used to deal with hunger but does no longer, thanks entirely to your free-market ideology successfully achieving program cuts.
I can't tell from post to post whether I advocate North Korean authoritarianism or the United States status quo.
Tony said:
These food stamp enrollments don't look a "free-market ideology successfully achieving program cuts", and there's even a comparison to other nations.
Your ideas don't match the facts. Maybe you need to spend some time on critical self-reflection and a journey for consistency, before you start lecturing people on their fact-free, contradictory philosophy.
"We solved hunger in this country at one point."
When was that? Looking at these messican illegal alien spawn it doesn't look like many are slowly dying for lack of food, but rather, an abundance of it.
It's just observer bias. It's not like libertarians don't talk about these things with liberals. We don't talk about them to conservatives, because mindless head-nodding IS BORING.
John Stossel, why the hell is Ann Coulter your bedfellow?
Ann Coulter is a repulsive collectivist of the fascist variety. It's grotesque that she calls Stossel and other libertarians pussies, and claims that they have bad priorities when the GOP priorities she defends have grown governemnt to the size she claims is unmanageable. That the word priority wasn't even mentioned by Stossel, is grotesque. That he did not counter-attack her, and the jellyfish GOP is unconscienable. Disappointing on all fronts. She says "Libertarians are pussies" and then they act like pussies.
Can't Stossel see how to deal with her effectively? His writings in his books were far stronger than his lack of objection here. The second he failed to one-up her, and destroy her argument, he confirmed it. Think about the mindless crowd she's pandering to!
I'd say Coulter would have had a point if I thought the Republicans were serious about deficit & debt reduction. When they tout clipping 2% off the baseline budget as a serious deficit reduction program I can't take them or her seriously. Her anti-drug comments and how they relate to the welfare state are also self-contradictory: she says she doesn't want to pay for welfare for drug addicts, but yet she has no problem paying for the cost of arresting and imprisoning them (and then paying for their welfare when they get out & can't get jobs due to their prison record). The reality is that the biggest drivers of the deficit in our "socialist state" are caused by the Republicans' primary constituents: senior citizens and the military / industrial complex. This is why the GOP isn't really serious about reducing government spending. All Coulter is doing resorting to the same schtick that Democratic pundits used on young liberals that were leaning towards Ron Paul in 2011-12 due to his anti-war stance, for the same reasons. The GOP is going to need every single vote they can get in the mid-terms, especially if they keep squeezing out the same kind of steaming turds they did onto the 2012 Presidential ticket. Of course, if this is how they are trying to appeal to young voters, things don't look too good for them. Also, if Coulter really is losing 60% of her paycheck to the government, she needs to fire her CPA.
1. Absolutely agree. I have often wondered why so many libertarians (at least, those who tend to post here) prefer to align themselves with the Republicans. Sure, Republicans pay lip-service to small government. But the general disdain for Liberals seems misguided, given the common ground on social issues. Why isn't there a libertarian wing of the Democratic party, like the Paulites in the Republican party?
2. Friendly suggestion: Paragraphs are your friends.
I have often wondered why so many libertarians...prefer to align themselves with the Republicans.
Why isn't there a libertarian wing of the Democratic party...?
You may possibly have just answered your own question.
Yeah, he exactly answered his own question.
And as to sharing ground with Liberals on social issues, sure on some grounds, but there are plenty of other issues such as, campus speech codes, hate crimes, affirmative action, restriction on firearms, the Fairness Doctrine, etc. where the gulf is pretty wide. And it's getting wider.
The Left is becoming less Libertarian over time while the Right is becoming more Libertarian.
The Left is becoming less Libertarian over time while the Right is becoming more Libertarian.
I think if you look more closely, what you'll see is a Democratic party whose old guard is, like the Republican one, out of tune with younger elements of the party that are more libertarian. Just as young Republicans are less receptive to legislating morality, young Dems are less receptive to affirmative action and the welfare state.
The latter are aware enough to know what's going on with Social Security & Medicare will leave them with the short end of the stick. They see rich minority kids getting getting a leg up because of their race and know something's wrong.
Libertarianism is gaining broadly; don't kid yourself into thinking Republicans are going one way and Dems the other.
"young Dems are less receptive to affirmative action and the welfare state."
Really? Maybe I'm out of touch, but that's not what I've seen at all. I see a young Progressive movement that is trying to aggressively grow both the role and size of the Federal government.
What substantial group of young progressives is trying to reduce the size of the welfare state? For that matter which group was even against Obamacare which is growing the size of the welfare state?
Health care was the Progressive cause-du-jour during Obama's first term. Their instincts are toward more government control, and I grant your point.
But in terms of welfare Progressives, most of whom live in urban areas where they are likely to have seen the clear failure of welfare policies, are not looking to expand it.
Moreover, most young Progressives are strongly in favor of a reduction in the size of the military-industrial complex. So, they agree with libertarians on that part of the small-government issue.
And further, as someone mentioned above, social conservatives frequently want the government to enforce their morals. That's another strike against their small-government credentials.
So, I say again: Why is it that libs align almost exclusively with Republicans?
No, because that's not a very deep answer. A deeper answer might have gone into the lasting effects of the Civil Rights movement and War on Poverty on the Democratic Party. Now that Dems have seen the (ahem) mixed results of those programs, will they be able to eschew the utopianism that produced them and get back to enacting legislation based on how the world really works?
The problem with the, "Libertarians are only pro pot/immigration/gay marriage to suck up to the Liberals" argument is that Libertarians, unlike Liberals, actually have the intention of enacting these changes, and not just using them as a carrot-on-a-stick in election years.
There's a rather good chance that both immigration reform and gay marriage will be enacted this year. And perhaps the only libertarian who will have anything to do with it is Anthony Kennedy.
Intention is worth shit if you have no political power.
Re: Tony,
There's a much greater chance that Obama is just blowing smoke up your ass and you're just feeling the goosebumps.
This sounds like a not unserious wager. Let's put $10,000 on the question.
OMG! Can you believe he wants to wager $10k while poor people are suffering!
/Tony, November 2012
I'm not running for office for Pete's sake.
Ahhh, yes. Tony's $10k is his to spend as he wishes because he isn't seeking office, you see. When you fill out the campaign forms your money becomes a public resource.
I think you whining about poor Mitt Romney being made fun of is more comical than any joke I could make at his expense, so do carry on.
'"Seventy percent socialism" does much more harm.'
Regulations and laws are much worse than taxes. Taxes mean you lose money to spend on lower marginal utility goods. A regulation can prevent you from legally purchasing a good regardless of utility.
And yes, many people aren't stopped in their drug use. But millions have had their opportunities in life destroyed by them. Millions of lives destroyed, and the risk of yours as well - is that ok until the day you're being sodomized in a federal prison?
Apply that to all aspects of life. Everything you might consume or enjoy. Every medical service. Every bit of medicine. Every technology. available in a black market where you risk prison to get it, or regulated out of existence. That's what regulations bring. Medical devices that will never be designed, never built, never sold, and never improving anyone's life.
70% taxes. Pffthph! You can easily pay 1000% markup on drugs compared to world prices.
"They created the business, so they should be allowed to discriminate against stutterers, TV hosts, old people?anyone they don't want."
Ah yes, this is what the left is concerned about when discussing employment discrimination... King George VI, Bill O'Reilly and great uncle Billy Joe Bob are the people Stossel points to. Even the last one - old peopl - isnt that controversial in many field of unemployment. Why not mention the big types of discrimination Mr. Libertarian? Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, Muslims, Jews?
I'm starting to think Coulter may be right...maybe libertarians are a bunch of pussies...even when they try to prove their not pussies by bringing up discrimination, they bring up discrimination against people who no one really cares about...
I apologize for the grotesque grammar...I'm at a bar typing on my iPad.
*people, not people
*Employment, not unemployment
*they're, not their
Screw Stossel for giving precious airtime to a buffoon like you-know-who...
Any libertarian who is for gay marriage forfeits the right to be taken seriously. To expand the scope and roll of civil marriage is to expand the scope and roll of government. Period. Even if you're a social liberal.
Any such libertarian is a useless human being. You can't find room in your ideology for the pragmatic and freedom-enhancing step of equal rights even as you wait for a utopia of no government recognition of marriage? You can't get where you want to go. That's just reality. So your beliefs are tantamount to endorsing a violation of equal protection under the law. Libertarians of all kinds need to figure out the painful reality that feeling things in your heart isn't sufficient to being ethical.
Abolitionists couldn't find room in their ideology for the pragmatic and freedom-enhancing step of allowing slaves to own slaves. They couldn't get where they wanted to go. Unethical cunts!!!!
Libertarians of all kinds need to figure out the painful reality that feeling things in your heart isn't sufficient to being ethical.
Hahahahahahaha. Coming from you? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Project much?
So are you claiming slavery was ended by people feeling really hard into the air? That process took a century of incremental steps culminating in war, the ultimate pragmatic action.
I presume you're claiming I endorse some kind of Soviet-style system. No, I'm endorsing merely what has turned countries from Europe to Australia to North America into relatively decent places to live, meaning the best places to live for more people than has ever been realized. I've never advocated anything that hasn't already been tried and proved successful.
Tony said:
Actually, it began at least as far back as a guy named Socrates, a few thousand years ago. He was just a philosopher, and he pointed out that slavery was just a form of theft.
The state didn't really like him much, so he was executed. At the time, slavery was pretty much endorsed and enabled by the state.
Eventually, a few millennia later, governments finally realized he was right, and slavery was finally abolished. Glad it only took the people in power a few thousand years to realize the immorality of slavery. Who knows what else they could figure out in a few more?
But, it reinforces your point: without political power, you don't have anything, just like Socrates. Except, of course, whatever consolation being correct and virtuous gives you, when you're being executed by stupid statist stooges.
Conservatives that fight against libertarians are nothing but dumbshit republican shills. They put their own retarded morality ahead of real problems that will end their own way of life.
...that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.
... by giving us permission slips to receive government benefits in exchange for having a monogamous relationship?
A good way to examine civil marriage is to ask yourself if you'd invent it if it didn't exist. I cannot fathom anyone who would answer in the affirmative.
Coulter's statement and Stossel's response both strike me just...wrong. The war on drugs is one of the top three worst domestic policies, if not THE worst. The only other two that come close are health care and the tax code. It provides more leverage to destroy rights than any other domestic policy.
While Coulter's point that the war on drugs is way down on the list of bad things the government does is wrong, Stossel's reaction here implicitly agrees with it! He's right that abrasiveness and an inability to compromise don't get much done (Ron Paul, anyone?), but he's wrong that this is the problem with Coulter's position. Ending the war on drugs deserves more of our attention and effort than virtually any other domestic policy.
Awkward bedfellows? I don't sleep with dudes (i.e. Coulter).
like Frank responded I am taken by surprise that a person can make $9582 in 1 month on the internet. did you look at this website http://WWW.FLY38.COM
"If Republicans were smart"
they're not...............
I think this exchange is a great example of the difference between Republicans and people who are REAL conservatives. It seems that Republicans are either in denial about the definition of conservatism, or they just don't care any more. Coulter's arguments can be boiled down to the statement, 'When things get tough, compromise.' In my opinion, Coulter is a Liberal as Barack Obama, she just isn't as honest about it. Her form of conservatism wants to control everything, just in the way Republicans see fit, not the way free citizens do. This is just Statism. This mindset is the result of years of political intrigues involving compromise instead of responsible leadership. When you have a specific set of rules that guide your behavior, like, say a CONSTITUTION, you only get outside of those rules by compromising. Compromise is a mature, useful tactic when used in a relationship with undefined boundaries, but our Federal government is not undefined, and we have compromised ourselves into a party system that values winning and control over freedom and adherence to our founding principles.
That Libertarians should be associating with a neo-fascist psychopath like Coulter is obscene. The main reason that the Libertarian movement continues to be marginal and irrelevant is that many of its partisans can't decide whether to be Libertarians or conservatives, and another large chunk can't decide whether to be Libertarians or anarchists. Some even try to be all three at once!
Mom, Dad... I love you both, really and truly I do. Please don't fight.
And, really, Stossel and Coulter ARE my (political) mom and dad.
If you think Frank`s story is terrific,, last pay-cheque my friend's brother basically also made $4230 just sitting there a ninteen hour week from there apartment and the're buddy's half-sister`s neighbour done this for 3 months and worked and got paid more than $4230 in there spare time on their mac. applie the information from this address, http://www.wow92.com
What Stossel should have said:
"So, you think that a government strong enough to root through our personal belongings for drugs, and put us in prison, and confiscate our property without trial by jury isn't a socialist society? Are you stupid?"
If questioned about the "stupid" comment: "Ray Kurzweil defines stupid as 'unwittingly self-destructive.' You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that allowing the government to ban drugs on the basis of unfounded racism is stupid, and directly contradictory to the Bill of Rights. You republicans claim to defend the Bill of Rights, but you're so stupid and obviously hypocritical that you've surrendered the moral high ground to liberals. And that's why you got your asses kicked in the prior two elections, by the way. Your pussy 'Republicans in name only' who allow the Bill of Rights to be trampled in the name of bigotry and social intolerance have made fiscal conservatism toxic to the voters of the USA. A pox on you America-hating cowards in the GOP."
If Stossel had said something like that, he would have giant crowds cheering him. Instead, he goes for the subdued intellectual socratic questioning when someone just called him a "pussy." When someone insults you, you intellectually dominate their argument, and embarrass them from a position of knowledge.
...Or, you look like a pussy.