Libertarian Party

Libertarian Party Candidates Polling Surprisingly Well in the South

|

Patricia Murphy writing at Daily Beast spies the oracle of various early polls and finds three southern elections where a Libertarian Party candidate is polling well—and far wider than the gaps between the Democratic and Republican contenders. To her great credit, she manages to do so without ever playing into the hoary old two-party duopoly concept of the "spoiler":

L.P.

In Georgia, nanotechnologist Andrew Hunt is polling at 9 percent in the governor's race, which is otherwise a dead heat between incumbent Republican Nathan Deal and Democratic state Sen. Jason Carter. In North Carolina, the headlines have focused on the Thom Tillis-Sen. Kay Hagan face-off in November, but quietly amassing 11 percent in the contest is Sean Haugh, the Libertarian candidate running on an anti-war agenda. And in Florida, Adrian Wyllie will be on the November ballot with Gov. Rick Scott and former governor Charlie Crist. Although Wyllie is polling at 4 percent, he's at 10 percent with Florida's all-important independent voters and will be on the same November ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment to legalize medical marijuana.

Georgia's Hunt is trying to split the difference between social liberals and religious conservatives with this message:

Hunt said his own religious values are helping him make the case for government getting out of the business of legislating morality.

"I'm a very Christian person," he said. "I tell people it's not ours to judge other people. It's God's to judge other people. You can have an opinion and share your opinion, but you can allow them to live the life they want to live. There are a lot of people who agree with that."

North Carolina's Haugh has an observation that should either cheer or terrify those hoping for L.P. victories, depending on your beliefs about how much freedom your fellow citizens are willing to allow you to have:

Haugh says his own experience running statewide in 2002 and again in 2014 for the U.S. Senate shows him the growth of libertarianism in the state, where he is polling between 8 percent and 11 percent, in the race that shows Tillis and Hagan essentially tied.

"I think it's more of a positive identification with Libertarian ideas more than just a willingness to try something different," Haugh said of his race this time around. "The word is not new anymore. They know it's out there and they know what it means."

As usual, the story reports on lots of people being sick of the two major parties—likely true yet also likely to not mean much in action terms. Third party candidates who start polling surprisingly well tend to not actually do nearly that well when votes are actually cast.

As the example of Libertarian Robert Sarvis in last year's Virginia gubernatorial race shows, data doesn't support the notion that any L.P. vote would have properly gone to a Republican absent the Libertarian choice, an incorrect presumption that leads many Republicans who lose to a Democrat with a Libertarian also in the mix to cry that the L.P. "spoiled" things for them. (Sarvis is hoping to "spoil" the Senate race in Virginia this year.)

And read both Scott Shackford and me on the whole silly issue of saying that a candidate giving a voter a choice she might really want is "spoiling" an election for anyone.

Given that both Democrats and Republican candidates reliably betray the principles of the Constitution and their constituents' liberty, a Libertarian candidate is essentially, and properly, aiming to spoil things for both of them.

Advertisement

NEXT: Ivory Ban Leads Budapest Orchestra to Be Fined for "Importing" Bows They Insist Contained No Ivory

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. Oh noes! You’re just giving the election to the democrat!

    /SoCons

  2. In Georgia, nanotechnologist Andrew Hunt is polling at 9 percent in the governor’s race

    Damn anti-science libertarians. No wonder they never poll at more than 1%.

    /Tony

  3. …”data doesn’t support the notion that any L.P. vote would have properly gone to a Republican absent the Libertarian choice,”…

    Which really doesn’t matter. If the GOPer wants to promote libertarian policies, he’d get those votes. If he doesn’t, I don’t care if he loses.

    1. If there is a Republican who is significantly more favorable to liberty than his Democratic opponent, in a tightly contested race, then he has my vote.

      But that is a rare situation indeed.

      1. No race is ever that tightly contested.

          1. Middle earth, doesn’t count.

          2. In a country where the total population is smaller than a medium sized city in the US.

  4. As usual, the story reports on lots of people being sick of the two major parties

    One day, the 2 party system duopoly in the USA will be over. I don’t know if I will live to see it. And I don’t even know what it will mean. Will we be more like the Europeans with their crazy parties(all of whom seem to lean far left of center)? And if so, what difference would it really make? The government would just keep growing more and more obese and dysfunctional. It’s going to take something very special to turn this mess around. Something like 1776.

    1. It’s going to take something very special to turn this mess around. Something like 1776.

      Would it be like 1776 times 100?

      1. 177,600?

        1. I’ll never live to see that.

        2. I’ll never live to see that.

          1. I might, actually.

            1. Banking on the Singularity?

              1. I just hope I get my flying car right before the singularity, before they become obsolete.

    2. It will be interesting to see whether people’s dissatisfaction with TEAM BE RULED starts turning the LP into the new home for “independents” (the more traditional term for “I don’t really like either party”). I wonder if this has been happening a fair amount, considering how scared of libertarians both TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE seem. The fact that both are trying to increasingly vilify libertarians means that they’re certainly a bit alarmed. Maybe enough of them have known someone who said “I’m sick of TEAM X, and I like the libertarian message, I think I might vote for that LP guy”. Because that’s the type of thing that strikes terror into the heart of the TEAM member. Anything that draws people away from the TEAM is the ultimate enemy and must be destroyed.

      1. Libertarians are the independents that think the both TEAMS do too much when in power.

        Unfortunately, most independents I speak to are mad because they don’t do enough.

        No way they’ll ever support the Libertarian party.

        1. They don’t do enough.

          They don’t end the drug war enough, they don’t cut the budget enough, they don’t stay out of wars enough, they don’t eliminate regulations enough…

          I could go on.

      2. “Forgive my student loans! Give me free health care! I want a living wage job with no experience or skills! And free retirement! I want I want I want!”

        Like Bastiat said: “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

        Human nature has not changed, and it’s not libertarian.

      3. I guess the diff between team red and blue is that team red have some of the barbarians already inside the gates.

        1. As a practical matter, there is no difference. One is openly hostile to personal liberty while paying lip service to economic liberty, and the other is openly hostile to economic liberty while paying lip service to personal liberty. Neither will undo what the other one does. In effect it’s the Pit and the Pendulum. Each swing is an assault on a different liberty as it drops lower and lower since neither will undo what the other did.

          1. At least some on team red are trying. Of course they are invader libertarians, not republicans.

            1. You’re assuming there is such a thing as “a Republican”. The labels are just a strategy being used by millions of people. They’re not clubs.

          2. Does the left really even pay lip service to personal liberty anymore?

            1. Not so much. You have a top democrat saying that pesky first amendment thing can’t really be taken too seriously. Their masks have pretty much fallen off their face and they’ve already trampled it to pieces.

          3. Here’s one difference: If I have economic liberty, I can work around a lot of the lack of personal liberty. The converse is not true. E.g. if I have the money, I can go get an abortion somewhere, or buy some pot or some porn, even if those things are illegal. But if I have no job, I don’t really care if they are legal.

            1. With enough $, you can bribe your way out of a death camp.

      4. I know a lot of people that would be “soft” libertarians (fiscally conservative/socially liberal) if they knew what libertarians were or had someone more or less libertarian to vote for. So maybe there some hope.

        I’m personally hoping for a Snow Crash style future where the federal government spends itself into irrelevancy and bitcoins and cryptography and and whatever other technology allow people to ignore it.

        1. I’m personally hoping for a Snow Crash style future where the federal government spends itself into irrelevancy

          Good news. There’s about a 100% chance that’s going to happen before too much longer.

        2. What makes you so optimistic that what will replace it will be any better? Libertarians cheering on the demise of the federal government seem somewhat akin to Kadets who cheered on the deposal of the Tsar in 1917.

          1. I don’t know that I’m really that optimistic. But maybe we can bypass the government using technology. Like how Uber facilitates people’s transportation transactions, no government regulation needed. You just give the poor performers bad ratings. Maybe that kind of technology driven information sharing can be expanded.

          2. Not that it will be “better”. Just that everyone else will deserve what happens, and it will be fun.

      5. I’m surprised Nick and/or Matt haven’t shown up to remind you that they wrote a book about that.

        1. It’s Thursday — that means drinking night!

          1. Drinking night occurs on any day that ends in “y”

    3. I used to think that. But it’s not going to happen. If you want to vote for a winner then you have to vote for one of the two. A vote for a third party is a vote for a loser. It’s a throwaway vote. It doesn’t matter. In fact, it counts as a vote for whichever of the big two that you hate the most, because it could have been a vote for the one you hate the least. Only a really principled person will throw away their vote like that, and there aren’t that many of us.

      1. it counts as a vote for whichever of the big two that you hate the most

        That’s not how numbers work.

        1. Not giving is taking and not taking is giving.

      2. All votes are throwaway votes. Your vote is statistically insignificant and means nothing. Vote for Kodos or Kang or Pee-Wee Herman, it makes no difference. That’s why smart people don’t vote. Meaningless symbolism is for people who want to FEELZ good about their vote. As to getting a particular person elected, it means absolutely nothing.

        1. I vote only because it amuses me in a depressing way when the outcome is practically the inverse of my ballot.

        2. Your vote is statistically insignificant

          All votes count. That’s how numbers work.

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            Oh god…he doesn’t even know what “statistically insignificant” means. This is too good. Nothing is better than an ignoramus who truly believes they’re smart, with absolutely no empirical reason to think so. You just can’t get any better than that.

            Say something else profoundly ignorant, I could use the laugh.

            1. Nothing is better than an ignoramus who truly believes they’re smart, with absolutely no empirical reason to think so.

              That’s funny, because toxic was trying to mud wrestle about smarts on another thread. I don’t wrestle with pigs.

              1. Oh come one guys. Yes, one vote will almost never swing an election, but voting blocks are extremely important, and they are made up of individual voters. So yes, voting matters. That’s why politicians spend so much time and money campaigning and on get out the vote efforts. A constituency that refuses to vote because no one represents its interests provides no incentive for anyone to represent its interests. It is a self fulfilling prophesy. I know you understand this.

                1. Epi doesn’t even understand what ‘statistically insignificant’ means let alone the sensible points you made.

            2. I understand basic stats just fine. I know how to test two or more groups for statistically significant difference. I know what I’m talking about. Can’t say the same for Epitard.

          2. All votes count. That’s how numbers work.

            The people who vote certainly will say this. The people who count the votes might beg to differ. After a few drinks of course, since it’s not something they’ll openly admit to.

        3. All votes are throwaway votes.

          That’s why I’ve stopped voting. At first I thought my vote made a difference. Then I thought it didn’t make a difference but what the hell voting was fun. Now I don’t even find it fun anymore. Shit’s gonna happen whether I vote or not.

          1. I’m about at this point. I think I’m gonna stop voting. Also, I think I might get more enjoyment out of the people being outraged when I tell them that I didn’t vote than I would get from actually voting.

            1. No politician will represent the interests of people who don’t vote. Libertarian policies are not going to emerge spontaneously from within the bureaucracy. They have to be imposed on it from outside, and the only way that will happen is if libertarians vote for libertarian-leaning politicians. And the only way such politicians will appear is if libertarians engage in the political process, which involves, among other things, voting.

              1. There are other “political” processes I could “participate” “in”.

              2. Libertarian policies aren’t going to emerge no matter what voters want as libertarianism (whether minarchist or anarchist) is contrary to the structural logic of the state. At best the state will co-opt a few libertarian policies, implement them in a screwed up way, which, even if moderately successful will only serve to strengthen the state. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt that our ends can be legitimately arrived at through electoral politics.

                1. Libertarian policies aren’t going to emerge no matter what voters want as libertarianism (whether minarchist or anarchist) is contrary to the structural logic of the state.

                  This is gobbldey-gook. ‘The State’ is not a single entity it’s made of many factions and people. Libertarian votes can make them less awful. For further reference see ‘CO and WA MJ legalization’ and ‘gun rights since the ’90s’. History debunks all nonsense about voting being unimportant.

                  I’ve noticed that anarchos really really love to exclaim how much they don’t vote. It brings to mind the article about ‘positional goods’ that was here a couple weeks ago. Anarchos really want the world to hear them throw their ballot on the GROUND.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ

              3. Even minarchism is not going to happen unless/until the culture changes. You can’t make that happen by voting. And if/when it does happen, the votes will appear.

                Voting is like freedom of speech without strong protection of private-property rights: All it does is make you feel better as you get the shaft.

    4. winner take all contests practically guarantee a duopoly. We can replace the teams, but a legitimate 3+ party system wouldn’t hold up for very long.

  5. In Georgia, nanotechnologist Andrew Hunt is polling at 9 percent in the governor’s race

    I know one “libertarian” who is not voting for Hunt this year.

    Shrike.

    1. Which one will pass the purity test? Can Shriek at least give Hunt 8% of his vote?

    2. Hahahhahhaaahhaahaa!!!!

      Wow, that was a good one.

    3. opps

      I know one “libertarian” in Georgia who…

    4. A libertarian went down to Georgia, he was looking for some monocles to guild…

      1. Dammit, gild

    5. I voted only LP 1988-2000. In 2004-08 I voted anti-GOP for Kerry/Obama to stop the budding fascist party from taking root. The AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! crowd has slowly disintegrated into ODS.

      1. I voted anti-GOP for Kerry/Obama to stop the budding fascist party from taking root

        You don’t even see the irony in that statement, do you?

        1. The GOP has real fascist tendencies in the traditional use of “fascism” – the political meaning. I know the right is trying to redefine the word (as you are too).

          The left’s disease is pure socialism – of which we are in no real danger. Production is solidly in private hands.

          But conservatives want a real master class based on heritage, religion, nationality, race, military supremacy, and privilege. That is textbook fascism.

          1. How fascist is the following statement, on a scale of 1 to 10?

            I am actually for MORE economic stratification so we can cull the deadweight off this planet starting with the entire Middle East, India, China, and the useless Red State fundie white trash in North America via poverty and birthrate collapse.

            Can anybody guess who made that statement? No Googling!

            1. Hey, redneck Georgian “classical liberals” gotta have some lebensraum.

            2. I Googled it. I thought it was going to be someone with influence. Ha!

            3. Hey, the market can do that. Just as long as government doesn’t.

            4. 10

              fundie white trash

              You would think that would take the number down a bit….but Hitler had no problem killing Lutherans and Catholics for being Lutherans and Catholics.

          2. “Production is solidly in private hands”
            And those business’s will do exactly as the Feds say, or else. In other words, fascism. Your team.

        2. You don’t even see the irony in that statement, do you?

          I think that he means that he was dissatisfied with the slow pace of the GOP’s fascist lurch and decided to return to the party that knows how to do fascist correctly.

      2. Orthography Question for Shreek or anyone else in the know:

        Is BOOOOOOOOOOOSH spelled with 8 or 9 Os? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

        1. BOOOSH BOOOOOOOOOOOSH and BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH are actually all different words, though with similar meaning. The number of O’s signifies your level of outrage.

          1. Thank you, kind sir. Have a very BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH night, all.

  6. I still think the LP is an epic waste of space and time that has only ever held back libertarianism but if those numbers hold up to the end I will notify myself to considering reconsidering my position.

    1. Arn’t you like 23?

      I don’t want to be ageist but still…

      You really have to experience the nut crunch of Libertarian party disappointment and not just read about it to be truly cynical.

      1. “Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of suffering I am about to drink?”
        –Jesus; any given libertarian prior to any given election

      2. I wish I was 23. I’m a couple years older…so old.

        1. So young. And dumb.

          1. But still smarter than you.

            1. Yes. You are blessed with the wisdom of youth. So smart. Just like Tony.

              1. I don’t think Tony is young…mid to late 30s is my guess.

              2. The only thing older than me is your one-note commenting.

        2. “So old”? Cripes, I was reading Reason when your Mom was in grade school.

          1. He’s just sad the free candy van doesn’t even slow down for him anymore.

            1. I can’t even contemplate being older than I am now. It makes me physically ill.

              1. If you’re lucky, one day you’ll look back and laugh at yourself for feeling “old” at whatever age you are now.

            2. I don’t do retards. Even *I* have my standards.

  7. To her great credit, she manages to do so without ever playing into the hoary old two-party duopoly concept of the “spoiler”

    Of course not. She is a TEAM BLUE democrat.

    If a libertarian takes 9% of the vote and the Dem wins in friggin blood red Georgia then the libertarian is a spoiler.

    Not that that is a bad thing…right wing anti-libertarian Republicans deserve to be punished and know why they are being punished. It is what it is…why the importance of hiding it?

    1. ^This^

      Want to see more libertarian candidates get elected to the GOP and see a lot more congress critters quickly warm up to libertarian ideas? Then let’s see a few of their sure fire seats lost to democrats because of all the votes a more libertarian leaning candidate received in the race.

      There is not going to be any gain without some pain, folks.

      You like your statist GOP? You can keep your statist GOP.

      1. Long game.

      2. What changes can the candidates make in a lib’t direction that won’t lose them more votes than they gain thereby?

  8. Nobody talking about the Seattle shooting around here? I’m tired of waiting through the derpy comments at USA today…

    1. *wading

    2. Let me guess, $15 an hour wasn’t enough? Or hopped up on some of that pot candy that Maureen Dowd’s been eating?

      1. Someone on another board suggested it was someone who was already making $15 and was pissed he was now minimum wage…

        1. Reminds me of a conversation I had with my boss today at work. It’s fiscal year end and another 1-2% raise is on the table.

          Compare that to the minimum wage hike that MD just passed from 7.80 to 10.10 an hour. That about an 8% raise for anyone making minimum wage. And it comes with a guaranteed cost of living increase for the next several years on top of that.

          Ok, so that’s unskilled workers getting an 8% raise with ‘guaranteed’ cost of living raises on top of that for years to come. While skilled workers in the private industry have wages that fall in value each year because they can’t keep up with the cost of living.

          Before too long, if the progs have their way, no one will have any inspiration or ambtion to do anything more involved than pushing a broom or taking the trash out.

          1. Liberating us from the tyranny of work!

          2. Compare that to the minimum wage hike that MD just passed from 7.80 to 10.10 an hour. That about an 8% raise for anyone making minimum wage.

            More like a 29% raise.

          3. But in the USA people are already over-educated for the work they do, so maybe that would push us back to greater sensibility in terms of educational attainment.

    3. Something extra special about it, like Epi spotted fleeing the scene wearing a witch’s hat a hospital gown?

      1. Must’ve been pissed Paul’s mom stopped putting out…

    4. What is there to talk about? Another shooting, the BAN BONER crowd will climb on some dead bodies, they’ll wail and rend their hair when they don’t get any new laws passed, and people will realize that crazy people are crazy and will go back to doing their thing until the next time it happens.

      1. I guess the reason is significant to me is that I work security at a nearby corporate headquarters, and we’ve been taking a psycho for about a year now. I’ll be curious when they release the shooter’s name of our ebbs up being him.

        1. *if it ends

        2. *tracking Jesus God Swype is bad tonite…

          1. It’s really amusing, actually. Don’t fix it! I’m having great fun trying to translate things…

            1. no way…until he said i was really stuck on “taking/tracking”.

              Did not know what the hell he was saying.

        3. You know, Paul is being let go from his job…

          1. Oh, he can get a job where I work then. We’re always hiring!

      2. It will be interesting to see how Washington State government reacts.

        It has been a blue state for awhile and yet no real gun grabbing laws have come down the pipe.

        1. The state government didn’t do shit when there were other mass shootings in Seattle a few years ago. This state, overall, likes its very lenient gun laws. The city politicians will try and milk this a bit, of course, but under state law they can’t pass any locality laws that are more restrictive than the state laws, so fuck them.

          1. That and the lack of state income tax are about the two things that don’t suck about living in the People’s Democratic Republic of Washington.

            1. Don’t forget, you guys can legally buy pot, if you want to.

              1. And gay marry.

              2. No we can’t, not yet (no legal stores have opened yet), but we can legally possess and smoke it at least. And I sure do. But Bean is right that excellent gun laws and no income tax (and weed) are pretty nice.

    5. Dunphy shot himself?

    6. “Nobody talking about the Seattle shooting around here?”

      What the fuck else is new?

    7. Shotgun and a knife.

      At least that is what NPR is saying.

      1. No car as well? I thought the new hip triad after Santa Barbara was gun, knife, car. But make sure the news media only mentions the gun, even if the other two did more damage.

  9. It’s hard to get people involved in a political party that doesn’t claim to want to “take action” to solve X problem in the community through Y government resources.

  10. Well, the LP is the party of Mexicali blow and underage strippers neo-Confederacy and legalized lynchings. Mixed up my talking points for a second, there.

    1. Why can’t it be all four?

  11. Bored bored bored.

    1. Sounds like a personal problem.

  12. So I pissed off my brother pretty good the other day. He didn’t like it when I said voting is over-rated and that the troops have not been dying for freedom. I can understand him having strong feelings since he’s been to war. Still, troops have been dying my entire adult life and I certainly don’t feel more free, especially at the airport.

    1. Voting is over-rated, and the troops have been dying for the sake of cowardly President’s political capital. I don’t see how that reflects badly on the troops or voters. In the former case voting is largely useless thanks to population growth and bureaucratization stripping away most significance from the act as a practical matter; in the latter case the moral culpability lies with the political leadership. It is indeed accurate to say that many soldiers have volunteered to defend our freedoms only to later die defending Obama’s credibility.

      1. He really didn’t like it when I said the guys who died in Vietnam died for nothing. I know that sounds harsh, but the goal of the war was to stop the communists, and the communists won.

        He tried to argue that their deaths helped get 18 year olds the right to vote. There’s some truth to that, but it wasn’t the purpose of the war.

        1. He tried to argue that their deaths helped get 18 year olds the right to vote.

          And the great leap forward in American liberty has surely served to justify all those deaths!

          Less sarcastically, it is probably stupid to link outcome to praise for valor. In a subject as complicated as total industrialized war, it is unlikely that a single soldier can do anything more than conduct themselves with integrity and follow (justifiable) orders. The cult of American public service has conflated a reasonable respect for these virtues and people who exemplify it into a deification of public and military service for its own sake — the fact is, many Vietnam soldiers did sacrifice for what they saw as a necessary war against Communism and got the disrespect of a politicized war effort. The war they fought was not worth their sacrifice, and they were not all child-murderers or whatever. It’s not as glamorous as being able to say “they died for your freedom” but it is the truth. Sadly, the cult is getting even bigger and including such “heroes” as teachers and firefighters.

          1. The other thing that gets me is that most military personnel see no combat. Of the ones that do, most only see a little bit. But somehow, putting on a uniform automatically makes you a hero.

            I think the real reason so much praise gets heaped on the military is that all adults know it’s a shit job that most people would never want. That’s why conscription was the norm for so long.

            1. I think it was an overreaction to the incredibly shitty treatment the nation at large gave Vietnam vets, which then expanded outwards into a hero cult encompassing public service. Some of it was probably a misplaced affection for the American military ethos/mythmaking (racially tolerant/integrated, solid chain of command, takes the initiative, respects civilian authority and founding impulses, etc.). In a nation with few prominent public or social institutions dedicated to something other than making money or having people enjoy themselves, institutions like the military or the Peace Corps tend to stand out.

              1. That’s a better explanation. I forgot about that part. I think a better way to make good on the suffering of Vietnam vets would be to never again go to war without a declaration from Congress.

              2. And then came 9/11, which bumped it up several notches.

              3. I think it was an overreaction to the incredibly shitty treatment the nation at large gave Vietnam vets

                This.

                The thing is, we haven’t been in a real war since Vietnam. Yes, a very small portion of those serving put it on the line. Respect those who do, but 4500 deaths in 12 years isn’t a real war. We lost 3000 people on D-day. We used to have raids of 100 bombers and 20 would come back. From that perspective, what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was a joke.

                You want to hero-worship somebody, worship the guys who fought in Vietnam and earlier.

    2. I certainly don’t feel more free, especially at the airport.

      I don’t feel more free than when my adult life started, anywhere. At least not in this country.

      Our 2nd amendment is the one thing that we have over every other country. Besides that, not so much. And they are busy hacking away at what freedom remains, relentlessly, tirelessly, non-stop, 24/7.

      1. We also have The Establishment Clause.

        Unlike most here, I treasure both equally.

        1. “What about MY RIGHT not to see a cr?che on public property at Christmas time”

          1. Freedom from religion! It’s right there in the Constitution next to the doodles Madison made when he was bored.

  13. Some samples in an ongoing Derpbook argument:

    Me: Is this a justifiable use of govt force? I think not. http://www.nydailynews.com/lif…..-1.1811676

    Him: What if the Baker refused to make cakes for interracial marriages? Would you find the ruling so offensive?

    Me: I see no compelling reason for the govt to force a business to sell anything to anybody for any reason. I ask again: is this a justifiable use of govt force?

    Him: I also wonder if his cakes respect the kosher laws set forth in the bible?

    Me: I don’t agree with the baker’s views, but they harm no one. Free association means people must be free to choose who they want to trade with. There is no reason for the govt to be involved.

    1. Him: I also wonder if his cakes respect the kosher laws set forth in the bible?

      The old deflection tactic.

    2. Sounds like your derpbook associate falls into the “That which is not forbidden is required” subsection of statist thought. He can’t differentiate between a conduct being permitted and being approved of.

      1. Keep in mind this same guy thinks all choice are voluntary.

        1. “Keep in mind this same guy thinks all choice are voluntary.”

          Ask him whether he’d rather be shot or stabbed…

  14. Derpbook argument, cont’d:

    Him: Yeah, bigotry never harmed anybody!

    Me: The baker is not harming the gay couple by refusing to sell them a cake. No victim, no crime.

    Him: If he refused to make cakes for Christian weddings you would be shitting bricks.

    Me: No, I wouldn’t. I ask again: is this a justifiable use of govt force? If so, why? A baker who refused to make cakes for Christians would have trouble staying in business.

    Him: So gays being protected by the same civil rights laws all other minorities enjoy is a overreach of government that offends you? You are literally admitting right here, that you don’t believe civil rights should apply to gays? Or ANY minorities?

  15. Me: There is no right to a wedding cake, nor the labor required to make one.

    Him: Yes it is completely jusifiable, as justifiable as forcing a Baker to service black couples or Asian couples or Jewish couples. Why does civil rights for minorities and protections for gays offend you so much. Do you really hate gays that much that you believe they shouldn’t even be protected by the same laws as other human beings? Or is it that you consider them subhuman and therfore unworthy of equal protections under the law?

    Me: The Civil Rights Act only applies to public accommodations like bars, hotels, and restaurants. Bakeries are not a public accommodation. Neither are florists or photographers.

    Him: If you offer a service to the public, whether it be baking cakes, cleaning carpets, providing legal services, renting apartments, etc. you are not allowed to discriminate against anyone for their race, color, creed, sex, age, sexual orientation or religion. Is that concept really that offensive to you? A white male? This is the fight you choose?

    1. FREEDOM CAKE OR NOTHING!

    2. Man in Arab garb walks into bakery.

      Adbul: ‘Hey, American pig baker! I command that you bake me a cake celebrating the destruction of America! Put some towers on it, with planes flying into towers!

      So, my question is. Does this derpbook guy insist that he baker bakes the cake, no matter how offensive he finds it?

      Here’s another example:

      Bake me a cake in the image of a giant penis penentrating a hairy vagina!

      Does the derpbook guy think government should force him to bake this cake also?

      What I don’t get about this is basically this. If I walked into a business and asked for a cake and the person said ‘I’m not serving you, you heathen libertarian!’. I would laugh, and go somewhere else to buy my cake. I don’t really get wanting to be served by someone who doesn’t like you.

      1. See below for more on that.

  16. Nothing could possibly go wrong

    I can just hear the excuses the first time one of these shears the head off of a 3 year old playing in a back yard while they were trying to get a closer look at that house the funny smell was coming from. ‘Ooops, well, we didn’t think there were any children in the vicinity, procedures were followed, we couldn’t have done anything differently’

    1. Words can’t describe how much I hate civilian cops’ use of the word “tactical.” There is absolutely nothing “tactical” about what a cop does, not ever.

  17. Me: If a business refused to serve me because I had a beard or some other silly reason, I would go elsewhere. I wouldn’t sue or demand an anti-beard discrimination law, Why is it justifiable for the govt to force a business to sell when they don’t want to?

    Him: What if a gun shop refused to sell to white Christian males or Republicans? What if a gay bar or Baker or photographer refused to provide services to straight white males? Something tells me you would be irate. Why are you opposed to gays being treated like human beings and being protected by the same laws as every other minority?

    Me: When businesses treat me badly, I go elsewhere. The people in the examples I gave could have done that. They didn’t. That’s stupid.

    Him: In your ideal world you would own a “No Colored Allowed” sign making factory. But you would refuse to sell the signs to coloreds or gays. What exactly are you trying to prove with this argument? That you are pro-discrimination? That’s really what you want to fight for? The right to discriminate legally to anyone you don’t like? Should private hospitals be allowed to refuse service to gays too?

    1. I love how he thinks he is winning by treating the “The right to discriminate legally to anyone you don’t like” as a bad thing. But then, I guess in most people’s eyes, it is. Which I do not love.

      1. Worse, he seems to be imagining a world where nobody wants to do business with anybody, and the only thing that would keep anybody in business would be laws making them do business!

  18. This is news: Hil-Dog finally admits it.

    Hillary Clinton on Iraq vote: ‘I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.’

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..nd-simple/

    Too late – you blew it. Now step aside.

    1. Maybe George Soros will run and you can vote for him. Together you can steal Jew property and use it to fund the Reich.

      1. Don’t let buttpig kid you. He swoons every time he sees her cankles. The Butcher of Benghazi has his vote all locked up.

        Now maybe if White Squaw Warren could get the nomination, but Hitlary will send her to the happy hunting ground in the sky if she gets too close.

        1. Now maybe if White Squaw Warren could get the nomination, but Hitlary will send her to the happy hunting ground in the sky if she gets too close.

          Don’t ruin my dreams of Clinton/Warren vs. Palin/Bachman! It’s the choice America deserves!

          1. White Squaw may have a shot if not this time, maybe next time. She could also flip parties and pair up with a fellow Indian, Bobby Jindal.

          2. Just as long as Warren doesn’t get the presidential nomination, I don’t want Sudden to win our bet.

          3. I might have to vote in that one, purely on which one would produce better porn parodies.

      2. Jews do hate Nazis. That is why they won’t vote GOP.

        1. ? Wouldn’t it be nice if you were smarter, then wouldn’t have to hear your derp…

        2. Yes, because the GOP is full of Nazis, walking around with Swastikas on their uniforms. And the Dems are really Lizard people from the far side of the moon.

          What are you, like 8 years old, or just a completely retarded adult?

          1. Isn’t the GOP the party that supports Israel the most? And isn’t the Democrat Party being criticized by Israel right now for not supporting them?

            And NAZI translates to national socialism, a leftist ideology. Jeesh!

            1. Shh! You’re not supposed to say that part.

              Here, watch this nice young lady explain why fascism is totally different from communism:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL8k-TqHeV4

              1. Wow, she’s great. Fascism is government run by corporations, eh? She may want to look that one up again.

            2. The GOP supports Israel? WTF are you talking about?

              You mean the GOP wants war with Iran? That is true. That is not “support”.

              Obama has a 61% approval rating in Israel. And Nazi is fascist – a right wing disease.

              I should know that anyone named “Duke” is an ignorant redneck.

              1. I should know that anyone named “Duke” is an ignorant redneck.

                It’s my middle name and at least I’m man enough to use it here publicly. My wife and I have two degrees each. And I’ve built my own business from the ground up and have been self employed for many years. What the fuck have you done except act like a cowardly ass on this website?

                But anyone who refers to themselves as a “buttplug” is truly an enlightened soul.

              2. I should know that anyone named “Duke” is an ignorant redneck.

                It’s my middle name and at least I’m man enough to use it here publicly. My wife and I have two degrees each. And I’ve built my own business from the ground up and have been self employed for many years. What the fuck have you done except act like a cowardly ass on this website?

                But anyone who refers to themselves as a “buttplug” is truly an enlightened soul.

                1. fucking squirrels

                  1. Wait, you’re criticizing a butt plug and yet you’re busy fucking squirrels?

              3. I should know that anyone named “Duke” is an ignorant redneck.

                Like Duke Kahanamoku?

                I should know that anyone named “Palin’s Buttplug is a POS.

              4. National Socialism. That is at the heart of Nazi. Hitler’s German miracle was a host of public works projects funded by deficit spending. Sound familiar? The two dictators facing off in WWII were both left-wing tyrants.

                You really are an ignorant dumbfuck, aren’t you?

          2. I was responding to an idiot who called the Jewish Soros a Nazi. Except I employed some real truth against him.

            Why do Jews vote Dem then? Seriously – as an ethnic group they are this nation’s most accomplished.

            What, they want “free stuff”? The old Team Red lie?

            1. My aunt was married to a Jewish man who was worth $50 million liquid. He was staunchly Republican.

              Go back to Balloon Juice where your low IQ and vapid talking points will be better tolerated.

            2. Identity politicking: the myth the GOP made up to explain Democratic logrolling.

            3. And Soros worked for the Nazis — willingly, even gleefully and sold out his own people. That you would defend him and disparage another group collectively only proves that you are 1) not a thinking person and 2) a bigot.

              1. Don’t argue with it. It can’t really think.

            4. You live in Georgia.

              What the fuck do you know about Jews?

              Seriously – as an ethnic group they are this nation’s most accomplished.

              err Dutch, Germans and WASPs???

              Why do Jews vote Dem then?

              They don’t. Not as reliably as you are claiming.

            5. Jews vote Democratic mainly because Jews & Democrats tend to be urban. I think if you controlled for geography, i.e. urban vs. rural counties, that difference would disappear. May be hard to do any statistics on this, though, because so few rural Jews.

        3. That was funnier when I heard it a year ago on the Colbert Report 3 years ago on the Daily Show 5 years ago on Real Time With Bill Maher 7 years ago on Air America.

          Just kidding — Air America had no listeners.

        4. Jews do hate Nazis. That is why they won’t vote GOP.

          GOP has been pretty steadfast defenders of Israel.

          Also Jews are not so a reliable voting block as you are claiming.

          You may as well be claiming Irish catholics only vote Democrat.

  19. Libertarian candidates aid the cause of liberty when they are truly libertarian and they run against statist establishment Republicans. If the Republican loses, while Tea Party and libertarian Republicans win elsewhere, it serves as evidence that voters want more freedom, and it thus makes the case that our long-term rise is inevitable. If Libertarians run against Tea Party Republicans who would move things in a pro-liberty direction, like Cuccinelli in Virginia, it does not help at all, and they only hurt themselves and us. Strategy matters.

    1. If Team Red wants my vote, maybe they should nominate someone who actually favors small govt.

      1. Right now, the GOP establishment can’t decide to swoon more over Bush III or Joisey Fats.

        1. Cruz or Walker. Bet on it.

          1. Not even a remote possibility of Cruz. The GOP establishment hates him almost as much as they do Rand.

            Rand is the only candidate that can win in the general election.

            But I am 100% sure that the GOP would rather have Hillary than Rand.

            1. I think Cruz remains a possibility because of Rand. I think that the Red Team base will not sit still if the GOP establishment offers up yet another uber-establishment figure like McCain or Romney. I also have a feeling that they will try it anyway. I think that after getting blasted a bit that the GOP establishment will tap Cruz in an effort to shut down Paul because Cruz has cred with a GOP base that is really tired of being jerked around by the establishment republicans.

              1. But the MSM informed me that the recent R primaries proved that the Tea Party is dead dead dead!

                1. Watch for that desperate T.P. resurrection s?ance, when it looks like the GOP might just get its’ ass thoroughly kicked, and handed to it in 2016… Ohhh… the promises they will make (and break..).

              2. The GOP establishment is nowhere near as bright as you figure them. These people want Jeb Bush for nom. That’s how retarded they are.

                Cruz would be a formidable challenger to Rand as he can tap the Bordertard vote and the Socontards. But I could see a reformist GOP governor upends them both.

      2. Can you blame them, after what happened when they nominated Goldwater for prez?

    2. That is true but at the same time it is impossible to avoid the latter case if you want a national party which at least tries to be competitive across the US. Obviously the LP should not be spending money on, say, challenging Rand Paul’s seat in KY over other potential targets but it is also inevitable that some libertarian is going to be pissed at Rand and file papers to run against him as an L. Personally, I don’t see the LP as ever having a future but I would rather not have the libertarian movement shift into a quasi-Stalinist anti-factionalist witch-hunt.

    3. Cuccinelli? That’s what you’re offering me here? Uh, no thanks, dude.

      1. I see I wasn’t the only one who had the same thought.

    4. Ah yes, Cuccinelli, a true friend of liberty!

      *barf*

      1. He is definitely going to have to do better than that.

        On the Austin-Uber-Lyft article a few days ago, you said/implied that one of those companies was operating in Calgary in defiance of the city government. I could not find supporting documentation. Was that just a Houston phenomena and I just misinterpreted it?

        1. No sorry I didn’t mean to imply anything about Calgary I was just correcting my original statement about Houston. All I knew was that Uber/Lyft was banned in Houston, as far as I knew, a couple of months ago, and all of sudden I was getting ads for free rides and discounts lately so I assumed city council/mayor had worked it out. Turns out it’s not true and uber/lyft are just telling them to go fuck themselves.

          They started with offering free rides with “donations” but now they are straight up operating in defiance of the city. The city is “cracking down” but apparently they are issuing citations for like .01% of rides and uber/lyft are just covering the citation costs for the drivers.

          This has led to the taxi cartel filing suit in federal court saying this is unfair because they are just “paying their way out of following regulations.”

          Which is to say that your “boner” is entirely justified but not locally.

          1. Well dammit why aren’t they doing that here!?!?! Calgary’s at least as awesome as Houston. Also, fuck Nenshi.

            1. Well we are both Gaia raping oilmongers. Why the fuck aren’t we sister cities?

              Despite this issue I can’t hate on our mayor. Having the first lesbian mayor of any major city worldwide (and I’d say first LBGT*** of a major city because Portland is puny) is majorly fun for countering the “Texas is a homophobic wasteland” people.

    5. Everybody‘s long-term rise is inevitable, and so is everybody’s long-term fall.

  20. Me: Everyone discriminates. For some reason, some kinds are OK and others are not. I have yet to hear a sensible explanation why. It’s discrimination to force men and women to use separate bathrooms, but for some reason, liberals don’t get upset about that. Well, some of them:

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/…..oom-study/

    Him: Their civil rights were violated. Why do you believe anyone who isn’t a white Christian male shouldn’t have equal rights? You are literally saying “Isn’t this awful how the government told these business owners they couldn’t discriminate against gays?” Now replace gay with blacks, Jews, Asians, Mexicans, etc. and you will understand how you sound to everyone else.

    Me: OK, I have the Bill of Rights in front of me. I see a right to free speech and a right to keep and bear arms. Nothing about cakes, flowers, or photography.

    Him: We get it, you hate gays and transgendered people. And since you have no religious explanation, we will just have to draw our own conclusions on why that is.

    1. Well, I guess he got me there. Nothin’ left to do but drink Jim Beam straight from the bottle, clean my guns, and listen to this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_1H2njznEU

      I refer to the above song as the Socon Mating Call.

      1. Might I suggest:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc

        Trigger warning: it’s Toby Keith.

        1. Thankfully, I have my browser set up not to autoplay videos.

    2. You really have the patience of a saint.

    3. Call his bluff. Openly state that any business owner should be able to discriminate against anyone, including white Christian conservative men, for any reason, because no one should be forced to work against their will.

      Or flip it around and ask him if customers have a right to discriminate against businesses. And if so, why isn’t the reverse true?

      1. I already asked him why it’s OK for the gym franchise Curves to discriminate against men. He said that’s OK because the business was specifically meant for women.

        Herp. herp. herpa. derp.

        1. Yeah, but flip it around and ask if boycotts are OK. Because we know how much love the culture warriors love boycotts.

          Of course, I can already envision his answer. Something something money blah blah.

      2. That’s always my tactic, though people are so anti-business they just don’t care. But really, why is the sympathy or “civil rights” only for the hypothetical consumer/buyer, and never for the hypothetical producer/seller? Why is Chik-fil-a not entitled to customers’ patronage? Doesn’t a boycott threaten their right to earn a living, or whatever the fuck?

    4. Their civil rights were violated.

      Begging the question.

      Why do you believe anyone who isn’t a white Christian male shouldn’t have equal rights?

      Begging the question.

      You are literally saying “Isn’t this awful how the government told these business owners they couldn’t discriminate against gays?”

      Begging the question.

      Now replace gay with blacks, Jews, Asians, Mexicans, etc. and you will understand how you sound to everyone else.

      Begging the question.

      Seriously, has he heard of first principles? Or does it all default to “becuz my tribe tells me things have to be that way”?

      1. Well, you didn’t expect him to use logic and reason to argue, did you?

  21. Me/: I have not said a single derogatory thing about either group. I don’t think they or anyone else should be able to force a business to serve them.

    I think you support these laws partly because you think it will make society kinder and more tolerant. I think the real reason you like these laws is because it punishes people you don’t like. In that case, these laws will do nothing but further entrench the attitudes you claim to oppose. Not very smart.

    Him: No you just believe it should be completely legal to shun and discriminate against them and ANY minorities. No hidden message there. Punishes people I don’t like? You mean racists, bigots, and homophobes? Those are really the people you want to side with and champion the cause of?

    Me: Do you really want to fine people or put them in prison for not selling wedding cakes? That looks awfully close to criminalizing thought to me. If you believe in free association, you have to support it for everybody, not just the people you like.

    1. I’ve read this whole derpbook convo and I believe you are speaking to what the late 19th/early 20th psychology and medical books referred to as an “idiot”. I think they would’ve been considered unfit to function independently in society.

  22. The thing that makes derp so hard to fight is that it never gives up:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au9biMnPwoY

    1. oh my god. The comments.

      They burn.

  23. One more:

    Him: I do NOT support institutional bigotry, apparently you don’t see a problem with it. You’d rather stand up for the rights of bigots/racists/homophobes than the people they are oppressing. Any way you slice it, you’re on the wrong side of the argument, history, and basic human dignity.

    Me: So you do want to fine and imprison people for thought crime. What other attitudes would you like to criminalize?

    1. That can’t have been it.

      Since getting axed by my last avidly liberal acquaintance (the last who posts her pablum to facebook, anyway), my feed’s been depressingly dull. Where’s the rest of the exchange? Out with it, man!

    2. This is something I brought up in the immigration thread… let’s grant that there is a right to be served by a business. Ask this guy if he grants that there is a right to free association. Does the baker have even a weak right to refuse a customer? What about if the baker is swamped and has to pick and choose which customers he will accept and which he’ll tell to go elsewhere? Clearly he has some authority to decide who he can serve, no?

      So there is a conflict of rights. The baker wants to exercise his authority to refuse jobs that violate his morals. The couple wants to be served. So long as there are other bakers available, it is only reasonable for the couple to go elsewhere. They can still be served, still get a cake, and the bakers’ rights are still respected. Neither side is seriously harmed. Even if the couple really wants a cake from this particular baker, the least amount of harm is done by telling them to get it from someone else. The couples’ rights are not entirely violated, while in the real world situation, the baker’s rights are.

      This is not a black family being refused service at a hotel in the middle of a storm. So long as other options are readily available, why is the heavy hand of the law needed to resolve this conflict? Isn’t it on the couple to explore other options first?

      Unless you’re just a fuckin’ baby who wants what he wants, no exceptions, and fuck whoever won’t give it to you.

  24. What’s the haps, Reasonoids? Anyone still awake?

    1. Well let’s see, Epi is still down on voting, Buttplug is still a facist, Derpotologist is torturing us with facebook liberal “thinking”, and apparently I should be pleased that Libertarians in the south have moved from electron microscope to optical microscope levels of support.

      1. So, same-old, same-old.

        Good summary.

      2. I gotta say Derp and Buttplug brought the noise tonight.

        That bakery conversation is probably repeated by most of us ad nauseum in various forms and shriek thinks the Democrats care more about Israel than the GOP.

        Epi, of course well..what needs to be said that warty wouldn’t just mouth out instead?

        Good times.

    2. Sleep is for the weak-willed.

      1. Bed ways is right ways now. I have to get up in the morning and have some wisdom teeth removed.

        1. Ouch, man. I’ve yet to have mine pulled, but now and then I wonder whether I should… earlier is better, I hear.

          1. My top ones came in with no problems, but one on the bottom can’t come in all the way so every other month I feel like I’m teething. I’m hoping it will help me stop gritting my teeth.

        2. Youch! You have my sympathies.

          1. You have my sympathies.
            Where’s Yaphet Kotto when you need him?

    3. I’m sitting here still working (and drinking!) reading briefs and cases but at least it’s probably the 2nd most interesting case I’ve ever worked on (and definitely the most from a libertarian perspective).

  25. Huh, well it’s better than nothing. But how are libertarians doing in the TEAM BLUE enclaves? That’s what libertarians really need to do in order to upend the 2-party duopoly.

    1. We need to be like Hydra on both teams.

      The only good Bluers I can think of are Brooker, Wyden, and Bellows (sic/) of RI. Maybe Polis. All of those are very iffy but I would vote for them just to get some civil liberties love going in Team Blue and within government overall.

  26. I’ve been wondering why so many countries in Europe and Latin America that have a history of black market and anti-tax sentiment end up voting for statists. Are those folks a small minority or do they have an “anarchist” view that the state should only tax the rich (i.e. everyone else), only spend on programs that benefit them and should only eliminate regulations that inconvenience them?

    1. Winston|6.6.14 @ 12:18AM|#
      “I’ve been wondering why so many countries in Europe and Latin America that have a history of black market and anti-tax sentiment end up voting for statists”…

      Interesting question. I have an Italian friend who is as libertarian as Euros every get, and he just refuses to vote there.
      I wonder if the vote totals are so small that a minority of free-shit bleevers can carry the election.

  27. So I watched Fallon for the first time tonight. I’ve never been a big late night talk show fan, except for Conan a few years in college. He is mostly painful to watch. He mostly just says awkward things not allowing the guest to speak and when he does he just repeats every other line they say. Is he always like this? There were a coiple funny moments in the skits, but they were tweets other peolle wrote.

    1. A College student that likes Conan? I am confuzzled.

    2. I’ve never watched him, but there was an interview where he claimed he’d ‘do anything for a laugh’.
      Desperate comics tend not to be funny.

  28. Huh so I was looking at the Wikipedia page for upcoming DC mayoral elections. H’n’R’s own Bruce Majors won the Libertarian primary with a whopping 91% of 33 voters with no competition. The Green Party by contrast had 401 voters in a single candidate race. The Republicans had 717 voters despite no candidate. The Dems by contrast had 8 candidates and 96,915 people voted and the lowest vote getter received 4 times as many votes as Majors got in the Libertarian primary.

    1. And everything in the universe was proportionally correct..

  29. Libertarians won’t be going many places unless they can make inroads in places like Boston, Detroit, NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago and state level in New England and Pacific Coasts and the Great Lakes. What will it take for that to happen?

    1. Why do we have to make inroads into those shitholes/sort of shitholes?

      1. ‘Cuz the Dems need to lose along with the GOP?

        1. Unpossible!

        2. I didn’t know you were talking about the LP.

          1. Even if you are talking about making the Dems more libertarians you do need to make inroads there since that is where most Dem voters are.

            1. Also if the libertarians were to replace/hijack the GOP they are not going to get all of the GOP’s voters so they will need to get some Dem support in order to win elections. Destroying the GOP and ending up with a Dem monopoly like in Detroit and such in the long term is no good.

  30. Since Dweebston asked for it, here it is:

    Him: It’s not just a thought if they put it into action. Are you honestly standing up for the rights of bigots and denouncing the rights of gays to not be discriminated against? Why are the rights of racist/homophobic/bigots so important to you exactly?

    Me: Using laws to force people to associate is just as dumb as using laws to segregate people. The price of freedom is letting other people have theirs.

    Him: Except of course the only freedoms you appear to be concerned with, is that of racists, bigots, and homophobes and to hell with the oppressed. “Don’t like being discriminated against? Get out of our restaurant/bakery/coffee shop/library/swimming pool/town/state you faggots!”

    Me: Not getting a wedding cake is oppression? Please. Free association matters for everybody. Why not just boycott businesses you don’t like? The cake thing is just as dumb as the Muslims demanding that Subway stop serving bacon.

    1. HA! Free will, and freedom of association?.. that shit’s for loosers! Join the hivemind.. slavery and conformity never looked soooo gooood!

  31. Hmmm.. Apparently, in the middle of record budget short falls, the USPS hasn’t lost sight of what’s most important… Delivering the message.

  32. But wait! There’s more:

    Him: Aren’t you in the “If a mental patient can’t get a gun legally, then the next thing you know Obamacare death squads will drag you away to FEMA concentration camps” camp? Isn’t allowing ANY business to openly discriminate against minorities a slippery slope to the very likely possibility of entire townships and cities discriminating against minorities? Say the Chamber of Commerce in Lynchacoon Mississippi openly encourages all businesses to ban blacks, Mexicans, gays, etc.? What is your point here? Other than you love bigots?

    Me: Why isn’t a boycott enough for you? You do realize gay businesses have been sued for heterosexual discrimination. Why not just let people freely associate?

    http://www.wehoville.com/2013/…..na-eleven/

    Him: Because if we let people “freely associate” much of the south and rural America would still be segregated and “No Coloreds” signs would be the norm. Why do you ONLY care about the rights of racists and bigots, but not give two fucks about those being oppressed?

    Me: That wasn’t free association- racial segregation was enforced by law. Read a book. Funny how Mr Tolerant stereotypes all rural and Southern people as bigots.

    1. Him: Because if we *LET* people “freely associate” …”

      Hahaha.. Gotcha!

    2. http://www.econlib.org/library…..ation.html

      The Market Resists Discrimination

      The resistance of southern streetcar companies to ordinances requiring them to segregate black passengers vividly illustrates how the market motivates businesses to avoid unfair discrimination. Before the segregation laws were enacted, most streetcar companies voluntarily segregated tobacco users, not black people. Nonsmokers of either race were free to ride where they wished, but smokers were relegated to the rear of the car or to the outside platform. The revenue gains from pleased nonsmokers apparently outweighed any losses from disgruntled smokers.

      Streetcar companies refused, however, to discriminate against black people because separate cars would have reduced their profits. They resisted even after the passage of turn-of-the-century laws requiring the segregation of black people. One railroad manager complained that racial discrimination increased costs because it required the company to “haul around a good deal of empty space that is assigned to the colored people and not available to both races.” Racial discrimination also upset some paying customers. Black customers boycotted the streetcar lines and formed competing hack (horsedrawn carriage) companies, and many white customers refused to move to the white section.

      1. continued

        In Augusta, Savannah, Atlanta, Mobile, and Jacksonville, streetcar companies responded by refusing to enforce segregation laws for as long as fifteen years after their passage. The Memphis Street Railway “contested bitterly,” and the Houston Electric Railway petitioned the Houston City Council for repeal. A black attorney leading a court battle against the laws provided an ironic measure of the strength of the streetcar companies’ resistance by publicly denying that his group “was in cahoots with the railroad lines in Jacksonville.” As pressure from the government grew, however, the cost of defiance began to outweigh the market penalty on profits. One by one, the streetcar companies succumbed, and the United States stumbled further into the infamous morass of racial segregation.

        1. and also

          An example of the effect of market penalties on prejudicial hiring occurred in South Africa in the early 1900s. In spite of penalties threatened by government and violence threatened by white workers, South African mine owners sought to increase profits by laying off high-priced white workers in order to hire lower-priced black workers. Higher-paying jobs were reserved for whites only after white workers successfully persuaded the government to place extreme restrictions on blacks’ ability to work (see apartheid). Market penalties for discrimination also mitigated the effects of prejudice in the McCarthy era when profit-maximizing producers defied the Motion Picture Academy’s blacklist and secretly hired blacklisted screenwriters.

  33. I need to go to bed. But I will leave this:

    Him: The South and rural areas are overwhelmingly racist. That’s a fact. Not a stereotype.

    And aren’t your fighting for the rights of racists and bigots in rural areas and the south? Isn’t every single article you linked to above from some ass backwards red state or area that thinks bigotry is great?

    Me: Have you ever been to Boston? And by the way, I think gay bars and clubs should be allowed to exclude straight customers and employees- something which is illegal now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkkf_Fq_EQA

    Other guy: No one should be discriminated anywhere. It’s that fucking simple. Regardless of desire, people have needs. The moment we start discriminating people at a places of leisure is no different than discriminating against people who go to establishments out of needs. The only time I see discrimination applicable is through age. It’s probably not wise to allow a 7 year old child to come into a bar and order a round of shots.

    1. The South and rural areas are overwhelmingly racist. That’s a fact. Not a stereotype.

      Not that we needed anymore evidence, but: what an unmitigated asshole.

      Unfortunately I have known people IRL, including at least one libertarian, who think that way.

  34. Him: Oh that’s swell of you, to let those gays ruin the lives of straights by not allowing them in N their gay establishments. A much needed service all straight people need to live a normal day to day life. It’s about time someone stood up for the rights of racists and bigots. That mean old government told them to take down their No Coloreds signs, someone needs to champion their cause.

    Me: Not hiring or serving someone means ruining their life? I’ve often said you should read a book. I suggest starting with a dictionary. And it was other governments that forced them to put up those signs.

  35. Him: Oh that’s swell of you, to let those gays ruin the lives of straights by not allowing them in N their gay establishments. A much needed service all straight people need to live a normal day to day life. It’s about time someone stood up for the rights of racists and bigots. That mean old government told them to take down their No Coloreds signs, someone needs to champion their cause.

    Me: Not hiring or serving someone means ruining their life? I’ve often said you should read a book. I suggest starting with a dictionary. And it was other governments that forced them to put up those signs.

  36. No politician will represent the interests of people who don’t vote.

    Ah. But no politician will represent the interest of those who do vote either. They will just pay them lip service. Which might not be so bad. If it was the right lips servicing me. Trouble is I want not only the lips but the 42 Ds.

  37. Roll with the punches dude.

    http://www.WentAnon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.