Libertarian History/Philosophy

Typical Parental Response to Libertarians Coming Out of Closet

|

Click on image for original link at Opt Out of Statism at Facebook.

Hat tip: Bruce Majors.

NEXT: NSA Whistleblower, Edward Snowden, Apparently a Ron Paul Supporter

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. Not first, but before Fisty!

  1. Don’t do no facebook (Obozo might be watching), but funny!

    1. I completely cut off all ties to Facebook many months ago, and I’m thinking of completely cutting out Google as well, because those guys are just as much a bunch of scumbags as Zuckerberg is. Bing makes for a pretty good alternative.

      1. Bing gives better results, IMHO too.

        Their maps are also have higher resolution.

        1. Microsoft isn’t sucking government cock?

          1. Not saying that. But Google is that eerie neighbor that leaves his house at 3am and returns at 7.

            1. My wife does that. 364 days a year. Newspapers. Rural route.

              1. My friend’s wife makes $74 an hour, but she has to use Google. So I guess she’s government tool! But she cleared $Eleventy Kazillion last month, so…check it out at http://www.ObamaFellator.com/suckit

                1. Now we know how those guys are making money – they’re being hired as free-lance aggregators and data-sorters for PRISM.

              2. What kinda hicks still subscribe to a dead tree newspaper?

                1. The rural sort, by the sound of it.

            2. No, but Google is their favored cocksucker.

        2. Bing gives better results

          Take their challenge.

          I found my results convincing.

          1. I took the challenge in a side by side search for ‘naked redheads’ back when Bing was first being pushed. I’d say even then Google was showing some intolerable signs of prudery that I just can’t abide by in a search engine.

      2. Makes sense, as Bing is the MySpace of search engines.

        1. “Detective O’Murhpy McIrish” actually got a chuckle out of me.

      3. Mike M.| 6.9.13 @ 10:22PM |#
        “I completely cut off all ties to Facebook many months ago,…”

        I have a hard time imagining why facebook exists. I’m willing to read ‘pro’ comments, but, again, why?

        1. Farmville. Oh wait.

        2. I have no problem with that. People are annoying exhibitionists.

      4. Microsoft is definitely in the governments’ pants. Bing gets different results. Not sure if better. Bing also removes results that some complain are offensive (obscene, hate speech, quick to remove on copyright claims). Google has also unfortunately become more prudish.

        Best alternative is https://duckduckgo.com/ which uses Bing and other search engines as well as their own.

        1. Also, do not trust Skype:
          http://torrentfreak.com/two-me…..ce-120126/

          [quote]Documents produced by the FBI reportedly show the details of a 2007 Skype conversation between Bram van der Kolk and Mathias Ortmann where they mulled a situation where Kim Dotcom might run off with “the money”.[/quote]

        2. Also, do not trust Dropbox:
          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…..od_enough/

          http://www.privacylover.com/en…..bi-access/

          This is why it’s not enough to use a service that merely provides encryption, but you must end-to-end encryption where only you and not them, hold the encryption keys (the current Mega is like this)

    2. I think I may have signed up for a Facebook account once years ago when somebody somewhere linked to something on it that was only available to registerd users.

      But I have no interesting in keeping track of how many non-enemies I have.

  2. This was on L Steigerwald’s blog.

  3. My parents are conservative, and the only thing that they don’t understand is my laissez-faire position on drugs. The rest, even the separation of church and state, they kinda agree with me on.

    1. Try the idea of self ownership.

      Everyone owns their own body, right? What business is it of Bloomburg to tell residents of NYC what kind of oil they may cook in or what size soft drink sizes they may sell? You can get conservatives riled up with that.

      Well…

      What business is it of anyone to inject violence when someone is merely getting high? It’s their life. If they’re not a drag on others, what’s to care? They could be playing video games or watching porn. Instead they’re getting high. Or maybe all of the above. They’re wasting time. Who cares? Everyone does it.

      Unless it becomes a problem on someone else’s time, like showing up to work drunk/high, what’s the point of injecting force?

      *I like the word “injecting” here because it turns the stigma back on them*

      hth

      1. If they’re not a drag on others, what’s to care?

        This is the kicker for many people I think who care about drugs staying illegal for the social impact reasons. When I tell my nurse girlfriend that drugs only affect the user, she brings up the crack baby, the homeless junkie, or the broken marriage that are all the results of drug use, and at least two out of three of which she has to deal with on a semi-daily basis.

        I tried to explain that drug use becomes a problem in other areas of one’s life because of the high cost of drugs and what must be done to get the money to afford said drugs, not to mention the social stigma drug use has that tends to prevent people from seeking help, but none of the arguments sink in for her.

        She is far from conservative in other areas though, so it might work on someone with more of that background.

        1. If she can have everything other than drugs legal, that’s damn good! Quit while you’re ahead, she might change her mind about the other stuff if you push her too hard.

        2. I often point out that those arguments point towards a need to prohibit alcohol, too.

          I put them on the defensive and try to make them explain why they don’t support that (or if they say they do support it, then we get to talk about why Prohibition was/is a miserable failure as a policy).

        3. She–and most drug warriors–has the causality backwards. People become drug addicts because their lives are fucked up. For a little while, until the next dose, they can forget just how bad it is. All addictions are a method of dealing with intolerable mental or physical pain. If your life is good, you never go beyond recreational use.
          Of course the illegality of drugs makes a bad situation worse, but that makes the addict less likely to abandon the crutch.

        4. tried to explain that drug use becomes a problem in other areas of one’s life because of the high cost of drugs and what must be done to get the money to afford said drugs, not to mention the social stigma drug use has that tends to prevent people from seeking help, but none of the arguments sink in for her.

          That’s not entirely true.

          For instance, alcohol is 100% legal and people can destroy their lives with it.

          Illegalness doesn’t make all the problems of drug addiction go away, it just keeps you out of jail if you’re found with them and takes the criminality out of the sale and manufacture of them which eliminates various other externalities from the equation.

          The idea that no one will have a negative experience with drug addiction once they’re legal is a fantasy.

          1. Exactly, one of the arguments is that the additional negative experience that some additional users will have is more than offset by the absence of the black market and all the cost associated with fighting it.

    2. Drug prohibition is a dirty progressive position. Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon…

      If the Euros or Asians are curing cancer with a drug banned by the FDA should you have to leave the USA just for a chance to live?

    3. My mom is the same way. She just can’t get over the victimless immorality bit. “But… but… it’s wrong! We can’t let them take drugs!”

      She also believes very conspiracy coming out of World Nut Daily, but then so do a heck of a lot of otherwise intelligent libertarians.”

  4. Both of my parents are conservatives, and like most libertarians, I came from the conservative wool.

    1. SeaCaptain(Yokeltarian)| 6.9.13 @ 10:24PM |#
      “Both of my parents are conservatives, and like most libertarians, I came from the conservative wool.”

      Seems about what goes on, except for a passage through libtard in rebellion to the parents.
      That idiot Gould claimed he learned Marx at his daddy’s knee and never had the sense to question it. Good biologist, idiot political views. No great surprise; tenured prof.

      1. Wasn’t a good biologist either, actually.

        1. Even that Marxist rag NYT acknowledges that.

  5. The most awkward time to come out as a libertarian is at Thanksgiving dinner. You introduce your “roommate” to the family, your roommate who is actually your live-in general of the private army you’ve hired to protect your lands.

    1. Try announcing it at your dad’s retirement party…from the Tennessee Valley Authority!

      1. Am I related to you? My uncle retired from TVA and now works part time for FEMA.

      2. I was surprised to learn this week that Santee Cooper was basically the Carolina version of TVA.

    2. private army you’ve hired to protect your lands

      Your lands?

  6. Iain M. Banks is dead.

    1. So is Iain Banks.

      Two authors in different genres with very similar names died the same day. Amazing coincidence.

      1. Not sure if serious…..

        1. He wrote under two different similar names, based on genre. The M. was for his sci-fi, other stuff didnt have the M.

          1. Yeah I know. I just didn’t know if you knew.

  7. Where is Chip Bok? He could be taking some serious notes from this comic.

    1. What’s the first rule of Reason Comics Club?

      MOAR LABELZ!

  8. OT: most libertarian commercial ever?

    Grey Poupon “The Lost Footage”

    1. Not really offtopic considering that this H/R post is a comic…

    2. Jesse, since you’ve come out in both ways, which one shocked your parents more?

      1. Neither. The call he just made from Hong Kong beats them both.

      2. They didn’t put me in quack psychotherapy for being a libertarian.

        I have a cousin who swung hard neocon in the 2000s and has recently returned to the libertarian fold (actually he’s probably closer to ancap now), and an uncle who is a libertarian-leaning Republican, so I’m not the ONLY one in my extended family, although for whatever reason, my parents just think I’m a “college liberal” and then when I rage out on some Obama policy they have no idea what to make of it.

        1. They tried to turn you with psychotherapy? That’s pretty fucked up.

          Did you explain to them that you were a cheerleader?

        2. I have a cousin who swung hard neocon in the 2000s and has recently returned to the libertarian fold

          I think 9/11 had the effect of causing a lot of otherwise reasonable people to take leave of their senses and go down the neocon road.

          The failure of the U.S. government in the intervening years has thankfully brought them back to sanity.

          1. Irish: I agree. He was still good on social issues, but he’d gotten very concerned with security. I know he reads Reason now, but I don’t know if he has time to dive into the comments.

            GBN: I really liked But I’m a Cheerleader. My therapist wasn’t patently insane which is better than most people who go to reparative therapy get, and he called me “the worst patient [he’d] ever had,” which I kind of wanted on fancy paper and framed.

            1. Did he actually believe that he could make a person inexorably straight, though?

              I’m not saying it’s totally impossible (though it probably is), but it seems wrong and arrogant to believe that you can and should change something so fundamental to a person’s being.

              And good job being a braiwashing nutjob’s worst “patient”.

              1. I don’t really remember what the end game was. I was 18, he kept insisting that I was molested and I kept insisting that I had not been molested (this is why I was such a difficult patient!), and there was something about how if the sodomitically inclined spent quality time with men it would temporarily suppress homosexual urges.

                It’s a shame I threw away his book of case studies. It was all people who blamed their shitty life choices on their sexual orientation: “The gay drove me to the crack pipe!” If I still had it I’d quote liberally, but I tossed it in the trash.

                1. Good thing he didn’t hypnotize you and “recover” memories of abuse. A bunch of people’s lives were ruined by such quackery.

              2. I’m not saying it’s totally impossible (though it probably is), but it seems wrong and arrogant to believe that you can and should change something so fundamental to a person’s being.

                Unless you’re trying to convince a woman to become bisexual. This is always a good thing.

                1. Almost all of my serious girlfriends were at least a little bi.

          2. think 9/11 had the effect of causing a lot of otherwise reasonable people to take leave of their senses and go down the neocon road.

            The failure of libertarians to offer a cogent and reasoned alternative is partly to blame for this. In place of suicide by passivity ie noninterventionism, they took something whose advocates sounded so confident in…and sounded so right.

            1. Oh yes, not going to Iraq would have been suicide. What were we thinking?

              1. 1) Whoosh. My point went right over your head.

                2) Already in Iraq, since 1991.

              2. Oh yes, not going to Iraq would have been suicide. What were we thinking?

                Right after 9/11 we went to Afghanistan, not Iraq. Iraq came later. 2 years later.

            2. I don’t mind people fighting “terrorists” but I just wish they’d use their own money to do so.

              But you can’t get a good war-boner strokin’ unless you put a gun to the heads of the entire population to “protect” them.

              “If you don’t give us your money and liberties, we’re gonna throw you in a cage or shoot you, because if you don’t there is an astronomically small chance that an afghani dirt farmer will attempt to explode himself in your vicinity! WMD!! MUSHROOM CLOUDS! PANTS POOPING HORRIBLENSS! Why do you hate freedom?”

              1. Government’s sole moral duty is to protect individual rights. That means blowing up the bad guys and collecting moneys to do it.

            3. Cytotoxic for the self-caricature win!

              1. Comments with an impactful counterpoint: 0

                Cytotoxic: win.

                Once again I have pwnd you all.

  9. More this guy, less Chip Bok.

  10. I don’t get it. I mean, of course we libertarians hate public roads, but don’t we hate trees and greenery just as much?

    1. and bunnies. Every time I pass one I want to fire torch the fuckers.

    2. The pinnacle of libertarian landscape aesthetics is found in the industrial development of Isengard.

      1. The Shire works for me

  11. Anyone else notice that the tags for this post include libertarian history/philosophy and “Tran”? What the hell is Tran?

  12. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.AnonStuff.tk

  13. That poor dad. The stress gave him a case of sudden onset acne

  14. Little Bobby had been adopted from Somalia. It was only a matter of time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.