Rick Santorum: Libertarian Ideas 'don't work in practice'
Last night on The Independents, Rick Santorum, a longtime critic of libertarianism, had a frank exchange of views on the topic with the co-hosts. You can watch it below:
Reason on Santorum here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Mmmm, yummy santorum, fresh from the source.
Rick Santorum: Libertarian Ideas ‘don’t work in practice’
Kinda like your presidential aspirations??..
Sadly, I just found out Santorum is only in his 50s. We could easily be stuck with this idiot’s presidential ambitions for the next 30 years and since he’s such a jester, he’ll be given prime spots in media coverage.
There’s nothing worse than stale santorum.
“Would you use government to plug my hole?”
lol!
It was the best moment in television so far this year. Hilarious!
Kennedy: “Would you use government to plug my hole”?
Santorum: “What I’m suggesting is that there are things that government does”.
—-Public school education
—-Vocational training programs.
His understanding of libertarianism seems to be nil. …as if Rand Paul wanted get rid of public schools? As if teachers’ unions were the solution to our problems?
I’m not sure I understand what’s especially Republican about him either.
He isn’t Republican. He’s just squeamish.
Absolutely this. He is a big-government statist. He knows what an authoritarian is (after all, he IS one), so he knows he must hate libertarians, the authoritarian’s diametric opposite. So he spews some such CLEARLY DISPROVABLE bullshit that libertarian ideas don’t work. Someone should have asked him if Reagan’s reforms touched off 20 years of unprecedented economic growth.
He’s a moron without a notion of the basic concepts of Federalism which most Republicans at least pay lip service to.
Why is Santorum taken seriously? Last time he won an election, I was still in my 20’s.
He’s pro-life, pro-interventionist and anti-gay. That pretty much qualifies him as a modern Republican.
Kennedy: “Would you use government to plug my hole”?
When I saw this my first notion was Teddy and scotch. There’s hole plugging I endorse!
What made me laugh most was that Kennedy’s comment went completely over his head. I don’t think it registered at any level, that her comment might have some other meaning.
Fuck Rick Santorum.
That is all.
I think Libertarians are very intelligent people and have many great Ideas. I’m a liberal and share few things with libertarians.
As long as our productivity and meal ticket is based off of money, libertarianism will be good.
Once money is eliminated from the equation (and it will be some day), then libertarianism will either have to change or go away.
Keep praying for the robot economy, Alice, and then we can have true communism. Keep the faith, comrade!
Let me tell you something Monty,
Given the state of the world today and people’s callous attitude. Especially that of the elite, the last thing I would do is pray for a robot economy.
Once the elite have robot cops, that will be the end for many people on this planet. There will be no comrade or communism.
The elite DO have robot cops, effectively.
And if you are really a liberal, I am wondering where your disdain for elites comes from.
There are many rich people in America that look out for the good for the little guy and all people in general.
There are people (i call them elite) that may be rich but have authority, power, and abuse the hell out of it. Cops, politicians, security guards, Bouncers, judges, etc.
I have no disdain for all of the elite. I believe that we will always have an elite. But I hope that our future doesn’t have callous people. Perhaps a wish but from what I see right now, the future is ugly.
Wishing for a future with no “callous people” (and wondering what you are therefore doing on these comments) is probably as hopeless as expecting one where there is no money. You’re a strange bird, Alice…
What’s the difference between LEO’s now and robot LEO’s of the future?
Maybe Peace Droids wouldn’t have a union.
As long as our productivity and meal ticket is based off of money, libertarianism will be good.
What the heck does that even mean?
As you can see, Labor is becoming obsolete in America. THis is why so many more people are on some form of public assistance or are losing homes and are unable to recover financially and have lost money in the crash.
People that had money in 2008 in the market and had jobs that were stable saw their money go down and then up. However, people that lost their jobs were forced to liquidate and are now kicking themselves as the market recovered.
What I am saying is that once money goes away, liberty will probably go with it.
I see. So like most liberals you are profoundly ignorant of economics. That makes sense.
You know that I’m a liberal that works in Finance and deal with many macro economic factors.
I don’t care where you work. That statement of yours, and the one about a future with no money, shows that you don’t understand the basic concept of scarcity. If you don’t understand scarcity, then you don’t understand anything at all about economics.
What is scarce Sarcasmic?
Food? Water?
We create the scarcity. Yes, the beach house is scarce.
Holy shit, you are an unbelievable retard. You really, really need to take a basic econ class. Read it before you embarrass yourself further.
as technology pushes forward, you’ll see that we can have enough food, water, healthcare, housing for everyone.
What we are having trouble figuring out is how to make people productive once currency does go away.
as technology pushes forward, you’ll see that we can have enough food, water, healthcare, housing for everyone.
Uh, no. That will never happen. Technology doesn’t make stuff. People do. People make, operate and maintain the technology. It all comes down to human productivity. So there will always be scarcity. There will never be enough of everything to go around for everyone. Saying that there will be is political thinking, not economic thinking.
What we are having trouble figuring out is how to make people productive once currency does go away.
You’re saying we won’t need money because people will be so productive that it won’t be necessary, then wonder how to keep people productive without it.
Do you see the contradiction?
Like I said, you don’t know what scarcity means. Food, water, healthcare, and housing will never be free. Never. Anything with a price attached to it is scarce.
Looks to me like you’ve go politics down pat. Economics, not so much.
*got*
Let me guess: you’re a big Thomas Piketty fan?
And Obama is a constitutional law scholar who believes that the 4th Amendment permits wiretapping the entire country, murdering and indefinitely detaining Americans without trial is constitutional, and the commerce clause overrides the rest of the Constitution.
“You know that I’m a liberal that works in Finance and deal with many macro economic factors.”
So, are you running PB’s sockpuppet or vice versa?
Labor is becoming obsolete in America
Tell that to the 2000 people working in my plant today – 450 of whom we hired in the last two years.
My fucking God but you’re ignorant.
Alice,
If you think it’s possible for a society to exist without money then you don’t know what money is.
I think Alice suffers from the common liberal misconception that wealth and money are not the same thing.
you mean to say “are the same” thing? Because they aren’t equivalents.
As you can see, Labor is becoming obsolete in America
You mean manual labor, like factory work? Yes, that has been a trend for a while thanks to automation and cheaper overseas labor, both of which have made consumer goods more affordable AND freed up more people to join the service economy. But if by labor, you mean human effort, then no, I don’t see that.
THis is why so many more people are on some form of public assistance or are losing homes and are unable to recover financially and have lost money in the crash.
The crash certainly wiped out a lot of wealth and caused the jobless rate to spike. But those public assistance programs you mention are, to a degree, self-perpetuating.
Just imagine for a moment what the economy would look like if we got rid of so many onerous, anti-competition, cronyist regulations and red tape. You can already see hints of this with things like Uber and Airbnb, which of course, local governments are trying to stifle. I’m just speculating, and on some level this is unknowable, but I would wager a lot of money that the jobless rate would drop by A LOT if ingenuity and entrepreneurship were truly allowed to flourish.
All of which is to say, money or a lack thereof has nothing to do with it.
I would wager a lot of money that the jobless rate would drop by A LOT if ingenuity and entrepreneurship were truly allowed to flourish.
I agree. If anyone could try to make a buck off their favorite hobby without first having to ask permission and obey orders from a dozen government assholes, there would be no recession.
“People that had money in 2008 in the market and had jobs that were stable saw their money go down and then up. However, people that lost their jobs were forced to liquidate and are now kicking themselves as the market recovered.”
That’s called “creative destruction”, Alice, and it’s a feature, not a bug.
That’s how the old order is displaced. That’s why it’s so hard to pass wealth down past the third generation. That’s why we don’t use buggy-whips anymore.
The economy without creative destruction looks like the Soviet Union’s before it collapsed. This is how and why things change.
Change is frightening and scary and absolutely necessary, and what you described is the way it happens.
The way people did things before wasn’t sustainable, and now they can’t or, rather, hopefully, won’t do things that way anymore. If we’d kept things going the way they were in 2006, we’d just be digging ourselves out of a deeper hole.
Very familiar with creative destructuion.
What has made the difference in the 20th century and beyond is the fact that we have safety nets once this occurs.
In order for capitalism to work, certain businesses, products, services, and ideas have to fail or become obsolete.
I feel that we should have safety nets so that people are willing to try again.
It’s one of the reasons we got rid of debtor’s prison.
Safety nets like bailing out the Banks?
We are the most productive country in the world (something like 96%). Even more so than China, and they can FORCE you to work! The idea that labor is becoming obsolete in America is fucking retarded.
Unless you were referring to Labor as in Unions, then you’d be correct. And why not, since they haven’t really done much for their members since getting two weekends implemented and then agitating for higher and higher wages till the companies can’t afford to hire any new people.
So was that flip-phone Kirk used to say “Beam me up Scotty”
Could combine into one if OK with combining generating and sending loads at SS level.
Read the story you linked. If you don’t mind, I’m going to go hang myself now. Good God, that’s depressing as fuck.
Wut?
I don’t know what you pasted there but it wasn’t in the story – which was about Havana not … engineering?
Lol, you mean the RADIO?
You’re dumb.
I’m curious — what do you think money is and what purpose do you think it serves?
Yes, never in human history have people bartered for goods and services without the proxy of money facilitating the exchange. And it’s the MONEY that makes the libertarianish….ideas and…things….work? Wha?
The fact that this dipshit could even DREAM about being President truely shows the depth and wealth of opportunity in America. Seriously, in a different time and place he would have been a corrupt church official content with abusing the serfs and molesting boys…
He is trying to fail upwards. He is only running for president because he lost his Senate seat.
Libertarian ideas are working here right now, despite the efforts of people like Santorum to destroy any trace of them. You know, the libertarian ideas that made this country as rich and as powerful as it is. Moron.
Of course, that moron and others like him, left and right, are winning the war on freedom.
No, stupid. It’s the fusion of church and state that made America great. Duh.
Rick Santorum: Libertarian Straw Man Ideas ‘don’t work in practice’
This is all you need to know about Rick Santorum (from a 2005 interview with NPR):
“They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone, that there is no such society that I’m aware of where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture. ”
He can’t even hear how terrible he sounds.
Nope, no “radical individualism” in the founders. None whatsoever.
That’s it. I’m never voting for him, unless he runs against Lamar Alexander for something.
A guy with anarchy in his name probably shouldn’t vote for anything except maybe tax referendums. I would sooner reject evil entirely than legitimize the lesser of two evils.
Also, Rick Santorum can fuck himself in his Santorum with his own Santorum.
“Rick Santorum – go fuck yourself.”
Would you use government to plug my hole?
OMFSM Kennedy, I’m sorry. I take back half of all the nasty things I said about you. That was… savory.
What’s sad is that conservatives used to at least have a coalition of libertarian and SoCon elements. They even had people who were libertarian and SoCon *at the same time.*
Santorum doesn’t even acknowledge this history. Honest discussion would require that he at least account for facts which seem to contradict his narrative. He could explain why he thinks the old SoCon/libertarian fusion didn’t work. But he can’t pretend it didn’t happen.
It’s unfortunate that Kennedy didn’t call him on this, almost as if she *agrees* with his about libertarianism and conservatism being inherently incompatible.
Honest discussion would require him acknowledging that libertarians support limited government, not no government.
But that won’t happen since it appears all his rehearsed attacks against libertarianism are attacks against the idea that there should be no government at all.
Most libertarians accept the reality that government, as in some bunch of assholes using organized violence as a license to steal, will always exist. Since it is unavoidable, then it is best to keep it limited.
I’m not hankering for another discussion where you dismiss anarcho-capitalism out of hand, without any genuine consideration. What I’m arguing for here, is that libertarian philosophy is not the province of minarchists solely, to the exclusion of anarchists.
I haven’t dismissed it out of hand. I’ve dismissed it after much thought on how it could exist without some group of armed assholes rising up and forming a government. Without some explanation on how to keep that from happening, I’m afraid I must dismiss anarcho-anything.
Even the idea of competing security forces doesn’t work for me, since there’s nothing to stop one from killing the other and forcing everyone to pay whether they want to or not.
Competitors. Economics. Political culture. Anarcho-capitalism isn’t a system where every individual is their own island. I don’t advocate the abolition of society or even abolition of “hierarchy”. Interdependence would exist as before, but with logically consistent principles governing human interaction instead of inconsistency and injustice dominating those interactions.
You’re right, you can’t keep the state under lock and key. (See my book below.)
But you can have a free society a hell of a lot longer with a Constitutional Republic than you can with what amounts to tribal gangs vying for power.
A republic has limits. What will inevitably stem from an anarchy will be government without the limits.
“I would say that’s true of yourself. ”
It’s trur of everyone, the brain is wired to take the path of least resistance.
Sometimes, we are able to recognize that there are superior alternatives that require more efftort, but no, it’s NOT just him, it’s you too, and everyone else.
This^^
A little observation I’ve made over the years, and have shown to the wife. When in a movie theater where a specific screen has two different paths to the seats-one close the entry way, and one that requires further walking (as in a stadium seating setup)-I have found overwhelmingly that the seats on “closer” side fill up much more quickly than the seats on the “far” end. People, for whatever reason(s) tend to take that easier path.
Yeah, it’s a stretch from walking short distances to major political and social philosophies, but people do tend to be like lightning in this respect.
Yes, if libertarianism has an failing, it’s the anarchists.
an
“Yes, those damn anarchists with their logical consistency and moral integrity.”
Oh ok you’re that guy, die in a grease fire.
He’s like anarchist Bo.
Tell me how an an-cap society prevents government from forming? Seriously.
The political culture of a free society wouldn’t allow it. Secondly, without a readily available or constructable tax infrastructure, there’s no basis for a state to form.
A free society would be governed, it would have laws and there would be order. A mixture of insurance companies, courts/arbitrators and protection agencies working in concert.
Tell me how any society now prevents a ‘tyranny’ from forming? Seriously. You think that a tyrant will protect us from tyranny?
A mixture of insurance companies, courts/arbitrators and protection agencies working in concert.
What happens when one of those protection agencies gets tired of having to woo customers into voluntarily purchasing their services, and decides to kill the competition so there’s no one to prevent them from forcing everyone to purchase their services? How can people not allow this to happen? The agency has organized violence at its disposal. The only way to fight off organized violence is with organized violence, and the winner can still force everyone to pay. I don’t see a way out of it.
Anarchism completely ignores the fact that there are evil people in the world who will not follow your model.
Okay, I’m a bad guy.
I don’t recognize your authority in this matter. Whatcha gonna do?
What authority? Authority over my property? My person?
There are a lot of places this can break down.
My PA moves to arrest you, but since you deny the crime, your own PA steps in with an injunction. Now it goes to trial.
If I pay my PA enough, they can say fuck your trial and back it up with force. But let’s move on…
Each party mutually agrees to a specific set of judges or court to hear the case.
And if my PA/insurance company don’t agree? All I have to do is make it profitable enough for them. But let’s move on…
you’ll have a hard time finding another ins co/PA to protect you and your property. Perhaps even the court system would outlaw you, which strips of your protections.
Or I can pony up enough money to create my own new court system and PA and, once again, say fuck all to your rules.
The economic and social consequence of committing evil, and then persisting in that evil would overwhelmingly incentivize you not be a mugger.
Unless I command enough wealth and influence to rig the system in my favor.
The PA’s would have contracts with each other so that business can be conducted peacefully and therefore profitably.
Why compete, why respect contracts, when you can subjugate?
I don’t need customers, I don’t need PAs or insurance companies to contract with me, I don’t need legitimacy according to the NAP, if instead I can make it profitable enough for a private army to subjugate people on my behalf. Might that army make more money by following the NAP? I suppose it *might*, but money isn’t the only consideration. Do you really think it would be that hard to find a group of people who enjoy power as much as, if not more, than money? Hell, isn’t that the definition of a progressive?
As I said below, for anarchy to work you need a fundamental shift in human nature. It doesn’t matter how logically consistent you are being if your ideas are inconsistent with reality.
And that there are environmental protections requiring government.
Anarchism is a form of collectivism.
Evil is not necessary to human existence. The argument that it is, is profoundly evil in and of itself.
This is a joint response to both sarc (below) and FS.
Necessary in that liberty requires protection. My argument is two fold.
1. Government will, as you rightfully point out, will evolve out of necessity, regardless.
2. It is absolutely required to protect the rights of the individual.
FS, I don’t disagree that government will ALWAYS try to expand and will take as much power as you let it. It is evil. Got it. But that doesn’t make “no government” the correct answer either. For the reasons I point out. Some people are evil and will try to take your shit, requiring bigger and bigger forces to offset each other until you are looking at the scale of the nation-state. Again how does an anarchy (reasonably) defend against a nation-state without a life-long resistance movement living in caves?
And I’ll highlight the following, because THIS is the important part:
Liberty and force are not mutually exclusive. One cannot exist without the other. If I have liberty with no force backing it up, I will lose it to those who will use force. If I have a preponderance of force, I lose liberty to that force.
Liberty and force are a balancing act. If the goal is having the most liberty, then I need just enough force to keep it, but any more and it starts to infringe on it. The trick is to maximize your liberty while keeping the force required to do so to an absolute minimum.
Hence my two tenets:
From the NAP:
1. People may do as they please, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
And to protect those rights while limiting the scope of force:
2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.
Yes, government will attempt to grow. It is the nature of force. You will probably NEVER be able to limit it forever. You take your best shot, taking into consideration all that’s happened before and build upon that. When they exceed their authority, you start over. For god’s sake, the US was the first iteration of this and our Constitution got us a good 150 years (1933). The next one will get us 250 or more.
(cont.)
3) Spooner was guilty of something that I think many of us, myself included, are sometimes guilty of, and that is a lack of perspective. Yes, injustices and attacks on liberty are plentiful in our society, but in the day-to-day life of most people, they are also not the norm (taxes notwithstanding). Could things be better? Absolutely. But I can get up everyday and do pretty much all the things I want to do without any fear of being harassed by the government, and that is true of most people. Things could absolutely be worse. I’d say the Constitution, or more specifically a respect for its core ideas, has actually done quite a bit to keep us free.
Republics and dictatorships are not mutually exclusive. A republic is not defined by the presence or non-presence of democratic mechanisms, nor is dictatorship necessarily defined by the presence of Hitler 2.0
^Admittedly I misread the part where you wrote “I don’t disagree” sorry. Double negatives get the best of me 🙂
I’m going to hop into the fray on this a little late. With regards to the Spooner quote, I have three responses:
1) He was right, but let’s be clear about what failed. The Constitution is just a collection of ideas, and in our ~democratic system, those ideas have no power or relevance unless a substantial majority of the people agree with and respect them. That is the Achilles heel of any political system that isn’t totally authoritarian, anarchism included.
2) Frankly, I’ve given up on a permanent minarchist to almost minarchist political order, for the reason given above. Even if a majority of people were libertarian today, it would be transient. Societies are going to change on timescales that are some fraction of a generation. I’d be happy to have a society that oscillates between something closer to minarchism than what America started with on one end, and something a bit more libertarian than what we have now. Note that this may still end up being more or less the case in America—on the timescale of human civilization, broad respect for human rights is still pretty new.
(cont.)
I appreciate your idealism, but what you are saying is that anarchy requires a fundamental shift in human nature. Will that happen? I suppose it could, but I’m not holding my breath. As far as I’m concerned, the New AnCap Man is no less a pipe dream than the New Communist Man.
To Free Society,
You are not well versed enough in your chosen subject to make these arguments.
You’re not convincing at all and your responses are logically inconsistent and useless.
“First, the political culture of a society that rejects the validity or pseudo-moral justifications of statism.”
And that’s a perfect example of the stupidity of your assertions, when asked what will keep people from taking up arms and enslaving others, your response is “peer pressure” and you ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT WILL WORK.
Why would anyone care what you think after reading that bit of stupidity.
This. *Any* political system, short of total Orwellian despotism, requires that a significant majority of people respect its norms and rules and willingly follow them. The history of America and the West at large demonstrate that people are willing to accept a system that tilts more towards liberty for extended period of times. It has yet to be demonstrated that people will accept true minarchy, let alone anarchy.
The failure of political monopolies to respect the limitations superficially placed upon them is what’s inevitable here.
Except that is isn’t the political monopoly that fails, it is the voters. Which is to say political culture and morality (as defined by libertarian values) of a majority of the people. Which all circles back to the same argument about human nature.
I like the way you think Virginian.
Space Travel NOW!
You’ve repeatedly mistaken anarcho-capitalism for pacifism. I’ve differentiated numerous times, so please stop with that strawman line of argument.
How are you going to create this political culture without expunging people like Boehner, Santorum, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, etc.?
Anarchism requires The New Anarchy Man every bit as much as Marxism requires The New Soviet Man. Unworkable collectivist fantasy.
Let me put a question to you in good faith, then. Why hasn’t anarchy emerged in the drug trade? It seems to me like the necessary ingredients are there. The government that surrounds it isn’t all that different than non-ancap governments that would surround an ancap nation. Police and the courts intervene in the drug trade from time to time, but they have neither the love or respect of the drug traffickers or that culture.
The rules and “regulations” that exist within the drug trade are largely imposed by culture and market forces. And about that culture–the upper echelons of the drug trade are hardly incapable of reason and intelligent thought. It is well within their capability to agree to divide their territories peacefully, employ their own private protectors, and mutually agree to peaceful, independent arbitration in case of disputes. Heck, in doing so, they may even be able to build up enough of a positive PR campaign to be respected in mainstream society, or at least significant segments of it.
And yet the reality is turf wars and violence. So what is missing to bring about peaceful anarcho-capitalism? And from where will it come if attempted in some other segment of the population?
Another straw man, at least as applied to the libertarians on The Independents, Reason, and some of the commenters here.
But just as he finds it convenient to equate all libertarians with their anarchist faction, so it is convenient to lump all SoCons together with Santorum.
Ask a prog about Rand Paul and his positions on abortion, marriage and guns. The prog will say that these positions are pure SoCon.
Rick Santorum is fucking dumb!
The “sharing economy” is libertarianism in practice. I guess Santorum didn’t pick up on that. He just a statist. He wants government delegation for everything.
He wants a job and knows he can’t get one if there is no government.
Comparing gays to dog molesters doesn’t work in practice.
Santorum is simply in denial. His “people” have had their heyday, have failed miserably, and are losing their grip on the helm. That infuriates him and he’s fighting for the survival of his “species”.
Fuck him. The Republican party WILL BE a libertarian party and there is not a goddamned thing he and his authoritarian establishment can do to stop it. People are sick to death of being told how to live their lives by these monsters.
The only things that will prevent the GOP from becoming libertarian are 1) apathetic/fatalistic ’emo-tarians’ that don’t bother trying 2) bad candidates or others that get knocked down in the primaries. Like the bunch on Tuesday before last. Anti-immigration nutjobs will be a short-term problem but they couldn’t even maintain their grip on the Texas state GOP.
I saw “libertarian hosts discussion with conservative Rick Santorum,” and I thought, hey, this will be great! I couldn’t even make it through the interview. First the obviously premeditated–and forced–“plug my hole” joke then insisting on talking over the top of Santorum when he was trying to answer a serious question, Kennedy turned what should’ve been a excellent discussion of ideas into something worthy of Maury Povich or The View. #growup
#selfawarenessislame
#enoughwiththegoddamnhashtagsalready
#whatitmakesmeseemhiptotheyoungkids
I’m proudly unaware of the function of hashtags.
Function?
I thought they were just “Hey! Look at me! I’m a dick!”-markers?
They *do* something?
Although, not to detract from your apt observation VA; they did have something of a point up until they raised the Douchebag Flag
I think after Kennedy’s performance with Wolfowitz, there should have been a policy to let Matt and Kmele (or a ringer like Nick)… or hell, *anyone* that could keep their temper… have first crack at interviewing guests before releasing Berserker Harpy(aka Kennedy) on them.
I don’t watch the show. I only read the comments.
Kudos =
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_IlNbsILLE
Uh, yeah, it was kind of intended to be. But that’s the thing about irony, and sarcasm for that matter. If the audience doesn’t pick up on it, everyone ends of looking stupid. #mybad #letstrythisagain #nevermind
#growup
#youfirstshithead
It’s good to know progressives and Rick Santorum are in total agreement.
“Rick Santorum: Libertarian Ideas ‘don’t work in practice'”
I suppose it would have been too much to ask for Kennedy to calmly note,
“Well, last I checked, ‘Rick Santorum’ Doesn’t Work in Politics At All; and meanwhile, the leading GOP contender for a presidential run – Rand Paul – happens to be a leading spokesperson for ‘libertarian ideas’ – so I guess we’ll let history be the scorekeeper for that one, Rick”