Michael Brown Shooting

Washington Post Writer Seriously Asks Why Libertarians Are Silent on Ferguson Police Killing


Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash

The Washington Post's Paul Waldman is confused. He doesn't know where the libertarian voices are on the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. His column begins:

The shooting death by police of Ferguson, MO teenager Michael Brown, and what has happened in the aftermath, has been blanketing the news for the past few days. It's a story about race, but it's also become a story about the power of the state and how it's wielded, and against whom.

So my question is this: Where are the libertarians?

Waldman goes on to mention the New York Times Magazine story about the "libertarian moment," so he's definitely heard of Reason. Yet he doesn't mention that we've covered Ferguson extensively until the last paragraph of his piece. It's almost an afterthought. Instead, he takes issue that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), prominent libertarian-leaning Republicans, haven't made any statements about Ferguson. Neither, it should be noted, represents Ferguson, Missouri, and neither is a member of the Libertarian Party. I contacted both offices for a statement; Rep. Amash's press person told me when she spoke to Waldman she meant she knew of no immediate plans to release a statement and that Waldman hung up before she even finished her thought. If Amash does make a statement, we'll update you here on the blog. We're awaiting a response from Paul's press shop.

Like Amash and Paul, prominent liberal Democrats haven't said much either. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has made no statement about Ferguson, Missouri. I contacted her DC office but there did not appear to be anyone there to take phone calls.

Waldman's timing on his column is interesting, too. It was released this afternoon. Twenty four hours ago his misleading point wouldn't be as salient; back then President Obama, who's commented on everything from Henry Louis Gates' 2009 encounter with police in Massachusetts to Robin Williams' death, hadn't made a statement either. I took no issue with that decision by the president, and had he not spoken yesterday I wouldn't criticize him for it. Far more important are actions. Federal involvement in the Ferguson investigation and the wider Department of Justice review of police tactics are both welcome news, and far more substantive than any statement could be.

Most importantly, perhaps, Waldman ought to familiarize himself with the work of his fellow Washington Post scribes and specifically Radley Balko, formerly of Reason, and the only reason (drink!) I was even exposed to Waldman's ridiculously misguided column. Balko's extensive coverage of police issues over the years wasn't mentioned at all.

As the libertarian moment becomes harder to ignore, expect liberals (and conservatives) to protest that much more loudly when libertarians take up causes (be it police brutality or government spending) they believe they have a monopoly on.

On a final note, Waldman's question could be easily turned around on the American left, and not just because Sen. Warren hasn't made a statement. There are plenty of cases of police brutality you can read about at Reason that didn't get mentioned by Warren, President Obama, or any of the activists attaching themselves to the situation in Ferguson.

UPDATE: It's not just the left engaging in this kind of gotcha-ish journalism. Here's a National Review piece from yesterday pointing out that in addition to Obama neither House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had made a statement. 

UPDATE: I had the wrong NR link in the above update. I've fixed it, but this Charles Cooke piece on conservative reactions to Ferguson is worth a read too, and certainly a good example of something, and I may well be biased here, I see a little more of on the "right" than the "left," honest intra-ideological criticism.

NEXT: The Press Has Had Enough of the 'Most Transparent Administration Ever'

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. What a dumbass. Even @pmarca was RT-ing up a storm last night. This is beyond politics. It’s left coast (Silicon Valley and Hollywood) vs. right coast (politics and money). Waldman is just pissed that the issue isn’t being engaged on right coast terms. We took to uStream and Twitter rather than call our Congresspeople.

  2. Where are the libertarians?

    Maybe they aren’t interested in taking advantage of a tragedy for political gain?

    Maybe it’s too soon to figure out exactly what happened and would prefer not to jump to conclusions about an incident that didn’t even occur in their state?

    1. But conclusion-jumping is essential to politics as we know it!

  3. I contacted their DC office but there did not appear to be anyone there to take phone calls.

    They were in the sweat lodge.

    1. I think her people call it a sauna.

      1. A spritz?

        1. You mean a schwitz?

          1. You mean a u schwitz?

    1. This makes sense as Balko himself appears to be bald, so he would no bald if he saw it for sure.

      1. Would he yes bald if he saw it, too? 😉

        1. oh wow.

    2. Excellent. If anyone can deliver a takedown via nut-punch, it’s Radley.

    3. Paul Waldman ?@paulwaldman1 2h
      @radleybalko @chrislhayes BREAKING: Headline oversimplifies issue.


      1. When you’re caught, blame the editor. Great plan.

    4. They’re really working the “well ONE big Democrat talked about it” response. Thanks for holding that article a day, Waldy.

    5. Lucy Steigerwald shows up too. Or are we not supposed to talk about her?

    6. Whose that lesbian Chris Hayes? and why is she such a twit?

    7. OK this Waldman fucker has crossed the line.


      The piece of shit uses Thundarr the Barbarian for his twitter image while being a lying fuck about libertarians.

      Abusing the most libertarian Saturday morning cartoon character ever is a bridge too far.

    8. That Zaid Jillani guy really doesn’t understand twitter, does he? People must hate it when he starts texting them.

      1. He also doesn’t understand libertarians.

        I kinda want to make a twitter just to call him a useless twat.

  4. Ed, it’s because FYTW!

  5. Isn’t this is a local crime story? Why is there any national coverage of this at all?

    1. I am pretty sure mobs trying to burn down St. Louis made it a national story.

      1. Well in this economy…

      2. like anyone would notice. Besides I hate the Cardinals.

        1. I grew up in Kansas City. You won’t get any argument from me.

          1. Really hoping the Royals make it to the playoffs this year!

            1. Me too. I would love to see them make it and advance metric darling Oakland miss them.

              1. Oakland is making the playoffs. No way Anaheim catches them. I just hope KC doesn’t draw Oakland in the first round because I think Oakland is the hardest out in the AL.

                1. I know. I just want to see Oakland lose.

                  1. There’s the good news. To achieve your objective, you need merely visit oakland.

          2. I had a dream last night that I was eating a Z-Man at OK Joe’s. Can’t wait til I head out there in November for a game at Arrowhead.

            1. I’m an Arthur Bryant’s man myself. The one on Brooklyn, not that gentrified one at the speedway.

              1. I am an Lt’s man. I am old enough to remember Byrant’s before the old man died. It has never been the same with the kids running it. LT’s the old man still runs it.

              2. I love Bryant’s Original Recipe sauce. I ocassionally order the sauce pack sent out here to Cali. Either way, I’ll be there for a total of five meals, one of which will be me mooching food off of fellow Chiefs fans in the Arrowhead parking lot. I’ll have time to squeeze in OK Joe’s and Bryant’s both. The conundrum becomes where else to eat (Jack Stack, Zarda, LC’s, Stroud’s).

                1. For me it is all about LC’s. I pre date Ok Joe’s, so I cant comment on it. But when I lived there LC’s put Bryant’s and Gates to shame. It is still one of the top five BBQ places I have ever ate at. And I have ate at a lot of them.

                  1. Hmm, I was clearly too broke and too sheltered when I lived there. My fav was Jack Stack/Fiorella’s.

      3. The LA Times has a series of videos. In one, a guy says that looting and burning down businesses is the right thing to do because governments get their money from businesses. My sense was that the government doesn’t make a dime of of the dipshit saying that.

        Video #6 of 14

    2. I know right? Racism and police violence are sooooooo pre 9/11!

    3. Seriously? Read Balko’s book “The Rise of the Warrior Cop.”

      There’s a national trend of police misconduct and its ramifications. The Ferguson story is thought to exemplify this trend.

      1. Man IH. I’m starting to get all of the hatred on these threads. Sarcasm and sense are completely lost on these people…

        1. Poe’s Law.

      2. I was being facetious and was referring to the WP Kermit Gosnell story.

      3. The leftists want the narrative to focus solely on the institutional racism of America, because the identity politics and wedge issues benefit theri monopolistic control of minority neighborhoods. What they don’t want is anyone challenging the actual role of the state.

  6. Slightly OT: I’m going to leave this here. Trigger warning – Bloomie gun propoganda.


  7. Waldman hung up before she even finished her though.

    Did you mean thought, Ed? But still that’s hilarious in a ISWYDT kinda way. Also, thanks for reporting on the churlisness of Waldman.

    1. Churlishness, dammit. I blame the squirrels.

    2. No expectation for good writing following the piece about the man being arrested for dog assault.

    3. Thanks everyone who brought this up. I’ve corrected it.

  8. I thought Bezos was going to conduct a thorough purge of blithering idiots at the Post.

    I think a 2nd round is in order. A few of them were hiding under their desks.

  9. Waldman hung up before she even finished her though

    I am going to imagine that that was intentional.

  10. If you’re not calling for more laws and more government, then you’re silent.

    Libertarians are silent on just about everything.

  11. “Like Amash and Paul, prominent liberal Democrats haven’t said much either. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has made no statement about Ferguson, Missouri.”

    That’s what they call the ‘money shot’ of the post.

    1. Elizabeth Warren … ‘money shot’…

      Oh thank you so much for that image, Bo.

    2. 8===D~~~~

      1. Don’t I know you?

        1. Possibility….please go on…

        2. (_____)*(_____)

          I know I do, big boy!

          1. I stared way to long at that to not figure out what that was.

  12. The comments on the WaPo story are as bad as the article. One person vocally defended Hillary’s silence on it while,going after Paul. His defense of Hillary? She hadn’t announced her run for office yet.

    They’re on a shit rope. Do you know what a shit rope is?

    1. I’m a regular there. you have no idea how excited i was to see you.

      1. You are a glutton for punishment.

        1. OK, for all the posters that dare to go into the…fever swamps of these other sites looking for derpies, H&R really needs a daily “Glutton” thread for all those posts.

          Sure, AM and PM links will shrink a bit, but they’ll be less likely to induce head-to-desk meetings.

          1. Derptologist always gives us some goodies in TI threads. I feel that is a logical dump spot for all the worst formulated absurdities of the day to be aggregated.

            1. I thought most of his was his (rather excellent) trolling letters for his local rag.

              Either way, you may be onto something irt TI threads. Of course, it would be better if that translated into the host dealing directly with those postings and giving them each a proper thrashing.

      2. It’s mutual. I know you spend a lot of time there. I hoped to see you.

        By the way, you do know were in Alexandria now, right? And we do semi-regular meet ups/drinking sessions.

        1. i knew you were in VA … but i’ could be up fro a meet up.

          of course, i do have firewall between online life and real life. but maybe it’s time for that to come down.

          1. Mary thanks you.

          2. of course, i do have firewall between online life and real life. but maybe it’s time for that to come down.

            You’ve nothing to worry about. We just jump you in for 30 seconds, and then it’s smooth sailing.

            1. They don’t have murdering an agent of the state as one of the initiation rituals for the East Coast cabal?

              For shame, especially in such a target-rich environs.

              1. Meh, too much work. We usually just shit on their lawns.

          3. We all have firewalls. It’s time to get over that shit and come drinking with some fun people. Hell, we can talk about more important shit than politics anyways…like,sports and music.

            1. You have a firewall???

              1. That’s a wall we set fire to when people get close to us, right?

            2. okay. you know were to find me. if not here, Greg Sargent’s shitshow.

              1. That’s cool. But email me and I’ll let you know when the next meetup is gonna be.

    2. What’s a shit rope?

      1. To paraphrase:

        “You know what a shit rope is, Gilmore? It’s a rope, covered with shit, that liberal journalists use to hold on to. You see, the shit acts like grease. The harder you try to climb up, the tighter you try to hold on, the faster you slide down the rope, Julian. Straight to WaPo. “

        1. That seemed vaguely like something from TPB. The “Julian” gave it away. Damn, I wish that show was still being made.

          1. Yeah,I forgot to change the second Julian to Gilmore. Of course I did say I was paraphrasing. No way in hell would I try to claim Jim Lahey’s work as my own.

            1. No way in hell would I try to claim Jim Lahey’s work as my own.

              That character was a work of art. Too outrageous to be real but containing just enough real foibles that he isn’t pure fantasy.

      2. What’s a shit rope?

        They’re all over Shit Creek.

        1. Is that a nickname for LA County? JK 😉

  13. For that matter, why won’t libertarians weigh in on gay marriage? Or drugs? Or guns?

    1. How about a kind word or two for Lou Reed?

    2. Or the economy!

  14. So my question is this: Where are the libertarians?


    1. The only reason Libertarians are not exploiting the tragic death of a black teenager for cheap political points is because they are racist.

      1. I know that’s the only reason I’m not exploiting it.

      2. That is what they wish to imply.

  15. I contacted both offices for a statement; Rep. Amash’s press person told me when she spoke to Waldman she meant she knew of no immediate plans to release a statement and that Waldman hung up before she even finished her though.

    That is some top flight flight journalism Waldman is doing.

    And to pick a nit, Ed. You might want to rewrite that sentence. The last clause doesn’t make any sense. I think you menat

    Waldman hung up the phone before she was finished speaking with him.

    What a dick. Ever notice how leftist reporters tend to be such socially maladjusted assholes?

    1. What are you, some kind of paragon of calm and good humor?

      1. Yes Tony I am. It is just that your tax even my limit for suffering stupid people.

  16. They are well aware of the ignore you, laugh at you, debate you, lose to you progression. I think they’re trying to avoid debating libertarians by pretending we are silent on issues. That is really dumb.

    1. I thought Libertarians were some kind of nutty fringe group. Why is WAPO worried about what they have to say now?

      1. They’re in the “laugh at you” stage now, transitioning to the “fight you” stage.

  17. in related news =

    Giant Meteor Strikes Earth: Billions Dead, Society Collapsing
    Bush’s Tax Cuts Could Have Paid To Meteor-Proof Planet, Notes WaPo Edtiorial

    1. Women and minorities hardest hit.

  18. What difference at this point does it make that Hillary Clinton is also silent on the Ferguson police shooting?

  19. The reason libertarians come across silent to idiots like Waldman is because he hasn’t read anything from libertarians in his entire career.

    These fuckwits have been telling us to shut the fuck up for so long, and now when an issue we’ve been hamming away at for years turns out exactly the way we predicted, all they can do is say we’re silent because the victim is black.

  20. I do missionary work in the comment’s section of that WaPo column. this one was particularly inane.

    1. Reading the WAPO comments section will really cause you to lose faith in humanity. It really is no exaggeration to say Tony is one of the smarter Progs. If that fact seems too incredible to believe, go read the WAPO comments section sometime.

      1. Yeah there’s some racist guy, ceounicom, spouting off about liberty or some other drivel about how waving the bloody shirt is wrong.

      2. WaPo is the YouTube comments section of the political world. Let that sink in for a minute.

  21. Another day, another lie about libertarians. If libertarianism is so plainly wrong, people can stop lying about it … right?

  22. So my question is this: Where are the libertarians?

    Maybe you aren’t really listening? Didjya ever consider that, chief?

    To be fair, the view and acoustics from deep inside his own colon aren’t very good. He’s bound to miss things.

  23. I think libertarians are just waiting to find out if the Cop who shot the kid was a ‘white hispanic’.

    1. Just as long as he didn’t have any “black blood” bro…

  24. This seems to be a much better incident for people to lose their shit over than the Zimmerman thing. So that’s something, I guess.

  25. I thought the Balloon Juice fallacy had died with the Agitator.

  26. Elizabeth Warren only comments on police shootings in the Indian Nations.

    1. You’d think alcoholism would be an important issue to her.

      1. Just like all the Indians!

      2. I just don’t think she wants to gamble her political career on it.

        1. Although she may have some reservations

          1. Just bury the hatchet with her, already!!

            1. Agreed. If libertarians and progressives would smoke a peace pipe over these social issues,we could raise a ton of wampum,which could help create a SoCon/Statist Dem trail of tears on election night.

              Also, scalp.

              1. She’ll be savaging Republicans over the issue during her campaign. She’ll be certain to keep her wig warm over the issue of armed citizenry.

      3. You’d think alcoholism would be an important issue to her.

        And that she’d talk about it until she was red in the face.

        1. I see what you did there.

      4. No shootings on the rez, everyone’s too drunk.

    2. “the Indian Nations”? ?. you mean Oklahoma? You been watching too much The Outlaw Josey Wales?

  27. I started reading Balko years ago on Reason.com. Now, All of a sudden everyone in the media is talking about militarized police forces because of a few recent incidents. And he has the stones to ask where the libertarians are? Sorry pal, we’ve been warning you for years. Welcome to the party.

    1. you’re looking at this the wrong way. Paul and Amash have gone a few days without being targeted. so this was the attempt.

    2. You’re a libertarian hipster?

  28. $20 says Hillary releases a statement on the shooting/aftermath in the wake of this story.

    Another $20 says it gets released by the Clinton Foundation so if it backfires she can blame it on Bill but if it’s well-received she can be credited with it.

    Any takers?

    1. That’s what I thought.

  29. Libertarian or not who the fuck wants to know what congressmen think about local law enforcement issues?

    1. The media hopes that libertarians and Republicans will say something that they can use to reinforce the narrative that they’re all racists.

    2. Or, in this case, silence can be used to condemn them as Not Caring.

      1. ^^this^^. They will say that the libertarians cared a lot when Kelly Thomas was beaten to death but not when Michael Brown was shot to death.

        Nevermind the fact that THE FUCKING POLICE ARE MURDERING PEOPLE. There’s political gamesmanship to play.

        1. And you know that if Paul or Amash *did* say something, this cunt would be shrieking about how they’re perverting this awful tragedy for their own agendas.

          Heads I win, tails I win.

          1. That, too.

  30. And aren’t libertarians the real victims here? How difficult it must be to have to choose between cops and the blacks.

    1. Oh, thank goodness. I was worried Tony wouldn’t find a way to carry water for his team.

    2. About as hard as it is for you to decide if you’re gonna jerk Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi off when you wake up everyday.

    3. Yeah Tony because it is not like Reason doesn’t publish about 12 cop hate stories a week or Tulpa didn’t get run off the board for defending cops or anything.

      You really have given up haven’t you? Did you even read that before you published it? We don’t expect a lot from you. But I at least expect you to be better than shreek.

      1. Shreek is merely unhinged. Tony has cerebral damage.

      2. Is that why Tulpa disappeared?

        1. He left when he messed up and proves that he was creating sockpuppet accounts

          1. *proved

      3. And I expect you to have the most difficult time of all. Not only is the victim black, but MSNBC and the president are all over it. At least with Trayvon Martin it was a pretend cop vigilante guy–the NRA’s preferred version of keep-black-people-in-their-place, er, law enforcement.

        1. The most important aspect of this case, of course, is not that someone was shot in the back while fleeing, that the one who did the shooting has not been identified and is unlikely to face any penalty, nor even that people are rioting about it, but rather that political points can be scored from it.

          Stay classy, asshat.

        2. Tony just because you are craven and have no principles and choose your side on an issue based on who is taking it rather than the merits of the question, doesn’t mean we do. No one here gives a shit what MSNBC or the Chocolate Nixon think about this. We make up our own minds. Stop projecting your lack of principles on us.

          1. You can’t even respond to my flippant accusation of racism without saying something racist.

            1. What did John say that was racist?

              1. You don’t find the phrase “Chocolate Nixon” racist in any way?

                1. No. Explain how it’s racist.

                  1. You don’t find referring to black people as “chocolate” to be racist? I don’t even know how to explain this because I don’t know where I am right now.

                    1. Tony,

                      I live in a city that proudly calls itself “Chocolate City”. The NBA player Darell Dawkins called himself “Chocolate Thunder”. There is nothing racist about the term chocolate. You just think there is because you are racist and have never known any actual black people.

                    2. So what does Barack Obama’s chocolateness have to do with anything in this discussion?

                2. No, no, you don’t understand.

                  Calling half-white, half-black Barack Obama “the First Black President” and remarking about how “clean” and “articulate” he is, that’s totally fine and not racist.

                  Calling him “Chocolate Nixon” however is totally racist, because Tony doesn’t like the implication that Obama is as corrupt as Nixon.

                  1. I find this whole conversation hilarious and now all I can think of is Sealab

                    Marco: Well, Debbie thinks this is all about her biological clock.

                    Stormy: She stopped screaming enough to tell you that?

                    Marco: No no no no, the other Debbie. Debbie the teacher.

                    Stormy: Oh, you mean… black Debbie.

                    Sparks: Woah woah woah, why is she… black Debbie?

                    Stormy: Not in a bad way, it’s just to tell them apart because she’s… black.

                    Sparks: Well, why don’t you call her Debbie, and call the other one… white Debbie.

                    Stormy: White Debbie? That’s stupid! I know she’s white.

                    Marco: Then why do you call the other Debbie “black Debbie?” You know she’s black!

                    Stormy: Hey, first off, I really don’t think we should be talking about this in front of Dr. Quinn.

                    Quinn: Listen man, you’re missing the point. What if everybody went around calling you “white Stormy?”

                    Stormy: You mean there’s a black Stormy?

                    Quinn: … No.

                  2. Imply that he’s as corrupt as Nixon all you want. I don’t have a problem with that. We’ve had much worse since Nixon (the guy who’s so bad it’s considered out-of-bounds to talk about him, a sort of GOP servicing Godwin’s Law). My problem was with the word chocolate, obviously. Jesus Christ.

                    1. Let me guess….Ray Nagin referring to New Orleans as “Chocolate City” is just hunky-dory in your book though, right? Because he’s black or something?

                    2. The world would probably be better off if he hadn’t said that, but black people can say things about black people that white people should not. You get that right?

                    3. Just for reference, what are the things that white people can say about white people that black people should not?

                    4. Nothing. So you don’t get it. Oppressed groups can make fun of themselves and less oppressed groups. You can’t punch down.

                    5. Double standards are handy, aren’t they? I’m sure they’re the secret to social peace and progress.

                    6. Yeah, we never talk about Nixon. We love him so much that we never talk about him. Especially his price controls. And creating the EPA. And gas rationing. Man do we fucking love Richard Milhous Nixon. And that whole abusing the powers of office for political gain thing? Absolutely fabulous. Let’s get some Nixon love in here! Oh shit, I forgot the first rule of Nixon Club.

                      How the fuck is “chocolate” racist? It’s a more accurate description of the President’s skin color than “black”. Or are we not supposed to refer to the fact that the President is half-white? It’s racist not to adhere to the one-drop rule now?

                    7. I wasn’t referring to Nixon, but the guy who came along later who makes Nixon look like a girl scout. If Obama is merely as corrupt as Nixon, we’re improving significantly, president-wise.

                      I don’t know what to tell you about “chocolate.” I think I’m just going to start drinking early.

                    8. That is probably best. Drink yourself to a stupor, wallow in your secret hatred of mankind, and console yourself with the knowledge that at least Hitler wasn’t as bad as George W. Bush. Maybe you will, like the Oracle of Delphi, divine the way in which “chocolate” is racist, but I won’t hold my breath.

                    9. I wasn’t referring to Nixon, but the guy who came along later who makes Nixon look like a girl scout.

                      ….but that’s Obama.

                      Jeez, you ARE so confusing.

                    10. We’ve had much worse since Nixon (the guy who’s so bad it’s considered out-of-bounds to talk about him, a sort of GOP servicing Godwin’s Law).

                      Like the Vanilla Obama?

                    11. Like the Vanilla Obama


                    12. I get it.
                      It’s not the word “chocolate” per se. It’s that there is an unnecessary reference to Obama’s skin color. You can turn any word into something that seems racist by using it to refer to race unnecessarily. (Like how the word “spade” becomes racist if it’s used to draw attention to a person’s race – though not if it’s used in a vernacular phrase).

                      Of course, there’s probably a bit of hypersensitivity going on here, since it seems unreasonable to forbid people for ever mentioning the fact that Obama is black, directly or indirectly.

                      And surely it should be possible to criticize the president, while also noting that he’s black, without being racist. Getting hypersentitive about people referencing Obama’s race just makes you appear to be using race as a mechanism to stop people from criticizing him at all.

                    13. And surely it should be possible to criticize the president, while also noting that he’s black, without being racist.

                      “Corrupt and black” is not inherently racist, versus for example “corrupt because he’s black”.

                      If the President and his supporters rarely made mention of the color of his skin, or of the importance of his racial identity, then you could make the case that constantly pointing to his race is racist.

                      But as it stands Obama earned both appellations in “Chocolate Nixon” by his own words and actions.

                    14. Of course people are “using race as a mechanism to stop people from criticizing him at all.” I once had a Facebook friend object to some term I used in relation to Obama (I forget what) that he claimed was racist. He only shut up about it when I sourced a typically servile NY Times article that used the same term.

                    15. Yes. Black Nixon, while marginal, would have been better, if John insists on referencing race irrelevantly. I was not referencing it irrelevantly, since my initial point is that you’re a bunch of racists, then John came along and proved it (you’re all John for this example).

                    16. My problem was with the word chocolate, obviously.

                      What’s your issue with black people, rent-boy? Don’t you think they’re entitled to nickname?


    4. Your ongoing quest to disprove by example Hanlon’s Razor is going well.

      1. Oh, this was pure malice, but meant kindheartedly. I don’t have an opinion about this issue right now.

        1. I don’t have an opinion about this issue right now.

          A truer illustration of the fact that you don’t give two shits about actual people, as opposed to the abstract masses put on this Earth to serve you, could not be made.

          1. I don’t have an opinion because I don’t know any of the relevant facts.

            I could go on for some time about the general issue of black oppression in this country.

            1. “‘Tony|8.13.14 @ 4:27PM|#

              I don’t have an opinion because I don’t know any of the relevant facts.””

              This has never proven an obstacle in the past?

            2. No, no, dig deeper.

              So you don’t have time to find out the facts of the case, but you do have time to bait us?

              Truly, a warrior for justice.

              1. I didn’t know the relevant facts were publicly available.

                1. Yet they are about the Trayvon Martin case? Did you read George Zimmerman’s mind? Did you summon Martin’s ghost?

                  No, no, I get it Tulpa. We can totally form a definitive opinion about the Martin case, but this case is off limits because a cop was involved.

                  Then again, we always knew you were a lover of authority. You don’t really have a problem with “black oppression” as long as it’s done by the right people, do you?

                  1. What is my opinion on the Trayvon Martin case?

                    1. the NRA’s preferred version of keep-black-people-in-their-place

                      Yeah, that’s totally not endorsing a particular view of the case. Not at all.

            3. I don’t know any of the relevant facts.

              Then let me fill you in: a jackbooted thug killed an unarmed man. People are reacting to this by protesting, and the thugs are harassing them in various ways.

              I know you want to pretend to care about black people, but I know you’ll lick the jackboots EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.


        2. “I didn’t have a coherent point and you guys totally called me on it, so I’ll just pretend I was joking”

          1. Having now read the piece, I now have a point. Happily, I sorta made the point in my initial post.

            Reason is whining. The article it’s whining about is about public libertarian figures (including Stossel) not commenting or planning to comment on this story despite being regular critics of police power. It specifically notes that Reason is an exception. But Ed is whining that it’s only in the last paragraph. The article’s subject was something completely different from what Ed wanted it to be (public figures). And that’s worthy of an H&R post. As I presciently and sarcastically asked: aren’t libertarians the real victims here?

            1. No True Stossel

            2. As I presciently and sarcastically asked: aren’t libertarians the real victims here?

              What? How do you square that with every other Reason article on this subject?

              1. I think Ed read the headline, wrote the piece, then read the article, then edited the piece, then decided he didn’t have time to write a whole new piece about something real, and just submitted the copy.

                1. You didn’t actually answer my question.

                  1. You didn’t actually answer my question.

                    You say that as if it surprises you.

                  2. I’m commenting specifically on this article.

                    Reason is consistently good on this topic. My ire, actually, is more often directed at the peasants here and not the institution. Often I agree with the article while nobody else does. (It’s rather clear that among the peasants, keeping a watchful eye on government abuse is less of a priority than bitching about those awful leftists.)

                    1. So, you’ve got nothing.

                    2. I got John to run away. That’s always fun. At least I hope it was me.

                    3. Enh. Bitching about those awful leftists and keeping a watchful eye on government abuse is frequently the same thing these days.

                    4. Republicans are the only ones making policy right now, except for what the president is doing unilaterally. And yes them sitting on their fat asses doing nothing but bitch about the president is making policy: an endorsement of the status quo.

    5. How difficult it must be to have to choose between cops and the blacks.

      Hey Bo are you there? Do I get your attention by saying “Blue Tulpa” three times in front of a mirror?

      See tony calling libertarians racist? See how he claims libertarians have a hard time choosing who to hate more blacks or militarized cops who shoot unarmed people in the back?

      Yeah i guess you are right, tony is just being a pragmatic voter…he could not possibly be the mendacious prick I claimed that he was two days ago.

  31. Why is Paul Waldman silent on the subject of sheep fucking? Until he writes a column definitively stating his position on the subject, he will surely be the subject of rumors and innuendo.

    1. ::golf clap::

  32. Why are Libertarians being picked on for a police shooting?

    What does this have to do with property rights or liberty?

    1. See this and my following comment.

      1. I guess that’s why

    2. Can somebody translate this for me?

  33. So my question is this: Where are the libertarians?

    Minding their own business, perhaps?

  34. So my question is this: Where are the libertarians?

    When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping. For more guns.

  35. Washington Post Writer Seriously Asks Why Libertarians Are Silent on Ferguson Police Killing
    Ed Krayewski|Aug. 13, 2014 3:09 pm

    One quibble. It’s obvious the police killed a person with a name. It should always be included in the headline, as it’s a vital part of the story. Omitting the name takes the personal nature,out,of the equation when it is necessary to make the point that AN ACTUAL PERSON WITH A NAME WAS KILLED.

    “Washington Post Writer Seriously Asks Why Libertarians Are Silent About Ferguson Police Killing Of Michael Brown”
    Ed Krayewski

    We have some editors on here. Am I right or wrong?

    1. It was already a long headline.

    2. Waldo’s headline referred to Ferguson and I just mirrored it!

      1. Oh, I thought you wrote a great article Ed. I was just pointing out that we need to make these killings personal matters and stop letting the passive voice or impersonal identifiers be used when the name of a victim of police abuse is readily available.

        I appreciate your reply, by the way.

  36. Out of curiosity Tony, do you think this would be getting more press or less if the victim was white?

    If the victim was a white guy, would Rand Paul be obligated to deliver a statement about it?

    1. It would make him a white supremacist. Or rather, be more proof that he is one

    2. The point is it wouldn’t be a white guy. They let them point guns at government officials with impunity.

      So to the tally: Extralegal white mini-armies stealing from the American people and backing up their theft with the threat of violence = OK! Unarmed black kid doing nothing: shoot to kill!

  37. Want a Libertarian voice heard on this issue? Release the name of the cop who did the shooting. Should not be too hard to find. Anonymous is also apparently talking to Mother Jones…why not this site?

  38. These police issues will go away once we have robocop.

  39. Waldman has yet to be informed of the inclusion of Eugene Volokh and Radley Balko on the Post.

  40. UPDATE: I had the wrong NR link in the above update. I’ve fixed it, but this Charles Cooke piece on conservative reactions to Ferguson is worth a read too, and certainly a good example of something, and I may well be biased here, I see a little more of on the “right” than the “left,” honest intra-ideological criticism.

    Gee it sure would be nice if I could read that Cooke piece. Too bad I don’t have permission.

  41. Par for the course.”Liberals” are always ready to tell other people who THEIR “leaders” are.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.