Libertarianism

Ten Celebrities You Probably Knew Were Libertarians

Including a couple you might not consider libertarian

|

you never knew?
South Park

Robert Taylor at Policy Mic has a list of "9 Extremely Successful People You Never Knew Were Libertarians". Regular Reason readers should be familiar with all ten (yes, there are ten people on the list of nine people), though some may dispute whether everyone on the list is actually a libertarian. Here are the ten people Taylor highlighted with a relevant Reason item for each. You can decide who belongs and who might not in the comments…

1. Vince Vaughn

Vince Vaughn on Ron Paul and Fountainhead – Brian Doherty

2. Glenn Jacobs, a.k.a. Kane

Kane on Rothbard – FBN's The Independents

3. Jimmy Wales

Wikipedia and Beyond – June 2007 issue of Reason

4. Neil Peart

Matt Welch is a libertarian in good standing even though he doesn't like Peart's drumming

5. Julian Assange

The Age of Easy Leaks – Jesse Walker

6. Kurt Russell

Kurt Russell, Flexible Libertarian – O'Reilly Factor transcript excerpt

7. Kelly Clarkson

Kelly Clarkson Endorses Ron Paul – Mike Riggs

8. Drew Carey

Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey

9. Trey Parker and Matt Stone

South Park Libertarians – Nick Gillespie & Jesse Walker

NEXT: E-Cigarettes: Second-Hand Smoke, Vaping, and the Price of FDA Regulations

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. though some may dispute whether everyone on the list is actually a libertarian.

    Hell, I dispute I’m a libertarian.

    1. The LP Purity Test is a bitch by design. It is intended to keep the club small and noble.

      1. …it’s done yeomans service keeping the delusional, TEAM BLUE Obama fellators at bay hasn’t it shreeky?!

        1. initially read as “yermom’s service”

          was more interesting.

          1. Maybe more appropriate in shreekys case too.

      2. According to the Shreek test, libertarians and Christfags are mutually exclusive.

        1. So far as I know, I’m neither.
          Definitions are funny things though. According to Penn Jillette, I’m an atheist. According to most atheists I’ve met, I’m not, and evidently I’m offensive too. According to Lisa Kennedy, I’m religious. According to my neighbors, I’m irreligious.

          1. According to me, you care too much what other people think.

            1. I can understand why you’d say that. I think what I think. What’s interesting to me about this is how different people approach the same problem, and how it can affect/defeat their communications.

              My atheism is simply that when someone asks me if I believe there’s a God, I answer “no.” Just like if someone asks me if I believe a giraffe hangs out in my back yard each day. The hoof prints could be in a mud puddle next door, but I haven’t seen them.

          2. Just curious: Why don’t you believe you are a libertarian?

            1. He is clearly both a libertarian and not a libertarian. Oh wait, that’s Schrodingers cat.

              1. Oh wait, that’s Schrodingers cat.

                Similar: Pavlov’s Cat both cares and doesn’t care if the behaviorist rang the bell until he smells the food.

                1. But is there really food until it is observed by the cat?

            2. Just curious: Why don’t you believe you are a libertarian?

              I contend many of the definitions are oversimplified. Seeing force as an evil, for instance. Force isn’t evil. The initiation of force is evil.
              That said, libertarianism is a lot closer to my views than the other political Isms out there.

              1. I believe most libertarians would agree with your statement concerning force, given their belief in one’s natural right to defend one’s life using deadly force.

              2. What libertarian said force is evil (and didn’t mean initiation of force)?

                Also, just curious.

                1. Bob Lefevre?

              3. I don’t think I’ve ever met a pacifist libertarian. I think most accept that force for purposes of self-defense and protection of liberty (as opposed to manufactured “rights”) is justified.

                1. What I find interesting is that many if not most self-avowed “pacifist” have no problem with government force backed by violence to achive their ends. I would think all pacifists would necessarily have to be anarchist.

                  1. Most self-avowed pacifists, aren’t.

                  2. Were Hippies anarchists?

                    I find it interesting how “parties” change over time. I associate Hippies with the left, but couldn’t see a Hippy and a progressive agreeing on anything.

                    1. There was a very brief period of time in the ’60s and ’70s where leftists weren’t entirely horrible. That period gave us Hunter S. Thompson, Christopher Hitchens, Kurt Vonnegut, etc.

                    2. That period gave us Hunter S. Thompson, Christopher Hitchens, Kurt Vonnegut, etc.

                      All of those guys, for whatever penchant for writing they possessed, were statist assholes in their politics.

                    3. Hitch was too deliberate in his thought processes to be a statist asshole. Though he might agree with being a plain ole asshole.

                    4. There was a good portion of my twenties when I thought I was lefty too because I read so much of those guys and couldn’t stand G Dub. Then I went to Berkeley and met leftists there and discovered that I had almost nothing in common with those ejits. They made the socons look tolerant in comparison.

                    5. Were Hippies anarchists?

                      Some were. Others were hardcore Maoists and the like.

                    6. Actually, having kinda-sorta been a hippie for a bit in the early ’70s, I don’t think a lot of hippies were hardcore leftists. Beyond opposing the Vietnam war and “the establishment,” many were only mildly political, and there was a strong strain of anarchist/libertarian/”leave me alone” feeling.

                      By the early ’80s, though, the whole movement had either dissolved or got taken over by the hard left.

                    7. I grew up at the end of the hippie daze (graduated HS in 71). That (and the fucking draft) were drivers in my pacifism; but even then I found progressive “values” abhorrent.

                      I think that they fell into the “leftist-anarchist” category, as they felt that local needs could be provided by the commune (“community”) but that a large central government was to be avoided.

                      … Hobbit

                  3. I believe in peace through superior firepower.

        2. According to the Shreek test, libertarians and Christfags are mutually exclusive.

          Replacing the state with an omnipotent church is a real DQer.

          1. Yes, not a single person can believe in Christ without wanting an omnipotent church to rule over everyone.

            1. shrike never implied that.

              After all, Obama is a Christian (Black Liberation Theology, to be exact) and he’s extremely good from a libertarian perspective.

              1. He’s extremely what?

                Is English a second language for you?

                1. In fact, English is my second language.

                  My first language is “English with sarcasm so obvious it shouldn’t need to be tagged.”

                  1. You’re not as good as you think you are.

          2. Who has ever said we wanted to replace the state after we get rid of it?

      3. Only 8% pass PB’s special libertarian test.

      4. The LP Purity Test is a bitch by design. It is intended to keep the club small and noble.

        Noble, sure, after a fashion, but small? I’ve found libertarians very welcoming, even when I happened to meet bigger wigs.
        I’ve always said I don’t quite fit under the libertarian umbrella, but I like them.
        You say you do fit, but clearly you don’t like them. Self-hatred? False-flag wedge driver? Random flailer? Three faces of Eve?

    2. You may or may not be a libertarian but you will always be one of tulpa’s sockpuppets to me.

      1. You may or may not be a libertarian but you will always be one of tulpa’s sockpuppets to me.

        Me? If I’ve offended you, please chalk it up to thoughtlessness, not intent. I haven’t paid enough attention to Tulpa to know what he says.

        1. He says we don’t invade enough countries and we question the police too much.

          1. I think in light of the fact British troops were being used for police powers in the days before the Revolution, police as they now exist should be found to be unconstitutional.
            How many “wars” ago was the last one declared by Congress Invasions, including drone strikes, cruise missiles, naval bombardments and special team “surgical strikes,” need to be looked at with an exceedingly critical eye. Occupations and reconstructions, worse yet.
            Unless sock puppets are put on stage to oppose the puppeteer, I believe I don’t qualify.

  2. What about that guy from Outkast: https://reason.com/blog/2012/12…..moment-i-v

  3. Those people are so famous, I don’t even know who half of them are.

    I flunk pop culture.

    1. I flunk pop culture.

      Now *that* is something to be proud of. Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of pop culture is crap. (paraphrasing)

      1. I didn’t know three of them. Wouldn’t have known two more but they identified their show.

    2. I’ma have to toss the bullshit flag here – unless you’re living in a monastery with no internet connection, there’s 2 that you might not know.

      Maybe 3 if you’re under 30.

      But its hard to believe that you haven’t at least heard the names of these people enough to be vaguely familiar with them

      Vaughn
      Wales
      Pert
      Assange
      Russell
      Carey
      Parker and Stone

      1. Without looking them up, I knew 3 of those names… Assange,
        Russell and Carey.

        For the vast majority of celebrities, I know them by their faces and what they’ve been in, not their names.

        1. Vince Vaughn is from my small Chicago-area hometown and even dated my little sister, who was in the same high school graduating class with him.
          Well, I guess if you can call “making out in the bushes one time during a kegger” a date, they dated.

          1. motorboatin’ son of a bitch
            http://imgur.com/2bg1W

      2. I don’t recognize Jacobs, Wales and Pert.

        Parker and Stone I would not have recognized without the reference to South Park.
        Vaughn is a comedian actor.
        Assange is the wikileaker.
        Russell is the computer who wore tennis shoes.
        Carey told the dirtiest joke I ever heard in a stand-up act.

        1. Carey told the dirtiest joke I ever heard in a stand-up act.

          Don’t leave us hanging.

          1. Apologies to Drew if I screw it up:
            Guy’s at a bar drowning his sorrows. Gorgeous woman orders a double and sighs deeply. He asks her, “So what’s wrong in your life?”
            “My husband left me today.”
            “What a coincidence. My wife kicked me out today.”
            “So why did he leave you?”
            “He said he couldn’t stand living with me anymore.”
            “What a coincidence! My wife said she couldn’t stand living with me anymore, too.”
            “So what couldn’t he stand about living with you?”
            A wry little smile, “Well, I like really kinky sex and he doesn’t, so he left.”
            The guy shakes his head and says, “This is incredible! I like really kinky sex. That’s why my wife left.”
            They drink some more, exchanging sidelong glances, “Well, seeing as we’re both alone now, and seeing as we both have similar interests…”
            “My apartment is just around the corner!”
            So they head over to her apartment. “I’m going to slip into something a little more comfortable. I’ll be right back.”
            She goes into her bedroom and gets undressed, then puts on a spiked German helmet, studded leather collar, black lace crotchless panties, a leather bustier, fishnet stockings and knee-high boots with spike heels, a belt with whip coiled on it… the whole bit.
            She comes out of the bedroom to find the guy heading out the door. “Why are you leaving?” she asks him, “You just got here. I thought we were going to have some kinky sex.”
            He looks at her and shrugs, “Hey, I fucked the dog and shit in your purse. I’m done!”

            1. Not even close.

              Google “the aristocrats”.

              It’s so bad I won’t even link to it.

              1. I’ve got one. Not as bad (or as long) as the Aristocrats, but here goes:

                What do the lesbian vampires say to each other?

                “See you next month.”

                1. “See you next month.”

                  Funny, but ick.

                  I’ve seen The Aristocrats, but not as live stand up.

              2. Not even close.

                Sorry, I’m re-telling from a memory of 30 years ago. He told it FAR better, of course. It was in the course of explaining jokes are funnier with the words “shit” and “fuck” in them.

    3. I don’t even know who half of them are.

      I had to look up #2 and #3. I’d heard of #5 and I know who all of the rest are*. And I am a dinosaur who pays no attention to pop culture.

      … Hobbit

      * OK, cheated slightly on #7 because I read the story about her on Reason.

  4. We can’t all be as libertarian as you, Shreeek.

    You, Rollo and Bo are what the rest of us wannabe libertarians aspire to be.

    1. You leave Tulpa alone! He’s not through embarrassing the shit out of himself yet!

      1. He’s the Frank Burns we deserve.

    2. Meh, I wouldn’t through Bo in that list.

      1. Give it a little more time. You will.

        1. He wondered why his school bus was so much shorter than the one the other kids rode.

          1. But he is happy there because the windows taste so nice.

  5. It is intended to keep the club small and noble.

    What is this, AV club?

  6. OT: Anybody watching the new Cosmos tonight?

    It’s produced by Seth MacFarlane and hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, so I won’t be watching.

    I’ve watched a few promotional clips, and they are filled with smug statements like “the need to reinvigorate the love of science in the American public that was lost in the 1980/.” They totally buy into the fallacious myth that post-Reagan America is uniquely anti-intellectual relative to the pre-Reagan period.

    1. …They cite the “decline” of the space program as evidence of their claim.

      1. I didn’t realize that Reagan was undermining NASA with his “Star Wars” missile-defense program, etc.?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..nistration

        Reagan administration

        President Reagan delivering the March 23, 1983 speech initiating the Strategic Defense Initiative. (aka “Star Wars”/SDI)

        The first flight of the Space Shuttle occurred in April 1981, early in President Ronald Reagan’s first term. Reagan in 1982 announced a renewed active space effort, which included initiatives such as privatization of the Landsat program, a new commercialization policy for NASA, the construction of Space Station Freedom, and the military Strategic Defense Initiative. Late in his term as president, Reagan sought to increase NASA’s budget by 30 percent.[7] However, many of these initiatives would not be compeleted as planned.

        The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster happened in January 1986, leading to the Rogers Commission Report on the causes of the disaster, and the National Commission on Space report and Ride Report on the future of the national space program.

        ANTI SCIENCES~?

        Then they mention GHWB increased NASA budget by 20% while trying to “reduce spending” in other areas. PROFLIGATE!

      2. The decline of the space program is due to the increase in its cost.

        PERIOD!

        In a privately funded endeavor, costs go down as efficiencies are found to make more profit. There is no such motivation for government programs, which is the simple reason why ALL government programs cost significantly more than they should.

        The reusable Shuttle was created to bring costs DOWN. And it would have in ANY organization that values efficiency. Not government.

        1. No, the decline of the space program is because libertardians refused to give Neil Degrasse Tyson infinity dollars.

          If we gave every progressive who wanted something infinity dollars, we would immediately find ourselves living in Utopia.

          1. Not immediately. Eventually, yes, but the exact schedule can’t be foreseen or measured. Because Bush.

            1. How quickly they forget. It is “because Bush”, quite literally. Bush made a huge, legacy-building push into space exploration with his roadmap to Mars.

              Obama made the destruction of this plan one of his first priorities upon taking office. Everything about the Mars mission was scrapped, including the new launch vehicles. This was hailed as a great victory for science by all those in the right sort of science circles at the time. Including one Neil Degrasse Tyson.

              It seems he now laments the dearth of funding for NASA and is mightily impressed that the President is finally moving to increase funding to NASA. Along with Bill Nye and the planetary society he has been pushing for manned exploration of space and a mission to Mars. Apparently Obama is now in favor of a mission to Mars by around 2030… something that the Bush roadmap would have accomplished a decade sooner had he not killed it. But Obama is such a buddy to these guys that he provided an intro for the Cosmos series. Strange how politics can affect the mind, isn’t it?

      3. The reason for the “decline” of the space program is that it ceased getting the kind of funding it enjoyed prior to the moon landings. That funding began drying up during the Nixon administration, following Apollo 17. It had nothing to do with Reagan. One of the reasons it lost support was lefty whining about spending money on going to the moon that should be getting spent on social welfare.

        I also like the attempt to conflate “intellectual” with “intelligent”. My purely anecdotal observation is that most intellectuals ain’t that intelligent. I’d go so far as to say that the relationship is an inverse one.

        1. In one of the episodes of “From the Earth to the Moon” Walter Mondale attacks the Apollo project for exactly that reason.

          I’d say the main reason why NASA has been in decline is that the government has no idea what they want manned space flight to do or how it benefits the pols. Since Apollo it has all been fairly mundane. The shuttle was originally conceived as a stage in constructing a ship in LEO for a mission to Mars which got scrapped before the shuttles were completed. NASA was scrambling to find a use for them after.

          1. NASA was scrambling to find a use for them

            I remember when the shuttle was proposed they advertised it as a satellite delivery system. That was a “huh?” moment; how was a manned mission going to deliver a satellite cheaper than a simple rocket launch?

            The shuttle was always a solution looking for a problem.

            … Hobbit

        2. One of the reasons it lost support was lefty whining about spending money on going to the moon that should be getting spent on social welfare.

          Exactly. I can’t remember how many times during that era you would hear vox populi interviews on the news where people would say something like “I can’t believe we are wasting so much money in space when there is hunger on earth.”

    2. I heard there’s something else on tonight, too.

      1. There’s a new Shameless.

    3. It’s produced by Seth MacFarlane

      This show is going to be even more painful than that time I stepped on a rusty nail while dancing the Macarena with Sofia Vergara!

      1. Sounds worth it.

      2. I’d dance with her – and I don’t even know how to dance.

        1. I have to say that I was in massive lust with her, until the day I heard her speak.

          Dear sweet fuck.

      3. Well done, MBC. I daresay that no one else seemed to recognize you were writing in the voice of a Family Guy script.

        1. Yeah, it’s like, you reference something other than Big Lebowski around here, people don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I’m happy somebody got it.

          Happy, like I was that time I beat Gary Oldman in Monopoly after a Lady Gaga concert.

          1. Hey, we also know Dune, anything that begins with Star, and Lord of the Rings. And some of us will pick up on most Heinlein references.

    4. I have it set to record. It looked like it was going to be interesting. Hate to hear about the smug lefty sanctimonious tripe.

      1. Unfortunately, I already told my oldest daughter who’s already been brainwashed from public school and pop culture with that crap. She’s working her way back to reality a little at a time as she get’s older though. She’s a smart girl so I have confidence that she’ll eventually see all the propaganda for what it is.

        1. So far, my inoculations have worked except maybe for kid #2. She just graduated with a double major 30th in her class at a major university, so she’s ready to conquer all the idiots of the known world. They fed her the “violence never solved anything” bit and her boyfriend regurgitated it visiting at dinner the other night. My 16-year-old highschooler pointed out the steak the boyfriend was tucking into wasn’t exactly hugged to death.

          1. Nice:)

            1. The highschooler ought to know. She put the .22 into its brain pan when we slaughtered it. Perspectives are very different when you grow up close to your food. The older girl went off to college soon after we really got the ranch going.

              1. Goddammit, I am constantly getting out-libertarianed on this fucking blog.

                1. Not by me. I’m learning as I go along. I’ve been learning from everyone here. From you too.
                  The ranch was originally just because I was tired of my Kneeler neighbors and wanted some elbow room.

        2. My 16 year-old niece exhibits a natural skeptical for the state and left-wing ideology in general. She brings a tear to my each time we’re at the table discussing things. She’s pretty astute.

          Her mother – my sister – on the other hand…jesus, she can’t wrestle herself from progressive memes it’s annoying.

        3. Our 13 year-old is more cynical than either my wife or myself. She doesn’t have much interest in politics or current events, but cynicism is a vaccination that will protect her throughout her life.

    5. They totally buy into the fallacious myth that post-Reagan America is uniquely anti-intellectual relative to the pre-Reagan period.

      Which is clearly true since 1960’s Alabama was filled with nuclear physicists.

      The idea that America is somehow less intellectual than the rest of the world is one of the great myths of the American left. Go look at a list of great inventions. Virtually every one over the last 50 years has been American, although the Germans or Japanese periodically snuck one in. Countries that are beloved by progressives, such as France, have done virtually nothing of scientific value in close to 100 years.

      France has plenty of navel gazing pseudointellectuals though, which progs have managed to mistake for actual intelligence.

      1. The idea that America is somehow less intellectual than the rest of the world is one of the great myths of the American left.

        Well everyone except the left of course.

        France has plenty of navel gazing pseudo-intellectuals though, which progs have managed to mistake for actual intelligence.

        America has plenty of them as well; over here they’re called progressives.

      2. France has plenty of navel gazing pseudointellectuals though, which progs have managed to mistake for actual intelligence.

        I think the difference is that in the US the non-elites still have a voice that can sneak into public discourse.

        In most of the world Joe the Plumber would have been not only been ignored but squashed.

        We have some squashing going on in the US. Hell i still have an email to Steve Chapman in which i pointed out that too many houses in the housing bubble would lower prices and in fact the housing bubble was not a problem with supply but with inflated prices.

        Steve Chapman blew me off as if i was an idiot. Cuz we all know some fuck wit journalist is obviously smarter then everyone else.

        1. I’m a big fan of journalists behaving as if they’re experts who must be listened to. The average journalist has absolutely no specialized knowledge that sets him apart from the average person on the street.

      3. I think the rule is: Republican President = proof of anti-intellectualism, Democratic President = resurgence of respect for knowledge.

      4. Just rocket scientists…

    6. I’ve watched a few promotional clips, and they are filled with smug statements like “the need to reinvigorate the love of science in the American public that was lost in the 1980/.”

      I know, it’s absolutely horrible that absolutely no scientific research and development was being done in the wasteland that was the ’80s. Things like the personal computer revolution and the development of the modern Internet, those were merely figments of all our imaginations.

      1. Those were all done by the government.

        -Tony

    7. NGT is a fucking light weight. Check out his curriculum vitae…weak.

  7. I wouldn’t through Bo in that list.

    Bo Peep styles himself as the Grand Inquisitor of True Libertarianism.

    I don’t think you can keep him off it.

    1. Libertarian is what I say it is, goddamnit!

      Now GIT OFF MAH LAWN!

      1. They may stand on my lawn if the can deal with the goats.

      2. No, it’s what I say it is poser!

  8. “the need to reinvigorate the love of science in the American public that was lost in the 1980/.”

    ENTHUSIASTICALLY CONSENSUAL SCIENCE, FTW!

    1. They are using government spending as a metric for the public’s “love” of science. I do science on my own time with little to no government financial aid. Does that mean I hate science?

      1. SCIENCE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE DONE PRIVATELY, CITIZEN. NOW BACK TO YOUR CUBICLE.

      2. Just watched one of those James Woods science shows on DNA which was very interesting. One of the guys was talking about how much cheaper and easier it is for “garage” biochemist to do their own research with a few hundred dollars worth of supplies that traditional wouldn’t have been possible and how great that was.

      3. Apparently, one cannot personally profit from science and benefit the public simultaneously.

      4. Public opposed NASA during the space race.

        And public perception of the Apollo program increased during the 80’s: “Polls both by USA Today and Gallup have shown support for the moon landing has increased the farther we’ve gotten away from it. 77 percent of people in 1989 thought the moon landing was worth it; only 47 percent felt that way in 1979.”

        Anyone surprised that Neil deGrasse Tyson is ignorant?

        1. Skylab was a shitty solar powered windmill in LEO. We broke it putting it in orbit, went up and kinda fixed it, then abandoned it until it fell to Earth squishing to death a kookaburra and several honey possums.

  9. They forgot Clint Eastwood

    1. and his empty chair!

    2. I almost posted the same thing, but they threw in a qualifier.

      Here are the ten people Taylor highlighted with a relevant Reason item for each.

      Reason needs to do a piece on teh Josey Wales!

    1. Very disappoint that wasn’t a Lee Kuan Yew joke.

        1. I am disappoint!

    2. ex-Buddhist.

      And he did it as an anti-totalitarian idea.

      But, yeah, what you said.

    3. I had what was absolutely the maximum population for an earlier version of SimCity — maxed out the number of Launch Arcos allowed, and then the rest of the map was filled by a grid of single road squares, unconnected to each other, each road square surrounded by 4 2X2 buildings — one industrial, one commerce, two residential. No infrastructure other than the roads and what I could wedge into the 1 square wide edge of the board, plus the bits and pieces not filled by arcos or the grid.

      1. That computing power would have mined 17 bitcoins.

  10. OT: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..rs-revolt/

    Judge tells prosecutors that he won’t abide by their misconduct any longer. The prosecutors fight back basically saying that they should be able to act any way they please.

    1. Prosecutors in San Diego have long used a state law to “disqualify” pro-defense judges. Just a few months ago, they boycotted a superior court judge because he issued a few too many rulings upholding the Fourth Amendment, in favor of defendants. They claim that these statements and rulings evince an underlying bias that these judges have, making them unfit to be neutral and detached magistrates in criminal court.

      I blame postmodernism.

  11. If I recall correctly, Parker and Stone are only libertarian because when they were liberals they found that everyone in their circle was a douchebag.

    1. They really are the only mainstream source that consistently follows the creed of no sacred cows, and for that I salute them.

    2. Whatever works.

    3. Why is this a complaint? Who cares why, they came around.

  12. 4. Neil Peart

    Matt Welch is a libertarian in good standing even though he doesn’t like Peart’s drumming

    I’ll fucking kill you, Welch.

      1. I have a new found interest in YYZ.

        1. She’s biting Matt’s Air Drumming Style

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..4#t=01m23s

      2. First of all, it’s Y-Y-Zed, and second of all, no, I can’t. It’s impossible.

        1. Fuck Zed…Zee it is.

    1. He says this…

      “if I or Reason had any interest or track record in policing who does and does not get to be “a libertarian in good standing”?then I would likely be disqualified by my heartfelt dislike of Neil Peart’s drumming*.”

      [*JUST his *drumming*?….was there something other than the man’s drumming that he’s actually very fond of? Like…his awesome *lyrics*?]

      … *following* this sentence =

      “… Frank Zappa, who I consider unlistenable (aside from maybe “Titties and Beer”)

      To be fair, I think there is at least some consistency in hating *both* zappa and rush. some people – sometimes me included – are just anti-noodling, anti-progrock, anti-jazzwank, by inclination.

      However: I’ve learned you should really avoid *saying so* around people who do dig the above. Its just not a conversation you want to start.

      ………………….

      Based on my analysis of Matt’s air-drumming style, he has long secretly harbored the desire to be one the The Breeders many disposable, half-competent drum-males. He’s a clear, early 90’s, ‘there’s a girl in the band which means we’re *alternative*!’-cymbal hog.

      1. Fans of Peart and “air drumming” should check this out: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960721/?ref_=nv_sr_1

        A great spoof of ’80s “plucky underdog” movies like Over the Top.

        1. That was very close to Dante’s vision of 7th layer of Hell. All it needed was Judas’ head being eternally gnawed in the background.

    2. When you can air drum like Welch, it’s easy to be delusional.

    3. Welch is on record saying that?

      As a Canadian, I will have to go ahead and conclude Matt is racist.

      1. The link in the post there is to that particular quote…

        FWIW, I’ve met Canadians who hate Rush. Then again, they were in NYC. I can’t be sure if they were being honest or just trying to fit in.

        I am sort of Rush-agnostic myself. I learned all the riffs when I was a kid, but by my 20s was getting past the point of caring for ‘technical’ rock.

      2. Yes, but he hates Quebeckers, which is the good kind of racism.

        1. I hate nationalist Pequistes. Bunch of whiny, hypocritical, xenophobes who trample on civil liberties based on populist gibberish.

          Quebecers I have nothing against.

  13. Reason needs to do a piece on teh Josey Wales!

    “Libertarians vow to endeavor to persevere.”

  14. First off, I don’t give a shit about celebrities.

    Second, I don’t know if I qualify as ‘libertarian’ although I’ve always thought classical liberalism was the best of all ideologies ever devised. The funny thing is the way it was taught (or at least framed to fit a progressive narrative) in school as well as university was that it was a ‘passe.’ I always got the feeling they were saying CL was a spent force no one with an evolved, progressive mindset could possibly think it was functional in modern civilization.

    I rediscovered CL through Reason strangely enough and realized in my aging wisdom, there’s much depth to CL thinking overlooked or forgotten by people.

    I mean, Palin thinks he’s classically liberal just to show you.

    The reason I say I don’t know if I qualify (though I am an ally), is because I’m not sure where libertarians stand on a bunch of things. For example, parenting. If a child is abused by a parent from my understanding it’s not our place to interfere. But who speaks for the child?

    Stuff like that.

    1. There is no monolithic opinion in libertarian circles about such things, and you’ll often find that such topics make up a large % of intraparty debates.

      For example you can alway read what Rothbard says on the subject in Ethics of Liberty but you will likely find that few people agree with that view 100%.

      I personally believe that the “safeguards” the State has put in place in the name of helping children has actually hamstrung their ability to gain autonomy. But you’ll find that even in liberatarian circles my views about the rights of children would be considered extreme.

      1. robc’s 2 rules of libertarianism:

        1. Everyone agrees with libertarians about something.

        2. No two libertarians agree about anything.

        If your questions of whether you fit in are about things like children or animals, you are a libertarian, IMO.

        1. I’m sorry but I disagree with those two rules.

          🙂

        2. If your questions of whether you fit in are about things like children or animals, you are a libertarian, IMO.

          NIMO

          I stand by my “single issue” test.

    2. This is similar to something I was going to say, but decided not to.

      Mine was more along the lines of “I don’t ever *refer* to myself as “A Libertarian”-Noun.

      I will say with confidence and without shame that I “maintain libertarian (adjective) views” on X, Y, or Z.” On most things, really. But not by any ‘categorical default’.

      it just so happen it is the ‘most reasonable and defensible position’, most of the time. When its not, I tend to say so.

      re: child abuse = Fucked if I know.

      As it happens, I’ve seen people hitting their kids in public, and told them to stop. Other people have told me this is not just wrong, but that its also a quick way to get killed. it is what it is. I’m not sure there is (or should be) a ‘political handbook’ for every situation; I generally improvise, relying on moral-common-sense as often as possible.

    3. Is there a major difference between a classical liberal and libertarian?

      We are all a little different on what we consider a libertarian. For me it means following the NAP and the following two tenets:

      1. A person may do as they wish, PROVIDED in doing so they don’t infringe on the rights of others.

      2. The only LEGITIMATE role of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

      I’m sure just about everyone here would find SOME fault in that, or could find several dark corners where it doesn’t apply, but that’s the best I’ve come up with and it’s pretty close.

      1. Wow, some of those headshot examples in your link seem to be way off. I’d slide FDR towards Hitler. And, Newt and Reagan would slide towards the center. And, holy crap, Communists are technophilic?

        1. Of course. Communism was “scientific socialism.” They were redesigning society and humanity itself. Etc.

          1. That was paleocommunism. Neocommunism is basically a strand of Ludditism.

      2. Classical liberalism is a type of the more broadly defined libertarianism.

  15. Yo, reason, I am beginning to wonder if checkered-past ex-football-player (ex-NE-Patriot) Dante Stallworth is libertarian. His tweets sorta go that way. Consider this a “tip” in that direction. He has interesting tweets and might be a neat inroad into that field of endeavor (Chris Kluwe had promise, but his book is way liberal).

    love, hamilton.

    1. “Checkered past” is a bit of an understatement. That’s hardly the guy I want as a poster boy for libertarianism.

  16. I think Geoffrey Zakarian is the most impressive because he is surrounded by soulless NY Marxists.

  17. though some may dispute whether everyone on the list is actually a libertarian.

    Hell, I dispute I’m a libertarian.

    I’ve been told by some libertarians that I’m not a libertarian because I’m an An-Cap. “Whoa, whoa, dude, let’s not get crazy and want total freedom. Let’s settle for just a moderate amount of freedom.”

    1. Let’s settle for just a moderate amount of freedom.

      Keeping bandits off the roads does produce good.

      That said I don’t think you are not a libertarian. You are simply wrong.

      1. I’m pretty sure the owners of the private roads would have an interest in keeping bandits off them, in order to maximize customers paying to use the roads.

        Next objection?

        1. Whose interest will it be in to keep (insert a militarily powerful nation name) from invading, shooting you in the head, raping your loved ones and taking your shit by force?

          1. Well, Progressia won’t have any interest in starting a potentially long, violent, and very bloody guerrilla war against what could be millions of people. Then come the strategic problems, like what to attack first and in what order. This is easy with a nation state, whose political/military apparatus is normally centralized. Also, thanks to state subsidized roadways and transport networks, most of industrial production facilities are centralized as well, where as an AnCap-style economy would have more localized production of more common items (in this context: small arms, RPGs, bullets/ammunition, etc). Major durable goods (in this context: tanks, ships, heavy artillery, etc) will probably still be produced in a centralized location, but they will be mostly unnecessary for a guerrilla war.

            If you want to visualize what this war might look like, look at Afghanistan or even the dreaded Somalia and then multiply it by a factor of about 50 to 250 to account for the engineers, scientists, and other professionals who are useful in a war effort that would be found in a market oriented society.

            I guess in the end, if they really wanted to exterminate that society they could, but it would be one of the most expensive (lives and dollars) wars in history.

            Also, not really a pock against your argument, but whats stopping the US Army or US Law Enforcement from doing all of things that you said might happen to the AnCaps, from happening to you?

            1. Also, thanks to state subsidized roadways and transport networks, most of industrial production facilities are centralized as well

              err…

              what?

              1. Let me clarify. Be centralized I mean located in a certain geographic area, usually, in the case of a nation-state, one that is connected by many public roads, ports, and airports.

                My main point was that in an AnCap society, local industry will manufacture most of the goods that people will use, while larger/technical goods that require specialized labor/machinery(such as cars and computers) will still be produced centrally, because it makes economic sense to produce them at only one or two main locations for an average sized nation-state. But something like toilet paper, food, clothes, etc, will mostly be produced locally (with the exception of things like exotic foods and expensive, designer-brand clothes). Today, products may be grown/produced thousands of miles away and shipped/flown into a government subsidized port/airport, and then driven to the local store on a public road of some sort. All of this is indirectly paid for via taxes/prices, but in AnCap society these methods will be expensive simply because the cost is not shared between everyone, including people who don’t actually buy the product. Hence more people will buy locally produced goods because they will be cheaper.

                1. Have you come up with a name for your sci-fi/fantasy universe yet, or have all the good ones been taken already?

          2. Nuclear proliferation in the private sector should pretty much eliminate that threat.

        2. How would they do it though?

          Each private road owner have their own army?

          They’d have to pass the costs along to the users, which would end up stifling trade.

          Not to mention, once you have a private army, you’d be tempted to use it for other things besides protection.

          1. Somalia!!

          2. Each private road owner have their own army?

            Its a possibility in a very rough part of that society, but by and large, a simple police/security force will be more likely. Sort of like how some malls have guards with M4/AR15 rifles, while others may just have pistols/pepper spray/tasers.

            They’d have to pass the costs along to the users, which would end up stifling trade.

            Exactly. They would end stifling trade on that road/company. The roads with the most customers would be the ones with the least “enemies”. Same with security companies. The more violent, the more expensive (to cover the cost of warfare), the more peaceful (less prone to violence), the less expensive. Hence, violence is minimized in order to maximize profits.

            Not to mention, once you have a private army, you’d be tempted to use it for other things besides protection.

            Why would businesses want to incur bad PR/increased cost of operations? Sure some megalomaniac (like Tony) might start an army similar to the one you just described, but how far would they get before they’re starved/shot on sight by everyone else in society?

            1. end stifling trade

              *up

    2. No such thing as total freedom. Even freedom of speech is limited in that, if you make a verbal threat, you are violating the NAP.

      1. OH SHIT!

        Irish 4:30 PM:

        4. Neil Peart

        Matt Welch is a libertarian in good standing even though he doesn’t like Peart’s drumming

        I’ll fucking kill you, Welch.

        I VIOLATED THE NAP!

        1. You monster.

          Report to the nearest libertarian reeducation camp immediately. Voluntarily.

    3. Minarchists still want someone else to point guns at me in their name.

  18. You can be a true Scotsman only if you have a weasel farm in your apartment.

    1. And a Bazooka

  19. Matt Welch doesn’t like Peart’s drumming?? Draw an’ quarter him.

  20. Whose interest will it be in to keep (insert a militarily powerful nation name — pick one: Eurasia / Eastasia ) from invading, shooting you in the head, raping your loved ones and taking your shit by force?

    Apparently, for you, Big Brother Lite TM.

    /overstatement for the sake of humor

  21. I don’t think Kelly Clarkson is libertarian. She’s well to the left on the whole “war on women” thing, if I’m not mistaken.

    She supports gay marriage.

    1. Indeed, the gay marriage issue focuses on forcing people to accept things, like re-defining marriage.

  22. Who would’ve thought that the late, great ODB was a libertarian?

    Proof, bitches:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlWUDS-vXGc

  23. Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. It’s a great work at home opportunity. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Linked here http://www.Pow6.com

  24. I remember seeing something about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie saying some libertarian-ish sorts of things. Wasn’t there some mumblings about them getting involved in Atlas Shrugged at some point?

  25. “Whose interest will it be in to keep (insert a militarily powerful nation name — pick one: Eurasia / Eastasia ) from invading, shooting you in the head, raping your loved ones and taking your shit by force?”

    It will be in the interest of large organizations like Union Carbide and Microsoft to nuke folk who try to invade.

  26. I would think all pacifists would necessarily have to be anarchist.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.