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

  4. 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)

    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.

  5. 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!”

  6. 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.

  7. “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.

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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)

  11. 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.

      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!

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

  13. 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.

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

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

  15. 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.

  16. “…..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.

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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

      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.

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. “…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. 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.

                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.

        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. 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.

                    16. 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.

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

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

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

    http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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

  30. 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.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.