Libertarianism

Libertarian Shark Tank Star Warns Republicans: Steer Clear of Social Issues

|

Mark Cuban
CNBC

Billionaire investor, Dallas Mavericks owner, and co-host of ABC's Shark Tank Mark Cuban warned Republicans to stay away from social issues during an interview with CNBC's The Squawk Box:

"If I was going to give guidance to the Republican Party, which I think leans more in that direction, I would say stay completely out of social issues and if you stay out of social issues, then the conversation from that side will only be around economics and business and growing business and ideas."

Cuban leans libertarian and says he wishes there were better alternatives to the two parties. He also thinks young people aren't paying much attention to politicians, thank goodness—an observation we have also made at Reason. Cuban notes:

The generation of sex, drugs, and rock and roll did not turn out quite like we planned, right? We thought we would be like, live free, let's stay out of the bedroom, stay out of everybody's lives, let's just focus on business and it turned out to be the exact opposite. But the good news again, 25-year-olds, 20-year-olds, they're not listening to politicians, just like we never listened to politicians. They are just going to go out, follow their ambitions, work hard, and anything is possible.

For what it's worth, Cuban's show, Shark Tank—which returned for its sixth season this fall—is a veritable celebration of libertarian economic principles.

Hat tip: Rare

NEXT: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against IRS Over Targeting

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. I haven’t polled any millenials lately (dammit), but I don’t think they’re the live and let live type, Cubesie.

    1. In fairness Mark Cuban is perfectly fine with Christian’s getting sued out of business for gay rights violations and forcing anyone that breaths to pay for birth control. That’s what he means by ignore the social issues. As if Republicans invented gay marriage, the War on Women, or transsexual rights. Maybe playboy dotcom billionaires aren’t the best at building a successful party platform. This seems patently obvious to me. Mark Cuban is Donald Trump’s show got more viewers.

      1. I don’t know much about Mark Cuban, but unfortunately, a lot of ‘stay away from social issues’ sentiment either comes down to “give them whatever they want” or outright support of things that should be eschewed on a principled ideal of individual freedom.

        I can certainly understand telling the GOP to shut the fuck up about gay marriage which arguably falls into the ‘give them whatever they want’ camp (for some people).

        But demanding free stuff because War on Wimmenz just gets under my skin.

        1. Not to be rude but your position seems to be Republicans (of which you are not one correct?) should give in on the stuff you either support or don’t case about (gay marriage). Not only give in but shut up as well, while still fighting the left wing social issues you oppose (government supplied BC). Is that correct and would you not agree that’s asking a lot of an organization to which you don’t belong?

          1. Man, you shutting up would be great, so thanks for volunteering.

            1. I guess by living rent free in your head and all I technically qualify as a voice inside your head. You’ll need to start taking your medication again if you want me to go away.

          2. Not to be rude but your position seems to be Republicans (of which you are not one correct?)

            I am not.

            Is that correct and would you not agree that’s asking a lot of an organization to which you don’t belong?

            I don’t have claim on any proper strategies for the GOP.

            If the GOP were on the winning side (wildy popular) in the fight against gay marriage, I suppose you’re right, I’d tell them to drop their stance as I think it’s wrong.

            Now that they’re not only on the losing side, but increasingly so I merely suggest they drop it so they might win a national election somewhere.

            Why do I care if they win a national election when I’m not a member of the organization?

            I have to confess I really have no idea. Except that I can’t stand the thought of Hillary winning in 2016.

          3. “….the left wing social issues you oppose (government supplied BC)”

            Not a social issue. Forcing me to pay for anyone’s anything is not a social issue. It is a property rights issue.

            1. Good point. Paying, or more specifically, not paying for other people’s stuff has successfully been framed as a social issue.

              If I don’t pay for your abortion, your birth control etc., I’m fighting a war on women.

  2. Just let them chime in on rape first.

  3. Yea Republicans should follow the Libertarians’ lead and walk away from religious liberty because gays are popular and religious people are not.

    1. I don’t understand how one could so easily separate “social issues” from “economic issues” into two mutually exclusive categories. There’s considerable overlap, such as one’s desire to open a restaurant out of one’s home that serves only certain kinds of foods to certain kinds of customers.

      Libertarians and Republicans need to change the rules of the prog’s game, not play by them.

      1. Republicans or at least the Tea Party doesn’t. But Peter Sunderman and Nick Gillespie get angry at them when the stop playing by the government’s rules. Maybe the problem is just libertarians because libertarians aren’t really libertarians anymore.

        1. Maybe. It’s also possible you’re a fucking idiot. Give that some thought.

      2. There’s considerable overlap, such as one’s desire to open a restaurant out of one’s home that serves only certain kinds of foods to certain kinds of customers.

        But you see, I only view that as an economic issue; namely property rights. You might be doing it for social issue reasons, but you don’t need social issues to articulate the case.

  4. “I would say stay completely out of social issues”

    To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, you may want to stay out of social issues, but they’re not going to stay out of you.

    “the conversation from that side will only be around economics and business and growing business and ideas.”

    Socially liberal laws just put a bakery out of business – tell us again about how social and economic issues are hermetically sealed off from each other?

    1. LibertairiNs are really sorry about that. But hey gays are really important and you can’t expext Libertarians to make any choices or take an unpopular position, not it it involves gays anyway.

      1. In the name of focusing on economics, the party of business should turn its back on one of its most reliable constituencies – Christian business owners – because fuck ’em, what are they gonna do, vote Democrat?

        See also this from 2012 – tour company drops wedding services in response to Maryland SSM laws.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..65612.html

      2. But don’t you dare recite poll numbers when it comes to open borders. Because open borders are on the right side of history.

        1. Sounds like you’re implying a straw man, Sam.

          1. Not at all but I guess that’s a easier to claim than formulate a counter argument.

            1. You’re right. It is better defined as a non sequitur.

    2. Socially liberal laws just put a bakery out of business – tell us again about how social and economic issues are hermetically sealed off from each other?

      No, they didn’t. A specific population of vindictive people who are pushing specifically socially unliberal laws are what caused that bakery to be shut down. You can’t legally discriminate a population in fear that members of that population might turn on you.

      I don’t like the bakery situation any more than you and have voiced my complaint loudly here on Hit&Run;, but it’s exactly the opposite of “socially liberal” to force people out of business who disagree with you.

      1. OK, I know that “socially liberal” means different things to libertarians and non-libertarians.

        Libertarians use “liberal” to mean “favoring liberty.”

        Outside the libertarian community, alas, that’s not the meaning.

        To your average Joe Citizen, “socially liberal” means “using the government to promote social liberal values.”

        That was the sense I was using, since Mark Cuban’s audience would have seen it the same way.

      2. Yeah we know. You are real sorry about that. But what are you supposed to do? Only support gay marriage if it is done in a way that doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights? Never!! gays are important.

        1. Gay marriage isn’t infringing on my rights. Groups (gay or otherwise) who demand that I produce a product or service to them against my will is.

          1. John is incapable of separating the two and it really gets him frustrated that other are capable of doing so.

            1. I know Libertariians are not responsible for the foreseaable consequences of their policies. Funny how libertarians would never buy the “but we didn’t intend this to happen” excuse any other time but do here because gays I guess

              1. Funny how libertarians would never buy the “but we didn’t intend this to happen” excuse any other time but do here because gays I guess

                You know, John, I’m not sure who is sitting around, hand over their mouth in mock surprise saying “but we didn’t intend!!!”

                I actually knew this was going to happen if gay marriage were legalized but I stand/stood on principle that if the government is going to create a legal and beneficiary system around marriage, that it wasn’t right to deny it to gays.

                The problem is that the ancillary issue of demanding that someone provide a service to you is a different issue. Or do you believe that this concept didn’t exist within our borders until people started getting gay married?

                1. Deontology isn’t just a river in Egypt.

                  1. Deontology isn’t just a river in Egypt.

                    That reminds me, I need to get my teeth cleaned.

                2. “I actually knew this was going to happen if gay marriage were legalized but I stand/stood on principle that if the government is going to create a legal and beneficiary system around marriage, that it wasn’t right to deny it to gays.”

                  You value equality over liberty, Understood.

                  “The problem is that the ancillary issue of demanding that someone provide a service to you is a different issue.”

                  With the line of argument used to convince courts instead of electorates to change, one supports the other. They wouls have separable if SSM had been pursued as something other than a civil right.

          2. So rhe law that allows people to do it isn’t the problem? So I guess it they passed a law allowing people to sue for anything that would be ok too?

            1. So I guess it they passed a law allowing people to sue for anything that would be ok too?

              They already passed that law; it’s called THE CONSTITUTION. Geez, why don’t you read a book, or something?

            2. So I guess it they passed a law allowing people to sue for anything that would be ok too?

              Well, I can sue for anything, it just might get thrown out if it doesn’t have merit. Again, I ask, do you really think this didn’t happen in any form before gay marriage?

              It’s not MY fault (or any other libertarians fault) that progressives are mendacious fucktwats.

              It’s called the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, and the Bush administration doles out up to $50 million annually to fund its programs to build job skills and help fathers connect better with their children. But the National Organization for Women says the effort is illegal because it’s only about men.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02065.html

    3. “To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, you may want to stay out of social issues, but they’re not going to stay out of you”

      +1 Binder full of women

  5. Even saying that “Gov’t shouldn’t get involved at all in this social issue. Just let people do what they want.” Is getting involved in the social issue. Because to carry that through, you’re going to have to fight the people who do want the gov’t involved.

    And the problem is even worse in this era of positive rights. Nowadays, way too many people think you don’t really have a right to something if you have to pay for it. Thus, you can’t say “Eh, birth control should be available to anyone who wants it.” Now, you have to fight off the hordes of entitled Gimme Dat activists who want you to pay for it. And if you don’t now you’re opposed to anyone using birth control.

    1. Yeah, we know Cuban isn’t saying “fight like the dickens against people who want to force their own social choices on other people.” He’s saying “pay no attention to all that government coercion in the name of social liberalism, ignore it and maybe we can get more people to vote for us.”

      1. He’s saying “pay no attention to all that government coercion in the name of social liberalism,

        If you don’t oppose it, it will happen, and you’ve lost. If his recommendation is to surrender to the SJW proggies on every social issue bug they get up their ass, then I’ll pass, thanks.

        1. Yes, and every time the SJWs get a new brain fart and work overtime to impose some unprecedented new boneheaded social policy on the country, anyone who criticizes them will be accused of obsessing over social issues.

  6. But the good news again, 25-year-olds, 20-year-olds, they’re not listening to politicians, just like we never listened to politicians.

    And then in their 30’s when they have children they’ll want government to protect them ever second of the day just like Cuban’s generation did.

  7. Why doesn’t anyone ever tell the Democrats to stay out of social issues?

    1. They do. You just wouldn’t read about them at Reason. Libertarianism isn’t about small government anymore it’s about “responsive” government. That’s why the government shut down was denounced at Reason like it was Mike Huckabee’s idea. A government can’t be responsive to elite cosmopolitan whims if it’s closed. And if the government isn’t “responding” then #Jimcrowisback.

    2. well, duh…Dems get dragged into it because Repubs make them.

    3. Why doesn’t anyone ever tell the Democrats to stay out of social issues?

      Because sadly, Democrats have successfully been framed as being on the right side of all social issues- therefore their ‘involvement’ is not seen as an interference so much as fertilizer.

  8. Cuban voted for Obama twice. I can’t believe one of you Peanuts hasn’t called him a Commie yet on this thread.

    1. Like I care what a commie sextoy says.

    2. Cuban voted for Obama twice.

      Not all morons are Commies.

    3. Re: Peter Caca,

      Cuban voted for Obama twice. I can’t believe one of you Peanuts hasn’t called him a Commie yet on this thread.

      Being stupid twice doesn’t turn a person into a little red Marxian. Espousing little red Marxianism is what turns a person into a little red Marxian – like the current president, for instance.

      “You didn’t build that!” “Let’s redistribute!” – those kinds of things, Caca.

      1. So anyone that supports public funding for roads and a progressive income tax is a Commie then.

        That is what turns people off about libertarians. You are irrational.

        1. Fuck off, turd.

        2. Get past the “What’s your name?” question on the LP test yet?

        3. That is what turns people off about libertarians. They are irrational.

          Says the self-proclaimed most libertarian person in libertarianopolisville.

    4. As long as your Marxism is only culturally Marxism Reason has nothing but adoration. And hey even if you are a full blown Marxist but can keep the economic stuff to a minimum there’s no reason you can’t be a contribution editor.

  9. The generation of sex, drugs, and rock and roll did not turn out quite like we planned, right?

    You mean they didn’t turn out to be a race of atomic supermen that would take over the world?

    Or what the FUCK did you mean by “planned”?

    (I understand it is just a standard cliche but let me have some fun quoting Lugosi from time to time.)

    1. I don’t recall Bela Lugosi using such…salty language.

  10. Maybe they should’ve interviewed Mr. Wonderful. At least he can calculate company valuations in his head.

    1. Yeah, but he would to sell the IP on the Commerce Clause and live off the royalties.

  11. “I would say stay completely out of social issues and if you stay out of social issues, then the conversation from that side will only be around economics and business and growing business and ideas.”

    The pie eyed optimism in this quote is cute. I imagined him getting sparkles in his eyes and gazing blissfully up to heaven as he talked about how easy it would be to get politicians to discuss ideas.

    1. Never mind getting a platform in popular media to reach a substantial number of people while talking about ideas.

  12. If Mark Cuban really wishes there were a better alternative to the two parties, he could fund one. Don’t all eccentric Texas tech billionaires eventually do so?

    Seriously, ballot access is not a hurdle if you have enough money. Get on the ballot in all 50 states, make a big publicity splash, nominate a viable candidate, and you could be leading in the polls.

    Just don’t nominate a rambling Admiral for VP, and don’t publicly tell people about the very real dirty tricks played by your opponents — you’ll sound paranoid.

  13. In other news internet commenter Sidd Finch thinks the Democrat platform should be totally different.

    He also thinks young people aren’t paying much attention to politicians, thank goodness?an observation we have also made at Reason.

    Is there anybody anywhere more observant than Mark Cuban and Reason magazine?

  14. “…the conversation from that side will only be around economics and business and growing business and ideas.”

    The Progs will also win this argument, because “I’ll give you free stuff that I took from undeserving rich white men” beats out “I’ll get government out of your way so that you can work hard for your own stuff”, even though the latter stance would make everyone better off generally.

  15. Meh. The 2016 election cycle is going to be awful no matter what. Hillary is going to promise free shit from evil white men and kkkorporations and the first vagina (allegedly) president.

    The Stupid Party is going to live up to its name and complain about gay marriage, abortion, and that we aren’t bombing enough brown people.

    Both parties will agree that anyone who questions the extra-judicial killings by the Brave Law Enforcement Officers are potential terrorists and should be on the watch list.

  16. “I would say stay completely out of social issues and if you stay out of social issues, then the conversation from that side will only be around economics and business and growing business and ideas.”

    Has Cuban heard of “yes means yes” law? The Obamacare contraceptive mandate? Staying completely out of social issues means surrendering the field to the progs on those types of issues, not just homosexual issues and abortion. I understand giving bandwisth to a guy who parrots one of the memes Reason has been desperately pushing, but that ship is sailing and it is looking pretty na?ve at this point

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.