New York City

Of Soda Bans, Sodomy, Single Moms and Sycophants of the Nanny State

You can find someone to support banning anything

|

gordian knots

Nick Gillespie noted earlier today an op-ed in the New York Times by Sarah Conly, author of the wonderfully titled "Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism," arguing in favor of what else but the nanny state. Conly asks why there's "so much fuss" over Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to regulate soda sizes. "[S]ometimes we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff," Conly argues, because we're not always rational (stop the presses!). And the government, for Conly, is the agent to do the stopping. It seems she adopts a "we are the government" stance, at one point saying the government's supposed to "help us get where we want to go." But if people are prone to be irrational, and the government is made up of people, why wouldn't it be prone to irrationality? The soda ban itself, after all, is irrational; Jacob Sullum pointed out even the mayor doesn't think it'll work.

Nevertheless it's nothing new for Bloomberg to support a policy despite evidence to the contrary, like with stop and frisk. The attempted soda ban is part of a policy basket that includes reducing salt in food products and banning transfats. Its supporters argue that curbing public health costs justifies the policy.  As Nick Gillespie noted earlier today, a debate on the soda ban between MeMe Roth (pro) and Ann Coulter (against) featured Coulter asking if a soda ban were acceptable, why not ban sodomy, which also has associated health risks? Bloomberg himself, however, has turned a version of this hypothetical into a real example. Earlier this month, while the city prepared for the new soda regulations, the city also rolled out an ad campaign against teen pregnancy. It didn't ban teen pregnancies, it didn't introduce any new regulations to try to nudge the teen pregnancy statistics done. Yet some of the same people in favor of the soda ban were aghast by the notion of the teen pregnancy campaign. "This ad doesn't provide info about safe sex or how to attain low-cost or free birth control," a Yahoo blogger wrote, calling the ads insulting and enraging. Planned Parenthood agreed, calling birth control an effective strategy against teen pregnancy. Yet New York City's government does promote and subsidize birth control and contraceptives as well. A campaign to distribute Plan B in public schools was met with resistance, but as is the Bloomberg way, went full speed ahead anyway. The New York Post revealed the program was far more widespread than the Bloomberg administration initially acknowledged. 12,721 doses were distributed to girls as young as 14 last school year. With the administration pursuing this kind of program, it could use the same arguments deployed in favor of a soda ban for measures meant to discourage teen pregnancy and even teen sex.

After all, as Conly argued, sometimes we don't know what's best for us. Liberals use the argument of need to support regulations and bans ranging from soda to guns. Who needs a 32 ounce soda at dinner? Who needs a so-called assault weapon? But what do people really need? A hovel and some gruel. Everything else is part of life's rich accoutrement, our desire (need) for more knowledge, more material goods, more experiences, more emotions. The pursuit of happiness includes guns, soda, sex,  transfats, tobacco, narcotics, all depending on the eye of the beholder. Conly invokes John Stuart Mill's "no harm" principle, conflating it with the idea of the rational man (as Nick Gillespie noted). The no harm principle, of course, works independent of the idea of a rational man. It gains new strength in the absence of one, in fact. Despite the effort by nanny state apologists to attribute consensus to their policy prescriptions, the controversy each stirs belies that argument. Given enough time, every apologist will learn the lesson at some point, when the state large enough to stop the behavior he or she disapproves is set to the purpose of stopping behavior the nanny state apologist sees nothing wrong. And if we keep bring up how ridiculous the contrary notion of a benevolent nanny state formed by a weak-willed populace is, maybe we won't have to see how bad it has to get for people to start thinking rationally about government power.

NEXT: To Get By, Americans Increasingly Work Off the Books

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. I don’t know if this has been discussed before. It’s a grocery store where welfare moms have all their choices made for them:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3T_iIMRjyE

    1. Excuse me, I need to go murder something now.

      1. That had to be a spoof. Tell me it was a spoof.

        1. Christ, they’re real. It’s like Pyongyang with costumed characters.

          1. It’s nothing like that at all. Those people have something to eat, and we’re paying for it.
            In Pyonyang, you eat tree bark.

        2. It is not The Onion. http://www.mncinc.com/

          Fuck!

        3. Did you guys seriously think that the “X%+ more Americans on foodstamps” headlines wouldn’t create a marketable demographic like this?

          Anyways, if you do a little poking around you can find out they are associated with L.A.R.D. Holdings and a “Tapatio Market”.

          1. Jeez, she’s already got two kids and a nice home, and looks like a third is on the way from her “baby bump.” So nice to know “the poor” are living so well, and not having to worry about more mouths to feed, and the Ds can only think of ways to continue to raise taxes.

    2. Why does that mom on food stamps apparently live in a middle class home with a spacious kitchen and a single cup coffee maker?

      Those single cup coffee makers can be pretty expensive.

      1. I paid about $350 for mine.
        If I went to someone’s house and discovered they were on food stamps/welfare and had one of those I would smash it on the floor.

        1. Why take your wrath out on somebody who is (presumably) playing the game by the rules? Now, if you wanted to smash the paternalistic morons who MADE the system, that I could get behind.

          Besides, having a one-cup coffee maker proves nothing. How long has she had the thing? Was it new when she bought it?

          1. “Besides, having a one-cup coffee maker proves nothing. How long has she had the thing? Was it new when she bought it?”
            C.S.P., anyone who has ‘servants’ doing her shopping for her didn’t buy *anything* used.

    3. I don’t know which is worse… The concept of a well marketed crony(esque) food store predicated on condescension towards customers perceived to be too fucking stupid and/or lazy to properly exploit EBT, or finding out my puppy was run over by a drunk driver eaten by a guy…high on bath salts.

      1. I know! Discovering the puppy-eater is head manager of your local MNC!

    4. Rage…taking….over….

    5. Going to the potty is so confusing. Bidet, toilet paper, my hand, reverse cowgirl, and the three sea shells – which one do I use, and how?

      Luckily the Toilet Safety Administration is there to help!

      Even a Big Boy needs a little help with a Big Boy poop! Thanks, TSA!

      1. After the nephew uses the bathroom I find the toilet paper inconveniently placed on the tank top almost everytime. I’ve been meaning to ask him what the fuck is that about.

        1. he sits facing the back as it was intended.

    6. That actually might be a good idea…. Beggars can’t be choosers.

    7. *Silently gets up from computer bearing emotionless expression. Walks out door with AR-15*

      1. Winner of the inernetz.

    8. I know you guys wanna get a rage boner, but it appears to be a legitimate business that is attempting to cater towards people on foodstamps. What’s the difference between them accepting foodstamps and a grocery store that accepts them?

      Honestly, if it gets people out of the checkout line I’m for it. Takes forever when there’s vouchers then EBT then credit card then cash to pay for everything.

      1. A business set up around government moolah isn’t a legitimate business.

        1. No, it’s totally legit, it’s just the fact that pandering for pogey is a workable business strategy that is rage-boner inducing.

        2. I used to live across the street from a store like this, only it’s branding wasn’t as nice. It’s not a new concept.

          Are banks a legitimate business? What about public universities? Arms manufacturers? Tax accountants?

          Plenty of people receive mad cash directly or indirectly from the government but you don’t have HnRunners talk about “emotionlessly walking outside with their AR-15” because of them. The amount of hyperbole in this thread is ridiculous.

          1. Oh lighten up Francis.

          2. Banks, universities and arms manufactures would exist without government. To the extent they actively seek, lobby and/or rely on government money they are illegitimate. Same for accountants and I’m not gonna give shit to people’s whose job it is to minimize the amount of theft and stress from dealing with government. I’m not blaming people for cashing in but if you build a whole business model around cashing in on food stamps I’m only going to look down on you.

        3. No, the business is at least as legitimate as any other business. What isn’t legitimate is the Government. Don’t misdirect your wrath.

          1. I have plenty of wrath to go around.

      2. There’s nothing wrong with the attempt to cash in. What’s incredibly sad is that we now have so many people on welfare that something like this is viable.

    9. “It’s soooo easy!”

      “Not only do I not have to work, but the more babies I pump out the more convenient my shopping experience is! The state is GREAT!”

    10. I had never heard of that before, but it looks like a shop that mostly takes WIC vouchers. WIC vouchers are already very specific about which foods can be purchased with them. So, each voucher specifies a certain number of gallons of a certain type of milk and a certain number of cans of tuna or whatever, so mothers using WIC vouchers (and it’s only for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers plus children up to 5 years old) already have most of their choices made for them. I think the income limits for WIC are higher than they are for food stamps, too, so it’s not necessarily the case that a mother getting WIC gets food stamps or any other type of welfare, other than the WIC voucher. So, for those moms, I doubt this store limits choices anymore than the vouchers already do. I’m a little surprised that such a narrowly tailored business is successful, but where there is a pot of government money, there is generally someone trying to capture it.

    11. “Why redeem your vouchers at the supermarket where the cashiers don’t fully understand how to process a voucher and the people behind you are saying things behind your back for paying with vouchers and making the wait longer?”

      Yes, why would you ever want to shop with the people who are actually paying for your groceries?

  2. Once we’re restricted to What One Needs by our betters, and labor incessantly to support the apparat run by them…what will be the difference between us and livestock?

    1. May as well Godwin it now:
      The Nazis called the concentration-camp inmates “Stuck” (with an umlaut): Stock. Yep, what farmers herd.
      Slightly better than that thug Beria’s term: “Camp dust”.
      But, yeah, you’re onto something.

      1. Any sort of paternalism quickly becomes an rationalization for our worst instincts. Name virtually any evil from slavery to forced sterilization to eugenics and they were always justified by concern for the victim.

        1. And all resulted in harm to that group. But intent is all that matters…

          1. Paternalism is a wonderful rationalization for selfish ends. You really wanted to enslave those people so you could get rich growing sugar. You mean enslaving them is actually helping them? How convenient.

            Scratch any paternalist and you will find just beneath the skin a deeply selfish person rationalizing their selfishness. Of course Conly wants to control everyone. It makes her an important person, gives her tenure. How convenient.

            1. Nope. All evil stems from selflessness.

      2. I hope I’m classified as some special breed to get a slightly more comfy paddock, but as a heterosexual, white, Christian male, I’m not sanguine.

    2. There’s an anarchist dude who has appropriately summed up our existential situation.

      We are Tax Livestock. So much more productive than slaves!

      1. But they are so greedy and stupid they still manage to fuck it up by raising taxes and regulations so high people give up and stop working.

  3. Sorry. Alt text needs to be “Gordian Nots”

  4. Keep licking those boots, bitch.

  5. What we really need is to hang some people upside down from lamp posts and throw garbage at their lifeless corpses in celebration of our freedom from progressive nanny-statism.

    1. Vacationing in Italy, taking a ferry cruise on Lake Como. Not many English-speakers and I’m getting along with my high-school Latin.
      North end of the lake, dock worker points off to the west, takes a couple of tries: “That’s where they hung Il Duce!’
      Damn if it wasn’t. And mankind could benefit by more of that activity.

      1. I hear Lake Como is awesome. And that was before I knew that was where they hung that paper hanging fascist bastard.

        1. My correction:
          He was shot and killed in Dongo; west side of the north end of Lake Como. His corpse was then taken to Milano and hanged upside down.
          But, yes, Como approaches *amazing*; some of the towns on the shores see to be glued onto vertical mountainsides.

        2. The Austrian Corporal was the paper-hanger. Il Duce was a schoolteacher and sometime stonemason.

          1. Il Duce was a socialist newspaper and magazine editor.

            1. Speaking of Il Duce , it seems that Mussolini anticipated Sarah Comly:

              “[A]s civilization assumes aspects which grow more and more complicated, individual freedom becomes more and more restricted. … The concept of freedom is not absolute because nothing is ever absolute in life. Freedom is not a right, it is a duty. … The concept of freedom changes with the passing of time. … In our state the individual is not deprived of freedom. In fact, he has greater liberty than an isolated man, because the state protects him and he is part of the State.”

  6. “An op-ed in the New York Times by Sarah Comly, author of the wonderfully titled “Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism,” ”

    The New York Times “Justifying Coercive Paternalism”? Say it aint so!

  7. http://www.bowdoindailysun.com…..-conly128/

    Funny how sometimes people’s souls are expressed in their looks. Could this women look any more like the most unpleasant stereotype of a schoolmarm?

    1. She does have that Lizzy Warren look goin on.

      “Look, maybe my math doesn’t make any sense BUT PEOPLE ARE OUT THERE STRUGGLING AND I NEED TO FIGHT FOR THEM. ALSO, MEN ARE TERRIBLE AND I WANT A BABY.”

      And people wonder why 35+ men are going single in droves.

      It ain’t rocket science folks.

      1. She makes Lizzy Warren seem like Kate Beckensdale.

        1. She looks what I imagine every female prof at Bowdoin looks like. At least based on the people I know who went to school there.

      2. Why would any man get married? Cosmos need to answer this question. The best way you can defeat feminism is to go Galt. You want to act like a slut? Fine, pump and dump and pump and dump. You want a career? I’ll get out my Xbox.

        1. Settle down Tucker Max, this isn’t a “war” on anything. Men are not entirely innocent in the failures of relationships either, and we all make our own choices.

          That’s what makes these people so farking detestable. They don’t want anyone making choices but THEM.

        2. “Why would any man get married? Cosmos need to answer this question.”

          Why? Wouldn’t cosmos be more likely to be the kind of a person who wasn’t interested in getting married, compared to a traditionalist?

          1. Why? Because cosmos support the current cultural system. That’s why. They are the ones who think the system is fine and dandy. Are cosmos going to say no, don’t get married? If they say that, then they will be revealed as the idiots they are. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

            1. Given how cosmo is a pretty vague term and it’s not really clear who exactly they are or what exactly constitutes the “current cultural system” I’m not exactly sure how to answer. But when I think “cosmo” I wouldn’t be surprised if such a person was skeptical of the institution of marriage.

              I’m not a fan of girls being sluts and prefer to be in a relationship. I also sometimes feel like there are far too many girls (and guys, but I don’t swing that way so it doesn’t really matter to me) that aren’t interested in a serious relationship. So I do sympathize with parts of what your saying. That said, I also don’t think that any girl that even once does anything outside a relationship is a slut and a terrible person, and I also don’t object to a woman wanting to have a career in addition to raising children. If that makes me a “cosmotarian” then oh well.

              1. Cali: it’s a sockpuppet troll. Ignore and move on.

                I wonder if a certain woman from Ft Worth TX has run out of batteries for her Obama vibrator.

              2. A cosmo is a libertarian who supports cultural liberalism. You know exactly what constitutes the current cultural system. Feminism, serial monogymy, “A WOMMESN CHOOIZE,” “rape culture”(hint: it aint there), ect. Name one major cultural figure who is a conservative? The closest I can come to in Kelly Clarkson, who followed up on her endorsement of Paul by say she “didn’t mean to offend anyone.” Television, movies, music, ect, all support the current sexual morality and lack thereof. I don’t know what you mean by ” even once does anything outside a relationship” but it sounds to me like a slut. What else do you call these people? If the cosmo is not interested in marriage then he has to answer to me HOW human beings are supposed to reproduce. As I said, the future belongs to those who show up for it, and telling you “don’t bother” when the question of how to reproduce will not win the argument. Or are they part of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

                1. A cosmo is a libertarian who supports cultural liberalism

                  Are you sure? I always thought that term referred to anyone on the Koch side of the Rothbard-Koch schism.

                  -jcr

                  1. Is this seriously like a ‘Right-wing vs. left wing’ thing within libertarianism itself? That is fucking stupid. We make it sound like the fucking French National Assembly.

                    1. @Irish

                      The whole cosmo thing is a way for some republicans, that are ashamed to be republicans for some reason, to latch onto libertarianism. They take the non-aggression principle and chuck it out the window for their own nativist, racist and puritanical aims.

                      You’ll notice that those who cry “cosmo” the loudest are always the ones that want libertarians to vote for shitty republican statists.

                    2. I don’t want libertarians to vote Republican. I’ve never voted Republican in my life.

                    3. I always encourage patriotic Americans NOT to vote Republican. The Republican party is the part of white Americans, but they don’t represent white Americans, and they won’t, until they learn our power.

                2. Sorry gillmore, I like tits and beer much more than lame, puritanical harpies like yourself; so I must be a “cosmo”.

                  Maybe you should relax, have a couple of drinks and go get your hideous self laid.

                  1. “Maybe you should relax, have a couple of drinks and go get your hideous self laid.”
                    That was the entire point, idiot.

                    1. I meant actually. As in not talking about it on the internet.

                      Sorry for the confusion, playa.

                3. Oh Christ, now I get it.

                  *slaps forehead, relieved look of recognition spreads across face

                  This isn’t GILMORE it’s Gillmore (or should I say American). Now the PM Links thread makes sense. I’m a little slow today.

                  Somebody call the Sheriff.

                  1. I really don’t see how one could deny the existence of a left-right split in libertarianism after reading everything in the P.M. links. It’s fucking ridiculous. Democrats and Republicans hate each other’s guts over cultural issues and this translates into libertarianism.

                    1. I glanced over the PM links and witnessed one sad little man grasping at dignity. Is that what you mean by a “split”?

                    2. I’m really confused how you came up with a left-right split out of that Gilly, the disagreements were generally social and not necessarily easily mapped onto a left right axis.

                    3. The left-right axis is as social as anything. The left is the cultural liberals, the right is the cultural traditionalists. It makes sense to most people, who have never heard of things like the nolan chart and associated bullshit.

                  2. I don’t think Gillmore is American. He’s just a little man with a small penis whose angry at the world. I’ve seen nothing yet about blacks or mexicans.

                    1. Willard seems to be gunning for American-ness with his party of white people nonsense.

                    2. He agreed with a comment by American about how awesome Japan is due to cultural and racial homogeneity, lauded China for promoting eugenics, and in one of his comments it seems like he was about to generalize immigrants as having a low-IQ, but the post cuts off suddenly. And American said a lot of the same stuff he does about gender and sexuality

                4. A slut is a girl who regularly has sexual exploits outside of a relationship with different people. A girl who has a one night stand once is not a slut. A girl who is FWB with one guy is not a slut. A girl who does these things regularly and/or with different guys is a slut. That’s what I was saying.

                  I would agree that Hollywood and the entertainment industry supports the things you describe, but I don’t consider them to be the entirety of culture. But I’ll give you that. That said, I think this “current cultural sytem” promotes promiscuity during youth, but I still think people are expected to eventually settle down, marry, and have kids.

                  And human beings reproduce by fucking. They don’t need a government license or a church ceremony to conceive a child. I don’t think that out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a good thing, but let’s not pretend that humanity will go extinct without marriage.

                  1. A thief who only stole once is not a thief. A thief who regularly robs one house is not a thief. Call it California logic. People are only expected to marry when the women are thirty and too old for the alpha males with options to fuck. My point was that cosmos who tell people not to bother getting married and reproducing have no argument, because their society is unsustainable. If cosmos want to make an argument for people to have children outside of marriage, I ain’t even going to listen.

                    1. Yeah, who ever heard of an attractive thirty year old? They’re as rare as a unicorn! Never in my life has a woman passed the age of 30 looked good to me. Christina Hendricks? Hag. Allesandra Ambrosio? Gross. Giselle Bundchen? Gaaah, get it away from me.

                      Truly, I can think of no women over 30 that I am in any way attracted to.

                    2. I guess in your world the Irish aren’t a race of drunks, because there are some Irish who aren’t drunks? I’d much rather fuck the average twenty year old than the average thirty year old, and that’s what many thirty year old men do.

                    3. Even if you marry a girl at 20, you do realize she’ll be 30 in 10 years right? And that it’s supposed to be “till death do us part”?

                    4. I thought cosmos were in favor of marriage? You held the exact opposite position earlier in the thread. It’s almost as if you’re a sockpuppet with no opinions of your own.

                    5. “A thief who only stole once is not a thief. A thief who regularly robs one house is not a thief. Call it California logic.”

                      Thief has a definition. It means one who steals. Slut has a definition. It does not refer to girls who have sex with one man, even if they aren’t in a relationship, or who have ever had a one night stand. I didn’t invent the word. Don’t expect to be taken seriously if you think a girl who has sex once or with one guy is a slut.

                      “My point was that cosmos who tell people not to bother getting married and reproducing have no argument, because their society is unsustainable”

                      You seem confused as to what cosmos believe. Plenty of culturally liberal people get married and have kids. Others don’t.

                      “If cosmos want to make an argument for people to have children outside of marriage, I ain’t even going to listen.”

                      I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s a good thing, just that the human race isn’t going extinct without marriage as long as people fuck. This is also inconsistent with what you’ve been saying. You’re the one arguing people shouldn’t get married, and now you’re calling other people out for being against marriage?

            2. This is the least coherent anonbot yet.

        3. Man, how will women ever survive if you’re unwilling to marry them? You seem like such a catch.

          1. Because I’m the only man who is not excited about marriage. I’m the only man who doesn’t want a rude slut for a wife.

            1. Don’t worry, you won’t have any problems avoiding marriage. Or sex. Have fun with porn!

            2. In This Thread: whiny beta virgin.

        4. I’ll get out my Xbox.

          I have a feeling this happens a lot.

          1. It’s funny they want to act like they do now but expect men to act like the fifties. No thank you.

            1. Why don’t you just date guys then?

              That seems to be what you’re getting around to.

              1. It’s true. 2,000 years of Turkic history proves that there’s nothing more “alpha” than being the dude who butt-fucks a prepubescent boy after forcing the boy to dress like a girl.

              2. I’m pretty sure he does. He mentioned getting “ass” before. I bet all the racist boys love getting reamed by him.

        5. Why would any man get married?

          Maybe because they live in a country where it’s not such a dangerous prospect?

          -jcr

      3. Looks more like Lizzie Borden to me..

        Obviously, the poor woman has daddy issues that we can’t even begin to fathom, so she should be confined to a mental institution immediately for her own good. Since she despises freedom, how could she object?

        -jcr

    2. Carrie Nation reincarnated.

      1. Hell, Carry Nation (the Carry is actually the correct spelling, which tells you a lot about her family) was at least INTERESTING. Robert Louis Taylor wrote a great biography of her. Hilarious!

  8. “Who needs a 32 oz. soda at dinner?”

    Well, I do for one. I rarely drink less than 32 ounces with a meal, and routinely will down 64. I need at least 3 liters of water each day. And I’m not obese by any stretch. Not that it is any of the government’s concern.

    And one is a number sufficient to make this stupid idea an evil abomination that should be wiped from the face of the earth. Even when there is a compelling reason to use the force of the state to infringe on the rights of an individual it is still an abomination. When there isn’t even the cover of a plausible reason – well, what is the word for that level of evil? When using the power of the state to abuse the rights of the individual is such a casual exercise that there isn’t even a moment’s pause at the trivial abuses taking place in NYC, well, there’s some sort of Rubicon crossing going on here.

    1. Exactly. There is nothing you can’t justify using Conley’s logic. You are harming yourself by that speech, therefore we can stop you from doing it. Conley thinks she is being so clever by saying “we wouldn’t do that because the harm would out weigh the good” as if that calculus couldn’t be manipulated for whatever purpose we want. She is just appalling stupid and willfully blind to human nature and how these sorts of things actually work in practice.

      1. Calculus? There’s no farking calculus John. You give these people too much credit. It’s the equivalent of measuring Karma. It can’t be done but she’ll do it. And scarier still, she will believe her ‘results’.

    2. Cyto| 3.25.13 @ 9:33PM |#
      “Who needs a 32 oz. soda at dinner?”
      Well, I do for one…
      ————————-
      More importantly, it’s no one’s business but yours.
      Justifying any of this crap is counter-productive. When Feinstein asks ‘do they need a bazooka’? the answer is ‘it’s none of your business, twit.’

      1. Hell, “When Feinstein asks ‘do they need a bazooka’? the answer is ”

        ? because I’m afraid that simply shooting you, beheading the corpse, and burying it with a stake through the heart might not keep you from rising like the Vampire that you are.

    3. It is pretty bad for you to be drinking 64 ounces of soda. Still, it’s no one’s business but yours.

      1. It is pretty bad for you to be drinking 64 ounces of soda.

        Those dang ‘cosmos’ and their sodas.

      2. It is pretty bad for you to be drinking 64 ounces of soda.

        Absent any other context…you’re still a dumbass.

    4. Who needs a 32 oz. soda at dinner?

      I often drink a 32 oz soda while loading my 30 round clips and cleaning my assault weapons.

  9. If there is any big government program I could support, discouraging conscipcuous breeding among teenagers is it. You’re not banning anything. Sure, I’m being forced to pay for it, I’d just rather e forced to pay for it than other things. It is typical Planned Parenthood is against it, the goal all along has been to encourage teenage(among other kinds of) sex. They just don’t like the consequences, which might discourage sex.

    1. Planned Parenthood is against blowjobs?

    2. It actually makes sense they would be since PP is nothing but an abortion for profit organization.

      1. And don’t forget government lobbying for profit.

      2. nothing but an abortion for profit organization.

        Erm, have you ever BEEN to a planned parenthood?

        1. No. Why is that surprising to you? Have you?

          1. Well there’s a lot of PP hate, but I don’t think people appreciate how much PP does besides abortion.

            I have no need for PP, but I have friends who have gone for gynecological checkups when they didn’t have insurance, preventative birth control, and STI tests. I don’t agree with all of their politics or their relationship to government funding, but they do provide valuable medical services besides abortion.

            1. That may be large city bias. In my city, they aren’t equipped to do anything more than absolute minimum women’s health care. We end up doing all their exams, mammos, and so forth. They just pay for it.

              And if the government threw obscene amounts of money at us instead of Planned Parenthood, we could cut them out completely.

              For breast imaging, Komen and church charity organizations pay for far more procedures than PP. I think I remember one case out of thousands paid for by them. That’s probably not representative of their spending in women’s health in general, especially not in larger cities.

              You’d think that given their reputation as a critical provider of general health services for women, there would be more evidence of it.

              1. That may be large city bias.

                That’s entirely possible. I’ve seen wildly divergent numbers on PP spending. My indirect experience with them has been positive, but I’m not crazy about them as an organization.

                1. Just to be clear, I’m not opposed to anyone who provides women’s health services. But I resent Planned Parenthood promoting themselves as in indispensable institution for non-abortion-related services, when as far as I can tell, they just refer women to our clinic and maybe distribute brochures on pap smears.

                  1. I think that came through perfectly clear. You wouldn’t have to try hard to convince me that PP focused on providing the best care in places they thought they’d be able to suck in donors and less care in places that actually needed better access to women’s health services. Like I said I don’t like the organization, I’ve generally been fairly tolerant only because of dealings that friends have had with them.

    3. If there is any big government program I could support, discouraging conscipcuous breeding among teenagers is it.

      Yeah, ’cause fighting biology is a good use of tax dollars. How about a government program that discourages drinking water?

      I almost feel bad for you.

      1. People are also biologically programmed to kill each other. If someone sleeps with someone’s wife, he is very angry and wants to kill that person. That is perfectly rational from a biological standpoint. It’s biology, it must be okay!

        1. Like I said, I almost feel bad for you.

          When you’re a sad, little moron is everything in life as hard as making a coherent argument on the internet? I’m not making fun, I seriously want to know.

          1. On this point, he’s right. Th act that it is a biological function does not mean it it sacrosanct.

    4. conscipcuous

      This made-up word is the most coherent thing you’ve said, Troll from Stormfront.

      1. I’m actually Jewish, idiot.

        1. American claimed to be Jewish last time around too. Another coincidence

          1. Was that when he was New Rise, or was that a different head of the hydra?

            1. Given how many Americans there are today, it appears that when you ban one of them, two more sprout from the stump.

              1. Willard seems more american than Gillmore does. Maybe Gillmore is american’s bastard child and that’s why he’s so uptight about old-timey sexual mores!

                1. Is Gillmore his brother as well? Because that would explain a lot.

          2. Remember that guy who used to show up and call everyone anti-Semites and Nazis for not fellating Israeli foreign policy? Herzog, I think?

            I miss him.

            1. I think it is intellectually dishonest to call opponents of Israel antisemites. They apply the same logic to our nation, although by virtue of it’s size it wouldn’t be so immediately deadly. Nevertheless, their policies would result in millions of dead Jews at the bottom of the Mediteranean.

            2. That was UNDERZOG!!!

              1. Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I don’t see why people see objectivism as a part of libertrianism. It’s a cult and it’s neo-con.

                1. Please lie more for the late night audience, little monkey.

          3. American was Jewish? I always thought he was a stormfronter.

            1. Typical tony.

              1. Wait, you’re Tiny as well? Now I’m confused.

            2. I don’t think he is. He initially didn’t claim to be and said some quite offensive things about Jews. But later incarnations that were obviously him (made the exact same arguments) claimed to be part Jewish and have an Asian girlfriend.

  10. Dude that makes a ll kinds of crazy sense dude.

    http://www.MaxAnon.tk

  11. I’ve always had a question for libertarians, never gotten an answer. Of the one million Africans, one million Indians, 600 million Latin Americans, 250 million Indonesians,(the list goes on) how many would immigrate under open borders? I understand the individual rights, free movement of labor, blaw blaw argument and that’s what is usually said instead of answering the question, but those who advocate a radical policy such as open borders should be able to at least have some idea of what their policy would do.

    1. There are like 100 million Americans today. He is going crazy with the sock puppet accounts.

      1. Really? Where were the others, I didn’t see any.

        1. Gillmore and King of the Americans. Check the PM links thread

          1. Oh, thanks. This should be good.

            1. Has anyone heard from Darius since he posted this? I’m worried he may have fallen deep into the heart of madness as he read that PUA thread.

              I don’t think anyone got out of that thread unscathed.

              1. PUA thread?

                1. Don’t do it.

                  1. Francisco is correct.

              2. Your side did get slaughtered in that thread. The problem with your vision of the world is that it simply does not stand up to reality, no matter how much you want it to.

                1. “Your side did get slaughtered in that thread.”

                  What is “your” side, Gillmore? You and Virginian repeating radically misogynistic talking points? This is why everyone associates libertarians with sexist pigs.

                  1. Hey George, have you ever noticed that women are attracted to assholes?

                    1. Who are you to be telling women who they should and should not be attracted to?

                    2. Classic dodge.

                    3. Women aren’t attracted to assholes, they’re attracted to confident men. Losers have a tendency to mistake confident men for assholes out of envy and a sense of entitlement.

                    4. You can call it what you call it, confidence, being an asshole, the point is it WORKS!!!!! Being a beta doesn’t.

                    5. Except confidence and being an asshole are in no way the same thing.

                      That would be like saying ‘You can call it whatever you want, a horse, a tree. The point is, it certainly isn’t an elephant!’

                    6. A lot of people think confidence is assholery, you yourself said so. And then you ADMITED that there is a right way to do things. Alright, confidence(if you read the manoshpere, confidence is a major principle). So how do you get confidence? How do you look confident? Here’s an example of confident people:

                      http://heartiste.wordpress.com…..-cad-game/

                      Are they confident, are they assholes? Who cares, they are sucessfull.

                    7. Oh Roissy is real fucking credible.

                    8. Yeah, I’m sure he faked that video. I know because my cult leader told me so.

                    9. Right. I’m sure it had fuck all to do with the fact that he’s good looking. If you buy this snake oil bullshit you’re dumber than you act. Do you buy the slimming devices they show on teevee too?

                    10. There are many beta males who are good looking and don’t get success with women, because they are betas. I know because I’ve fucking seen it.

                    11. You guys are like Leonard from the Big Bang Theory, who blames his lack of success with women on being short and wearing glasses, instead of being the biggest beta whose ever lived.

                    12. The proof that women don’t like assholes is your obvious lack of regular sex.

                    13. The proof that women don’t like assholes is your obvious lack of regular sex.[citation needed]

                    14. I don’t need a citation. I can smell your desperation from here.

                    15. Jesus. Did I say it was SOLELY because he was good looking? No I very well fucking didn’t. Go try that if you’re 300 pounds and see where it gets you. Try that with acne on your face and a unibrow.

                      You remind me of those people desperate to lose weight with one magic pill. It doesn’t work, asshole!

                    16. Nobody on the manoshpere promises it will work with three hundred pound blobs. Not a single person. The reducto ad absurdum arguments are getting annoying. It’s like saying guns don’t work because blind people can’t use them.

                    17. So wait,..women like good looking men? Quelle surprise!

                      And blind people can use guns, so analogy fail.

                    18. First, guns don’t work because blind people can’t use them. Now, blind people using guns works. The fallacies here are amazing even by the standards of the environment. The fact is simple that game works. Those guys got more numbers in one afternoon than they could have in a year of beta effort. Attitude matters.

                    19. Seriously, get a new girlfriend. You’ll have more sex in one month than you would have had in three months of PUA bullshit.

                    20. How am I supposed to get a girlfriend? Back to square one I guess.

                    21. You could try being a decent human being.

                    22. Well aim certainly helps. Guns aren’t magic death-wands, and pickup “tactics” aren’t magic either.

                    23. Darius, you made my point very well. There may be some contexts where driving across a lawn to get to work on time “works”, but I wouldn’t make a habit of it.

                    24. “Drive a car over their lawn” sums up perfectly alphaness, assholishness, confidence, whatever you call it. You’re showing the woman that you are so good you can drive wherever the hell you want. She isn’t important to you. You’re a man who knows how to take control. It is cliched but it works. Being macho works.

                    25. If you think you can get places by treating other people as if they don’t matter, vaya con fucking dios. I warned you.

                    26. I don’t “think” I can, I have. That’s the mindset I’ve always taken to dates, I’ve trued to delude myself into thinking that the girls don’t matter, that I can have any other girl I want because I’m awesome. They say of you repeat a lie long enough people start to believe it, that is the principle behind this. In Prison when they size up a new inmate, a big part of it is the mindset of the inmate. A new inmate should have the mindset that he will lash out and beat the shit out of everyone who crosses his path, if he believes it, other people will too.

                    27. Wow, prison references? Typical sleazy bigot. I bet you’re a member of an Aryan Prison gang.

                    28. No one’s saying game works every single time. Nothing is magic in this world.

                    29. Nothing is magic in this world.

                      Except Hogwarts!

                    30. You have no evidence it works at all. Sure, dude in video got one numbers. How many were fake? How many did he actually convert? How much more sex could he have had if he had a relationship with a healthy sexual component. A LOT FUCKING MORE. Do you think men get married because they’re stupid?

                    31. He got more than “one numbers.” Convert? To what? “How much more sex could he have had if he had a relationship with a healthy sexual component.” Component? You mean like a pillow? Leave it to the Randian to lecture us about what sexual practices are healthy or not. Men get married because they are either stupid or have no options. LTRs are great for that reason, marriage is unnecessary. It is perfectly rational for a man to want to have sex with twenty girls rather than one.

                    32. As someone who goes to a college where I have a pretty large sample size to observe, I can say that there definitely are a lot of assholes that get girls even without being great looking, but at the same time there are also guys with similar looks that can get just as many girls without being an asshole. Confidence does not equal being an asshole, although assholes generally have confidence.

                    33. Who cares? Why should this even be an issue?

                    34. Some young men(gasp) want sex. PUAs teach them how to get it.

                    35. PUAs teach them how to be fascists. You claim to have principles and then say any way a guy gets sex is perfectly moral. You bigots are the scum of the earth, the flip side of the communists.

                    36. Wanting sex makes me a communist. They say as an argument on a libertarian blog grows larger and larger the probability of someone being accused of being a communist approaches one.

                    37. I think this guy is just a clever ad placer. That pick up community stuff is interesting as a subculture but it’s basically sales jargon and techniques translated to nerd speak.

              3. I’m ok, just got back. Man that/those guy/s is/are nuts. Also, I think Virginian got a bad rap for that PUR stuff. I don’t think trying to be smoother in seducing the ladies and talking about masculinity in terms of “alpha” and “beta” makes him horrible, cult-like, or on the same “side” as Gilly-Merkin.

                1. No, Virginian is definitely in the D-bag column.

                  1. See, I really didn’t get that from anything he said. I even went back and read all his posts to see what he got the hits for. I don’t think the stuff I mentioned is enough to say he’s a “d-bag”.

                    1. Well, first of all, Virginian shoehorned in the entire discussion . Second, he bragged about how much he “gets laid” , which is classic d-bagism.

                    2. he bragged about how much he “gets laid”

                      Meh. Don’t really care about that. And I think he only started on that stuff because he was offended by Slick Gilly’s talking about it. The way I took it, Virginian sees that sort of thing (pick-up stuff) in a less douchey way than Gilly, and it pissed him off. But hell, I can’t read minds or anything.

                    3. He was offended because I suggested that human life had value, so he decided only someone who couldn’t succeed with women could entertain such a delusion. He totally misunderstood game principles.

                2. Virginian is just as bad, just as woman-hating, as Gillmore is. Such ideas should not be tolerated.

                  1. “Such ideas should not be tolerated.”

                    You know how much of a liberal you sound like?

      2. I thought it was 310 million. Is 100 million how many we have after you subtract all the coloreds, Chinamen, Wops, and goddamn shanty Irish?

        1. OOC: that was being ironic. I’m not one of American’s sock puppets. Don’t filter me.

          1. Lies! We’re on to you Merkin!

          2. Don’t filter me bro!

            1. I’m sorry, the correct answer was “Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, Dude.”

        2. You forgot the oily Greeks and the greedy Jews, my Know-Nothing Brother.

          1. Never forget the oily greeks!

            1. Jesse, if that’s some more of your gay shit…well…well-played.

              1. If two dudes preparing for some traditional Turkic/Greek wrestling by covering each other in olive oil is gay, then I don’t even know what straight is anymore.

    2. Don’t know and not concerned.

    3. Having an open border wouldn’t necessarily mean that everyone who walked into territorial USA would be a citizen. People could travel relatively freely but not entitled to any social safety net which may or may not exist in a theoretical libertarians system. Without access to a large safety net the only reason to come would be jobs. If there were no jobs available then there wouldn’t be a strong reason for someone to try to come here.

      Answers will vary from libertarian to libertarian.

      1. ” If there were no jobs available then there wouldn’t be a strong reason for someone to try to come here.”

        They can always live of our streets and beg us for money. Do you have any idea what that would do to our wages?

        1. What would someone on the street begging for money do to our wages? I can’t even begin to figure this out. I guess it would depress the wages of other panhandlers. That’s all I’ve got.

          1. You obviously have no idea of the Reserve Army of Labor idea, do you?

            1. Now you’re using Marx in an argument? The hilarious part is you always criticize Reason and certain commentators for being leftist and then spout communist nonsense

              1. Just because it was developed by Marx doesn’t mean the idea is invalid. You know another idea popularized by Marx? Capitalism. That’s right, he popularized the word. Are you really saying that having a reserve army of labor doesn’t depress the prices for those who are working?

                1. Jesus. The reserve army of labor is a concept that is totally untrue. Wages are determined by competition FOR THAT JOB. If people are just panhandling on the street, it has no effect on the wages of working people.

                  1. I never said the panhandlers wouldn’t be willing to take jobs that are offered to them.

                    1. Yeah, employers are just aching to hire someone whose last job was panhandling.

                    2. I’d rather hire one person for .50 cents an hour whose half as productive as someone who gets 5.00$ and hour.

                    3. Except that a pan handler could easily make more than 50 cents panhandling. So why would he take your job?

                    4. Not if he’s competing with 200 million other panhandlers. Supply and demand, my friend.

                    5. Your example is absurd first off, and there are lots of jobs that panhandlers are completely incapable of performing adequately. Employers care about a lot more than wages. Your just like the leftists that think everyone would earn five cents an hour if not for the minimum wage. Why don’t we just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour. Then we’d have real prosperity!

                    6. I said that the panhandler had half the productivity of the normal worker. As for your reducto ad absudum fallacy I’m not going to dignify it with a response.

                    7. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you forgot to switch back to your Willard account asshole! Busted!

                      In any case,

                      “I said that the panhandler had half the productivity of the normal worker”

                      Well ok, if we’re just gonna stick to your fantasy world and ignore how stuff actually works in real life, then fine. I guess any panhandler on the street could be an engineer but at just half the productivity.

                      And why is it a fallacy? If higher wages are automatically better, then why not? If they aren’t, then why do you think you (or the government) could possibly know what the correct wage should be?

                    8. I love that you (gillmore) got busted and then ran away. God you are a slimy little piece of shit.

                    9. Cause panhandlers are totally gonna be able to do all the jobs in a modern economy just as well as the people that actually apply for them

                2. Marx popularized a word, he didn’t develop the idea of a free-market economy, and showed a terrible understanding of it.

        2. Re: Willard,

          They can always live of our streets and beg us for money.

          Who is us? Because I don’t give money to anyone – I only trade.

          Do you have any idea what that would do to our wages?

          HA HA HA HA HA!!!

          That’s nice – a bed time story!

          Ok, seriously – if there were more beggars than workers, wages would actually go up.

          Think about it.

          1. If you have 100 million workers and add 200 million beggars, the wages for workers go up. Vodoo economics indeed!

            1. Given how there are 100 times more people in the country than when it was founded, wages must have been a lot higher back then! Cause number of people is all that matters when it comes to wages and prosperity!

              1. Well, we stole a lot of land from the indians between that time and now. We also invented things, which we all know requires something, can’t quite put my finger on what.(wink,wink)

                1. Ok let’s shorten that to 1900 and now. The land had already been stolen from the Indians (not that stealing land is a necessity for economic growth). Population has more than doubled.

                  I know what you’re saying in that last line, and I completely fail to see how letting in immigrants prevents things from getting invented.

            2. Re: Willard,

              If you have 100 million workers and add 200 million beggars, the wages for workers go up. Vodoo economics indeed!

              No, opportunity cost. If those people are beggars instead of workers, is because it pays more to be a beggar than a worker, even if income from begging is less. A factory owner that has to compete with that would have to offer a better wage above the utility of begging.

              You should never, NEVER talk about things you have no grasp or clue about. For instance, you totally misapplied and misunderstood Marx’s concept of the Reserve Army of Labor. Marx also totally ignored opportunity costs, precisely because he was NO economist. He was a mountebank.

              1. OldMexican gets Vodoo of the month. If there are people who don’t have jobs, it’s because they don’t want jobs! There is no such thing as people who want jobs but can’t get them and are forced to beg, that’s just commie propaganda.

                1. Fuck you’re stupid.

    4. I think there are a lot more than one million Africans and Indians. Math might be off just a little.

      In any case, I guess we’ve found out that Mitt Romney is American! We already have Rick Santorum posting here, I guess we just need to get Newt Gingrich an account to complete the trifecta!

      1. Billion million, one is too many.(joke)

        1. If you think that’s funny, I have a moon base I’d love to sell you.

    5. Every.

      Single.

      One.

      And then they’ll force us real Americans to gay marry them all. And it will be paradise.

      1. And it will be paradise.

        Only if they bring drugs.

        1. Once everyone is gay married the best drugs will be available in celebration. The people in charge of the gay agenda have the israelis working on them right now.

          1. I thought the Islamic Palestinians were in charge of the post-gaypocalypse drugging of the once great nation of America.

            It’s hard to keep up.

            1. No GBN, Israeli chemists make THE BEST DRUGS?

              1. I totally heard from this guy I know, whose sister said that if you wear a yarmulke while rolling it totally lasts like an hour longer. Dude.

                1. Oh god, I’d actually spend time on the club scene if you could convince people that was true.

                  My understanding is that Israeli chemists are to drugs what japanese engineers are to consumer electronic goods. They don’t develop anything revolutionary they just come up with better and better analogues.

                  I have a massive family history of drug abuse so I haven’t sampled the wares, but they seem to be the top players in the synthetic drug market.

      2. More Likely they’d beat the gays to death. We’re already seeing that in Europe.

        1. They’d “beat” them huh? I suppose then they’d “die the little death”?

    6. America’s borders, until about 1875, were pretty damn open. Prior to 1875, the only way to deport aliens was if they were deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States” or if their home country was at war with the US.

      The reason the borders tightened is that certain people lost their fucking minds about Chinese people and opium and the luring of chaste, virtuous, white women being lured into drug use and degradation by Orientals with small penises (see Rule 34 for further details).

      But anyway, how many would immigrate to the US? Probably a lot. It would be easier for the Latin Americans because all they have to do is go north. Indians and Indonesians might have a harder time, traveling by air or water.

      If it is your concern that the influx of black and brown people will third-worldize America (not that our mostly lily-white legislators aren’t doing their level best to turn America into Yanqui Cuba), which it seems to be, the easiest solution I can offer is to cut off the public teat for aliens and let them rely on their own skills and support system to make a living in America.

      1. People always make the “1875” argument about immigration. It’s the logical equivalent of saying that Europeans could have never colonized north America, because they have tried and failed before. It’s good that you admit that a lot would immigrate. Most of these people simply refuse to answer the question, slavishly answering “the market will take care of it.”

        1. Based on limited encounters with Norweigans, they would likely take offense at being compared to the continentals. Second, the Norsemen apparently weren’t interested in permanently colonizing the Americas as they were in cutting down timber to take back home.

          So they didn’t fail so much as…they didn’t really care.

        2. No one has denied that a lot of people would immigrate. What we’ve denied is that it’s a terrible thing that must be stopped by government force, or that the absurdly large percentages you suggest would immigrate.

          1. Why not the absurdly large percentages? Why would a Nigerian slum dweller not want to immigrate? It doesn’t matter if he can’t find a job, he’ll pan-handle or he’ll turn to crime. He’ll work one day a month on odd jobs, with five dollars an hour that’s 40 dollars a month, more than the dollar a day he’d be accustomed to in Nigeria. Living in Nigeria sucks.

            1. Why would a Nigerian slum dweller not want to immigrate?

              Want and able are not necessarily the same thing. Travel requires money.

              It doesn’t matter if he can’t find a job, he’ll pan-handle or he’ll turn to crime.

              People who don’t find jobs either beg or commit crimes? I’m not sure if this a slur on the unemployed or Nigerians.

              He’ll work one day a month on odd jobs, with five dollars an hour that’s 40 dollars a month, more than the dollar a day he’d be accustomed to in Nigeria.

              Who in America is living on $40 a month?

              Living in Nigeria sucks.

              Is that experience talking?

              1. Want and able are not necessarily the same thing. Travel requires money.

                Loans, cheap steerage fairs, indentured servitude, need I go on? There can be massive savings from importing Nigerians to work in your factory, enough to justify cramming a bunch in an old cargo ship.

                People who don’t find jobs either beg or commit crimes? I’m not sure if this a slur on the unemployed or Nigerians.

                No, if not for family, government assistance(evil!) or private chairty, they will be content to starve to death.

                Who in America is living on $40 a month?

                Who in Nigeria is living on 40$ a month.

                Is that experience talking?

                No. Totally proved your point there.

                1. Loans

                  With what collateral?

                  cheap steerage fairs

                  Why?

                  indentured servitude

                  Yes, because American courts are in a big hurry to uphold indentured servitude contracts.

                  There can be massive savings from importing Nigerians to work in your factory, enough to justify cramming a bunch in an old cargo ship.

                  You must be Portuguese. Or a dumbass. Or Mary Stack. Really, there’s no difference.

            2. “Why not the absurdly large percentages?”

              Because even in the greatest historical examples of mass immigration, never has a country lost anywhere near that percentage of people? And this is gonna happen in dozens of countries simultaneously? Look at how net immigration with Mexico has been negative the last couple years due to the economy. And there are plenty of reasons people don’t immigrate. Family, home, culture, etc are all strong ties to a place. And even with the things you mention, moving can be hard. $40 goes a lot farther in Nigeria than America btw. The dollar a day stats are misleading because it doesn’t account for cost of living. A lot of people aren’t going to be willing to give up their lives and leave their homes (as shitty as they may seem) to go to a radically different place just to live on the streets.

              Studies of happiness are imprecise and conflicting, but seem to indicate that people in 3rd world countries aren’t as depressed, unhappy, and desperate to leave as you make them out to be.

      2. And how did it work out for the Indians? You mention 1875, but Custer’s Last Stand was in 1876.

        Sure, it worked out great for the people who came in. But American Indians essentially faced constantly being evicted from their land by people coming in.

        We made treaties, gave them reservations, then when we wanted that land we gave them, we tore up their treaties and made them move again.

        It’s amazing how Reasonoids seem to have such a blind spot when it comes to American Indians.

        1. Um no. It’s a completely irrelevant comparison. Conquest and immigration are no the same thing. It’s not like the Indians could have saved themselves if only they had told Europeans they couldn’t take their land.

        2. You do realize that the government broke those treaties for more reasons than just new immigrants right?

          No probably not.

    7. Re: Willard,

      how many would immigrate under open borders?

      All of them, until they find out that the Americanized African, Indian, Latin American and Indonesian food sucks.

      Next question?

      1. I’ve had some good Indian and Indonesian food here and I’ve had the real deal. Of course it was always immigrant small business owners making it.

      2. You mean Ethiopian food can be even better than what I’ve had in the States?

  12. Do I really have to be the one to point out that it’s “Conly”, not “Comly”?

    She certainly isn’t comely.

  13. I’d like to extend a warm welcome to our newest sockpuppet trolls, “Gillmore” and “Willard”!

    Thank Zeus for Reasonable.

    1. Oh Zeus, I thought “Gillmore” was “GILMORE”, I was so confused. I wondered why GIL had lost the plot all of a sudden.

      1. Me too. Less confused now.

      2. There was another troll the other day (that sounded just like gillmore) named DB cooper, and we have a sane commenter named db, who used to be dbcooper.

        This fuck is like the THING, we don’t know who to trust. It could be any one of us.

        1. Eh, we had an obsessive multi-personality troll before. I would not be surprised if it’s back.

          Mary, I know you’re out there. Are the meds losing their effectiveness?

          1. Yeah, mary’s anonopussy character was a nativist asshole as well. Had the same tone as these new guys as well.

        2. I ain’t going to lie, I blew a nut in the horse I lol’d.

          1. “I was trying to make the horse have a baby,” Mendoza explained. “I was thinking it would have a horseman baby.” He added, “I ain’t going to lie, I blew a nut in the horse. I then got off the bucket and put my clothes back on and left. I promise that I have not been back over to the horse since that time.”

            El Stevo Smitho, his father…where does Warty fit in Oh God phrasing fail.

  14. This Sarah Conly twat is a perfect example of the brain-rot that sets in when anyone and everyone can go to college. She probably believes that a decade of inhaling her own flatulence in her ivory tower actually qualifies her to tell other people what to do.

    There is nothing in the world more selfish than the desire to rule over others.

    -jcr

  15. There is nothing worse than a sycophant of the nanny state.

    1. This suggests that you haven’t read a whole lot of history, frankly. I have scant use for such people, but there are lots worse. Defenders of murderous slave States like North Korea come to mind.

      Not that there isn’t a fair amount of overlap?…

    2. I would argue that the rulers and the minions who carry out the thuggery are worse than the sycophants.

      -jcr

  16. “But what do people really need? A hovel and some gruel.”

    The Big Black singer Big Twist of Big Twist and The Mellow Fellows used to sing that all a man needs is:
    “A Tight Cunt, Loose Shoes and a Warm Place to Shit!”

    1. He took that line from a racist joke out of the mouth of Nixon/Ford’s Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, who was fired for making that slur.

      Johnny Carson used to love to say his name on the Tonight Show, with heavy emphasis on the “Butz”.

  17. “[S]ometimes we need to be stopped from doing foolish stuff,” Conly argues, because we’re not always rational (stop the presses!). And the government, for Conly, is the agent to do the stopping. It seems she adopts a “we are the government” stance, at one point saying the government’s supposed to “help us get where we want to go.”

    So Conly has no problem with abortion regulations that make sure a woman makes an informed choice before having one.

    1. Oooh! Zing!

      -jcr

    2. That’s different cause…vagina.

  18. The following is from a nanny state blog at CNN. The guy was against the patriot act and drones but was for banning 32 oz sodas. I asked him what set of principles allowed for him to be against the patriot act yet for the soda ban. PERFECT!

    xcuse me, but I fave found glaring holes with every single one of your posts which you have ignored.
    Iv pointed out to you that liberty is restricted through laws and regulations which are put in place to protect society.
    Iv explained that the US has never been “free” in the way you suggest.
    Iv taken the time to explain to you the difference between restrictions and bans.
    I don’t think you have listened to a single thing I have said.
    Iv given you good and valid examples of why this is a worthwhile restriction which you ignore completely.
    Yours is not a discussion but a monologue.
    Get over your tedious lectures from grade school about liberty and come to terms with the fact the US is the fatest country on the planet and that it needs protecting from itself. Sugar is a highly addictive compound which humans are hard wired to crave.
    This addiction is literally killing children. Man up.

    1. You should have taken the time to explain to him how apostrophes work.

    2. Iv pointed out to you that liberty is restricted through laws and regulations which are put in place to protect society.

      So every law and regulation on the books protects society? Qhen the law allows Nanny Bloomberg gets to shake down black people on the street, harass them, force them into court to defend themselves in the name of Stop and Frisk, society benefits? When the law permits a city declares a neighborhood blighted in order to hand over to a developer in the name of higher tax receipts, that benefits society? When the law puts one man goes to jail for merely having a few rounds of ammunition in his bag that he forget was there but another waves a magazine around on live television and isn’t prosecuted because his wife is friends with the prosecuting attorney, that benefits society?

      Iv explained that the US has never been “free” in the way you suggest.

      Your rights have already been infringed on, so why not infringe on them a little bit more?

      If I accidentally put my dick in your ass, can I just go ahead and fuck it since I’m already in there?

      the US is the fatest country on the planet and that it needs protecting from itself.

      People don’t have a right to be fat? Fatties are now the greatest threat to America after Jihadists, Global Warming, Global Cooling, Y2K, West Nile Virus, Killer Bees, SARS, Yellow Food Dye, Commies, Nazis, Commie-Nazis, Sinkholes, Killer Sharks, Imploding Bullets, and Messicans.

  19. Yet some of the same people in favor of the soda ban were aghast by the notion of the teen pregnancy campaign.

    “But those Nazis were such nice boys, all of them! What happened?”

  20. Looks like I’m getting banned again. By and By.

    1. Get help. You have maybe 2-10 years left before you are “that insane old bitch” in the nursing home. And I’m being generous by saying nursing home..

  21. Ya. This is only a yellow alert. Not a condition red. But M*ry St*ck does seem like she might be back.

  22. Jesus Christ, go back to 4chan you annoying little fucks.

    1. It’s not 4chan, even tho I hate those fucks. It’s a certain fat frumpy deranged middle-aged woman from ft worth and apparently an army of dudes that want to engage in disingenuous arguments with her.

      The average HnR poster is not self-aware enough to know when they are being trolled.

      Hint: If it doesn’t present a cogent argument DONT RESPOND TO IT WITH ANYTHING BUT MOCKERY.

  23. You people (YOU PEOPLE!) are seriously retarded. Way to feed the sock puppeteer. I’m gonna check back on this site in 6 months. Fucking morons, as if intellectual shadow-boxing with a fucking deranged troll is worth the effort.

    Stupid fucking idiots. So sick of this shit ruining one of my favorite sites.

    1. What do you mean “You people?”

      Seriously though, American’s gig is hilarious. And like Tony, practicing argument can keep your skills sharp when you encounter someone who’s not a completely thickheaded moron incapable of rational thought. And in the late night thread, there’s not much else going on. I think you’re seriously overreacting here. He gets banned pretty quickly now anyways and isn’t in most threadds

      1. You must be new here. Prepare to “practice” your argument for 16+ hours a day with someone who has multiple personality and histrionic disorder and is a habitual liar. Good luck even having a conversation about basketball as a signal in shadow of that noise.

        This bitch ruined this site for 2+ years and you stupid faggots are going to let her do it again. Intellectual shadow boxing. Idiots.

        1. Well with registration it is much easier for whoever runs the blog to to drop the ban hammer on the sockpuppets.

          I almost never engage it, but I doubt she’ll be able to create 1000+ comment clusterfucks like some of the threads before registration.

          1. You’re a step ahead of the rest. The solution is to not engage it because it feeds off of attention. The reality is that apparently libertarians are morons.

            There is almost no difference between now and then in terms of thread disruption. All you need are a few accounts pre-registered so that as they get banned, you can troll. Mary has already proven to be pretty resilient to IP bans, and as pretty much any mid-intelligence middle schooler knows, you can proxy around IP bans.

            Either she gets ignored and disappears or this place has 2 weeks before it turns into the intellectual equivalent of two men shitting in each others face.

            1. Bingo, I disagree about the attention thing. If this really is Mary, and this lady is really this far gone, I don’t think she cares if people actually listen to her. She’ll post here insane drivel until she gets banned either way.

              In any case, the American problem was way worse a couple months ago. His/her posting frequency has gradually declined, not increased, since it first appeared. I understand your fears, but I think they’re misfounded

              1. You think it’s different?

                1. Do I think what’s different? I don’t think the situation is anywhere near as bad as it was before registration and assuming this is Mary, the problem has not gotten progressively worse since it first appeared. And registration does make it more difficult to troll. It’s not a coincidence that the Mary/WI problem was almost instantly solved by it.

                  1. It’s only appeared in the last 7 days. Srs.

                    1. No it didn’t. American first appeared here months ago. Did you take a break in reading the site? It was way worse for a few weeks when he/she/it first appeared, although nowhere near as bad as WI. Lately, it seems that it lies low for a while, and then posts a bunch of comments in one or two threads with two or three accounts, and then gets banned. The cycle repeats itself from time to time, but overall it hasn’t been posting more as time goes on. Just the opposite

                    2. Mary has been lurking for a long time. I’ll be free to be the paranoid libertarian and you can be skeptical, k?

                    3. “Mary has been lurking for a long time.”

                      I didn’t disagree with that. You said “it” only appeared in the last 7 days. If by “it” you’re referring to the troll in this thread, then you’re referring to American who is the same person and was the first screen name for the nativist bigot persona. It first appeared here months ago, not in the last seven days.

                    4. ** Years. TBH I thought it was some sort of astroturfing, but HnR is not nearly popular enough. She has some sort of personal vendetta.

          2. This.

            As I said, I realize it can get out of hand. If I had been posting during the WI days, I definitely would have stopped engaging well before registration hit. Just as a lurker, the threads were ridiculous. But let’s not pretend like the occasional 300 comment thread on a quiet night is the end of Reason.com With registration, it gets banned quickly anyways. And I don’t have the time to post on any Internet site 16 hours a day.

            1. WI is unacceptable. I’m here to call HnR commenters out on their bullshit before it ruins my lurking.

              I found out Mary before, and she’s really fucking obvious. Don’t give me “I just wanna debate someone” kinda talk. There are plenty of individuals that are interested or are skeptical about liberty and libertarianism that want to talk about it and are interested about it.

              But big hint: They don’t register multiple accounts from multiple IP addresses to troll on this forum.

              1. “WI is unacceptable. I’m here to call HnR commenters out on their bullshit before it ruins my lurking.”

                As I and others have said, it gets banned to quickly to ruin multiple threads. And I agree that if it was going from thread to thread without getting banned that people should stop engaging. I just think you’re really overestimating how big the problem actually is. She/he/it appeared in two threads today. One was the PM links which is always totally random, and the other was the last post of the night, which would otherwise have been dead by 12 ET.

                “I found out Mary before, and she’s really fucking obvious.”

                I don’t think it was obvious at first that it was Mary. At first it just seemed like your average nativist bigot. It’s not like those people don’t exist. The persistence has eventually led me to suspect it’s Mary

                “There are plenty of individuals that are interested or are skeptical about liberty and libertarianism that want to talk about it and are interested about it.”

                When I argue with people on the Internet I’m not trying to convince them. I’m trying to convince people who may be reading and have interest but are unconvinced. It’s not preposterous to think that conservative-leaning people interested in libertarianism might have hesitations over immigration. Or that there might be a questioning liberal who worries that libertarians are really just Republicans in disguise, and want to round up and deport Mexicans.

    2. Oh look, the comment police are out.

      Chill out Nancy.

  24. And I called it. American’s going three accounts at a time. I didn’t post here when Mary was here, but I did read comments here for a couple months before registration. Initially, I was skeptical of the claim that American was Mary, as from what I remember Mary’s personas seemed to all be radical leftists, not nativist pseudo-libertarian bigots, but the insane persistence is making me think it could be her. If that’s the case, I really just have to laugh at the thought of a middle aged woman pretending to be a young guy that prefers traditional morality but adopts PUA tactics due to today’s lack of morality. It’s so hilariously pathetic.

    And yes, yes I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls. But that thread in the PM links was just so ridiculous

    1. You’re a fucking idiot. Srs. Mary is deranged. Mary pretended to be WHITE INDIAN for months and OldMexican and many other morons got in heated debates with her. Go do your intellectual shadow boxing and pretend you are winning.

      Jesus fuck, just when I thought this place was worth posting in again…

      1. Loosen up your panties grandma. Who pissed in your cereal? This is a fucking Internet board.

        I remember WI. It was a primitivist anti-capitalist. Mary could be American as I said, but I don’t remember any of her personas being right-wing Stormfarront wannabes.

        As I said, I don’t argue with trolls to convince them, nor do I always argue with them. I don’t even post on this site that much. Sometimes I have time on my hands, and countering the arguments of people like Tony, PB, American, etc. is a great way to kill time and practice argumentation. Whether American is real or not, people like him most certainly are.

        I agree that it can get out of hand. The WI days of 600 comment threads day after day week after week were a bit ridiculous. I’d hardly say we’re anywhere close to that level at the moment. American shows up occasionally and gets banned quickly. And in this case, it’s not like it ruined a lively on-topic discussion. The night threads can be pretty dead.

        1. Why do you like arguing with characters and not real people?

          Honestly, I dont argue with someone about politics unless I risk a fist in my face or an arm over my shoulder.

          1. Why do you comment on this site then? I’m open to arguing politics with people, but I generally have more interesting things to talk about with my friends. And I argue with regulars here all the time. It’s not like I specifically seek out the trolls.

            1. Eh? Same I guess. I don’t argue politics with people unless someone picks at me about some small thing. The regulars here are way more nuanced than the trolls. John and sarcasmic are two people that come to mind. They have interesting politics/philosophy and I would gladly have either at a bar as my wingman just because I know that things would be agreeable even if we disagreed.

              1. I’ve argued with both of them. And other regulars too. Occasionally, I’ll take the bait from Tony or American. Most people out there aren’t libertarian, and on a libertarian site, the only non-libertarians are trolls. I agree it can get out of hand. The occasional thread like this late at night isn’t the end of the world, however.

                1. Tony? Tony hasn’t been consistent since approx Nov-2007. Don’t take bait. You ruin legitimate arguments.

                  This is not true:

                  Most people out there aren’t libertarian, and on a libertarian site, the only non-libertarians are trolls

                  Disregard politics, acquire philosophy. Who argues politics except for politicians? Libertarians have no dog in that fight. Team RED/BLUE, that’s a fucking yawn and a half. Philosophy is what counts. And it’s WAY sexier.

  25. Become a stay at home travel agent (full-time or part-time)
    26 yr old company ~
    $13.3 million spent per minute in travel last year
    Set your own hours (even if you have a full time job/career)
    Make money even on vacation (if you’d like)
    Get the resources to become debt free
    Build residual income
    Save on travel by 50%-70%
    Earn commissions of 70%-95%
    Pay less in taxes
    Work with team of integrity and caring, NOT scamming http://2tu.us/6mll

  26. They can ban what they want. There will always be a back market for everything. These “do gooders” don’t realize that anytime they ban something, crime and supply goes up. How hard can this be to figure out? I mean, “Duh!”

    Apparently they (and she) were too busy studying journalism to learn a little history. The greatest epic failure of bans was of course, Prohibition. Oh yeah, that worked REALLY well, didn’t it? Let me see, alcohol consumption nearly trebled from what I can infer, crime rose rampantly. Moonshiners, feds chasing folks in the Appalachian hills, cities under the iron grip of gangsters, countless murders, dead citizens, dead cops, oh yeah, I can see how that helped America. Yes, the gov’t was indirectly responsible for people like Capone. The gov’t caused a need, someone came in to fill the gap. Millions upon millions of dollars wasted, people killed (innocent and guilty), and finally more time and money wasted on the repeal. Humm, sounds familiar doesn’t it? The war on drugs…more wasted money and innocent people killed due to gov’t intervention in our lives. These type of people will never learn, they are too busy with their heads stuck in some fabricated utopia that will never be. They also forget two small things, their utopia is not everyone’s utopia…and utopia always leads to ennui.

  27. I was lost at “stuff.” Any so-called thinker who is lazy enough
    to end a sentence intended to make a key point with “stuff” is
    not worth any valuable time.

  28. These “nanny” laws serve a very valuable purpose: gauging the public’s complacency.

    Ed almost had it right at the end: “Given enough time, every apologist will learn the lesson at some point, when the state large enough to stop the behavior he or she disapproves is set to the purpose of stopping behavior the nanny state apologist sees nothing wrong.”

    When the state gets large enough to dictate any specific behavior on a mass scale it will be too late to do anything about it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.