Millennials

The Political Establishment Doesn't Get Millennials' Libertarian Leanings

Young Americans will defend the free market when needed.

|

Millennials2
: Dice.com / Foter / Creative Commons

In this time of political polarization, it's rare to find a moment of comity. But that's exactly what we've found in the wake of Robert Draper's recent New York Times Magazine feature suggesting that the "libertarian moment" might have finally arrived in America.

Not only did both liberals and conservatives dismiss the claim, they did so for similar reasons: Young Americans care more about their personal freedom than their elders but less about economic freedom—scoring no net advance for libertarianism. As David Harsanyi, a conservative writer with libertarian leanings quipped, Millennials are just "socialists who want to buy legal pot."

Arguing with a good joke is bad karma, but there is an obvious explanation for this disconnect: Millennials care more about their personal freedoms because they've experienced more direct assaults on them as children of the twin wars on drugs and terrorism. At the same time, the rise of the internet economy has shielded them from the worst excesses of government economic interventionism, making similar resistance unnecessary for now.

The libertarian moment argument goes something like this: An increasing number of Americans, and a majority of Millennials, favor decriminalizing marijuana, sentencing reform, cracking down on police abuse, cuts in defense spending, less overseas interventionism, and slashing the long tentacles of the surveillance state.

Critics claim that all this does not add up to a "libertarian moment" because Millennials seem fairly accepting of government intervention in the economy. Their main evidence—confirmed in a Reason-Rupe poll conducted by my colleague, Emily Ekins, that Draper prominently cites—is that Millennials want government to offer, among other things, guaranteed health care (69 percent) and college education (54 percent), a higher federal minimum wage (71 percent), and higher taxes on the wealthy (66 percent).

Worse, Ekins found that 54 percent of Millennials support a "larger government providing more services," far more than older Americans.

All of this prompted David Frum, a recovering neocon who has long derided libertarians, to declare that young voters are not libertarian, "nor even trending libertarian." Likewise, Paul Krugman, the pugnaciously liberal Nobel laureate, averred that talk of a libertarian moment represented "libertarian fantasies"—not reality.

But such conclusions stem from some serious cherry-picking.

First, the strong support that Millennials express for "large government and more services" drops 19 percentage points—back to the natural average of Americans as a whole—when the phrase "with higher taxes" is added to the question. The greater support for Big Government is really based on a naiveté (hardly unusual for young people) regarding taxes, a condition that might be soon cured by sharp tax increases that America's debts and deficits will inevitably trigger.

The Reason-Rupe poll found that Millennials might want a strong safety net, but they want it to stay out of their soda size and trans fatty foods. They also want to be able to access such blasphemous items as incandescent light bulbs and plastic bags at grocery checkouts without nagging from the Nanny State.

But the real news is that 64 percent of them believe that profits are not a dirty word; they are a good thing. Relatedly, a good 70 percent believe that economic competition is desirable and 55 percent want to start a business.

All of this shows that Millennials are not 1960s-style hippies who want to move to a commune, toke up, and read Das Kapital. Indeed, they are aspiring entrepreneurs who want worldly success—along with legal pot.

Still, why has government surveillance of Americans' emails generated enough outrage to power the political careers of politicians such as Rand Paul and Justin Amash (Republicans from the tough-on-security party no less), yet, say, government's widespread abuse of its eminent domain powers to confiscate private property for "development purposes" has generated nothing comparable? Or why even as Californians defy the federal ban on marijuana by legalizing pot for medical purposes, they are quietly accepting state efforts to impose an expensive ban on carbon emissions?

One reason why Millennials are less bothered by such economic interventionism than their elders is that they are less affected by it. The rise of the internet economy has offered them an escape from stultifying regulations and onerous taxes that govern traditional brick-and-mortar industries. Kids who can earn their living sitting in their home offices writing code or developing apps have to worry less about the soaring prices of cars due to tougher CAFÉ standards. They don't need to take on OSHA's maddening workplace regulations because they can telecommute.

But this happy arrangement where they stay out of government's way and the government stays out of theirs can't last forever. The crushing debt of the massive entitlement state will inevitably cause Uncle Sam and states to try to tax the internet, especially as the revenues from Main Street businesses decline. Likewise, city governments won't simply sit by and let internet services render their meticulously created regulatory structures obsolete.

But attempts to impose internet sales taxes have already met with stiff resistance, as have efforts to extend the regulations that govern standard cab services to companies like Uber and Lyft, forcing authorities often to back off. (Uber riders are fiercely protective of this service.)

An important paradox of political life is that it is not the experience of freedom that causes individuals to fight for it; it's the experience of having it taken away. But the greater the freedom that people enjoy, the more even the smallest intrusions rankle—and more fiercely they resist.

Millennial quiescence on economic interventionism is therefore deceptive. When they feel the government's heavy hand closing in, they'll slap it away, just as they are doing now with their pot plants and doobies. Pot legalization might just be a harbinger of things to come on the economic front.

This column originally appeared in The Week. You can access Dalmia's full Week archive here.

NEXT: Startup Cities in Central America: A Long-Term Solution to Illegal Immigration?

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 about American Idol?

      1. At least that election means something in the real world JB.

  1. “Young Americans will defend the free market when needed”

    I wish that were true but I’ve seen no evidence of that.

    1. I despise the term, but: “sharing economy”?

    2. It’s true. But only if by “free market” you mean a state-owned farmer’s market that provides organic, local produce free of charge to poor downtrodden hipsters.

    3. Because all young people are of one mind on everything.

  2. Most people are divorced for many of the horrors of the state.I had a shop in a mall for several years.Had a partner,was a corp.Had 4 barbers and 9 stylists.Most were democrats.Used to complain if we could not do things they thought we should.I decided to leave and go self employed in my own 1 person shop.Several left and rented and became 1099 self employed also.When they saw all the permits,regulations and taxes involved they were shocked.Not to mention their rent,supplies and utilities.I still smile when I think of their reaction.

    1. We’ve come to the point where people think they can change the weather with their votes, but when it comes to business-crippling regulations, they are as resigned to it as we used to be to bad weather.

      1. Most don’t understand they are affected too.Lower wages and less jobs are a result but they can’t see it.Do a 1099 tax return sometime.I lived in Ohio,worked in WV,they had B&O taxes on your gross,not net and personal property taxes.I had 5 permits for a one person shop.I had a huge amount of paper work.Doing taxes at the year end and my wife’s W4,took several hours on turbo tax.You should have seen her face when I tried to explain why we had all the tax forms the first year we were married

    2. Several left and rented and became 1099 self employed also.When they saw all the permits,regulations and taxes involved they were shocked.

      Their ignorance wasn’t really their fault. The entire progressive power structure rests on a foundation of deceit. Hiding the costs and celebrating the benefits of their programs. The propaganda arms of that power structure, the media and education
      relentlessly push the deceit in myriad ways.

  3. (yawn) As in so many other issues, Americans came to these conclusions on their own. And the movement is rushing off in the wrong direction.

    A majority of Americans have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for over 30 years (WSPQ). Cato’s 2006 Zogby Poll found 59% fit that “generic” libertarian profile, but 85% of THEM rejected the libertian brand. The libertarian brand is not much higher than Ebola.

    Extreme so-cons have severely damaged the GOP as Goldwater predicted. So what will they do to the far more fragile libertarian movement?

    It’s hard to avoid laughing out loud that we celebrate expanding social liberalism in the electorate, whiles the “movement” scampers off in the opposire direction. Not to mentionn the bigoted States Rights agenda masquerading as Federalism, by “constitutional conservatives”: who somehow never read the Ninth Amendment.

    I’m waitign for beautiful sunsets to be proof of a libertarian moment!
    Libertarian Moment? Or Eve of Destruction?

    1. Extreme socons did not destroy the GOP. Letting in millions of immigrants from places with heavy socialist countries destroyed it. And yes, I know there are plenty of white, 5th generation American socialists, but they would have not been enough to elect an Obama 20 years ago.

      1. Letting in millions of immigrants from places with heavy socialist countries destroyed it.

        Have you ever spoken with an immigrant from a socialist country? They typically despise socialism.

        1. Most people, migrant or otherwise, don’t think about -isms at all. They may have despised things where they came from, but for the most part are thinking about particular concrete things, not abstractions.

          The chief collectivist danger in the world now is not socialism, but a pragmatic drift toward many of the same effects that would be achieved by such an -ism. We’re getting -ism in terms of effect, tendency, habit, or condition (analogous to alcoholism, bruxism, or dwarfism) without much of the -ism in terms of belief or opinion.

      2. Letting in millions of immigrants from places with heavy socialist countries destroyed it

        Those immigrants joined the GOP?

        Who knew?

        1. Heroic Mulatto

          Those immigrants joined the GOP? Who knew?

          (snicker) He says they all voted for Obama. I’m thinking everyone knows except you.
          (knows what he said)

      3. Umm, if they loved socialism, then why would they come here?

        Not to deny that SOME immigrants are a problem, but how did they damage the poltical class so severely?

        Obama won by default. Republicans had nothing to offer, like Obamacare. Don’t forget, some of them tried to shut down the government tio defund Obamacare, with no credible alternative. Still don’t have one. You can’t beat a something with a nothing. How do immigrants make politicians so stupid?

        The most memorable GOP even in the past 10 years was looting the general fund to pay for Meedicare Prescriptions, so that roughly 25% of the entire personal income tax subsidizes Medicare losses which would have otherwise depleted the Trust Fund. We still borrow those losses, but the GOP made sure the Trust Fund balances would be increasingly deflated.

        Medicare prescriptions have increased future deficits much more than Obama has (so far).

        1. Don’t forget, some of them tried to shut down the government tio defund Obamacare, with no credible alternative. Still don’t have one.

          Uh, correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. “I got 137% on the Libertarian Purity Test,” but wouldn’t the correct, from a libertarian standpoint, alternative be Big Gov getting its nose out of health care altogether?

          It’s almost as if Tony and Bo had a love child and named it Purple Tulpa.

          1. Trouble is, you’re thinking about “the correct” alternative, rather than specific possible programs to move in the direction of individual liberty.

            1. Ah. Okay, I admit that that was a bit sloppy there.

              My intention was to suggest that, with the government out of the game, people would be free to select the health care plan – or none at all – of their choice.

              1. My intention was to suggest that, with the government out of the game, people would be free to select the health care plan – or none at all – of their choice

                Without passing any laws?

                The anti-gummint purists are too extreme for AYN RAND!!

                She’s talking about taxes here, but her strategy is quite obvious.

                Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society?the last, not the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today

                Chapter 15, The Virtue of Selfishness. Ayn Rand

                In today’s language, “First we must change the culture.”

                1. Or first we could prevent onerous laws from going into effect. Then repeal the next tier of stupid laws that where government overstepped their authority. And onward toward more freedom.

                  No new laws need to be created.

                  1. So, the dumbass doesn’t know what a law is, too fucking stupid to know that repeal requirs a law, and still to extreme for that statist bitch, Ayn Rand. (sarcasm)

                    This is how the anti-gummit goobers atre destroyimg the movement, which Rand foresaw from the start.

                    1. Like the people who don’t realize that a partial gov’t shutdown that closes the licensure office is a loss for freedom. Or who think that if gov’t stops acknowledging marriages, all couples will benefit from the rights of the married.

                    2. Just get da gunnint out ENTIRELY, or you’re a freaking statist. (By the same folks who destroyed the Libertarian Party)

                    3. This is how the anti-gummit goobers atre destroyimg the movement

                      People, the person posting as Michael Hihn is Mary Stack.

                      If you follow the link to Hihn’s site, it doesn’t read like it was written by crazy Mary, yet the posts do. Engage as you will, but please, please don’t use the G word!

                    4. (sigh) More ad hominem, devoid of issues.

              2. if they choose no healthcare plan
                the you will pay for their healthcare

          2. Uh, correct me if I’m wrong,

            Beyond wrong. You made a total ass of yourself AGAIN!

            Mr. “I got 137% on the Libertarian Purity Test,” but wouldn’t the correct, from a libertarian standpoint, alternative be Big Gov getting its nose out of health care altogether?.

            1) Would that be a “credible alternative” that I mentioned? (lol)

            2) You accuse me of being a purist …. because I’m not pure enough?

            Ayn Rand was correct about anti-gummint goobers.

            1. Bob Smith was correct about kooky old obnoxious trolls.

              1. Three insults.
                No content.
                Who’s the troll? (snicker)

                Only cowards throw rocks from behind a tree. Be a man

                1. You’ve insulted every single person you’ve EVER replied to. Not just today, but in every post you’ve ever made here. And in all those posts, you’ve yet to make a SINGLE coherent point. So, I’d say I was fighting fire with fire. Or should I say stupidity with fire?

                  One may as well argue with their pet hamster. The hamster may be more coherent, and I’m certain its reading comprehension is better.

                  You have shown yourself to be worthy only of disdain, so, that’s what you’re getting. Enjoy it…you’ve earned it.

                  (snicker)

                  1. And in all those posts, you’ve yet to make a SINGLE coherent point.

                    What’s YOUR point here? Or all four previous comments in this thread?.

                    I guess I should be flatterd that repeat back almost every thing I say.(shrug)

                    But I shudder to think what might be coherent to an admitted bully like yourself.

                    You’ve insulted every single person you’ve EVER replied to.

                    It’s called self-defense. Like my last five responses to yours. But not EVERY person, which nobody will believe anyhow (except the rest of your gang)

                    Meanwhile, you’ve admitted committing aggression against me!.

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4726253

                    I first met the real Francison d’Anconia 50 years ago. You’re no Francisco D’Anconia.

                  2. Francisco Called out “And in all those posts, you’ve yet to make a SINGLE coherent point.

                    Like this one? (lol)

                    The middle class was destroyed by Democrats in 1986. See a description of the 1986 tax “reform,” authors Bill Bradley and Dick Gephart

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..ct_of_1986

                    Democrats increased taxes on new job-creating investments in factory equipment, AND increased the depreciation writeoff from 8 years to average 16 years.

                    Depreciation is how long it takes reinvest your tax deduction. Democrats were “closing loopholes,” (lol)went to 16 year writeoffs, while our trade competitors were at FIVE years. They punished the creation of US manufacturing jobs, by repealing Reagan’s “accelerated depreciation.”

                    They also repealed Kennedy’s 10% “investment tax credit” on machinery purchases.

                    Our manufacturers fell back to the immediate postwar years. After the war we had the only manufacturing base still standing. But by Kennedy’s first SOTU we had fallen to “among the last” in economic growth.” Top to bottom in 16 years, with a tax structure that Democrats restored. Our best union jobs began disappearing. DUH

                    Obama’s doing it again. He wants immediate writeoff of machinery investments ? for small businesses only. Umm, how many of our best union jobs are in SMALL manufacturers?

                    Copyright 2008-2014 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved and Defended

            2. Again? Had I done it a first time?

              1. Pi Guy|8.23.14 @ 1:54PM|#

                Again? Had I done it a first time?

                I’m counting, but do you mean your first dozen?

            3. And I accuse you of using your own No True Scotsman test to tell us that you’re the purist libertarian evah.

              1. Hyserical! PiGuy asks when he’s ever made on ass of himself … then makes an ass of himself in the very next message!

                Pi Guy|8.23.14 @ 1:58PM|#

                And I accuse you of using your own No True Scotsman test to tell us that you’re the purist libertarian evah.

                (snicker) I’m the one who repeatedly says you anti-gummint purists are the biggest threat to liberty.

                Your puppetmasters will be proud of how well you delivered your memorized soundbites. But,ummmm,I score you TWO dumbass trophies for this one, since TWO consecutive posts are devoid of any contebt, pure insults. (lol)

                Keep proving me correct, guys.

            4. And, upon some more thought, yes, not only is that a credible alternative, I would think that someone with your self-proclaimed libertarian (“You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.”) chops would see that as the only alternative.

              1. And, upon some more thought, yes, not only is that a credible alternative

                Ummm, WHAT is? Nothing has been mentioned.

              2. Pi Guy Repeat

                not only is that a credible alternative,

                WHAT credible alternative? NOTHING has been mentioned.

                1. I suppose if you get to define the word “credible”, then you can simply claim that any response isn’t “credible”.

                  “Dealing with [knaves], on the other hand, is like playing checkers with a three-year-old: they like to change the rules.”

        2. Umm, if they loved socialism, then why would they come here?

          Maybe the same reason that blue state socialists migrate to red states and then promptly begin electing the same kind of assholes that ruined their home states.

          1. I agree. It’s not like they have a grand plan.

          2. Exactly. They hate the results of their voting patterns, but they refuse to recognize that they are causing them.

          3. People don’t move for the purpose of voting. They move for a job, most often, or retirement.

            It would work better if ANYONE was promoting and/or defending liberty.

            1. They move for a job or retirement, because of problems with the place they are living.

              The flight from CA to TX is not because of weather.

              1. The flight from CA to TX is not because of weather

                Like I said mostly jobs and retirement.

            2. iPeople don’t move for the purpose of voting. They move for a job, most often, or retirement.

              Which is beside the point, of course, because those migrants immediately begin attempting to recreate their new home in the image of their old one. It’s rather astonishing that you went off on arguing about “culture” and missed the boat where it actually applied.

              1. @Red Rocks: Which is beside the point, of course.

                Because you don’t know the issue, of course!

                @Red Rocks: because those migrants immediately begin attempting to recreate their new home in the image of their old one.

                The topio was WHY why did they MOVE,

                @Red Rocks: It’s rather astonishing that you went off on arguing about “culture” and missed the boat where it actually applied

                Not astonishing that you don’t know the topic. Tell us the timestamp when I said ANYTHING on “culture?” Shame on you.

                It began here

                @Skip |8.23.14 @ 10:37AM: Extreme socons did not destroy the GOP. Letting in millions of immigrants from places with heavy socialist countries destroyed it.

                Two others assumed he meant they came for the purpose of socialism, BEFORE me.

                @Robert|8.23.14 @ 12:17PM
                @Virginian|8.23.14 @ 10:39AM

                @Hihn: Umm, if they loved socialism, then WHY would they come here?

                @VG Zaytsev: Maybe the same REASON that blue state socialists migrate to red states and then promptly begin electing the same kind of assholes that ruined their home states.

                Ambiguous. Sought to clarify.

                @Hihn: People don’t move for the purpose of voting. They move for a job, most often, or retirement.

                @Barbarian: They move for a job or retirement, because of problems with the place they are living.

                Four people on topic. You failed.

                (I called him out for lying, so he’ll be attacking me for weeks, like Francisco does.)

                1. Because you don’t know the issue, of course!

                  Lazy deflection.

                  The topio was WHY why did they MOVE,

                  No, the topic was, WHAT HAPPENS after they move?

                  Maybe the same reason that blue state socialists migrate to red states AND THEN promptly begin electing the same kind of assholes that ruined their home states.

                  Barbarian seemed to understand the nuance, and even subtly pointed out your attempt to deflect.

                  Not astonishing that you don’t know the topic. Tell us the timestamp when I said ANYTHING on “culture?” Shame on you.

                  Michael Hihn|8.23.14 @ 1:10PM|#

                  In today’s language, “First we must change the culture.”

                  Looks like you need to take those dementia medications, Mike.

                  Four people on topic. You failed.

                  One person who can’t remember what he typed. You failed.

                  (I called him out for lying, so he’ll be attacking me for weeks, like Francisco does.)

                  More likely you’ll be unwittingly demonstrating for us how Calhoun’s rat experiment translates to the human sphere.

                  1. RED ROCKS: No, the topic was, WHAT HAPPENS after they move?

                    Pathetic bullshit. I gave a timestamp of every comment in the discsussion PROVING you a liar. You FAIL to give a timestamp of me talking “culture” in that thread

                    Michael Hihn|8.23.14 @ 1:10PM|#

                    Wrong thread! How can ANYONE lie so brazenly? That’s about HEALTHCARE. Here’s a direct link to your bullshit timestamp, so EVERYONE can INSTANTLY see how pathetic you are.

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4725386

                    (Emphasis added for the morally depraved) I respond to the italicized comment.
                    —–

                    My intention was to suggest that, with the government out of the game, people would be free to select the health care plan – or none at all – of their choice

                    Without passing any laws?
                    The anti-gummint purists are too extreme for AYN RAND!!

                    “Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society?the last, not the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today

                    The Virtue of Selfishness. Ayn Rand

                    In today’s language, “First we must change the culture.”

                    How can ANYONE lie so shamefully? My “culture” comment was a TOTALLY unrelated discussion

                    1. Pathetic bullshit. I gave a timestamp of every comment in the discsussion PROVING you a liar. You FAIL to give a timestamp of me talking “culture” in that thread

                      That’s not what you said the first time:

                      Not astonishing that you don’t know the topic. Tell us the timestamp when I said ANYTHING on “culture?” Shame on you.

                      I showed you something, and now you’re shrieking like a puss with its tail caught in the door.

                      Wrong thread! How can ANYONE lie so brazenly? That’s about HEALTHCARE. Here’s a direct link to your bullshit timestamp, so EVERYONE can INSTANTLY see how pathetic you are.

                      You’re way too tense for someone who should be enjoying the freedom to never have to sit on a toilet again.

                      How can ANYONE lie so shamefully? My “culture” comment was a TOTALLY unrelated discussion

                      How can anyone have such a colossal martyr complex? It must be exhausting trying to make yourself feel better in the twilight of your life by crying persecution on a random internet board.

                    2. Okay, my work here us done. We’ve established beying all doubt that Red Rocks is a total psycho

                      A proven liar, and he simply denied it. Like a Birther – with a potty mouth

                    3. Look at the comments above. It is practically White Indian level of manic all over again.

                      Clearly Mary is having an episode. While certainly pathetic, it is also a fascinating spectacle. What terrible thing happened to twist and obsess her mind so?

                    4. Okay, my work here us done. We’ve established beying all doubt that Red Rocks is a total psycho

                      I’m not the one pitching a fit from having my exact words quoted back to me.

                      A proven liar, and he simply denied it. Like a Birther – with a potty mouth

                      Proven to have said something he claimed he didn’t say, and he simply tried to change the parameters of what he said he demanded. Like shriek – with less bowel control.

        3. Why do Californians leave Cali then vote to recreate it?

      4. Extreme socons did not destroy the GOP. Letting in millions of immigrants from places with heavy socialist countries destroyed it

        (laughing) Simple question. Ronald Reagan, just before announcing his winning 1980 campaign, had STRONGLY defended gays as public school teachers (defeated an effort to ban them)

        His forceful op-ed stated.
        1) Homosexuality is NOT a choice. (POW)
        2) Gay teachers are no threat to our kids, because homosexuality is not communicable, like the measles. (BOOM)

        The initiative he was instrumental in defeating was the first defeat of the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Campaign — a leading so-con effort at the time, which then collapsed.

        Does anyone on the PLANET believe Ronald Reagan could get the GOP nominaton today, after doing such a thing?

        (Google the Briggs Initiative)

        The defense rests

        1. And Reagan’s pro-gay editorial didn’t keep him from being attacked mercilessly as a far right-winger. Yes, they utterly failed to destroy him, but it should be obvious that any and every credible republican candidate will be attacked as an extremist, no matter how moderate his social views might be.

          Also, I kind of wonder if you spent 2012 in a coma. You do know that Mitt Romney won the republican nominatiin that year, don’t you? Because Romney was certainly to the left of Reagan; he was the most moderate republucan to win the nomination since Gerald Ford.

          1. And Reagan’s pro-gay editorial didn’t keep him from being attacked mercilessly as a far right-winger.

            By Republicans? I missed that.
            You say GOP nominee is selected by the New York Times Editorial Board. Hmmm

            Also, I kind of wonder if you spent 2012 in a coma.

            For saying THAT you earned a Dumbass Trophy!

            You do know that Mitt Romney won the republican nominatiin that year, don’t you?

            Stupid me. I never knew he was a champion of gay rights.

            Because Romney was certainly to the left of Reagan;

            (OMG) On social issues?

            I’ll repeat it:
            Does anyone on the PLANET believe Ronald Reagan could get the GOP nominaton today, after doing such a thing?

          2. mitt romney was a politically incompetent fool who made himself a laughingstock

            1. Yep. But Romney had no real competition.
              For the nomination.

        2. I believe he could, yes. In fact it’d be even easier, because the initiative he’d’ve been opposing would be even weaker today, so he wouldn’t’ve made as many enemies on the way to the prez nom.

          1. But I don’t think Mitt Romney was to the “left” of Geo. Bush, Sr. George Romney might’ve been, but not Mitt.

            1. Perhaps. But you would have to be completely out of your mind to try to argue with a straight face that Mitt Romney is further to the right than Reagan was.

              1. That’s true. And I don’t recall, say, Bob Dole as having been painted the bizarre way Mitt Romney was portrayed.

              2. But you would have to be completely out of your mind to try to argue with a straight face that Mitt Romney is further to the right than Reagan was.

                He obviously was on social issues.

          2. Robert, You believe a Republican can win the GOP after supporting gay rights. And after publicly trashing two key positions of the extreme so-cons? Homosexuality is not a choice, and gay teachers would be no threat to your schoolkids?

            You may be right. If given a choice, the rank-and-file Christian Conservatives ignoere their more extreme leaders. Falwell and Robertson pressured their followers to pressure Reagan on abotion. They were ignored.

            Like everyone else, Christian Conservatives suffer a corrupt political leadership. I’ve worked with many of them as a local activist, and they get a bad tap in the liberal media.

        3. Your use of onomatopoeia suggests that you used to watch the original Batman. You’re 72 which means that you were 35 when it first aired.

          You don’t think that that’s a little sad?

          1. Wait – 25.

            Nope. Still sad.

          2. You don’t think that that’s a little sad?

            Bigots like you wouldn’t understand.

      5. Extreme socons did not destroy the GOP. Letting in millions of immigrants from places with heavy socialist countries destroyed it.

        The destroyed GOP has to be one of the all time stupidest memes ever.

        Reality check, the GOP members hold more elected officesross the country than at any time since 1930. That’s some kind of strange destruction.

        1. Excellent point. Even more absurd is the notion that millions of immigrants could destroy the GOP-Texas state GOP is only getting stronger.

        2. I should have clarified that they are destroyed or heavily handicapped on the Presidential level at the moment. Democrats hardly had to defend blue states in 2008 and 2012.

          1. Nominating awful candidates like McCain and Romney will do that. But lets not try something else lets blame furriners instead!

            1. Nominating awful candidates like McCain and Romney will do that.

              True. But all the GOPers were awful.

      6. Wow, just when I though Hihn’s BS couldn’t be topped here come the bordertards.

        1. Oh boy, another of my stalkers!

          1. Don’t flatter yourself.

    2. Hihn brings the derp, as usual.

      1. Better derp than name-calling devoid of any content. (lol)

        1. Michael Hihn|8.23.14 @ 11:07AM|#
          “Better derp than name-calling devoid of any content. (lol)”

          Not true, dipshit.

          1. Can we all see what Sevo did THIS time?

            He DID it while saying it was not true.

            Damn, I wet my shorts laughing.

            1. Pssst…I think that was on purpose.

              1. Shhhhhh! I’m waiting to see if he gets it!

              2. Robert:

                Pssst…I think that was on purpose.

                Psst.That would make it even dumber. Because he’d then be intentionally defending name-calling. Then again, that’s about all he ever does.

                Sevo:

                Shhhhhh! I’m waiting to see if he gets it!

                I apologize for saying you fucked up. It was NOT an accident, you intended to defend name-calling, as Robert said. Thanks for correcting me.

    3. the “movement” scampers off in the opposire direction.

      WTF are you talking about?

      1. WTF are you talking about?

        The laugh of the year. Its a libertarian moment because the electorate is becoming more socilally liberal. And it’s a libertarian moment when the best known libertarians are extreme social conservatives (thus going in the opposite direction)

        1. the best known libertarians are extreme social conservatives (thus going in the opposite direction)

          Have fun being a demented old deluded asshole. Can’t wait until you and your rantings are gone.

          1. libertarians are a bunch of nutjobs who want to close all public schools and sell our national parks for mineral exploration

            1. libertarians are a bunch of nutjobs who want to close all public schools and sell our national parks for mineral exploration

              Don’t confuse the vast majoroty of us with the anti-gummint goobers you see hee. In the real world, they’re maybe 10% of the total.

            2. libertarians are a bunch of nutjobs who want to close all public schools and sell our national parks for mineral exploration

              Ahh, Josh Rendell, making the rest of society pay for his daddy issues since high school.

              1. daddy issues since high school.

                If that kind of babbling is our best way of advancing liberty, as Red Rocks implies — then it’s time we all learn Chinese.

                Translation: Don’t let the anti-gummint goobers bully us.

                1. If that kind of babbling is our best way of advancing liberty, as Red Rocks implies — then it’s time we all learn Chinese.

                  Mike, a sebaceous cyst advances liberty better than you. Smells better too.

                  Translation: Don’t let the anti-gummint goobers bully us.

                  If you ask Josh nicely, I bet he’ll even change your colostomy bag for you.

                  1. (laughing) So he gets CRAZIER!

                    Same question. Are childish potty mouths the best way to advance liberty?

                    He’ll be attacking me a lot, having been proven a liar on this page.

                    1. i(laughing) So he gets CRAZIER!

                      Your dentist is a real peach to hook you up with nitrous oxide like that.

                      Same question. Are childish potty mouths the best way to advance liberty?

                      Are Depends really as absorbent as the commercials say?

                      He’ll be attacking me a lot, having been proven a liar on this page.

                      “QUOTING ME DIRECTLY WITH THE TIMESTAMP LIKE I DEMANDED MEANS HE’S A LIAR A BLOO BLOO BLOO!!”

                      He’ll be screaming like a howler monkey in heat a lot, having been proven senile on this page.

                    2. Red Rock exposed again

                      His original claim
                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4726125

                      Which is beside the point, of course, because those migrants immediately begin attempting to recreate their new home in the image of their old one. It’s rather astonishing that you went off on arguing about “culture” and missed the boat where it actually applied.

                      Fast forward. Anyone else think “migrants” has anything to do with HEALTHCARE?

                      I’ve seen his ilk before, as a libertarian forum monitor at Compserve. circa 1993. Our training included “Bloviating Blowhards.” ? who jump in and blovioate on things they know nothing about. The problem arose if anyone challenged the bullshitter successfully, or even strongly. The bullshitter feels ridiculed and generally attacks the perceived enemy.

                      It’s rarely ridicule, mostly a disagreement, a dialog between adults. But to a blowhard, it’s an assault to be returned viciously. If we thought that possible, we could flag and delete replies before anyone saw them.

                      Online access was then billed by the minute. Cserve (AOL and others) would lose LOTS of money if members felt unsafe to participating.

                      I correctly predicted lies and counterattacks on this. You will see more. I’d like you to SEE how bad it can get. Then imagine these people representing libertarianism in their world. Scary?

                    3. I’ll save everyone the time of reading the 888 above: “MUH PRESHUS THREAD!!!”

                    4. Everyone understands why you want nobody to see it.

                    5. Everyone understands why you want nobody to see it.

                      Because you’re chimping out over being directly quoted? Why would I not want anyone to see that?

          2. Have fun being a demented old deluded asshole

            Cytotoxic denies that Ron and Rand Paul ae extreme social consetrvatives. So who’s deluded?

  4. What about the other 99.99% of Millenials who don’t write code or develop apps?

  5. The libertarian moment argument goes something like this:

    1. The kids like pot
    2. The kids like teh gais
    3. ????
    4. LIBERTARIAN MOMENT

    It was retarded 3 years ago when Gillespie and Welch decided it was the hill their credibility was going to die on, and time hasn’t done it any favors.

    1. Yeah, I’m not seeing the connection between “weed should be legal” and “taxation is theft” or whatever. Don’t discount that millennials came of age seeing the effects of the Bush tax cuts.

      1. the effects of the Bush tax cuts.

        You mean a steady GDP growth that occurred with a simultaneous decrease in government spending, along with a concurrent rise in personal income disposition? (As per the Government Printing Office’s own data)

        1. I’m laughing at your defense of the Bush tax cuts. 85% of the cuts went to taxpayers UNDER $250,000, who were payingn only 45% of the personal incoem tax – the greatest wealth redictribtuion since FDR!

          Then add the trillions diverted to Medicare Prescriptions from INCOME taxes.

          Between the wealth redistribution and Medicare D, the GOP spent TRILLIONS to buy votes and lost anyhow. That qualifies as the biggest dumbass adminstration since FDR.

          And your Government Printing Office link is 10000% useless

          Bush decreased government spending??? Who paid for the wars, Venezuelans?

          1. I don’t care what you laugh at you fucking Holocaust denier. We all know you have a habit of ignoring evidence you deem inconvenient to your hate-filled ideology.

            1. We all know you have a habit of ignoring evidence you deem inconvenient

              Any examples, chump?

              1. Any examples, chump?

                Any examples that the Holocaust happened? The evidence in the historical record is overwhelming. I’m not here to educate you. As of this post, I’m blocking you as I have no desire to waste my time arguing with morally-crippled scumbags.

                1. Heroic Mullato screws up AGAIN (OMG)

                  Simple thread

                  Heroic MullatoWe all know you have a habit of ignoring evidence you deem inconvenient

                  Hihn Any examples, chump?

                  Heroic MullatoAny examples that the Holocaust happened? The evidence in the historical record is overwhelming.

                  hahahahahahahahah — and STILL no examples!!!

                  Your psycho holocaust lie came afterward, chum

            2. you fucking Holocaust denier

              There it is, in all his glory. (puke)

          2. (snicker) Well, everyone else here is laughing at you.

            1. Even though I fascr-blocked him, I see that Hihn is going apeshit under my comments, some posted over an hour ago. I’m guessing he’s pretending his faux-naive “I’m just asking questions” shtick over on a Gaza thread a few weeks ago didn’t happen. Morally-crippled and a pathological liar; I wouldn’t have guessed.

              1. Dumbass, That’s why I QUOTED what I was responding to TWICE!

                Once more for the integrity challenged.
                ———

              2. “I’m just asking questions” shtick over on a Gaza thread a few weeks ago didn’t happen

                Watch closely, the coward will never give any details. Look at how easily he was called out here

                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4725285

          3. “Then add the trillions diverted to Medicare Prescriptions from INCOME taxes.”

            You are officially a moron. Medicare Part D outlays prior to Barry removing the donut hole in BarryCare were $50-60BB per year. The program is about 10 years old –little less, but we’ll give you even more rope to hang yourself with– so total spending has been about HALF a trillion and not the “trillions” that you simply can’t count.

            Source? CBO, bitch.

            1. Another one! ( NotAnotherSkippy)

              You are officially a moron

              We’ll see.

              Medicare Part D outlays

              Wrong number. The income tax subsidy has nothing anything to do with (only) Plan D outlays. But thanks for the opportunity to shoe how totally corrupt the GOP was.

              The income tax subsidy is capped at is 45% of TOTAL Medicare spending. They needed Democrat votes and cut a dirty deal to steal more than Plan D needed..

              Kaiser has a simple chart for 2013. Scroll to Revenues

              http://kff.org/medicare/fact-s…..act-sheet/

              1) 73% of Plan D came from General Revenues, on total spending (as you said) of $69.7B.

              2) General Revenues ALSO paid 73% of Plan B, on total spending of — wait for it — $255B

              3) General Revenues paid 41% of total Medicare or $236 Billion. We had to borrow it anyhow, but it was charged to General Revenues, not the Trust Fund. So Bush’s Plan D makes the remaining Trust Fund FAR more fraudulent.

              The subsidy is capped as a % of Medicare, not a % of income taxes. Medicare will be growing faster than General Revenues, so Medicare will take an ever-growing share of income taxes. Thank you George Bush.

              You are officially a moron

              Will I get an apology, or are you just one of the thugs and bullies?

              Copyright 2012-2014 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved and Defended.

          4. I’m laughing at your defense of the Bush tax cuts.

            Why?

            Nothing you wrote demonstrates there was anything wrong or harmful that came from the tax cuts.

            Your complaint is he cut taxes AND spent more.

            It was the spending that caused the problems not the tax cuts.

            In fact revenues went up after the tax cuts not down. If anything the tax cuts, looked at alone, had a positive effect on lowering deficit spending.

            Bush sucked for a shit load of reasons. Tax cuts was not one of them.

            1. right, it’s easier to pay our bills with less money, you must be a fox news viewer

              1. right, it’s easier to pay our bills with less money, you must be a fox news viewer

                If you have less money, you cut back on your bills, loser.

            2. Note: Corning jumps in to my response to HeroicMullato. Honestly?

              Here’s the truth. I’m right below Heroic Mullato

              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4725236

              HIHN I’m laughing at your defense of the Bush tax cuts.

              Why?

              One more time (emphasis added)
              HIHN “? – the greatest wealth redistribtuion since FDR!

              Nothing you wrote demonstrates there was anything wrong or harmful that came from the tax cuts.

              You Progressives LOVE wealth redistribution

              Your complaint is he cut taxes AND spent more.

              (laughing)

              HEROICMULLATO:emphasis added
              “… a simultaneous decrease in government spending, along with a concurrent rise in personal income disposition?

              HIHN (emphasis in original
              Bush decreased government spending??? Who paid for the wars.

              It was the spending that caused the problems not the tax cuts.

              (lol)

              In fact revenues went up after the tax cuts not own.

              From 2.3 billion to 3.0 billion.

              If anything the tax cuts, looked at alone, had a positive effect on lowering deficit spending.

              Also helped end the recession he inherited.

              Bush sucked for a shit load of reasons. Tax cuts was not one of them

              You do LOVE wealth redistribution.

    2. That’s not what anyone’s arguing but hey don’t let reading comprehension get in the way of your strawmen and sad-sackery.

      1. Cytotoxic
        Thanks for clearing THAT up!

  6. Think of being Homer Plessy in 1896 – “we are on the verge of an uprising in favor of racial equality – the rising generation will insist on it!”

  7. When your “movement” has arrived . . . run the other way. The ideas of the self-proclaimed libertarians are not copyright protected or even original to them. I whole-heartedly agree with many of them, but getting excited about breaking into the mainstream validated political movement category would encourage me to be very cautious!

    1. Political hipsterism is a thing now?

      If there actually were libertarian ideas gaining traction I’d be wholeheartedly joyous.

      1. I think it is a bit more than hipsterism. There is lots of evidence to suggest that when people begin to succeed in the political mainstream principles go out the window.

  8. “How Eating Tacos and Drinking Beer Helps Keep Abortion Safe and Accessible

    “Hungry people take the #TacoOrBeerChallenge to support reproductive rights….

    “…#TacoOrBeerChallenge asks participants to donate money to an abortion provider, go out for a taco and a beer, and then tell everyone on social media about it….

    “Many abortion providers are cash-strapped nonprofits feeling the effects of new and expanding antiabortion laws across the United States. They rely on donations?and now, tacos, beer, and silly videos are one way to reduce the stigma around the issue and get more people to donate….”

    http://www.takepart.com/articl…..re-twitter

    1. Incidentally, I thought abortion rates were going down because of libertinism, not “the effects of new and expanding antiabortion laws”

      /sarc

      1. They were, unless effect can precede cause.

    2. Having briefly looked over that woman’s twitter feed, it is clear that she is a lunatic. A for-real no joking around, stark raving mad, howling at the moon, gibbering maniac.

      1. She’s as ugly as I thought she would be. No more, no less.

    3. Tacos and beer sound pretty good. People can pay for their own damn abortions.

      1. What’s the opposite of tacos? Burritos? I’m going to start a Kickstarter where you all can fund me eating burritos and drinking wine, the proceeds of which I’ll donate to Libertarians for Life. The second-tier award will be me spamming her twitter feed with pictures of burritos and wine bottles in your name.

        Or you can just fund Medieval-style dog and cat collars. Your choice.

        1. Awwww… I’m already on my second BeerForAbortion.

          Well, at least we have wine in the house.

        2. The opposite side of the world from Mexico is the Indian Ocean, so I would say sushi. Mmmmm, sushi.

  9. Finally! An article about Millenials on Reason. ‘Bout time.

  10. Millennials are children of the twin wars on drugs and terrorism. Hence, they care more about their personal freedoms and the growth of the surveillance state.

    Do these so-called millennials even know what freedom is?

    1. Well, I’m sure some do. And as they grow up a bit they will probably settle into being roughly evenly divided between sort of centrist conservative and sort of centrist liberal just like every other cohort does.

  11. Oh, joy…look who’s back.

    Expecting another fun filled weekend of threads trashed with incomprehensible gibberish and innumerable spelling errors form a kooky old man.

    Can’t wait.

    1. Oh…and BOLD TYPE. (laughing)

    2. Francisco gets get vicious after he’s been publicly humiliated.

      I understand and forgive him his grudges.

      1. (laughing) Oh, Michael, did you take it I meant you? What made you think such a thing?

      2. Michael Hihn|8.23.14 @ 11:58AM|#
        “Francisco gets get vicious after he’s been publicly humiliated.”

        You’re made an ass of yourself in more ways than I can count by now; how in hell would you presume to humiliate anyone?

        1. Keep showing us who you are (lol)

          Was this an act of agression by Francisco?

          Expecting another fun filled weekend of threads trashed with incomprehensible gibberish and innumerable spelling errors form a kooky old man.

          I’m 72 years old. If I was a cripple, does anyone doubt he’d ridicule THAT also?

          What kind of person enters a page like this, inititiates a totally unprovoked attack on someone … and defends doing so? Are those acts, alone, a form, of self-humiliation?

          I don’t have to do a thing!!!

          1. What kind of person enters a page like this, inititiates [sic] a totally unprovoked attack on someone … and defends doing so?

            Um…you?

            (laughing in Michael Hihn’s face) The only humiliation in this thread is that which you have done to yourself.

            Question:

            In my original post (11:45), what made you assume it was directed at you?

            1. In my original post (11:45), what made you assume it was directed at you?

              The indent level, and “kooky old man” has always been part of your smear campaign.

              Again no message content and 100% insults. He wouldn’t dare challenge me on an actual topic. (laugh)

              1. The indent level? Better get your eyes checked sonny. That post wasn’t a reply. It was an original comment.

                Come now, be truthful. You knew it was directed at you because I described you to a T.

                As far as debate goes, I’d rather debate a hamster. A hamster would be more intelligible.

                You’ve earned all the ridicule you receive here and I wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of stooping to debate you. You treat everyone you talk to like shit and what goes around comes around, ashole. Fuck off.

                1. The indent level? Better get your eyes checked sonny. That post wasn’t a reply. It was an original comment.

                  That’s what told me you had launched an snotty insult out of thin air … as you just admitted.

                2. Franciso (and the gang) often begin with a bluff/attack.

                  In my original post (11:45), what made you assume it was directed at you?

                  I then call him out, with proof.
                  In fairness, this is the first time he’s confessed:

                  Come now, be truthful. You knew it was directed at you because I described you to a T.

                  (laughing) The five drive-by assassins are ALL that dumb! Is that why they formed a steeet gang to defend each other?

                  Now that he’s confessed, back to the orignal questiion. Was this an act of agression by Francisco?

                  Expecting another fun filled weekend of threads trashed with incomprehensible gibberish and innumerable spelling errors form a kooky old man

                  Do I recall correctly, that no REAL libertarian would commit repeated acts of aggression? Only thugs do such a thing?

                  The top five bullies on this board have all targeted me for attack. I wear that as a badge of honor.

                  Don’t let the goobers bully you.

                  P.S.. They don’t care how big an ass they make of themselves. Attacking is their only goal, when exposed as blowhards.

          2. You’re a mental cripple.

            1. Is this an act of aggresion?

              You’re a mental cripple.

          3. Michael Hihn|8.23.14 @ 12:38PM|#
            …”What kind of person enters a page like this, inititiates a totally unprovoked attack on someone … and defends doing so?”

            1) Someone who has read your steaming piles of crap and made the obvious conclusion.
            2) Someone who is smart enough to avoid wasting time and decides to hate you on sight.

            1. (laughing)
              Don’t let these thugs bully you.

              1. Michael Hihn|8.23.14 @ 4:14PM|#
                “Don’t let these thugs bully you.”

                No one is “bullying” you shit bag, we;re laughing at you.

                1. Keep proving me right, fool.

                  It’s only the same five commenters, and I trust readers to see what you all have in common. You can keep all the thugs here

                  Make my day.

  12. OT, but hey!

    “Ebola outbreak moves S.F. startup to join search for cure”
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a…..706951.php

    Not snake-oil but it’s a long shot. Other docs ‘concerned’: “Greene also questioned if the company was playing “upon the emotions of this horrible epidemic.””
    Uh, would you rather wait until there is no public awareness of the disease and try to raise funding then?
    Smells like ‘I hate evil profittttts!’

    1. Hey, it’s worth it to lose out on the possibility of a cure if it saves just one emotion.

      1. That brought a tear to my eye it was so beautiful.

    2. Greene’s probably the same sort of asshole who thinks Reagan was evil for not saying the word “AIDS”. Because we can’t do any research into a disease unless the government talks about it.

      1. Reagan was an asshole for not talking about AIDS. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wanted to publicize this before it got out of hand, but Reagan refused. I was in the military in Olongapo and Pattaya (wide-open cities of bars and related, ummm… activities) among other places and never heard about AIDS from anyone in the chain of command. The ship gave out free condoms on the quarterdeck and there were rumors about some kind of “black clap” that could kill you, but no actual facts.
        Besides that, Reagan was an asshole for his WOD bullshit to distract everyone from Iran-Contra.

        1. Another Goober Supporting Liberals 🙁

          You dumbass, Reagan won the nomination AFTER aggressively defended gay rights. Read his speech to the American Foundation for Aids Research. It’s on the website of those crazy homophobes … pbs.

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…..amfar.html

          Ronald Reagan on AIDS after defending gay teachers BEFORE his nomination

          … this fiscal year the federal government plans to spend $317 million on AIDS research and $766 million overall. Next year we intend to spend 30 percent more on research: $413 million out of $1 billion overall. Spending on AIDS has been one of the fastest growing parts of the budget …,And I don’t blame those who are out marching and protesting to get AIDS drugs released before the I’s were — or the T’s were crossed and the I’s were dotted. I sympathize with them, and we’ll supply help and hope as quickly as we can.

          …I recently announced my intention to create a national commission on AIDS because of the consequences of this disease on our society.

          …I was told of a situation in Florida where 3 young brothers — ages 10, 9, and 7 — were all hemophiliacs carrying the AIDS virus. The pastor asked the entire family not to come back to their church. Ladies and gentlemen, this is old-fashioned fear, and it has no place in the home of the brave.

          Federal funding for AIDS researh began 1983, the SAME year it was announced as a virus (but not yet isolated)

        2. and never heard about AIDS from anyone in the chain of command.

          Your entire command knew NOTHING of major evemts? What military were you in, Ecuadors?

      2. Reagan was an asshole for not talking about AIDS. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wanted to publicize this before it got out of hand, but Reagan refused. I was in the military in Olongapo and Pattaya (wide-open cities of bars and related, ummm… activities) among other places and never heard about AIDS from anyone in the chain of command. The ship gave out free condoms on the quarterdeck and there were rumors about some kind of “black clap” that could kill you, but no actual facts.
        Besides that, Reagan was an asshole for his WOD bullshit to distract everyone from Iran-Contra.

        1. Fuckin SQIRLZ!

        2. PROOF Progresives lie about Reagan and AIDS

          See part one above.

          See the AIDS timeline at aids.gov

          aids.gov/ hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/

          From the right — breitbart.com — aiming at progressives but hitting the extreme so-cons.

          hihn.us/1l5qy0l

          Even a gay website!!
          igfculturewatch. com/2004/06/24/reagan-and-aids-a-reassessment/

          First, it’s untrue that the Reagan administration “said nothing” in response to the disease. In June 1983, a year before the virus that causes AIDS had even been publicly identified, Reagan’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, announced at the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the department “considers AIDS its number-one health priority.” She specifically praised “the excellent work done by gay networks around the nation” that had spread information about the disease. – See more at: http://igfculturewatch.com/200…..uNwwX.dpuf

          Compare all that with Ron/Rand Paul.

        3. Part 3. The Progressives War on Reagan

          C. Everett Koop wanted to publicize this before it got out of hand, but Reagan refused

          From the official website of the US Surgeon General

          http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/…..okoop.html

          As the Nation began to recognize AIDS as a new and deadly disease, Koop eventually became the chief Federal spokesperson on AIDS. After remaining silent on AIDS for several years, President Reagan asked Koop to prepare a report on AIDS early in 1986. For the next 9 months, Koop worked on this report, writing much of it himself. The report, released on October 22, 1986,

          The evolutiom of AIDS treatment was very slow. Easy to lie about today. See the official timeleine in Part1

  13. Enough with the filler about “moments”. Let’s have fewer blog entries, so comment threads about actually relevant-to-discuss stuff can be longer.

  14. I feel constrained to point out that the vast majority of archetypical ’60’s dropouts didn’t want to “move to a commune, toke up, and read Das Kapital.”. Most of them had no interest in actually reading Das Kapital; they were willing to accept the version of it that was passed to them by a hard core of political activists who mostly didn’t want to move to communes.

  15. “Greene also questioned if the company was playing “upon the emotions of this horrible epidemic.””

    “They’re horning in on the government’s turf.”

  16. the version of it that was passed to them by a hard core of political activists who mostly didn’t want to move to communes.

    The nomenklatura don’t live in the Workers’ Council dormitories.

  17. “…..and a majority of Millennials, favor decriminalizing marijuana, sentencing reform, cracking down on police abuse, cuts in defense spending, less overseas interventionism, and slashing the long tentacles of the surveillance state.”

    I don’t know. These sound like these most young people have always been in favor of, but then their views change when they grow up and have kids and expensive possessions, which they want the gov’t to protect.

    1. I’d like to see more age-adjusted cohort opinion comparisons.

    2. Then they learn that the government doesn’t and can’t protect their expensive possessions or their families, so they buy a gun and join the NRA.

  18. I’ve asked before and I’m asking again: what was the non-response bias in Reason’s Millenial polls?

  19. What Shikhia states here aligns with the data: the more money and independence millenials have, the more less friendly they are to government intervention in the economy. We need a functioning job market and economy and millenials will shift to basically similar to other generations.

  20. Millenials are more likely to support libertarian candidates than other age groups (see Ron and Rand Paul and Sarvis’ campaigns).

    But they are also more likely to support Democrats over Republicans, and I suspect that’s a major reason they get so much hate from so many the of curiously large number of (ahem) right leaning libertarians who post here.

    1. Thank god we have you around to keep us safe from all those soconz hiding in your closet. They vote for social causes which is why they vote for Team Blue and occasionally libertarian candidates. Fiscally, they still like big government which is why fiscal conservatives like me (ahem, a right-leaning feature) are not very impressed with their cohort.

      1. I’m sure they’ll be plenty like you rushing to defend your Socon allies, so no worries.

        1. And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, “It is written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER’; but you are making it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”

          1. It’s really fascinating how many ostensible libertarians get so upset about someone criticizing social conservatives that advocate NAP violations.

            1. Well, if you can point to an instance where I’ve backed a socon, I’ll take it back.

              Just out of curiosity, and I’m sure I’ll regret this, what traits do you attribute to these “right leaning libertarians”?

              1. NEOCONZ -Bo’s other nemesis he sees everywhere.

                1. I don’t like neocons either, yes.

              2. For one, they get upset when people on the right are criticized even when they are pushing NAP violations

            2. “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

              1. Are you staying in a hotel?

    2. ou mistake genuine policy concern for TEAM-loyalty

      America is broadly becoming more socially liberal, and less economically sane (‘conservative’)

      The trend shoes that people across the political spectrum are far more likely to move away from traditionally held bias against homosexuals. This is undeniable. If there remain debates about ‘marriage’ they derive from different views about social institutions more than actual anti-gay animus.

      Views of MJ have changed dramatically as well. More broadly, there is far less desire to lock up people for ‘victimless’ crimes.

      While there remain strongly divided views on abortion, they have become more technical, and less absolutist.

      Social views have moved strongly in a more ‘liberal’ direction since the 1980s, and that is largely because such views are largely superficial in the first place.

      Economic views have gone in the opposite direction. And the reason they have done so has largely come about due to the total ideological dominance held by the left in education. young people demand more government intervention in the economy and have less concern about use of the state to enforce social norms.

      This attitude will be harder to change than the more-superficial social views of aging conservatives.

      1. “Economic views have gone in the opposite direction. And the reason they have done so has largely come about due to the total ideological dominance held by the left in education.”

        True, but there’s another cause IMO: We can afford the waste.
        We are so wealthy as a result of being one of the few market-based econs that we don’t realize how much wealthier we could be, nor are we really hurt by the amount the government steals.
        It’s a shame, because that extra wealth would largely cure the existing poverty which gov’t programs haven’t, but (per your comment) that point is not being taught.

      2. The data suggests that Millenial support for wealth redistribution and other lefty shibboleths melts as they get a job, money, and independence.

        1. “Cytotoxic|8.23.14 @ 1:21PM|#

          The data suggests that Millenial support for wealth redistribution and other lefty shibboleths melts as they get a job, money, and independence.”

          Well, good for the data.

          I’m waiting for things like ‘transphobia’ to stop being popular topics of concern, in favor of ‘entitlement reform’

          1. The heaviest resistance to entitlement reform is not coming from Millenials

            1. Because millennials, who are still living in their parents house with a job at Starbucks while paying off their degree in underwater scalp care, aren’t paying for it.

          2. I’m waiting for things like ‘transphobia’ to stop being popular topics of concern, in favor of ‘entitlement reform’

            What does this have to do with what I said? Or anything? In fighting Bo, you must not become Bo.

      3. I doubt it has to do with liberal dominance of education which I think is exaggerated and shrugged off by most students, and more to do with what Cyto mentions below. Libertariani is about freeinds as much as free markets, and bellyaching over half a loaf (where we had none before) is puzzling

        1. Bellyaching about ‘SoCons’? I have no idea what you’re talking about. I am a proponent of big tent politics and don’t mind differing views in the same camp as long as there is some consistent view on policy-priority

          1. I’m not talking about you and I’m talking of bellyaching over Millenials.

            There are quite a few here though who greet the news that Millenials have come over to our side on many social issues with bellyaching about how they’ve yet to come over on economic ones. I, and Reason, think half a loaf is better than none and worth optimism. Of course, for those here who rank social issues low or take conservative positions on them then it’s still no loaf, so that explains the bellyaching.

            1. I still don’t know what you mean by all these bread-allusions and digestive complaints.

              No one here complains about the Millenials who regularly contribute here. There are some who groan about the dilution of ‘libertarianism’ to merely the combination of ‘pro-immigration/buttsex/weed’, but they are few.

              There are also a few personalities who complain about some fictitious overwhelming SoCon domination of this board, but those people are widely considered deranged morons.

              How many articles were written over the last 3 months with ‘Millenial’ in the title? as a proportion of total output, it would be hard to argue there is an almost desperate attempt to make this generation seem more significantly libertarian than they actually are. if there is some griping about that, it is less because of feelings on the topic itself and more to do with its endless, ubiquitous, droning repetition.

              1. “I still don’t know what you mean by all these bread-allusions and digestive complaints.”

                I get you don’t understand some things.

                “There are also a few personalities who complain about some fictitious overwhelming SoCon domination of this board, ”

                Of course I’ve never said anything like that.

                “there is an almost desperate attempt to make this generation seem more significantly libertarian than they actually are”

                Again, there’s plenty of demonstrable empirical evidence they are relatively more libertarian than other cohorts.

                Of course if you confuse libertarianism with (ahem) more right leaning philosophies then yes there’s also evidence they are not into that.

                1. Is “Ahem” what you mean by belly-aching?

                  Try Maalox

                  1. It’s what I mean by not wanting to directly call someone a bald faced liar, but surely suggest it at the same time.

                    Sorry to be so literal, but given your struggle to understand and all…

                    1. You’re not being “literal” at all.

                      Say what you mean. all this innuendo and throat-clearing just makes you sound sillier

                2. There’s about as much “demonstrable empirical evidence” for millenials being more libertarian than the previous generations as there is for the present moment being “libertarian”. Both are inferences from data — inferences which are, to put it mildly, disputed by many. As a law student, I wouldn’t expect you to know “demonstrable empirical evidence” from a clitoris (or the practical use of either one), but in the meantime I’d suggest you don’t try and make yourself seem educated on either subject.

              2. There are also a few personalities who complain about some fictitious overwhelming SoCon domination of this board, but those people are widely considered deranged morons.

                What can we say about anyone who doesn’t know that using state power to ban all abortions and ban gay marriage is, ummmm, social conservative!

                The two best-known (faux) libertarians are extreme social conservatives, Ron and Rand Paul which is, uhhh, dominance.

                They even lie about Federalism, and the Constitution, but their loyal goobers swallow it all eagerly.

                I may laugh for an hour that banning all abortion and gay marriage is NOT social conservative … well, not to other bigots. Same argument invented by the Klan.

                Morons in denial. Like Birthers.

                1. “using state power to ban all abortions and ban gay marriage”

                  Ok. Please show where anyone writing for this magazine has advocated that, or where any regular readers of this magazine have proposed this, and had the proposition warmly received by others.

                  Until you show me this, you are living in a fantasy world.

                  1. (Gilmore AGAIN OMG)

                    Watch the shell game con. First me

                    Hihn What can we say about anyone who doesn’t know that using state power to ban all abortions and ban gay marriage is, ummmm, social conservative!
                    The two best-known (faux) libertarians are extreme social conservatives, Ron and Rand Paul… ”

                    Umm, here’s Gilmore’s response

                    Ok. Please show where anyone writing for this magazine has advocated that, or where any regular readers of this magazine have proposed this, and had the proposition warmly received by others.

                    WTF?

                    Oh, please, does anyone else agree with Gilmore that Ron and Rand Paul are writers of this magazine? (lol)

                    How about READERS?

                    Since YOU brought it up, how many writers are promoting the CANDIDACY of an extreme social consevative who would abuse state power in such a disgraceful way? (laughing harder)

                    I also said this:
                    “I may laugh for an hour that banning all abortion and gay marriage is NOT social conservative … well, not to other bigots. Same argument invented by the Klan.”

                    Laughing STILL harder now that Gilmore at least ACTS like a shameful bigot.

      4. Economic *policy* isn’t going the wrong way at the state level-lots of tax cuts and goodly reform. ex Act 10

        1. Not around here.

    3. Millenials are more likely to support libertarian candidates than other age groups (see Ron and Rand Paul…)

      But they are also more likely to support Democrats over Republicans

      It must have escaped your notice that both Ron and Rand Paul are members of (ahem) the Republican party. Great examples though.

      1. PM denies Ron and Rand Paul are libertarians. He confuses the movement (small-l) with (ahem) the party (large-L)

        How many others can’t tell the difference?

  21. If millenials are so bad why did more of them vote for Coochy over McCaulliffe on top of those who voted Sarvis?

    1. Yes, choosing a happy Socon warrior like Cucinelli over any Democrat would be a plus to our (ahem) right leaning libertarians here, but it’s their preferring Obama over those great libertarians McCain and Romney that’s the unforgivable sin.

      1. Voting for Obama instead of nobody or a libertarian and using the excuse of Romney and McCain is the sin.

        Also McCain and Romney are not Socons. They were Neocons…of course Obama turned out to be a Neocon interventionist and only spoke about being a dove.

        Note: Not to defend Cytotoxic. It is funny though to see the resident Neocon getting in a fight with blue Tulpa. Now you two should kiss.

        1. Oh Corning. You were actually being intelligent, and then you had to go all retard at the end. We weren’t even fighting, retard. Please, go back to LewRockwell.com. This is a place for adults. Sane adults.

        2. I didn’t say McCain or Romney were SoCons, I said Cucinelli was. But all three were Republicans, which is enough for some here to consider voting for their opponent a sin.

          Obama is a disaster, like pretty much all Democrats. But the same is true (to a slightly smaller degree IMO) about recent GOP alternatives. That someone, doing what so many do and only considering the Big Two in an election, would vote for Obama is of course a bad thing, but no worse than voting for either clown the GOP offered as opponents. To damn Millenials for doing so, especially when evidence abounds that they support libertarians relatively more, is curious indeed.

          1. I’ve trouble thinking of Romney as either socon or neocon. He’s more just plain…con! He has a gimmick like Fujimori; in Romney’s case, it’s success in biz, which causes people to put confidence in him.

            Anyway, because of the academedia, voters tend to take economic & social “conservatism” or “liberalism” as proxy measures of each other. It’s just assumed certain ideas “go with” each other, because…who knows?

      2. “choosing a happy Socon warrior like Cucinelli over any Democrat”

        Terry McAuliffe.

        Be specific.

        “Voting for Terry McAuliffe was a superior choice for libertarians, because [Insert Reason]”?

        1. I don’t see voting for McAuliffe as any more damning as voting for Cucinelli, if that’s what you’re asking.

          1. “choosing a happy Socon warrior like Cucinelli over any Democrat would be a plus to our (ahem) right leaning libertarians here”

            What was the point of that statement?

          2. Let me be more specific lest you do your ‘release slime-coating and wriggle-away’ gimmick

            – If you are offered a choice between

            – a candidate with ‘socially conservative views” who wants to reduce the areas of life that government sticks its nose into
            vs

            – a candidate who markets themselves with all the right-sounding and popular socially liberal views necessary to appeal to the widest audience, but also believes in activist government and social-engineering to achieve the vision of a progressive nirvana

            …which should a “normal* libertarian” vote for, Bo?

            (*since you seem to suggest that the ‘right-leaning’ types fail to qualify as ‘normal’)

            1. I am shocked that Bo slithers away at this point

            2. Let me be more specific lest you do your ‘release slime-coating and wriggle-away’ gimmick

              PROOF of Gilmore’s phony libertarianism!

              …which should a “normal* libertarian” vote for?

              Bullshit.
              1) This is about NOMINATIONS.
              2) “Normal” libertarians don’t NOMINATE statists who lie about the Constitution.
              3) Social conservatives DO NOT want to “reduce the areas of life that government sticks it’s nose into.” duh

              I AGAIN send you Rand Paul’s US Senate page.

              http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

              1) Abortion should be decided by the states. BUT …
              2) Brags of sponsoring a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortions.
              3) Tells KENTUCKY voters he’ll do anything to ban abortions (doesn’t give a shit where)
              4) That is NOT federalism. The Klan invented States Rights, to deny unalienable rights.
              5) They claim to be “Constitutional Conservatives” but LIE about the 10th Amendment — by ignoring the 9th.

              The 9th forbids ALL levels of government to violate unenumerated RIGHTS, exposing Ron/Rand Paul as con men – manipulating gullible thugs like Gilmore.

              Emphasis added for the morally impaired.

              The enumeration in the Constitution, of CERTAIN rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage OTHERS retained by the people.

              I post this every time you spew shameful lies. THAT is what “normal” libertarians do.

              (Raging hatred will likely resume, as thugs try again to shout down truth)

              1. I post this every time you spew shameful lies. THAT is what “normal” libertarians do.

                Normal libertarians are OCD copy-and-pasters?

                1. Normal libertarians are OCD copy-and-pasters?

                  Nice evasion. NOT

                  1) Defend the consitution. (lol)
                  2) Expose lying statists who masquerade as strict constructionists, with full documetatiomn

                  Copy-and-pasting becomes necessary when (a) they lie so often and (b) when there is so much evicencece.

                  And who are you to disparage it — while (as always) evading the issue?

                  1. Nice evasion. NOT

                    Ooooo, 1990s comebacks! Don’t be shy, hit me with one from your teenage years, that will show me!

                    And who are you to disparage it — while (as always) evading the issue?

                    No evasions, just the mocking a pathetic oldster with a martyr complex the size of the Pando aspen grove.

                    1. Potty mouth versus actual web links to proof.

                      Already exposed as a total liar on this page.

                    2. Potty mouth versus actual web links to proof.

                      When your nurse changes out your catheter, do you rail at her about how pathetic she is?

                      Already exposed as a total liar on this page.

                      Already exposed as totally senile on this page.

                    3. Better senile than a proven liar.
                      Which of the two is a lack of integrity?

                      I’m 72. Why are you dishonest?

                    4. RedRocksNo evasions, just the mocking a pathetic oldster with a martyr complex the size of the Pando aspen grove

                      Bullshit.
                      1) This is about NOMINATIONS.
                      2) “Normal” libertarians don’t NOMINATE statists who lie about the Constitution.
                      3) Social conservatives DO NOT want to “reduce the areas of life that government sticks it’s nose into.” duh

                      I AGAIN send you Rand Paul’s US Senate page.

                      http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

                      1) Abortion should be decided by the states. BUT …
                      2) Brags of sponsoring a FEDERAL bill to ban all abortions.
                      3) Tells KENTUCKY voters he’ll do anything to ban abortions (doesn’t give a shit where)
                      4) That is NOT federalism. The Klan invented States Rights, to deny unalienable rights.
                      5) They claim to be “Constitutional Conservatives” but LIE about the 10th Amendment — by ignoring the 9th.

                      The 9th forbids ALL levels of government to violate unenumerated RIGHTS, exposing Ron/Rand Paul as con men – manipulating gullible thugs like Gilmore.

                      Emphasis added for the morally impaired.

                      The enumeration in the Constitution, of CERTAIN rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage OTHERS retained by the people.

                      I post this every time you spew shameful lies. THAT is what “normal” libertarians do.

                      (Raging hatred will likely resume, as thugs try again to shout down truth)

                    5. Better senile than a proven liar.
                      Which of the two is a lack of integrity?

                      I’m 72. Why are you dishonest?

                      Someone who had integrity would be able to admit when he was quoted exactly, instead of crying like a baby and moving the goalposts. Old age really does revert you back to a childish mental state!

                      (Skips 888 about a politician I never mentioned)

                      Interesting, I never brought Rand Paul up. He, like prune juice, seems to be your particular obsession.

                    6. Someone who had integrity would be able to admit when he was quoted exactly,

                      1) You’re in the wrong thread again.

                      2) The post SAYS it’s about Ron Paul.

                    7. “MUH PRESHUS THREAD A BLOO BLOO BLOO!!”

  22. I’m sold! The libertarian moment has finally arrived!

    Now I’ll go cancel my government mandated, retardedly expensive, bare bones health insurance policy and then by a policy that actually fits my personal situation.*

    *Until I can do this, there is no libertarian moment.

  23. “…they are aspiring entrepreneurs who want worldly success?along with legal pot.”

    ~ Shikha Dalmia

    Legal pot isn’t what authentic libertarians want. Legal pot expands the size and scope of government, without doubt, an anti-libertarian result.

    Libertarians seek fewer laws thus to live by liberty, also said in freedom, or that realm where politicians are content to leave alone anyone.

    Legalization requires law. Law imposes duty and right. There can be no right without duty, no duty without right. There can be no law without matching duty and right.

    Pushing for legalization pushes against libertarianism.

    1. Eliminating bad law = MOAR LAW = un-libertarian

      (it’s the transitive property)

      1. Legalization adds law. Legalization doesn’t subtract law.

        Good luck learning!

        1. Legaliz’n changes the illegal to legal, period.

          1. Your belief is quite false.

            Once there were no laws with respect to driving or

            Americans were at liberty to drive or fly.

            Americans had no duty not to drive or fly without license and politicians lacked any right to prosecute through their agency, anyone driving or flying.

            And then politicians legalized driving and flying.

            Good luck Robert!

            1. When driving was not illegal, how could it have later been legalized? You’re using the word bizarrely in a way to try to confuse people.

              Tell us, then, what “illegalized” means.

        2. Legalization adds law. Legalization doesn’t subtract law.
          Good luck learning!

          Umm, if we repeal the laws against pot, would it be legal?

          Which law did we pass to make breathing legal?

          1. If laws impose criminal liability thus giving right of prosecution to the agency of legislators and those same laws get repealed, the previously deemed criminalized acts become decriminalized.

            This should not be hard to understand.

    2. Tell us what a great Vladimir Putin is.

      PS you seem to have gotten lost on you way to LewRockwell.com. This is a place for sane adults.

      1. “Tell us what a great Vladimir Putin is.”

        ~ Cytotoxic

        Is there a yardstick for those named Vladimir against which all others named Vladimir should be measured? Is Putin a great Vladimir? Do you mean we should compare Putin to Vladimir Nabokov or Vladimir Horowitz?

        And yet, here you are feebly attempting to imply that you are sane and an adult.

        Good luck!

    3. Yes, but as the laws stand now, people have their lives ruined (long prison sentences, barred from their professions and so on). If it is legalized, you are right that there will be more bureaucracy, but then again, fewer people will go to jail for a non-violent crime (possessing or smoking small amounts of pot).

      Sure, that’s a trade-off, but you can still be a libertarian and think that maybe it is one worth making.

      Or, are you just trolling?

      1. No, he’s just stupid.

        1. Gee Davey, why do you dazzle us with your intellectual prowess, m’kay?

      2. You cannot be libertarian and advocate for more law.

        That’s like claiming to be on a diet and then doubling your caloric intake.

        1. No, it is like eating healthier calories.

          1. If only we get the laws right this time… ? well that is the mantra of every progressive liberal in the history of progressivism and liberalism in the age of scientism.

            Libertarianism means living by few laws, hence having few duties to few corresponding rights.

            Those who advocate for more law are not libertarians. They might be indoctrinated into the false belief they are, but they’re not.

            That is the problem with the culties here at Reason.com. The culties here are Rockefeller Republicans.

            REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA’S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS

            1. OK, fine. I’m not a libertarian according to Smacky. See my post below.

              If only we get the laws right this time

              Do you really not get this argument? You currently can get thrown in jail for selling the wrong types of drugs. Changing the law so that isn’t the case is an objectively positive change when measured by the amount of harm done to another person. Are you going to actually try to argue otherwise? Are you going to actually try to argue that life didn’t get better for people who bought and sold alcohol after prohibition ended because there were still laws about alcohol?

              1. Removing the law from the books is the libertarian act.

                Substituting one law for another is mere tweaking control and leaves power in place.

                Alas, based on your other comments, Lynchy, I don’t expect you to understand anything about power, control, jurisprudence, freedom, governance.

                You should realize that you have committed the fallacy of red herring by blathering about the repeal of the 18th with the 21st amendment.

                That said, until 2013, the residents of Alabama and Mississippi were prohibited from homebrewing beer. Those living in those states had to suffer 80 years of brilliant legalization.

                So, yay legalization!

                Good luck awaking to reality that you are not a libertarian. Living with truth about yourself is the greatest gift you can give to yourself.

                1. I am 100%, honestly, perfectly comfortable not being a libertarian by your definition. It doesn’t bother me in the least. I’m OK not being a libertarian according to *anyone’s* definition. The label means nothing to me, save as a convenient, shorthand way to sum up my positions.

                  Would you have supported or not supported ending Prohibition? How would you have voted? If the state you live in now had a referendum on legalizing pot, how would you vote?

                  What if I told you that in my eyes, the test of a “true libertarian” isn’t in rhetoric or ideological rigor, but whether or not they take action to make the world freer when given the chance?

                  1. You engage in ad hominem against me and then you make nicey and ask for answers from me?

                    No one can be freer in the presence of more law.

                    You are suffering retardation-by-indoctrination. You are going to need more than good luck at this point.

                    1. So then your answer is that they were less free? You honestly think that people sitting in a bar buying a beer without fear of being thrown in jail are less free than they would be if they were sitting in a cage?

                      I don’t think you are a libertarian. I can’t conceive of a meaningful definition of libertarian that would include someone who hold’s your position.

                    2. You believe, wrongly, of course, that anyone can become “freer”.

                      Anyone is either free or not free. There isn’t such thing as degrees of freedom, statistics and mechanics notwithstanding.

                      Freedom is the virtual realm where no laws exist in the presence of government. Freedom is what speakers of Old French into English called liberty.

                      Where there is law, there isn’t freedom. Where there is law, there is duty and right, capacity, authority and power.

                      Giving anyone permission, license and the like fails to make anyone free. Such instruments give those who grant such control. No one can be free while also being under control.

                      Your Reasonoid handlers have done a number on your mind. Wow.

                    3. I call it freer. You can call it less oppressed if you want to. Doesn’t change the substance of the argument, or the fact that you would rather people live with greater risk of being thrown in a cage or shot than vote in a way that violates your sense of ideological purity.

                    4. You can call it “freer” to the remainder of your days, but never will your beliefs mesh with reality.

                      Words are the means to meaning. Words label concepts. Concepts are invariant.

                      You might not like those concepts but never is your misuse of words going to erase those concepts from reality.

                      Facts remain. You don’t understand your own politics precisely because you suffer pernicious effects of hyper-indoctrination.

                      Your ignorance about jurisprudence is glaringly apparent and renders you woefully inadequate to discuss such matters with anyone, much less in a public forum.

                    5. The concept is that you can now do something that came with the risk of getting thrown in jail. The word to label that concept is freer.

                      Yeah, it might require paper work and playing within the rules, but that isn’t as onerous as getting shot or thrown in jail. Ask anyone in jail right now for breaking drug laws if it would be be worse to stay in jail or jump through the hoops of getting a license. I have a feeling I know what they would say.

                      But whatever, I granted that you could call it something other than “freer” if you wanted. Engage the substance of the argument, not a single word choice.

                    6. There isn’t such thing as degrees of freedom

                      Arguing with someone who actually says something this abjectly retarded is pointless.

                      Framing liberty as an all or nothing proposition is great for splitting hairs about the precise definitions of words, but means exactly fuck-all to the actual lived experience of being a human being. Stalin’s Russia, modern Russian, and modern America are all examples of less than “free” societies, but the degrees to which they are less than free are the difference between, say, being lined up against a wall and shot for publishing anti-government literature, being thrown in jail for protesting in favor of gay rights, and having the tax-exempt status taken away from your advocacy group, respectively. The importance of those differences is probably lost on somebody sitting on their comfortable fat ass administering libertarian purity tests on their blog, but it’s not lost on anyone who watched brains gets splattered on walls, or who’s sitting in a jail cell for saying the wrong thing.

                    7. Arguing with someone who actually says something this abjectly retarded is pointless.

                      I agree, so when will PM retract his lie that I attacked Reasom for endorsing Matrijuana. Still waiting. tick tick tick

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4714284

                    8. Another PM flip flop
                      This is his funniest yet

                      Is freedom a black-and-white absolute? For PM that depends when you ask. Here’s today’s version:

                      Stalin’s Russia, modern Russian, and modern America are all examples of less than “free” societies, but the degrees to which they are less than free are the difference between, say, being lined up against a wall and shot for publishing anti-government literature, being thrown in jail for protesting in favor of gay rights, and having the tax-exempt status taken away

                      (wait for it) The importance of those differences is probably lost on somebody sitting on their comfortable fat ass administering libertarian purity tests on their blog, but it’s not lost on anyone who watched brains gets splattered on walls, or who’s sitting in a jail cell for saying the wrong thing

                      Ummm, here’s what he said just a few days earlier.

                      I’m a minarchist and I have no problem recognizing that the only differences between the North Korean and the United States governments are matters of degree, not fundamental character

                      What will he say tomorrow? He also doesn’t know what a minarchist is!

                      Class dismissed

                2. It leaves power in place, but less power than before. Seems like you’re saying that as long as there’s someone committing crimes somewhere in the universe, nobody is free.

                3. Removing the law from the books is the libertarian act

                  Wise of you to recant your original assertion.

                  1. I’ve not forsworen anything. Nice try though, Mikey.

                    Perhaps your reading comprehension skills aren’t up to snuff.

        2. “You cannot be libertarian and advocate for more law.”

          YAWN, the two biggest and contradictory attacks on libertarians are the following:

          1) YOU LIBERTARIANS ARE TOO BLINDED TOO YOUR IDEOLOGY AND NEVER AGREE TO PRAGMATIC SOLUTIONS, INSTEAD ELECTING TO DESTROY THE WORLD TO AVOID A COMPROMISE ON YOUR IDEOLOGY!!!!

          2) YOU LIBERTARIANS COMPROMISE ON YOUR IDEALS TOO EASILY, THROWING IDEOLOGY UNDER THE BUS AT ANY CHANCE YOU GET, BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES AND FAKE LIBERTARIANS!!!!

          For now, you are claiming the second one. The minute any libertarians is against a reform because it is insufficiently libertarian, you will switch to the first one. You won’t be able to help yourself.

          Come back when you want to have a serious discussion about a libertarian issue (ie, never).

          1. Who wants to come back to discuss anything with Rockefeller Republicans masquerading as libertarians?

            Besides, likely, I’ve been reading and commenting on Reason.com long before you, likely years.

            1. “Who wants to come back to discuss anything with Rockefeller Republicans masquerading as libertarians?”

              You, apparently.

              1. Wrong-o you are Lenny. I commented and others begged for my attention by engaging me.

            2. Who wants to come back to discuss anything with Rockefeller Republicans masquerading as libertarians?

              I’ve been reading and commenting on Reason.com long before you, likely years.

              I bet even now you don’t see the irony.

            3. There’s a word for what you’re doing here: equivocation. You’re using a word to mean the opposite of what everybody else means by it, and then implying that what everybody else means is therefore different from what they actually mean.

      3. If it is legalized, you are right that there will be more bureaucracy,

        What makes you think that’s right?

        When owning gold went from illegal to legal, what bureaucracy increased? How about when it became legal to compete on air & surface transport’n fares? Or when mixed-race facilities became legal? Or pornography? Or abortions? Or over-the-counter drug sales previously requiring a prescription?

        1. I’ve read countless articles about the endless bureaucratic hoops anyone who wants to sell pot (legally) in Colorado or Washington has to jump through.

          Legalizing pot is not the same as deregulating it.

          1. The bureaucratic hoops they’d’ve had to go thru before the current law were even more endless, if endlessness can have superlatives. What do you think it took to get a license to sell it under the previous regime of controls? You could apply for one, and they could sit on it forever. Plus the federal & state gov’ts each required concurrent licensure by the other.

            There was a bureaucracy before, & there’s one now. The difference is that the current bureaucracy is much more likely to license you rather than simply giving you nothing for your appl’n fee.

            1. In other words, do you not think there were regulations before? And that the current regs are incomparably more permissive? How can that be interpreted as anything but deregulatory?

        2. All manners of reporting compliance and those who process that compliance has increased exponentially with legalization of almost everything you have listed.

    4. Is August 23rd True Scotsman Day or something? This is getting absurd.

      1. It’s an odds-on bet that one of the two is dumber than the other, but they’re both so far down the dumb scale that it’s hard to pick from here.

      2. If that’s true, and also since it’s my birthday, does that make me a True Scotsman?

        1. Sorry, lap, No True Scotsman is born on True Scotsman Day.

          But happy birthday!

    5. I don’t want people to have their lives ruined for doing something that doesn’t harm anyone else. If that means total decriminalization (i.e. making the legal code entirely silent on the issue), awesome. If that means legalization that retains some government involvement, then I’ll happily take it.

      Oh, that doesn’t meet your definition of “authentic libertarian”? Here, look closely at what I’m about to type. Looking? Here goes…

      See that? That is all the fucks I give about your opinion on authentic libertarians.

      1. Mary and Smacks seem to share a similar belief in “formula” / theoretical libertarianism

        For ‘communist anarchist’ Mary, Property requires Government: government Bad, so Property Bad! QED same with Borders, etc. “True Libertarianism” is therefore a propertyless anti-state communal existence.

        Smacky is on a similar tip. It thinks it is genius by repeating similar axioms and claiming it is the One Truth.

        Neither seems to even remotely attempt to apply their idiotic ramblings to actual problems of governance. They prefer to live in their purist playpen, untroubled by reality.

        1. It’s too bad you are clueless about jurisprudence and thus you express yourself in public as any other child would, Gilly.

          The psychology of groups amuses and you provide me with much amusement Gilly. Look at you, in toady manner, seek status from your peers, hoping your peers shall salute you in agreement for attacking the outsider.

          How you amuse. You are like Sevo. My words are your strings, and, you are my little marionette who dances hither and thither when your strings get pulled.

          Keep dancing!

          1. I hope you own stock in Kleenex.

            1. Because I’ll get rich from all the mental masturbation you do cumming into the minds and mouths of your buddies here, Lynchy, is that it?

              Why I believe you are right, Lynchy!

              1. Well I *thought* that everyone else’s contribution was a drop in the bucket compared to you. But maybe I overestimated your stamina.

                In all seriousness, most of the commenters here engage in thoughtful debate and discussion on a variety of topics. I joined because I’ve actually learned things from this blog! It’s crazy! A comment board, on the internet! But it’s true.

                Your posts, on the other hand, fall distinctly into two categories. They other quickly turn into the same copy-and-paste rant about rights, duties, and faux libertarians, or something similar to the above.

                1. Your comments never rise above the dreck and limited intellect you present the world.

                  See how tit-for-tat works in ad hominem.

                  Good luck, Lynchy!

                  p.s. Your cultie handlers of Reason.com, the so-called Reasonoids reveal themselves to be wrong, consistently. They are not libertarians.

                  Reasonoids are Rockefeller Republicans. They have indoctrinated you to be the same.

                  1. You must feel so great that you’ve persuaded exactly no one with your purer-than-thou schtick, Smack.

                    1. You must feel so great with the safety of numbers, hiding in your wrongheaded group-think, in your little protective cult.

                      Good luck!

              2. Smack MacDougal|8.23.14 @ 5:56PM|#
                “Because I’ll get rich from all the mental masturbation you do cumming into the minds and mouths of your buddies here, Lynchy, is that it?”

                Gee, I’ll bet your 1st grade classmates laughed and laughed when you told them at recess!

                1. Ah, there you are Sevo, hanging on my every word, yet again.

                  It’s so much fun to watch how you dance when my words pull your strings. Keep dancing ma petit jolie marionette.

                  1. Smack MacDougal|8.23.14 @ 6:26PM|#
                    “Ah, there you are Sevo, hanging on my every word, yet again.”

                    Gee, shitpile, there you go again, dancing to my tune!

                    1. Keep dancing Sevo, my little marionette! You do it so good.

                      It’s so much fun to watch you spazz out as soon as you read one of my comments. That you lack any mind control is a true hoot!

                    2. Smack MacDougal|8.23.14 @ 9:16PM|#
                      “Keep dancing Sevo, my little marionette! You do it so good.”

                      Yes, it’s easy to tell who is dancing to whose tunes.
                      You post scores of times and get ignored.
                      Strangely, I post two or three times and SHITBAG JUMPS!

      2. Well, as long as doofs like you exist, nothing shall change. You won’t get free adding new laws.

        Good luck living a life of foolish self-deceit!

        1. Things won’t change so longs as doofs like my exist? People like you would rather sit around fapping to arguments over ideological purity and rhetorical precision than actually make life better for actual people who are actually suffering unjustly right now in the real world.

          Go rant about rights and duties to people sitting in prison for “crimes” that didn’t actually hurt anyone. Go tell them that legalization won’t make them free and that nothing will change until the world starts thinking like you do.

          1. Look at Lynchy, the caped crusader in a cosplay fantasy about making life better for others.

            None of the world seem to be getting free by living in ignorance over jurisprudence, you know, living the way you advocate, Lynchy,

            If only you get those laws right this time, Lynchy, you can pat yourself on the back as the good little liberal progressive who you are while you lie to yourself about being a libertarian.

            Yes, what every man and every woman needs to free free himself and to free herself is a clever meddler like you Lynchy to come along with your better meddlesome laws to save day.

            Be sure to get your mommy to press your cape before you go out in your progressive cosplay crusade!

            1. Are people living in Colorado and Washington who can now openly buy and sell pot more, less, or equally free when they couldn’t do those things?

              Were bootleggers are people who visited speakeasies more, less, or equally free after the end of Prohibition?

              1. In 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington state also passed initiatives legalizing marijuana for adults 21 and older under state law. It is important to note that Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) consistent with these determinations.

                Office of National Drug Control Policy

                Pot remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Those who use, grow or sell marijuana remain at risk for prosecution. There is no defense against marijuana charges in federal court.

                Yay legalization!

                Every legalize it advocate is a liberal progressive and not a libertarian.

                Libertarians advocate liberty, not legalization. Libertarians advocate freedom not rules-adherence to officialdom.

                Good luck, Lynchy!

                1. I’m well aware of the federal position. One government coming after you is better than two. And state-level legalization makes it politically more difficult for the feds to take aggressive action.

                  It really is that simple.

                  Actions speak louder than words. If you have an opportunity to lighten the burden of government and do nothing, you are a libertarian in word only, not in action.

                  1. Add variant laws does nothing to “lighten the burden of government”.

                    Shifting upon who must suffer the regulatory burden doesn’t make mankind free. Yet, those who advocate such are quite selfish.

                    Your position is the same as tax the rich as long as you don’t define me as among them.

                    Good luck!

                    1. It absolutely does lighten the burden of government if you can no longer be thrown in jail for just selling some pot. There is no shifting of regulatory burden. It’s a reduction of the burden.

                      Your position is the same as tax the rich as long as you don’t define me as among them.

                      How?

                    2. So, if the pot growers and the pot distributors don’t grow or distribute in the law-approved way, they face the problems.

                      Good luck genius.

                    3. Yup. No one said it was ideal. You don’t even have to call it good. But it is undeniably less bad. And what’s more, it isn’t the end of the effort. Libertarians (including writers for Reason!) continue to argue that the regulations should be rolled back, if not eliminated entirely. In the meantime, people can breathe easier (and freer!) knowing that there is at least one less way of getting thrown in jail.

                    4. There is no such thing as “less bad”. Either something is bad or not.

                      There are no libertarian writers at Reason.com. The writers presented at Reason.com are Rockefeller Republicans. The writers advocate for legalization and not liberty. Thus, they fail at libertarianism.

                    5. If you honestly believe this, then I guess you’d be OK with being locked in solitary confinement for the rest of your life? I mean, you are currently not free, which is bad, and there are no degrees to good and bad. If something isn’t perfect, then it doesn’t matter how bad it is. The concept of “how bad” doesn’t even have meaning if it’s binary. So getting locked in a cell and eating nothing but moldy bread for the rest of your natural life isn’t any different than your current situation, whatever that may be.

                      You’re basically saying that you have 1-bit morality. And yet that is somehow supposed to be more sophisticated than all the rest of us?

                    6. You commit the argumentative fallacy of false dilemma.

                      Really, you must do better than you have been doing until now.

                    7. No, I used an example to illustrate why your position is absurd. From what I can tell you’re entire line of reasoning is one giant false dilemma.

                      Feel free to respond to the substance of the question, though.

                    8. And what is painfully obvious to the world is that lack any reasoning about this subject whatsoever.

                      You don’t even understand the doctrine you falsely believe you are following and fail to see the doctrine that you are following. that

                      Feel free to remain indoctrinated.

                      Good luck, Lynchy!

                    9. You commit the argumentative fallacy of false dilemma.

                      LOL!

                      This from a guy who literally fucking just said:

                      There is no such thing as “less bad”. Either something is bad or not.

                      Wow.

                    10. Wow, just wow. “Less bad”? Really?

                      What is next less worse?

                      Good luck with your less unfree unreality.

                      America is so over.

                    11. Smack, why don’t you explain what you mean by decriminalization, because everyone here believes it to mean this: to stop the government from proscribing the production, distribution, and consumption drugs such as marijuana. I can guarantee you this is something we all support.

                      If the issue you have is that the current scheme to decriminalize marijuana use doesn’t go far enough, then state so. You won’t find any disagreement there.

                      There may still be a burden, but if it’s lessened, then why not pursue it?

                    12. Why don’t you focus on yourself, See Double You, rather than saying to others “why don’t you do [X]”?

                      Legalization isn’t decriminalization.

                      What happens when you grow seven plants in Colorado and get caught by Colorado authorities?

                      What happens when you get caught with one dram or even one grain over one ounce if the authorities so desire to measure?

                      What happens if you trade pot for a power drill and later someone reports this trade to the authorities?

                      What happens when you grow more than you can smoke over time and you accumulate more than eight ounces and the authorities catch you?

                    13. What happens in all of those situations is that you get a fine or a small jail sentence, whereas prior to legalization the mere possession of any amount of marijuana under any conditions resulted in jail time. No one here is confused about the difference between legalization under the current regime and total deregulation. They just think you’re a fucking idiot for advocating a policy that keeps more people in prison and vulnerable to prosecution vs one that puts fewer people in prison and makes them less vulnerable to prosecution. Sort of like how Reason has been writing for years and decades about home brewing (and distilling) and the absurdity of the current regulatory regime surrounding alcohol, yet still celebrates the repeal of prohibition and the legalization of alcohol as positive steps forward from the time when you could be sent to prison for buying or selling a drink.

                    14. Aw, you have no control over mind, PM. That is so sad. It doesn’t speak well of your parents and your family lineage.

                      Good luck changing, if you can!

                    15. Or put another way, you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole.

                      Better an asshole than a thug. (smirk)

                      As I predicted, PM attacked HERE because he made a total ass of himself elsewhere on the page.

                      PLEASE visit his link. Then, to be fair, visit this link. See both sides, *I* have nothing to hide.

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4714284

                      Next, another aggression. PM claims I condemned Reason for endorsing matijuana. He pulled that right out of his ass — as his type does. And he proves the lie himself, by refusing to document it!

                      You may not know how to link a specific messsage, but we just saw him do it.

                      REPEAT: PM Where did I condemn Reason for endorsing marijuana??? Put up or shut up (and apologize)

                      This MAY be what caused his latest hissy fit

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4726288

                      PM
                      I’m a minarchist and I have no problem recognizing that the only differences between the North Korean and the United States governments are matters of degree, not fundamental character

                      If that’s not wacky enough, he then REVERSED himself and ridiculed somebody else for taking his original position! The proof is at the above link (if anyone NEEDS proof)

                      Now back to HIS link. Note that *I* included direct quotes, not assault. If my position seems extreme, well he just did it here, didn’t he?

                    16. What happens in all of those situations is that you get a fine or a small jail sentence…”

                      ~ PM

                      You’re clueless, PM.

                      When you grow more than you can smoke over time and you accumulate more than eight ounces and the authorities catch you in Colorado, upon successful prosecution, the convicted faces one to three years in state prison and can face a fine between $1,000 and $100,000. The Colorado legislators decreed that possessing more than eight ounces is a Class 5 felony.

                      Pick up your marbles and go home, genius.

                    17. prior to legalization the mere possession of any amount of marijuana under any conditions resulted in jail time.

                      Technically not true, because the law always contained provisions by which someone could be authorized to possess it. It’s just that the provisions were so narrow & involved so much discretion as to make the business practically impossible to conduct legally.

      3. total decriminalization (i.e. making the legal code entirely silent on the issue)

        Now you’re the one getting the terms wrong. Decriminalized means there’s no longer criminal law on the subject, not that the legal code is silent on it.

        1. Fair point. I believe at some point in the past Smack used decriminalize to describe what he thinks is the correct situation.

    6. Do you know the difference between legal and its opposite, illegal, Smacky? Do you not realize that particular laws impose duties, and particular laws rights, and that the undifferentiated mass of “law” has no content a priori?

      Legal pot is what authentic but not sophistic libertarians want.

  24. But such conclusions stem from some serious cherry-picking.

  25. Remember folks, it’s only a moment, then it’s gone.

  26. I never even thought about it like that before. Wow.

    http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

  27. If anything this thread just proves that a ‘libertarian movement’ isn’t going to happen. Because the libertarians are going to be too busy eating each other over their purity.

    1. What i don’t (want to?) understand is why don’t the MORE LIBERTARIAN THAN YOU-tards don’t just go fight each other for the “There Can Be Only One!”-Award.

      Instead, they seem to desperately seek the company of ‘squishy Cosmos’ who don’t give a shit.

      Its sad.

    2. Not their purity, their sophistry.

  28. Jesus, I don’t remember all the crazy coming out on Saturdays like this before.

    1. Do you think making a silly argument, then linking to your own site where you repeat the silly argument, makes it more ‘credible’?

      And why do you care if anyone here is ‘libertarian’ or not? Do you not have a ‘Douchebag Monthly’ to subscribe to?

      1. Aw Gilly. Why do you believe the blather you spew into comments ever comes close to argument?

        Ad hominem isn’t putting forth argument not matter how many ways you try it.

        A day’s end, you are clueless about libertarianism. You don’t get jurisprudence.

        You are like every hyper-indoctrinated kiddie on the Internet.

        Enjoy your more-laws progressivism!

      2. The question you ought to ponder, Gilly, is why do you care what I do and what my motives are?

        Why are you such a meddler?

        Why are you so easily triggered by cognitive dissonance that you need to defend your cultie little tribe here?

        If you were right about anything, you would say nothing.

        HA HA HA

        1. The only thing that is clear is that:

          – no one reads what you have to say
          – what you say has no relevance to anything in the real world
          – and your only objective is to irritate people here, because you have emotional problems.

          Its sad.

          1. Aw, keep trying to protect your false beliefs. Keep parroting your own comments. It’s the equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing out tra-la-la-la-la.

            Reality won’t disappear, but your irreality shall keep you cosy, you and all your cultie pals here.

            1. …”all your cultie pals here.”
              As opposed to all your, uh, well, no one pals there.
              Smack, it’s a common practice to post outright lies, claiming that you have somehow ‘won’ a debate. Mary did it for years and White Indian also did so (are they one and the same?)
              You do so, I guess in the hopes that someone reading your shit didn’t read the posts that pointed out your stupidity. Do you really think you can claim ‘victory’ when your hat has been handed to you so often? Are you hoping for an audience as imbecilic as you?
              Well, here:

              Michael Hihn|8.23.14 @ 7:04PM|#
              Removing the law from the books is the libertarian act
              Wise of you to recant your original assertion.

              Smack MacDougal|8.23.14 @ 9:14PM|#
              I’ve not forsworen anything. Nice try though, Mikey.
              Perhaps your reading comprehension skills aren’t up to snuff.

              You two guys deserve each other and perhaps as the rest of us watch, we might find one who is marginally less stupid. If we care.
              Oh, and fuck off, asshole.

          2. GILMORE,
            Dunno how my response to (which?) nitwit ended up threaded as if it were a response to you. It obviously wasn’t.

  29. I think young people are realizing what Hayek wrote decades ago: the only way for people to reach a consensus is to stick with basic issues, such as protecting life, liberty and property, and treat everyone the same. Any time the state tries to micromanage people’s lives it will destroy consensus.

    The best way to handle issues on which their is no consensus is to get the state out of it and let people do what they want.

  30. my best friend’s step-mother makes $82 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for nine months but last month her pay was $13237 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to the website …

    ============ http://WWW.JOBSPUG.COM

  31. What a pantload.
    Millenials know it was the so called “free market” that has decimated the middle class in the US.’Free marketeers ” dont have any allegince to national interests only to profits..ie their own.If they can keep wages down by having poorer and poorer countries compete for those jobs that used to be good paying middle class jobs in the US they will.Even Chinese slave wage labor is cutting into their lusy for profits and they are moving to even more desperate countries.

    Just as “libertarians ” wanted open borders to let all the immigrants in to compete with US citizens for work they also want to be able to ship good jobs out of the US leaving a decimated economy and high unemployment.

    Millennials need jobs and they are bright enough to know who shipped those jobs out .

    1. Ooo, so derpy.

  32. Millenials know it was the so called “free market” that has decimated the middle class in the US.

    See for yourself. The middle class was destroyed by Democrats in 1986. See a description of the 1986 tax “reform,” authors Bill Bradley and Dick Gephart

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..ct_of_1986

    Democrats increased taxes on new job-creating investments in factory equipment, AND increased the depreciation writeoff from 8 years to an average of 16 years.

    Depreciation is how long it takes reinvest your tax deduction. Democrats said they were “closing loopholes,” went to 16 years writeoff, while our trade competitors were at FIVE years. They punished the creation of manufacturing jobs in the US, by repealing Reagan’s “accelerated depreciation.”

    They also repealed Kennedy’s 10% “investment tax credit” on machinery purchases.

    Repeal took our manufacturers were back to the immediate postwar years. After the war we had the only manufacturing base still standing. But by Kennedy’s first SOTU we had fallen to “among the last” in economic growth. Top to bottom in 16 years, with a tax structure that Democrats restored. Our best union jobs began disappearing..

    Obama’s doing it again. He wants immediate writeoff of machinery investments ? for small businesses only. How many of our best union jobs are in SMALL manufacturers?

    Any questions?

    Copyright 2008-2014 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved and Defended

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.