CPAC

No Thanks, CPAC. This Libertarian Won't Attend a Conservative Love-Fest.

I'll stick with the gays, the immigrants, and the ringing cash registers.

|

CPAC
CPAC

Conservative movement types are converging on the National Capital Area this weekend for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). This is the second year that CPACers won't have to have to wade into Washington's swamps. They'll be confabbing at the National Harbor complex on the banks of the Potomac, shielded behind the Beltway from all the urban ills that afflict the "District of Corruption."

But this libertarian is forgoing the pilgrimage to the right's annual Mecca this year.  

Conservatives have a tendency to assume libertarians are a subset of the larger conservative movement—libertarians even won a "shout out" from a certified Republican mandarin, 2012 GOP Veep nominee Paul Ryan, as he ticked off the various conservative movement currents from the dais. But conservatives can regard libertarians as a subset that's self-indulgent, too enamored of liberal social values, and that too often strays from the Republican and conservative reservations.

When Robert Sarvis dared to run for governor in 2013 against Ken Cuccinelli, a Tea Party darling, with a distinctly broad libertarian vision of a Virginia that's both "open-minded and open for Business," as his slogan proclaimed, it caused a conservative uproar.

Reaction on the right to Sarvis' supposed "stealing" Cuccinelli's election was truly "tribal." He had his own Libertarian line, so they couldn't challenge him in the primaries to deny a GOP nomination. So, instead they flailed.

Some added up a list of issues and decided that, since libertarians should agree with Cuccinelli on most of those selected topics, they were merely being "tribal." Conservatives dismissed the notion that a balanced view of social tolerance and free markets may matter to libertarians.

On a conservative website, The Federalist, Ben Domenech dubbed Sarvis a "LINO" (Yep, you guessed it: "Libertarian In Name Only"), bashing him for suggesting in an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd some policies among a menu of options that might not satisfy an anarcho-capitalist but would work to decentralize and keep contained state transportation spending.

Domenech's bogus contention—that Sarvis advocated government-installed GPS trackers in Virginians' cars—became a meme repeated at National Review Online and Breitbart, even though the accusation was made by a figure whose credibility should have suffered from serious and highly public journalistic missteps over the years.

Another bizarre smear popped up on election eve. As Glenn Beck was bashing Sarvis as a GPS-installing LINO on his show,, his muckraking journalists at TheBlaze "revealed" that Sarvis was "bankrolled" by an "Obama bundler."

A quick Google search would have revealed that the donor in question is an Austin-based tech guy who gives to both Libertarians and Democrats. The fact that the tech community boasts of Democrats with a libertarian streak and that some donors give to both the LP and the GOP, too, wasn't even considered by the TheBlaze. Any colluding—or merely working with—with the "enemy" on the left is heresy, and the smear was repeated throughout the conservative media.

The "mainstream media" is inherently biased against conservatives, they believe, so the conservative movement has built its own parallel media, outlets that they trust can be relied on for accurate reporting.

But the "us" (conservative media) vs. "them" mainstream media culture of conservative movement media allows such smears to be trusted, but not verfied.

The separatist impulse of the conservative movement media can also be found in CPAC's choice of venue for its confab.  

At last year's CPAC, the bombastic, occasionally booked TV talking head Wayne Allyn Root, fresh off renouncing his recent Libertarian heresy, offered this time-warped strategy for Republican revival: run against  "Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore," "cities run by Democrats," a la Richard Nixon's "Silent Majority" scaremongering of 1972.

But as the District of Columbia, like other American cities, flourishes in an unprecedented urban renaissance of private investment, sprouting eateries frequented by an influx of young professionals making it in the marketplace, CPAC decides to decamp for an isolated government-subsidized complex, miles down the Potomac and only accessible by Beltway off-ramps.

Last year I did trek out to show support for the Competitive Enterprise Institute for throwing a panel designed to show it's "okay" to be gay and for small government at the same time. But it begs some questions: why does the culture of CPAC and the conservative movement continue to make it necessary to make that patently obvious point? And, is it worth it to rub elbows with folks whose social intolerance makes it harder to sell economic freedom in cities and suburbs where markets are expanding?

Like many libertarian-leaning Americans, I consider myself neither right, nor left. I don't feel my views are represented on either side of a bipolar liberal-conservative spectrum. And, like many libertarians, I don't feel I'm any more welcome in the Republican Party than among Democrats.  

Instead, I am comfortable with a third position that values social tolerance as a necessary complement to a market economy.

While I can enthusiastically applaud the flowering skepticism toward NSA spying and military adventurism that the Pauls, Ron and Rand, have planted in the conservative grassroots, too many of those same activists can't seem to extend that "live and let live" ethos when it comes to two dudes getting hitched, or brown people who want to cross a border to get a job and become American.

And those positions, opposing gay marriage and relaxing immigration restrictions, are huge  drains on the GOP brand in the polls.

So why should libertarians travel to CPAC, again, and subject ourselves to conservative gripes for, well, being libertarian?

Of course, conservatives are a necessary and crucial component of any libertarian-inspired "left-right" coalition to rein in NSA surveillance, hold back overly ambitious foreign military forays, pare down draconian criminal sentences, or rein-in the drug war.

But while libertarians will keep working with conservatives on those and economic issues, they should refuse to give up on connecting with prospering city-dwellers and suburbanites—wary of teachers unions and weary of bashing from a self-righteous "economic justice"-agitating fringe—just because they hold socially tolerant views that conservative movement activists insist on vilifying.

So, sorry, CPAC, I'll stay here in the belly of the beast with the gays, the immigrants, and the ringing cash registers.

NEXT: Baylen Linnekin on Breaking the USDA's Slaughterhouse Stranglehold

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. “…is it worth it to rub elbows with folks whose social intolerance makes it harder to sell economic freedom in cities and suburbs where markets are expanding?”

    Unclean! Unclean! I cannot share a conference with these socially intolerant people!

    1. They’re not just intolerant, they GRIPE!!!

      So why should libertarians travel to CPAC, again, and subject ourselves to conservative gripes for, well, being libertarian?

    2. social intolerance makes it harder to sell economic freedom in cities and suburbs

      Oddly, I bet there’s actually a correlation between states governed by people with socially intolerant views (we all know he means Republicans) and states with a greater degree of economic freedom where markets are expanding.

      Its weird, I know, but lefty/proggy style social tolerance has, at best, zip to do with economic freedom. In fact, in the real world it correlates with hostility to economic freedom.

      If someone tells you they are “socially tolerant” (in the lefty/proggy sense) and economically libertarian, the odds are pretty fucking high that they will vote their lefty/proggy side before they vote their libertarian side.

      Chasing these votes, IOW, is a waste of time.

      1. Those votes haven’t existed in numbers as large as they do now. Further, the reason for your ‘correlation’ is probably because they haven’t been pursued which is because they didn’t used to exist in large number.

        Chasing these votes is not only not a waste of time but necessary, crypto-con harrumphing notwithstanding.

        1. Sorry, Cyto, but to mean this whole thing comes off as more of the “left-libertarian” horseshit.

          Its not logically necessary, of course, that people who claim to be both socially liberal and fiscally conservative (or its cognate, socially tolerant and pro-free market) never seem to vote the fiscal conservative/free market half of the equation, but that seems to be the way it works.

          1. It isn’t left-libertarian bullshit it’s reality. It’s the only way we’re going forward.

      2. I’m one of those people and tend to vote libertarian or republican if no libertarian is available. It takes special circumstances for me to vote democrat.

    3. It turns out the CPAC situation is more complex. GOProud has now been reincorporated under the direction of former interns/staffers Matthew Bechstein and Ross Hemminger, and they hosted a brunch at CPAC, though the group is not a sponsor. They also met with Al Cardenas who, at a post straw poll press con (I got media credentials this year for my tea party blog, though not for the gay one), said the CPAC 2015 straw poll may include a question on whether attendees support or oppose gay marriage. The CPAC elders may not want gays or libertarians there, but they want 20 somethings. The law of unintended consequences applies, and hence Rand Paul wins the straw poll and the attendees pick limited government over social issues or foreign policy as what motivates them. It also appears that the banning of GOProud before may have had some elements of personality conflict, and CPAC was not alone. Lesbian Tammy Bruce and the late Andrew Breitbart also quit the old GOProud’s board.

      1. GOProud…hosted a brunch at CPAC…

        This made me laugh. Is that homophobic?

        1. Well, it made me laugh too, and I’m gayer than the Easter Bunny.

  2. being a dick sounds so much better when a libertarian does it. John’s not going to CPAC which likely has not resulted in so much as a yawn of disinterest. Not sure what nurturing the butthurt from the VA campaign is doing to do for him, but I don’t really care.

    1. You cared enough to comment…didn’t ya palooka?

      1. yup…when someone’s premise is to be the very thing he/she is criticizing, just can’t help myself.

      1. Meh. Guy knows what he likes.

  3. Thanks for the article. Pro-libertarians are basically equal across the political spectrum being involved in almost all parties.

    For more on the 8 million participant world Libertarian movement, see http://www.libertarianinternational.org the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization.

  4. I imagine this author is going to get a fair amount of gripes from the many here who think libertarianism=conservatism (and primarily, Republicanism) (look, it is already starting!).

    1. I think that you imagine wrong.

      Imagine that.

      Please stop being an insufferable prick.

    2. SOCONZ!!!!!!!!(!!!!!)!!!!!!!

  5. And those positions, opposing gay marriage and relaxing immigration restrictions, are huge drains on the GOP brand in the polls.

    And they’ll never escape it. While I have no earthly idea what argument against same-sex marriage the Conservative GOP can make without invoking their feelings, I can at least see the immigration reform debate having two credible sides. Republicans just have to stop arguing their version of reform in a way that doesn’t sound anti-Mexican as hell, which they won’t do because the most vocal among them on this issue are anti-Mexican as hell. (I’m not saying I want the GOP to win the immigration debate necessarily, just argue better.)

    1. But Mexicans are taking the jobs nobody wants! And LAWS…

    2. they’ll never escape it.

      Yes they will. The Texas state GOP already has more or less. The borderites will be left behind.

      1. A borderite just came in first in the gop primaries for Lt. Governor.

        Dan Patrick

    3. While I have no earthly idea what argument against same-sex marriage the Conservative GOP can make without invoking their feelings…

      Maybe the fact that the party still needs its sizable religious base in order to win elections?

  6. This fellow’s analysis of the Virginia campaign is spot on. For some ‘libertarians’ (including an amazingly high number of commenters here) libertarianism has come to mean ‘hating and thwarting Democrats and progressives.’ I think any honest libertarian has to dislike Democrats and progressives, but libertarianism is so much more than that.

    I have begun to wonder since commenting here regularly a few months ago: how many of the people here are and have been active in actual libertarian organizations, and how many are just conservative Republicans who use Reason’s discussion board to ‘hang out’ and complain about Obama and the ‘progs?’ Check out how often the Reason authors post something totally in line with the LP Platform on issues like abortion, immigration or the military and so many of the commenters here ‘tear into’ them, parroting what the acknowledged non-libertarian conservative commenters like John, Notorious, etc., say on these subjects.

    1. I have begun to wonder since commenting here regularly a few months ago:

      With that vast experience to draw on it is no wonder that you have uncovered a vast crypto-republican plot to infect reason. Who knows what you’ll discover in another few months? I’m sure that you are the only one equal to the task.

      1. You are not doing yourself any favors with this constant pitchfork-wielding expulsion of anyone who doesn’t take breitbart.com as holy gospel.

        I hope Bo possesses the necessary near-psychopathic constitution it takes to stick around.

        1. Fuck yourself, Tony, with Breitbart’s decaying dick.

        2. Tony|3.8.14 @ 10:41AM|#
          “I hope Bo possesses the necessary near-psychopathic constitution it takes to stick around.”

          And if he doesn’t, well we can always rely on another psychopathic liar to take up the slack, right, psychopathic liar?

          1. I’m really not getting the rage against Bo.

            I admit. But that’s me.

            Out of all the progressive pains in the asses on this site, he’s the least offensive and most coherent.

            I would save our energy for, you know, sockpuppets.

            1. He also isn’t a progressive. He’s a more left-libertarian than most people here, but he’s still a libertarian.

              1. Which goes to show that just because you’re a libertarian, doesn’t mean you can’t also be an asshole.

                1. Francisco, just for the record, how am I an ***hole? I never curse anyone, for example, and actually try pretty hard not to directly insult anyone. I can see if you do not like what you see as my being pedantic, but does being pedantic make one a jerk?

                  1. You can be annoyingly pedantic, but I do think a lot of the hate you get is unfair. I honestly think libertarians are sometimes just like progs and conservatives in that they throw fits when someone gets in the way of an echo chamber.

                    Given the gross stupidity we see from Tony, PB, and various other left-wing trolls, I don’t know why anyone even gives a shit about some of your aggravating tendencies.

                    1. but I do think a lot of the hate you get is unfair.

                      90% of the hate Bo gets stems more from his behavior than any points he may or may not be supporting.

                      I sometimes find his posts to be totally fine, but, too often there is smug, or generalizations, or an absolute refusal to consider an alternative point of view even in the face of direct evidence.

                      These are hardly unique behaviors to him, but the frequency with which they occur in his posting makes it old, fast.

                      I don’t hate him, but I wish he’d grow up socially a bit and learn to play with others a better.

                    2. Given the gross stupidity we see from Tony, PB, and various other left-wing trolls, I don’t know why anyone even gives a shit about some of your aggravating tendencies.

                      Because he says the exact same shit they do (see his frequent defenses of shreeeek), only unlike Tony or Shreeek who will occasionally shut the fuck up and go home after they kicked the shit pile, he insists on sticking around focusing on minutia utterly unrelated to the original points or arguments he brought up and derail a thread for 500 comments debating the precise dictionary definition of a word very clearly used in a metaphorical or secondary context, for example. He’s shreeek and Tony with the persistence and argumentative style of Tulpa. And you don’t see why that pisses people off on a site where that triumvirate is like the griefer holy trinity?

                    3. I’ll second what my bog-trotting, drunken mick friend above said. Bo is an insufferable pedant and skilled sophist, but he does make interesting points from time to time. Additionally, I don’t recall another poster that was able to evoke so much anger out of other Reasonoids. Makes for great entertainment and a sometimes stimulating discussion.

                      Fuckface Tony and Pigfucker Shriek have dumbed down the threads in recent years so I’ll welcome Bo with a laurel and hardy handshake.

                  2. Francisco, just for the record, how am I an ***hole?

                    Answer:

                    You can be annoyingly pedantic

                    On top of that, your butthurt over libertarians agreeing with Team Red more than Team Blue is aging rapidly. The reason for this has been repeatedly pointed out to you… libertarians agree with TR on more issues than we do with TB. PERIOD. It has nothing to do with sharing a philosophy or being left/right leaning libertarians. There is no such thing. There is ONLY libertarian.

                    1. I do not mind libertarians agreeing with Team Red more than Team Blue, it is when they are upset about criticizing Team Red that puzzles me.

                    2. it is when they are upset about criticizing Team Red that puzzles me.

                      I doubt there is anyone who posts here, up to and including John and Tulpa, who gets as upset about criticizing Team Red as you do about criticizing Team Blue in anything less than direct and equal proportion to Team Red, as if the party in power isn’t more likely to draw criticism from a libertarian outlet in pretty much all circumstances.

                      This is where having a context of more than a few weeks to draw from is helpful.

                    3. “I doubt there is anyone who posts here, up to and including John and Tulpa, who gets as upset about criticizing Team Red as you do about criticizing Team Blue in anything less than direct and equal proportion to Team Red, as if the party in power isn’t more likely to draw criticism from a libertarian outlet in pretty much all circumstances.”
                      You know jack-shit PM.

                    4. You know jack-shit PM.

                      Well….I’m convinced.

                  3. Francisco, just for the record, how am I an ***hole?

                    Oh, Bo, let us count the ways….
                    1. You’ve declared yourself the Holy Prophet of the One True Libertarianism set to expel all the heretics who don’t find the Republican party “all icky and stuff”.
                    2. You invoke pretentious legalese when simple spoken English would not only suffice but make your point clearer.
                    3. You hijack threads arguing over minutia that have at best a tangental relationship to the topic at hand.
                    4. You treat your suppositions and predispositions as facts, even after you’ve been shown to be in error.

                  4. “Francisco, just for the record, how am I an ***hole?” Because you actually treat ‘dem icky queers like they’re people of something.

                    1. Because you actually treat ‘dem icky queers like they’re people of something.

                      Who’s controlling this sockpuppet? I don’t recognize the dialect of derp.

            2. Out of all the progressive pains in the asses on this site, he’s the least offensive and most coherent.

              Not really. Or at least not any more than Tulpa is the least offensive and most coherent Team Red fan on this site. By which I mean, they use exactly the same tactics: mindless pedantry, red herrings and contrarianism for its own sake.

              Coincidentally, Bo showed up as a regular here right around the same time that Tulpa retired from posting on weekdays…

        3. the necessary near-psychopathic constitution it takes to stick around.

          is that a lack of self-awareness in the air?

        4. the necessary near-psychopathic constitution it takes to stick around

          A rare moment of self-awareness from a long-time commentroll.

        5. ? Strawman Queen! Strawman Queen! He is the Strawman Queeeeeeen! ?

        6. All kneel. The retard has spoken.

      2. Nerves will be touched, of course.

        1. Please, don’t let it concern you, Bo.

          1. People that hang out on the internet learn all kind of common ‘catchphrases’ they hope to work into their arguments, like Dances and ‘concern trolling.’ Not knowing what it means is to them a feature, not a bug, as they can toss it around whenever they disagree with someone for whatever reason.

            1. I know exactly what it means.

              And, most emphatically, so do you.

              1. Show, don’t tell then.

                1. “People that hang out on the internet learn all kind of common ‘catchphrases’ they hope to work into their arguments, like…a feature, not a bug”

                  Things like that are why you’re disliked. Don’t waste our time with specious explanations of why you’re not obviously a hypocrite. Just stop.

                2. Show, don’t tell then.

                  I’ll help!

                  Concern trolling is pretending to support the position of a particular group, while having “concerns” about their methods or image, where the “concerns” are actually points intended to undermine the position of the group, because the concern troll is, in actuality, not a member of the group and does not actually support their positions.

                  A prominent example was Tad Furtado, a Republican congressional staffer who posed as a “concerned” supporter of his boss’s election opponent on blogs supportive of his candidacy.

    2. Well… I am not a “convert” from either major party. I “found” the Libertarian party after giving up on two-party politics over 30 years ago (not that I agree with everything in the Libertarian platform, but at least I agree with most of it). I used to describe myself as the worst nightmare of the Republican or Democratic Parties: well-educated, successful, pro-choice, pro SSM, anti-drug-war, anti-big-government, pro-business, NRA member and certified gun-nut. I am used to pissing off both “conservatives” and “progressives” 🙂

    3. how many of the people here are and have been active in actual libertarian organizations, and how many are just conservative Republicans who use Reason’s discussion board to ‘hang out’ and complain about Obama and the ‘progs?’

      Is that supposed to be a problem? It’s odd that you in particular would argue that what this blog needs is more ideological uniformity.

      When I joined this blog years ago, it was a mission, with people from all over the political spectrum gathering to discuss issues on a control vs. choice dimension, rather than the red vs. blue horserace perspective of most media.

      In recent times it’s become more of a church than a mission. Not a good change in my opinion.

      1. This is perhaps the most intelligent thing you’ve ever posted.

  7. It’s Tulpa. Don’t engage it and it will go away.

    1. What is Tulpa anyway? I can’t quite figure it out.

    2. Actually, Tulpa was an example par excellence of a Republican who posted here.

      1. Shut up Tulpa.

  8. “But conservatives can regard libertarians as a subset that’s self-indulgent, too enamored of liberal social values, and that too often strays from the Republican and conservative reservations.”

    I stopped reading there. This whole article is a melodramatic, morally righteous announcement of inactivity. How does that prove conservatives wrong?

    1. It doesn’t.

      CPAC signals the annual argument of do we try to co-opt the Republican brand which hasn’t been small government for almost 50 years or try to pull people away from them.

      1. You forgot option three: come to a realization that most people love being in dominance hierarchies and will never support a libertarian government. The focus should be on figuring out how to carve out and defend bubbles of autonomy within an irreparably statist world.

        1. Option three requires option 1 as a rearguard action.

    2. The one problem I have with this article is that it falls into the ‘we must place a pox on both houses equally’ fallacy that I sometimes see from libertarians.

      Republicans are at least willing to accept some libertarian ideas and are willing to at least invite someone like Matt Welch to have a panel discussion at one of their events.

      When Gillespie gets invited to Netroots Nation we can start pretending that Republicans and Democrats are equally unlibertarian. Until that day, it’s fairly obvious which side is more accepting of libertarian ideas.

      1. Irish, one can believe that the Republicans have a rhetorical advantage over the Democrats and still think both are no good statists. That is what I think, anyways.

        1. One of these teams has Massie, Amash, and Paul on it. The other does not.

        2. “Irish, one can believe that the Republicans have a rhetorical advantage over the Democrats and still think both are no good statists. That is what I think, anyways.”
          Some paleo-cons won’t rest ’till everyone hates the gays as much as they do.

          1. What board do you think you’re on?

      2. Then argue with the GOP in good faith from outside the organization. If you’re going to compromise, make it an actual compromise of principle in order to move the country forward, not to scale the GOP political ladder (I’m thinking Paul Ryan here).

        My one caveat to this would be if the libertarians could actually capture the power structure of the GOP. I’ve seen no evidence that they would be allowed to do that.

        1. I will say this, we may not need to capture the power structure of the GOP. In politics today campaigns and candidates can be more powerful than party establishments, and in someone like Rand Paul libertarians have a realistic and meaningful chance to spread libertarianism and enact libertarian policy on the national scale. I do not think we should get in bed with the GOP generally, but I also do not think we should fail to enthusiastically support someone like him just because he has a R beside his name.

          1. I support Rand Paul wholeheartedly. However, I have little hope for the GOP in general. The neoconservatives still run the show and are presented as the reasonable voices to the public in general. When the GOP overall treats Rand Paul as a loon for suggesting that we should stay the hell out of the Ukraine, it reveals their true colors. Libertarians should be promoting free markets AND peace, as war is the true lifeblood of the state.

          2. I don’t think we should consider ourselves Republicans or get in bed with the GOP generally. I think that speaking at CPAC allows you, at the very least, to advance your ideas to a group of people who may wind up agreeing.

            I think one of the reasons a lot of people here are willing to give more of a benefit of the doubt to Republicans is that many people here once considered themselves Republicans before changing their minds on issues like drug legalization or realizing that they really had nothing against gay people. So if you’re given the opportunity to attend CPAC, why not go and talk to some young Republicans and see if you can provide them with information or ideas that would make them realize they’re actually more libertarian than anything else?

            It seems to me that this article is basically arguing that we should willfully isolate ourselves from a group of people we might be able to convince over to our side. There are plenty of pro-gay young Republicans who see no problem with smoking weed, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t do everything we can to reach them.

            1. I think that speaking at CPAC allows you, at the very least, to advance your ideas to a group of people who may wind up agreeing.

              And I agree with you.

            2. That is a fair point, and as usual well put Irish.

            3. I didn’t see this post before I responded to your first one. But yeah. Another way of putting it is that at least you are less likely to have to explain basic economics to a Republican. The lack of understanding among

              1. argh…*among Democrats is a major hurdle in bringing them to our side

            4. That example would describe me a few years ago. Grew up as a conservative and was on the precipice of going full on liberal in/after college until I started looking into Ron Paul’s stuff because my friend was into him. Wasn’t too long until I was enlightened to the wealth destroying tendencies of the state and the immorality of locking people in cages for victimless crimes. I remember my wife almost crying one evening when I had a moment of clarity and told her that I thought all drugs should be legal. It was scary for both of us to see my entire worldview flip upside down. Of course now she’s seen past the veil as well.

              I think we have a tendency to become so frustrated by the deficiencies in American politics that we forget that people are having these kinds of paradigm shifts all the time. Why not go to CPAC, a convenient convergence of politically-minded people, to introduce these views to the many there who are probably receptive? Spreading libertarianism might be tedious, but it’s not futile.

        2. My one caveat to this would be if the libertarians could actually capture the power structure of the GOP. I’ve seen no evidence that they would be allowed to do that.

          I see a lot of evidence that is EXACTLY what’s happening. Christ, 5 years ago most people couldn’t spell libertarian, and now we have “legitimate” news sources writing on it on a daily basis. We have representation on all but the most liberal talk shows. Even people like Limbaugh won’t publicly disparage us (he doesn’t like it, but he sees the writing on the wall).

          Party takeovers happen. The socons did it in the 80s. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason we can’t.

          1. Even people like Limbaugh won’t publicly disparage us (he doesn’t like it, but he sees the writing on the wall).

            Limbaugh is a long time friend of Thomas W Hazlett

            He frequently let Walter E Williams host the show in his absence.

            And said: “You want a good magazine? Reason magazine… It’s a magazine for libertarians. It’s a magazine for everybody. It’s a magazine for the world. Reason magazine: A good, good magazine.”

            Rush Limbaugh has been quite libertarian-friendly all his career.

            1. Only when he doesn’t mention sex or immigration. He will always be a Neanderthal about both.

              Fortunately, social conservatism is dying. The conservatives will have to move to the position of liberty, or fade into irrelevance.

              European conservatives already know this and are doing it.

            2. SIV, what I’ve detected among American conservatives like Limbaugh and (Howie Carr I listen to in Boston) is that yes, they seem to be a natural fit for libertarian thought but when a GOP candidate is running, they feel liberts like Paul take away votes and wish they would just close ranks with, say, Ted Cruz. They don’t think Rand Paul has a legit shot at power so they swing that way.

              Also, the only thing they haven’t figured out, and I do apologize if I’m long winded but the bourbon is doing its thing at the moment, is the non-aggression principle. Once they do…they belong to us!

              1. “Don’t measure your success by how many people like you. Just worry about how they vote. And then at the end of the day how they live, but that’s really none of your business once they close the doors”-2009 CPAC rush limbaugh’s advice to the GOP

          2. I would go so far as to say that the GOP is ours for the taking.

            1. It certainly cannot survive as it’s going.

              1. They may not know it, but they’re on a libertarian trajectory I reckon.

      3. Yeah, I agree. I think it stems from a misunderstanding by some libertarians of what the average conservative believes versus what the average progressive believes. The average garden-variety non-beltway conservative just wants to be left alone. The average garden-variety non-beltway prog wants to outlaw profits and force doctors to provide healthcare. Progs and politicians therefore have a much closer connection than conservatives or libertarians and politicians. The latter two might get somewhere if they found common ground.

        1. I mean if conservatives and libertarians find common ground.

  9. Good article, and a nice summation of the Virginia campaign.

    I’d just look at this slightly differently, after reviewing the video of the panel discussion Welch was on and the Rand Paul speech. There’s no great need to try to hang around the walls of CPAC flirting with Republicans to try and get them to take us to the dance. At this stage the areas where they are pushing hard against libertarians are clear losers for them – that’s as clear as noting that ACA is going to be a clear loser for the Democrats. Welch’s best point during the panel was that the Tea Party got somewhere by taking a stand for their values, not by compromising them to get accepted.

    Hanging with the GOP is hurting the libertarian brand. It’s not even close to the other way ’round. The country is too closely split – the small percentage of libertarians out there have the ability to swing elections and drive policy.

    Screw the teams. They’re zombies who don’t even know they’re dead yet. Let them come to us.

    1. This. There is nothing to be gained by allowing the libertarian movement to be tarnished by the crony capitalism (and fear-mongering) of the GOP.

    2. Who’s waiting to be asked to the dance? We are there to overthrow the current republican establishment and replace it with a libertarian one.

      We will do it by convincing people that our principles are correct and that the status quo is morally bankrupt. Neither of which is false.

      1. But it feels so much better to pontificate and hold our breath until they come to us!

  10. I agree with some of the message of this article, but I think it’s smug and douchey anyway. It reads like the sort of criticism I’d see of CPAC on MSNBC: We are simply too good and noble to degrade ourselves by venturing among conservatives.

    I also think there’s flawed logic here:

    Some added up a list of issues and decided that, since libertarians should agree with Cuccinelli on most of those selected topics, they were merely being “tribal.” Conservatives dismissed the notion that a balanced view of social tolerance and free markets may matter to libertarians.

    Any libertarian that claims they have a ‘balanced view of social tolerance and free markets’ is a fucking liar. The wealth created by free markets, over time, results in social tolerance. Tolerance is a byproduct of wealth.

    The destruction of wealth caused by socialism results invariably in social intolerance of the kind we are currently seeing in Venezuela or you could have seen in a Russian gulag.

    Free markets should be the number 1 desire of libertarians. I think the benefits of free markets far outstrip the benefits of something like gay marriage or drug legalization.

    1. Is there anything free markets can’t do?!

      1. Well, for one, they can’t take money from people by force.

      2. Point me to a wealthy country that puts gay people to death.

        I’ll wait.

        1. For that matter, which countries are the most racially tolerant? Every single legitimately tolerant nation is among the wealthiest.

          Every single one. Don’t let facts like that get in the way of your snide ignorance, Tony.

          1. What does a country’s wealth have to do with free markets? Some wealthy countries are extremely intolerant but happen to sit on a lot of oil.

            One thing all very tolerant countries do have in common is a high degree of socialism. So… there’s that.

            1. Yeah France is real tolerant. So were the National Socialists.

              Socialism always results in a battle for the reigns of power between tribal factions if for no other reason than fear of who might be in control.

            2. Actually Tony that seems to further rather than undercut Irish’s point, does it not? It is not the wealth that makes a country tolerant, as your response of Saudi Arabia shows, it is the existence of free markets. One could rephrase Irish’s point as ‘show me a relatively free market country that puts gays to death.’

            3. The USSR was famous for its high level of tolerance.

              1. What planet are you from?

              2. The fact that you guys have to reach back decades to find counterexamples proves my point.

                Name me one laissez-faire country that is a minority’s paradise.

                Oh wait, you can’t, because laissez-faire failed even before authoritarian socialism did, and it doesn’t exist anymore.

                1. Tony, I think if you were to look at any ranking of countries by economic freedom and then social tolerance (for example like what Freedom House does yearly) there would be a strong, positive correlation between the two. Do you dispute that?

                  1. Frankly, I don’t give a shit about tolerance. It’s a concept that carries no real meaning. Tolerance is nebulous and deconstructionist. Individual liberty and the NAP are not.

                  2. Sure, and Freedom House’s rankings put modern social democracies, all of which have modern quasi-socialist economies, at the top. Nothing vindicates laissez-faire because it doesn’t exist anywhere.

                    1. Sure, and Freedom House’s rankings put modern social democracies, all of which have modern quasi-socialist economies, at the top.

                      what a big steaming pile of rancid monkey shit. No, those countries do NOT have socialist economies. They have socialist policies with regard to the safety net but none is under the illusion that the money for them will magically appear. Each relies on a private sector that produces goods and services in order to acquire the funding necessary for its welfare programs.

                2. The fact that you guys have to reach back decades to find counterexamples proves my point.

                  Scruffy mentioned France right off.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..e_covering

                  The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public, “Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space”) is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niq?bs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.[1] The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face.

                  The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010.

                  [2]

                  Was 2010 decades ago?

                  1. Quebec is soon to join their ranks if the PQ get elected to a majority next month thanks to the Quebec Charter.

                    Tony, in case you haven’t noticed, Quebec is in Canada – a quasi-democratic-socialist-capitalist country of some significance.

                3. Tony|3.8.14 @ 10:59AM|#
                  “The fact that you guys have to reach back decades to find counterexamples proves my point.”

                  France is ‘decades back’?
                  Way to go, shitpile!

                4. Ah. Tu quoque makes its entrance!

                5. Oh wait, you can’t, because laissez-faire failed even before authoritarian socialism did, and it doesn’t exist anymore.

                  Bearing in mind that laissez faire to Tony refers to the gilded age, where the government came down on the side of management instead of labor. At no point in American history has anything resembling “laissez faire” existed.

            4. Some wealthy countries are extremely intolerant but happen to sit on a lot of oil.

              You’re right. As Bo says, this actually proves my point about markets. Saudi Arabia has a high per capita GDP (I think they’re around 30th) but it all goes to government officials and members of the House of Saud due to their lack of markets.

              Something relatively similar is happening in the UAE.

              Also this:

              What does a country’s wealth have to do with free markets? Some wealthy countries are extremely intolerant but happen to sit on a lot of oil.

              is frankly hilarious.

              Look at any list of the world’s freest market economies. It doesn’t have to be the Heritage list, which obviously is going to have biases. It could be Bloomberg, Forbes, whatever.

              You’ll notice that the top 20 richest countries on Earth are all some of the top free market countries.

              As for your claim that the most tolerant countries have a high degree of socialism, that’s idiotic. Sweden, Finland and Norway are all in the top 30 freest markets on Earth. The ‘socialist’ countries progs try to claim prove socialism works are actually more free market than most progressives would prefer.

              Again, don’t let facts or evidence get in the way of your idiotic arguments through assertion.

              1. You’re defining free market out of existence then. Is Norway a free market country? If we’re both claiming the richest and freest societies as examples of our own politics succeeding, then we’re kind of stuck.

                I think a strong social safety net and tolerance go hand-in-hand, not that one causes the other but that they are both outcomes of a process that began in the Enlightenment.

                1. And to bring us back to the topic, few are as outspoken in support of so-called free markets as the attendees of CPAC, and few are as outspoken in their intolerance.

                  1. Tony|3.8.14 @ 11:12AM|#
                    “And to bring us back to the topic, few are as outspoken in support of so-called free markets as the attendees of CPAC,”

                    And to bring us back to shitpile’s normal attempt at misdirection, he’ll offer a little guilt-by-association.
                    Mendacious turd…

                  2. I find it astounding that you can claim liberals as tolerant with a straight face.

                    That makes anything and everything else you say questionable as to it’s truthfulness.

                2. Tony, you should read the criteria Freedom House and others use to rank countries on economic freedoms. I will grant you there are no Libertopias out there, but my point is that on a continuum of more free to less free you will find more tolerance at the more free end than you will at the other.

            5. Tony|3.8.14 @ 10:52AM|#
              “What does a country’s wealth have to do with free markets?”

              Most everything.
              Are you now the psychopathic-liar designate?

              1. Sevo, I understand you have a long running grudge against Tony and I do not have the experience to judge your feelings there, but I do not see the point of your stalking him with abusive posts. At the worst it violates the civility our hosts ask us to adhere to and makes libertarians look impolite in general. But I also put this to you: if Tony is indeed the dishonest troll you think he is, then why give him exactly what trolls are thought to want, exclamations of ‘flame?’

                Just my opinion there, and I will leave it at that.

                1. So, you’re admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about, yet presume to lecture Sevo on his treatment of one of the most mendacious trolls here.

                  And you wonder why people think you’re an asshole?

              2. Christ, y’all are arguing with a guy who claims rights only exist if they are granted to you by the state. A guy who doesn’t believe in property rights.

                He is a despicable person who would put us all in camps if he could.

                He will never argue in good faith. You are wasting your breath.

                1. I get your frustration Suthenboy, but this is an example of what I was talking about supra. Do you really think Tony is not arguing ‘in good faith,’ that is that he does not believe that rights are granted by the state or what have you? You actually seem to contradict that in your opening statement.

                  I would not say that because someone is a strict legal positivist on rights and does not believe in property rights that they are necessarily despicable or ‘in bad faith.’ Some anarchists do not believe in property rights, for example (note: I realize that Tony is not an anarchist, just using an example).

                  1. I don’t believe any rights exist on their own, only as part of a legal system. Law is a cultural construct. People who claim to have discovered human laws of the same nature as the law of gravity are full of it.

                2. He is a despicable person who would put us all in camps if he could.

                  Ken once got him to say that Rosa Parks had no right to sit at the front of the bus.

                  That’s a level of madness I don’t expect even from a prog.

                  1. I think he is just wedded to some form of utilitarianism, and people of that philosophy do not like rights, as they get in the way of treating people like units to be traded off against one another. I think that is a scary way to think, but not automatically despicable. I do not think Tony would send anyone to camps, but I will continue to try to argue to him that some of his views could enable someone at some point to do just that.

                    1. I think that is a scary way to think, but not automatically despicable.

                      Coming from a guy who thinks calling a black man an Uncle Tom is perfectly acceptable, color me shocked.

                  2. Ken once got him to say that Rosa Parks had no right to sit at the front of the bus.

                    Oh Tony is a filthy little racist bigot and don’t let him fool you otherwise.

                    On this very forum, he stated my wife would sell our daughter into sexual slavery, because that’s what all S.E. Asian women do, don’tcha know?

              3. Really, Sevo? You’re arguing with Tony? What’s wrong with you, man?

                1. sloopyinca|3.8.14 @ 12:14PM|#
                  “Really, Sevo? You’re arguing with Tony? What’s wrong with you, man?”

                  Jeeze, guys, some Saturday morning proggie baiting and everybody is upset!
                  Bo accuses me of ‘harming the civility’, and I think he was serious!

                  1. I was just piling on for laughs.

                    But Bo? No room to talk there. You may be “harming the civility”, but he’s actively lowering the IQ.

                    1. What definition of lowering are you using?

                    2. FTR I do believe in property rights, both in that I believe they exist and that they should exist. I just don’t think they were handed down from a deity.

                      People who claim the right to do something because god said so are the ones you really have to worry about.

                    3. People who claim the right to do something because god said so are the ones you really have to worry about.

                      Yeah, it’s way better if you claim the right to do something because somebody with the right family lineage or who 50% of your neighbors voted for said so.

                      Libertarians also don’t claim rights are divine, but then Tony couldn’t be a mendacious cunt if he wasn’t mendacious.

        2. Saudi Arabia?

      3. Free markets do push towards greater tolerance. The business who will employ the better qualified person regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., or who will sell or trade with the same, will have an advantage over those who irrationally will not. Over time this pushes people towards more tolerance.

        1. I think markets react rather than cause. In some environments, the intolerant business will prosper and the tolerant one will be burned to the ground.

          1. I do not disagree, but generally and across time markets will push towards tolerance in a way that other economic systems just will not.

          2. In some environments, the intolerant business will prosper and the tolerant one will be burned to the ground.

            This was certainly true during the era when Jim Crow laws were deemed necessary to ensure that more tolerant businesses owners could not benefit from policies that didn’t segregate.

          3. Tony|3.8.14 @ 10:50AM|#
            “I think markets react rather than cause.”

            “Markets” do neither one, you lame asshole.
            People act and react; the resulting changes in demand and supply we call a market.

          4. ‘I think markets react rather than cause’

            Aside from your profound simplistic understanding of free markets (and at this point you may as well be in an abyss of stupidity since there are no adjectives left to describe your vapid out takes on them), of course you think this.

            You’re predisposed to believe in the myth that the government is the point of origin for freedom and rights.

          5. …and the tolerant one will be burned to the ground.

            Not by the market, of course, since the act of destroying someone else’s property is antithetical to the market and a violation of the NAP. But, uh, other than that, yeah, excellent point.

            And Bo doesn’t disagree. I’ll be damned.

      4. Make you more intelligent.

      5. Tony, you really are incapable of abstract thought.

      6. “Is there anything free markets can’t do?!”
        Get rid of you, apparently.

    2. Well, I think the point is that a society that cherishes individual liberty will tend both towards truly free markets AND towards “tolerance”, by which I think we really mean the absence of institutionalized bigotry or prejudice against any particular ideology, ethnicity or sexual orientation. That’s not to say that bigotry wouldn’t exist, just that it wouldn’t be bolstered with the support of the state and so would lack the solidarity to be a social force of any real note.

      The tolerance of the left isn’t really tolerance, it’s just superficial equality at the barrel of a gun. Tolerance implies that all ideas and behaviors are permitted, if not respected, and that simply isn’t the goal of authoritarian progressivism. Racism doesn’t get “solved” by forcing people to associate with people they dislike, no matter how stupid the reason. And, again, I would note that the worst instances and periods of racism in the US were, without exception, sponsored and supported by the government itself.

    3. a ‘balanced view of social tolerance and free markets’

      WTF does this even mean?

      It scans as if the “correct” position involves disclaiming some level of both social tolerance and market freedom(hence, the balancing).

      But, it could mean anything, or nothing. I suspect the latter, myself.

      1. It means he’s a closet progressive. They’re the only ones who appeal to “balance”.

  11. GET IN LINE, MOTHERFUCKER!

    IF YOU’RE NOT WITH US, YOU’RE AGIN US!

  12. something totally in line with the LP Platform

    Poor little Bo Butthurt.

    I don’t think he gets it.

    I BELONG TO NO PARTY.

    Have some cake, you’ll feel better.

    1. Oh, I totally get that you do not belong to the Libertarian Party in any way Brooks.

      Totally.

  13. Ohio: 2 Ohio Libertarians lose spots on primary ballot

    http://www.nbc4i.com/story/249…..ios-ballot

    1. The law on that was probably made to prevent political parties from interfering in each other’s affairs. However, it did not contemplate situations in which a small party would have a big job to qualify any candidates and thus would need help from other parties.

  14. So why should libertarians travel to CPAC, again, and subject ourselves to conservative gripes for, well, being libertarian?

    Because it’s a shorter ideological distance from conservative ideas about government to libertarian ideas about government than it is from leftist ideas about government.

    Take gay marriage. If you believe that, a.) gay people are goin’ straight to Hell, and b.) smaller government is better government, it’s not a stretch to convince you that you can still believe gay folks are damned without expanding government to stop them from being gay. If you resent government’s intrusion into your decisions in the form of regulation, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump over to abolishing regulations in favor of personal choice and rights of association which allow you to maintain whatever your personal preferences (or prejudices, for that matter) may be.

    1. On the other hand, since every single flavor of leftist ideology (barring strict anarchy, I suppose) requires state oversight, you will never be able to convince a “liberal” (heavily air-quoted, btw) that reducing the size and scope of government is anything but a regression to the bad old days. Sure, you might both agree that legalizing marijuana is a good idea, but your Democrat friend thinks of that as persuading a benevolent, paternal state to allow the people to do something that will be heavily regulated to ensure its safety. You’ll get the trappings of liberty in a very shallow sense, but it will be the kind of liberty where government agents routinely inspect your home to make sure that you’re adequately enjoying that liberty in an approved and sanctioned manner.

      tl;dr – Conservative core principles are closer to libertarian core principles; the left only accidentally agrees on some of the effects of liberty, not the concept itself.

      1. Conservative core principles are closer to libertarian core principles;

        Not even close.

        Conservatives and liberals are mirror images of each other and are equidistant from libertarian ideals.

        1. They just have different priorities, that’s all.

        2. “Conservatives and liberals are mirror images of each other and are equidistant from libertarian ideals.”

          How so? Did you actually read my entire post?

          If we’re talking about conservatism in the sense of the American political tradition, aka the “movement conservatism” of William F. Buckley, Jr. et al, then I’m not seeing how a libertarian state (a “nightwatchman” state, for instance) is equidistant from that and the “liberalism” of FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society.

          1. But the movement conservatism of William F Buckley isn’t in control of the GOP.

            1. Even the people in control of the GOP aren’t as hostile to individual liberty as the people in control of the Democrats.

              The Democrats have become a purely authoritarian party in virtually every respect. There is virtually no issue in which they do not worship the guiding and benevolent hand of bureaucrat and politician alike.

              I hate the Republican stance on foreign policy, drugs, gays, etc, but I’m not going to behave as if the autocrats who make up the Democratic party aren’t a provably greater threat to individual freedom.

              1. It occurred to me that I could sum up my feelings about the Republicans and the Democrat Party thusly: Republican politicians believe in taking my money to fund things in their districts, Democrat politicians believe in taking my money to fund things in theirs AND other districts.

                So, I would agree the Democrat party is worse, but both are statist.

                1. Well, thank you for enlightening us with your idiosyncratic assessment of political behavior.

                  And by the way it’s plain out wrong. Politicians believe in taking your money to fund things in their districts. If the LP ever became a major national party, no small number of Libertarian politicians would take your money to fund things in their districts. It’s how politicians get elected and re-elected.

            2. But the movement conservatism of William F Buckley isn’t in control of the GOP.

              wwhorton never mentioned the GOP. He said “conservative”. “Conservative” is an ideological viewpoint. GOP is a political party. There is a difference.

          2. We actually know what a social conservative utopia would look like, something like the 1950’s, with rampant censorship, government led prayer in school, Blue Laws, criminalization of sodomy, bigamy, adultery, pornography, abortion. I would agree it would be closer to Libertopia than the New Deal or Great Society, but not by much.

            1. unlike either the New Deal or Great Society, the So-con Utopia of the 50s has changed with the times. The other two have simply become more entrenched and their costs are far steeper than some concern over who’s doing what to whom in a bedroom.

              1. I think it has only changed because social conservatives have lost a few battles, not because they have given up the fight.

            2. I’d take that SoCon utopia over the Progressive utopia of N. Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela any day of the week.

              1. I was trying to stick with an American example. If you want to get international, a theocracy like Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan would be the penultimate SoCon state.

            3. Do you actually know any social conservatives, Bo? I don’t mean passing familiarity from lecturing them about what they believe on internet blog threads. I mean actually talk and hang out with them? Because, from where I’m sitting, it really doesn’t seem so. It seems like your understanding of them is something taken out of a few popular Hollywood movie scripts where they play the heavy.

              1. I know one somewhat prominent so-con who in speaking an essays has made very clear that that is his utopia, explicitly invoking the 1950s. Except that he was raised Catholic and is now pagan, so he might not go for the gov’t-led school prayers.

            4. That’s a good approximation, Cara Mia. More exactly, it would be a fond albeit inaccurate reflection of whichever decade the so-con was a child in. For many, yes, the 1950s. That probably goes for so-cons in all countries.

          3. “To
            The socialists of all parties”

      2. adequately enjoying that liberty in an approved and sanctioned manner.

        nice turn of phrase. *golf clap*

    2. Take gay marriage. If you believe that, a.) gay people are goin’ straight to Hell, and b.) smaller government is better government, it’s not a stretch to convince you that you can still believe gay folks are damned without expanding government to stop them from being gay.

      The problem with this argument is that it’s the mistaken impression that they want gays to go to hell.

      They don’t. They want to save them from going to hell. That’s really the push behind all this (and the stuff about converting gays to be straight).

      Sure, the Fred Phelps types simply hate gays, but they are Democrats…

  15. DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) ? If you think this was a brutal winter, there’s data to back it up: Iowa officials say it was the ninth coldest in the state since record-keeping began more than 140 years ago.

    Harry Hillaker, state climatologist with the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, compiled data on the meteorological winter season that ran from Dec. 1 through Feb. 28. He says the past winter was also the coldest in 35 years.

    Temperatures this winter season averaged 14.7 degrees. Hillaker says that’s 7.2 degrees below normal.

    Global Warming!

  16. This is the second year that CPACers won’t have to have to wade into Washington’s swamps. They’ll be confabbing at the National Harbor complex on the banks of the Potomac, shielded behind the Beltway from all the urban ills that afflict the “District of Corruption.”

    I’m throwing the RACIST flag.

  17. John Vaught LaBeaume is correct. Their Christianity predisposes conservatives toward hypocrisy since they are unable to completely reject the moral underpinnings of the the welfare state–the “meek shall inherit the earth” and “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God”. Also, their irrational, faith-based belief systems along with their rights violating positions on social issues will never, ever attract young, educated professionals that John Vaught LaBeaume sites.

    The intellectual left realizes this group of young, educated urban dwellers are critical to their future and they take great pains to keep the progressive values in place that they learned in college. However, most ignore or are agnostic about the left’s guilt provoking, marxist rhetoric. But these young, highly educated and creative people do not need the Welfare state and they are beginning to see with Obamacare that they are going to be sacrificed to it. But conservatives offer no alternative. An alternative vision and a rational moral code is needed. The strong moral arguments of the Objectivist-oriented Libertarians has a good chance of gaining traction with them.

    John Vaught LaBeaume is right to call for a disassociation with these creepy conservatives. In the long run, they will hurt the cause of liberty.

    1. As a Catholic libertarian, I can assure you that you are batshit crazy.

      As for “moral underpinnings of the welfare state”, those are based in the left’s philosophy of a benevolent government that is designed to solve societal problems. The Church wants to play their role…as charities they always have been prepared to do so. The state is actually competing with the church and trying to get them out of the business of helping people.

      The “creepy conservatives” we need to disassociate ourselves from are the war mongers, not those that believe in God and donate money to charity.

      1. As a Catholic libertarian

        Then you’ll love Ms. Elizabeth Stoker.

        Of course, by “love” I mean “enter into the violent frenzied blood-rage of the ?lfh??nar

        1. Why do you do this shit to me? Have I done some great injustice to you or your family? Have I wronged you deeply?

          Fuck, that lady is an imbecile.

          1. I just want to watch the world burn.

            1. I just want to watch the world burn.

              So you actually did go to CPAC?

    2. This is all true more or less. Conservatism is and always will be a failure. Religion cannot work for freedom. Unfortunately, the average is too much a simpleton to grok Objectivism. We must control the culture to steer them.

      1. We must control the culture to steer them.

        A libertarian sentiment if ever there was one…

        1. Religion cannot work for freedom

          Never heard of William Wilberforce, obviously.

    3. Something tells me LeBeaume probably doesn’t like the Randroids anymore than he does the SoConz, so I’m not sure you got what was intended out of the piece.

  18. If *Reason* is correct, government-recognized SSM is inevitable – they just need a few mopping-up operations here and there, but basically it’s a done deal.

    If that’s true, then why should you worry about grumpy conservative naysayers? It’s not as if there’s any danger they’ll be able to stop the runaway freight train of government-approved gay marriage.

    The next front in the SSM battle is protecting private businesses and other institutions from having the government force SSM on them. The libertarians and the God-bothering fundies are on the same side on this one. So an alliance with the Family Research Council on this particular issue makes just as much sense as an alliance with the proprietors of Sunshine Moonbeam’s Cannabis Collective on the MJ legalization issue.

    Likewise with birth control. The political dispute right now is whether the feds should compel private employers to provide BC to their employees. Here’s another place for an alliance between latte-sipping, libertine cosmotarians and troglodytic, reactionary bleevers.

    1. your biggest battle is not on the questions themselves, but on the involvement of govt.

      Basically, the challenge is removing emotion from the equation and that’s a tough nut with either team.

      1. There is, on both sides, a certain repugnance which I would compare to a feeling of ritual pollution. To a true cosmo,* for instance, the thought of joining a cause supported by socons is like a Hindu tucking into a beef brisket, or a Jew having some nice country fried ham. The difference is that to the Hindu and the Jew, violating these strictures goes against the core of their faith. But what core principles of faith prevent cosmos* and socons working together for common ends?

        *I’m sorry, but I can think of no better term. Suggest a better term if you wish.

        1. Lattes are “cosmo” now?!?!?!?

          1. lattes — cosmo

            Coors — right-wing conservative

            Welch’s Grape Juice — conservative evangelical

            Any questions?

              1. The blood of their enemies

                1. So the Mexican immigrants they murder during one of their Minutemen patrols.

                  Gotcha.

                  1. Yeah, because that totally happens

        2. according to this article, their being so-cons prevents libertarians from working with them. The writer decided to plant his stake in the ground and become the same thing he accuses others of being.

          No one gets 100% of what they want, so the question seems which path offers a better road toward advancing liberty. It sure as hell isn’t the Dems. Even parts of the conservative media have finally noticed that the presence of an R next to one’s name is only a cosmetic difference from a D without actual belief in limited govt.

        3. I will agree with Notorious here, thanks to the aggressive statism of the Obama administration, there is currently some large areas of potential cooperation with social conservatives. We should be ever mindful that we will likely have to fight them on other issues once those battles are won, but that should not stop us from working together where we agree. Of course, I feel the same way about liberals and progressives.

    2. The next front in the SSM battle is protecting private businesses and other institutions from having the government force SSM on them.

      That battle will be lost when the marriage licensing battle is won.

      The licensing battle will be won on equal protection grounds. Under current jurisprudence, obliterating unequal treatment of gays by the government equates to outlawing unequal treatment of gays by businesses. The freedom of association/positive rights battle was lost a couple of generations ago.

      The current marriage licensing kerfuffle is consciously and overtly the thin edge of the wedge to elevate gaiety to protected class status. And as anyone who has ever used a wedge knows, once the edge is in, the game is over.

      1. And once the gays win that battle, they will join their former opponents in mocking those who plead for marriage equality to include polygamous, polyamorous or other currently banned forms of marriage.

        1. The first rule of the Special Victims club is to pull the ladder up after you so your special status isn’t diluted.

      2. “Under current jurisprudence, obliterating unequal treatment of gays by the government equates to outlawing unequal treatment of gays by businesses.”

        I think you mean under current legislatures, because the 14th Amendment does not apply to private actors, right? Therefore ending state discrimination against gays via the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause would not impact businesses, only some further legislative act would do that, so why not fight that battle when it comes?

  19. Oh, I totally get that you do not belong to the Libertarian Party in any way Brooks.

    My Republican masters will brook no infidelity.

    1. The 2nd year Scotsman would love my state’s LP, little more than a branch of the Elephants with the LP leadership/candidates switching between parties as it suited them.

      The last straw for me was after a particular nasty partisan state budget vote several years ago, the state LP announced they would run general election challenges specifically against those R’s who voted for the D’s tax package and completely left the D’s alone (or R’s that voted against it).

  20. Actually, Tulpa was an example par excellence of a Republican who posted here.

    And, since we are all merely Tulpa’s sockpuppets, that PROVES this is a conservative Republican website.

    QED

    1. I think the proper response I often see around here is, WOOSH!

  21. I am going to disagree. I simply don’t think you can grow your brand by isolating yourself.

    Showing people who may be sympathetic to your arguments how they apply their own philosophy inconsistently may not show an immediate result, but it will win some converts over time and that is what the libertarian movement needs. And if those converts are the kinds of people who are passionate enough about a cause to go to something like CPAC, all the better.

    1. I simply don’t think you can grow your brand by isolating yourself.

      Exhibit A: remember Apple? With its proprietary OS and refusal to bridge over to the dominant PC computer market? A brand that isolated itself and, QED, didn’t grow.

      You may have to google them. They were kind of a flash in the pan.

      The real lesson, IMO, is that declining to hook your brand to a dysfunctional and repellent market actor, no matter how large, doesn’t doom your brand.

      1. Apple’s “success” (if you want to call it that), in the pre iPod era was actually predicated on having an in road into the education arena. Having your OS and hardware in almost every school is pretty damn helpful. They still couldn’t crack 10% of the PC market. It would be mistake to say that they were successful as far as spreading and growing their market share.

        The iPod was a huge win for them, but not because it was closed off, and actually make a version that was both windows and OS X compatible did a lot to help sales.

        Even now Apple is losing market share to Android (open source) as that platform takes over the mobile space.

        One can have success isolation themselves, but that’s only if you redefine success away from winning. And in elections, having the most people on your side agreeing with you, is all that matters.

        1. I remember when Gates made an investment in Apple to keep it solvent. This was back during the Microsoft Anti-Trust era. Microsoft wanted to keep Apple around to prove that they didn’t have a monopoly both to U.S. officials and the Europeans.

          http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

          $150 million. That’s all it took.

  22. “Like many libertarian-leaning Americans, I consider myself neither right, nor left. I don’t feel my views are represented on either side of a bipolar liberal-conservative spectrum. And, like many libertarians, I don’t feel I’m any more welcome in the Republican Party than among Democrats.”

    The Republicans are much more receptive to libertarian ideas about the economy than Democrats are; the Democrats are downright hostile to libertarian ideas about economic freedom.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is a complete joke on civil libertarian issues. They’re okay on gay marriage, but, even then, many of them see that issue as a righteous use of the state to violate people’s religious convictions–rather than as a defense of individual rights themselves.

    Actually, it seems to me that progressives are openly hostile to the very idea of individual rights–because the pesky things always seem to be getting in the way of whatever they’re trying to do. Meanwhile, I see conservatives becoming increasingly tolerant of things like marijuana legalization…

    I feel a lot more welcome in the Republican Party.

    No doubt, social conservatives are a problem in the Republican Party, but wanting to vote on other people’s rights, like they do, their natural place is in the Democratic Party anyway, and I suspect over the long haul, that’s where they’re headed. I can’t think of any better movement to displace them and move them on their way than libertarians.

    1. But, but Ken the GOP *can’t* win elections without the SOCONS.

      I’ve been told that repeatedly, so it must be true.

      1. Aren’t the SoCons just what’s left of the disaffected Dixiecrats the GOP picked up after the Southern Strategy?

        I guess you could argue that they way things are right now, that, yes, they do need those votes.

        1. Yeah, I’ve argued before that George W. Bush was basically just a Southern Democrat who came over with the Reagan Coalition.

          George W. Bush’s and Lyndon Johnson’s positions were practically identical–from using the military to spread democracy to expanding Johnson’s Great Society through the prescription drug benefit…

          George W. Bush was a Southern Democrat.

          Reason has talked a lot about how Obama and Bush are practically the same, but I don’t think that’s because Obama is just like a Republican. I think it’s because Bush was essentially a Southern Democrat.

          They don’t need those votes anymore. Winning national elections is about swing voters in swing states. The only swing states in the South left are, really, maybe Florida and Virginia? And neither of those is swinging to the right because of social conservatives. They’re in danger of swinging to the left–because the swing voters there despise social conservatives.

          1. The only swing states in the South left are, really, maybe Florida and Virginia?

            In fact, Virginia’s gubernatorial election was lost to the Republicans because Cuccinelli was perceived as such a SoCon.

            I think some of the attacks on Cuccinelli were very unfair and out of context, but that doesn’t change the fact that his SoCon tendencies almost certainly lose them that election.

          2. Problem is, the GOP is currently in no position to conduct a Night of the Long Knives against the SoCons. The Neos could have done it, maybe, during their brief golden-age just before 9/11. But then afterwards, they needed the SoCons to sell their empire building as “going a-Crusadin’ against the heathen Moor” to the parents of the young infantrymen who would be spilling their blood in the deserts of Mesopotamia.

            1. Well you don’t have to formally kick them out. I think you just subtly stop making their wedge issues the center of campaigns.

              And the social conservatives aren’t about to go vote Democrat just because some nominee says that maybe gay people getting married isn’t the end of the world.

              Some of the social conservatives might start staying home instead of voting, but most of them are going to hold their noses and pull the lever just like everybody else.

        2. The GOP does need those votes. Without them, the US will revert back to, basically, the one-party system that we had from 1932-1980’s or so. With Dems in charge of the House, Dems in charge of the Senate most of the time, and a occasional Rep in the White House in order to create old-fashioned ‘gridlock’ when the Dems go overboard on stupid.

          More importantly, the GOP establishment needs to make sure that they have the theocratic wing of the socons – not the ‘leave us alone’ wing. Because they can bribe the theocratic intermediaries with power and thus ensure that they don’t actually have to deliver on anything socon.

      2. The social conservatives we’ve got in the Republican Party today used to be Southern Democrats as recently as the 1980s.

        Barry Goldwater despised them. Ronald Reagan completely ignored them when he was in office.

        Voting on other people’s rights was the defining characteristic of the Democratic Party going back to Stephen Douglas, popular sovereignty, and Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

        The social conservatives were invited over for dinner as part of the Reagan Coalition, but the dinner party is over, y’all! Time to go home! I appreciate that they helped get Reagan elected, but the cultural landscape is no longer a conservative reaction to hippies anymore.

        And even if the socons did help Reagan into office before, they’re a drag on getting Republicans elected now. They were important for national elections back when the South was full of swing states. It just isn’t that way anymore.

        National elections are won by appealing to swing voters in swing states, and if we drew a picture of what such swing voters look like now, we’d see people whose opinions of social conservatives register somewhere just north of their opinion of Al Qaeda.

        1. Reagan not only campaigned as a prolifer* and all-around socon, he tried to get social conservatives like Robert Bork on the federal courts. If Bork wasn’t a socon, neither was Jerry Falwell. Reagan also put Bennett in the Education Department – if Bennett isn’t a socon then neither was Jonathan Edwards.

          And this is from Reagan’s Feb. 25 address to the nation re prayer in schools:

          “…now we’re told our children have no right to pray in school. Nonsense. The pendulum has swung too far toward intolerance against genuine religious freedom. It’s time to redress the balance….

          “The Senate will soon vote on a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary vocal prayer in public schools. If two-thirds of the Senate approve, then we must convince the House leadership to permit a vote on the issue. I am confident that if the Congress passes our amendment this year, then the State legislatures will do likewise, and we’ll be able to celebrate a great victory for our children.”

          http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=39565

          *There are actually liberal prolifers, but I’m talking here about political perceptions, and the political perception is that being prolife makes you a socon. Anyway, there’s a lot of overlap.

          1. Reagan campaigned on a lot of things. I’m not saying he didn’t make appeals to social conservatives. To the contrary!

            But when he was in office, he didn’t really, actually, in fact do anything for them.

            You want to claim the Bork nomination? Fine. He made some statements in the media? Fine.

            That and four bucks ‘ll get you a latte.

            1. And the socons were ok with it. Maybe they’re better at compromising than the people who hate them.

              1. Yeah, I’d guess people who can’t get abortions they want, or people who can’t get married when they want, or people who don’t want their kids learning about creationism in public school…

                They tend to be more upset about having those things imposed on them than the people who just casually impose that stuff cause they think it’s good for us.

                On the other hand, as I’ve argued here at H&R since forever, social conservatives get bent out of shape if you give their children an abortion without their knowledge (much less consent), and they don’t appreciate being forced to pay for public schools that teach children things they don’t like–when they’re homeschooling or sending their kids to private schools, either.

                As a general rule, I suspect the oppressed resent the hell out of being oppressed–more so than whatever the emotional enjoyment the oppressor gets out of oppressing.

                1. ‘the oppressed resent the hell out of being oppressed–more so than whatever the emotional enjoyment the oppressor gets out of oppressing’

                  Not according to CS Lewis

                  Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

            2. But Reagan did not “completely ignore[]” them. And the reason for at least some of the defeats of his socon ideas? It rhymes with “Zemocrats.” It was democrats and RINOS who blocked Bork. I haven’t checked the vote record, but I suspect it was Democrats who defeated the school prayer amendment.

              Reagan’s federal judges at least to some extent rolled back the socially-liberal precedents, which is of course a key socon goal.

              One of his victories was the liberalization of gun laws in 1986. Guns are generally seen as a socon issue – remember “God, guns and gays?”

              And his opponents denounced him as a socon – I don’t mean the nostalgic “Reagan was a responsible conservative, unlike today’s nihilists” nonsense, but what the opponents were saying at the time.

              1. The “Evil Empire” speech, delivered to the National Association of Evangelicals, is utterly suffused with God talk. And here is the most famous paragraph:

                “Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness?pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”

                http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.e…..eech-text/

                Was he just catering to the evangelicals here?

                1. Does anyone else notice how this man sounds like a leftist defending Obama.

                  “But he gave this speech, and he said *all* the right things.”

                  1. No, he appointed judges who at least put some brakes on social liberal jurisprudence, and as to the quote from the Evil Empire speech, I had thought he did something about the Soviet Union, too.

                    But yeah, that evil empire speech? Just meaningless rhetoric to get the socons off his back. He didn’t *really* think the Soviets were Godless commies who needed to be resisted.

                    1. Socons had reason to be dissatisfied with Reagan, but that’s not the same thing as saying he did nothing, or was only doing it for show.

                    2. And the Firearm Owners Protection Act at least did something to curb the war on guns –

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..ection_Act

                    3. And make no mistake, if you defend gun rights you’ll be told it’s a socon issue.

                      “Support for religious policy, or opposition to secularising forces, *opposition to gun control,* and opposition to same-sex marriage or other LGBT civil rights concerns have formed useful “wedge issues” in the past, although support for same-sex marriage seems to be growing rapidly, thus undercutting the use of it as a wedge issue.”

                      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God,_guns_and_gays

                      “The proverbial three G’s [God, guns and gays] was the explanation in Thomas Frank’s entertaining book “What’s the Matter With Kansas” for why poor, powerless whites would vote for a party that promises nothing but tax cuts for the rich.”

                      http://opinionator.blogs.nytim…..-guns-god/

                    4. Thomas Frank, Timothy Egan and Rational Wiki. A really serious collection of intellectuals right there.

                    5. It’s the political climate you’re in. Intellectuals don’t have to be serious to plant memes in the political culture.

                      If you convince your average politician he can write off the socons, and one of his reactions will be, “good, now I can support “common sense” gun control stop pretending to care about those gun-clinging rednecks.”

                    6. That’s nonsense because non-SoCon Republicans are anti-gun control as well.

                      The SoCons aren’t being supplanted by statist Republicans, they’re being supplanted by more libertarian leaning Republicans. The loss of SoCons is not going to result in more gun control.

                      In fact, SoCons were a much more powerful force in the ’70s and ’80s and we actually had stricter gun control back then.

                    7. “SoCons were a much more powerful force in the ’70s and ’80s”

                      Like I said, he 80s brought us the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Socons at the time had *some* influence, though, again, I acknowledge they were not fully satisfied with Reagan. But he helped them out on some things.

                      As to the 70s, I would like to see some evidence of socon influence. I would have thought the 70s were (until the past few years) the nadir of socon influence – see Roe v. Wade, aggressive racial preferences, crime rates, and the like.

                    8. Get rid of the Fidds and the good old boys, and there will still be plenty of gun-rights people, but the influence of the guns-are-icky suburban soccer moms will increase.

                    9. The good old boys help counterbalance Republicans like these:

                      “While they sometimes share the economic views of other Republicans – e.g., balanced budgets, lower taxes, free trade, deregulation, welfare reform – moderate Republicans differ in that some are for same-sex marriage and gay adoption, legal access to and even funding for abortion, *gun control laws*, [emphasis added] more environmental regulation and anti-climate change measures, fewer restrictions on legal immigration, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and more relaxed enforcement of illegal immigration and support for “sanctuary cities,”, and for some, abolition of the death penalty, civil rights laws, embryonic stem cell research, in a few cases anti-war policies, or any of the above.”

                      http://bit.ly/1ini9Uh

                    10. As to the 70s, I would like to see some evidence of socon influence. I would have thought the 70s were (until the past few years) the nadir of socon influence – see Roe v. Wade, aggressive racial preferences, crime rates, and the like.

                      The ’70s were the rebirth of American evangelism. Those evangelicals who voted for Reagan did not arise out of a vacuum. They were just becoming a force in electoral politics as a result of people like Billy Graham and Pat Robertson. I’d say the ’70s were the rise of modern social conservatism, the ’80s and ’90s were the peak and the Bush presidency sent them into terminal decline.

                    11. I took “powerful force” to mean some kind of influence over policy.

                    12. They became politically active in the 1970s, or switched away from the Dems, because they kept getting poked with a sharp stick and finally started growling and showing their teeth, and analysts were shocked at this display of aggression.

                    13. The 70’s saw the Socons taken-for-granted regime of state control and intervention of morality take some hits, yes, as long standing SoCon laws governing sexuality and intimacy began to get struck down by those ‘liberal activist judges.’ Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Roe v. Wade (1973), Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966) & Miller v. California, (1973), etc.,

                    14. The *Fanny Hill* case you cited was in 1966, as you noted yourself. 🙂

                    15. The proverbial three G’s [God, guns and gays] was the explanation in Thomas Frank’s entertaining book “What’s the Matter With Kansas” for why poor, powerless whites would vote for a party that promises nothing but tax cuts for the rich.

                      This is my favorite lefty talking point because it’s such a blatant lie. There has never been a tax cut that only applied to the rich. The Bush tax cuts applied to everyone in the country across all tax brackets.

    2. “The Republicans are much more receptive to libertarian ideas about the economy…”

      It isn’t just about the economy Ken. I hang out in a gun store around a bunch of old guys who everyone would agree are SoCons. In the deep south.

      These are all old school SoCons and faithful customers in a store owned and run by….an openly gay woman. In spite of what you hear from many SoCon leaders, the rank and file are becoming far more tolerant than they used to be.

      Anytime politics comes up they are intrigued by my ideas and most of the time will agree that I am right. When they don’t, we agree to disagree and we still get along just fine. I have never had any of them get hostile towards me and I am always welcome there. They agree with me on legalization of pot, that the drug war is evil and many grudgingly agree with me on gay marriage.

      This is in contrast to the left, from which I have experienced much hostility. Generally I find lefties are far more simple minded, fail to grasp many subtle concepts and suffer from cowboy movie syndrome. To them the world is populated by white hats and black hats. If they find something they don’t like about one side then the other side must be the one wearing the white hat.

      1. “they are intrigued by my ideas”

        Yeah, but did they subscribe to your newsletter?

      2. Like I wrote, I think the Republicans are more receptive to ideas like legalizing marijuana, too…

        More so than Democrats, even! Democrats want to know if marijuana smoking is really healthy and a net benefit to society before they sign off on letting just anyone do it that wants to do so.

      3. Having grown up in TN, this has also been my experience with SoCons. I can convince many friends and family members on SSM, non-interventionism, ending the WoD, and the separation of church/state because I don’t call them “intolerant assholes” or “troglodytes” when they don’t immediately accept my position…nor do I threaten to change their views through gubmint coercion. Interestingly, southern Protestants tend to be more resistant to these ideas than southern Catholics.

  23. “But as the District of Columbia, like other American cities, flourishes in an unprecedented urban renaissance of private investment, sprouting eateries frequented by an influx of young professionals making it in the marketplace….”

    DC, the roaring gusher of anti market regulation is a MARETPLACE?

    The DC urban renaissance, one notices, is funded by money coerced from the rest of the country by men with guns threatening prison plus boodle from lobbyists bribing legislators to squeeze us for even more.

    That’s what the young professionals are producing for us and this clown admires their entrepreneurship?

    Jaysus wept.

    1. oh, good; I thought it was just me who found that line to be arguable the most stupid in the piece. Nothing says growth market quite like a place whose life blood is wholly dependent on taxpayer money.

    2. Fer fuck’s sake. Nobody who is looking for models of economic success should cite DC.

      DC is successful because it is the Imperial City. That can’t be replicated, so its not a model of anything. Its sui generis.

    3. “But as the District of Columbia, like other American cities, flourishes in an unprecedented urban renaissance of private investment, sprouting eateries frequented by an influx of young professionals making it in the marketplace….”

      What a crock of shit. That really is stunning. Wow.

      1. That’s hilarious. I despise the word Cosmotarian, but given that this guy is saying we should avoid the icky conservatives and is holding up D.C. as some sort of libertopia, he may be the first person to actually earn the title.

        1. As long as the foodies are happy, the free market is happy

    4. But it’s been the nation’s capital all this time, so what explains its ups & downs? Obviously there must be other factors than plunder.

      1. Plunder’s gone up massively since 2001.

  24. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is a complete joke on civil libertarian issues.

    How can you say that? Democrats staunchly believe rights are granted by the State, and they’re perfectly willing, as caretakers and benefactors of the plebs, to parcel out those rights they approve of, so long as we demonstrate our ability to respect our duty to not abuse them.

  25. That’s what the young professionals are producing for us and this clown admires their entrepreneurship?

    Entrepreneurial Parasitism: it’s all the rage among the up-and-comers.

  26. So why should libertarians travel to CPAC, again, and subject ourselves to conservative gripes for, well, being libertarian?

    Well Mr John Vaught LaBeaume, perhaps because it makes sense to be represented at the functions of the party you are trying to take over.

    So, sorry, CPAC, I’ll stay here in the belly of the beast with the gays, the immigrants, and the ringing cash registers.

    Then you are a fucking idiot. Libertarian defeatism. God I’m fucking sick of this shit. It’s one thing to sit in your fucking mother’s basement and bitch about how you’re right but you just can’t get anyone to listen to you, when they really won’t. It’s another when your ideas are becoming more and more mainstream everyday and you ELECT to sit in your mom’s basement and bitch when you could actually be making a difference.

    Fuck off, chickenshit!

    1. God I’m fucking sick of this shit. It’s one thing to sit in your fucking mother’s basement and bitch about how you’re right but you just can’t get anyone to listen to you, when they really won’t.

      How do you know that he’s not one of the ones sitting in his fucking mother’s basement while stocking up on beans, bullets, and band-aids for when the SHTF?

    2. he doesn’t explain how someone will listen to his brilliance when he doesn’t even bother to speak with them, does he.

    3. +1

      This guy is afraid he’ll compromise his core beliefs so he’s just gonna stay in his echo chamber and refuse to even associate with the people he probably shares 50-60% of a belief system with.

      And any person with an ounce of political sense knows that the two “major” parties are always willing to be flexible in order to defeat the other “team”‘s candidate. We need to capitalize on their flexibility and use it to our benefit, not refuse to engage them and ultimately be resigned to the back bench of the American political scene.

      1. Did someone steal sloopy’s password?

    4. I actually jibe with both this column and FDA’s take on the column. I guess I’m in favor of ‘associating’ with the GOP as long as it’s subterfuge for hostile libertarian takeover.

      I am not interested in ‘conservations’ with conservatives. Conservatism was made to fail. The only thing we should ask from conservatives is obeisance.

  27. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.
    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

  28. I’m with you.

    And I would like to see us name and shame those conservative groups that have fought hardest to make libertarians unwelcome at CPAC. #1 is the Heritage Foundation, which says that social and economic conservatism are “one and inseparable” — and has since come out strongly against legalizing pot as well. Heritage is not our friend, and we should not be theirs.

    1. Buckley is probably rolling over in his grave.

    2. I don’t think speaking at CPAC in an attempt to win people to our side is the same thing as aligning ourselves with the loons at Heritage.

  29. “…or brown people who want to cross a border to get a job and become American.”

    That simplifies the issue, as though it’s just about people crossing a border to find work. And why the gratuitous reference to skin color? Are conservatives supposed to be racial collectivists like liberals and apparently now libertarians?

    1. Some are racial collectivists.

      See also: Buchanan, Pat

      1. If a person *didn’t* call them ‘brown people’, we’d then hear all manner of whinging about how ‘they refuse to assimilates!’ and ‘their kultur is imcompatables! and all sorts of shit that more or less equates to “the browns is a comin’!” but falls just short enough to allow them to pretend to get all huffy and morally offended when you suggest that maybe they are a little race-sensitive.

        even if we let that slide = is anyone denying that Conservatives don’t have a ridiculous border-boner that distracts from far more important fiscal issues?

        1. Yup. And there is a lot of racism.

      2. Sure, but why describe immigrants as brown people instead of individuals seeking employment across arbitrary, government-imposed borders? Isn’t that how we’re supposed to think about immigration?

        1. Immigration is only about skin color, didn’t you know?

    2. The same reason the left calls people “racist” every chance they get.

      It’s hilarious too, because Mexicans are about as brown as most white people.

  30. “Instead, I am comfortable with a third position that values social tolerance as a necessary complement to a market economy.”

    I wouldn’t use the term “third position.” This refers to ultranationalism favored by racial separatists.

  31. The DC area is booming from “private investment”????? Since freaking when? Everyone in the NoVa/DC/MD area either sucks from the Federal Teat, works for a company that does so, or works for a subcontracting company that does so, or provides goods and services to everyone that does so. As much as leftists deride “trickle down” economics, there’s no better example than around here. This is more of a one-“industry” town than Detroit ever dreamed of being.

    1. Apparently Sarvis and co. believe the libertarians can win Virginia by appealing to the Government employees in the DC area. I’m not sure how libertarians intend to get their votes and then cut their jobs but that’s me…

      1. https://reason.com/archives/201…..esson-from

        Sarvis’ Libertarian vision of a Virginia that’s both “Open-minded and Open for Business,” is one shared by voters in the groups that are at once “purpling” the state and driving its economic growth. Sarvis himself, with a tech background and the son of a Chinese-American immigrant mom, is a product of those trends.

        So these government employees and employees of government contractors are really eager to vote for someone who wants to eliminate their jobs?

  32. The Republican secretary of state of Ohio yesterday threw the Libertarian candidates for governor and attorney general off the ballot. Fuck the GOP.

  33. So if you’re in favor of gay marriage, then you logically have to support open borders, abortions, legalized suicide, prostitution, and a number of controversial “social” issues that are turn offs for the mainstream of both sides?

    Libertarians don’t need to slavishly devoted the Republicans, of course. But it seems counterproductive for a (still) fringe movement to pick fights any allies they need to advance their cause. Pro amnesty groups support democrats unconditionally, even if 30-40% of them disagree with the party on gay marriage or abortion. That’s why they rule comfortably despite being named “nanny of the month” by Reason Magazine. You might hate “team gamez”, but that’s how you win.

    Keep in mind the other side can play this kind of game. “Well, maybe if you come to our side on spending and racial ideology, we’ll vote for you”. George Bush wasn’t libertarian when he won close to 40% of the vote. Chris Christie caved in on ACA, rode the fence on some social issues and cleaned house.

    If you someone asked Hillary if she supported “marriage equality” which includes bestiality or polygamy, she’ll save her ass by deferring the matter to the courts or states, just as Rand Paul did on SSM. People who oppose marriage recognition of certain relationship are not some “socially intolerant” monsters. Are any of you going to move to France because SSM is legal there?

  34. Why do libertarians insist of using the bullshit term “social tolerance”? It is pure Orweillian Newspeak designed to justify suppressing non-progs for being “intolerant.” Not to mention these “socially tolerant” people are busy banning fatty foods, plastic bags, smoking tobacco and now plastic water bottles.

    1. In my life, I’ve eaten a dog, sparrow, turtle, and shark fin soup. Those are delicious! But socially intolerant Americans has informed me that “Whale and dogs are noble animals” or that “You can’t eat domesticated pets, they’re men’s best friends.”

      I’ll never support any party or individual that doesn’t support my food freedom. If Rand Paul says states should have some say in legalizing dog meat, I’ll vote for a third party candidate instead. Because both parties suck anyways, you know. It’s best to lose with dignity instead of stopping a party that’s OPENLY hostile to those who advocate limited government. The Republicans are soft libertarians, so they’re just as bad.

      If Russia invades the United States tomorrow, I’m running away to Canada. Because America has infringed upon my marriage right, second amendment rights, food rights, and doesn’t include many minorities in their universities. Good riddance.

  35. Pro-gay marriage is not what any libertarian should be about, neither pro-immigration. It is not about “live and let live”. It is actually “for” a behavior that is none of anyone’s business.

    Gay marriage is about pushing acceptance of homosexuality on the people of the US. It’s not like you are pushing for Civil Unions, which would give one full rights and privileges of marriage, rather, the push is for “marriage”, an acceptable social standing.

    This is none of my business, nor the government. Do what you want. Leave me and the rest of society out of it. and the author should not call himself libertarian if he is asking the government to sanction his behavior by forcing it upon society.

    Society and government are not the same thing!

  36. “So, sorry, CPAC, I’ll stay here in the belly of the beast with the gays, the immigrants, and the ringing cash registers.”

    Smug, sanctimonious, and politically impotent.

    1. There won’t be much ringing or cash registers in the future.

  37. What on earth is wrong with a strategy of pointing out how progressives have effectively destroyed major urban areas?

  38. But as the District of Columbia, like other American cities, flourishes in an unprecedented urban renaissance of private investment, sprouting eateries frequented by an influx of young professionals making it in the marketplace…

    Top fucking lel.

    What a coincidence that D.C. happens to be flush with “private investment” cash at the same time the government just happens to be employing more people and spending more money.

    Yeah, Washington fucking D.C. is a true laissez faire paradise.

    Get fucked.

    1. It shows that LeBeaume is primarily a culture warrior, not an economic libertarian. He’s not going to CPAC because the issues that libertarians generally agree with conservatives on, don’t get him as riled up as the social issues he disagrees with them on. Unfortunately, he does not recognize that most of the “socially tolerant” do not tolerate dissent from their viewpoint, and their views on social are not live and live. He stands relatively alone.

    2. If you count lobbying expenditures as private investment he’s spot-on.

  39. And those positions, opposing gay marriage and relaxing immigration restrictions, are huge drains on the GOP brand in the polls.

    And they’ll never escape it.

    Dunno how to go about disproving your point about the gay marriage thing, but in the Texas state House I’m guessing, based on their names, that the following members would disagree with that assessment:

    J. Lozano – R
    L. Gonzales – R
    J. Frullo – R
    G. Capriglioni – R
    A. Chen Button – R
    J. Villalba – R
    B. Callegari – R

  40. I’ll stick with the gays, the immigrants, and the ringing cash registers.

    The gay lobby who lobby the government to be more coercive to the private sector, and the immigrants, who are the biggest voting block for governemnt over-reach.
    The author is no libertarian, that’s for sure.

  41. This is pointless. Inside or outside the republican party, libertarians are too small a group to win in a democratic system.

    Focus your efforts on nullifying the State’s power.

  42. Ah, shit! Now I gotta post this…
    The Death of Libertarianism

  43. You can actually get to CPAC on the Metro by going to the end of the Green Line, the Branch Avenue station, and then taking the NH1 bus. From the reason magazine neighborhood it takes anywhere from 50 minutes to an hour and a half. I don’t know if this was true last year, when CPAC was rumored to have decamped to “National Harbor” aka Oxon Hill, Maryland, so the Occupy protestors could not figure out how to find it. It worked. They can’t figure it out.

    Reason was well represented on CPAC panels in the main auditorium.

  44. I simply don’t think you can grow your brand by isolating yourself.

  45. But as the District of Columbia, like other American cities, flourishes in an unprecedented urban renaissance of private investment, sprouting eateries frequented by an influx of young professionals making it in the marketplace, CPAC decides to decamp for an isolated government-subsidized complex, miles down the Potomac and only accessible by Beltway off-ramps.

    Fucking hell. This may be the stupidest sentence ever written at Reason. D.C. flourishes based on proximity to power, nothing else.

    1. Yeah, this was one of those lines that severely undercut credibility all for the sake of a weak potshot. I can’t speak for a vast swath of “other American cities” but, as a native Washingtonian and now recent transplant to Houston, the stories about private investment are quite different. The former is predicated on wealth that flows primarily through government hands, the latter primarily through private enterprise.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.