Libertarian History/Philosophy

Libertarianism 3.0: The Koch Brothers, the GOP, and What Comes Next

|

I've got a new piece up at The Daily Beast that talks about Daniel Schulman's brilliant new biography of Charles and David Koch, Sons of Wichita, the brothers' major role in fomenting the contemporary libertarian moment, and how those of us who believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of the government might shift the course of politics in 2014, 2016, and beyond. Snippets:

What's far more interesting—and important to contemporary America—is the way in which Schulman documents the absolute seriousness with which Charles and David have always taken specifically libertarian ideas and their signal role in helping to create a "freedom movement" to counter what they have long seen as a more effective mix of educational, activist, and intellectual groups on the broadly defined left. By treating the Koch brothers' activities in critical but fair terms,Sons of Wichita points to what I like to think of as Libertarianism 3.0, a political and cultural development that, if successful, will not only frustrate the left but fundamentally alter the right by creating fusion between forces of social tolerance and fiscal responsibility….

The standard GOP response to unapologetic libertarianism is fear and dismissal: It's too whacked out, too radical, too scary. Yet the only branch of the Republican Party that isn't dead and withered is precisely the libertarian one. Retired Rep. Ron Paul (who ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988) packed college campuses with young kids and retirees with a vision of limited government, fed audits, and restrained foreign policy. If he fired up an enthusiasm that was never fully reflected in his vote totals, he also inspired a new generation of candidates and activists who want to be part of a major party. Whose heart flutters at the sight of John Boehner or Eric Cantor? While not necessarily doctrinaire libertarians, characters such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) are not only pushing for defense spending and the NSA to be put on the chopping block, they are increasingly pushing for marriage and drug issues to be settled at the state level. Paul is consistently at the top of polls for 2016 presidential contenders.

Read the whole piece.

Disclosure:

David Koch is a trustee of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.com and Reason.tv, of which I'm editor in chief. Back in 1993, I received a fellowship for around $3,500 from the Institute for Humane Studies, of which Charles Koch is a major benefactor; the grant helped me complete my Ph.D. in American literature at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

NEXT: House Approves Measures to Keep DEA Hands Off Hemp

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. Wealth apologist!

  2. And fuck you Reason and your self-playing ads.

  3. Hey Nick, you left Ted Cruz off the list!

  4. Penser 33 minutes ago
    “As a libertarian, I’m always slow to tell people what they should do” ?.what b.s. If libertarians were slow to tell people what to do, there would be no tea party and the koch brothers would not be in politics.

    FlagShare

    What?

    kalluke2 2 hours ago
    @LibIntOrg

    Face it. In your zeal to be actually electable, you Libertarians have abandoned the decent half of what you stand for (the liberal social policies part). Your nothing but dupes for the Kochs, et al.

    …What?

    1. Contemporary libertarians have caved in to the Aborto-Freaks and Wahabbi Christians.

      It is hard to take a libertarian seriously when they want to build a police state to monitor fetuses.

      1. Shut the fuck up, sockpuppet.

      2. I think the Koch’s are pro-choice.

        1. David was in 1980 when he ran for VP. No reason to assume that has changed.

      3. Palin’s Buttplug|5.30.14 @ 10:40AM|#
        “bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.”

        Yeah, that’s about it.

      4. “Palin’s Buttplug|5.30.14 @ 10:40AM|#”

        Hmm. Pravda wouldn’t happen to be the source for those claims, would it?

      5. Go fuck yourself.

      6. Re: Peter Caca,

        Contemporary libertarians have caved in to the Aborto-Freaks [sic] and Wahabbi [sic] Christians.

        You know, the constant invention of neologisms is a well-known and documented symptom of paranoid schizophrenia, Caca.

        None of those terms make any sense nor is your conclusion based on any evidence, which points exactly to one thing: You forgot to refill your prescription for Thorazine again. Call CVS.

        1. You’re also envious of my word-smithery.

          1. You’re also envious of my turd-smithery.

            FTFY.

          2. Re: Peter Caca,

            You’re also envious of my word-smithery.

            And now Narcissism. You’re becoming a walking encyclopedia of mental maladies, Caca.

    2. You don’t understand. Libertarians do want to tell people what to do. They want to tell the people who tell people what to do to stop telling people what to do. That’s telling people what to do, is it not?

      1. There is ‘telling’

        There is ‘people’

        There is ‘what to do’

        Sounds like it adds up to ‘telling people what to do’

        You are wise person, can you tell me where I can sign up for your newsletter and what time is your show on MSNBC?

    3. Electable and Libertarian in the same sentence? Well that is the first clue the commentator is a mouth breathing mongoloid.

    4. “As a libertarian, I’m always slow to tell people what they should do” ?.what b.s. If libertarians were slow to tell people what to do, there would be no tea party and the koch brothers would not be in politics.

      Of a piece with this bit from Lest Darkness Fall:

      “You don’t like the Goths?”
      “No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!”
      “Persecution?”
      “Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.”
      “I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.”
      “That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!”

    5. We’ve dropped our liberal social policies and are now merely dupes for the Kochs, who support liberal social policies.

    6. I, for one, support more Koch parties.

  5. MrCreosote 4 hours ago
    So if the Koch bros’ are in favor of gay marriage why do “liertarians” like rand paul stand firmly against it based on some screwy interpretation of the Bible?

    Also the Az papers please law was diametrically opposed to the libertarian principle of being left alone by the govt because it demanded proof from a person that they have not committed a crime based on the subjective ipressions of an agent of the state.

    In other words some cop has a hunch you did something wrong and he gets to shake you down and make you prove your innocence.

    How does a “libertarian” reconcile that with his believes, other than the person being harassed is brown skinned?

    …?

    1. TDB is often on a Slate/Salon level for derp. Don’t know who Nick think he’s going to convince. The same folks who accuse you of being racist over immigration are the same ones silent over the droning of a different set of brown people. Because Team, almost always.

      1. These libertarians in their head sound like real assholes.

        1. Man, you ought to hear the arguments!

        2. They sound flammable, really. You could just about thatch rooves with them.

          That looks funny. Rooves. Roofs. Rooves.

          1. I think “roofs”

    2. heh. “liertarians” is pretty clever because we do lie all the time.

    3. If the Koch’s supported the Arizona immigration laws then I think that is a good point actually. That’s hardly a libertarian law.

      1. Koch’s support Reason and Reason certainly does not support Arizona immigration laws.

        1. Yes, I had my doubts they supported those laws.

  6. But … ONE PERCENT! OIL! UNION BUSTING!

    /derp

    1. Isn’t Koch Industries heavily unionized?

  7. I have heard of these Koch brothers. They are the ones.

    Who block woman from reaching into other peoples wallets so they can get free contraceptives

    Who hate science and the community by funding Nova and other programs on PBS

    Who personally go to the Artic and use flame throwers to melt the ice so that baby Polar Bears drown

    1. Who personally go to the Artic and use flame throwers to melt the ice so that baby Polar Bears drown

      Got my vote

      1. Polar bears are godless killing machines. The Koch brothers are saving the Inuit peoples of this Earth.

    2. They also support the ACLU – that great liberal organization that I support.

      1. Good, maybe they can give the ACLU a copy of the 9th and 10th ammendments, the ACLU seems not to know about those

        1. I think the ACLU was involved in the major cases invoking the 9th Amendment (Griswold and Roe for example).

          1. Neither used the 9th, IIRC.

            No need for penumbras and shit under the 9th.

            1. You recall incorrectly. From the opinion in Griswold:

              “Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers “in any house” in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

              And see Goldberg’s concurrence for an even more explicit reliance on the 9th Amendment.

              1. Yeah, I realized after I posted I actually had no clue about Griswold. But Roe has the penumbra shit.

                1. The penumbra stuff started in Griswold and only gets quoted in Roe because Roe relies so heavily on Griswold. I don’t think any Justice is going to rely only on the 9th because it of course does not say what rights there are, they will invoke the 9th to show that there are unenumerated rights and then they will try to find those rights elsewhere. What they did in Griswold was to say the 9th says there are unlisted rights, and the 1st, 4th, and 14th have elements or penumbras protecting privacy, therefore privacy is one of the unenumerated rights.

                  1. See, that is bullshit.

                    Just say, this is a 9th amendment right.

                    Of course, Im not sure that “privacy” is. I mean, if it is, and extends to the womb, then it extends to the pocketbook as well, but we know that isnt the case.

                    The 9th amendment is easy to use if its properly understood as a catch all for all the natural law rights that werent already listed.

                    But to do that, you have to have a grasp on natural law.

              2. From Roe:

                “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

                1. Leading with the 14th.

                  At least they mention the 9th.

                  And note, they used the 14th and not the 9th. The district court used the 9th, but they rejected that.

                  The “as we feel it is” refers to the 14th.

                  1. Yes, good catch.

                    1. In the ridiculous code language now used in Constitutional law as a result, some very particularly worded phrase like “fundamental liberty” (I forgot the exact words) means fucking and either making or not making babies. Apparently their reasoning was that if it weren’t for sex, we wouldn’t be here, hence neither would the Constitution, therefore fucking & having babies precedes and is incorporated in the Constitution. And not having babies is also there, because the right to have babies is meaningless without the right not to. And therefore non-procreative forms of sexual or sort-of-sexual intercourse must be in there too.

                      It’s hilarious to me how this line of jurisprudence came about, then how it’s been extended by dragging the pivot foot, and also how limited it is, i.e. not including other bodily-related and privacy-related things. How they can say with a straight face that the law goes this far and and farther, as determined by scientific, objective criteria, is way beyond me.

        2. 1st too, they are opposing freedom of association in the CO bakery case.

      2. The same ACLU that supports racial preferences, which you claim to oppose?

        Face it shrike, all you care about is abortion. You’ve already demonstrated that once in this thread. You consistently use abortion to immediately disqualify anybody from being as purely libertarian as you, while defending “libertarians” who support affirmative action, or oppose gun rights, or flunk the purity test on any number of issues.

        1. “Face it shrike, all you care about is abortion.”

          I think you’re too kind. Shreek is not capable of thought abstracted beyond the immediate personal:
          His daddy hated him (along with most everybody else in the world); his daddy was a bleever, therefore bleevers are evil!
          I doubt there is a thought that ever rattled between those two ears that wasn’t driven by that ego-maniacal motive.

          1. Maybe his single-minded devotion to abortion is “immediately personal.” He’s such a great capitalist and gets so much pussy, but he doesn’t want one of the Victoria’s Secret models he accidentally impregnates to have the kid. Because then she’d be entitled to a chunk of his fortune for the next 18 years.

            Hey, Obama supports abortion? He’s cool then! Time to go on Reason and provide today’s pro-Obamacare spin!

            1. Look, this paleo/cosmo split is many decades old. Don’t give me credit I don’t deserve.

              Congrats, you paleos have elbowed enough cosmos out to claim victory.

              1. Go fuck yourself.

              2. There is no such thing as paleo/cosmo libertarians…only libertarians.

                And you PB are a fucking retard.

                1. I’m a libertarian, and I have occasionally been on a paleo diet. Does that not count?

                2. I don’t know if that’s purely true. I suspect that there are libertarians whose sensibilities run very traditionalist (i.e. paleos). And libertarians whose sensibilities run very modernist and, yes, cosmopolitan (i.e. cosmos). They just all agree to support a political system where their personal lifestyle sensibilities aren’t mandated by law and make the survival of their way of life dependent on who wins the next election.

                  1. I don’t know if that’s purely true.

                    You comply with the NAP or you don’t.

                    Of course not everyone complies with the NAP 100% of the time (I don’t), but if you’re not, it’s not a libertarian position on that given issue. The more issues you’ve got that don’t comply with the NAP, the less principled libertarian you are. There is no, right leaning/left leaning…that shit is only “NOT libertarian”.

                    People like to frame the abortion issue as defining cosmo/paleo. This is also bullshit. There is no libertarian position on abortion simply because, in order to form on, one must know when the “growth” becomes a “person”. As that is indeterminable, there is no libertarian position. Any opinion you have on the issue, causing you to believe one way or another, is NOT obtained through libertarian principle, but something else…religion, gut feeling, that which allows a person to avoid responsibility for their actions…

              3. Palin’s Buttplug|5.30.14 @ 11:27AM|#
                “My daddy hated me!”

                Got it, shreek. Fuck off.

    3. I mean, sure, you could possibly find a condom or diaphragm in there, but how many people on reaching into someone else’s wallet are going to pull out that?

  8. The U.S. no longer has two distinct political parties. What we have is one party (you could call them The DemoPublicans), composed of a left wing and a right wing. These are not “wings” in the European sense. Both, however, are authoritarian in nature. The same (independently wealthy for the most part) career, habitual politicians run it on a rotating basis. The overpaid media propagandists for this one party posing as two, keep the illusion going that all this is some sort of a democracy, or constitutional republic.

    We should have a unicameral legislature. In which case, other parties (Libertarian and so on) as distinct parties with specific platforms should be represented. Otherwise, to separate people such as Ron and Rand Paul and call them Libertarians is somewhat of a farce. They may represent some libertarian ideas (whatever those are at any given time), but they are elected as Republicans and NOT Libertarians. To suggest so is to “dance a Tango of Deception”.

    1. WRONG. They’re called Republocrats.

      1. TEAM BE RULED.

        Tow the lion, my brothers.

  9. they are totally about self interest which of course is why they are libertarians. The most libertarian place on earth is somalia and it’s a hell hole.

    1. This is the absolute most mindless, idiotic cliche in history.

      1. My response to people who claim not to be all about self-interest is to ask them why they don’t work for free.

  10. The author of the book was on NPR the other day (Fresh Air). I thought he was quite fair in his discussion of the Kochs. He pointed out that they are principled libertarians, not right wing conservatives (he went out of his way to mention they support same sex marriage and abortion rights). He went out of his way to say that they do not simply support causes that would benefit them, that they oppose corporate welfare as much, even more than welfare for the poor. He also pointed out that there are differences in beliefs between the brothers and so lumping them together constantly is simplistic at best.

    1. Yea I did enjoy that segment as well.

      1. If I recall correctly the author was identified as working for Mother Jones, so I really was surprised at how fair he seemed. That magazine often seems pretty hysterically leftist to me.

        1. Yes I think that was the case, it also seemed the moderator was attempting to give him every opportunity to cast them as villains and he really never took the bait, all though he made it clear he didn’t agree with them on some things, it was surprisingly neutral.

          1. At one point she said something to the effect that how could two libertarians believe in something so right wing and he interrupted her to say they were not right wing, that libertarianism had many issues in agreement with liberals and she backed off and thanked him for correcting her.

            1. Wow. I am really surprised by this. He sounds like an intellectually honest guy, which is rare on the left these days.

    2. And my guess is the author is about to begin his journey into the political wilderness amongst his progressive bretheren. Depicting the Kochs as anything other than Satan’s evil twin brothers is a surefire ticket to excommuication in progressive circles.

  11. The socon attacks on libertarianism are going to get nastier as they begin to sense their extinction in national politics.

    1. I read a lot of socon websites, and actually I think they are currently as close to libertarianism as they’ve been in a long time. The chief threats bedeviling them right now involve government intervention into their beliefs and affairs, not people up to ungodly things they’d like to restrict.

      What is going to test this in my opinion will be a Cruz or Huckabee vs. Paul nomination battle.

      1. I read a lot of socon websites, and actually I think they are currently as close to libertarianism as they’ve been in a long time

        As long as you don’t talk about weed, then 90% of them instantly turn into Pol Pot on steroids.

        1. Perhaps, but did you see that even Pat Robertson endorsed legalization recently?

          1. In other words, one of the smarter ones.

        2. I don’t see the sense of making weed the sine qua non of political support.

        3. If you talk to them about steroids, do 90% of them turn into Pol Pot on weed?

      2. Ive said for years that congregationalist protestant populations would be a good recruiting ground for libertarians, at least for fellow travelers. If we can work with ancaps, then we can work with them.

        They always have the opposition to central authorities down pat.

      3. It kind of fits what I’ve been predicting for a while. The socons are going to split. The smarter ones realize that the Kultur war as been fought, and their side’s basically lost. Their big concern is making sure that the other side doesn’t impose it’s values and will on them. The rest are going to line up behind douchenozzles like Santorum and try to push social conservatism with massive government intervention in the economy (in other words, fascism).

  12. If libertarians were slow to tell people what to do, there would be no tea party and the koch brothers would not be in politics.

    BEWARE THE IMPENDING LIBERTARIAN DICTATORSHIP!

    1. “He is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind.”

    2. Libertarians are tyrants! They want to stop the people who tell people what do do from telling people what to do! How will people know what to do if not for the government telling them what to do? That’s tyranny!

    3. “If libertarians were slow to tell people what to do, there would be no tea party and the koch brothers would not be in politics.”

      Telling people not to bother you and quit stealing your money is ‘telling people what to do’ in some twisted form.

    4. It’s going to be terrible. Just imagine, millions of people told that they are free to do whatever they want, as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. Tyranny!

      1. What about the right to free health care?

        What about the right to a minimum income?

        What about the right to a basic standard of living?

        What about the right to be free from competition?

        What about the right to not see or hear things that offend you?

        What about the right to be insulated from the consequences of your actions?

        Huh?

        What about those rights, you tyrannical libertarian?

      2. millions of people told that they are free to do whatever they want

        Now, that’s just the problem. Many (most?) people really do not like that idea. Freedom is very scary because it entails being responsible for yourself.

        1. …”Freedom is very scary because it entails being responsible for yourself.”

          Pretty sure this is the prime motivator of the left. See that moral cripple Tony for example.
          He is terrified that, left to his own devices, he might starve to death.
          He’s therefore more than willing to have someone tell him what to do, so long as they feed him.
          “Infantile” comes to mind, and that covers his ‘morality’ also.

          1. Also “learned helplessness.” Which is yet another reason why we’re doomed.

    5. The evil conspiracy to take over the world and leave you alone.

  13. Veronique de Rug of the Mercator Center

    Double oops.

  14. Was debating with George Nash a while back when he spoke at UT. I outright told him that I think SoCons are a liability going forward and should be minimized in the Republican Party.

    The crowd gasped. You could hear a pin drop. But no arguments otherwise were given. Send the Puritans back to where they belong- the fascist left.

    1. Rand Paul belongs on the “fascist left”?

      1. How is Rand Paul a ‘SoCon?’ He wants to cut back the WOD and wants to leave gay marriage to the states. He’s pro-life, but a fair amount of libertarians who think life begins at conception or some point soon after are.

        1. Rand and Ron are both socially conservative.

          This is (one of) my problem with your Soconz! arguments, Im not sure who you are talking about.

        2. Pat Robertson also wants to cut back on the WOD. Is he not SoCon?

      2. Rand Paul plays to SoCons for their money. They are a withering breed and will be an electoral liability as this generation grows up and is not overly concerned with dudes kissing dudes.

        And I would also argue that one can be personally socially conservative while at the same time being a libertarian. In your own life you can live by a certain moral code without forcing it upon other people. I think that point is lost in America today.

        1. Hell, that point is lost on some posters here.

          1. The irony, it burns!

          2. who, me? haha

            1. DesigNate confuses objecting to SoCons when they push for violating the NAP to objecting to SoCons per se. A fair amount of libertarians here are touchy about criticizing SoCons.

              1. No entropy.

                I was thinking more along the lines of our resident fucktards shriek and chony.

                Fuck you Bo.

                1. haha I imagined we were talking about shreek et al but, hell, it’s Friday and I’m drinking at work so, there’s that. Cheers.

    2. You won’t need to wait for long to see the Puritans of the right and left, unite. Once they see libertarians gaining more influence, they will, unashamed, join forces.

      1. we already see this. I agree 100%. It’s authoritarian nature of people, plain and simple. Libertarianism says outright: do what you want, even if I don’t like it, as long as you physically don’t harm me.

        SoCons and Progs see themselves on a holy crusade to save us heathens from ourselves. They believe in Plato’s “philosopher kings” idea, that THEY are the enlightened ones and WE should obey- don’t drink soda, don’t watch TV, don’t have sex the way you prefer. It is the essence of control over other human beings, and libertarians simply don’t wish to give them what they want.

      2. Agreed. In fact, didn’t this happen a little bit earlier this year with all the “Libertarians are Evul” articles appearing in both right and left rags/websites?

  15. How can we be at 3.0 when I feel this whole thing is still in beta?

  16. You have to admit it’s hard to think of two men who are more interested in meddling in the lives of other people.

    1. Telling people not to bother you and quit stealing your money is ‘telling people what to do’ in some twisted form.
      And Tony is twisted enough to make that claim.

      1. Few people invest as heavily in politicians and political causes. That means making changes to society that affect lots of people. They, as are all libertarians, are radicals. Hence they would impose radical change. It doesn’t make a difference that you call it freedom. It’s always been a very limited and stupid definition of freedom.

        1. Hence they would impose radical change.

          Resisting=imposing. Got it.

          1. Not giving is taking!

        2. I can think of 58.

          1. Team Blue received 30% more in political donations then Team Red. I wonder why that is?

        3. Tony|5.30.14 @ 11:16AM|#
          “Few people invest as heavily in politicians and political causes. That means making changes to society that affect lots of people.”

          Yes, it means trying to get people to stop bothering them alone and quit stealing their money.
          And, as you point out, there are lots of people bothering them and stealing their money.
          So, dipshit, why don’t you go away and quit bothering people and stealing their money?

          1. Why don’t they quit polluting my air and water?

            1. Because they’re rich and evil! Eeeeeeevil!

            2. Tony|5.30.14 @ 11:37AM|#
              “Why don’t they quit polluting my air and water?”

              Why don’t you prove they are?

            3. So, you believe in private property? Always thought the libertarian principle protected private property…

              …you’re a libertarian@!@!! EEEEWWWWW

        4. Oh come on Tony, that’s like saying that in pushing to legalize abortion the supporters of Ms. Roe were looking to meddle in the lives of others. Working to stop others from meddling is not meddling.

          1. Legalizing abortion and upending the entire economic regime of modern civilization are two somewhat different things.

            1. Then why do you support people like Obama and Warren?

              You know those great bastions of Crony Capitalism.

            2. It was an analogy Tony, both involve working to stop other people from meddling in others affairs.

              1. But that’s not what libertarians want. They very much want to meddle in the lives of as many people they can get their grubby hands on. They just slap a bumper sticker on their radical society-wide changes that reads “freedom.” But it’s not my definition of freedom. Mine includes being guaranteed not to starve. That’s more important than the tax rate of two of the richest people on the planet, with respect to freedom, if you ask me.

                1. Mine includes being guaranteed not to starve.

                  I knew you were such a fascist little fuck that you would think you should be guaranteed food, water, and shelter. Thanks for proving my hypothesis.

                2. Mine includes being guaranteed not to starve.

                  Why stop there? There’s plenty of rich people out there who haven’t paid their fair share! How could they have? They’re rich!

                  Freedom should include free food, free medical care, free housing, free phone, free internet, free everything!

                  Make the rich pay for it!

                  Freedom!

                  Liberty is tyranny!

                3. “Mine includes being guaranteed not to starve.”

                  I think that would be security, not freedom.

                  1. I think that would be security, not freedom.

                    Distinctions, dishminctions! Tony ain’t got time for that!

                    1. “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

                  2. Either way it’s wholly unimportant to libertarians, unlike the tax rates of billionaires, which seems all-important.

                    1. “it’s wholly unimportant to libertarians”

                      I’m not sure about that. Many libertarians spend a great deal of time and effort and money helping give security to those in need, they just do not think people should be forced to do that.

                    2. But libertarians do think it’s perfectly fine to force other people to pay for the stuff they want like courts and police to protect their property rights.

                      Your philosophy is a joke. Come on man.

                    3. But libertarians do think it’s perfectly fine to force other people to pay for the stuff they want like courts and police to protect their property rights.

                      Preach it, buddy! There’s no distinction between government services and wealth transfers! It’s all the same! Liberty is tyranny!

                    4. Re: Tony,

                      But libertarians do think it’s perfectly fine to force other people to…

                      Arguing with you is like arguing with a wall especially when you come up with such complete fabrications, Tony.

                      Libertarians don’t want others to pay shit for them. Period. Stop making shit up, it’s crass and pathetic.

                    5. We don’t care about the tax rates of other billionaires, just ourselves. Those orphan miners don’t oversee themselves you know.

                    6. Either way it’s wholly unimportant to libertarians

                      Yes, because libertarians would prefer the poor have the means to support themselves and support policies that make that possible as opposed to supporting the poor by stealing from the wealthy.

                      Tony, you are an immoral pig!

                    7. Tony, you are an immoral pig!

                      You’re the immoral one! You want to allow the rich to stay rich while poor people starve! You want to force the poor to pay taxes to protect the wealth of the rich! And you call Tony immoral? A truly moral person would kill the rich and spread the wealth to the poor! Liberty is tyranny!

                4. Re: Tony,

                  But that’s not what libertarians want. They very much want to meddle in the lives of as many people they can get their grubby hands on.

                  Got projection?

                  But it’s not my definition of freedom. Mine includes being guaranteed not to starve

                  You mean, like a pet.

                  1. You mean, like a pet.

                    Or a slave.

                    1. Re: sarcasmic,

                      Or a slave.

                      I beg to differ. Even a slave has to work for food, and I don’t see Tony as the toiling sort. No, he wants the free lunch.

                5. They very much want to meddle in the lives of as many people they can get their grubby hands on.

                  Yeah, allowing people to make their own choices in life is meddling.

                  You are an immoral pig. Fuck off!

                  1. Yeah, allowing people to make their own choices in life is meddling.

                    Freedom means asking permission and obeying orders! If libertarians had their way they’d force the people who force people to give permission and issue orders to just allow people to make their own choices! That is an initiation of force! Libertarians are tyrants!

                6. Tony|5.30.14 @ 11:47AM|#
                  …”They very much want to meddle in the lives of as many people they can get their grubby hands on.”…

                  Those voices in your head are lying to you, Tony.

            3. upending the entire economic regime of modern civilization

              Preach it buddy! If those damned libertarians had their way, people could engage in economic activity without asking permission and obeying orders! That means anyone could turn their hobby into a business without getting licenses, permits, and following regulations! Imagine how terrible all that economic activity would be! So terrible! All those new products available! All those jobs! All that employment! All those choices! People making money! Not being dependent upon disability and other government programs! Having pride and taking responsibility! All that liberty! So terrible! Oh, so terrible! It would be tyranny!

              1. All those new products and choices could be dangerous sarc! We definitely wouldn’t want that.

              2. But they’d be AFFECTING THE LIVES OF MANY PEOPLE! That’s MEDDLING!

            4. Different in degree, perhaps, but not in kind. Preventing coercion is not the same thing as coercion, no matter how badly you want it to be.

              1. Preventing coercion is not the same thing as coercion, no matter how badly you want it to be.

                Oh, but it is! It takes coercion to stop coercion! Liberty is tyranny!

          2. Working to stop others from meddling is not meddling.

            Oh, but it is! It is force! It takes force to stop the meddlers from meddling! How else will you stop them? So libertarians want to initiate force on people who initiate force to stop them from initiating force, which is an initiation of force! Liberty is tyranny!

        5. Re: Tony,

          Few people invest as heavily in politicians and political causes.

          And these two happen not to be the right kind of meddler in your mind. I mean, it is not like you’re against meddling per s?, or am I wrong, Statist?

          1. I’m not particularly fond of a system in which the more money you have the more meddling in other people’s lives you get to do. But I’m OK with having policies and even radical policy changes. I’m just calling the Kochs total hypocrites.

            1. Except you support the people that currently meddle so you’re basically full of shit.

            2. Re: Tony,

              I’m not particularly fond of a system in which the more money you have the more meddling in other people’s lives you get to do.

              That’s an indictment on the system. Are you aware of that? Or will you continue to miss the point by personalizing the issue?

              I’m just calling the Kochs total hypocrites.

              Unsubstantiated assertions stemming from platitudes and ideological clich?s continue to be your forte.

            3. Tony|5.30.14 @ 12:03PM|#
              …”I’m just calling the Kochs total hypocrites.”

              Ans since they are not, you’ve just proven yourself a liar.

    2. I can think of at least one.

    3. Yeah, well, I mean there are a few hundred of them in congress that I can think of, but besides that, it’s super duper difficult to come up with anyone.

      1. Half of whom do the bidding of these men, who were never elected by anyone.

        1. Tony|5.30.14 @ 11:22AM|#
          “Half of whom do the bidding of these men…”

          That’s at least funny…
          Now, now, Tony, there really aren’t any monsters under your bed.

        2. Lol, you are a funny guy, no?

        3. It smells in this thread. Did somebody fart, or are they just talking out their ass?

    4. Not giving is taking!

      Saying “Leave me alone” is meddling!

    5. Re: Tony,

      You have to admit it’s hard to think of two men who are more interested in meddling in the lives of other people.

      There are 9 million other men more interested in meddling with the lives of other people than these two guys, Tony. They’re called “regulators” and “inspectors” by people with a very sick sense of humor.

    1. Did J. R. “Bob” Dobbs pose for that?

  17. Paul is consistently at the top of polls for 2016 presidential contenders.

    I don’t know if it’ll be fun or frustrating to watch progs’ escalating hysteria over Paul as we get closer to the primaries. If nothing else, it’ll be interesting to see what craziness they try to stick to Paul. Will war on women be passe by 2016?

    1. Will they during the primaries or let the GOP do it and then take over if he still wins?

    2. The CRA stuff is my bet.

      But Paul is going to get attacked in the primaries, likely by Cruz on foreign policy or his clemency positions.

      1. The CRA stuff worked so well last time, didnt it?

  18. Libertarianism 3.0, a political and cultural development that, if successful, will not only frustrate the left but fundamentally alter the right by creating fusion between forces of social tolerance and fiscal responsibility

    So the idea is to win political power with a third of the right and dozens of voters from the left. Prepare to be disappointed.

  19. You have to admit it’s hard to think of two men who are more interested in meddling in the lives of other people.

    If by “meddling” you mean “providing goods and services at mutually acceptable cost”.

    I’m still waiting for your book report on The Little Red Hen, Tony. I can’t wait to see your incisive commentary.

    1. Obviously that bitch should have shared her bread with the other barn yard animals and left her children hungry because they didn’t deserve it as much.

  20. The comments at TDB are mostly along these lines:

    “Yet time and time again we have the individual prove that without some regulation, GREED is the driving force behind the self and getting mine before there is none to get is the reality.”

    Is it really that hard for these people to understand that businesses actively lobby FOR regulations to stifle competition? Have they not heard of the uproar over Uber and such?

    1. “Have they not heard of the uproar over Uber and such?”

      Yeah, but car crashes! And stuff!

    2. GREED is the driving force

      Indeed… ask the 15Now folks in Seattle.

  21. Re: Tony,

    Either way it’s wholly unimportant to libertarians, unlike the tax rates of billionaires, which seems all-important.

    Oh, my God! He’s on to us, people!

    By the way, there are no specific tax rates for billionaires. Check it out and you will see.

    1. Exactly, if a billionaire can keep his income low enough, he can get the EITC, in fact.

      1. Tony doesn’t see any meaningful distinction between income, wealth and money.

    2. “By the way, there are no specific tax rates for billionaires.”

      See? See?
      That’s meddling right there! Not having taxes for billionaires is meddling!

  22. there are no specific tax rates for billionaires.

    Oh, HORROR!

  23. Oooh hoo, goodness over at Instapundit.

    Benjamin Rand
    Precisely. “Social tolerance” for irresponsible child-bearing grows the welfare state exponentially.

    In the fantasy world of libertarians, reckless sexual misconduct (and the “tolerance” that enables it) doesn’t necessarily grow the State.

    However, when practiced in every Western society (i.e., the real world), single parenthood leads to more and more government. Until libertarians acknowledge this reality, I’ll continue to view them as merely useful idiots of the Left.

    3 hours ago Like (5) Link To Comment

    1. It doesn’t occur to this joker that he ight have the cause and effect bass-ackwards?

  24. Oh, sure, lure us in with photos & a headline saying it’s going to be about the Koch bros., then give us excerpts about nothing of the sort, rather rehash of stuff we already know. Is the linked article any more on topic & fresh?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.