Liberaltariansim

Matt Welch and Alexander McCobin Debate Libertarianism, Social Conservatism, and Gay Marriage at CPAC

|

"We believe that marriage is one man, one woman." So declared moderator Tom Minnery of CitizenLink in his introductory sentence to a panel today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) today entitled "Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Ever Get Along?"

On Minnery's side was Hillsdale College Dean and former Heritage Foundation scholar We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future. The libertarian faction was represented by yours truly and Students for Liberty President Alexander McCobin. And leaning mostly on the SoCon side, though venturing back in this direction on gay adoption, was syndicated radio host Michael Medved.

Here's the 40-minute conversation, which I for one found illuminating, and even occasionally heartening—especially given the response of the audience.

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: The Gun Show, Starring Cody Wilson, Geraldo Rivera, David Keene, Judge Napolitano, Damon Root, Emily Miller, and Virginia Tech Shooting Survivor Turned Background-Check Advocate Colin Goddard

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Which is the honorary gay representative? They all look alike, CPAC.

  2. But Ron Paul also opposes gay marriage, supports the original DOMA, says he’d have voted for DOMA if he was in office at the time, AND says it’s a state issue!!

    His son says abortion is a state issue, but submitted a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortions, and his US Senate webpage says,

    As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them.

    He’s a federal Senator, no?

    So gay marriage and abortion are state issues, except when they aren’t. And we think Romney was a flip-flopper!

    1. Reproductive freedom (or the lack of) will always bedevil the SoCon statists like R. Paul.

      1. Palin’s Buttplug|3.7.14 @ 11:39PM|#
        …”will always bedevil the SoCon statists like R. Paul.”

        Lying shitpile.
        Have you read the article on your fave lying bastard, 8%?
        Just checking, since you claim to want facts, lying shitpile.
        And it has numbers bigger than 8%, shitpile, so it may be hard for you to understand.

        1. Will you stop following me around and sniffing my ass?

          1. The troll hates being trolled?

        2. This 8% thing has kind of been run into the ground at this point.

          1. It has strengthened my resolve. I won’t allow a few irrational hillbillies tell me a number they misinterpret sinks years of science into oblivion.

            1. Be gone you greasy sack of rotting foreskins.

            2. OK, I have no dog in this 8% fight even though I’ve made a joke or two at your expense, but what the fuck are you talking about when you say “a number they misinterpret sinks years of science into oblivion”? Are you referring to O-care, because if so…please fucking explain.

              1. For the past couple of days I have seen this rather incessant taunting of PB of ‘8%.’ To be honest, I thought it must be something on the level of the exposing of Tulpa as a ‘sockpuppet.’ I have seen more references to it than the famous ‘Tulpa incident.’ Now I understand it is derived from PB citing a poll supposedly to show support for Obamacare wherein only 8% said they supported the act in full. PB says his point was that only a third said they would repeal the act.

                This is really thin gruel to justify all the crowing I have seen. I have disagreed strongly with PB before, but the fact that he has caught so much heck over this, when other, right-leaning posters here have made similarly goofy claims later proved unfounded, demonstrates more about the culture of the commentarait here than about PB.

                1. the fact that he has caught so much heck over this, when other, right-leaning posters here have made similarly goofy claims later proved unfounded, demonstrates more about the culture of the commentarait here than about PB.

                  SOCONZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!(!!!!!)!!!!!!!

                  You actually do PB a huge favor. Until you showed up here, he and Tony’s irrationality and stupidity was utterly unrivaled. You’re the only person I can possibly think of who could take up PB’s side in an argument and actually make it sound even more retarded than he does. Congrats.

                  1. Interestingly, PM is exactly the kind of commenter I was thinking of. Nice to know the nerve was touched.

                2. Yeah well that’s not quite how it went down.

                  It was more like buttplug got in a long argument with several commenters where he repeated claimed that Obamacare was popular and would not be a losing campaign issue for the donks this year.

                  Then he posted the infamous 8% link to support his position, claiming that it was definitive proof that everyone that disagreed with him was a wingnut christfags.

                  The punchline being that when you actually read the link that he posted it supported the position that he was arguing against not his.

                  1. It might not be the best argument to, when arguing that Obamacare would not be a losing issue, to post a link which said that only 8% of people would keep it the way it is, but the fact that it also said that only 31% wanted it repealed makes it, if not reasonable, at least not worth all the repetitive juvenile attacks going on here.

                3. This is really thin gruel to justify all the crowing I have seen.

                  It would be, if it were an isolated incident, which it’s not.

                  It’s practically an Iron Law that when shriek links to some statistic for evidentiary support, it’s irrelevant, misunderstood, or is evidence against his claim.

                  Your concern is noted, though.

              2. Statistical science per se.

                I cited a new poll in which a new low of only 31% want the ACA fully repealed. That number flies in the face of H/R claims that the ACA will be a crushing defeat for Dems due to its lack of support.

                Yet polls show a different end (as of now).

                Red Tony/John/Episiarch are all on this Team Red bandwagon out of pure ‘piling on’ and nothing else. They are always wrong where I am right. THEY IGNORE POLLS! THEY IGNORE POLLS! POLLS DON’T FIT THEIR NARRATIVE!

                So I won’t let this one go either. I will remind them of their stupidity every day.

                1. Yes, in addition the poll said only 8% want to keep the ACA as is.

                  Yet only 1% want to keep the US Constitution as it is.

                2. Statistical science per se.

                  Oh, I see your point now, even if I disagree. Polling is hardly a science. And “years” of it? Come on, man.

                3. PB, I will disagree with you on this: ACA will (and should) be a crushing defeat for Democrats in 2014.

                  1. If anything, this thread pretty coclusively proves you/tulpa/PB are all part of the same stupid sockparty.

                    Seriously though, Tulpa vanishes and his idiot position is immediately filled by a suddenly always around when he wasn’t before PB?

                    And you’re defending him for something that he earned, knowing full well that you’re some fucking noob account? Who is almost certainly responsible for the trolling of the other two as well?

                    Yeah fuck you, get cancer, and stop with the stupid fucking sock puppets.

          2. Time to call in the Cleveland Browns?

      2. Reproduction has already occurred long before any abortion happens.

        1. So lay off your statist laws then.

        2. I see your point Apatheist, but is it irrational to not think meaningful reproduction has occurred when the offspring in question is not independently viable in even the most basic sense?

          When I googled ‘reproduction’ and ‘define’ I got ‘the action or process of making a copy of something.’ If you are looking at the level of DNA embryos are copies, but they do not seem like copies of their parents until much, much later on some fundamentally basic levels. If you showed a one day old embryo to most people few would say ‘hey, a copy of their parent!’

          1. If you showed a child I don’t think many people would say “hey, a copy of their parent” since they have their own DNA.

            Reproduce =/= copy.

            1. To repeat: ‘When I googled ‘reproduction’ and ‘define’ I got ‘the action or process of making a copy of something.’ ‘

              1. OK, so reproduction is an inaccurate description for how offspring are created and develop.

                1. Well, then the rhetorical power of ‘Reproduction has already occurred long before any abortion happens’ is a bit undercut.

                  1. I was just saying, if you’re going to manipulate the accepted definition of a word to make an argument, be prepared for the other side to do likewise.

                    1. I am not sure I follow you. PB referred to ‘reproductive freedom’, by which I bet he meant the freedom to make copies of the people involved. Apatheist responded that reproduction has occurred well before any abortion, but of course the ‘reproduction’ he is referring to is not one that most people would understand as falling under the definition I found, no?

                    2. I guess we read it differently then. I got that PB was referring to abortion rights, which he incorrectly caller ‘reproductive freedom’. You’ll understand my response from there.

                    3. I think he was referring to abortion rights, but if reproduction means ‘copies’ then most people would not endorse Apatheist’s claim that reproduction has occurred before any abortion.

                    4. I think he was referring to abortion rights, but if reproduction means ‘copies’ then most people would not endorse Apatheist’s claim that reproduction has occurred before any abortion.

                      In the scientific sense, in relation to the definition of reproduction, a one-celled human zygote is a copy of it’s parents. Any other definition makes no sense as a child will never be a copy in the sense you are using. A child will always be behind it’s parents in physical development.

                    5. Again, I guess we must agree to disagree. I think most people would not find a one-celled organism to be a ‘copy’ of its father and mother.

                    6. Not if the definition is taken literally, then human reproduction cannot possibly happen when a sperm and an egg join and a new person comes from it.

                      But words have multiple definitions, and I believe one definition of “reproduction” that is widely accepted is this: the creation of an offspring by a male and female of the same species.

                      And abortion has nothing to do with reproduction. And we shouldn’t allow people to falsely set the narrative by claiming that abortion rights = reproductive rights.

                    7. I think this is far to formalistic or literalistic. Most people think of ‘reproduction’ as stressing the ‘production’ part. So many embryos and fetuses do not get ‘produced’ (even apart from abortion) that most see ‘reproductive rights’ as having to do with ‘children born.’

                    8. So many embryos and fetuses do not get ‘produced’

                      Before or after implantation? Because the rate of pregnancy taken to term once implanted (excluding abortion) is upward of 95%.

                    9. Got a reference on that 95% number/

                    10. Sloopy, I won’t even give as much ground as you are. Reproduction, in the context of biology and human development, are not as expansive as Bo is claiming. He is taking the the word from other contexts, such as say the reproduction of a painting, and applying it to the wrong context.

                      Nevertheless, this is the key:

                      And abortion has nothing to do with reproduction. And we shouldn’t allow people to falsely set the narrative by claiming that abortion rights = reproductive rights.

                      Somebody who advocates restrictions on sex or birth control is someone who advocates restricting reproductive rights. And though those people certainly exist, they are but a small subset of the pro-life crowd.

                    11. Do those people really exist? I swear, I used to be pretty chummy with some hardcore pro-lifers and I’ve never once heard any of them say this.

                    12. I have, I’m not going to pretend they don’t exist, but even vile pieces of shit like Santorum don’t want to ban the pill.

                    13. FTA: While the Church has lobbied on contraception politics, that activity has been limited to things like preventing access by kids, opposing over-the-counter status for so-called “contraceptive” drugs that can cause abortion (like “Plan B”), and fighting to protect the conscience rights of individuals and institutions who are forced to fund it against their beliefs. But the Church in the US has not called for Catholics in public life to attempt to ban or restrict contraceptives from the larger society.

                      They make sure not to call for a ban but want people to chose not to use BC. That sounds like the Church has a pretty libertarian stance on BC.

                    14. “I say contraception is like Japan during World War II. It is the font of our present evils but we cannot go after it until the ground is prepared. We must island hop and strategically bomb but not invade, not yet anyway. “

                    15. So what are we to do? The political and social reality we live in does not change the teaching of the Church and neither does it change our responsibility to change that reality. But, if we are not going to fight on the electoral hill of contraception then what are we to do?

                      Dude goes out of his way TWICE to say they are not going to fight it from a legal standpoint. And there is no other evidence that he has. So why do you still quote part of what he says (and not the entire paragraph) to misrepresent his group’s strategy (that doesn’t include trying to ban BC)?

                    16. He plainly says that he wants to fight that fight, just not right now because of politics, but they will eventually get there (to ‘Japan’).

                    17. Are you fucking retarded? The man says over and over that he has not and does not plan to try a legislative end to BC, but you twist his last paragraph into a pretzel in an effort to say that’s his plan for the future.

                      I’ll judge him by his actions. And his actions thus far do not involve any attempt at legislating away the availability of birth control.

                    18. Apatheist, you are claiming a current, scientific understanding of reproduction is somehow more important than the long and widely understood common sense view of that.

                      Much like a scientist, visiting his poor, benighted grandmother, may correct her when she refers to a bat as a bird that ‘they are actually mammals, grandma’ Apatheist thinks the current tale of Biology Textbooks settles the matter of when a ‘copy’ is produced.

                      I think most people, and I trust them, would think that a one celled embryo is not in any meaningful way a ‘copy’ of them.

                    19. I’m not arguing with you anymore Bo, you’ve already demonstrated you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, and you have absolutely no interest in fixing that. All that, and the point you are arguing has no fundamental bearing on the political position you think you are defending.

                    20. I can translate: you will not agree to my basic premises!!! I dismiss you!

                    21. I have a Biology 101 Textbook for God’s Sake!

                    22. You’re arguing pedantic word bullshit rather that the issue being discussed.

                      Please stop crapping on the thread.

                    23. You’re arguing pedantic word bullshit rather that the issue being discussed.

                      In other news, the sun is expected to rise in the east this morning.

                      And to clarify, when I say “rise”, I mean in a metaphorical sense, and not in the precise dictionary sense of:

                      1.
                      to get up from a lying, sitting, or kneeling posture; assume an upright position: She rose and walked over to greet me. With great effort he rose to his knees.

                      After all:

                      I have a Biology 101 Textbook Webster’s Dictionary for God’s Sake!

                    24. Tulpa gotta Tulp

                    25. It is interesting how people on the internet just parrot words, like ‘pedantic.’ It is not Apatheist who is being pedantic by replying to PB’s use of the phrase ‘reproductive freedom’ that technically reproduction is not involved, it is me for arguing his pedantic point is not so impressive.

                      Again, this kind of thing says more about posters like Bobarian than anything else.

                    26. Apatheist, you are claiming a current, scientific understanding of reproduction is somehow more important than the long and widely understood common sense view of that.

                      Replace “reproduction” with “the heavens” and that’s what the geocentrists said to Copernicus.

                    27. Or the idea of the ‘aether’

              2. Bo Cara Esq.|3.8.14 @ 12:07AM|#

                To repeat: ‘When I googled ‘reproduction’ and ‘define’ I got ‘the action or process of making a copy of something.’

                3. Biology: to produce one or more other individuals of (a given kind of organism) by some process of generation or propagation, sexual or asexual.

                Your premise is wrong and you are arguing in bad faith.

                1. Another commonly parroted, without being understood, internet phrase: ‘arguing in bad faith.’ Do you think I really do not believe that reproduction at the embryonic level is meaningful?

                  1. No I don’t think that – but that is the point that you were arguing – hence arguing in bad faith.

          2. Look, it’s no skin off my back if pro-choicers want to rely on scientifically illiterate arguments. You can take my words to heart or not, I don’t care.

            but is it irrational to not think meaningful reproduction has occurred when the offspring in question is not independently viable in even the most basic sense?

            Yes.

            When I googled ‘reproduction’ and ‘define’ I got ‘the action or process of making a copy of something.’ If you are looking at the level of DNA embryos are copies, but they do not seem like copies of their parents until much, much later on some fundamentally basic levels.

            I don’t care what you found on google, it’s still wrong.

            If you showed a one day old embryo to most people few would say ‘hey, a copy of their parent!’

            I don’t care if “most people” are wrong.

            The fact is it is irrelevant to the debate over abortion that reproduction occurs at conception. It has no bearing on personhood or rights. So I don’t have know why you insist on debating it like some fuckwad creationist.

            1. Wrong in what sense? Scientists may say ‘oh, the important criteria for reproduction is at the cellular level, DNA!’ But humans rarely order their society around the cellular level. Is it irrational that they consider a single cell to not be a ‘copy’ of its parents?

              1. Yes, it’s irrational. It has nothing to do with an individual human’s feelings on the matter. A bacteria undergoing mitosis, a yeast cell budding off, or a human sperm hitting an egg are all reproduction. After that point it is development. There’s no difference between a turtle developing in an egg or a human embryo developing in a womb. They have both been created by reproduction and are undergoing development.

                1. I guess we will have to agree to disagree (or not, this is the internet!).

                  If reproduction=copies I do not think it is irrational in the least for someone not to think that an embryo without all the basic features of a born human being is a ‘copy’ of the born human beings that brought it into existence.

                  1. You can suffer in ignorance all you want but I have no idea why you want to. It has no bearing on the personhood or rights of the unborn human.

                    1. Haha, it is great that you invoke the current scientific criteria of ‘new DNA’ as dispositive on this issue. Science does not always determine these things, as histories of eugenics and such demonstrates.

                    2. Haha, it is great that you invoke the current scientific criteria of ‘new DNA’ as dispositive on this issue. Science does not always determine these things, as histories of eugenics and such demonstrates.

                      AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

                    3. Ah, the power of your all caps is persuasive, my science-relying on friend!

                2. There’s no difference between a turtle developing in an egg or a human embryo developing in a womb.

                  Now this is a discussion i want to have!!!

                  If we were reproduced through fertilizing eggs rather then live birth would it be legal to kill a developing egg?

                  If it was legal would a man have equal rights to destroy or save the egg as a woman does?

                  Where the fuck is sugarfree when you need someone to write a fucked up scifi story?!?!

          3. but is it irrational to not think meaningful reproduction has occurred when the offspring in question is not independently viable in even the most basic sense?

            So meaningful reproduction has not occurred until the child turns 30 and moves out of the basement? And can be terminated at will by the parents up to that point?

            1. Now who is arguing in ‘bad faith?’

      3. Are people no longer free to reproduce in America?

        1. Do you think freedom of speech protects not only the freedom to speak, but the freedom not to be compelled to speak?

          1. Of course. Now show me the Amendment that addresses abortion in as clear a manner as the First does speech.

            1. Who cares about an Amendment? Not all freedoms have an analogous Amendment in our Constitution, right?

              1. You compare it to speech, which does have an Amendment. I think it’s only fair for you to support them the same way, which simply cannot be done.

                1. I only compare it to speech to show that not doing something is as protected as doing something.

                  1. I guess that’s true…unless you happen to be a developing person.

                    1. That begs the question, of course.

                    2. As if you weren’t begging the question with your comparison of speech (explicitly addressed in the Constitution) and abortion (right created from whole cloth by the court).

                    3. Sloopy, you must be sober tonight.

                    4. Yeah. And I’m starting to question the logic in that.

                    5. What is right and not right does not equate to what is explicitly covered in the Constitution.

                    6. Then why choose speech as your comparison? Why not choose another right…that’s not directly addressed in the Constitution. And when you do, I’ll show you a privilege that the state can take away at a whim.

                    7. “I only compare it to speech to show that not doing something is as protected as doing something.”

                    8. Yeah…protected explicitly in the Constitution. Again, I challenge you to find any other “right” so well-protected that is not directly addressed in the Constitution.

                      That was my point, and you won’t touch it for some reason.

    2. As both a big fan of both Pauls and abortion rights, I am not sure what is supposed to be the flip-flop here.

      Ron Paul personally opposes gay marriage (he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman), but he thinks each state should decide for themselves. I am no fan of DOMA but the idea there was to ensure that each state could do that with the federal government ‘freezing’ its definition.

      The Rand quote could be read to say that on federal questions he will oppose abortion, but not impose federal power to push states either way.

      1. I’d like to point out also as someone who disagrees with Ron Paul on gay marriage (in the cultural sense) that he not only thinks it should be left to the states in a constitutional sense but he has state that he thinks government should be out of marriage entirely, going beyond the constitution. Rand Paul has not made that clear that I know of but Ron Paul has

        1. government should be out of marriage entirely, going beyond the constitution.

          Since I fail to find that the feds have the enumerated power to define marriage, I think this is perfectly in line with the Constitution at the federal level.

          Article 10 would support the idea that the states at least have the power to define marriage. Whether they should be defining/licensing marriage is a different issue.

  3. Welch, you needed to yell “Spalding, get your foot off the boat!”

    1. They were raptured.

      1. No, they crashed on a mysterious island with polar bears, a hatch, an insane Frenchwoman, and a smoke monster.

        1. No, they just plain crashed. Their doubles went to that island?except for those who knew the crash was coming and went to the island to infiltrate their doubles.

    2. Well that’s pretty terrifying. Lot of ocean to cover wherever it went down.

      1. There’s a shitload of military radar coverage in that region. I’m sure they’ve figured out exactly where it went down.

        Getting to it is another story.

    3. I’m confused. Apparently it was on its way into outer space when it disappeared?

      If so, the obvious culprit is the Moon-Men.

  4. If you need a government license to legitimize your marriage then you are not really married.

    1. You should run out and start a movement to combat this among the anti-SSM groups, who argue that it is critically important that government recognize and foster same sex couplings.

      Update us with your progress!

      1. Not sure what you are saying…

        anti-SSM groups want government to foster same sex couples?

        I think you meant to put a “don’t” in there or something.

        Anyway i wrote what i wrote as an argument against something Spalding said. Not as an argument against SSM

    1. Gee, I wonder what Kathryn Ann Kah ended up doing with her life. But at least she was good at making friends.

      1. I think that’s a nice way of saying she was the village bicycle.

        1. Neil’s philosophy is very similar to mine. Except for the thinking part. I’m a doer.

    2. Holy shit. Try getting a permit for this today.

      That’s a cool website. Thanks.

    3. Who knew he would grow up to become histories worst villain.

    4. The level of derp in this article is pretty hilarious.

      And stupid feminists bitch about the patriarchy today? This is the greatest time in history for women.

      1. It was funny in its condescension, but I thought a lot of the advice was good. The picture at the end was hilarious.

  5. So Rand Paul gave a pretty awesome speech at CPAC slamming Obama and the Republicans for selling out the Constitution on civil liberties.

    And from what I read of the comments at HuffPo and Raw Story, it drives the proggies absolutely batshit insane.

    I think a Rand Paul presidency would cause an extinction event among progressives as they explode from the cognitive dissonance.

    1. I think it would lead to an actual extinction event.

      1. Care to elaborate on that?

      2. Obviously, Rand Paul could be relied upon to carry out the long-standing libertarian demand that we nuke Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and anyone else who really gets up our nose.

  6. This was sort of disappointing. The SoCons did a good job of portraying the libertarians as statists on the issue of marriage. Welch should have been pointing out that to use government to define cultural terms, as the SoCons wanted to, would leave the door open for other non-SoCons to do the same when they are in power. Welch should have emphasized that such cultural norms should not be defined by the state at all, AS THE BEST WAY TO allow SoCons to define marriage in whatever way they like.

    But this is the issue with minarchist libertarians – they inevitably run into some issue that exposes their cognitive dissonance. There is always some issue where they can’t abide the thought of no state getting involved.

    They should have had Walter Block on the panel.

    1. But this is the issue with minarchist libertarians – they inevitably run into some issue that exposes their cognitive dissonance.

      It helps to have a clear set of principles on the proper scope of the minarchist state.

      I prefer the night watchman model, myself. Under that approach, the state has no role in marriage per se, but, like everything else in society, the courts would be the venue for resolving disputes between people (“married” or not).

  7. Marriage is between one winkie and one hooha.

  8. I dont think Smack Daddy is gonna like that.
    http://www.Anon-Works.com

  9. Matt dresses well to impress his conservative friends, but for us? Nooooo. We get silver on pink on brown, and other recipes for ‘Fabulous’.

    Seriously, he looks like a Boss here*. Just shows you how little he cares about you peons.

    *Shoes = need help. See: Bostonians.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.