Libertarian History/Philosophy

Ann Coulter: Groupthink is Destroying Libertarian Pussies

|

Regular readers (and watchers of John Stossel's eponymous Fox Business show) may remember that back in February, Ann Coulter said "Libertarians are pussies." The occasion was a Stossel taping at the International Students for Liberty conference.

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

Well, if being a pussy isn't bad enough, Coulter is now accusing libertarians of suffering from groupthink. Here she is on the March 18 episode of the Dennis Prager radio show (as transcribed by The Daily Caller):

"I hate groupthink. And the libertarians have it every bit as much as the college liberals I speak to. I give a lot of college speeches and it was the same thing, you know where you all have to cheer together and you all have to boo the same stuff. And I guess when you're young and insecure feeling like you're part of a group is important to you. If I was ever like that, it would be gun-to-the-mouth time. But OK, I understand the psychology of it."

Coulter counsels college-age libertarians to

to put down their pro-pot signs and read some Richard Epstein — probably the leading libertarian in the country," she continued. "Also Richard Posner, they're both at the University of Chicago, and Gary Lawson, a law professor up at [Boston University]. These are smart intellectual libertarians. There's an awful lot of we need to be privatizing now. I am more libertarian than these whipper-snappers calling themselves libertarians. You know, how about privatizing the New York City subway system, the bus system?"

As it happens, Richard Epstein is hanging his hat at NYU and the Hoover Institution mostly these days (he's emeritus from Chicago) and Richard Posner is nobody's first-order idea of a libertarian. But Coulter's right that there's plenty of things that can and should be privatized. And she's wrong to imply that somehow a commitment to getting the government out of providing services better provided by the private sector means you can't also call for ending drug prohibition.

I recommend checking out my debate with Coulter, whose company I always enjoy, from last year's Independence Institute Founder's dinner.

Advertisement

NEXT: Senate To Vote on Internet Sales Tax

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. “Coulter, whose company I always enjoy”

    NTTAWWT

    1. I fully support Nick’s freedom to associate with trannies all he likes.

    2. Nick should be careful what he chases – she’s likely to put an eye out with one of those elbows.

    3. Her barbs and jokes at CPAC, where she is less defensive than when before libertarians, are indeed entertaining.

      Ms. Coulter’s history with libertarians predates the recent SFL/Stossel kerfuffle.

      She was once approached by the Connecticut Libertarian Party to run for Senate against a RINO Republican when she opined that she would seek the LP line to run against him and make his lose to the Democrat. The LP decided she was not sufficiently pro-decriminalization so it thanked her for the meeting and did not allow her the candidacy. A woman scorned?

      Early in her career out of law school she became friends with a libertarian Republican fellow Hill staffer and lawyer. He stills reads her books before they are published and tries to persuade her each time to remove the most no libertarian elements. Following CoCo Chanel’s advice about accessories, she is reported to only remove one item each book.

      1. At her book signing in DC last year at the offices of Americans for Tax Reform, Ms. Coulter entered to first run into me and a Ron Paul donor to whom I had just given a Gary Johnson button. It was the day after Romney’s one good debate, and she grabbed my friend’s blouse and looked into her face nose to nose and said “Oh no no no no no no no – after that f-a-b-u-l-o-u-s performance last night you must be for Romney. “. She then grabbed my own epynomous button for my Congressional campaign on my shirt and stared at me, to which non-confrontationaly said “It’s for a local campaign.” She released me intact from her grip. Later one could hear her reply to a book buyer’s question of how her day was going – “it was great until I got here, and even here there are Gary Johnson buttons!”

        1. When someone invades your personal space in that way, it only takes a quick poke to the Adams’ apple to make them back the fuck off, usually.

          -jcr

      2. My recollection was that Coulter was the one seeking the LP nomination and initiated the conversation.

    4. I can definitely see Nick and Ann re-enacting the Howard and Dominique rape scene.

      1. I don’t think they have ever both been single at the same time. And who would be the rapist?

        1. The one with the bigger penis.

          1. Oh right… Could you be more specific?

          2. Photos are over in Hit and Run.

      2. MY EYES!

  2. Time magazine is still published?

    1. It’s mostly published at night.

        1. I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.

          1. It’s the only way to be sure.

    2. That occurred to me as well.

    3. My next doctor’s appointment is in June. Maybe I’ll check it out then.

      1. You’re gonna get last October’s issue. Wait for your December followup visit to look for June’s issue.

        1. Is there any difference? Haven’t the editorials been the same since the late 70s?

  3. This is just Ann picking up on the cosmo/paleo infighting and pressing on it. She has a point in text but the inflammatory manner in which she makes it means that the spirit of what she is saying is way off.

    1. She’s miles away from the problem, which is that libertarians fundamentally disavow most Republican practices and policies. Not just WoD, but out-of-control spending, unlimited government, and a multiplicity of attacks on civil liberties.

      It’s not wimpy, of course, to stick to your principles. Whether libertarians as a whole might gain from focusing on a few core points and staying off the periphery is a tactical issue, not a fundamental flaw in libertarianism.

      In any event, I daresay that it is conservatives that have the problem, not libertarians. Otherwise, how did they lose to an unpopular president presiding over a crappy economy?

      1. Otherwise, how did they lose to an unpopular president presiding over a crappy economy?

        Those pussy libertarians stayed home or voted for that pussy Gary Johnson.

        1. It certainly didn’t help their cause, now did it? If, say, Ron Paul had been nominated or maybe even on the ticket, I’d have voted GOP.

          And, despite everyone acting like Obama won in a landslide, the differential wasn’t really very big and was almost certainly smaller than the number of libertarian and quasi-libertarian voters. Some of those voted for Romney, to avoid Obamanation II, but most likely didn’t vote at all, with a smaller number voting GJ.

          1. You make it sound like we DID cost Romney the election, Pro.

            Which, pending SCOTUS turnover, would be fine with me. If only the Repubs would realize they can’t win without us, they might pander to us a little more.

            1. I didn’t mean to go quite that far, but I think we were a contributing factor. Seriously, how many times do free market and/or limited government people have to see that the GOP is perfectly willing to be as statist and socialist as the Democrats when in power to not vote or to vote LP? Again, I think the not-voting is the big number, not the LP vote.

              The GOP has been wondering why they didn’t get a bigger turnout.

              1. “Seriously, how many times do free market and/or limited government people have to see that the GOP is perfectly willing to be as statist and socialist as the Democrats when in power to not vote or to vote LP?”

                Twice, shame on me….

                1. Precisely. And I think many voters–including, incidentally, some of those old-school Democrats who were about great social justice within a limitedish government and freeish markets–have opted out of voting. I mean, what’s the point? What’s the difference between Clinton, Bush, and Obama? Really?

                2. I left the presidential box unticked in 2008 because I refused to vote for Bob “I was for the PATRIOT Act before I was against it” Barr or either of the major party alternatives that year. Voted GJ in 2012 for all the good it did, but at least my conscience is clear.

            2. If only the Repubs would realize they can’t win without us…

              I think that’s more true than you suggest. It’s not that there’s a huge swath of libertarian voters out there. It’s just when Republicans run on (vaguely) libertarian arguments, they sound…principled and even, dare I say it, not like a bunch of cranky old white guys.

          2. HEY! Don’t forget the people who voted for me! Myself included. There actually were some – I was gratified, if crushed and receiving no electoral votes…

      2. We all lost to an unpopular president presiding over a crappy economy. Especially those that voted for him.

    2. Huh?

      Both support drug legalization so where is the infighting?

      1. It’s a pretty routine paleo talking point to bash *reason* over the head with its alleged “obsession” or “preoccuption” with “heroin in vending machines” and gay marriage.

        I’ve read it. Don’t play dumb.

        1. Heroin vending machines you say…

          *furiously scribbles out patent application*

          1. Heroin vending machines? You’d put half of Baltimore and Camden out of work, and do you really think that NYPD would put up with the pay cut?.

            1. No, if you put a steel box full of heroin in southwest Baltimore it would be gone within a few days. Or someone would be living in it.

        2. I always thought the paleo point was that libertarians just want to have sex with animals…after we’re high of course. Or is that the left’s reason to avoid libertarians?

        3. The writers at reason only rarely write about the constant drug use and homosexual group sex that occurs in their offices. And if you bash them about it, they don’t invite you to the orgies, which is why you rarely hear any male conservative Republicans criticizing them about it anymore.

          1. You misspelled “orifices.”

          2. LOL Bruce!

        4. As a paleo, Ive never seen that. Im pro heroin in vending machines.

          Any paleolibertarian is pro heroin in vending machines or he isnt really a libertarian at all.

          1. I’m pro used panties vending machine. I hear that they’re popular in Japan.

          2. I’m pro used panties vending machine. I hear that they’re popular in Japan.

            1. I believe in it so much that I posted it twice, or maybe the server or whatever did it.

            2. I believe in it so much that I posted it twice, or maybe the server or whatever did it.

              1. I guess it’s the latter.

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

    What a stupid cunt.

    1. Shorter Ann:

      Let’s you and him fight!

      Not that VMI and Cato need much prompting.

      1. Your transactional analysis is correct.

    2. “You know, if you were a little more manly…”

      Like Ann is!

      1. I was excoriated the other day for basically saying that. Some people…this is why there aren’t any libertarians. ANY. libertarians.

        1. She’s correct about the cowardice in the Liberaltarian impulse, but incorrect that that means one should be silent on drugs and gay marriage.

          And since Ann favors special civil rights for African Americans because of their history, she has her own liberal brown nosing. So maybe it is projection on her part.

    3. Of course, we tell people that the government should be out of 99% of our business–let’s see the Republicans say that. Go ahead, propose that we close the FTC, get out of healthcare, etc. Really, go ahead.

    4. Well, the first part of that Coulter quote is true. But ending the drug war (even relaxing it a bit) is a noble cause. As for SOME libertarians sucking up to liberals, that’s certainly true. I also know libertarians who suck up to Republicans.

      But, in general, sucking up is not a huge problem for most libertarians. We’re more the middle finger type.

  5. Can Reason beat this dead horse anymore? She said this stuff what a month ago? It is starting to look like Coulter touched a nerve or something.

    1. “Here she is on the March 18 episode of the Dennis Prager radio show”

    2. Apparently she did. She has a point in that there are many issues that we should be screaming loudly about, but she is way off on the drug war.

      If we here are half-way representative of the libertarian population, then the objections to the war on drugs has nothing to do with liberals. I have never seen any libertarian suck up to liberals….unless you call spitting and cussing at them sucking up.

      1. I actually like to lead them into pit traps like drug legalization and law enforcement abuse and employer-employee relations because you can start at a position that is acceptable to any progressive and lead them logically to a point where they are spitting and cussing at you for trapping them into agreeing with positions held by people Rachel Maddow and the NYT sneer at.

        1. you can lead them with to conclusions with logic?

          I can’t get around them trying to change the subject every other sentence with completely irrelevant emotional laden bullshit.

          1. No, its easy. “I, too, am in favor of marijuana legalization.”
            Them: “Yeah, man, legal pot.”
            Me: “Think of all the money that would be available for healthcare and education”
            Them: “Yeah”
            Me: “Plus we could fire about 50000 state workers.”
            Them: “WAIT, what?!”

          2. From my experience, there are many progressives who are intelligent and willing to argue honestly. The best way to sow division and cause confusion amongst a group of leftists is to accept their premises, speak their lingo and yet demonstrate how regressive, inconsistent and authoritarian their policies are.

            Some leftists are leftists because they think they genuinely believe they are saving the world, helping the poor and fighting bigotry, but fail to comprehend economic principles or the unintended consequences of their policies. Others are statists who will willingly reject statism on a certain policy because one of their important special interests supports it (young people, Latinos, etc) or they themselves engage in it.

            1. I’d like to say I agree with you, but the majority of polite, reasoned discourses I’ve had have, interestingly, been with far-religious-right types. Possibly because they, too, are used to their public personae trumping their arguments.

              My arguments with progressives tend to die on the vine because they automatically start with the assumption that we “don’t care” and that libertarian policies start with callous indifference. (Republican policies too, for that matter).

              Until libertarians (and the GOP for that matter) start couching their policy speak in terms of “you guys are not actually helping people; HERE’S how to help people” these sorts of discussions are just gonna boil down to ZOMG Kochtopus Rethuglican evil heartless bastards. Which is maybe what you’re saying in your first graf.

              1. That’s exactly what I was saying. I was an editorialist at what is consistently considered the most left-wing school in the country. I wrote pieces condemning everything from minimum wage to foreign aid but basing it not on “OMG gov’t is evil” but that the unintended consequences of bad economics inevitably lead to regressive results.

                Aside from one or two virulent statists/Marxists, mostly I received either indifference or positive feedback. I think a left-of-center miniarchist movement that doesn’t explicitly call themselves libertarian could do real damage to left-wing statism.

                1. They have to come to us. Otherwise, if you rewrite minarchist to mean “left of center”, the Chomskys will hijack and play semantical monkeyshines with that word, just like “liberal” and “progress”.

                  In collectivism, the words dictate YOU!

                2. I wrote pieces condemning everything from minimum wage to foreign aid but basing it not on “OMG gov’t is evil” but that the unintended consequences of bad economics inevitably lead to regressive results.

                  Utilitarian arguments against statism generally lead the “progressive”, whether he be “genuine” or otherwise, to want to amend the system while basing it on the exact same principles. The problem is never bad principles, it’s always that the system merely needed more/better Top Men.

                  So congrats on convincing your progressive friends that, say, public school sucks because blacks have worse graduation rates. Now ask them if they want to privatize the schools, bust the teachers’ unions, eliminate the federal Department of Education, and move away from mandated standardized testing.

                  Just for the sake of formality to complete the thought experiment, now ask them if they would rather raise property taxes on high-value homes, bus black students cross-district to the better schools where the more affluent white folks go, buy every student an iPad, subsidize high speed internet access for low income and minority students, hire more teachers, increase federal funding for poor-performing local school districts, and “pay teachers like professionals”.

                  Agreeing on the existence of a problem is utterly and completely meaningless if your approaches to a solution are 180 degrees apart, which they inevitably will be when they are based on polar opposite ideology.

              2. I find that when you point out to most leftovers that their cherished statist programs, like urban public schools, are engines of racism, bullying, and impoverishment, they simply go into denial and insist you need medication.

                1. It’s certainly a good way to find out if you’re talking to a true progressive or an unrepentant statist.

                  In my opinion, true progressives actually give a damn about the values they claim to have and thus can be convinced that their current means of statism is contrary to those. Statists are merely borrowing the rhetoric to convince ignorants and idealists to keep them in power, so they can maintain control via dependency on government for a broad rainbow of special interests. After all, these idealists wouldn’t ever “hurt the poor” by leaving them without the state’s helping hand like those evil, greedy libertarians, right?

                2. I always hear the problem is that they aren’t getting enough funding. It’s not a structural problem, or a fundamental problem with the concept, it’s that one or two bad eggs are ruining the commune. Most statists don’t accept that the presence of those “bad eggs” is effectively a given, and any system that can’t succeed unless every single person is devoted to “the cause” is too brittle to work.

                  When I argue for a minarchist government, or even for a total absence of government, they go nuts about how that would never work because it depends on everyone cooperating with each other. When I then point out that the current system depends on that, except that it gives some people the power to literally kill other people for disobeying them, that’s somehow a better system.

            2. “From my experience, there are many progressives who are intelligent and willing to argue honestly.”

              Man…I wish I had your experiences. Mine have been quite different…

              Did you know that the Holocaust was Ayn Rand’s idea?

            3. I’ll accept no premise. One must reject every false premise but force that other person to take their premise to it’s logical conclusion. We have to teach these people how to think rationally before we can expect them understand basic concepts.

      2. But we are screaming loudly about those other issues, so she doesnt have a point.

        1. No one with an ax ever hears enough grinding.

          And as far as the “group think” thing, how often do you really get just one argument around here? Not much by my experience.

      3. To be fair, I recall quite a bit of liberal-love a few years back. That’s the thing with libertarians, they hate those in power no matter which team they’re on.

    3. And I was just going to say “Cue John thinking Reason is overreacting for writing yet another piece on Ann Coulter being an insulting douche”.

      1. Douches have their uses.

        Where is Nikki to write us a poem?

        1. Coulter’s surely an insulting douche
          And while she may have a point?may?
          About groupthink, it’s neither
          Here nor there in the face
          Of TEAM reality.
          Blue, red, pussy?
          Those choices?
          I’ll be…
          Cunt.

          1. No rhyme! F–

            1. If rhyming’s what you want
              I can do that too
              I was asked for a poem
              I gave one?don’t sue!

              But I guess I am safe
              From pussies like you
              If groupthink doesn’t
              Turn ‘gainst me the whole crew.

              1. Too Dr. Seussy. I want a sonnet. In proper form. And then a senryu.

                1. Ann Coulter post does not get a sonnet. That is my preferred form. (Spencerian)

                  1. Spenserian: because Shakespeare’s just too ghetto. Interlocking quatrains FTW, bitchez.

                    1. Interlocking quatrains FTW, bitchez.

                      Precisely so.

                    2. Interlocking quatrains
                      is that safe for work?

              2. Now the meter is all fucked up! F-

              3. Your meter is all off. It disappoints me.

                Ms. Coulter, she of age and Adam’s Apple
                Whose insults turn in cheap and vulgar ways
                Whose horse-like face must all the men repel
                And through her words brings hate to all my days

                Her eyes like coal unswept from off the ground
                Her thoughts are nought but those of neocons
                And all mans legs are shut when she’s around
                And shrieking like mad harpies they are gone

                To Coulter all our thoughts are those of group
                Yet it is she who speaks for thoughtless crowd
                And as her mind devolves and reason flies the coop
                Her writing is as mindless as Mo Dowd

                Tis she herself who offers Coulter Praise
                And all the rest from Coulter turn their gaze

                This took me like ten minutes. There were probably better things I could have been doing.

                1. See? ghetto.

                  1. And not even one gangbang joke.

                    1. If you want gang bang jokes you should go read actual Shakespeare. That guy’s mind consisted of nothing but filth, poetry and possibly syphilis.

                    2. And footnotes.

          2. This is why there are no females.

          3. *sung in a Cockney accent*

            There once was a lady called Coulter
            Who loved nothing as much as hard pole-er
            We were her enemies
            She called us pussies
            But she had our best groupthink in her hole-ers

            1. Coulter is a dragon of great fame
              Reason’s Cosmos she wanted to tame
              She rabidly spews
              Which isn’t quite news
              And commenters respond to her game.

          4. Libertarians
            Ann Coulter calls them pussies
            Who cares what she thinks

      2. I get it they are pissed off about what she said. But how many posts does it require to convey that?

        1. Did you miss the part where she said new insulting stuff on the 18th of this month?

          Jesus christ dude.

          1. So what? It is the same shit. Jesus Christ dude, if Coulter is so damned stupid and unimportant, why does Reason obsess over her every statement?

            1. I don’t know if “obsess” is the right word, but Reason covers A LOT (I mean A LOT) of stupid and unimportant things, depending on one’s view of stupid and/or unimportant. You only seem to get annoyed when your particular hobby horse (Ann Coulter, Mitt Romney, Dronez) are covered.

              NTTAWWT

              1. We ALL have our “thing”, but we’re still friends here.

            2. Calling us pussies and then a month later accusing us of groupthink aren’t the same thing (except for them both being insults).

              As for Reason talking about it: I think Nick has a chubby for her.

            3. Who said unimportant? Her remarks get attention, so they are worth pointing out on a libertarian forum when she says stupid shit about libertarians.

            4. John| 3.21.13 @ 3:18PM |#
              “So what? It is the same shit. Jesus Christ dude, if Coulter is so damned stupid and unimportant, why does Reason obsess over her every statement?”
              John,
              Why are you posting here?

        2. More than just yours.

          1. You should just shut up and cooperate in the groupthink.

          2. You should just shut up and cooperate in the groupthink.

          3. You should just shut up and cooperate in the groupthink.

            1. If this was intentional, well done. If it was the squirrels, this is priceless.

    4. Ann Coulter is not a stupid woman, I’ll say that.

      1. She’s either stupid or a willfully dishonest troll. You’re right though, she’s probably the latter.

        1. Logically, Lyle didn’t say Coulter wasn’t stupid . . .

    5. John|3.21.13 @ 2:29PM|#

      Can Reason beat this dead horse anymore? She said this stuff what a month ago? It is starting to look like Coulter touched a nerve or something.

      shut up, pussy. yeah, she looks like a dead horse, but until dismembered, im not convinced anything is completely dead.

      1. The bacteria on the dead horse is still alive. Let’s beat that.

      2. I think even Eddie the Head fears her.

    6. Well, I kind of noticed that there is one editor in particular who keeps bringing it up. And, yeah, its starting to look a bit protesteth too much. I didn’t take it personally, and just assumed it’s Ann’s way of hitting on us. She’d like to be at the end link of a libertarian grudge fuck train. Can’t blame the ol’ gal for wanting to switch up.

    7. Everything about her sells. In a way doing a story on her here is a less smarmy version of the constant cyber pay per view gang bangs Salon and other leftover websites do on Ayn Rand’s corpse when they need more traffic.

  6. Coulter’s definition of groupthink: when two or more people agree with each other.

    1. when two or more people agree with each other.

      Which still doesn’t explain libertarians!

      1. robc’s two rules of libertarianism, since everyone else is paraphrasing them:

        1. Everyone agrees with libertarians about something.

        2. No two libertarians agree about anything.

        1. I agree with these rules.

          1. Collectivist!

        2. I like to think of myself as an ancap with a traditional but urbane Dunmer attitude about social mores.

    2. I’m pretty sure H&R is free of that. Many of the commentariat don’t agree with themselves an hour later, much less other people. The whole point of being a libertarian is that its a good excuse to hate the rest of humanity.

      1. “…its a good excuse to hate the rest of humanity.”

        I need an excuse?

        1. At one time I did. Now I feel justified by scientific observation.

      2. Yeah, we may hate each other, but we hate you more.

        Proposed Libertarian Motto
        which I don’t expect ANYONE around here to agree with. . .

        1. It doesn’t have the same ring as Fuck you, cut spending.

        2. Which part of that is the proposed libertarian motto?

  7. Damn whacko bird college groupthink libertarians.

  8. Why is it when they talk about libertarians they think our whole universe revolves around pot? I mean I like beer too.

    1. hey, let’s not forget hookers and blow.

      1. No sodomy or three and four ways?

        Racist!

    2. It ain’t even close. I like beer a helluva lot more than I like pot. Unless that pot is cut with angel dust its pretty fucking boring.

      ‘Embrace the night.’

  9. We’re living in a country that is 70 percent socialist. The government is taking 60 percent of your money. They’re taking care of your health care, of your pensions, they’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations are gonna be…and you want to suck to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, we want to legalize pot.

    I still say that Coulter had a point.

    I think she’s mischaracterizing Libertarians’ desire to legalize pot as an attempt to get chummy with liberals.

    It’s not. So she’s dead wrong on that point.

    But I’ve said before that we’re losing the War(tm), the enemy is occupying our houses, eating our food, drinking our beer and sleeping with our women, and we consider it a great victory for Liberty when a food truck vendor is finally granted a license to operate.

    We’re reduced to fighting in the streets for privileges.

    1. And she’s wrong to imply that somehow a commitment to getting the government out of providing services better provided by the private sector means you can’t also call for ending drug prohibition.

      I…don’t see that implication. Coulter is wrong to say that we are pro-drugs because we want to suck up to liberals. But she has a point in that libertarians have put too much emphasis on ending drug prohibition. A point I have to agree with.

      1. Drug prohibition has implications far beyond whether Epi and Warty can snort lines off each other tits.

        It affects domestic policing, foreign adventurism, financial regulation, corrections, and issue pertaining to the first, second, and fourth amendments.

        Prohibition is the single biggest issue facing the Movement right now.

        1. No, you idiot. My tits are the biggest, you idiot.

        2. I agree with Hugh. Liberals, for the most part, will say “I’m for legal pot, but those other drugs are bad” and that’s what Coulter wants to think libertarians are doing. When what we really want is to disassemble the whole massive apparatus of control that has been built on the drugwar. When I discuss legalization with liberals, it usually ends with me saying that legalizing meth and heroin is at least as important as legalizing pot and them getting all huffy.

          1. Liberals, for the most part, will say “I’m for legal pot, but those other drugs are bad”

            Of course, cocaine users don’t represent a significant enough voting demographic so fuck ’em.

        3. The rule 34 implications of this are positively nauseating. In fact I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

        4. No. The Fed and the GWOT are the largest. By far. But the War on Drugs is clearly 3rd.

      2. I think the drug war is pretty important from a humanitarian point of view.

        It’s also a proxy for the Total Healthcare State which liberals have embraced, and by extension, have embraced the Drug War.

        If we can beat back the War on Drugs, we can weaken a tremendous foundation for the Total State.

        1. “It affects domestic policing, foreign adventurism, financial regulation, corrections, and issue pertaining to the first, second, and fourth amendments.”

          It has been used as a pretense for turning the 4th into dead letter.

          “If we can beat back the War on Drugs, we can weaken a tremendous foundation for the Total State.”

          Yes, it would be nearly the death of the total state.

          Ann is making screeching noises about our opposition to the drug war because she supports the drug war. She is team red through and through.
          She wants us as allies, but only as long as we attack liberal-only policies.

          1. I think she’s screeching about it because she perceives (wrongly) that liberals are against it. They’re not. Liberals progressives are 110% on board with the drug war.

            There is the occasional young obama voting hippie who’s against medical marijuana prohibition (emphasis medical) but gets really quiet when they ban 4 loko.

            Coulter is living in the 60s when people associated with the cultural revolution wanted to smoke pot and drop acid. Those same people want to regulate everything from the food you buy at the grocery store to what you can pack in your kids’ lunch.

            When you get a letter from your school telling you to no longer pack a soda in your kids lunch, that’s the drug war talkin’, baby.

            1. John Roberts “It’s a tax!” may have saved Obamacare at the last minute, but the whole defense of it all the way up to the supreme court was the infinite commerce clause.

              Would we have Obamacare today if Scalia had opted to actually put restrictions on the commerce clause far short of allowing Obamacare by siding against the government on Raich?

              Instead, he signed up to not engauging in commerce itself being a form of commerce and tossed all his jurisprudence in the trash can in order to protect the cheeldrun from pot.

            2. “There is the occasional young obama voting hippie who’s against medical marijuana prohibition (emphasis medical)…”

              The emphasis is on “medical”, because those hippies do not want anyone making profits on selling marijuana, as that might involve Big Business getting a piece of the action.

        2. “It’s also a proxy for the Total Healthcare State which liberals have embraced”

          Ergo, it should be referred to as the Liberal’s War on Health. One look at Britain’s NHS is all of the proof one needs.

        3. If we can legalize heroin, I think the war on vice (not just drugs) is basically over.

          To get that far, the entire mindset of the majority of the country will have to change, so ending the war on drugs is a massive victory.

          1. We’d need to legalize crack and meth to end the war on poor people too.

            1. Well, yeah. But I figure those come before heroin.

              Also, if cocaine was legal, would anyone use crack or meth?

              1. especially if you could get high quality cocaine with no rat poison.

              2. oh, drug users come in all shapes and sizes.

      3. So you think that the massive growth of the police-prison since the 1980s would have happened without the drug scare? Or you think putting several million poor people in prison for something rich people get, at best, an adjudicated sentence is okay? I’d say its pretty fucking important to the central tenants of liberty and freedom from unreasonable government interference.

      4. But she has a point in that libertarians have put too much emphasis on ending drug prohibition.

        How many things cost a comparable amount of money and blood, while simultaneously being so clearly not the government’s business at all? And since I wrap the obsolescence of the FDA with the end of the Drug War…I mean, really. It’s just huge.

        1. obsolescence of the FDA

          Then who stands between us and the dangers of artisanal mayo!?

          1. Do you not trust sloopy to save us all from that scourge?!?

            1. Save us? THE ARTISINAL MAYO IS COMING FROM SLOOPY’S BARN!

              1. In a way, it is. We’re using only farm fresh, free-range eggs that we collect daily. And soon, we will source our olive oil from a local supplier (until we can pick and press our own olives this fall).

                We do so because it’s good marketing and a better, cheaper product for us to produce. If there’s a contingent of people out there that want it for pretentious reasons, I’ll be happy to accept their money.

                Besides, I wouldn’t make anything and put my name on it unless I did it to the best of my abilities. And this stuff is absolutely delicious. If it weren’t, I wouldn’t have even brought it up.

                1. I’m sold. How do I get this mayo? Can I get it made without the usual cheap, unhealthy industrial seed oils?

            2. He’ll compete with that scourge, but I don’t think he’ll manage a craft mayo monopoly in the near future.

              It’s not that I trust sloopy, it’s that 23andme has told me that I’m genetically immune to one of the major causes of food poisoning.

            3. Look, all I’m saying is that sloopy, in his capacity as a private person, adequately informed hundreds if not thousands of the retardation potentially associated with artisanal mayo.

              And now he’s going to sell it to us.

              1. hundreds if not thousands

                Well, a few dozen. Four of whom are Mary.

              2. I never said artisinal mayo was retarded. I mocked some people that thought it making it was the culinary equivalent to building the pyramids. Mayo is simple to make and can be made to be delicious if done properly. Somewhere along the line, I realized I ought to use one of my skills to create a superior product people would want to buy to make their food better.

                I have no delusions that I am creating the Mona Lisa of food. I know what I’m doing is making a superior product that people will hopefully buy. If some people buy it because they think it will make them look cosmopolitan, then that’s on them. I’m doing it because it’s delicious, not so I can get tattoos that cover my arms and ironically wear Wayfarers without lenses in them.

                1. Thanks for clarifying, because I was wondering about this earlier today.

      5. Okay I’ve read your comments and I totally see where you’re coming from and put ending the WoD very high up on the list. I just put ending state education, the Fed, and our fiscal-monetary highway to hell higher. That last one is a Russian nesting doll of priorities.

    2. True enough, but the problem is that ours is still a vanishingly small minority opinion in a country with a lot of terrible majoritarian tendencies and institutions.

      We’re not going to stop creeping socialism or nanny/police/surveillance statism until we change the opinions of people out there.

      Issues like pot and drones aren’t going to win the war, but if we press those hard enough to get them emplaced, we can show that the results of libertarian thought aren’t the end of the world, and get people thinking about a freer society.

      1. Issues like pot and drones aren’t going to win the war, but if we press those hard enough to get them emplaced, we can show that the results of libertarian thought aren’t the end of the world, and get people thinking about a freer society.

        I kind of thought our biggest victory of late was letting the sequester happen and not seeing a single Zombie staggering around the streets. But I think the GOP took credit for it.

        1. We’ll be blamed for the sequester in due time. The next time the government grossly mishandles a natural disaster, it will be blamed on babyeating austertarians imposing the sequester on the helpless public from our underground Fortress of Frugalitude.

          1. Oh, so that’s why they called it the Austerian School.

          2. I suspect that every negative thing of an economic nature for the next year is likely to at least be partially blamed on the sequester by progressives/the White House.

    3. I think she’s mischaracterizing Libertarians’ desire to legalize pot as an attempt to get chummy with liberals.

      I don’t think that’s what she’s saying. It’s that libertarians are using that position (which they would have, regardless) to get chummy with liberals. They do, and while I see her overall point, I don’t think that’s a bad tactic, except when it plays into the clich? that “libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot.”

      1. Coulter’s idea of outreach is “Fuck you, vote for us or you’re a pussy” and then having a whole room of people shout “YEAH! YEAH! AMERICUH! YEAH!”.

        But don’t accuse her of groupthink. She’s an individual special flower just like everybody else.

      2. Moreover, what’s wrong with being “chummy” on an issue we agree? Is Ann Coulter “chummy” with Obama about drone warfare.

      3. Except I don’t think it is actually going to attract most liberals. Liberals who want pot legal want it so because they want to consume it, not because they believe a principle is at stake. Libertarians believe that the government has no business intruding in such matters, I don’t think most liberals will concede that the government should not have such authority.

  10. Ann Coulter wants to be seen as a ruthless ideologue, but warmly embraces get-along go-along creatures like Romney and Chris Christie.

    She’s also apparently under the illusion that you can only deal with one political topic at a time.

    1. Ann Coulter wants to be seen as a ruthless ideologue, but warmly embraces get-along go-along creatures like Romney and Chris Christie.

      I’m really glad you pointed this out. This is what makes her a hypocrite of the highest order. If we rewound the clock and could somehow make Obama a republican, with all of his same policies, thoughts and ideas, Coulter woiuld get behind him if, in this alternate universe, he was running against Clinton.

      1. Ann Coulter isn’t a hypocrite. She’s a writer and opinion-writer that has found a way to extricate money from idiots and fear-mongers on the right. I applaud her money-making abilities.

        1. That doesn’t mean she can’t be a hypocrite too.

        2. So she’s not a hypocrite, but a shill.

      2. Yep. Just like all the Democrat ideologues would have lined up to vote for Romney if he had a D after his name.

      3. Preferring the glass half full to an empty glass does not make you a hypocrite. It makes you a non-purist or compromiser or realist. Is there really any doubt that Romney is closer to libertarian principles than Obama? Or that Christie is better than Corzine?

        I also reject your hypothetical, though if Clinton were running as a Republican against Obama, yes, she would support Clinton, because Clinton is less left-wing than Obama.

        1. Being shot in the head is closer to what I want than having my limbs cut off slowly with a chainsaw, but I’m not going to support either.

    2. She ditched Christie.

    3. She’s a statist, pure and simple. She hates libertarians, and went around loudly blaming them after Romney lost.

      1. Good. We’ve done far worse than oppose her candidates. We’ve hurt them. And we wish to go on. . .hurting them.

          1. You Sugarfreed the link.

        1. JOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNson

  11. Women are incapable of being libertarian because they have limited ability to think about things unemotionally or unselfishly. Letting women vote is the number one reason we have become a mostly socialist country.

    1. I dont know whether to laugh or cry at that.

      Let me give it a try;

      Letting blacks gambol freely about the land was our first mistake. Letting women vote was just the straw that broke liberty’s back.

      1. Blacks to women are apples to fish. Not really a good comparison. Women are different. I struggle with the question of universal suffrage all the time I used to be solidly pro-women voting but I just don’t know.

        1. *Smacks Cyto on the back of the head*

          1. Oh don’t tell: this is why there are no women on H&R?

        2. Last I checked, women are individual human beings too.

          I wouldn’t oppose raising the voting age to 30, though.

          1. That’s your adultism talking.

          2. Yes they’re people. Doesn’t mean they should vote.

            1. This is why there are no female libertarians.

          3. I’d rather that the state just stop treating adults as if they’re children to solve that problem. It’s no wonder that most of them don’t act like adults.

          4. I’d rather raise it to 150.

      2. Letting blacks gambol freely about the land with our white women while smoking the devils weed broke liberty’s back.

        Did I get it right?

        1. You left out rap music.

          1. I thought Jazz musicians were out to get dem white wimmin. . .

        2. Where all da white women at?

          1. Oh boys. Look what I’ve got over here.

          2. hell they don’t have to be white, just where da womenz?

        3. Letting blacks gambol freely about the land with our white women while smoking the Devil’s weed and listening to the Devil’s music while reading the Devil’s crime comics, broke liberty’s back.

      3. Not sure what blacks have to do with it.

    2. Banjos thinks about many things unemotionally and unselfishly.

      Troll harder.

      1. Banjos thinks about many things unemotionally and unselfishly.

        Only because you’ve robbed her of her youthful ability to feel.

        1. She can still feel. She screams in pain from time to time.

          1. I’m willing to bet she’s faking it.

            1. Fuck you.

              [runs off sobbing]

      2. Sex is now only for procreation, huh?

        1. As long as practicing is ok too.

        2. As long as you wear a condom.

          -LA City council.

          1. Only while filming it. If you AREN’T filming it, your wife should be on government-recommended birth control so as not to burden society with the medical and educational costs.

        3. Apparently it is for her, as she’s been pissing on fertility sticks every day for a week. Fortunately for me, her desire to beat the IRS again this year with another December baby has been paying off with a lot of action.

          1. You’re already way too late for that.

            1. Um, no we’re not. We’re on schedule for a mid-December baby if she gets knocked up this week.

              1. Where should Warty mail his sample?

                1. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                  Washington, DC 20500

                  c/o: Sasha

              2. Going for Irish twins?

        4. We’ve outlawed the orgasm.

    3. My mother agrees with you.

    4. Letting womenanyone vote is the number one reason we have become a mostly socialist country.

      1. This was a mostly free country when men ran it.

        1. Psh, it was entirely free when run by God’s will through His divinely appointed monarch. Then those Godless rebels ruined everything.

        2. This was a mostly free country when men ran it.

          Except for the people who were owned by the other people.

        3. For white men, anyway.

      2. That is a good fix h3k86…uh…lakje[oiyu9870986

        Get a better name….please.

        1. My friends call me h3. You can call me h3k.

          1. Some call me…Tim.

            1. fuck you, that’s my name.

  12. I’m assuming Coulter hasn’t ever read the comments on H&R. I think as a community we’ve pretty much established she doesn’t know what the fuck she’s talking about.

    1. She is trolling us.

      1. Seriously. Have you seen two libertarians that wouldn’t argue about pretty much -anything-? I remember accidentally starting an argument over what color the sky is.

        1. No, I’ve never seen two libertarians argue.

          1. I’ve never seen two libertarians.

            1. I’ve never seen two.

              1. I’ve never seen.

            2. Well, I never!

              1. I. Fuck, that doesn’t work. You win this round, hamilton.

          2. Assuming blind.

            1. Assuming blind to sarcasm.

              1. No, you’re wrong!

                1. I disagree.

      2. She’s Mary?

        1. Holy shit. I think you are right.
          That never occured to me before.

          *Bows to Warty without lowering eyes*

        2. That would sort of make sense.

        3. I laughed.

        4. Well, Coulter is projecting just as much as Mary always did. Towing the GOP lion on every issue isn’t groupthink, Ann? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      3. No, she’s telling the mainstream GOP it’s OK to ignore us until the next election cycle. Then she and the rest of the dickcheese posse can suck up to us for our votes and rail about us being traitors for not wanting to vote for the same sort of big-spending, big-government, warmonger assnugget they nominated last.

        1. Thank God for Rand Paul, who is making libertarianism scarier than ever for Republicans.

  13. The real question that needs to be asked about Ann Coulter: cut or uncut?

    1. Are you implying that Ann has benn…um…destroying libertarian pussies?

      1. There are libertarian pussies?

        Though tbh, I’ve almost got the wife converted (after 10 years of trying), which in Aus is a fairly serious accomplishment.

  14. Nick, why do you keep reporting what that useless troll tosses off?

    -jcr

    1. It’s love, can’t you tell?

      1. Seriously? I thought Nick was straight.

        -jcr

  15. I am more than willing to be full-throated in my opposition to drugs and to my opposition to the Regulatory State and in my opposition to War and…

    I mean, we’ve got a lot of energy. I see no reason to channel it into one narrow field.

    1. “opposition to the *war on* drugs…”

    2. heh heh you said full-throated heh heh

  16. I think Coulter might be a little biased by her unique perspective.

    I’ve probably talked to a thousand libertarians around here over the years, and I’m not sure we universally agree on anything else–except one thing…

    We all agree that Coulter is a blowhard.

    Maybe that’s why she thinks we’re subject to group think? Because every time she runs into a libertarian, she meets someone who thinks she’s better ignored.

    1. I think there’s a pretty large consensus that she’s a cunt. Would you tend to agree, Ken?

      1. I agree.

        FUCK! GROUPTHINKZ!

        1. I disagree. She’s a twat.

        2. I disagree. She’s a twat.

      2. Would you tend to agree, Ken?

        Sloop must be wearing his bullfighters outfit.

      3. You can be an evil man sometimes sloop.

      4. No, I’d disagree with that.

        1. I’m just giving you a hard time, Ken. I hope you don’t take me too seriously.

          1. I don’t think anyone does.

          2. I know you’re kidding around, and I am too a lot of the time.

            …but I do think we have to try to find ways to be more appealing to women.

            1. Show them your Ben Franklin Art Collection. Works every time.

              1. I think you meant to say “Franklin MINT Collection”

                Common mistake. Happens all the time.

              2. Maybe we could try wearing penis gourds.

            2. We could start a Pinterest board.

            3. Let’s go out of our way to be more appealing to a woman person that refers to us as “pussies”. Yeah, sure.

              If she’s tough enough to cast aspersions, she ought to be tough enough to handle being called a cunt.

  17. If libertarians were only interested in groupthink and hearing what they wanted to hear, why did Stossel invite her, Dennis Kucinich, and John Bolton to his show?

    But whatever, I see why we should pay any attention to Skeletor when she quite obviously has her niche as a highly paid agitator. Let her go back to trolling liberals.

    1. I read a comment on her Stossel appearance from Brian Lilley at the Toronto Sun chuckling at the fact that after Coulter criticized us for focusing on the drug war, all of the questions for her were about drug legalization. Of course anyone that watched the whole show knew that Ann was ostensibly there “defending” the Republican party (really the old guard Republicans), so why would one expect the questions to be about things that we might agree with her/the old GOP on (at least in theory)? I mean, if one had watched only the Kucinich segment they’d have probably taken away the exact opposite conclusion on libertarians (“why do these guys only care about fiscal policy and the debt/deficit instead of civil liberties?”).

      Of course when I pointed that out to Mr. Lilley in the “approval required” comments it went unpublished.

    2. I watched that show with my 10 year old son and he kept saying, “He didn’t answer the question” each time Bolton responded to Stossel. When Coulter came on, we were both creeped out with her first rant and turned it off.

  18. If I was ever like that, it would be gun-to-the-mouth time.

    That time has long passed for Coulter.

  19. She’s doing this in response to Rand Paul’s popularity. She’s trying to nip the libertarian wing of the Republican party in the bud. What a cunt.

    1. Possibly correct; could have also been the venue of her appearance though. I doubt anyone’s threatened by Rand Paul, just because of how unlikely such a nomination would be.

      1. Then why this rush to make personal attacks against libertarians?

        1. She still blames them for not voting for Romney? (all 2% of us)

        2. Look, she’s obviously fucked in the head. How am I supposed to know what goes on in there?

    2. Oddly enough that even Reince Preibus can see that veering toward libertarianism is the only thing that can save the GOP from becoming irrelevant. When someone that far entrenched in the establishment tells everybody to support Paul’s filibuster, you would think Coulter would pay attention and get in line.

      1. I predict a mea culpa from Coulter in the next five years, but she’ll do it in a way where she’ll claim she was always on board with libertarian ideals, or worse, if the whole GOP does turn libertarian, she’ll look at libertarians and say, “Welcome aboard the Win Bus! Glad you finally see things MY way!”

        1. You can see her setting it up with her “I’m more libertarian than you!” horseshit.

          1. “You can see her setting it up with her ‘I’m more libertarian than you!’ horseshit.”

            Well, that would make her fit right in, wouldn’t it?

            1. Well, I am more libertarian than you. Fuck you.

              1. My children will be landing in Cleveland this evening. Please don’t harm them while they’re there.

                Oh, they told me of this little nugget of hilarity last night: they are going to drive to NoVa to visit their step-dad’s sister and her husband while they’re there. The reason they have to rent a car and do this is because his sister is an environmentalist and drives a 100% electric vehicle and they can’t get to Cleveland in less than 3 days because of their battery range.

                Yeah, that’s environmentalism: drive a rental SUV or minivan (because there are 7 of them) down to visit us because we care about the earth so much we can’t buy a diesel that gets 60 mpg on the highway.

              2. But not me, bitch.

            2. Who is the truest Scotsman of them all?

        2. if the whole GOP does turn libertarian, she’ll look at libertarians and say, “Welcome aboard the Win Bus! Glad you finally see things MY way!”

          Never.

          “Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
          ? Robert A. Heinlein

          She is of the former. She will never become one of the latter.

      2. She a mouthpiece of the Republicans that are Republicans because they are Democrats brigade; GOP is cultural identity and not something to change with principles or reformed. If Rand or the libertarians are telling her that the GOP is wrong about an issue, she takes it as a personal attack. She is is nothing but a scaffold of childish tribalism wrapped in the mistaken conviction that she is funny.

        1. *Republicans that are Republicans because they aren’t Democrats brigade* stupid typing

          1. I thought it worked better the first time.

    3. This is why Ken Schultz can’t have nice things.

      1. Archer rocks.

        Danger ZONE!

    4. Meh. She stays popular by appearing controversial while reinforcing the beliefs of about 15% of the population. Its very well played, but you have to know that its entertainment and she probably doesn’t have many core principles beyond wanting to be famous and enjoying a argument.

      1. She stays ‘popular’ because people in the biz of getting eyeballs to justify the ad costs and make a lot of money know she’s cheaper than building a roller derby rink.

        1. she’s cheaper than building a roller derby rink.

          I’m reformulating that as a “your momma” joke and tucking it away for a future date.

    5. “She’s doing this in response to Rand Paul’s popularity.”

      She used to make a splash by tweaking liberal noses, and that’s not making the headlines like it used to.

      So she’s trying to tweak other people’s noses–trying to get some attention.

      If there’s an identifiable group of people who are less about groupthink than libertarians, I don’t know who it is.

      None of us agree with the staff at Reason or each other. The staff at Reason don’t agree with each other. Various factions of the libertarian movement don’t agree with each other. If the Paultards, the neo-confederates, the Objectivists, the cosmotarians, the transhumanists, the Free State people, et. al. all agree on anything, it’s just that every other faction in the movement–along with everyone else within their own faction–is completely wrong, wrong, wrong.

      That’s groupthink?

      1. If she’s trying to stir up libertarians to get a reaction that somehow proves her point, she’s going to fail miserably.

        1. Nah, she’s going to win big in her ‘who is the most shrill harpy’ contest with Michele Malkin.

          1. Now if only those two would do some lesbian porn.

            1. I would, uncomfortably, watch it. Probably repeatedly.

  20. People thrown in jail for non-violent crimes? Not as important as privatizing the NYC MTA!!

    Fuck off Coulter, and anyone who thinks she “has a point.” She doesn’t. We can value different things and carve out our own niche of concern, and if a libertarian focuses on an issue that is literally ruining lives, that’s better than most activists out there. And until someone can provide some sort of statistic, I see no reason to believe that libertarian efforts are overwhelmingly focused on pot. We all know Coulter is appealing to a tired stereotype, solely to get a rise out of people; that anyone here would fall for it and try to defend her “point” is sad.

    1. Seriously. Just because libertarians aren’t out there screaming that we’re okay with legalizing employment discrimination, doesn’t mean we don’t talk about it. I openly admit to it with my prog friends. Does that mean I just state it bluntly? No, I give a reasoned argument for it.

      I mean, really, do you want to give your business to someone who hates you? Do you want to work for someone who hates you? Why would I buy a sandwich from a restaurant that the owners/cooks hate me? They would probably do nasty shit to my sandwich. Forget that. I don’t want them to be forced to serve me, as it would make matters even worse. I don’t want them to be forced to hire me, because they’ll treat me like shit. If they were forced to hire me, they might even be more reluctant to hire more than the quota for fear that anything they said might get them sued.

      but then again, these things are too hard for progs to really think about. If it feels good to pass a piece of legislation, then it means it must be a good piece of legislation.

      1. You don’t understand the liberal mindset.

        If someone doesn’t want to do business with you, it pleases liberals to force them to do business with you.

        If someone doesn’t want to hire you, it pleases liberals to force them to do business with you.

        All they care about or understand is force. The concept of liberty, of an absence of force, simply does not compute.

        It’s like they try to do math without understanding the concept of zero.

        1. Yeah, if you just force people to get along and love one another, they will.

          Nope. Sorry.

          Maybe they should just force anti-gay marriage people to get married to someone of the same gender. Force Jews and Muslims to eat pork. Force racists to marry someone of a race they dispise. Better yet, force KKK members to gay marry black folks. Force English-only people to learn Spanish/Russian/Chinese/Arabic/Vietnamese/etc

          But… can’t force vegans and vegetarians to eat a cheeseburger. That would be cruel. Can’t force gun banners to shoot targets with guns. Can’t force Mexicans to learn English.

        2. Unfortunately true. They are more about getting revenge on people the thing are bad than about equal justice.

          I don’t see any reason why we can’t just leave racists alone to be racist by themselves, but liberals think they have to be actively STAMPED OUT.

          They don’t believe in “live and let live”. They really don’t. They believe in actively exterminating all opposition to their rule.

  21. “Groupthink is Destroying Libertarian Pussies”

    And this is why we can’t have nice things

    1. Explains why I must enjoy fucking myself so often.

    2. I think I might start calling my johnson “Groupthink”

  22. I hate groupthink. And the libertarians have it every bit as much as the college liberals I speak to. I give a lot of college speeches and it was the same thing, you know where you all have to cheer together and you all have to boo the same stuff. And I guess when you’re young and insecure feeling like you’re part of a group is important to you. If I was ever like that, it would be gun-to-the-mouth time.

    put down their pro-pot signs and read some Richard Epstein ? probably the leading libertarian in the country,” she continued. “Also Richard Posner, they’re both at the University of Chicago, and Gary Lawson, a law professor up at [Boston University]. These are smart intellectual libertarians.

    You need to start thinking for yourself, just like everyone else who agrees with me!

    1. I’ve read hardly anything from any academic libertarian. I just don’t like being told what to do and I don’t think force should be used against people who haven’t harmed anyone. And all the rest pretty much flows from there.

      1. http://cafehayek.com/

        Don Boudreaux and Russ Roberts rock!

          1. I find Bryan Caplan and David Henderson to be annoying. They spend shocking little time on actual economics and more on spouting off their opinions about virtually everything else: Selfish reasons to have more kids, studies into twins separated at birth, blah blah blah.

      2. John Stuart Mill isn’t bad if you can navigate around the utilitarianism that gets mixed in.

        1. I’ve read some Mill. I can handle some utilitarianism. I have an ongoing, low level argument with robc about my contention that you cannot be a non-anarchist libertarian without being a little bit utilitarian.

          1. Im not sure I disagree with you on that.

            But that little bit of utilitarianism is measured in liberty.

            Hell, you could say Im a full blown utilitarian if I get to make the utils a unit of freedom.

            The government system which maximizes freedom is the most utilitarian one!

            But that isnt what utilitarianism means, at least not any of the standard versions Im familiar with.

            1. “But that isnt what utilitarianism means, at least not any of the standard versions Im familiar with.”

              You are right. I don’t accept a purely utilitarian calculation of morality or what makes good government, so perhaps there is a better word to use. My point, which I think you generally agree with, is that there is no moral basis for government except for it’s utility in protecting people’s rights and promoting liberty.

    2. I wouldn’t call Posner a libertarian, by the way.

      1. Uh, yeah. No.

      2. That’s okay. He wouldn’t call you one, either.

        1. Really, he’s not. I’m not being catty. Read his stuff.

          1. He’s right. Posner is philosophically a statist. I have no idea what makes Posner a libertarian. Posner is one of those legal theorists that thinks “pragmatism” matters more than the constitution. He basically believes you can pass any law or interpret the law as you wish if it doesn’t follow under the constitution. He criticized the decisions in Citizens United and Heller. He’s one of the leaders of the law and economics movement, one which values utility over natural law or even basic formalism. Basically if interpreting a law as constitutional will create some utility in his mind, he’ll deem it constitutional, even if it goes against explicit constitutional text or case law. The constitution becomes meaningless document under that kind of jurisprudence. He’s a moral relativist in the highest degree. Ann Coulter should really read more up on Posner before she endorses him as a figure libertarians should follow.

            1. Regardless of whether Posner is a libertarian, how would objecting to constitutionalism indicate that?

  23. Stossel: [All while Coulter is screaming] Tell that bitch to be cool! Say ‘bitch be cool’!
    Gillespie: Be cool honey!
    Stossel: Say bitch be cool! Tell that fuckin’ bitch to chill!
    Gillespie: Be cool Honey Bunny!
    Stossel: Chill that fuckin’ bitch out!
    Gillespie: Shut up, Honey!

    1. You think Gillespie’s got the hots for Blondie?

      1. She’s clearly the Felix to his Oscar.

        1. You’re old.

          1. No way, I had to look up their names on Wikipedia for the sake of that joke.

            1. That you even knew about the Odd Couple makes you old. As in so old you fart dust old.

              1. Just shut up and get off my lawn.

            2. Hope and Crosby…

              1. Hope Floats

      2. Try and keep up, Sarc. You waiting for a wedding invite before it clicks?

  24. to put down their pro-pot signs and read some Richard Epstein ? probably the leading libertarian in the country,” she continued. “Also Richard Posner, they’re both at the University of Chicago, and Gary Lawson, a law professor up at [Boston University]. These are smart intellectual libertarians. There’s an awful lot of we need to be privatizing now. I am more libertarian than these whipper-snappers calling themselves libertarians. You know, how about privatizing the New York City subway system, the bus system?”

    Why? So Cuomo and Bloomberg could sell off pieces of the transit system to their cronies and donors? Why not ease or eliminate restrictions that forbid citizens from competing with the public transit system? Like the Chinatown busline for example?

  25. Coulter is right on the mark.

    True Libertarians are celebrating Pyrrhic victories in CA and CO re: weed, while the Left is eating everyone’s lunch and then taxing you for the privilege of being robbed.

    As for the weed, despite what nitwittery you wanna believe: you can still get busted in CA and CO for weed possession. The DEA don’t care about no stinkin’ statewide ballot propositions! You can have your weed card stapled to your forehead with a tattoo of Kubby on your back and cops can still write you up. And they will, too.

    And as usual, following my post will be a series of anti-Wholly Holy Cow posts calling me a “statist,” “a slaver” and “big poopiehead.” (The first 2 invectives are lies, as for the third, sure, I guess I can be a big poopiehead at times). But I’m cool with the slings and arrows of outrageous comments. It’s always good to see free-thinkers come to the exact same conclusions while excoriating anyone who ever so slightly disagrees.

      1. Wait… are you saying there’s a hand in that sock making it move like that?!? [mind blown]

    1. DA TIDDLY TERP!

    2. So what? Being happy about some small changes in drug laws in no way detracts from caring about other issues.

      And, as I and others have argued above, prohibition is a big fucking deal and has huge effects on freedom and innocent lives. It has been used to erode everyone’s rights and massively expand government intrusion into people’s lives. I’m not going to call you a slaver, but pretending that opposition to prohibition is just about smoking pot reveals you as ignorant, dishonest or just stupid.

      1. Or a sockpuppet.

        1. It’s so hard to keep track.

    3. You make a partially-valid point with the “victories” in CA and CO (even though I think you meant WA and CO). That said, many of us me not necessarily included, are happy to incrementally roll back even a little bit of the state. Personally, I hate the ballot initiatives that passed and would have voted against them because they ultimately were set up to impose very restrictive and tax-heavy apparatuses that would limit the freedom.

      But the other guys have been playing that incrementalism game in the opposite direction for 100 years now. There’s a lot to be said for getting a win, even if it’s a minor one. Besides, it gets libertarians some much-needed credibility when those policies end up reducing state prison populations, lowers public safety costs and increases state “revenues”.

      I’m mostly an all-or-none libertarian, but I’m smart enough to understand why people would put a lot of value in those victories (and I’m coming around to supporting more incrementalism).

      I hope this satisfies your expectations of an anti-Wholly Holy Cow post.

      1. Who pays the fine or goes to prison when the (Federal)Marijuana Tax Stamps aren’t on the packages? I don’t think that was ever repealed.

    4. I guess I can be a big poopiehead at times

      “You eat pieces of shit for breakfast have a head made out of poopie?”

  26. I think we need a ruling on whether the English lexeme “pussy” possesses the same magic to repel all with two X chromosomes that the lexeme “cunt” does.

    I appeal to that linguistic expert, Kendall Shultz, to grace us with his learned opinion.

  27. I read Coulter’s books and articles, but I don’t think she’s much more than an entertainer by now. She probably believes most of the stuff she says, she simply figures out the most controversial way to say it, so that she can sell more books. Far be it from me to quarrel with a successful businesswoman, but there’s a price in credibility to be paid for such tactics.

    I learn in Reason that there’s a guy serving what is close to a life sentence because he sold someone a plant that grows in the dirt, all while wearing a gun on his ankle. He didn’t use the gun to force people to buy his stuff, he had it presumably in case he was attacked. So he is sentenced to spend most of his life in a cage.

    And by the way, this is why I continue to care about culture-war issues, because of shit like this. It’s the government which decided to wage a culture war against the people, and the victims have every right to raise a fuss and protest against it.

    1. And for all my reservations about libertarians, they’re the ones keeping the pressure up on the War on (some) Drugs, not the progtards. President Hope and Change could let many of these drug-war victims out of their cages with a stroke of the pen, but he doesn’t and his Harold-and-Kumar base refuses to call him on it. Without libertarians, these drug-war victims would have very few advocates beyond their own friends and relatives.

  28. I don’t know how groupthink we are. I know I disagree with some libertarians on drug and immigration policy. That said, I do happen to agree with Ms. Coulter that some libertarians should put drug policy issues aside for a moment to work on our fiscal problems and federal power grabbing. There’s a time and a place, but now’s not either the time or place to get hot under the collar about pot.

    1. Why do people always make it about pot? It’s not about pot. It’s about prohibition.

      1. “You’re only a libertarian because you smoke pot, and anyone who smokes pot is stupid. That means all libertarians are stupid.”

        Ad hominem arguments win because they take attention away from the principles and instead make it personal. Down in the mud where they like it.

    2. Why stop now when the states are starting to wise up (and obey election results)? Strike while the iron is hot, dumbass. Now is the time to get hot under the collar about it.

  29. Coulter is shocked that people who believe the same things, believe the same things.

    Maybe libertarians should set a diversity quota for communists, nazis, islamists, and progressives in their ranks.

  30. Let’s all sing: Ann Coulter is a Stupid Bitch, in D minor

    Weeeeeeeeeell……..

  31. It’s funny how when you start with a couple principles like self ownership and the NAP, you tend to get similar results.

    Being that she has no principles, I doubt she will ever understand.

  32. This thread has 221 posts, so obviously it’s a good strategy for Reason to keep posting about her incessantly.

    1. They could bring up circumcision or pizza again – those are sometimes good for 700 or more.

      1. Foreskins as a pizza topping: discuss.

        1. something something the mohel keeps the tip.

          1. Never buy cracklins from a mohel.

        2. Are we talking infant foreskins, or ones snipped off of old geezers that have had time to marinate in various orifices?

          1. They’re served by the pound, so it doesn’t really matter.

          1. Posting that video was a dick move, man.

            1. What? It was only a little prick!

              1. Now you’re just being cocky.

        3. Can I get mine half foreskin, half placenta?

        4. Sauce and cheese as a foreskin topping: discuss.

        5. Sauce and cheese as a foreskin topping: discuss.

    2. Yeah, but about half those posts are John whining about why they keep posting the same thing, so it’s really only around 110 posts.

      1. The other half are mine because the damn thing keeps on double posting.

  33. i think she’s actually accusing libertoids of “NOT-MY-GROUPthink”

    apparently we’re doing it wrong

  34. Hey, instead of hashing this out here online, why don’t you guys invite all of 2012 G. Johnson voters for a roundtable? There’s a drive-thru only Taco Bell near me which could handle that kind of crowd.

    Just read this thread. Is Coulter’s point not proved? In fact, read any thread at Reason: anyone who disagrees (no matter how big or small) will be insulted and ignored.

    My way or the highway: what a great way to build a political coalition!

    It’s obvious. Everyone but you guys suck. And you’re gonna hold your breaths until you turn blue and stamp your feet until everyone agrees with you 100%. I mean, it’s much better to watch a country descend into total Leftism than it is to fight for incremental change.

    And by incremental change, I mean, you know, not electing a president who hates free enterprise, despises private wealth creation and whose sole comeback against anyone who disagrees with him is “you’re a racist.”

    1. like the left and right don’t operate on a “it’s my way or the highway” philosophy.

      1. Let’s use the proper term – the “fuck you, that’s why” philosophy.

    2. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

      Also – RACIST!

    3. tl;dr VOTE ROMNEY!

    4. My way or the highway: what a great way to build a political coalition!

      Hey, Ann Coulter is certain welcome to get “chummy” with us to privatize government. She’s still not a libertarian and insulting libertarians or equivocating on the definition of the word “libertarian” is worthy of derision or dismissal.

      I mean, it’s much better to watch a country descend into total Leftism than it is to fight for incremental change.

      Are you done beating that straw man, yet?

      And by incremental change, I mean, you know, not electing a president who hates free enterprise, despises private wealth creation and whose sole comeback against anyone who disagrees with him is “you’re a racist.”

      Right. Because we’re all big fans of Obama here.

      1. Both Wholly Holy Cow and Coulter are merely paleoconservatives who self-style themselves as “Libertarians” in an attempt to ride the coattails of the movement as it gains currency in political discourse.

        As vanguardists they seek to infiltrate the libertarian movement and steer it toward their preferred ideology. It is this ulterior motive that drives their frothing-at-the-mouth rage against those who obstruct their attempts at influencing the movement.

        1. Ann Coulter as a paleo?! LOL. I guess if you can overlook her warboner and civil rights stances. She’s a pretty run of the mill neo.

    5. Re: Wholly Holy Cow,

      Just read this thread. Is Coulter’s point not proved? In fact, read any thread at Reason: anyone who disagrees (no matter how big or small) will be insulted and ignored.

      If you argue something that has no basis in reason, economics or logic, then you are liable to be corrected or even taken for a fool. That’s not groupthink, that would be observation.

      My way or the highway: what a great way to build a political coalition!

      Let me give it to you: If what you say is nonsense, people will tell you it is nonsense. That’s not derision or exclusion, that’s observation.

      I mean, it’s much better to watch a country descend into total Leftism than it is to fight for incremental change.

      Better for whom? Who is proposing that?

      1. I like that to Ann Coulter “Everyone hates me!” is evidence of group think. Isn’t just possible that a large number of people, through reason and observation, came to hate her independently?

    6. Everyone gets insulted, that’s the whole point(almost). Few get ignored. They should feel insulted if they’re not insulted.

  35. Ann Coulter is a joke. Libertarians all booing at her is not groupthink, it’s because what she is espousing is not libertarian. She has no idea what libertarian is. At one end, she busts libertarians for their belief in things like drug legalization, but then she wants to have her cake and eat it too, so she decides that people who support that are not libertarians. Maybe we should all rally behind this self-described conservative to tell us what libertarian REALLY is.

    1. “I call Libertarians pussies. Libertarians grow to hate me. IT MUST BE GROUP THINK!” /Coulter logic

  36. “There’s an awful lot of we need to be privatizing now.”

    Yet for some reason she’s not in favor of privatizing marriage.

    “I hate groupthink. And the libertarians have it every bit as much as the college liberals I speak to.”

    Intellectual consistency is now “groupthink” – Coulter dixit.

    1. Intellectual consistency based upon common principles.

      As if people who start with common principles arrive at similar and consistent conclusions.

      Amazing!

      1. The funny thing is libertarians DON’T all arrive at the same conclusions. We virulently disagree on all kinds of subjects from abortion and gay marriage to miniarchism vs. anarchism to the whether the corporate entity exists in a free market to perfect solution vs. incrementalism to voting vs. not voting, etc. etc. etc. We can’t even all agree whether Ann Coulter is a douche or not.

        1. I didn’t say “same,” I said “similar and consistent.”

          I suppose “more logical than emotional” would have been more accurate.

  37. To my knowledge most liberals aren’t all that keen on legalizing the bud. And the ones that are aren’t basing it upon principles. They just want to get high.

    If she wants to make an argument that libertarians are trying to cozy up to liberals, she should have picked redefining marriage, not drugs.

    1. This is what I said above. Statists are willing to be inconsistent if the action is something they or an important coalition group love to do.

    2. The only liberals I know who are pro-legalization always include as a reason, ‘and tax the hell out of it!’ That for me is the one single valid argument for keeping it illegal so the government can’t get its goddamned filthy ape paws on at least that sector of wealth generation.

    3. That’s true. And a lot are for decriminalization and not full legalization. Which is nice if you just want to smoke some bud, but does almost nothing to decrease the evils caused by the drugwar.

  38. Matrix: I don’t see Republicans and Democrats going apeshit and screaming “You’re not one of us, we hate you, you suck, you’re stupid and fugly mama dresses you funny, DO NOT CALL YOURSELF ONE OF US!!” over minor disagreements.

    Here, watch this: I Wholly Holy Cow think the federal WOD should be ended as should all federal entitlement programs. But I think the military budget should remain the same and federal border enforcement should be ramped up.

    (let the attacks begin)

    Sorry, but if this a dealbreaker for you guys, then sorry. Politically speaking, you’ll never achieve a goddamn thing. People’s interests and ideas etc. are too varied to expect huge groups of people to agree with you on everything.

    For most of you guys, the world is divided into 2 distinct camps: True Libertarians and T o n y s. You miss the huge middle.

    Anyway, I suspect for many of the commenters here, politics is therapy. It feels good to walk around thinking you’re smarter than everyone and that you’re part of a ‘secret’ club. “I’m different. I’m not like the other boys. I’m a Libertarian. You wanna come over my house after school and work on my fully privatized train set?”

    Sloopy in CA: Nice post. As for the others, you’re not even funny. That’s the sad part. You guys have the comedic skills of a sick kitten.

    1. These aren’t minor disagreements. She doesn’t care about the drug war. She’s a massive statist. She insulted us.

      Then you come here and get all butt hurt. We disagree with each other constantly, so her argument is wrong. How can people who get in arguments constantly be suffering from group think? That’s the opposite of group think.

      As for ‘Republicans and Democrats don’t go ape shit’ yada, yada, yada. Since when? Why don’t you go to a left wing blog or a right wing blog. Go to Redstate or Democratic Underground. Then come back and tell me how respectful they are of dissenters. They go apeshit over the most minor crap in the world. Your entire argument, as well as Coulter’s, is provably false.

      1. Hell, just read the HuffPo commentators on the Rand Paul filibuster live thread. Every time a dissenter came on there, they excoriated him. The only time they slowed down was when Ron Wyden stepped up. But the minute he gave the floor back to Rand, the venom started right back up.

        Libertarian sites like H&R could hardly be called an echo chamber, especially when compared to the more partisan left- or right-wing sites.

        1. I don’t know about all you other muthafuggaz, but I come here for an echo chamber. There is nothing wrong with commiserating with people of like mind.

          1. There’s a big difference, IMO of “like-minded” and “echo chamber”. Those fuckers parrot whatever they’ve seen on MSNBC or FoxNews, even going so far as to use the same terms as their partisan talking heads. On here, not a day goes by that there’s not a real philosophical argument where there are several sides.

            I liken H&R to what the political process is supposed to be like when people are principled rather than partisan. And that’s not meant to be smug, as I realize I’m not right about everything. I’m referring more to the impassioned arguments we have with each other that simply do not happen inside the two major parties or on the websites their partisans tend to inhabit.

            1. Today we argued about whether a hegemonic power results in more war or less war, any discussion of anarchy erupts into 200 post arguments, there are massive disagreements about abortion, whether gay marriage should be legalized or privatized, and there are disagreements about America’s role in international militarization.

              Those are just off the top of my head. Every single left-wing or right-wing blog I’ve ever seen has far fewer disagreements than we do.

              The only time I’ve ever seen people on HuffPo disagreeing was when half of them thought Chavez was a great president and the other half didn’t like him. When the only disagreement is pro- vs. anti- racist, authoritarian, criminal dictator, that tells me you’re an echo chamber.

              1. Fair enough.

            2. I have to let you know, sloopy, that I realize you’re right about everything you don’t disagree with me on. I just thought you’d like to know that.

      2. Anyway, I suspect for many of the commenters here, politics is therapy. It feels good to walk around thinking you’re smarter than everyone and that you’re part of a ‘secret’ club. “I’m different. I’m not like the other boys. I’m a Libertarian. You wanna come over my house after school and work on my fully privatized train set?”

        Oh, fuck you, you self-righteous hack. Republicans and Democrats do this all the time with identity politics, so even if it were true it’s not exclusive to Libertarians.

        And you don’t know why any of us came to Libertarianism. I consider myself Libertarian because I’ve always believed in fiscal responsibility and as I got older I began to realize how the state destroys peoples lives with the drug war, with global military policing and other trappings of the police state. I came to these opinions before I started posting here and before I ever even met another Libertarian. You’re trying to deflect our very real criticisms of Ann Coulter by assuming things about us that you haven’t even bothered to prove.

        You must have a doctorate in armchair psychology.

      3. No shit. Look at their treatment of the Pauls. They have been trying everything in their power to marginalize or destroy them.

    2. I don’t see Republicans and Democrats going apeshit and screaming “You’re not one of us, we hate you, you suck, you’re stupid and fugly mama dresses you funny, DO NOT CALL YOURSELF ONE OF US!!” over minor disagreements.

      “RINO”?

      It feels good to walk around thinking you’re smarter than everyone and that you’re part of a ‘secret’ club.

      Yes, it does feel good to feel smarter and more consistent than everyone else, but as far as I was aware, Hit and Run is neither secret nor a club.

      1. You haven’t gotten your membership card?

        1. Actually they rejected my membership. I once criticized the Kochtopus, so I am still drifting through limbo with Holy Cow and Chony.

          1. I do not wish to belong to any club that would have me as a member.

        2. It’s packaged with the monocle.

  39. Sloopy in CA: Nice post.

    The one about foreskins as a pizza topping?

    1. And all this time I thought you were a Sloopy Inca.

      1. That’s what you get for taking Spanish in high school.

        1. It’s true (and in college too). Any latin text that isn’t obviously english I tend to read with Spanish pronunciation.

  40. How many of the posts here admonish Coulter for even calling herself a Libertarian?

    Uh-huh, so a good-looking successful author wants to be even fringely associated with your group (True Libertarians) and you kick her out?

    And you fucking wonder why the LP never ever ever ever ever gets close to winning any partisan elections. Partisan meaning where people run as Rs, Ds etc, not County Dog Catcher or City Assistant Comptroller.

    I love the one poster who called out Coulter for not wanting to privatize marriage. Do G. Johnson and R. Paul want to privatize marriage? Again, is privatizing marriage more important than govt. run health care, because Coulter is definitely against that. But that’s not good enough, right? All or nothing.

    Again, let’s do nothing but find fault with everyone– it makes me feel so smart!

    You think if four Ann Coulter types were on the View and if A.C. types were well-repped in pop culture (as opposed to, say, Lena Dunham or Rosie), this country wouldn’t be much more open non-statist solutions?

    1. The problem is her willful equivocation on the word “libertarian.” Agreeing with libertarians in a few solid areas while virulently disagreeing in most others makes her no more a “libertarian” than Bill Maher. She’s a “conservative with some libertarian tendencies” who condemns libertarians for their libertarian tendencies and then calls herself “more libertarian” than them. Worthy of derision or dismissal.

    2. a good-looking… author

      Not that it has any bearing on her intellect or her arguments, but in what parallel universe is this even remotely true?

      1. It got you to reply to him, didn’t it?

      2. That was the first sign we were dealing with a troll.

        1. That was the first sign we were dealing with a troll.

          Or someone who has no idea of what makes a woman attractive; such as a woman.

      3. Some people must have a thing for Skeletor.

        1. Only doggie-style Skeletor.

    3. Again, is privatizing marriage more important than govt. run health care, because Coulter is definitely against that.

      No, not all or nothing you idiot. We don’t disagree with Coulter because she’s not in favor of fringe libertarian trappings like marriage privatization. We disagree with Coulter because she’s an unbelievable statist who only claims to care about small government because a Democrat is in the White House. Where was she when George Bush was running up 600 billion dollar deficits?

      The fault with Coulter is rank hypocrisy and the fault with you is that you’re trying to push these bizarre psychological reads on us simply because you don’t have the basic reasoning capacity to make an actual argument.

      And why precisely does the fact that you find Coulter attractive have anything to do with this conversation, other than to prove that you have terrible taste in women?

      1. yeah, since when is invading countries and forcing their people to convert to Christianity anything libertarians could ever get behind.

      2. Irish, you’re casting pearls before bovines. WHC can’t comprehend that someone would adopt a political standpoint based on strongly-held philosophical beliefs. To him/her, politics is the popularity contest held to see who gets the stick to beat the commoners with. That one could advance the cause of liberty through other means (e.g. counter-economics, self-sufficiency, and/or civil disobedience) than that rigged game known as political elections is a concept that is beyond the intellect and morality of someone like WHC.

        1. counter-economics, self-sufficiency, and/or civil disobedience

          I practice each of those core principles in a small way everyday. And some days, the first one on a decent scale.

    4. “Uh-huh, so a good-looking successful author wants to be even fringely associated with your group (True Libertarians) and you kick her out?”

      If that were the case, there might be a different reaction. She is asking libertarians to join her herd, not to be accepted as a libertarian.

  41. Yes, Sloopy, the foreskin one. No, seriously, your first response I was referring to. Ah, the foreskin was good, too.

    RINO– did the Rs kick McCain and Romney to the curb? You don’t get much more RINO than those 2.

    Here, watch this: Hey, True Libertarians, what do you think of Wayne Allen Root? (Everyone, duck!)

    Irish: if you think AC is ‘massive’ statist, then you need to get a better dictionary. EJ Dionne is a massive statist. Coulter doesn’t compare to him.

    Anyway, it’s not about being an echo chamber, but being more welcoming of those who are politically sympathetic but not lockstep.

    1. Did Libertarians kick Bob Barr and Gary Johnson to the curb? You don’t get more LINO than those two.

      Most of us are not in lockstep as has been pointed out repeatedly. The problem is that people like you and Tony come here with fallacies, partisan hackery and groundless psuedo-psychological wankery and get laughed out of the room. I think we’re all pretty willing to openly engage with non-trolls who happen to disagree with us.

    2. Bullshit. We will support certain initiatives, by politicians that we don’t agree much with, on things that we do agree with. But that does not mean we open our arms and invite them into the fold.

      So just because we aren’t fawning over the Republican party doesn’t mean we don’t support certain initiatives they put forth.

      And why do many of us dislike Ann? She’s too crass and she is condscending towards anyone who does not agree with her. I mean, have you EVER listened to her? I have, and even when I agreed with her, she made me sick about how she presented things. It’s the same with many liberal and conservative pundits. They are pompous and crass in pushing their beliefs.

      1. Agreed. She’s like Mark Levin with a vagina.

        1. More like Hannity with a vagina.

      2. If we’re talking about “lockstep”, anyone who disagrees with Ann Coulter on any subject gets a free ad hominem or pithy insult to one’s manhood.

  42. I can barely tolerate even second-hand accounts of Ann Coulter’s rants, but I suppose the laws of probability allow even her to be right on occasion. I do agree that libertarians suffer from a bit of groupthink, and could benefit from some introspection or maybe outside counseling. Libertarians are just as awful as the other camps at acknowledging their weakest areas and their opponents’s strongest areas. As a candidate for the counseling team I suggest Jonathan Haidt.

    BTW, Ann Coulter and other such conservatives should be the first to prioritize pot legalization. Drug Prohibition is a root cause for many of conservatives’ most hated ills, including lawlessness, gun control, fatherless families, taxation, insecure borders, and the Taliban. It is a sign of libertarians’ stupidity that we do not frame the debate in their terms.

    1. . It is a sign of libertarians’ stupidity that we do not frame the debate in their terms.

      No offense, but could you please tell me the last time libertarians have ever been in a position to “frame a debate” on anything?

      1. Ls frame most of the debates – it just takes us about 15-20 years to do it.

    2. I agree – I almost feel like libertarians should break into two separate movements that operate as a loose coalition: one movement that sells libertarianism via conservative language/values, and one movement that sells libertarianism via left-wing language/values. The latter probably would have to call themselves something other than libertarian considering the widely-but-inaccurately-held view that libertarianism is a right-wing philosophy.

      1. The difference between liberals and conservatives is what they want to control. They are both hostile to liberty. Liberals are hostile to economic liberty while conservatives are hostile to personal liberty.

        They come together when they both want to control the same things, but never with liberty. That is why it’s pointless for libertarians to try to ally with either side. They only give support when it comes to controlling things.

        Libertarians have no desire to control people. We have common ground with conservatives on economic liberty, and with liberals on personal liberty. Problem is that things only get done when it involves control.

        The really unfortunate thing is that people with no desire to control others are less likely to vote than people who do want to control people.

        That is why libertarians will never win. Ever.

        A thousand years from now the blip of liberty known as the American Experiment will be long forgotten, because humanity will by then have gone back to its default state: slavery.

        1. That’s a pessimistic long term outlook.

          I’m not saying we ally with either side so much as that we target our advertising more cleverly. Send in a trojan horse to the Left talking (honestly) in their language about economic progress for the poor, the regressive effects of inflation, the statist roots of corporate control, the unintended consequences of bad economics, etc.

          Send in a trojan horse to the Right talking about the value of family and charity over government, the moral and economic costs of the war on drugs, the anti-capitalist labor restriction via border control, etc.

          They can do damage in each party, challenge both parties in the primaries and then the sides are close enough to work together as a bipartisan caucus or eventually break off and form a new party.

  43. All I can say about Coulter is, ‘YOU GO GIRL”!

    The only way to turn this progressive statist marxist juggernaut around is to form a coalition around liberty. That means, college libertarians, tea partiers, classical liberals, genuine civil libertarians, NRA types and republicans all banding together in massive resistance to the State. Rand Paul has talked about this. We can put aside our differences, we have to, to focus on the big picture or this country, which was founded on liberty, is going to be history. Instead of castigating Coulter or Beck (who gets the same treatment) libertarians should be welcoming them into the fold.

    1. because we don’t believe in imposing democracy on other countries. We don’t believe bombing innocent peasants back into the stone age.

      Just because we don’t embrace people into the fold does not mean we don’t support them on certain initiatives here and there. But when they start pushing for shit that is abhorrent to us, we will call them out on it.

      1. Just because we don’t embrace people into the fold does not mean we don’t support them on certain initiatives here and there.

        Don’t you understand what Coulter and WHC are saying, man? It’s up to you to compromise! People like them don’t have to budge an inch on their values!

    2. We’ll welcome them into the fold when they cast off their xenophobic mentality and embrace personal liberty of a flavor that includes what people put into their own bodies, who they marry and how they want to use their private property.

    3. Funny that you mention the Tea Party. Remember when they were a grassroots group protesting Federal spending?

    4. “Instead of castigating Coulter or Beck (who gets the same treatment) libertarians should be welcoming them into the fold.”

      So since progressives often agree with us on pot, gay marriage, civil liberties, the military-industrial complex, abortion (some of us), the evils of corporatism and the death penalty, we should welcome them in as true libertarians as well, even if they are condemning free market healthcare and fiscal restraint? Isn’t that reciprocal exactly what Ann was insulting us for doing? You’re trying to have it both ways.

      1. Oh – I forgot immigration as well.

      2. Progressives are NOT your friends. Don’t fall for it, ever. Ron Paul sought to reform the Republican Party not the democrats, and Rand is doing the same now. So is Ted Cruz. Coulter will listen to you about drugs and about gay marriage (neither are the business of the State). We need to hold conservatives to their own principles: Free markets. Free people. Leave other people alone. No liberal will listen to you about free markets, about Von Mises or Hayek, about the 2nd Amendment, about the tyranny of regulation. Leftists are all about coercion and force. They are not for choice in anything, except in killing small children. And corporatism is their calling card. Leftists have always loved the bankers who bankrolled them. JP Morgan funded Stalin and they are funding Obama. The alliance between ACORN and FHLMC nearly destroyed this country. The big insurers practically wrote Obamacare. Reagan wanted a big tent. Libertarians need to be a part of that, not apart from that.

        1. You forgot george soros. Then you would have mentioned every mainstream neocon’s bogeymen in one post

          As far as I’m concerned, mainstream righty sheep are no better than mainstream lefty sheep.

          Give me one reason why we should be listening to the authoritarians from the left and right.

        2. Again, you are trying to have it both ways. We should compromise our values and join with conservatives who somewhat agree with us on a few policies and virulently oppose us on others. We definitely should not compromise our values and join with progressives who somewhat agree with us on a few policies and virulently oppose us on others.

          I think libertarians should visit whichever big tent is arguing for the more libertarian stance on each policy for a casual encounter instead of taking either sides’ loyalty oath and walking up the aisle with them.

        3. It wasn’t JP Morgan, it was Kuhn Loeb and the Warburgs.

      3. Progressives NEVER agree with you on pot, gay marriage, civil liberties, the military-industrial complex, abortion (some of us), the evils of corporatism and the death penalty, and if you are unable to see that, then you are blind.

        Their version of pot legalisation includes a huge expansion of the state.

        Their version of civil liberties has each race/ethnicgroup/religion/gender/sexual preference at each others throat–with the appropriate state funded bureacracies to keep things ‘civil’.

        They’re for gay marriage as long as it’s an expansion of the state.

        They LOVE the military industrial complex when they’re controlling it, just as they love itheir corporations and the corporatism they practice.

        And using the state to kill people? Do I even have to say?

        Progressives NEVER agree with libertarians.

    5. Uh, Coulter is the one insulting and castigating libertarians. Did you even read the article?

  44. She’s definitely right that there are a lot of other really important issues besides drugs or gay marriage.

    The thing with the drug war is that it’s cost in individual liberty is so enormous, and in many ways larger than all of the other issues.

    Starting with prohibiting people from engaging in productive labor (growing weed) and trade. Then you’ve got all the asset forfeiture rackets, and the property rights violations entailed by that. Then the non-violent offenders being imprisoned for selling weed.
    And I’m not even going to start on all the perverse effects create by forcing trade into an underground black market.

    I think Coulter is wrong to just dismiss the Drug War issue as some silly things libertarians wave around to impress their liberal friends. It’s a vast infringement on individual liberty and of a kind with all the other bad economic regulations pursued by our government.

    1. But simplifying libertarianism down to one or two issues makes it so much easier to dismiss/coopt.

      1. Right. Plus, Coulter supported Romney who was a big pussy on healthcare. So how can she cite Obamacare as this huge, massive, government infringement on personal liberty, when she’s backing ROMNEY?

        In reality, libertarians did more to fight the PPACA than any other group. Randy Barnett turned around the Supreme Court on the commerce clause argument, even if Roberts saved it by calling the mandate a tax.

      2. Especially if you totally miss-characterize the argument and ignore the principles upon which it is based.

  45. you know what else destroys big pussies?

    damage to the ecosystems of endangered lions, duh!


    …and my dick

  46. “. . .and read some Richard Epstein ? probably the leading libertarian in the country,” she continued. “*Also Richard Posner*. . . ”

    Yeah, Posner is not exactly a libertarian.

    1. Just who, exactly, is Epstein leading?

  47. Coulter hates groupthink? How bout “conservative” group think?

    She’s been at it so long that people have forgotten that she was the model for Jed Barlette’s diatribe on an episode of “West Wing” *15 years ago* about a bitchy conservative who somehow wound up at a White House function.

    Get over it honey, we’re libertarians, and we’re taking the GOP back from the socons and neocons!

  48. Someone should say to Ms. Coulter: “You know that the ‘War on Drugs’ is a trick by the FedGov to get conservative types to embrace a police state, and you fell for it you dumb cluck!”

  49. We’re not pussies, we’re dicks! We’re reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Republicans are pussies. And Obama is an asshole. Pussies don’t like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn’t appropriate – and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves… because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don’t know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don’t let us fuck this asshole, we’re going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

  50. Having read through the entire concatenation of jackasseries in this thread I now understand why libertarians have so little influence in the real world.

  51. I will acknowledge and share AC’s position on privatization (she knows that it is no stretch for a libertarian). In reciprocity can she admit that war needs to be de-statized and de-industrialized, that prisons need to be de-statized and de-industrialized, that law enforcement needs to be de-federalized and de-militarized, that schools need to be de-statized and de-authoritarianized, that infrastructure needs to be privatized and de-subsidized.

    The privatization of crime does not make it acceptable.

  52. The libs are 50% and the cons are 45%, 95% authoritarians and statists. The libertarian pussies are 5% yet they have the fortitude to stand up to the libs and cons.

  53. I see a lot of butthurt in these comments. Coulter did make a big oversimplification of libertarians but in essence she is completely correct. I for one, have been wishing someone would say this for years.

  54. NOBODY finds you attractive, Coulter, so quit dressing like a callgirl everywhere you go. Aunt Esther from Sanford & Son looks like a supermodel compared to you!

  55. Coulter’s basic premise is that there are so many more important things to worry about than drug laws, I believe.
    When I look around at the drug war and see thousands upon thousands dying, millions having their lives ruined, fathers taken away, children separated from parents, drug pushing in our schools – I do not understand how Coulter can believe that the drug war debate is so low priority against other issues, it is not for the millions having their lives destroyed.
    The fact is, for many of us, the drug war simply has more of an impact on our day to day lives than many of the other problems that our country faces. While other govt. intrusions are important to us, many of us have family and loved ones that are sitting in prisons because of pot and that simply makes it a high priority for us. Coulter might be one of the lucky ones that doesn’t have a child or other loved one being destroyed by the drug war right now, but if that changes in the next few years I bet that her low priority view changes also.

  56. I agree with her that many seem to be Libertarian on the issue of pot, but not other issues including free market capitalism. The issue of pot legalization should be seen as part of a package of overall individual liberties, and not just as a one issue rallying call for anyone who likes getting high with no consequences. Just because I disagree with something does not mean it should be illegal,however that also does not make me concede that it is right.

  57. Ann Coulter does not “counsel” Libertarians, whether they are teenagers or adults. She blew up on Stossel. She called the students nerds and pussies. That is not counseling. She wants Libertarians to be Republicans, which we are not. That is her problem. The Libertarian Party is growing and the Republican Party is imploding.

  58. like Edna said I am blown away that anybody can earn $6418 in 1 month on the computer. have you seen this link http://www.wow92.com

  59. Jake. you think Brian`s rep0rt is nice, yesterday I picked up a gorgeous Renault 4 since getting a check for $8065 this last 4 weeks and a little over 10 grand this past munth. this is really the easiest-job I’ve ever had. I actually started four months/ago and practically straight away startad bringin in over $77 per hour. I work through this website,,
    http://JUMP30.COM

  60. This post is some sort of satire that I don’t “get,” right? Picking apart the intentionally ridiculous is such a waste of time.

  61. they’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations are gonna be…and you want to suck to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, we want to legalize pot.

    I know she’s just a professional troll, but wow that’s some impressive cognitive dissonance.

  62. what Joan explained I didnt know that any body can profit $6664 in one month on the computer. did you read this website http://www.fly38.com

  63. Ripping on libertarians is a pretty clear sign for a republican that they are a party shill and not a real conservative. If you truly believe in what you are saying, you look for allies and encourage your similarities, instead these republicans see libertarians as vote stealers and try to push the idea that we are a fringe group.

  64. up to I saw the check 4 $5133, I did not believe that my neighbour was actually taking home money part time on their laptop.. there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than thirteen months and recently paid for the depts on there place and got a brand new Ford. read more at,
    http://JUMP30.COM

  65. If you think Julie`s story is cool…, last week my cousins step dad got a cheque for $9876 working eighteen hours a week an their house and the’re neighbor’s aunt`s neighbour has done this for 10-months and recieved a check for over $9876 in their spare time at their labtop. the tips from this address, http://www.wow92.com

  66. upto I saw the draft four $7797, I didn’t believe that my neighbour woz like actualey taking home money parttime on their laptop.. there aunts neighbour has done this less than fifteen months and resently repaid the mortgage on their appartment and purchased a great new Dodge. this is where I wenthttp://googlejobs.com.qr.net/kgzE

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.