Libertarian History/Philosophy

5 Myths About Libertarians

What you think you know is wrong.

|

The specter of libertarianism is haunting America. Advocates of sharply reducing the government's size, scope and spending are raising big bucks from GOP donors, trying to steal the mantle of populism, being blamed for the demise of Detroit and even getting caught in the middle of a battle for the Republican Party. Yet libertarians are among the most misunderstood forces in today's politics. Let's clear up some of the biggest misconceptions.

1. Libertarians are a fringe band of "hippies of the right."

In 1971, the controversial and influential author Ayn Rand denounced right-wing anarchists as "hippies of the right," a charge still leveled against libertarians, who push for a minimal state and maximal individual freedom.

Libertarians are often dismissed as a mutant subspecies of conservatives: pot smokers who are soft on defense and support marriage equality. But depending on their views, libertarians often match up equally well with right- and left-wingers.

The earliest example of libertarian principles in partisan politics might have come in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,when Anti-Imperialist League Democrats rejected empire and war — and believed in free trade and racial equality at a time when none of that was popular. More recently, civil libertarians such as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) supported Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in his filibuster on domestic drones and government surveillance.

Libertarians are found across the political spectrum and in both major parties. In September 2012, the Reason-Rupe Poll found that about one-quarter of Americans fall into the roughly libertarian category of wanting to reduce the government's roles in economic and social affairs. That's in the same ballpark as what other surveys have found and more than enough to swing an election.

2. Libertarians don't care about minorities or the poor.

As the recent discovery of neo-Confederate writings by a former senior aide to Sen. Paul shows, there sometimes is a connection between libertarians and creepy, racist elements in American politics. And given the influence of Ayn Rand among many libertarians, it's easy to think that they care only about themselves. "I will never live for the sake of another man," runs a characteristic line from Rand's 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged.

But at least two of the libertarian movement's signature causes, school choice and drug legalization, are aimed at creating a better life for poor people, who disproportionately are also minorities. The primary goal of school choice — a movement essentially born out of a 1955 essay about vouchers by libertarian and Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman — is to give lower-income Americans better educational options. Friedman also persuasively argued that the drug war concentrates violence and law enforcement abuses in poor neighborhoods.

Libertarians believe that economic deregulation helps the poor because it ultimately reduces costs and barriers to start new businesses. The leading libertarian public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, which has argued Supreme Court cases for free speech and against eminent-domain abuse, got its start defending African American hair-braiders in Washington from licensing laws that shut down home businesses.

3. Libertarianism is a boys' club.

While the stereotype of a libertarian as a male engineer sporting a plastic pocket protector and a slide rule once had more truth to it than most libertarians would care to admit, the movement is in many ways the creation of three female intellectuals.

As Brian Doherty details in his 2008 book, "Radicals for Capitalism," the modern libertarian movement was hugely influenced by best-selling novelist and writer Rand; writer and critic Isabel Paterson; and author Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of "Little House on the Prairie" author Laura Ingalls Wilder, whose work she edited. The first national ticket for the Libertarian Party, in 1972, had a woman, Toni Nathan, as its vice-presidential candidate, and from its inception, the party has supported reproductive rights and full equality under the law for women.

Newer groups such as the Ladies of Liberty Alliance are growing by emphasizing the benefits of economic freedom to an expanding class of female entrepreneurs.

4. Libertarians are pro-drug, pro-abortion and anti-religion.

Charges of libertinism are, alas, exaggerated. Virtually all libertarians believe that the prohibition of any consensual activity breeds far more problems than it solves. But a key tenet is that just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to endorse, much less practice, it. Ron Paul drew laughs during a GOP presidential primary debate in 2011 when he asked audience members if they would try heroin if it were legal.

About 30 percent of libertarians — including many libertarian-minded politicians such as Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) — are staunchly pro-life. But most believe that the best way to change behavior is through moral suasion, not versions of prohibition that don't work.

The same goes for religion: It should be free and celebrated as long as participation is voluntary. After all, proto-libertarian Roger Williams co-founded the first Baptist congregation in America and created Providence, R.I., as a haven of religious tolerance and fully secular government at a time when that was unheard of.

5. Libertarians are destroying the Republican Party.

In 1975, Ronald Reagan saw a kinship between libertarians and his party: "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," he said.

There seems to be little sense of a shared soul now, though, as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says things such as: "This strain of libertarianism that's going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought." Christie was referring primarily to Rand Paul, a potential rival for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has attacked Rand Paul, Amash and other critics of the surveillance state as "wacko birds," and defenders of the GOP establishment are worried about the party's growing libertarian streak.

Yet Republicans acknowledged the need for a major reboot after the 2012 election, and that's precisely what libertarian-leaning politicians are offering. Rand Paul has proposed a budget that cuts about $500 billion in annual spending, and he has called for reform of unsustainable entitlements and an end to overseas military adventurism. What's been dubbed his "hipster outreach program" is an attempt to appeal to a wider slice of voters than middle-class whites. Republicans "need to be white, we need to be brown, we need to be black, we need to be with tattoos, without tattoos, with ponytails, without ponytails, with beards, without," he told a New Hampshire audience in May.

That's a message that might rankle stand-pat Republicans but is likely to appeal to younger voters who, according to a recent College Republican National Committee study, want government to be smaller and more inclusive.

This article originally appeared in The Washington Post.

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.

695 responses to “5 Myths About Libertarians

  1. So homicide should be quelled with moral suasion? Yeah, not so much Jacket.

    Life is one of those things the government should actually step in to protect.

    1. Where was it claimed otherwise?

      1. Where he called defending human life “versions of prohibition that don’t work.”.

        1. The unworkable nature of abortion prohibitions relative to murder prohibitions might make for one good reason why whatever abortion is, it is something different than killing non-fetal human beings.

          1. That’s absurd. In the countries where it is illegal, abortion prohibitions are enforced in roughly the same manner and at the same rates of consistency as laws against infanticide. In the few natural experiments we have where we can look at time series data (Poland before and after being a Warsaw Pact nation, for instance), the evidence is strong that these laws are also meaningful and have the desired impact.

            1. Murder is one of the crimes with the highest reporting rate, and as a result has one of the highest arrest and conviction rates. Do you think abortion would be one of those?

              1. What I think doesn’t really matter when we have both historical data and data from other countries that we can look at and sift through 🙂

                The data suggests that abortion is prosecuted in roughly the same manner and in the same proportions as infanticide, in the countries where it is illegal. Neither abortion nor infanticide is a crime that is easily prosecuted (and for good reason; proving the case is difficult in both instances), but it is certainly not the most difficult (much less unprecedented) crime to enforce and does have the effect of deterring further crime.

                What more can one expect?

                1. -The data suggests that abortion is prosecuted in roughly the same manner and in the same proportions as infanticide, in the countries where it is illegal.

                  Ah, but not as much as murder, right? I would also like to see some citation for this claim. It seems just common sense that early term abortion doesn’t provide the same evidence for prosecution and investigation as infanticide, no?

                  1. Infanticide is a form of murder, and if you separate murder into sub-categories (first-degree, second-degree, etc), you will find that reporting for these types varies significantly.

                    I’m honestly not sure what you are driving at.

                    1. Michael. I see what you mean… Virginia`s c0mment is amazing… last thursday I got a brand new Ford since I been making $9048 this month and also 10-k last month. this is certainly the most comfortable job Ive ever done. I actually started three months/ago and right away started earning at least $76, p/h. I follow this website,, WEP6.COM

                      Go to website and click Home tab for more details.
                      ?????????????????????????

                    2. The fact is that an undifferentiated mass of cells is not a person, and its terminal disruption is not “murder.” Such an act doesn’t even rise to the level of stepping on an ant — and that society’s reaction should about on par. Any argument that uses the general term “abortion” is doomed to failure by dint of being far too broad. Likewise, any argument that conflates infanticide with abortion is flawed right out of the gate: No infant, no infanticide.

                      One more point: The law is often wrong, even very wrong. Attempting to use it as a metric of what is right and proper is a fool’s errand. For proponents of either view, define the range of events and parameters you wish to discuss, then present a cogent argument supporting your position, and be prepared to deal with intelligent responses. That’ll get a great deal further than blathering about a “thing” that the “law” deals with in some arbitrary fashion in some random place or other.

        2. I see; where he made so such claim, but you twist words to back your superstition.
          Got it!

          1. No he doesn’t. Either abortion is a medical procedure and should be treated as such or it is the taking of a life and should be illegal. The fact that the law can’t stop all abortions is no more a justification for legalized abortion than the continued existence of murder is for the elimination of murder laws.

            What Nick is saying here is completely irrational.

            1. It might be a quite different taking of a life than other kinds, much like mercy killings are often seen as different.

              1. But Abortion isn’t a mercy killing.

                1. depends on who the parents are

                2. Mercy killing was offered as an example of something that seems to fall between the horns of your dilemma. Perhaps abortion is also something like that?

              2. Well, tell you what, why don’t you try getting a signed consent from the fetus.

                1. Or a toddler for that matter.

    2. This.

      “please don’t kill children, if you don’t mind” does not strike me as a reasonable way to stop murder.

      1. “”please don’t kill children, if you don’t mind” does not strike me as a reasonable way to stop murder.”

        Yeah, except that sentence exists only in your mind.

      2. There are two ways to prohibit abortion: absolute zero-tolerance, or full of exceptions for routine miscarriages, rape, incest, health of the mother.

        Zero tolerance won’t work precisely because of miscarriages; you have to allow for those exceptions or you will have to convict every woman except virgins.

        As soon as you allow the exceptions, you add so much subjectivity to the matter that corruption enters the picture. Who decides how much danger a woman is in, her doctor, the state’s doctor, a panel? Who decides a miscarriage was spontaneous or not?

        And in all those cases, rich women will be able to prove the exception much easier.

        Laws against abortion are as stupid as laws against alcohol or drugs or guns or any other contraband. They favor those with connections and money.

        1. Functionally a ban on abortion would have the same results as any other prohibition.

          1. I imagine ‘back alley abortions’ were and would be more frequent than ‘back alley murders.’

            1. That very much depends on which country you live in and what time period. Certainly “back-alley infanticides” were very common until recently, and are still practiced in many parts of the world for all sorts of reasons.

              Historically, life is cheap. That’s not a rational argument; it’s an observation.

        2. Again, there is empirical evidence that we can look at to determine the veracity of the claim. Poland’s law is in the second category, and it has had a meaningful and large impact on the performance of the procedure.

          And WTF do rich people have to do with the morality of a certain situation? Rich people will also be able to prosecute any violation of property rights (and negotiate such rights) much more effectively than a poor person will; should we also eliminate property rights and contract law?

          1. I am curious, given one of the major differences between prohibitions on murder and abortion would be the latter would be less likely reported, how do they know it worked so well in Poland?

            1. Factoid: In Venezuela, only 2% of murders are ever brought to trial. And abortion is illegal.

              1. Interesting. Do you have a cite for that and what do you think should be drawn from it?

                1. Bo:

                  I’m linking you to a site that tracks international abortion statistics alongside miscarriages, abortion ratio, abortion %, and other indices relevant to the question.

                  http://www.johnstonsarchive.ne…..oland.html

                  I would highly suggest the accompanying commentary on results thus far, though you can of course choose to simply look at the previous link if you are only interested in a useful summary of the data in question.

                  http://www.johnstonsarchive.ne…..ndlaw.html

                  1. Thanks, I will take a look! Though I have to wonder about the accuracy of data on miscarriages and early term abortions, both of which present the problem of most people not being aware of a pregnancy to begin with.

        3. There are two ways to prohibit abortion:

          There are a million ways to prohibit abortion; none of them work.

    3. Dibbler|8.10.13 @ 1:09PM

      “So homicide should be quelled with moral suasion?”

      Interesting! Would you still consider it “homicide” if a fetus were removed from its mother intact during an abortion and died from a lack of support?

      1. if fetuses are persons and they are there against the will of the woman, then they are squatters that can be removed.

        1. I’ll keep that in mind when I invite you on a ride in my private plane and throw you out when you make a bad joke.

          1. ahh but the invitation constitutes a contract. The woman only invited sperm which is not the fetus. There is no contract between the fetus and the woman.

            1. “…There is no contract between the fetus and the woman.”

              Except, the umbilical cord, a ~20 week “try before you buy” demo period, and the rational basis of cause and effect…

              1. None of these constitute a contract.

                1. Most interactions in life are not contracts.

                2. A fetus is not of legal age to make a contract.

                  1. If there is no right to continue living, there are no rights.

                    1. You have no right to continue living at the expense of another in a pure Libertopia. Depraved indifference laws wouldn’t apply and that would be most analogous.

                    2. Now you’re catching on. The only rights that exist are those which are backed by a willingness to use coercion to enforce them. All else is meaningless blather.

    4. If murder were legal would you go on a killing spree?

      1. There would certainly being a fair amount of heinous individuals calling the Browns so they could be let down one more time.

      2. If murder was legal it wouldn’t be murder.

        1. “Conflict resolution”.

        2. Yes it would. We say, for instance, that the Nazis murdered six million Jews. Under their law it was not only legal, it was required.

      3. IDK. If drugs were legal I’d have a syringe full of heroin in each arm, a crack pipe in my mouth, 3 hits of acid under my tongue and a vodka soaked tampon up my ass.

        Oh wait, that last one is legal.

        1. That’s gotta be some nasty ass vodka.

          1. Props to you, though. At least you’re not drinking it out on the street.

    5. You do know that homicide includes justifiable killing?

    6. Oh joy. Another

      Randroid vs Ancap debate.

      http://www.panarchy.org/hess/anarchism.html

    7. Rand was an anarchist. She was just too stubborn stupid to realize it.

    8. just as Bradley implied I am alarmed that a mother can profit $9808 in 4 weeks on the computer. have you seen this site,, max38.com

    9. my best friend’s step-aunt makes $75 every hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for six months but last month her pay check was $17502 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more… http://www.Can99.com

  2. Pretty soon there will be a myth about libertarians posting original content…

    1. No RBS, some things are just too far-fetched for myth.

    2. I hear there are no libertarian women. And that libertarians just spring out of holes in the ground!

      1. That’s ridiculous! Everyone knows to get new libertarians you must sow the teeth of Murray Rothbard and water the fields with the tears of orphans. What do they teach in schools these days!?

        1. No, no, no…. that’s how you grow anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians spring fully formed from the forehead of Hades.

          1. Hmm, you may be right. Wait, then what do we call the products of David Koch forcibly rape-raping a fracking well and impregnating Mother Gaia?

            1. Jesse…for a gay guy you’ve got this heterosexual thing down cold!

              1. I’ve studied the heterosexual intensely. Sometimes it’s important to be able to pass oneself off as one.

                1. Shit….I thought that was Jane Goodall watching me bang mother earth a while back.

                  You need to be quieter though…I have wicked performance anxiety.

                  1. You need to be quieter though…I have wicked performance anxiety.

                    The irony, you perform better when you don’t give a damn about what your partner thinks. If you are naturally courteous out of ingrained habit instilled in you from a grandmother who made you open doors for the ladies, your partner wont even notice the difference.

                2. At “Shit-kickers saloon”, asking for directions…

            2. Sounds like a big dick joke… “My dick is so big I can fuck a fracking well.

          2. From the 1887 edition of the Oxford Dictionary. Libertarian — one who advocates liberty. Quite illiberal of you to try to write me out of the movement on the basis of being an Ancap. So can we retire this argument once and for all?

            1. Chill Killadilla. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the free market this morning?

              1. Nope. Decided this was the day I would kill the fallacy.

              2. By the way, don’t take it personally, you’re alright. I don’t know why for something that I have ignored for years, even after exploring the etymology a dozen or so years ago, I collect old dictionaries, that I got off my lazy ass and addressed for once. Maybe, it’s Nick’s theme 5 Myths that made it feel like the right thing to do.

  3. Libertarians are found across the political spectrum and in both major parties.

    Not according to the Peanut Gallery.

    1. There are legitimate civil libertarians in Team Blue, no one here denies that.

      But they fail on economic liberty and gun rights.

      1. It’s a trap.

      2. No one in DC fares well on economic liberty if the libertarian position is ridding the country of all income taxes.

        1. Which party wants to ban guns, jack up taxes across the board, increase welfare spending, and socialize healthcare?

          But you’re right, because Rothbard can’t be found in either party they must both be equally bad. Stupid shit.

          1. All bullshit from you, of course.

            Background checks are not gun bans, only the top end tax rate went up due to the high deficits Obama inherited (not “across the board”), welfare rates have not changed (in fact, Clinton lowered them), and Obamacare is market-based.

            I am not calling you a liar because you probably are just regurgitating redneck AM radio you hear.

            1. All those actions were compromises Team Blue had to settle on.

              Look at the states where they govern in an absolute majority: high taxes, the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and complaints about ‘austerity’.

              If the Democrats were given absolute control over government we would see socialized medicine, the most restrictive gun laws ever, and more spending and taxes.

              1. I do not think that is universally true. West Virginia has an ‘absolute Democrat majority’ and it is hardly a high tax, gun control, high spending state.

                1. And then look at states like New York, Connecticut, and Illinois.

                  Which states do you think have more influence on the DNC platform? Which states produce more prominent national politicians for the Democrats?

                  Come on, you’re reaching Tulpa-levels of obtuseness by arguing that the Democrats are no worse than the Republicans.

                  1. What can I say, your statement was false as a categorical one.

                    Besides, that could be easily turned around by asking which states are the hardest on immigration and drug use? You would get a place like Alabama, not a blue state.

              2. And Republicans in absolute control would usher in contraception bans, several more Iraq Wars, even more handouts to the elderly like Medicare Part D, Blue Laws, and massive deficits due to tax cuts with higher spending.

                Looks like the LP is it then.

                1. I doubt we would see contraception bans or return to Blue Laws anytime soon. If it were likely Alabama would have already done so.

                  1. Nor will we see a statewide gun ban.

                    1. That is probably because of that old 2nd amendment thingy.

                    2. Maybe not now, but consider DC pre-Heller.

                    3. consider DC pre-Heller.

                      But that would require thought, and as has been shown repeatedly, Shriek doesn’t think, he only emotes.

                    4. Looks a lot like DC, Post-Heller…

                2. That’s funny, cause they had total control for eight years and not only did they not pass any kind of contraception ban, they did most of the things you listed with decent support from the fucking democrats.

                  Jesus Christ you’re stupid.

              3. “If the Democrats were given absolute control over government we would see socialized medicine, the most restrictive gun laws ever, and more spending and taxes”

                Obamacare worse than socialized medicine.. hard to think of a worse policy.

            2. Obamacare is market-based.

              This is what Retard actually believes.

              1. Maybe he means Obamacare sits on the face of the free market like an obese chick rupturing the upper vertebrae.

              2. Obamacare is market-based.

                This is what Retard actually believes.

                This stunned me too. Makes no sense.

            3. “Obamacare is market-based.”

              The President needs to push through a law that requires everyone to purchase a hat. Since one will be able to choose which hat he will purchase, then the plan is clearly market based.

            4. “only the top end tax rate went up due to the high deficits Obama inherited (not “across the board”), “

              And to believe that, you’d have to be one of those vapid Regressive idiots who thinks anyone making more than $8.50 an hour is part of the “top 1%”.

            5. You don’t “inherit” a deficit, you twit! Deficits are flow. A function of current fiscal policy.

      3. And civil liberties apart from their hobby horse ones:

        http://www.wyden.senate.gov/ca…..nce-reform

        Publius (Federalist Papers), Cato, Brutus, Centinel, Federal Farmer (Anti-Federalist Papers) and an Englishman (Common Sense) all say Fuck you Ron Wyden.

        1. You would throw Wyden under the bus for campaign disclosure laws?

          1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.10.13 @ 1:51PM |#
            “You would throw Wyden under the bus for campaign disclosure laws?”

            Congress shall make no law…

            1. Disclosure hardly amounts to abridgement of free speech.

              1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.10.13 @ 1:55PM |#
                “Disclosure hardly amounts to abridgement of free speech.”

                I’d suggest you consider that statement again.
                Requiring speech is an abridgement of freedom.

                1. No one is prevented from speaking by such laws.

                  1. Compelled speech is illiberal too.

                    1. It’s not ideal, but it’s less of an issue to me for several reasons. First, it is sort of the ‘dormant’ flip side of the Speech Clause rather than the explicit textual prohibition. Second, we are talking about merely requiring people to stand by their speech, and third I am not even sure that making a donor list public or submitted to the government is even ‘speech’ (you don’t consider the information in your tax forms to be ‘speech’ do you? Compelled speech?). Lastly, I think it can be argued it serves a pretty compelling interest in identifying corruption or self-serving efforts on the part of those who want the government to put its weight on me and others for their benefit.

                      Having said that I don’t know if I could vote for it. But I find it pretty low on my list of violations of the NAP.

                    2. you don’t consider the information in your tax forms to be ‘speech’ do you? Compelled speech?

                      Maybe it’s a 1st Amendment violation. Maybe it’s a 4th Amendment violation. Either way, it’s illegal and illiberal, as far as I’m concerned. Same with disclosure laws.

                      Second, we are talking about merely requiring people to stand by their speech

                      So why not require voters to disclose their votes?

                    3. Or, say, prohibit anonymous political pamphlets/blog posts/editorials/etc?

                    4. A prohibition would be an abridgement of speech.

                    5. So, why is prohibiting anonymous blog posts an abridgment, but prohibiting anonymous donations is not?

                    6. Because a blog post is explicit speech, donations, while tied to speech production, are not.

                    7. Yes. But so would compelled speech and mandatory attribution. Prohibition is a subset of abridgment.

                    8. -Maybe it’s a 1st Amendment violation.

                      Do you feel it is a violation, as compelled speech, of your First Amendment rights to have to fill out forms to get a voter card?

                      -So why not require voters to disclose their votes?

                      For a good portion of our history that is how it was done. But I think a distinction can be made between what I do with my single vote, which is ‘mine’, and trying to convince others to cast their votes to enact laws I then have to live under. Trying to convince others is inherently a public thing.

                    9. Do you feel it is a violation, as compelled speech, of your First Amendment rights to have to fill out forms to get a voter card?

                      Depends on the information I’m required to provide. Vote fraud is a violation of the rights of others, as it essentially disenfranchises them. Lobbying is not.

                    10. Whether something is speech or not is separate from whether a compelling interest exists to restrict it (or in this case compel it).

                    11. “Compelled speech is illiberal too.”

                      /Lois Lerner – et al

            2. Not just campaign disclosure. Look at his voting record, he’s supported various procedural votes on the Patriot Act renewals along with the original law, supports unconstitutional limits on habeas corpus and warrantless searches (last being an oldie from the beginning of his Senate career).

              He’s a typical limousine liberal that does a bit of posturing to get that “independent” label Oregon voters love.

              1. Let us look at his record. It is far from libertarian, yes, but it strikes me as having many better-than-expected notes:

                -Voted against Iraq War
                -Worked with Paul Ryan on a plane to introduce privatization to Medicare
                -Supported free trade agreements
                -Supports lifting the embargo on Cuba
                -Opposed the financial bailout
                -Voted against reauthorization of Patriot Act
                -Opposes internet sales tax, estate tax and has voted to cut capital gains tax

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…..ign_policy

                1. Have to agre with BCE. Gotta work with what ya got especially in the wasteland of tea blue.

                  1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall anyone actually advocating “throwing Wyden under the bus”, just pointing out that he fails pretty hard in some areas and isn’t a libertarian.

                    1. Fair point.

                    2. And that’s a reply to basically everyone in this argument about Wyden.

                    3. -Fuck you Ron Wyden.

                      That was the comment I originally responded to.

                2. The Medicare “plan” with Ryan is a perfect example of Wyden’s desire to have it both ways and wear his beloved bipartisan hat. As soon as it became an issue in the presidential campaign, he was walking it back faster than Michael Jackson. It was a white paper, just a starting conversation, not a plan, etc etc.

                  I’m happy that he stumbles on a good position from time to time but I don’t count on it or his support being any sort of principle based.

      4. Why wouldn’t the same or similar be said about ‘Team Red?

        ‘There are legitimate economic libertarians in Team Blue, no one here denies that.

        But they fail on sexual liberty and right to die’.

        1. Name me one economic libertarian in Team Blue.

          1. Could I not answer as easily: name me one social libertarian in Team Red?

            1. I asked you first. It’s much easier to find a Republican not interested in fighting these culture war issues than a Democrat that’s good on lowering taxes, cutting spending, and reducing regulations.

              1. I invite you to answer the question I have put to Jordan below.

                1. Gary Johnson.

                  1. I could have sworn he was on the Libertarian ticket.

                    1. And he was a republican before that.

            2. Not that you’ll pay attention, but Gary Johnson comes to mind.

        2. Sexual liberty is code for abortion. Just sayin’

          1. Not exactly, consider sodomy laws.

            1. So GOP favors Sodomy laws?

              1. Their SCOTUS appointees certainly seem OK with them.

                1. Positively speaking, states do have reign over areas of policy not incorporated by the BoR — even if their policy decisions are sub-optimal.

                  Normatively speaking, a lawyer can be in favor or against any policy — in fact, in Clarence Thomas’s opinion he writes that he does not favor the Texas statute in question.

                  As a lawyer, you should know this and know that your framing vis a vis Lawrence v Texas is deceptive.

                  1. -states do have reign over areas of policy not incorporated by the BoR

                    Perhaps, but SCOTUS has thus far recognized a liberty interest in the Due Process clause that protects some important liberties that I would think would be attractive to a libertarian justice.

                    1. I would disagree with those jurists.

                      At any rate, not evidence that the GOP favors sodomy laws.

                    2. Not evidence they favor sodomy laws when they promise to appoint more justices who will approve the rights of states to prohibit it?

              2. That GOP candidate for Virginia governor supports his state’s sodomy law.

            2. or sex toy laws

        3. But they fail on sexual liberty and right to die

          There are Republicans who are good on both civil liberties and economic liberties. There are no such Democrats.

          1. -There are Republicans who are good on both civil liberties and economic liberties

            Can you name me a prominent Republican good on economic issues who supports the right to die, drug legalization and immigration?

            1. Eh, I’d drop immigration from that. Both parties have internally conflicting positions on immigration and while Republicans tend to talk a more obnoxious talk they tend to behave less harshly on the issue of immigration, while Democrats talk about how inhumane the system is and brag about how many people they’ve deported.

              Right to die is pretty fringe in both parties.

              All pot legalization is co-sponsored by a Dem and Rep (used to be Frank and Paul, now it’s Amash and that other guy)

              1. So you cannot name one?

                1. Probably not. But I’ll take Rand Paul and Justin Amash over any Democrats in Congress.

                  1. I can understand that, but I hope you can at least understand how if a libertarian supports abortion and immigration rights they might find someone like Wyden a better choice than someone like Paul.

                    1. Except both parties are terrible on immigration, for different reasons.

                      I’d argue it is impossible to have a libertarian immigration policy with the current quasi-fascist legal and economic environment the US enjoys now.

                    2. You’re free to argue the Democrats are as anti-immigration as the Republicans. It’s not blue states passing laws like Alabama’s.

                    3. The GOP wants grunt labor with special ID cards who can be searched at will by police while they work a five year stint in a menial job. The Dems want a ghettoized population of welfare dependents to bolster their demographic issues.

                      Neither of the two major parties is interested in an immigration policy which is mutually beneficial to all concerned.

                    4. I am not talking about their motives, but their positions. I could care less why the Democrats take the better stance on immigration that they do.

                    5. “. The Dems want a ghettoized population of welfare dependents to bolster their demographic ”

                      The Dems want to foist all the responsibility and penalties off on employers and landlords. They’re supposed to figure out who is illegal and if they don’t, they are the ones who are fined and punished.

          2. Here are the reasons I don’t think the civil liberties/economic liberties thing is quite symmetrical. The former (abortion, gay rights, porn, etc.) don’t matter as much if the economy totally sucks. Infringements on those civil liberties are also both harder to enforce (e.g. just have gay sex in private) and easier to evade when you have money (e.g. travel somewhere for an abortion).

            On the other hand, when your economic liberty is suppressed via taxes and regulations and such, it’s a lot harder to evade, because your economic transactions are usually more public, and the state has much greater powers of enforcement: there are more agents of the state looking for tax evaders than for porn readers or gays, and the penalties for tax evasion are generally worse.

            In short, all other things being equal, the GOP at its worst is probably preferable to the Democrats at their worst.

            1. Well, even if you are correct one thing that undercuts this might be that the GOP isn’t very good on economic matters (such as spending).

              1. Still marginally better than Democrats on that score, though.

        4. Sorry, but in my experience (I live in Manhattan), it’s not even close. Aside from gay sex, abortion and immigration, Team Blue doesn’t give a shit about personal freedom.

          * It’s Team Blue that gave us college speech codes.
          * It’s Team Blue that tells me I’ve got to get their permission to have a gun to protect myself.
          * It’s Team Blue that deigns to tell me that I’m not allowed to smoke in a bar.
          * It’s Team Blue that wants to decide whether I can have a Big Gulp, a pat of margarine or a little extra salt on my food.
          * It’s Team Blue that tells me I have to buy an insurance policy that covers pre-natal health and women’s contraception.
          * I’m more likely to have my porn watching attacked by a feminist than a fundamentalist.
          * It’s Team Blue that wants to tell me when and how much I can donate to political campaigns.
          * It’s Team Blue that tries to tell me that if I have children, I’ll have to send them to dysfunctional schools.
          * It’s Team Blue that tells me I have to sort my garbage.

          I could easily go on. For hours. On a day-to-day basis, I simply don’t run across many people from Team Red trying to pull as much.

    2. Just because you’re a despicable, bootlicking sycophant for authority doesn’t mean all leftists are.

      See: Glenn Greenwald

      1. I am not a leftist, you delirious disoriented cocksucker.

        1. I am not a leftist. I’m a libertarian, just like all leftists really are.

          /Shrike

          1. Polls conducted by Reason show that a considerable number of Lpers voted for Obama.

            The GOP was/is that goddamn bad. Of course Dems are nothing to be proud of either.

            1. Palin’s Buttplug| 8.10.13 @ 1:39PM |#
              “Polls conducted by Reason show that a considerable number of Lpers voted for Obama.”

              Yeah, look over there!

            2. Polls conducted by Reason show that a considerable number of Lpers voted for Obama.

              Libertarians might have voted for Sugar Coated Barry O’s but stopped the mindless TEAM FELLATING when he revealed himself as a caramel colored Bush clone….you haven’t managed to separate yourself from the “Presidential Unit” since 2008.

              Try again shreeky!

              1. The password is, “Cosmotarian”. They wanted to keep getting invited to the DC cocktail parties, and since the LP was running Bob Barr and McCain is an evil fuck, there were people calling themselves libertarians writing for reason who said they’d vote for Obama.

                They probably also wanted to be able to vote in the “first black president”.

                1. Yeah plus if Obama had actually done the things he promised to do, he would be a civil libertarian.

                  Candidate Obama was quite libertarian for a politician. President Obama is nowhere close to it.

                  1. This is my estimate as well. Thats what pisses me off so. Bush at least let you know how authoritarian he was. I harp on Obama so much mostly due to his mendacity.

        2. I notice you don’t deny being a sycopantic bootlicker.

        3. Palin’s Buttplug| 8.10.13 @ 1:30PM |#

          I am not a leftist,(Assertion) you delirious disoriented cocksucker (Projection).

          Assumes facts not entered into evidence, which is too rich, considering how securely Obama’s dick sits in your cock holster…

    3. The Typical Libertarian is hated by conservatives because he wants the freedom to snort coke off a teenaged hookers ass while smoking pot and watching a movie full of boobies and cuss words in preparation for sodomizing his illegal immigrant housekeeper, Carlos. The Typical Libertarian also wants criminals, terrorists and Mexicans to roam freely about causing all manner of social chaos, and has no interest in forcing people to love Jesus Christ. The Typical Libertarian is a traitor to the GOP and America because he failed to support the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the Stimulus, and both Bush and McCain, despite the fact that both men once said something at a cocktail party about maybe possibly lowering taxes on some people some day.

      1. The Typical Libertarian is hated by liberals because he is a crypto-archconservative who wants poor people to go without education, medical care, police protection, food, shelter, and oxygen. The Typical Libertarian spends his weekends running down endangered species in his monstrous, gas-guzzling SUV before stopping off to smoke a pack of cigarettes in a daycare. The Typical Libertarian wants the world to be run by unaccountable multinational conglomerates instead of unaccountable governments. The Typical Libertarian is a racist, sexist, profit-driven nihilist who failed to mark the ascendance of the Chosen One, and has never protested for Union rights nor worn a T-shirt with the word Darfur on it.

        Despite clinging to a hopelessly unworkable, idealistic and marginal political philosophy, the Typical Libertarian has recently been discovered as the cause for the downfall of Western Civilization.

        1. “…worn a T-shirt with the word Darfur on it.”

          Or Che’, or “Yes we can” …or Trayvon..

          “…the Typical Libertarian has recently been discovered as the cause for the downfall of Western Civilization.”

          And a rapid decline in the quality of the roadz, although they have worked wonders in Somalia.

  4. “In September 2012, the Reason-Rupe Poll found that about one-quarter of Americans fall into the roughly libertarian category of wanting saying they want to reduce the government’s roles in economic and social affairs.”

    Fixed. Ask them about the real-life issues, ask them about immigration, free trade, abortion, war, gun control. Then I’ll believe they are libertarians. There would be even more libertarians if you define libertarian as anyone who believes liberty is good.

    1. Yup. I’d like to see whether or not this yearning for a smaller government holds up in issue-specific goals.

      1. goals = polls

        brain not working

      2. It’ll be a lot more mixed. For guns against something else.

    2. Fixed. Ask them about the real-life issues, ask them about immigration, free trade, abortion, war, gun control. Then I’ll believe they are libertarians. There would be even more libertarians if you define libertarian as anyone who believes liberty is good.

      There are consistent libertarian arguments on both sides of abortion and immigration issues.

      1. There are libertarian arguments in favor of having a nation, but they aren’t allowed to be expressed on tReason.com

        They are trying hard to redefine the idea of libertarianism to go along with their left-libertarian ideology. The fact the Milton Friedman opposed illegals is never mentioned. Nor are Ron Paul’s immigration views.

  5. finish the quote – “nor ask another man to live for mine.”

  6. You know who else screamed the same old content at everyone time after time?

    1. Shriek?

    2. White Indian?

  7. Myth:

    LIBERTARIANS DO NOT BELIEVE IN RECYCLING

    1. I believe recycling existed, but I don’t believe it was sired by god, or that it is my lord and savior…. I’m agnostic about recycling.

  8. “That’s a message that might rankle stand-pat Republicans but is likely to appeal to younger voters who, according to a recent College Republican National Committee study, want government to be smaller and more inclusive.”

    “Inclusion” is just the latest liberal word for “diversity” and political correctness. Why is Gillespie saying it like it is a good thing?

    1. Perhaps he doesn’t accept your first sentence?

    2. So less distantly paternalistic and more like a brother and sister. Perhaps a big brother?

  9. Myth: Not all Libertarians have dedicated monocle-polishers on their domestic staff.

    1. I have a valet, not a butler.

      1. Real libertarians only employ major-domos for household tasks.

        1. Whatever happened to ‘man-servant?’

          1. Um, I hate to tell you but we homotarians have long since reappropriated that one BCE.

            1. yeah I hear he signed a contract allowing you to keep him locked in abox in the basement.

          2. When my major-domos reach the age of 18 I release them back in to the wild. “Child-servant” sounds tacky and offends the more warm-blooded of my acquaintances.

        2. Real libertarians only employ major-domos for household tasks.

          I use a listserv for my household tasks.

          1. Sub it out to non-union scabs.

      2. I have a valet, not a butler.

        Real libertarians employ both. You’re out of the club, ASM. Turn your monocle in at the desk on the way out.

  10. Libertarians are found across the political spectrum and in both major parties.

    Definitionally, you cannot find libertarians across the political spectrum. Because the political spectrum includes swathes of various flavors of auhtoritarianism that exclude and are hostile to libertarianism.

    Are there libertarians in both major parties? As registered voter/party members for purposes of primary voting, sure. As party leaders? Not a one. As occasional “fringe”/newby hangers-on elected officials? I can think of a few Republicans who can at least make the argument, but not a single Democrat. A narrow focus on a particular area (civil liberties, say) doesn’t quite clear the bar to be a libertarian in my book, if the rest of your policies are hostile to freedom.

    1. In the context of American (and to a much lesser extent, some other settler nation) politics, libertarianism is certainly an ideology of the right, since the common strain of most right-wing politics is the classical liberalism and Enlightenment philosophy espoused by the Founding Fathers.

      1. I am curious where you base this claim that the American right has been as a historical matter sympathetic to the Enlightenment philosophy espoused by the Founding Fathers? I thought most early, and many still much revered, conservative thinkers were fairly counter-Enlightenment thinkers. I read Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France in an edition with Thomas’ Paine’s Rights of Man. The pairing was meant to demonstrate the strong disagreement between the two.

        1. Edmund Burke was a huge fan of the American Revolution, and the Founding Fathers were about evenly split on the French Revolution (with the vast majority opposing it by the end). The French Revolution, for simplicity’s sake, adopted a different and much more malevolent branch of the Enlightenment than the American one; a branch which would later influence many of the more repugnant ideologies in Europe.

          1. I would like to hear how you square Burke’s opinions on the metaphysical, universal thinking associated with the Enlightenment with your claim that right-wing philosophy (which certainly claims Burke as a major progenitor) in the Anglo-American world was favorable to that same movement.

            I don’t mean that in a snarky way.

            1. You would have to be more specific. Burke’s views on aesthetics attempted to fashion a universal source for same, and his take on moderated change is badly misinterpreted as support for all things to remain continuous, IMO. Burke was profoundly influential on Enlightenment thought and contributed much to it, even though he wouldn’t have identified as such.

              Burke is one figure among many, and certainly qualifies as a classical liberal. Generally it is this and his theory on marginal change which have been adopted by the Anglo-American right, and both ideas are in keeping with Enlightenment thought.

  11. Obamacare is market-based.

    I think my eyeballs just fell out.

    1. Much like an animal in a cage is animal-based!

      1. I like this. I’m stealing it.

    2. Quick! Pour booze into the holes!

      It’s awesome.

      1. That’s like the new vodka tampon eh?

    3. The insurance exchange participants are all private companies.

      Again, to you indolent Peanuts, I am not saying FREE MARKET based, instead merely “market based”.

      1. “Again, to you indolent Peanuts, I am not saying FREE MARKET based, instead merely “market based”.”

        So the term can be ignored?

      2. By that standard, almost any solution is “market based”. The term is pretty much meaningless then.

      3. Again, you are not saying something ‘meaningful’, you are saying something mendacious.

      4. ” Again, to you indolent Peanuts, I am not saying FREE MARKET based, instead merely “market based”.”

        Kinda like Kool-aid is “fruit-juice based”..

      5. The insurance exchange participants are all private companies.

        Jesus… I work for an insurance company and it’s government regulation all the way down. “Private” != “free market”.

      6. Like the Soviets pricing commodities on the basis of Western stock markets: it’s “market based”!

  12. we homotarians have long since reappropriated that one BCE.

    Call me old-fashioned, but I do not want my back (or any other, more delicate and sensitive, parts) scrubbed by a MAN-servant.

    1. think of the Japanese girls from You Only Live Twice.

      That’s what I have.

      1. think of the Oompa Loompas from Willy Wonka.

        That’s what I have.

        1. think of the Cleveland Browns, letting you down one last time.

          That’s what I have.

  13. Libertarians are found across the political spectrum and in both major parties.

    There are libertarian writers who vote for the Democrat party because abortion and amnesty are the most important issues for them. What are they, like 0.01 percent of the party? No Democrat party leaders are libertarian. Very few Republicans are really libertarian, although some pay lip service to the ideology. Again look at there positions on the issues, not the fact that they say “liberty is good.” Even Ron Paul wouldn’t be considered libertarian by many of you. Just look what he said in his Vdare interview.

    1. If you don’t think life begins at one cell then abortion bans are a pretty egregious infringement on liberty.

      1. If you don’t think life begins at one cell

        So an amoeba isn’t alive?

        1. I don’t think anyone should be carried an amoeba to term if that is what you are asking.

          1. Should say ‘forced to’ between ‘be’ and ‘carried’

          2. That’s not what I’m getting at; I’m questioning your premise that a prerequisite of being alive is being a multi-cellular organism.

            Besides, the human zygote consists of 32 cells in less than 24 hours and before one week is a blastocyst of 75 to 100 cells.

            So if we are to accept your argument for the injustice of abortion bans, then it becomes moot in less than one day after fertilization.

            1. Perhaps I should rephrase myself: I don’t think any life with rights exists for single celled creatures, or for creatures up to a certain point of development of the brain and nervous system.

              1. That’s clearer and something I might hang my hat on, but seeing that I’m in a Socratic mood today, I’m going to ask you “Why?”

                Why do you believe a single celled organism and the like don’t have rights?

                My argument would be that if they did have rights, then if I took an antibiotic to fight a strep throat, then I would be committing an act akin to murder, or at least morally equivalent to slaughtering an animal. That strikes me as absurd.

                1. My answer would be similar. If life, even human fetal life, were that valuable at that stage it would lead to some odd conclusions ( to take one example, a certain percentage of embryo’s ‘don’t make it’ in early pregnancy, if they really are as ‘precious’ and embued with rights as a five year old then shouldn’t we have something like search and rescue teams for such embryos?).

                  A better question to me is, why would we think it does have these rights? Because it happens to have human DNA? I don’t base my view of rights on genetic sequencing.

                  1. I heard an interesting sort of calculus for which forms of life have rights and which don’t that’s based primarily on the ability to make moral decisions.

                    So, effectively, animals besides humans and everything on down the line of sophistication may be clever, sweet, cuddly, whatever, but they don’t have the capacity to make moral judgements, therefore can’t be held responsible for their actions, but therefore also lack the right of self-determination. Carrying it to humans, a fetus is incapable of making moral decisions (so far as we can tell) but studies have shown that infants are capable of very basic moral reasoning.

                    It’s not rock-solid, obviously, but I think it’s an interesting way of looking at it.

                    On a related side-note, I can’t find a link for it but I remember hearing in an anthro class years ago that there are groups in Africa where infant mortality is so high that children aren’t named or considered “human” until they can speak. The idea is that by the time a kid can talk they’re probably out of the woods with regard to most of the major infant mortality culprits, so it’s “safe” to invest emotion in them.

                    1. there are groups in Africa where infant mortality is so high that children aren’t named or considered “human” until they can speak.

                      The high rate of infant mortality in the past is the reason why ancient scholars of Jewish law ruled that it wasn’t necessary to give full funeral rites for a child who died before their first birthday.

                  2. HeLa cells are genetically human.

                    1. Nope, wrong number of chromosomes. But I see what you were going for there.

                    2. I think there’s some viral DNA mixed in there, as well.

                  3. A certain percentage of zygotes at that stage divide and become identical twins. As a matter of fact this is how ALL identical twins form, that is, from the same fertilized egg. That’s why they share the same DNA.

        2. “So an amoeba isn’t alive?”

          I rest comfortably in my ignorance as to whether Amoebas feel pain…

      2. I’m not a perfect libertarian because I understand that such a thing is not possible. Abortion shows that, far too many contradictions. Who’s “rights” are more important, the child’ right to life or the mother’s right to “her” body? I can see both sides of the issue. The “child” is in most cases a bundle of mostly undifferentiated cells, with very little consciousness at the time it is killed. But life is life, there is no denying that. How much consciousness, really, does a child six months from conception have? How much does a newborn have? Speculating on consciousness seems to depart from the libertarian rights-centric view. And what about the right of the mother? How can the mother claim that the pregnancy is “forced” on her when it was her that created the child in the first place?(Other than in the very few cases of rape) Of course the left views the right to have casual sex without consequences as sacred, but that isn’t a libertarian idea. Libertarians believe in individual responsibility.

        1. Departing from the libertarian view for a moment, you can look all these issues from the point of view of obligations instead of rights. Rather than “Sally has the right not be robbed,” say “Johnny has the obligation not to rob Sally.” Which, in that case, makes more sense, that the Mother has an obligation to carry the child she created to term, or that the child has the obligation to die to make the mother’s life more convenient when she changes her mind?

          Ultimately, the debate comes down to what type of society you want to live in. If you view a million abortions a year as a good thing for society, as progress, than you support abortion. If you don’t, you don’t.

        2. Perhaps some people on the left endorse casual sex with a right to no consequences, but I think a more popular view is that there is no need to insist on someone facing all potential consequences for casual sex in many cases. In other words there is nothing wrong with people mitigating such consequences where they can without infringing on others.

          1. “…without infringing on others.”

            Abortion at some point infringes on the rights of the unborn.

            1. I don’t count them as ‘others’ with rights to be infringed upon.

              1. Many people disagree with you.

                1. Yes, and many people agree with him.

              2. What do you believe is the functional difference between a one day old with rights and a fetus one day from being born?

                1. I don’t think of a child one day from being born as just a “fetus” anymore. If you’re asking me where I draw the line, it probably has to do with brain activity. I think I agree with late-term abortion bans.

      3. “If you don’t think life begins at one cell then abortion bans are a pretty egregious infringement on liberty.”

        And if you do then abortion is a monstrous evil. This is the root of the controversy about abortion.

        1. So there is is, really. Either abortion is tantamount to removing a cyst, or it’s medically-sanctioned child murder. There’s not a lot of room for middle ground there.

          I happen to believe that humanity begins when you’re out of the womb, and favor the right to an abortion, but I understand the feeling on the other side. It’s especially difficult because “pro-life” people make very logical, very sound arguments from the basis that an unborn child is a living human.

          1. -So there is is, really. Either abortion is tantamount to removing a cyst, or it’s medically-sanctioned child murder.

            I’m not so sure it’s so black and white. We have areas in our morality and law that are not so black and white, I am thinking of mercy killings or animal abuse laws (are animals property? Yes. But what kinds of property are protected in this way).

            I do not think anyone, no matter how pro-life, really treats an early stage embryo as if it is a born child. I think this tells us something: even if a fetus is more valuable than some pro-choice people think it is likely one of those ‘gray areas’ like mercy killings.

            1. Well, of course, the really logical spot to place it is at the beginning of the third trimester. That’s the point in fetal development where you start to see the neural activity associated with human thought. Coincidentally, it’s the same time you see a quantum leap in the level of riskiness of abortion.

  14. To break in to the abortion arguments:
    “Fight brews over private stake in a Mexican icon”
    “The cornerstone of Mexico’s economy, its state-owned Pemex oil monopoly, is crumbling.”
    State-owned ‘business’ gets away with it for a while, then the corruption and lack of discipline shows.
    http://www.sfgate.com/business…..722697.php

    1. Big changes coming to Mexico.

  15. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with the punches.

    http://www.Anon-Tactics.tk

    1. Will you be the guest speaker at the next battered women’s convention?

  16. “I’d like a large deep dish pizza with everything. Extra zygotes and foreskin sauce, please.”

    1. Brooks, that is fucking nasty! Deep dish pizza…??

      1. And chicken-fried afterbirth on the side.

  17. So – what does everyone think of abortion?

    “About 30 percent of libertarians ? including many libertarian-minded politicians such as Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) ? are staunchly pro-life. But most believe that the best way to change behavior is through moral suasion, not versions of prohibition that don’t work.”

    This all boils down to, “is that which is in the womb of a human mother actually human life worthy of protection?”

    If, like the 30%, you answer “yes,” then talk of moral suasion is total nonsense. It would be like talking about using only moral suasion to stop the lynching of African-Americans.

    And the fact that the 30% includes Ron and Rand Paul indicates that the *best* elements of libertarianism are on the prolife side.

    You choicers can solace yourselves with the support of the late Ayn Rand.

    1. So – what does everyone think of abortion?

      I think you need a new thing to think about. I also think that if I believed millions of innocent people were being legally murdered every year, I’d do a bit more than bitching about it on a blog.

      1. Indeed. If fetal life is as precious and sacred as, say, a five year old it seems to me that the fact that about a fifth of pregnancies end naturally before term would be a perpetual holocaust that we could barely, if at all, wrap our heads around.

        1. Yeah, it isn’t like children ever die of natural causes after they are born.

          1. DERP. Not at the that rate.

            1. Yes at that rate. Take a look at some statistics on early childhood deaths in Europe from the Middle Ages all the way through to the industrial revolution. Up until modern medicine, it was incredibly common for children to die at extraordinarily high rates.

              1. and miscarriages were even higher at that time.

                1. Well said. No matter how one ‘slices’ it, a larger portion of pre-born ‘persons’ naturally don’t make it to birth than born persons make it to the age of reason.

                  How many children die without anyone even knowing it ever happened? That’s fairly common for embryonic or fetal death. That alone should show you us we are not in ‘either/or’ territory here.

        2. There was a time when much more than a fifth of children died before reaching adulthood.

          1. Your infant mortality statistics prove too much, unless you’re advocating infanticide.

            1. Unless you’re trying to discredit the spontaneous abortion statistics, in which case thanks.

      2. “I’d do a bit more than bitching about it on a blog.”

        Yeah, I might picket Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, man the phone banks to urge voters to support prolife constitutional amendments, contact my legislators to urge passage of prolife laws…

        Or did you have something else in mind?

        I know this is a blog where commenters talk favorably about assassinating government employees. But most prolifers (including myself) are Christian and reject that sort of thing. The just-war criteria haven’t nearly been met in this country, so there’s no basis for waging war against the government. If this makes me some kind of wimp, I’m sorry to disappoint you.

        Meanwhile, out in the real world, prolifers are enacting law after law restricting abortion. If you doubt the efficacy of these laws, just look at the hysterical fundraising letters the choicers are sending out, and the hysterical “journalistic” articles the choicers in the media are pushing out.

        See this Jezebel summary:

        http://jezebel.com/5906797/a-s…..aws-so-far

        1. Incidentally, one of the abortion mills I helped picket is now closed.

          1. Nice. Helping wreck women’s lives for a fucking sub-canine ‘life form’.

            1. You’re welcome!

            2. Helping wreck women’s lives

              “Julia likes this.”

      3. Really? A lot of people on here believe that thousands of children in Pakistan are being murdered by the US government in drone strikes. I don’t see of them picking up a rifle. Yet, that doesn’t mean they don’t actually believe what they say.

        What is your point of saying that GBN? Do you think pro life people are lying?

        1. I agree, but up to a point. Abortions, natural and man-caused, make up a huge number, it really would be a holocaust that, if it were really thought so, would boggle the mind. I think that points to how ‘odd’ the view that embryo’s have full human rights is.

          1. It is more similar to slavery IMO, given that abortion is not centralized or government-directed.

          2. “A single death is a tragedy – a million deaths is a statistic.” – attributed to Josef Stalin (apologies if I got the attribution wrong)

            1. And see cyrotoxic’s compliment above – crediting me with “wreck[ing] women’s lives” – that is, saving their unborn children and leaving them free to give those children up for adoption of the women couldn’t care for the kids themselves.

              1. Yes, what’s a few months of painful carrying a baby and a painful labor along with the psychological pain of the adoption process (along with the worry no one will adopt the child), with some of the stigma of carrying a fetus to term and then not having it around when people run into you.

                I’m sure you made their day/life.

                1. Yes, what’s a few months of painful carrying a baby and a painful labor along with the psychological pain of the adoption process (along with the worry no one will adopt the child), with some of the stigma of carrying a fetus to term and then not having it around when people run into you.

                  Minus pregnancy and labor all of these items are equally as true of women who choose abortion.

                  1. -Minus pregnancy and labor all of these items are equally as true of women who choose abortion.

                    What you subtract is fairly major. But these are not equally true, consider that for most short term abortions very few people need even know the woman was ever pregnant. That’s not true with adoption unless the woman hides somewhere for nine months.

                2. “the psychological pain of the adoption process”

                  Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how and why the anguish of a woman tossing and turning all night regretting giving up her child to strangers is more legitimate than that of a woman doing the same thing over the regret of having terminated her pregnancy?

                  1. I don’t know, I’ve gone through neither, but I gather the adoption process is quite painful for a woman. Unlike abortion there is no doubt that she has given away a child which she carried to term and experienced birthing, and the stigma is less avoidable.

                    1. Unlike abortion there is no doubt that she has given away a child which she carried to term…

                      Versus DESTROYING the damned thing?!?!
                      Somewhere, someone’s values are way out of whack.

                3. You know not all pregnancies and labor are particularly painful right?

                  1. Do you find many women who describe giving birth as ‘not particularly painful?’

                    1. Well my wife for one.

                      But I would in courage you to read some testimonials by women who practiced the Bradley Method throught their labor and delivery for more.

    2. So – what does everyone think of abortion?

      I think that when I see the topic come up in the comments section of a blog I get a nearly uncontrollable urge to start mainlining whisky in preparation for the near certainty of a flame war.

      1. My point was that, in this thread, it was other people who first brought it up, not me.

        In fact, it was Senor Gillespie’s article which brought up the topic of abortion. I responded to some comments on abortion fror that very article.

        But don’t let me stop you from getting plastered.

    3. And the fact that the 30% includes Ron and Rand Paul indicates that the *best* elements of libertarianism are on the prolife side.

      WTF kind of logic is that?? Most electable = best?

      You choicers can solace yourselves with the support of the late Ayn Rand.

      I know I will.

      1. “Most electable = best?”

        That was not what I meant – the electability issue has yet to be determined on a national level.

        I of course think that those within the libertarian tradition who defend life rather than abandon unborn children to the mercy of the abortionist are among the best elements of their tradition. Especially when Ron and Rand are physicians, with Ron having actual experience in obstetrics and being the author of a prolife manifesto, Abortion and Liberty:

        http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron Paul-Abortion and Liberty.pdf

        1. Link broken – try this instead:

          http://bit.ly/uyEBTF

      2. In many ways it is better to implement some good things than to be a voice crying out in the wilderness. Not all ways, but many.

        1. What’s the application of that principle in this situation?

          1. Well, the result can be incremental advancement of your cause or increasing irrelevance. It’s complicated. What’s the trend right now?

            But what I said wasn’t so much a principle as an acknowledgment of two principles – take what you can get now and try for more later (the incrementalist/utilitarian strategy) or go nowhere unless you can go all the way (the purist).

            1. The prolifers have won a *lot* of incremental victories. Thanks to us, we’ve got restrictions on partial-birth abortions, parental notice requirements for pregnant teenage girls, limits (not enough) on abortion funding, bans on late-term abortions, requirements that abortion clinics meet minimal medical-safety requirements, etc. Just check out the sky-is-falling choicer fundraising letters and MSM articles about all this.

              Meanwhile, the “extremist” personhood movement is scaring the willies out of the choicers, and they haven’t won any elections yet!

              1. Speaking of the sky falling, we’ve passed waiting-period laws requiring a one-day wait before having abortions – which in some states is one-third of the waiting period which applies to certain contracts regarding property. From the butthurt emanating from the choicers, it’s hard not to conclude that this is having some effect.

                1. And the whites-of-their-eyes laws requiring that you at least look at your child before killing him or her.

                  1. So you just use state laws to harass people?

                    1. Yes, Cytotoxic, I just use the laws to harass people who want to kill their newborn babies for being genetically undesirable.

                    2. 1) We’ll kill it anyway 2) So you can’t win the public debate in the open, hence the need for these shameful tactics. Got it.

              2. You’ve met maybe one constitutional and libertarian objective (limiting the use of stolen money) but the rest are unconstitutional or illiberal. And you want a pat on the back?

    4. To answer the question: I love abortion. I am not merely pro-choice but pro-abotion. Abortion has helped reduce crime and eliminates the genetically broken and other biological suprimes, unless the mother is a stupid bitch like Palin or Ms. Santorum and they birth an extra chomosome derp. Abortion may be the most important freedom. It is a key step to total biological empowerment.

      1. So, by that logic, why don’t we just kill people who have the extra chromosome? According to you they have no right to live. Why does being born change that?

        Either you are endorsing mass murder or you are retarded yourself. If you don’t think life begins until birth, than it is none of your business why people get abortions. It is just a medical procedure and not good or bad except to the person getting one.

        1. Why does being born change that?

          Being born is the best cutoff we currently have, although I think there are good arguments for infanticide in the event of a retarded or otherwise unfit child being born. Are they real ‘people’ at that point? Doubt it.

          1. Are they real ‘people’ at that point?

            And if two parents want to raise their microcephalic, severely-retard child like those who treat their pets like children, what business is it of yours?

            Eugenics is inherently collectivist, and I’m quite surprised that you’re riding this hobby horse.

            1. Whoah whoah think we’re getting a little off the page. It is of course the parent’s decision-don’t know where I said it wasn’t. But have every right and reason to take and express a dim view of that decision.

            2. This isn’t eugenics btw.

              1. This isn’t eugenics btw.

                Abortion has helped reduce crime and eliminates the genetically broken and other biological suprimes

                1. Don’t think you understand what eugenics is.

                  1. Don’t think you understand what eugenics is.

                    Argument by assertion isn’t an argument.

          2. Christ, man. I really hope you’re trolling at this point.

            1. Is it me or has it been extra crazy around here for the past few days?

              1. Yeah, it’s been interesting lately.

                Nowhere near as bad as White Indian’s Reign of Terror, but pretty bad.

              2. No, Cyto has just been extra crazy since I started reading this website.

          3. “I think there are good arguments for infanticide in the event of a retarded or otherwise unfit child being born.”

            Wow, I don’t even have to break a sweat to rebut this, you’re just self-sabotaging.

            1. I saw some parents at a restaurant sitting with their disabled – and perhaps retarded – son – at what point should these parents have been able to kill that person?

              1. Very soon after birth.

                1. What’s very soon after birth?

                  1. Not sure. Long enough for undetectable medical problems to show up? A month?

                    1. Want to go before a legislative committee which is considering anti-abortion legislation, and share your views?

                      Hint: The choicers will probably try to block your testimony – too advanced for public opinion at this time.

                      But wait a little longer, and maybe they’ll be willing to use you.

      2. This is a spoof, right?

      3. Now I’m not one to Godwin, but if you’re a fan of abortion because it removes “biological subprimes” you might want to think about where that logic takes you.

        1. It takes me to celebrating removal of ‘broken units’ before they are born and nowhere else. Don’t slip down the slippery slope fallacy.

          1. If you’re referring to human beings as “broken units” and calling for the elimination of said humans, the slope has well and fully slipped.

            It truly baffles me that anyone with such a callous disregard for life would concern themselves with liberty as it pertains to any other aspect of existence.

            1. I’m not talking about any beings, just fetuses.

              1. And extremely young infants.

                It truly baffles me that anyone with such a callous disregard for life

                ‘Life’ is meaningless. Only people have rights.

                1. But only the right sort of “people,” amirite?

                2. Except young infants are people.

              2. And people who help other people who’ve been blown up by Americans.

                Really, why are you here? You’re certainly not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination – you’re a warmongering statist. Anything is good as long as it “improves America” right?

          2. “Don’t slip down the slippery slope fallacy.”

            There’s not much further down to go.

        2. “…”biological subprimes”…”

          The borrowers who wrecked the housing market? Yeah, kill those fuckers..

      4. “Genetically broken”?

        WFT is this shit?!

        1. Trisomy, hemophelia, etc

          1. Even just carrying alleles for Huntington’s and stuff. We should wipe these diseases out.

            1. I know, even diseases like sickle cell anemia right? Even though sickle cell trait confers advantages in resisting the ravages of anemia right?

          2. You know, certain forms of hemophilia have been successfully treated via gene therapy.

            Besides, conflating hemophilia with a condition like trisomy is redicilous.

          3. You know, certain forms of hemophilia have been successfully treated via gene therapy.

            Besides, conflating hemophilia with a condition like trisomy is redicilous.

            1. I admit I did not know that. I am not conflating a gene mutation with aneuploidy but they are both genetic defects.

              1. That’s true, but one can live a full and satisfying life as a hemophiliac while not being “a burden to society”. ALS is much more debilitating than hemophilia and I think one would be hard pressed to say that Steven Hawkings hasn’t greatly contributed to the collective knowledge of humanity. Whereas, a Klinefelter kid with an IQ of 80 and morbid obesity; not so much.

      5. Let me assure people that as a pro-choice person I don’t share Cytotoxic’s reasons for supporting abortion.

        Take sterilization. Some people support the sterilization of the ‘unfit,’ but I don’t think that says anything about those who think people should be free to ‘get their tubes tied’ if they want to.

      6. I’m guessing Cytotoxic jerks off to pictures of Margaret Sanger.

        Here’s some porn for you, Cyto

        http://img2.news.zing.vn/2012/…..-exp-1.jpg

  18. I am not saying FREE MARKET based, instead merely “market based”.

    Oh, okay. Now put your hat on and dance, little monkey.

    1. get your shinebox.

  19. What’s been dubbed his “hipster outreach program” is an attempt to appeal to a wider slice of voters than middle-class whites. Republicans “need to be white, we need to be brown, we need to be black,

    Um, not to generalize but just about every “hipster” I’ve ever met was white and middle class….so a hipster outreach program wouldn’t really make Republican’s more diverse.

    1. Yeah. If Nick thinks the way to make Libertarianism more brown is to attract hipsters, he needs to get out more.

    2. We should totally hold microbrew parties, and have best ‘stache contests to attract hipsters into our orbit. I have a pic of a hipster hugging an AK-47 I have to share one day. Maybe tonight when he gets home I’ll get his permission to nab it from his drive.

    3. I’ve met some hipsters who aren’t white. But I certainly wouldn’t describe a strategy to appeal to racial and ethnic minorities as a “hipster outreach” program

  20. weekend abortion thread. Uhg. What are the 5 true facts about Libertarians?

    Angry
    Cynical
    Alcoholic
    Deviant
    Psychopaths

    1. I do mean that as compliment in case anyone doesn’t know where I’m coming from.

      1. No explanation necessary, that’s how I took it. Though I’m pretty mellow and not the angry type.

        I was asked by my much younger cousin who is just coming around to understanding I’m her father’s contemporary how I stay so young looking.

        I told her:

        I avoid direct sunlight
        human emotions
        and contact with children, even my own.

        1. Sounds about right. Add running/good cardio to the list and maybe some free weights, and it’s about where I’m at.

          1. Her best friend’s mom was my main squeeze one summer a few years out of high school.

            My cousin (also my kids babysitter, practically a nanny, so ‘even my own’ served as a dig on her) greeted me with a ‘I heard you and Courtney’s mom use to have a thing.’

            I put two and two together and realized who Courtney’s mom was. She strongly favors her in good looks. So I affirmed it was true.

            Cousin asks me, ‘so you like the older women?’

            ‘Courtney’s mom is two years younger than me.’

            Her face dropped.

            1. Heh, nice. People tell me I look about 10-15 years younger than I am, which prompted skepticism about my listed working experience when I went in to interview for my current job. My wife though, she’s like a damned vampire — she looks almost exactly like she did in her college picture. Some time in July she went to get her hair cut and the barber asked her when she was graduating from high school.

              I blame our resilient Latin genes. At least we wouldn’t be candidates for the Cytotoxic 5-Year Plan To Eliminate Genetic Dissidents, heh.

              1. Cytotoxic 5-Year Plan To Eliminate Genetic Dissidents

                About that, would he make our cut? Does he have any Latin in him? He doesn’t have the refined temperament of both superior aesthetics and intelligence that we exude in our post.

                1. I’m not sure. He’s got a good soul and his heart’s in the right place, but clearly only someone with inferior breeding would be so gauche as to just throw out something like “let’s kill all the ‘tards!”

                  That’s why we have code words like “libertarian”, “an-cap”, and most terrifying of all, “work ethic”.

                  Yeah, I think we’re gonna have to work ethic Cyto out of the picture.

                  1. We Latins do need to thank the Nordic people for showing us what not to do on the quest for genetic purity. Of course, being Nords with their plodding aesthetic sense (Wagner, really!) nor having an appreciation for the ‘barroco’ in design natural and otherwise, every step they took along the lines of enforcing the work ethic was bound to be a faux pas!

                    1. Very true. Treating an art like eugenics like a factory farm — really, have they no sense of refinement?

                  2. A la raza!

                    (don’t worry, they’re simple, they wont even understand)

                    1. When you guys launch the Great Latin Uprising, are Italians cool? We were the original Latins, you know

                    2. Of course. Italians, Brazilians, French, Romanians, Filipinos — all are welcome to our Brotherhood of Latin Man.

                      Perfidious Albion and the treacherous Huns are off the invite list, though.

                    3. A la raza!

                      You know some of us simple crackers live in SoCal, right?

                2. Ha! No shitty Latin genes for me! I’m German and some other crap. I’ll see you at the protein reprocessing plant-from the top of the plant.

    2. ACADP, acronym fail.

      CAPDA?

      1. I was thinking about acronyms when I started but decided I didn’t want to put that much effort into it. Feeling rather blah today.

      2. ADCAP is taken, unfortunately.

  21. Yet Republicans acknowledged the need for a major reboot after the 2012 election

    “After a prolonged period of introspection and thorough analysis of our positions, we cannot find any fundamental problem with out platform. We just need to hone our message, and beat this drum louder.”

    1. Yeah, soo…. the fundamental problem lay in marketing rather than product… that’s a sensible conclusion.

    2. Sigh.

      Yes and no. The Republican party is changing. The real question is whether it can change fast enough to save itself. The Republican leadership seems bound and determined to prevent that from happening.

  22. What the hell why was my IP address was banned?

  23. What the hell why was my IP address was banned?

  24. Cynical
    Ranting
    Angry
    Callous
    Kneejerking
    Pompous
    Old
    Tyrranical
    Sots

    There’s your acronym, libertarians.

    1. The world needs more crackpots. Nothing is worse than the tyranny of conventional wisdom.

  25. Tyrannical? You WILL be free!

    1. Could have gone with Top hat wearing instead.

  26. Libertarian dictatorship, FTW!

    DISOBEY

    1. The question is: do we work towards a worldwide web revolution or attempt at libertarianism in one blog?

      I vote the latter: we overthrow the Reason editorial staff, install a dictatorship of the commentariat, and set up tribunals.

      1. Pogroms to insure political, and ideological hygiene?.. I can’t see this ending badly.

  27. http://dailycaller.com/2013/08…..ed-people/

    Anyone see this? This is liberalism in a nutshell. If your charity interferes with the government design, it must be stopped. They are going to start shutting down charity hospitals in this county, because liberals care so much about the poor and less well off.

    1. There was some Nazi/fascist term for ‘everything joining the stream’.

      1. That is straight up fascism. I think there might be a real constitutional challenge to it. They are saying only hospitals in “areas with a need”, whatever that means, can be nonprofit. I don’t see how that withstands equal protection analysis.

      2. Or 1st Amendment. If I am some religious order and my mission is to provide for the poor, I don’t see how the government can tell me where I am allowed to operate.

      3. Gleichschaltung (synchronization)

    2. And to think, EvH stated upthread that “[t]he just-war criteria haven’t nearly been met in this country, so there’s no basis for waging war against the government.”

      Ha!

      1. I think a just war also has to be winnable.

        1. Reasonable probability of success, yes. Not to mention exhaustion of peaceful alternatives.

          “Probability of success

          “Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

          “Last resort

          “Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J…..War_theory

          Seriously, are you going to say that you’ve fully exhausted the possibilities of peaceful persuasion and voting the bums out. And, if you’ve despaired of that because “the sheeple” won’t support you, what on earth makes you think that if you can’t gain your point with ballots, you’ll be able to do so with bullets? Not every gun-owner is a fanatical anarcho-capitalist, you know.

          1. Or you can just not subscribe to any of the ‘Just War’ nonsense.

            1. Ignoring Just War criteria has worked out *so well,* especially in the Twentieth Century!

              1. When we did ignore it (bombing Hiroshima) the results were splendid. When they were employed (Vietnam) the results were evil.

                1. You mean bombing Hiroshima *and Nagasaki.* Because, as Dave Barry said, hey, we had another bomb.

                2. If we followed just war theory, we would never have gotten involved in a useless conflict like Vietnam in the first place

            2. Wait, *you* subscribe to the “Just War” nonsense.

              You’re the one saying that we were justified for targeting (not-accidentally hitting, targeting) non-military targets in WW2. You’re the one who said we were justified in double-tapping with our drone strikes.

          2. It depends on what you mean by “last resort.” Sometimes your opponent becomes invincible by building up power as you try peaceful solutions.

            1. How does this apply in the U.S.A.?

              1. With respect to an insurrection forming within the American people, it does not. I was speaking generally.

          3. “Not every gun-owner is a fanatical anarcho-capitalist, you know.”

            A guy can dream, can’t he?

  28. If your charity interferes with the government design, it must be stopped.

    Central planning requires total control. You can’t have a bunch of vandals out there undermining the beautiful perfection of your Five Year Plan.

    1. Yup. They are basically going to make it illegal to give healthcare away to the uninsured. If you do that, no one would buy insurance. And we can’t have that.

  29. Wait, they have hockey in Great Britain?

    1. The best part is they don’t have to worry about messing up the teeth.

    2. I presume that’s real hockey and not field hockey?

      GB actually won a gold medal in Olympic ice hocken in, I think, 1936. It was with a team mostly if not entirely consisting of Canadians who were also eligible to play for GB, though.

  30. Karen Black (Mother Firefly from “House of 1000 Corpses”) just died:( RIP Mama.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/…..?hpt=hp_t5

    1. “Just” died?

      I blogged about it yesterday, and it was discussed in one of the threads here on Thursday.

      1. whatever dude. It’s not about you.

  31. Libertarians don’t care about minorities or the poor.

    It’s not that I don’t care about minorities or the poor. I just don’t care about anybody.

    Get off my lawn!

    Really, it is the Progressives who couldn’t care less about the poor or minorities, otherwise they would not be pushing for all those “wonderful” programs that keep the poor and minorities both poor and stupid: free “edukashion”, welfare, abortion-on-demand for the “undesirables” (thank you, Margaret Sanger!), militant unionism and licensing laws.

    1. I care about people. I can’t say I care about minorities or poor any more or less.

      1. I care so much about people that I want them to just leave them the fuck alone.

        Progressives hate people, this humanity, whatever you want to call it. They can’t stand it any longer. It’s the smell, they feel saturated by it. Progressives can taste their stink and every time they do, they feel that they have somehow been infected by it…

        Otherwise they would not be so keen on changing people by force.

        1. “Behold our finest creation…. The New Man?…”

          1. Because their system is unfit for humans as they are, they want to remake humans to their system.

    2. They worship altruism. Something must be sacrificed, and all must sacrifice.

    3. I just don’t care about anybody.

      The moment I figured out that there’s nothing wrong with people like me not “caring” about strangers – in fact, that it’s human nature – was revelatory.

  32. Krugabe on Rand Paul and the stupidity of Americans

    Jonathan Chait finds Rand Paul talking about the evils of “running a trillion-dollar deficit every year” ? which, as it happens, is not at all what we’re doing; the deficit is at around $600 billion and falling fast. This follows on Eric Cantor’s talk about “growing deficits”, when deficits are in fact shrinking.

    I think it’s pretty clear that Paul actually has no idea that the deficit is falling; it’s quite possible that neither does Cantor. The whole incident reminds me of 2011, when supposedly well-informed candidates like Tim Pawlenty went on about soaring government employment during a time of unprecedented cuts in the public payroll. Once you’re inside the closed conservative information loop, you know lots of things that aren’t so.

    What I’m curious about, however, is what the public knows. Larry Bartels likes to cite a 1996 poll in which voters were asked whether the deficit had increased or decreased under Clinton (it had, in fact, fallen sharply). A plurality of voters ? and a heavy majority of Republicans ? thought the deficit had gone up.

    So I’d love to see a comparable poll now ? asking, say, what has happened to the deficit since 2009. (It has actually been cut more than 50 percent). My bet is that it would look like that 1996 poll.

    1. Hey, Paul, check the numbers in relation to servicing the debt. Held steady? There you go. Bingo.

      *smooches*

    2. 2011…a time of unprecedented cuts in the public payroll

      WTF is this?

      the deficit is at around $600 billion and falling fast

      1) Oh okay. A mere 600 billion dollars…at the height of our economic ‘recovery’. 2) “shrinking fast” -suuuurrrree buddy.

    3. Someone tell me what they see here….

      1. Rising employment till 2011, when there’s a slight reduction.

        Who’s taking bets on whether 2012 saw an increase from there, to a record high?

        1. 2010 included temporary census employees, so the number had to fall anyway.

    4. the deficit is at around $600 billion and falling fast.

      Yes, and rather oddly, the national debt has been below the ceiling at about the same level for about a month or so now, with Lew employing accounting tricks to keep it from going over.

      Anyone want to take bets on how high the debt jumps once the ceiling is raised?

      1. It is not “odd”. The GSE’s have repaid the Treasury over $150 billion since May.

        1. The GSE’s have repaid the Treasury over $150 billion since May.

          And Medicare/Medicaid are running $600 billion deficits.

      2. It’s going to go up big time, because it hasn’t really moved in almost five months (since March 19).

    5. That $600B is still a deficit with a budget higher than it was 5 or so years ago.

      And when the payroll has become so bloated that you can fire massive amounts of people and still be too damn big, you might have a fucking problem.

  33. So I’d love to see a comparable poll now ? asking, say, what has happened to the deficit since 2009. (It has actually been cut more than 50 percent). My bet is that it would look like that 1996 poll.

    Then we can ask what has happened to spending.

  34. Here’s a myth for you: “Non-asian minorities are every bit as intelligent as white people, and would be able to succeed if only TEH RACISMS didn’t hold them back. Do not look at Africa, Haiti, Detroit, or any other majority black-ruled area and judge their ability to rule themselves. Those are red herrings and can be hand-waved away with sophistry. It’s all racism.”

    1. Please go away.

      It would be great if this is the only response you get.

    2. American’s latest incarnation?

      And his comment is not only blatantly racist and false, its also completely off topic!

      1. From what he said in last night’s FISA thread, he’s actually a far-left moron who thinks we’re all racist and Republicans is trolling us with his “uber-reichwing” persona. So like Buttplug turned up to 11. But that could be bullshit.

        1. Here:

          Redefining Marriage| 8.9.13 @ 9:28PM |#

          Nice try, cockbreath. Oh no wait, it WASN’T a nice try because you’re COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG. I started it with the idea of acting like a typical conservative, bashing homos and pretending to be racist, homophobic, etc. You know, everyone who isn’t a progressive. But the stupidity just overwhelmed me one night and I replied in a normal manner to some post.

          So since the cat’s out of the bag, here we are.

          1. It’s Mary Stack. She’s a deranged and very sick woman that is best ignored.

        2. The joy of being a libertarian is that I can simultaneously be a dirty pot-smoking hippie and a racist gay-bashing baby-killer all without ever having to actually do any of those things.

          1. Welcome to the digital age…

    3. I’m really starting to believe the theory that American is Mary Stack. This is obviously him, and he’s also made some blatantly left wing comments in the last week as well, illustrating that he can pretend to be on either side. This possibility really terrifies me. How insane does a middle-aged left-wing woman need to be to have the desire to troll a website day after day pretending to be a racist, sexist, homophobic male pick up artist. And it’s not like she’s simply saying stuff like “I hate niggers!” or “I hate faggots!” If this is Mary, she obviously has taken the time to regularly visit various white supremacist and PUA sites to learn about their cultures well enough to imitate them. Mary, seriously, if this is you, you really need to get help. Get some therapy, get some meds, cause this is just getting sad to watch.

      1. I’m not sure this is obviously Merkin. Merkin’s rhetoric isn’t original to him, go to pretty much any white supremacist internet hangout and you’ll see the same sorts of claims and illogic. It wouldn’t be hard to imitate. But it’s possible they’re the same person.

        1. Eh, a new troll shows up saying the same things American always says, I’ll go with American till I have reason to believe otherwise. There are a couple differences with this one – 1) RM started out with weird replies to people about how much they love cock and how gay they are. As homophobic as American is, I’ve never seen him do that before, he usually either starts off with something inoffensive and then quickly escalates, or just directly goes into his standard comments about how blacks and Hispanics are inferior, women should stay in the kitchen, and how gays are immoral. 2) RM then did a complete 180 and claimed to be a leftwinger who earlier pretended to be a conservative and then criticized conservatives and Republicans for being racist/sexist/homophobic. Again, I’ve never seen American do this, at least under a user name that he was later exposed as.

          1. ^THIS. I think it’s a sock puppet trying to liven things up. The MO is totally different from merkins.

            1. That’s probably correct, the more I think about it. Anyone who even occasionally reads the comments here could imitate American quite easily

    1. I’m still perplexed at that Gillespie quote. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever in that context, especially after Christie’s shrike-esque fellating of Obama last election.

      Now if you take the sentence on its own:

      …the GOP is flush with next-generation leaders, among them Chris Christie, Rubio, and Bobby Jindal.

      it’s at least true, but let’s not confuse the existence of these “next-generation leaders” as being fortunate for “libertarian-minded voters”.

      I really wish Gillespie would have addressed this in the comments of that article.

      1. He’s also a little too obsessed with Sarah Palin, who isn’t in office and isn’t running for anything.

        1. Perhaps he loved her as much as I did in Game Change.

    2. Personally, I’ve always thought Palin got a pretty bum rap with libertarians. If you look at her career as governor, she was fairly libertarian-minded in terms of her policies, if not her style. Really, the biggest mistake she made is getting mixed up with McCain.

  35. I can simultaneously be a dirty pot-smoking hippie and a racist gay-bashing baby-killer all without ever having to actually do any of those things.

    All while oppressing the poor and taking food out of the mouths of hardworking unionized civil servants.

    1. It’s like a one stop shop for evil! Get in while the gettin’s good.

      1. It’s awesome, really.

        Though there are folks out there who are trying to bring me back to the light. Why, just today I had some fine upstanding Republican explain that while parts of the drug war may be bad we really should have the death penalty for people who sell drugs to minors. He assured me that we’d follow the same flawless procedures we use for murder trials to make sure it was all above-board. I was going to ask him further about it but he had already moved on to how the Obama administration was lawless and tyrannical and he was stockpiling guns and ammo for the coming burning times, so I’m not sure it really took.

        1. It’s funny how standard partisans think the opposing administrations are evil incarnate but still want to drastically increase the power and purview of government.

          Like, dude, you wanna give Obama and the feds more people they’re legally allowed to kill? Good thinking, asshole.

        2. Why do Republicans want our kids to turn out to be pussies who cant even handle pot or cocaine? Blame the dealer and not the weak ass gene pool.

          1. You wouldn’t have to worry about that if Cytotoxic can catch them early and…deal with them.

  36. Food stamp participation concentrated in Red States:

    http://s285.photobucket.com/us…..c.jpg.html

    1. Can we settle this once and for all?

      Growing up, I always heard that Republicans were bad because they were middle to upper class people whose attitude was “I’m quite comfortable, so I don’t really care about the poor.”

      Now the argument seems to be Republicans are bad because…….they ARE the poor, after all?

      Well, which one is it?

      Besides, is examining this on a state-by-state basis really the best way to do it? For instance, if only PEOPLE on food stamps had voted in 2012, you’re telling me Romney would have won the popular vote?

      1. Or what if being surrounded by welfare recipients turns people into republicans. Maybe the blues staters have an idealized vision of the poor that doesn’t stand up to reality.

      2. No, I am not saying that at all about the 2012 election.

        I do often point out that GOP voters receive by far the most “free stuff” due to SS/Medicare/caid and likewise Red States receive the most pork and welfare per capita.

        1. No, I am not saying that at all about the 2012 election.

          OK. So then if only food stamp recipients voted, Obama would still have won the popular vote. In other words, “most people on food stamps backed the Dem in the last election.” Shrike says so!

          Therefore, trying to link “being on food stamps” with “supporting the Republican” (which is exactly what the map does) is, at best, misleading. Gotcha!

          1. (Wish I had an edit button)

            By the way “Gotcha!” was not intended to mean “I just owned you,” but rather “I think I understand now.”

    2. That’s really more of a “The south is poor” map. It doesn’t speak to the party affiliation of the food stamp participants.

      And why the hell is Oregon so heavy on food stamp usage?

      1. This may provide a clue.

        “I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.”

        Obviously some red state christfag.

      2. http://www.oregonhunger.org/sn…..erceptions

        SNAP Outreach: Positive Messaging

        Some examples of common misperceptions:

        “I make too much money to qualify for SNAP.”

        Many people are surprised to find out how much they can earn each month and still be eligible. Most families who qualify for WIC or school meals also qualify for SNAP.

        “I can’t get SNAP because I own a house and/or a car.”

        Most households in Oregon can get SNAP regardless of the value of their resources. Eligibility is based mostly on monthly income. You may also be able to receive SNAP if you get unemployment insurance, if you are a student or if you are working full or part-time.

        and…

        http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/310605

          1. The new name for food stamps.

            SNAP = supplemental nutrition something program

            1. It sounded better than “Federal politician vote bribe scheme”

    3. Palin’s Buttplug| 8.10.13 @ 8:04PM |#
      “Food stamp participation concentrated in Red States:”

      Ya know, your sleazy cherry-picking is getting tired, you pile of shit:
      http://www.google.com/imgres?i…..A&dur=6493

      1. All right, I’m confused again.

        What is that map supposed to show? The states are distorted because…..?

        1. They show that the concentration claimed by shreek is bullshit.
          His cherry-picked graph focuses on the middle south as both red-states and food stamp recipients. Bullshit.

        2. The map shows the states in proportion to their populations. Most of the red states have much lower populations than the blue states.

          PB’s claim partially rests upon the assumption that food stamp use is proportional to state geographical size, which is not evident upon closer inspection. Despite how dark those red states are, the food stamp use in them is likely dwarfed by the blue state use because of how much more populated many of the blue states are.

          1. The bottom line is that — for many reasons, most historically self-inflicted but some the result of Northern economic dominance — Southern states start from a low base. It is only relatively recently that the South has started to match the rest of the country in terms of economic development.

            Another way to interpret the data is that the Republican South has seen the greatest number of people getting off of food stamps in recent history — I’m not sure I’d support the implication of that statement (“Republicans are teh awesome at eliminating poverty”) any more than one could support the implication behind PB’s statement (“Republicans are/create welfare bums”).

            1. The bottom line is that — for many reasons, most historically self-inflicted but some the result of Northern economic dominance — Southern states start from a low base. It is only relatively recently that the South has started to match the rest of the country in terms of economic development.

              This reminds me of the “socialism/economic success” discussion a few weeks ago, where rich socialist countries became rich first and socialist second, rather than the socialism causing economic success.

    4. Food stamp participation concentrated in Red States

      http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html

      1. Definitely a factor, though not the only one. Kentucky and WV are dark red and both have black populations well below the national average. Tennessee’s isn’t that much above the national average either. One thing is that the cost of living is much lower in the South, and the feds don’t adjust for that in determining eligibility for their programs. So two families equally well off, when adjusted for COL, may have different eligibility for things like food stamps. Also, the South is historically poor, and economically conservative Republicans have not been running it for very long

        1. the South is historically poor, and economically conservative Republicans have not been running it for very long

          This is the bottom line. Economic conservatives (of either a Dem or Rep party affiliation) haven’t been in charge of the South until very recently.

          People forget that even in the good ol’ days of classically liberal Dems, the free market Dems were from the North. (James Garfield for example was from New York.) Southern Dems after the Civil War were mostly agrarians and not terribly pro-market.

          1. I assume by James Garfield, who was a Republican (from Ohio IIRC), you actually mean Grover Cleveland?

            “Southern Dems after the Civil War were mostly agrarians and not terribly pro-market.”

            ^This. Many progressives seem to think that Southern Democrats of the Solid South era were just the equivalent of extremist across-the-board right-wing conservative Republicans who were only Democrats cause they all hated Lincoln. There were plenty of racist Southern Democrats (ex. Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Bilbo, William Fulbright, Robert Byrd) who were progressive (in the political sense of the word) on many issues, especially economics. Studies of the historical political leanings of the two parties consistently show that Southern Democrats of the 1900s, while on average more conservative than Northern Democrats, were significantly less conservative than Republicans. And this was at a time when the Republicans still had a significant number of openly liberal members

            1. I assume by James Garfield, who was a Republican (from Ohio IIRC), you actually mean Grover Cleveland?

              D’oh! Yes… my bad. At least I got the state right.

              People also drastically overstate the progressivism of the Republican party at the time. The Henry Clay System was mostly infrastructure improvements, tariffs, and westward expansion. The worst tariff was repealed relatively soon after its institution. We really didn’t start seeing spoiled politics until people like the Roosevelts and William Jennings Bryan started up.

              1. The parties in these days weren’t nearly as ideologically cohesive as they are today. Both parties had very diverse groups, many of whom had pretty different goals and beliefs, as part of their base.

        2. Definitely a factor, though not the only one. Kentucky and WV are dark red and both have black populations well below the national average.

          Oh, obviously–just pointing out PBs cherry-picking.

  37. he had already moved on to how the Obama administration was lawless and tyrannical

    President Christie will put a stop to all that!

    Go, TEAM, go.

  38. Hot Air declares love for Peter King, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin for 2016

    Let’s just nominate somebody who has welded on all three legs of the stool and leaves not a sliver of daylight for the squishiness question. A nominee who will state without ambiguity that we’re going to bomb the crap out of anyone who is actively working against our interests. One who flatly proclaims that there will be no abortions for anyone and new Supreme Court justices will be inclined to overturn Roe v Wade. They will solemnly aver that we will slash both taxes and spending in a serious fashion, consequences be damned, and that any money spent on immigration reform will go toward arresting and deporting illegals while massively strengthening the borders. And if the only path available to deal with argumentative Democrats is to shut the government down, then By God they will personally be the one to turn out the lights as the last one out the door.

    1. Needz moar Booooosh!

  39. The specter of libertarianism is haunting America.

    But not to worry, Reason is on the case! Should a politician dare to start making any actual libertarian noises, count on Reason to step up to the plate and call him a racist!

  40. Conservative family rescued at sea after abandoning USA:

    Hannah Gastonguay said her family was fed up with government control in the U.S. As Christians they don’t believe in “abortion, homosexuality, in the state-controlled church,” she said.

    U.S. “churches aren’t their own,” Gastonguay said, suggesting that government regulation interfered with religious independence.

    Among other differences, she said they had a problem with being “forced to pay these taxes that pay for abortions we don’t agree with.”

    http://www.yorkdispatch.com/na…..ost-at-sea

    1. Those crazy conservatives!

  41. Good news: Man who set off Amber alert by kidnapping 16 year old girl killed killed by police in Idaho, girl found unharmed.

    The man suspected of kidnapping 16-year-old Hannah Anderson was killed in the Idaho wilderness Saturday, but the girl was safely recovered, according to law enforcement sources.

    James Lee DiMaggio, 40, was killed about 4 p.m. in a remote area near the town of Cascade, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

    DiMaggio was the subject of an intensive manhunt in the wilderness above Cascade, where he had taken Hannah, who had been missing from her San Diego County community since Sunday.

    No other details about how DiMaggio was killed were immediately available.

    DiMaggio had been considered armed and dangerous. Earlier in the day, FBI Special Agent Jason Pack said that danger required officials to send in “highly trained, enhanced SWAT teams and law enforcement” as part of the search.

    DiMaggio’s blue Nissan Versa ? the subject of a five-state Amber Alert ? was found Friday roughly 60 miles northeast of Cascade, at a trail head leading into the wilderness.

    1. Oh, thank god. I can’t sleep knowing a white girl might be in danger.

    2. “Earlier in the day, FBI Special Agent Jason Pack said that danger required officials to send in “highly trained, enhanced SWAT teams and law enforcement” as part of the search.”

      In other words, a kill-team.

  42. Balko’s on CSPAN 2 right now. Talking about his book.

    1. He wrote a book?

      1. That’s just silly, almost as silly as Kennedy and Brian Doherty writing books.

        1. Or Welch and Gillespie. It’s not like anyone would publish them.

  43. This thread died. Anyone know why the South wanted to secede?

    1. They weren’t enthusiastic enough about pants. Also, they loved deepdish pizza.

      1. There is no such thing as “deep dish pizza”.

        There is pizza and there is casserole. The two shall never meet.

        1. Heretic. Deep dish is real pizza and delicious. There’s nothing “casserole” about it, thin crust-loving abomination.

    2. They wanted a different flag than them Yankees?

    3. “Irreconcilable differences” is what it said on the divorce papers, but the north had better more lawyers

      1. I should have been more specific. I meant South Sudan.

    4. To protect the black people from evil Yankees, of course. The whole “slavery” thing is nothing but propaganda.

  44. Perhaps Gillespie would like to opine on the argument that libertarians are suicidal?

    1. That’s what they all say… the all say D’oh.

  45. This thread died.

    Too much spam, not enough pineapple, on the pizza.

    1. A good, simple meal: Macaroni and Cheese with chunks of fried spam mixed in.

      1. Are you from Hawaii?

        1. Never been there. It was something I learned at camp one year.

          1. “There was this one time, at band camp, I stuck some spam in my macaroni.”

        2. Wait…is this code for “Are you from a foreign country; a country such as…Kenya”?

          1. cavalier973| 8.10.13 @ 10:27PM |#
            “Wait…is this code for “Are you from a foreign country; a country such as…Kenya”?”

            Nope. Just a question since for reasons unknown to me, Span sells like crazy in HI.

            1. According to the SPAM website, the island’s love affair with Spam began in World War II, when GIs were served the salty luncheon meat because it didn’t require refrigeration and had a long shelf life. The Hormel Corporation, which manufactures Spam, provided 15 million cans to Allied troops every week. Between 1941 and 1945, Hormel had shipped over 100 million pounds overseas.

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..01306.html

      2. Spam is only real when eaten straight out of the can with a plastic knife.

    2. Fruit does not belong on pizza, unless it’s a desert pizza.

      1. This. I once got a free two-liter when Papa John’s put pineapple on my chicken bacon barbeque pizza.

        1. I’m sorry to hear you’re both so wrong on this issue.

          When I’m elected king there will be no pizza but Hawaiian style.

          Related note: I made pineapple upside down cake replacing subbing in bacon fat for the shortening requirements. It was like eating a complete breakfast in one food.

          1. I should have known better than to trust fruits. I always thought vegetables were my only enemy. Now I know better.

            1. Look, unless you’re all eating pizza bianca you’re pizza is slathered in tomato. If it weren’t for Nix v. Hedden, you would’ve already conceded that fruit belongs on a pizza.

              I would be hurt that you were referring to me as a fruit, but that would require me to allocate feelings to this conversation, which I’m unwilling to do. I may delegate them to an orphan if I’m feeling charitable later.

              1. Everyone knows tomato is a traitor-fruit, no one sane would mistake it for the refreshing taste of normal fruits.

                I would be hurt that you were referring to me as a fruit

                So for the record, you do in fact deny that you are a cannibal? Be you fruit, vegetable, or fungus, you cannot be trusted.

                1. Clearly if you think I’m not a cannibal you haven’t been paying attention.

                  Also, I wouldn’t trust me whatever my status as animal, vegetable or mineral, but other people seem quite happy to. This is why I will end up your king and my west-coast agenda will put a Hawaiian pizza in every pot and a Dominoes delivery van in every driveway.

                  1. Wait, hobos are people? Next you’ll tell me orphans are people with rights, too.

                    I actually like Dominoes though, it’s better than Papa John’s and you can decide what sauce you want (never get their white sauce, btw; it’s awful).

      2. Fruit does not belong on pizza

        1000x this.

        1. This is pure east-coast elitism and it is shameful. SHAMEFUL I SAY!

          1. Well, I am an east-coast elitist – the fact that the pizza around here suits my taste is pure coincidence.

          2. As we should be. Everyone knows that the quality of pizza available is inversely proportional to your distance from Brooklyn, NY.

    1. Add this

      If you’re going 80s pop do it right.

      1. I’ve not heard the song before; I don’t think it made it onto the Top 40 station in Memphis, much less over the speakers at the mall.

  46. See what ‘crowdfunding’ can do? Why you can get people to hand over dough for no good reason at all, other than it makes them fell good!
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..-67888.php
    Why, someone could swing that blunderbuss in a crowded room and cause all sorts of harm!

    1. I like the pic where the cop looks down the barrel. I feel safer already.

  47. George Zimmerman’s acquittal was largely due to institutional racism

    George Zimmerman’s father is a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate. It seems he likely had spoken with the police that night, and that the police knew, based on the previous 48 times that Zimmerman had called them, that his father was a magistrate. This could explain, partly, why the police didn’t even make a pretense of doing the minimal work required when a person is shot and killed, because this is how the “good ol’ boy” network works in the United States. It’s the fraternity of white privilege and white supremacy that communicates with itself in in nods and winks and in unspoken words coded into speech to protect that privilege and that supremacy. To the police, Zimmerman senior was one of them and so, then, was his son.

    1. It’s every American’s right to pound a person’s head into the ground for asking them questions. It’s somewhere in that 100 year old document.

    2. Anyone who uses the phrase “white privilege” seriously needs to be slapped like Joffrey.

      1. Why do you hate white privilege, Rocks?

      2. I think it depends on the context and what is meant by it.

        If by ‘white privilege’ all one means is that negative stereotypes and beliefs about whites are less prevalent and/or less damaging than the same about (certain) non-whites in the United States, or that in general white people have more advantages than non-whites (in things like inherited wealth or networking) then I think that’s true.

        I just don’t know what that being true is supposed to mean. Is it suppose to justify things like affirmative action, busing or anti-discrimination laws? Because all those things do in the real world is foster and re-enforce negative beliefs about non-whites that benefit or are protected by them.

        1. The idea itself has merit, but the only time people bring it up they really mean “shut up”.

          1. Oh, agreed. It’s nearly always presented moronically.

            1. Agree with both of you guys. There are instances where it may be a valid point, but there are very few people who consistently limit themselves to using it in only those sort of situations. And it’s nearly always used in conjunction with an explicit or implicit non sequitir (Because “white privilege” X is justified)

              1. The Zimmerman case is certainly one of those instances in which is it nearly always used with an explicit or implicit non sequitir.

        2. Except any such advantage is usually marginal, at best. I can name at least a dozen other arbitrary factors that play a role in one’s life and interactions. And those who focus on “white privilege” treat those as incidental. I mean, seriously, would you say that Jim-Bob who’s growing up in rural Appalachia is somehow “privileged” relative to Sasha and Malia Obama?

    3. Institutional Racism exists. But, I can’t provide any evidence or proof of it because it’s all a big secret.

      1. “Institutional Racism exists. But, I can’t provide any evidence or proof of it because it’s all a big secret.”

        On the contrary… Affirmative action, and a myriad of diversity quotas, in almost all sectors of American life, are brazenly foisted upon the populace quite publicly, and without an inkling of (lol) political shame.

        1. Affirmative Action should have ended on November 8th, 2008, but I guess it has to continue until every Black American man and woman over the age of 32 is elected to the highest office in this nation.

          1. …every Black American man and woman over the age of 32 is elected to the highest office in this nation

            I would support this, if you mean “all at the same time”.

          2. I am no fan of affirmative action, but why should it have ended then? It is usually liberals that heralded Obama’s election as ushering in a ‘post-racial society’ (of course they dropped it the day after election).

            1. Don’t you think the election of Obama belies any sort of “institutional racism”? How could he have been chosen by a majority of people to be the head of our government if there existed in America a system of inequality so strong that it would have acted against his election?

              1. What good is an America, without a social and/or political boogey man behind every wall, and under every stone, for vested interests and their media enablers…

              2. Because what might be true for one black man might not be true for black men in general?

                It’s not like racism stopped when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier either.

                Or here is perhaps a better example. When William Russell Grace, the first Irish mayor of NYC was elected in 1880, do you think discrimination and prejudice against the Irish ceased to be a significant problem for the Irish in general in NYC?

                1. The problem with and “Vice crimes” is that enforcement is inconsistent with human nature, and cannot be discouraged with political nor legal brute force, try separating stink from shit with a gun or indictment.

                2. Yeah, but then you’re talking about something that’s not white privilege.

                  White privilege as a concept requires that you have some sort of universally quantified access to a privilege for all members of the white group.

                  That’s simply not the case.

                  1. Does it? I would think that it merely requires it to be generally true.

                    1. BCE, I tend to agree with you in that the concept doesn’t necessarily have to be universally true. But I will say that people who talk about it very rarely acknowledge, let alone, emphasize that

                3. It’s not like racism stopped when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier either.

                  That’s correct. Racism will never be “stopped”. That’s the point. But to insist on continuing a program that was created with Jim Crow in mind when a Black man has been elected, not once but twice, to the highest position in government seems a bit disingenuous to me. You cannot eliminate every single incident of racism in a free society without completely destroying liberty in the process.

                  1. You cannot eliminate every single incident of racism in any society

                4. 1880 is not 2013, just as 1960 isn’t 2013.

                5. By then, the bigger problem was discrimination and prejudice by the Irish.

    4. Hey, Nando!
      “To the police, Zimmerman senior was one of them and so, then, was his son.”
      Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.
      Bullshit.
      How about if it begins with an N, it’s nonsense? Sound good?

    5. Wow, the President of the United States may have denounced him, but he has a countervailing advantage – his dad used to be a magistrate!

  48. Out of boredom I’ve decided to dignifying this with a response: …False.

  49. You lost me when you made the comment about The Southern Avenger…Jack Hunter. I love him and I agree with EVERYTHING he says. He is a true libertarian and not a libertarian light. This is what turns me OFF from Cato/Reason and sends me right back to Lew Rockwell. YOu folks know nothing about the south.

    1. Needs more “COCKTAILZZZZ”!!!

      1. Cosmotarians RAUS!

        1. What the fuck did you just fucking say about Cosmotarians, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid.

        2. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

            1. are you kidding me you little piece of shit? i’ll have you know i graduated top of my class with a degree in SOCIAL JUSTICE STUIDES and i’ve been involved in privilege checking with over 150 confirmed political demonstrations i’m trained in conflict resolution and i was the most oppressed person in my entire upper middle class high school you are nothing to me but another cultural appropriator i will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which have never been seen on this side of the 49th parallel mark my words you think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the internet think again fucker, as we speak i’m checking with my progressive politics analyst brigade for your location so you better be prepared to deal with some molotov cocktails and angry feminists flying through your window yOU’RE FUCKING DEAD CHERRY! i can be anywhere at any time and i can intellectually kill you in over seven hundred ways and that’s just with me talking about privilege not only am i extensively trained in hotline management but i have access to an entire arsenal of sociological articles to prove my point and i will use them to wipe your fucking face off the earth you little shit if only you had known what oppressed retribution your cultural appropriation would unleash then maybe you would have held your fucking tongue but you couldn’t you’re fucking dead kiddo

              1. …”i graduated top of my class with a degree in SOCIAL JUSTICE STUIDES”…

                This is GOOD!

    2. For bringing up Jack hunter when no one else did. Or I missed something…

      1. I believe she was frothing at the mouth over this:

        As the recent discovery of neo-Confederate writings by a former senior aide to Sen. Paul shows, there sometimes is a connection between libertarians and creepy, racist elements in American politics.

        Paleocons get all pissy when their attempts at a stealth take over of libertarianism are uncovered.

        1. Ah. Didn’t ctrl-f neo-conf and obviously didn’t read the article.

        2. “Neo-Confederate”? What gives you the idea I ever reconstructed, you idjit Yankee?

        3. I don’t really think Jack Hunter is part of any “stealth take over” of libertarianism. Yes there’s some stuff in his past that I find distasteful, but the parts I have a problem with he’s repudiated and those views aren’t at all reflected by his current writings.

          1. I was referring more to southernbelle. As far as I know, Mr. Hunter doesn’t troll libertarian internet sites screeching like a harpy about how Southern agrarian/populist culture-war bullshit is the sine qua non of libertarianism.

            1. I don’t give a fuck who you are or where you live. You can count on me to be there to bring your fucking life to a hellish end. I’ll put you in so much fucking pain that it’ll make Jesus being nailed to a cross in the desert look like a fucking back massage on a tropical island. I don’t give a fuck how many reps you have or how tough you are IRL, how well you can fight, or how many fucking guns you own to protect yourself. I’ll fucking show up at your house when you aren’t home. I’ll turn all the lights on in your house, leave all the water running, open your fridge door and not close it, and turn your gas stove burners on and let them waste gas. You’re going to start stressing the fuck out, your blood pressure will triple, and you’ll have a fucking heart attack. You’ll go to the hospital for a heart operation, and the last thing you’ll see when you’re being put under in the operating room is me hovering above you, dressed like a doctor. When you wake up after being operated on, wondering what ticking time bomb is in your chest waiting to go off. You’ll recover fully from your heart surgery. And when you walk out the front door of the hospital to go home I’ll run you over with my fucking car out of no where and kill you.

            2. I just want you to know how easily I could fucking destroy your pathetic excuse of a life, but how I’d rather go to a great fucking length to make sure your last remaining days are spent in a living, breathing fucking hell. It’s too late to save yourself, but don’t bother committing suicide either? I’ll fucking resuscitate you and kill you again myself you bitch-faced faggot. Welcome to hell, population: you

              1. You lame. you use old. you no funty.

              2. Is someone writing Cheryl Tunt fantasy porn?

  50. And I thought we had some dumb fuck commenters.

    The story: Associated Press wants the list of all concealed carry permit holders in the state of Montana. Montana AG refuses, due to a change in the law. The story becomes a story, and somebody releases the personal information of some unknown number of AP reporters. Mother Jones takes that story and runs with it

    Comments are a fucking howling blizzard of derp.

    Why the fuck does the AP believe they need a list of permit holders?

    1. It’s just more proof that far too many people who support gun rights above all other rights really don’t have the maturity to own a gun. When requests for information becomes equivalent to threats of violence against anyone in your home we really need to evaluate our priorities and get rid of these officials who allow and encourage such behavior. And this is coming from a responsible gun owner, apparently I’m a quickly disappearing animal in the USA.

      1. What is with the all bold? Is that like the new all caps?

        1. it was supposed to be a ‘quote’

          1. People that can’t use tags shouldn’t be able to comment on policy.

      2. Nando| 8.10.13 @ 10:52PM |#
        “It’s just more proof that far too many people who support gun rights above all other rights”

        Cite on the ‘above all other’ bullshit?

        1. I was quoting one of the commenters.
          How about the right not to get shot by a lunatic?

          1. How about the right not to get shot by a lunatic?

            What the fuck kind of a right is that?

            Where’s my right to not get struck by lightening, or not fall in the bathtub?

          2. Nando| 8.10.13 @ 11:04PM |#
            “I was quoting one of the commenters.”

            Let’s see the quote.

    2. public records are a quaint pre- 9/11 concept.

      anything with “public” attached to it is inherently unamerican. the word should be abolished because it’s a threat to the “free market” and the “global community.”

      public safety, public education, public libraries…. all of these things are annoying to bob rubin, rahm emanuel and pete peterson and should be eliminated

      … so that the right people can make money on things we used to agree to ante up for because we wanted to live in a civilized society.

      this is the neoliberal technocratic model for the future.

    3. -Why the fuck does the AP believe they need a list of permit holders?

      I am at a loss as to why they would want that and am trying to think of an analogous situation. Perhaps when the press has reported the salaries of public employees?

    4. 1Pokey4 (Moderator) 1 day ago in reply to douglasalan

      Yup. That sort of thing is bullshit of the worst sort. It’s like Fox bloviators subtlely goading viewers to commit violent acts against people who do and say things they don’t like, while giving addresses and displaying photos of the target’s home. Or like gun nuts publishing the names of journalists’ children and the locations of schools that they attend.

      Dripping with juicy skittles flavored irony…

    5. “Why the fuck does the AP believe they need a list of permit holders?”

      Irrelevant. There should be no list to begin with.

      1. the list of permit holders should be the list of the population.
        YOU GET A PERMIT!
        YOU GET A PERMIT!
        and YOU GET A PERMIT!!

      2. Fuck lists!

    1. That’s pure awesome.

      But, doesn’t the Lemmy bot need moarz fugly?

      1. He needs a fembot blowing him while playing is what he needs

        1. All the fembots is belong to me.

  51. I think I missed a good thread.

    Skimmed the article, this is the one that caught my attention.

    Libertarianism is a boys’ club

    That’s a myth?

    1. Yeah. The reality is that it’s a men’s club.

      1. The reality is that it’s a men’s club

        This is why there are no female Libertarians (;

  52. It’s the fraternity of white privilege and white supremacy that communicates with itself in in nods and winks and in unspoken words coded into speech to protect that privilege and that supremacy.

    Of course it is. Of course it does.

  53. Forced myself to watch Megalodon. What a good move!

    I’ve decided that the reason Megalodon hadn’t been seen until recently is that he’s just come out of the closet. He’s been prowling around the ocean, wearing a tiny bowler and sequined vest – NTTAWWT. And he looks FABULOUS, and he’s showing the world.

    You go, #Megalodon! You go!

  54. Forced myself to watch Megalodon. What a good move!

    I’ve decided that the reason Megalodon hadn’t been seen until recently is that he’s just come out of the closet. He’s been prowling around the ocean, wearing a tiny bowler and sequined vest – NTTAWWT. And he looks FABULOUS, and he’s showing the world.

    You go, #Megalodon! You go!

    1. one more time!

    2. It must have been really good if you watched it twice.

      I’ve been down to Calvert Cliffs now looking for megalodon teeth twice, and for some reason, I can’t find any, even though every one else seems to find them. I hate megalodons!

    1. Psych.

      I’m late to the party – can I skip the first 400 abortion posts…?

      1. Damnit, you fucked up my last!

        But yeah, I noticed that too.

        I dunno what happened here tonight, it’s a pretty strange thread, even for H&R.

        1. it’s a pretty strange thread, even for H&R

          It’s been pretty strange all week – moar trolling than usual, I think.

    2. well this was a treat.

    3. LAST +1

      /Trollolololo

      1. LAST+INFINITY!

        1. double stamp.

        2. Curses! (shakes fist at screen) you haven’t heard the last of me, Hyperion…

  55. Barton Fink followed by Rounders. It’s a John Turturro night here.
    Mixed with some Nadal/Djoker tennis

    1. “.. It’s a John Turturro night here..”

      We all have Aspergers tonight?

    1. The mural shows a man who looks similar to George Zimmerman

      If by “George Zimmerman” they mean “Lt. Worf”… OK.

      1. It should have been St. Trayvon on his knees praying to the spirit of MLK, while being executed by an albino Zimmerman in a SS uniform… fucking amateurs..

        1. I just noticed the “Florida Civil Rights Hall of Fame” sign and the fact that this is in the state capitol. That is one hell of a trolling, and for that reason – and that reason alone – I love it.

          1. “Florida Civil Rights Hall of Fame”

            Sadly, the irony is lost on them

    2. So… Trayvon Martin was slamming MLK Jr’s head into concrete? Is that why MLK Jr’s face is bloody and looks to have a wound in the back?

      1. No, that’s Zimmerkang, son of Robertkang, shooting a Westworld robot AND MLK Jr.

    3. Cause that’s totally how it happened, right? Zimmerman stalked Martin on the sidewalk and then ambushed him and shot him in the head from behind?

      1. Yeah, absolutely… It was completely pre-meditated, haven’t you been watching MSNBC? Get with it man…

    4. Not the most accurate mural. That guy doesn’t even look like Zimmerman. It looks more like one black guy shooting another black guy. Probably not the message the artist intended.

    1. It’s all fun and games until he runs into that creepy fucking Dr. Smith, Then his uppins will come…

      1. The planet of bad children

  56. The underlying basis of Libertarianism is respect for each other, respect for each other’s opinions, and respect for each other’s actions. Those who reject Libertarianism obviously do so because they’ve no respect for others.

    1. The underlying basis of Libertarianism is respect for other Libertarians, respect for child laborers toiling in each others sneaker factories, respect for each other’s eagle beak encrusted walking sticks, and respect for each other’s golden horned rimmed monocle’s, respect for large walk in vaults filled floor to ceiling with gold bullion. Those who reject Libertarianism obviously do so because they are poor and uneducated.

      /FTFY

      1. Pfft, my eagle beak encrusted walking stick is bigger than yours.

          1. Ask any of my man-servants.

            1. Either put one of them on or feel free to continue. You have my full attention.

              1. They’re busy taking turns polishing my eagle beak encrusted walking stick.

                1. !

                  1. Now look, you’ve overloaded Pantsfan’s capacity for innuendo.

                    Please continue.

                    1. It’s about three feet long and constructed of the finest sturdy pine, with a deep mahogany stain – shall I go on?

                    2. Please do. Is it hand carved or machine finished?

                    3. I don’t think I’m comfortable saying anything more about my eagle beak encrusted walking stick. Like Pathogen, I respect every man’s eagle beak encrusted walking stick.

                    4. Thousands of widow orphans died, or were horribly maimed hand carving those walking sticks at the Gibson guitar factory, crafting them from exotic and near extinct wood stolen from the rain forests, and custom staining them with a concentrate derived from their tears…

                    5. God Pathogen, we were having such a nice discrete conversation and then you turn it up to German fetish porn levels. You probably just caused Panstfan to stroke out.

                    6. Yeah, that was a little over the top…. I guess.

                    7. Well, that is the last time I bring up the uncommon length and hardness of MY eagle beak encrusted walking stick in a forum populated by sketchy miscreants. You guys are a bunch of sickos.

                    8. stroke out

                      is that ? code?

                2. Sorry, but I think a lot of us aren’t really interested in hearing about your manservants polishing your stick.

        1. I respect that… for now.

  57. So I had my major-domo review the thread.
    Now I need a new one.

    1. Reason will never post a new thread this late.

      1. -1 antecedent.

        1. My man-servant totally missed the nuance (intentional?) of your comment. He will be disciplined later.

        2. Don’t fuck with me pantsfan, I’ll go all Bo Cara on yer ass. Start innocently and earnestly asking questions all up in this bitch. Be all condescendingly reasonable and shit like a motherfucker.

          1. Nice summation of BCE.

            1. Tulpa’s still working on his sock.

              1. But your sock is working perfectly, SIV.

  58. so last night I dreamt my ex dyed her brown hair an ugly blonde.
    any ideas?

    1. I think that means you’re gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    2. I recommend assisted suicide or medical marijuana.

    3. Has she recently appeared on reality television?

    4. It means you should give her some anal loving.

  59. I dub this thread: Don’t Worry Ma… I’m Derping As Fast As I Can

    It’s August in DC and no one seems to be manning the eDam that keeps the tide of trolls to a bare trickle.

    1. *You* said that it was *your* turn to put your finger in the eDyke!

      1. She prefers to be referred to as an “eLesbian,” you brutish hogfucker.

  60. The just-war criteria haven’t nearly been met in this country, so there’s no basis for waging war against the government.

    Sorry to resurrect this so far down thread, but – um, what?

    If you actually believe that the government is complicit in murdering millions of its citizens every year, I fail to see how the just war criteria have not been met.

    The just war criteria you’re employing must exclude every war ever waged, if it excludes a scenario of mass murder at the scale of millions a year.

    Unless one of your criteria is “I’d lose, that’s why,” in which case we’re good, because that criteria is a perfectly valid one. I don’t think that falls under just war theory, though. That’s a simple pragmatic concern. A valid one nonetheless, but more prudential than moral.

    1. The thing is, the choicers keep losing – no wonder they concern-troll about how “you prolifers are doing it all wrong!”

      1. “I don’t think that falls under just war theory, though.”

        I’m afraid you are mistaken. Reasonable probability of success is part of the criteria, and so is exhaustion of peaceful remedies.

        But thank you for your completely disinterested advice that pro-lifers abandon their successful tactics and get killed off in a losing war instead. There’s nothing prolifers like better than taking sketchy advice from choicers.

        1. Dude, I’m not interested in the choice part of the debate today at all. I only got involved because you piqued my interest by bringing in just war theory. I’m about 1000 times more interested in that than in taking another whack at abortion.

          Reasonable probability of success is part of the criteria

          Says who?

          That would mean that if you were faced with an incredibly evil but incredibly powerful adversary, it would be unjust to fight them.

          So Denmark could not justly fight Nazi Germany.

          That’s ludicrous.

          1. Denmark *did* fight against the Holocaust, rescuing more Jews proportionately than just about any other occupied nation. That strikes me as a fairly useful form of resistance, but maybe that’s just me.

            “Says who?”

            A minor religious sect you may have heard of:

            “2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
            – the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
            – all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
            – there must be serious prospects of success;
            – the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”

            http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P81.HTM

            “Dude, I’m not interested in the choice part of the debate today at all.”

            Except for the part where you claimed that if *really* cared about the unborn, I’d go underground as a terrorist.

      2. The thing is, the choicers keep losing – no wonder they concern-troll about how “you prolifers are doing it all wrong!”

        If millions of dead infants being hauled out of clinics in contractor bags is your idea of winning, I’d hate to see what losing is.

        Oh wait, I forgot, you don’t actually care about dead babies.

        Nope, winning to you is scoring some troll points on a blog’s comment section. Just another moronic, partisan TEAM exercise. I guess you’ll say that you really really do care (really) about all ’em dead babies, but you have to exhaust all peaceful means in this fight against infanticide. One of those peaceful means is arguing about it on the internet for hours on end, right eddie?

        1. You have great insight into my motives. As someone once put it, however “Only one thing wrong with your theory – it is stupid.”

          1. I wonder if, by your reasoning, Ron and Rand Paul *really* care about abortion. I mean, if they were sincere, they wouldn’t be writing books and filing bills, they’d be going underground as guerrillas!

  61. Can we add some atheism to this thread, too?

    Let’s argue about whether there’s a god.

    1. Ok, I’ll start.

      No, even if there is, it’s a douche.

  62. Dude seems to know which way is up, thats for sure.

    http://www.Anon-Tactics.tk

    1. Way to derail the thread anonbot… you shitheel.

  63. If God did not exist, I’d have to find a new co-pilot.

  64. So I had my major-domo review the thread.
    Now I need a new one.

    Stroke out, did he?

  65. 650 comments for a listicle that has been posted twice already? Seriously?

    1. It was the final Saturday post, what do you expect?

      1. Why are you feeding this abortion of a thread!?

        1. I wish I hadn’t seen what you did there.

  66. Walks in. :::blinks::: Walks out.

  67. You know what this thread needs? More crazy. For that, I bring you Ambrose-Evans Pritchard, mad arbiter of conventional wisdom. Watch as he seriously argues that Japan’s central bank should hoover up debt and then burn it. You may wish to play the “Joker” theme from TDK.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/f…..lion-debt/

    Where there is a will, there is a solution to almost everything. Let the Bank of Japan buy a nice fat chunk of this debt, heap the certificates in a pile on Nichigin Dori St in Tokyo, and set fire to it. That part of the debt will simply disappear.

    Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  68. what William answered I didnt know that a mom can make $7654 in one month on the internet. did you look at this website… max38.c?m

  69. “Food stamp participation concentrated in Red States:”

    I’m going to guess that the actual food stamp RECIPIENTS who bothered to vote at all, voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

    It’s like you think everyone in, say, Mississippi votes and thinks exactly alike.

    1. Why isn’t there a comic-sans option for replies?

  70. my neighbor’s step-mother makes $61/hour on the laptop. She has been fired for five months but last month her pay was $21023 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this web site,, max38.com

  71. Juliana. true that Fred`s remark is neat… last tuesday I bought a new Fiat Panda since I been making $8175 this – four weeks past and more than $10 thousand this past month. it’s by-far the coolest job I have ever had. I actually started four months/ago and almost straight away started bringing in minimum $76, p/h. I went to this website, http://www.Work25.com

  72. “Libertarians believe that economic deregulation helps the poor because it ultimately reduces costs and barriers to start new businesses.”

    Ah huh. Because this definitely doesn’t help rich people infinitely more, and of course, poor peoples’ biggest problem is their inability to start a business.

    Way to demonstrate how the myth is actually true Mr Gillespie.

    1. Globamitch’s beautiful, inhuman logic: even if it helps the poor, if it helps the rich it’s a bad idea. Also, let’s just ignore how much of the regulatory state is designed to benefit large-scale corporations and kill small businesses. Oh, and I think he’s somehow implying that (now formerly) poor people having the financial independence as a small business owner is a bad thing.

  73. My spouce and i decided along with Saudi persia on 2001, Looking to clear home financing and to make an adequate fortune grant personal space in great britain.
    Ray Ban sonnenbrille
    Ray Ban brillen
    Ray Ban brillen g?nstig
    Nike Free Run
    Nike Free kopen
    paris abercrombie and fitch
    chaussure New Balance
    Ray Ban vista

  74. my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $64 an hour on the internet. She has been without a job for five months but last month her income was $16482 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more here Go to site and open Home for details
    http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

  75. my neighbor’s step-sister makes $64 an hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $17489 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more http://www.max47.com

  76. my buddy’s step-sister makes $72 an hour on the computer. She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her payment was $12918 just working on the computer for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more,,,,

    http://xurl.es/jzta1

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.