Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Ever Get Along? Watch Matt Welch on a CPAC Panel Today at 1:40


I'll be on a panel this afternoon at the Conservative Political Action Conference discussing the sometimes tetchy relationship between libertarians and social conservatives, along with Students for Liberty President Alexander McCobin, syndicated radio host Michael Medved, Hillsdale College Dean and author Matthew Spalding, and CitizenLink's Tom Minnery.

The discussion will be in the Potomac Ballroom, for those who are there. For those who aren't, we'll be collecting video of the event for posting later.

NEXT: Texas Rocks Job Creation (Maybe That's Why Californians Are Moving There)

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hopefully Kennedy lets you get a word in edgewise.

    1. The earrings LOOM

  2. no, Matt, they can’t. It’s like asking if libertarians can get along with progressives. Progs and so-cons both want control. Different things maybe but still control, which is anathema to libertarians.

    1. what about liberaltarians? *ducks*

    2. They can if social conservatives become totally and absolutely committed to freedom and limited government. Very limited government.

      1. those are long odds. The uniting feature of so-cons and progs is their willingness to use govt to force their respective value systems.

        1. Agreed. But it’s not impossible, just highly unlikely. Really, Ron Paul is a social conservative who is also a libertarian.

        2. “Getting along” is never a matter of yes or no, it’s of degree. That being the case, I think libertarians get along with social conservatives about as well & often as either get along with moderates. Actually slightly better & more often, I judge.

      2. AND stop trying to legislate morality.

        1. The very limited government solves that, really.

          I’m likely more conservative in the moral sense than many here, but the difference between me and social conservatives as a political group is that I don’t want to force you all to behave the same way I do.

          1. I’m likely more conservative in the moral sense than many here

            In a room with Warty, Epi, and SF, Lyndon LaRouche would seem conservative by comparison.

            1. Well, yes, these things are relative, but I suppose I’m pretty conventional, period.

          2. ^ This.

            And yes, there are lots of other people who feel the same way. Are they as numerous as mainstream, morality-legislating Republicans? Not by a long shot. But I feel like the social conservatives of this younger generation coming up are beginning to see there’s very little difference in the aims of each party (power, control, compliance) and is turning to libertarianism as a solution. We simply need more people and more exposure; something mainstream media on both sides is loathed to concede to us.

        2. Oh please. Nobody is as moralistic as a Randian and nobody wants to impose his morals on society more.

          1. Yeah. My definition of morals is that you may do as you wish provided you don’t infringe upon the rights of others.

            Freedom is slavery.

            /Fucking retard.

            1. Is it that you don’t want to admit to me that your imposition of morals would result in vast upheaval of the status quo and make life riskier for most people, or that you don’t want to admit it to yourself?

              Because rights and freedom need to be defined, otherwise you’re just saying you’re for lollipops and unicorns. Do people have a right to be free from starvation in your totally-not-imposed system?

              1. Do people have a right to be free from starvation in your totally-not-imposed system?

                Hahahahahahahaha. You really are a mendacious fuckhead.

              2. I impose nothing upon you. I only insist you do not violate the rights of others.

                I have defined rights. Your rights are limitless if having them doesn’t impose upon the rights of others (negative rights).

                The only positive rights you have are those granted in the Constitution.

                Risk or lack thereof is not a right and I’m completely unconcerned of the risk of others (OR the status quo). The ONLY risk I’m concerned with is my own, and I’ll will manage that for myself.

                1. Except the risk of having property. You want me to pay for defending that. Or the risk of being stolen from or murdered. You want me to pay for that too. Because negative rights.

                  1. Yes the negative rights laid out in the Constitution, ahead of time, so they are fixed for all and don’t change on the whim of a simple majority.

                    The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

                    Courts, police, military…

                    1. Which are paid for by taxes. Which you call theft. They are made not-theft by the constitution? The same constitution that governs us right now and allows for a bunch of things you don’t like?

                      I believe in an individual right not to starve, and don’t see why that’s any less legitimate than an individual right to have a jury trial (certainly no less “positive”). Therefore, it’s a legitimate purpose to subsidize food stamps. Why am I wrong and you’re right? Because poor people are icky?

                    2. Are you so fucking stupid as to think that taxes are the only way those things could be paid for? Ever heard of bonds?

                    3. Point to the right not to starve in the Constitution. Oh, there it is, right next to your right to a BMW.

              3. “Do people have a right to be free from starvation in your totally-not-imposed system?”

                No, they don’t.

                The only thing “imposing” starvation on people is nature, not people. Nature has decided you must eat to survive; people haven’t.

                There is no such thing as a “right” to food, since this right would be tied to a compulsion of others to produce it (or the means to produce it). Compulsion comes before the eating. Therefor what you would call a right to eat would in reality be a right to force others to produce goods for your sustenance.

                This is a form of slavery, pure and simple. And you don’t have a right to enslave anybody.

                1. And we get to the fundamental stupidity of libertarianism. Well, one of them.

                  Why do we need to collect taxes to pay for governing and controlling human agents, but not for mitigating the costs and risks of nature? What is so special about human action?

                  If someone is starving because there is no food around or because someone stole her food, she’s still starving, and isn’t that the first problem?

                  1. Little Miss Muffet
                    Sat on a tuffet,
                    Eating her curds and whey;
                    Along came a spider,
                    Who sat down beside her
                    And frightened Miss Muffet away.

  3. “Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Ever Get Along?”
    As soon as So Cons give up using the gov’t to push their religion.

    1. So, never, really.

    2. Yes, but their offspring will be sterile

      1. Hi IFH!

        Got any insight on the Qantas situation?

        Planning on being in Oz May/June: bad idea to fly on Qantas (other options being Virgin Australia & Air New Zealand)?

      2. Oh, & +1 nearly spit up my coffee on your comment.

        1. Hi RavNat!

          No real insights I’m afraid, but it’s not about to go out of business, despite the $350 million loss, or at least not this year. The airline’s long-term future will depend upon more equity capital, which of course it can’t access without legislative change, which won’t pass the Senate now (and possibly not even after the new senators are sworn in on 1 July). But it should be safe in the short term. I’d go with price / speed – which you’ll probably get on the other two, and better service too

        2. oh, and where are you going to?

          1. Thanks! My mother & sister now live just outside of Hobart (apparently a good plan when you’re approaching 80 is to move to a small farm with indoor plumbing but not indoor sewer). Most of my friends are still in Brisbane. So, tentatively couple of weeks in Tassie (probably in a hotel in Hobart) then 4 or 5 days in Brisbane.

            I was leaning to toward Air NZ since I flew them last time & they were very good. Also heard good things about VA. Problem is, if I go with those two, I probably have to buy tickets to Brisbane then a domestic r/t to Hobart. I’ve taken some quick looks at prices but need to really sit down and drill into prices/schedules, etc.

            1. Aaah, that’s a bugger to organise.

              I’m toying with a quick trip to Hobart in June because of this

              1. Wow, that’s awesome. Unfortunately, the MOFO one is going to be a little too late for me. I want to be back in the US by second week of June at the latest. Plan to spend most of the summer in CO. So, am looking to get out of the midwest early May, few weeks in OZ, then back.

                In addition to working better for my schedule, the trans-Pacific fares basically go up every week through August. Can figure out why it gets more expensive to fly there the deeper into winter it goes. Best I’m seeing right now is about $2k out of Denver.

                Fortunately, hotels, etc. in Hobart are pretty cheap. Brisbane, not so much.

                1. That’s a pity, but a 30 minute ferry trip up the Derwent to MONA is definitely worth the effort, even without the festival.

                  Re Brisbane, be warned that State of Origin is on in late May, so the hotels will be booked out by a lot of New South Welshmen flying in for our ritual humiliation

                  1. Right, thanks for the reminder. I can probably work around that. Friends & I are thinking a weekend in order to allow for extended pub time. Apparently they all have kids or something now.

    3. So Cons give up using the gov’t to push their religion.
      Just wondering: By “their religion”, should I gather that you think trads are all of one religion? Or did you just mean whatever their particular religions are?

      Socons abound in Islam, Xtianity, Hinduism, Paganism, & Judaism. However, in many cases they don’t consider each other to be on the same side even of social issues. It’s like a friend is telling us concerning an effort to found a colony of very trad heathen types in the middle of a fairly trad Xtian area (known for Amish & Quakers as well as other Protestants): He thinks it may not be as well received as the would-be founder hopes.

  4. “I believe in freedom for all.”


    “I believe you should be free to do exactly as I would do.”

    That’s a toughie, alright.

    1. Rick Santorum actually said that almost verbatim one time:

      “Freedom isn’t the freedom to do what you want to do. It’s the freedom to do what you ought to do.”


  5. Call me foolish, but I’m more optimistic about getting a socon to tolerate something he hates than a progressive tolerating economic liberty.

    1. Eh, I’d call it a wash, working from the examples of what happens when they are in control. Personally you may have a point, but in a mob the guys calling for lynchings or witch-burning always seem to steal the show in the end.

      1. I think you stand a better chance of reasoning with a Socon than you would a prog.

      2. What happened when socons were in control? What happened when progressives were/are in control?

        Compare and contrast.

        1. Liberty shrank and liberty shrank.

      3. What happened when socons were in control? What happened when progressives were/are in control?

        Compare and contrast.

  6. Yes, we can get along, despite the complete lack of morals you Libertarians demonstrate. All it requires is the exercisee of basic social skills and actual common sense about what topics are broached in dialogue. There is overlap in a significant number of areas, but everyone focuses on the loggerheads issues.

  7. Definition of Economic Freedom = “A SoCon claims a 35% top rate is “pro-growth” while a Democrat wants a 37% top rate to pay for the existing entitlement system.”

    1. 35% or (3+5)%?

      1. 3.5%

          1. Too high, cut spending.

    2. Allowing people to keep their own money grows the economy, while confiscating money to pay layabouts does not. It ain’t rocket science.

      1. Then quit bitching about debt and deficits.


        2. I sincerely apologize. For a moment I mistook you for someone who can stay on topic and have an honest debate, when in fact you throw out red herrings rather than addressing the point. My fault. It happens sometimes. I forget that some people are just stupid. And like Ron White says, you can’t fix stupid.

        3. As you’ve already proven (“the market sets the VALUE of money, not the SUPPLY”), you don’t actually understand how money works. Debts increase the money supply and thus decrease the real value of money. It’s a tax by another name.

        4. Say it with me. To spend is to tax.

    3. Palin’s Buttplug|3.7.14 @ 10:53AM|#
      “Definition of Economic Freedom”

      Hey, 8%! Have you read Matt’s comparison of Reagan to your fave lying bastard?
      “Mourning in America”.
      Highly recommended; numbers higher than 8%!

  8. Leftists give lip service to personal liberty and socons give lip service to economic liberty.

    But at the end of the day, all it is is lip service.

  9. There was a bit of pushback on the “SNO CONZ” subject the other day that I think was worthwhile: why is reason so obsessed with social conservatism? They’re odious hicks, no doubt, but they’re rapidly becoming powerless. This is akin to being worried about the loose stair railing when your house is burning down.

    1. I would say I agree with you on this with respect to the average post, but it makes sense to care about this on some level at CPAC. I mean, once you’re at CPAC at least…

      1. The CPAC I attended was right-libertarianish, if I were describing the audience, anyway. The speakers, not necessarily.

        Special request for Matt: please smack Michael Medved in the face. He’s one of the worst.

        1. ^ this – tell him reconciliation is difficult when he keeps blabbing about Losertarians on his show.

          1. But I’ve always taken him to be referring to the Libertarian Party by that very apt name. He dislikes libertarianism, but I don’t think he believes all adherents to those ideas are losers, although he may wish they were.

            1. Doesn’t really matter to me. I can’t stand using names like that or Teabagger unironically. It’s so 3rd grade.

              1. What does Teabagger mean ironically, and what does it mean unironically? I thought it could only be meant ironically. But maybe I just have a different sense of irony.

      2. True. And you could also use it as a teaching opportunity. I’m kind of like Ron Paul i.e. personally socially conservative but politically libertarian (mostly). If Matt can use it not so much to defend libertarianism but to get socons THINKING about how they can keep their values AND embrace libertarian views it would be helpful.

        You won’t win everyone or get a standing O, but, you know, little victories.

        1. If Matt can use it not so much to defend libertarianism but to get socons THINKING about how they can keep their values AND embrace libertarian views it would be helpful.

          That’s pretty simple. They can simply mind their own business.

          1. some people have a problem recognizing the difference between having an opinion on something and wanting to use govt so that everyone else is forced to have that same opinion. Works the other way, too, which is why I’ll stick with the thought that so-cons and progs are opposite sides of the same coin.

            1. which is why I’ll stick with the thought that so-cons and progs are opposite sides of the same coin.

              Basically. One is side is openly hostile to economic liberty, while the other is openly hostile to personal liberty. As they trade power, they rarely if ever undo what the other has done. They just add to it.

              The logical conclusion is totalitarianism.

              1. One is side is openly hostile to economic liberty, while the other is openly hostile to personal liberty

                I’d say they both tend to be hostile to economic and personal liberties that deviate from their dogmas. Free Speech for proggies, Strip Clubs for socons, for example.

            2. Maybe also connected to your own background. Since I was a fairly strong socon at one point, I feel like I can have a meaningful conversation with socons and offer them some thoughts on libertarianism. Same with a lot of the students I deal with who kind of reflexively embrace social liberty but economic dictatorship.

              On the other hand, I refuse to discuss economics/government with academic friends because I find it useless. OTOH, many on these boards could probably go head-to-head with academics on economics and get somewhere.

          2. Agree. But people can get to that position via different routes. Opening eyes to some of those routes can be productive.

        2. I’m kind of like Ron Paul i.e. personally socially conservative but politically libertarian (mostly).

          What’s the kind that likes smoking pot and paying for sex?

    2. Maybe they see an opportunity to shake loose some people who have reflexively been so-cons who will be willing to examine some libertarian positions to form a coalition that can gain power?

      1. It’s a pleasant thought, but definitely a labor of love. SoCons, as I think of them anyway, are basically proggies with different goals. They still want to run people’s lives and make choices for others to keep people from doing things they disapprove of, with a lot of special-snowflakism thrown in. I’d take the SoCons over the Fascists if you put a gun to my head, but I don’t know that either group is reachable in any meaningful way. If it we me I’d be trying to kill the young people events and explain to them the magic of food trucks and orphan labor. Might be more fertile ground.

    3. I think because they’re the easier fight. I wouldn’t say reason is obsessed with them (Bo, now Bo is obsessed) but given how attitudes about key kultur warz issues are shifting in the country it’s a simple task to blast sno conz and know that you’re not going to get any meaningful push back. Plus, cocktail parties, of course.

      1. To be fair to Bo, I think he does just to provide a balance of sorts to the commentariat. Don’t get me wrong, Bo gets annoying at times, but him criticizing SoCons (even if we assume he does it a bit too much) isn’t, to me, one of the reasons why. I think his tendency to be pedantic and a contrarian are what is legitimately annoying. Furthermore, I can think of posters who are as obsessed, if not more, with various left-wing groups than Bo is with So Cons. For example, like 80% of Coeus’s posts are about feminists and like 95% are about some sort of SJW and no one ever gets bothered by that (nor do I, for the record).

    4. Because GAYZ.

  10. Can we get along? Yeah, sure, at cocktail parties and stuff. I can be civil.

    But please don’t start talking politics and KULTUR WARZ or Ima have to excuse myself. Cause I won’t tolerate being exposed to willful mental self-retardation.

    So – we coo.

  11. Depends on what you mean by social conservatives. If someone is personally socially conservative, but politically libertarian (or apolotocal and just wants to be left alone), great. Ron Paul is personally socially conservative in many ways, but gets along with most libertarians.
    I don’t think that’s what people usually mean by SoCons, though.

    1. Well, yeah, if the former were the case, it would be a short conversation, really.

    2. As a social and fiscal conservative, I find libertarians to be useful allies on some issues, and an irritant on others. I don’t know if my views would garner the dreaded ‘SoCon’ label, because I’m not sure what people think it means. I often find myself quoting Inigo Montoya on political terminology (and not the ‘you killed my father’ schtick).

      1. I don’t know if my views would garner the dreaded ‘SoCon’ label, because I’m not sure what people think it means.

        I figure most people think it means dittohead.

      2. Being a socon means you are willing to legislate away liberty and make victimless actions crimes, (usually) based on mysticism.

        1. Not a sufficient description, applies to a lot more than socons.

            1. E.g. progressives.

              1. How is that based upon religion?

                1. Envorinmentalism and climate change aren’t articles of faith? Greivence studes aren’t anti-scientific?

                  1. IF (I REPEAT IF) AGW were proven to be real AND it could be shown to be causing harm, it wouldn’t be a victimless crime.

                    1. Well, IF it could be shown that homosexuality put your soul in jeopardy…

                    2. Still victimless. Not initiating force. Not hurting anyone but myself.

                    3. Except on the fringes of Soconism you have people who actually believe that Katrina was Almighty God’s ™ punishment on NOLA for allowing teh ghey to flourish. These people are incapable of leaving others alone.

                    4. Still victimless. Not initiating force. Not hurting anyone but myself

                      Fine, then take what Tonio said. You’re still wrong.

                    5. Also, upon what foundation is hatred of wealth inequality built? The hatred of GMOs? Faith, that’s what. Cargo cultism.

                    6. Also, upon what foundation is hatred of wealth inequality built? The hatred of GMOs? Faith, that’s what. Cargo cultism.

                      You see, Randian, the difference is, while their reasons are based upon faith for these things, the crime is not victimless if they are right. If wealth inequality is actually because of theft, it’s not victimless. If GMOs really hurt people, there is a victim…

                      They are simply wrong in their beliefs. Had their beliefs been right, there would be justification for making laws against such things.

                      Not only are socon beliefs wrong, BUT even if their beliefs are correct, THERE IS STILL NO VICTIM, and still no justification for making a law.


                      The only harm to others is caused by the law itself.

                    7. Yet screeching as if it were undeniable fact, actively suppressing evidence that might suggest alternate views (as heresy), subborning the scientific method for the sake of ‘right’ – those are acts that show a faith-based belief, not a rational concern. They believe there is a victim in everything done by humans, and that malice is behind it, and act from that.

                    8. Thank you, UCS. Very well-stated.

                2. You wrote “mysticism”, and the ways of progressives tend to be mystic.

      3. Socon – wants to use the power of government to turn make the rest of society conform to their religious beliefs. So, basically progressives with more Jesus.

        1. A better and more accurate definition of a “social conservative” would be an individual who self-identifies more as “socially conservative” than “socially liberal”. Like the Pauls, Justin Amash, Mike Lee. Thomas Massie and a large number of the people who voted them into office.

        2. A little better than Franco’s description. But it may be more Mohamed or Odin than Jesus for some, and non-religious fr still others.

          “Social conservative” is the more recent label for those who were described politically in the 1960-80s as “traditionalist”. They would like gov’t policy to try to make society more like they remember it from their childhood, if they had a happy childhood.

  12. Apparently Governor Fat Fuck got a thunderous ovation when he spoke, so I think we should probably pay attention to what the authoritarian/SoCon faction are up to at CPAC.

    1. Yeah, exactly.

    2. I thought Governor Love Handles represented the Nicholas “We must save everyone” Kristof faction.

    3. The only socons who would support Christie in a GOP presidential primary would be fiscally moderate-to-liberal Yankee Catholics.

      1. Except those liberal northeastern catholics are definitionally not socons. Most of them ignore church dogma on contraception, homosexuality and even abortion. Sure, they financially support socon causes with every dime they drop in the collection plate, but they offset that with their actions and donations to non-church causes.

    4. Christie’s appeal is mainly that he gives a tough appearance (which Bridgegate can only help) and managed to get elected to high office as a Republican in a very Democratic area. Similar to Giuliani.

  13. OT, but too good to pass up:
    “Lawmakers pull about-face on food safety ‘glove law'”
    “But the new rule, which went into effect Jan. 1, has had so much blowback that lawmakers are already trying to repeal it.
    “It had unintended consequences,” said Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, a physician and chairman of the Assembly’s Committee on Health, which carried the bill in the first place.”…..295547.php

    But he’s a lefty MD, so he MEANT WELL, the asshole.

    1. “It had unintended consequences,”

      no, it has foreseeable consequences. The glove protects the hands of the preparer, not anything having to do with the consumer.

  14. the ‘you killed my father’ schtick

    “Stop saying that!”

    1. I laughed.

  15. If SoCons pushed their agenda solely at a State and local level, then I think there could be room for cooperation at a Federal level on other issues. It would be an uneasy alliance, but isn’t impossible.

    1. Actually I think the other way around. I’d rather have their influence at the federal than the st. or local level.

      1. Why?

  16. No I (a classical liberal, not a libertarian, but if a political sibling of mine like Gary Johnson can join the LP…) can not and will not get along with people who believe in supernatural nonsense.

    My brain involuntarily links Christians with adults who believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.

    1. How tolerant of you, Mr or Mrs Sockpuppet.

      1. I’m not seeing intolerance, I’m seeing calling it like it is. But perpetual victimhood is the stock in trade of the religious.

        For you to validly claim intolerance you’d have to show he wanted to do harm to the religious or silence them, just like…

    2. Why? I don’t give a shit what you think, why should I care what a SoCon thinks?

      You think you’re smarter than religious people, but my guess is you’re just more insecure.

      1. I’m bisexual and i’m from a small conservative town where even most of the Democrats are socially conservative.

    3. People believe in all sorts of fanciful things, the question is can you convince them that their own beliefs are best served by a powerful state that can just as easily be taken over by their opponents, or by a meager state that does not have the power to oppress anyone.

      Reminding people that they can and do lose elections, so enlarging the state to serve their own interests just gives the opposition more tools to use against them, is a good way to reach people of all beliefs, except those who believe in statism for its own sake.

    4. My brain involuntarily links…

      That’s okay, retards can get along with libertarians too

    5. Classical liberal and libertarian (note the lower-case l) mean pretty much the same thing. Put a capital L on the word and you’re referring to the name of a political party.

      Just as democratic and Democratic don’t mean the same thing, libertarian and Libertarian don’t mean the same thing.

      As far as your contempt for people who believe in supernatural nonsense, if it gives them a moral foundation upon which to live their lives without fucking with other people, then I say good for them. They’re better people than asshole anti-religionists like yourself who give atheists like me a bad name.

      1. All libertarians are classical liberals but not all classical liberal are libertarians, just like all Chomskyites are leftists but not everyone left-of-center is a Chomskyite.

    6. because you have definitive proof that their god does not exist? Just like they have none that he does. I wonder why it’s called faith.

      1. Because it’s belief in the total absence of evidence.

        1. Kind of like Keynesianism.

          1. Kind of like Keynesianism.

            That’s what I was going to say!

          2. No, sort of like your bullshit.

            1. No, sort of like your bullshit.

              I must retire now, for I have been defeated. My arguments pale and wither before your superior intellect.

      2. You don’t have any proof that invisible gremlins don’t run car engines, either. Does that mean to not belief in invisible gremlins is to have faith? Nonsense.

        1. The burden of proof is on the believer, whether it’s someone who believes in gremlins or someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky.

    7. OK, have fun getting along with 2% of the populace.

      1. If you mean non-believers, we’re polling around ten percent right now. SLD’s about polls, etc.

    8. Do you know any adults who believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? Because I’m a Born-Again Fundamentalist Southron Baptist Christian, and I surprisingly don’t know any.

      1. To state this as gently as possible, cavalier973, for those of us outside your bubble of belief the difference between all those various mythological creatures is one of degree not of kind.

        1. Eh…I think you’re more in my “belief bubble” than you’d like to admit.

  17. Oooh, wear the classic ‘red-shirt-red-tie’ combo, Matt…..efault.jpg

    …that’ll show those SoCons’ who’s more TEAM RED HARDCORE.

    Its like declaring victory before the war has started. it confuses the shit out of them.

    1. What is needed, clearly, is a libertarian tie. The Tea Party has co-opted the various “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, so those are out.

        1. Do I need that, or do I just want that?

        2. I like the idea, but it looks like a hamburger. Just, tacky. now, same joke, but a little more subtle?



      1. “Don’t tread on me” should be the slogan of a dog duty better than a snake.

      2. In all sincerity, I believe there’s a multilayered case to be made for the traditional (and gorgeous) “household division” regimental stripe as the go-to ‘libertarian tie colors’…..-Wool-Tie/

        reasons =

        – it mixes Red and Blue, giving precedent to none

        – it represents one as a member of a monocle-wearing elite

        – it signifies ultimate loyalty to the ‘power behind the government’ – historically, the monarchy, but in this case, the Constitution

        – The stripes PURPOSELY go in the ‘wrong direction’ compared to most ties (left to right). It is sartorially *disturbing*

        – it just looks fucking GREAT with everything

        – it will make the British mad because we yet again ripped something of theirs off and repurposed it for our nefarious ends.

        yes, there are some inherent symbolic problems. But I am willing to overlook these in favor of just looking like a BOSS. Which is really what matters.

  18. What is needed, clearly, is a libertarian tie. The Tea Party has co-opted the various “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, so those are out.

    I walk 47 miles of barbed wire,
    I use a cobra-snake for a necktie,
    I got a brand new house on the roadside,
    Made from rattlesnake hide,
    I got a brand new chimney made on top,
    Made out of a human skull,
    Now come on take a walk with me, arlene,
    And tell me, who do you love?

  19. But why would you want to? If you can’t win without getting in bed with the dirty christianists, then is winning really worth it?

    But who are any of you kidding. I bet there’s practically no end to the amount of government you’ll tolerate up women’s vaginas and Jesus in children’s textbooks as long as millionaires are protected from a 2% tax hike.

    1. Just curious. What is your annual income and net worth? A ballpark figure will do.

      1. Is this an open query for all commenters, or just Tony(nospaces)?

        1. I was just proving a point. I have no doubt that Tony’s finances will be under the threshold that he thinks should be taxed.

          1. If that were true, you’re claiming moral superiority because your plan would shit only on poor people?

            1. If you and your ilk really care about the poor as much as you claim, you’d be spending your days voluntarily giving your own money and support to them rather than trying to force others to. The latter is the most vile, pathetic, and useless way to assist them.

              1. No, it’s the most effective. I’m not interested in making the poor charity cases. I’m interested in making them less poor via an economy that rewards “work” more and “already having money” a bit less.

            2. Quite a leap in logic there.

              1. He starts throwing smoke bombs when he’s painted into a corner. I made no claim of moral superiority, nor did I propose a plan of any sort.

                Tony, despite acknowledging that he has more wealth than the “vast majority of people on the planet”, doesn’t want to “share” any of his own money, but he thinks others should be forced to.

                1. Of course I do. I already do. I want to pay more in taxes. It will be better for me. I want to live in a modern advanced society that actually makes progress on human well-being. It’s all selfish, you guys are just too dumb to realize what’s good for you beyond your current account balance.

                  1. Taxes are theft.

                    How much do you give in charity, pig?

                    You see, you want the poor to have more of someone elses money, just not your money. Not to mention you just admitted stealing that money from the wealthy makes YOUR life better.

                    Which makes you a vile pig.

                    1. Do you argue with four-year-olds who call you poophead too?


                    2. I argue with whomever I choose to argue with, Randian. If you don’t like it, fuck off.

                    3. I don’t equate a social safety net with charity. I want to ease the burden on the currently slammed charity sector (turns out it does have a fucking capacity, you morons).

                      If taxes are theft then there is no such thing as property and we don’t get police to protect you from being murdered. Right? I mean, it’s theft.

                    4. Your right. It doesn’t have the capacity to take care of the freeloaders as your system attempts to do. It does have the capacity to ensure basic needs are met for those who truly cannot provide for themselves.

                      I do not have a problem paying for the services provided for in the Constitution. Just so everyone pays an equal dollar amount for equal services.

                    5. I’ll need two citations: one for the apparent mass population of freeloaders in our society, and another for the one about the capacity of charities.

                    6. Freeloaders: 47% of the population pay no federal income tax.

                    7. Feds spend $400B per year on welfare.

                      Americans already give $300B on charity.

                      Given that $400B is returned to the taxpayer, there is absolutely no reason charity cannot will not make up the difference.

      2. More than the vast majority of people on the planet. I did it solely via the hard work and ingenuity of choosing to be born in an advanced modern economy with a stable government and physical and social infrastructure. Wasn’t I clever?

        1. So you give a large percentage of your earnings/wealth to charity, then?

        2. Tony|3.7.14 @ 12:12PM|#
          “More than the vast majority of people on the planet.”

          So, shitpile, too small to be covered under your tax hike.
          What a surprise!

        3. What an insanely bald faced lie.

        4. Yes, we know you want daddy government to take care of you.

    2. But why would you want to? If you can’t win without getting in bed with the dirty christianists, then is winning really worth it?

      There it is, right there. There is the tolerance that is so preached among progressives.

      Tolerance = tolerating that which progressives tolerate.

      You are a morally bankrupt pig.

      1. He’s a bigot. But he’s the right kind of bigot, see?

        1. No, no I don’t. My poor brain isn’t built to process doublethink without breaking.

          1. + 1 doubleplus good

      2. As opposed to the clean christianists, you know.

    3. Um…any percentage taken from the millionaires is wasted money. Totally. Wasted.

      Just like people in Colorado, now!

      Government can only divert resources from productive uses to non-productive uses, even if the non-productive uses are considered to be generally necessary (like national defense). Government seizure of resources for any project, therefore will tend to decrease the wealth of the nation, which always hits the poor the hardest.

      1. Bullshit of the highest order. You want it to be true, but it isn’t. There would BE no wealth at all without government providing the framework of a society in which wealth generation is possible.

        1. It’s true whether I want it to be or not.

          Also, people create the framework for society, not government. Government, itself, is a component of society that people have created, to act as their agent in certain fields (foreign policy, for example) that they think is better handled by a central group of experts. Historically, of course, governments have proven to be poor agents for the people, and tend to get out of hand, and must be brought back in line through revolution or military defeat at the hands of some foreign power.

  20. I bet there’s practically no end to the amount of government you’ll tolerate up women’s vaginas and Jesus in children’s textbooks as long as millionaires are protected from a 2% tax hike.

    Erp. Ya got me red handed, sheriff.

    1. Dude, come on. Why are you responding? That’s such obvious trolling my grandmother would see that coming.

      1. Sometimes people do things that you wouldn’t do. I know, it’s weird, but not everyone does or does not do exactly what you want them to do.

        Maybe you should get a law passed. That will fix it.

      2. I’m actually starting to think Tony is just a troll looking to stir people up, too. I mean, he never argues in good faith, like the above where he purposely mischaracterizes anti-abortionists.

        Such deliberate obtuseness is nauseating.

        1. How long have you been her, cw?

          1. For awhile I wanted to give Tony the benefit of the doubt. But I can’t now. Guess I was fooling myself.

  21. Most social conservatives at least give lip service to limited government/Constitutional restraints on the FedGov. I think that working within that framework, and pointing out that the defense of social morality is the responsibility of the Family and the Church, and should not therefore be delegated to the incompetent State, would have some persuasive value.

    Most libertarians that I’ve encountered, however, tend to go with the more emotionally satisfying “You’re just a baby-brain who might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause; now why don’t you grow up and embrace libertarianism?”


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.