Election 2014

Vote Democrat for Real Libertarian Values

Republicans don't live up to their tax reform claims, while Democrats pave the way for tech innovation, says Jared Polis.

|

This article is part of a series on the libertarian vote in the 2014 midterm election. Here's the first set of arguments from Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans. Read today's alternative perspectives from the other parties here and here.

Libertarian-inclined voters often have to make a difficult choice. Candidates on the Libertarian Party line rarely have a chance to win, leaving Libertarian-inclined voters to choose between the two major parties if they want to vote for a viable candidate. It's undoubtedly frustrating, but voting is our best check on government, and our individual responsibility in a democracy, so staying home on Election Day is certainly not the answer.

I believe that libertarians should vote for Democratic candidates, particularly as our Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of individual liberty and freedom than Republicans. When I am working in Congress to expand and enhance our freedoms like stopping the Drug Enforcement Administration from enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states where it is legal, removing the authority of the National Security Agency to engage in mass surveillance, and keeping the government out of our private lives, I can count on most of the Democrats to support me. And while there are a few libertarian minded Republicans like Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who are willing to stand up to their party's leadership, the vast majority of Republicans in Congress vote lockstep against these measures time and time again.

Over the past several decades, the Republican Party has simply lost many of the values that once attracted libertarians voters to them. They don't believe that individuals should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies, whether it be a woman's right to choose, or your ability to responsibly use marijuana. They want to decrease, or in many cases, eliminate the separation of church and state. And, perhaps most disturbing, they want the government to have the ability to engage in warrantless wiretapping and mass surveillance.

On tax reform, where are the so-called tax breaks that Republicans like to brag about delivering? As Democrats have tried time and time again to close corporate loopholes, and reduce tax rates for middle-class Americans, Republicans have shown that they care more about protecting their corporate donors, than reforming our tax code. Even when Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) came up with a sensible proposal to reduce the corporate rate from 35 to 25 percent by eliminating special interest tax expenditures, it fell on deaf ears in Republican leadership, so beholden to special interests are they. And in terms of overall spending, remember it was the neo-cons, so strong in Republican circles, who got us into the Iraq war and the expenditure of close to a trillion dollars of your money, far more than any Democratic priorities have cost.

Democrats are almost always the first to embrace new, disruptive technologies and innovations. More than that, we tend to understand them better and know how to craft effective policies to embrace them, not ban or regulate them. When Texas Republican Lamar Smith introduced Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), legislation that would have severely restricted innovation and free speech, I vehemently fought it, joined by many other Democrats, including our Leader Nancy Pelosi. Only a handful of libertarian minded Republicans can say the same thing.

Sure, no party or candidate will be perfect; you probably disagree with other Libertarians on many issues, but of the major political parties, the Democrats have become the party of individual freedoms. This election season, I urge you to take a real hard look at the candidates. Look at the track record of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Who is actually trying to reduce the impact of government on our daily lives? Who will prevent government censorship of the internet? Which candidate will let you marry who you love? Who will let you have control of your reproductive health choices? Who will spend our hard earned tax dollars increasing military spending, even on projects the military has said they don't want!

When you step back and look at where the Republican Party has drifted over the years, and how well the Democrats have stepped in to represent individual freedom, your choice should be clear. This year, give the Democrats a shot.

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.

232 responses to “Vote Democrat for Real Libertarian Values

  1. LOL WUT

    1. Well, Democrats are hot for abortion and open borders. They might come around on pot if it would get more votes than it would lose and libertarians would help with that. Worth keeping in mind.

      1. …forgot gays.

        1. I bet you’re proud to be straight.

          1. Proud? Neither proud nor embarrassed. I yam what I yam and let it go at that.

      2. “open borders”

        Citation needed…

        Don’t see it, they only support it enough to try to tarnish the Repubs as racist mexican haters.

        1. Yes, and the reason why is, the Dems are married to the labor unions… Labor unions are going to HURT if they have to compete some more against the “illegal humans”… So the Dems (AKA Emperor Obozo) talk the talk of being nice to the illegal humans, but they NEVER really walk the walk…

          1. Very true. The exception to the rule is Frank Gonzalez, a libertarian who ran as a Democrat in FL (41% of the vote) and a Libertarian against Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago in the 5th District, (back in 2002, when Matt Beauchamp had temporarily over-funded the LP of IL, giving most of the money to Scott Kohlhaas and Bill Redpath so they could shovel it into a furnace as fast as humanly possible).

            Another quasi-exception is Luis Gutierrez, whom I ran against in 2002. Gutierrez is pro-immigration, and pro-legalization, but otherwise is pretty much a communist.

            Polis himself is one of the better Democrats, and Grayson from FL isn’t bad either. Certainly, those two are better than most of the GOP.

            But “voting for Democrats” as a whole?

            Strategically worthless.

            1. I agree that small-L libertarians should get elected as Democrats, and that doing so would provide balance to the “economic-focus” libertarianism of the Pauls, and Amash.

              But in that case, it would be principled small-L libertarians infiltrating a sociopathic mainstream Democratic Party that is every bit as worthless as the sociopathic mainstream Republican Party.

              Sure, they should make the case that “it makes sense to do so,” using all of Hayek’s arguments found in “Why I am Not a Conservative.” …But that’s STRATEGY and TACTICS, not PHILOSOPHY. Strategy and tactics come into play when you are reaching for a stick to bash over the predator’s head, while you gently try to soothe it with calming tones. The contest is still “might makes right,” but it now contains a cybernetic element of deception, which is necessary due to the abject stupidity (unwitting tendency toward self-destruction) of the voters.

      3. “They might come around on pot if it would get more votes than it would lose”

        Uh, Dems in places like MA came along on pot years ago…..for libertarian reasons (personal liberty, less $$ spent in law enforcement, etc.)

        1. “Uh, Dems in places like MA came along on pot years ago.”

          So one out of 57? Great!

      4. HAHA, if you don’t mind communist economics policies and wealth redistribution, but hey, you would have your pot still…

      5. “Well, Democrats are hot for abortion and open borders.”

        The senate election in my state has the opposite.

    2. Yeah, you pretty much nailed it out of the gate there.

  2. Well, of course he would say that. He’s a Democrat. What is he going to do, tell you to vote for another party?

    1. If he’s so convinced that Democrat goals and Libertarian goals are closely aligned, how about working to convince Democrats to vote for Libertarians?

      1. +1 hanging chad

      2. “how about working to convince Democrats to vote for Libertarians?”

        Given the choice, I would ALWAYS vote for the more “libertarian” of two Democratic candidates in a primary, etc….and, any outside observer would have to agree that Obama, for example, fit the mold better than Hillary (which is why he won)….

        I’m independent and sitting out this election, but I’d probably vote for the Business guy (Baker) if I was voting.

        If there are any “reason”able libertarians here, they’d have to admit that – BS and Rhetoric aside – many of the actual actions and policies of the Dems are closer to the mark of personal freedom than the far right which controls the GOP today.

        1. Many, but many others not. As someone said above, citation needed. And what “far right?” If they’re so far right, why don’t they ever impress me? (on the issues that I want them to be “right” on)

        2. If you were reasonable and lucid, you’d recognize report that the far right doesn’t control the GOP today. In fact, the GOP is further left than it’s ever been, as is the entire country.

        3. You are an absolute buffoon if you think the “far right” controls the GOP. Dumbass, the LP IS to the far right of the GOP.

        4. How are you calibrating your Nolan Chart?! Seems to me that there is no “far right” or “far left” that’s meaningful these days, if it ever was. The “government as a whole” votes for statism of the far left, and statism of the far right, in a “sociopath supremacy first” vote, no matter what the lying sociopaths told the electorate to get elected. Sure, some of their rhetoric is government-limiting, but none of their actions(votes) are. When someone from a major party votes to limit government, they generally know they are in the minority vote, and the rest of the sociopaths view it as “necessary for that sociopath to gain re-election from their district.”

          Want to know how I know this? Because if ANY party (including the LP) was serious about freedom, their entire campaign message would be about how voters can use their rights as jurors (jury nullification of law) and I & R petition circulators to circumvent unlawful and unconstitutional government.

  3. Democrats are almost always the first to embrace new, disruptive technologies and innovations.

    Indeed. The Obamacare website has been disruptive to many lives.

    1. Perhaps Polis would care to explain why liberals are so terrified of GMO’s then?

      1. GMO’s, Uber, medical device innovation, what else have the D’s tried to destroy recently?

        1. modern fossil fuel extraction technology, business provided transportation for it’s employees, the internet, consensual sex….

          1. but hey, gays and abortion…amiright?

            1. I love this thread.

          2. Don’t forget suspended animation tech (http://www.alcor.org and http://www.brainpreservation.org ), and transhumanism-enabling technology that is universally “prohibited until it’s approved” by the FDA and AMA State medical licensing cartels.

  4. Democrats are almost always the first to embrace new, disruptive technologies and innovations.

    -1 Teamster, SEIU, AFSCME and UAW

    More than that, we tend to understand them better and know how to craft effective policies to embrace them, not ban or regulate them.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. Exactly, are we supposed to team up with the luddite mafia to promote liberty? I don’t see how anyone is supposed to believe this is a winning coalition for libertarian interests.

      Say what you will about the GOPs innovation hampering tendencies but at least they, more often than not, are citing ethical objections. While the Democrats do it to protect their coalition of special interest thugs.

  5. Jesus Christ. Fuck no.

    1. Do it, pussy. (I owed you that)

  6. Who will prevent government censorship of the internet?

    Not the Donkeys in the FCC…

    1. Or the Donkeys in the Senate trying to gut the First Amendment.

      C’mon, Jaris, tell us again about how Dems are the last bulwark of FREEEEEDOOOOM!

  7. including our Leader Nancy Pelosi

    FRIEND OF LIBERTY!!!!!

    1. “including our Leader Nancy Pelosi”

      Ooops; missed that.
      I need a laugh this morning!

    2. You misspelled fiend.

  8. At least Reason is presenting both sides of the issue.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Ha!

  9. Look at the track record of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Who is actually trying to reduce the impact of government on our daily lives?

    Seriously?

    1. Republicans hate gays and they want to outlaw abortion!

      Gays and abortion!

      1. And the FREEDOM to receive FREE school and healthcare — paid by the other guy of course.

        1. I think most Republicans are on board with “free” school.

          1. True. But at least they generally support using your government-supplied school dollars to go to any school you choose. Democrats are almost universally opposed to that.

      2. Dare I say, gaybortion?

  10. Pull the other one Jared.

    1. Now pull the middle one…

      You want me to vote for ya, right?

  11. “Democrats are almost always the first to embrace new, disruptive technologies and innovations.”

    Like Uber? Lyft? Aero? Airbinb?

    1. +vaporized nicotine, GMOs, nuclear power, fracking

      1. self-driving cars, private dinner party meetups, charter schools, that thing where you could pay for rides on private planes

        I don’t think there’s a single area where that statement isn’t an outright falsehood.

        1. You know, fuck self driving cars. Unless they can drive you home when you are drunk (and you just know that won’t be allowed), they are useless. When I am in a car, I’m much happier driving than not driving.
          I don’t think they should be banned or anything, but it seems more likely that they will reduce personal autonomy than increase it. I just can’t imagine there not being massive regulation and control if they become common on the road.

          1. well, if *ZEB* can’t imagine it, then I guess that’s that. Pack it up, boys.

            1. Umm. I’m quite open to being proven wrong on this. What have you got?

              Whatever is going to happen is going to happen. Maybe it will be great. But can you really imagine there not being a huge regulatory apparatus for driverless cars? In this world that we libve in now?

              It’s no reason to abandon the technology. Things just don’t work that way. But I don’t see why it is a particularly appealing technology to libertarians (well besides being a bunch of nerds). The ICE car is pretty much the perfect personal autonomy machine. You can fix things yourself, use various fuels and you can make it work even if it is half broken.

              1. I’m an optimist. I think people will be so quick to accept the undeniable safety improvements of driver-less cars over meat pilots that it will be a part of society faster than the government can move to regulate.

                I look forward to the day when my coffin sized driverless car takes me to work while I get a few more minutes of sleep in the back.

              2. Well… if you’ve had to give up your driver’s license for medical reasons, or if you’re like me in that the world is a safer place for my not driving, you might have a different notion about personal autonomy and self-driving cars.

                That said–I’m sure the government will try to require a backdoor to let them force self-driving cars to stop, or to lock the doors and drive to a destination of their choice. When they try, we’ll have to try to stop them.

              3. I suggest you check out Brad Templeton’s lecture at, I believe, the 2011 Singularity Summit. It’s on YouTube. A thorough introduction to the relevant ideas. Then, make up your own mind, you’re certainly not “wrong.”

                Maybe superintelligences can help us obviate the regulators, and jury nullification can bring more and more citizens on board with rendering “not guilty” verdicts when these things go to court.

                Such as (very hopefully) in the coming 2011 case of Ross Ulbricht. If Jared Polis can mobilize people to vote “not guilty” in Ross’s case, (assuming the state doesn’t charge him with contract murder, and that that’s just a ploy to drive away supporters), then I will believe him in his claims above.

                If not, then I will view him as “just another Democrat” trying to defuse a possible libertarian revolution.

          2. That’s nice, Zeb. Don’t buy an autonomous car.

            Those of us who do want one shouldn’t have to climb over a mountain of politicians and bureaucrats to get one.

      2. Throw in 3D printing. It may not be the cause du jour yet, but it’s coming.

        I’d really like for his statement to be true. Really, I would.

        1. Apparently HP is coming out with their own line of 3D printers soon.

          1. Strategically, it may be better to stop 3-D printing guns until 3-D printing is too firmly entrenched to effectively regulate. Not that it wouldn’t stop them from trying.

            1. I don’t think there is any stopping 3D printing of guns or anything. The technology is already too popular and too useful. And the materials properties that you need for making guns are the same as you need for making lots of useful things. The cat’s out of the bag.

              1. Not really. Look how quickly the government has been shutting down the Silk Road sites, by making a top priority. “Might makes right” will do whatever it can to prevent a free society. Whether it succeeds depends entirely on how much violence it can project, and whether the technologies themselves can defend themselves.

    2. Damn your fast fingers.

  12. Sorry Jared, I think I’ll stick to voting Libertarian for my “Real Libertarian Values”. And if I may offer a suggestion, if you are in fact worried about my “Real Libertarian Values”, maybe you should reconsider your party affiliation.

    1. I hope Jared isn’t a sociopath, but you’ve got a good point: if he wants to be a technological innovator, he can leave the Democrats, join the LP, and be held to their more rigorous “libertarian platform.” Political parties themselves are a form of cybernetic technology.

  13. “When he’s working in Congress to expand and enhance our freedoms like stopping the Drug Enforcement Administration from enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states where it is legal, removing the authority of the National Security Agency to engage in mass surveillance, and keeping the government out of our private lives, he can count on most of the Democrats to support [him]”.

    You mean when he’s trying to stop Barack Obama (D.) from from enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states where it is legal…?

    You mean when he’s trying to remove the authority of Barack Obama’s (D.) National Security Agency to engage in mass surveillance…?

    He can count on most of the Democrats to support him and oppose Barack Obama?!

    This guy should have his head examined! Seriously, he may be suffering from an untreated aneurysm or something.

  14. I believe that libertarians should vote for Democratic candidates, particularly as our Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of individual liberty and freedom than Republicans.

    Like the freedom to buy insurance or not? Or the freedom to own a gun? Or the freedom to not be spied on? Or the freedom to not have the IRS harass us? You mean those freedoms the Democrats support?

    1. Well, he’s correct that more representatives s with a D beside their name supported Amash’s anti-NSA bill than ones with an R.

      1. You mean the Freedom Act? Which party controlled Congress when it was gutted? Was it ever passed?

        Please explain yourself.

    2. Gay marriage and abortion are the only freedoms that matter.

      1. Freedom of free birth control for free.

      2. And the freedom not to be offended!

        1. I am offended that you even thought to bring that up!

          1. Right. Read Harvey Silverglate and Charles Alan Kors’ “The Shadow University” –it’s Herbert Marcuse’s socialist philosophy on our universities that has killed free speech in our society. This is the root cause of the problem manifesting itself as a blanket ban on speech at universities in particular. Take it from someone who was arrested for political speech on a college campus –because it wasn’t ineffectual and/or leftist speech.

  15. If dope were the only liberty that mattered, the Ds would still get a great, big MAYBE.

    1. Yeah, the only thing that should matter to libertarians is the tax rate on bankers and jobz creatorz

      1. If it matters so much to libertarians, why does it always seem like the non-libertarian commenters here are the ones that constantly bring it up?

          1. Right.

          2. You are a despot worshiping collectivist. Yes AMSOC we know.

          3. There’s no such thing as a “libertarian socialist” if that’s what you’re going for, it’s a just a socialist by another name. Libertarians recognize the validity of the non-aggression principle. Your brand of pseudo-libertarians advocate ‘positive liberty’ which isn’t actually a species of liberty at all.

          4. american socialist|10.30.14 @ 11:41AM|#
            “I’m not a non-libertarian.”

            You’re a lying piece of shit.

      2. american socialist|10.30.14 @ 11:34AM|#
        “Yeah,”

        Hi, dipshit! New strawman to beat on? Wear the old ones out?
        Paid your mortgage yet? Still in love with mass-murderers?

  16. I see a trend in the articles this morning. Surely, just a coincidence.

    1. You mean the JV squad?

      1. Why libertarians should vote for Reason magazine.

    2. Why Libertarians should vote for the Rent IS Too Damn High party.

    3. Yeah. Both the R and D articles do little but to expose how bad both parties are on individual liberty.

      1. We’re fucked. The only question is one of positioning during said fucking.

        1. When it comes to TEAM Red and TEAM Blue, the safe bet is always double anal.

          1. +1 While NSA watches

  17. This article was so consistently full of shit that I’m genuinely dumbfounded. Polis claims that he relies on fellow Democrats to stop abuses by the NSA. Who the hell is in charge of the NSA? That administration he’s trying to stop from enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states where it is legal? What party is that administration? Spending? Does Polis really want me to pull out the budget data? Does he really want me to go into the details of the SOPA & PIPA support?

    Really, I don’t think he’s a complete moron. I just think he thinks we are.

    1. I don’t think he’s a complete moron. I just think he thinks we are.

      Exactly – I don’t appreciate this jerk insulting my intelligence. For that, I come to HyR!

      1. The dumb ass Almanian! is right.

        1. I feel so…vindicated!

    2. Or he’s just making an attempt at an impossible task. He’s a politician, it’s his job to say ridiculous shit in the most plausible way possible.

      I care a great deal about pot Mexicans and ass-sex, but the essential libertarian issue has to be about economic freedom. And Democrats have nothing doing there.

      1. Point taken. It really is, though, a matter that, as Almanian suggests, this really does insult my intelligence. The last pro-Dem article at least acknowledged how Godawful a place they had to argue from.

        1. What really started me down the path to being a libertarian was that I didn’t feel like Ron Paul was trying to lie to me.

          Even if I didn’t agree with his ideas, he was actually answering the questions and giving his honest opinion without deflecting or pointing fingers at his opponents.

          Breath of fresh air.

          1. I know what you mean. I disagree with someone like Ron Paul on lots of things. But he’s not trying to bullshit me unlike almost every other politician.
            Sadly, although that is a big part of the reason for the success he has had, it is also the reason he never war more successful.

          2. That’s a luxury that one can afford when your never really close to being in power.

            1. That does seem to be true. Why do people like being bullshitted so much? Isn’t is obvious that most politicians are full of shit?

              1. It’s a terrible dichotomy. On the one hand, the stereotype of politicians is that they are smarmy liars out for their own power. On the other hand, if someone runs for office and isn’t as smooth talking and deflective in their answers, they aren’t taken seriously.

                For some reason, even if we hate the way politicians act, we can’t seriously consider voting for someone who acts differently.

        2. It’s insulting because there is a clear alternative. Rather than advocate for as shitty party, advocate for decent individuals.

      2. Exactly. Taxes, spending, wealth/income redistribution – Dems are literally campaigning-on issues should be anathema to those interested in true freedom (economic or otherwise).

  18. It’s good to publish differing points of view and all. But this is some weak tea. Many of his criticisms of republicans are valid, but most of them can be applied to democrats as well. I don’t see much of an argument for democrats (which isn’t really a surprise).
    Pot and ass sex are great. But Democrats are barely better on pot and the ass sex debate is pretty well settled at this point. Abortion is the only issue where democrats have any appeal to me, but they have become so obsessed with making other people pay for stuff, that I just don’t want to hear about it anymore.

  19. Nothing says “libertarian” like voting TEAM DONKEY. Except maybe voting TEAM ELEPHANT.

    Derp.

  20. Thanks for inviting me into your tent. Let’s see what happens when I accidentally saw off this center pole.

  21. Vote Democrat for Real Libertarian Values

    Fine, if he agrees to also plug “Vote Libertarian for Real Democratic Values”.

    Otherwise, fuck no.

  22. Everyone knows that real libertarians should vote Green Party! (Or Socialist Workers Party, if that’s an option in your state.)

  23. “I believe that libertarians should vote for Democratic candidates, particularly as our Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of individual liberty and freedom than Republicans”

    Unless it’s economic freedoms such as freedom of contract or property rights.

    In those cases, Democrats are quite eager to stomp all over them and mistakenly claim such things are in a lesser class of freedoms than such things as freedom of speech or religion.

    1. Well, you’re free to own a gun to defend yourself as long as you can’t afford to buy it.

    2. The Dems are pretty much against freedom of speech and religion these days as well.

  24. has anyone seen this article by Nick Gillespie?

    This One Picture of Telly Savalas Refutes All Fears That Progress Has Ended

    The cast of characters we expect to meet in our daily wanderings has vastly expanded to include every possible permutation of race and ethnicity imaginable. We may not exactly be post-racial, if that term means the elimination of all tribal-based prejudice and attitudes, but we’ve traveled a huge distance. In 1974, according to Gallup, only about 30 percent of Americans “approved” of interracial marriages. The current figure is 87 percent. Similarly, attitudes toward gays and other long-marginalized groups and behaviors (such as smoking dope) have shifted radically in favor of inclusion.

    The sorts of character tics that helped make Savalas’ Kojack memorable?the chrome dome, the lollipops, the idiosyncratic “who loves ya, baby?” tagline?have become so completely absorbed into an increasingly libertarian culture that they are unremarkable today. Assuming you go into an office, chances are every day is casual Friday. Shaving your head is passe and even tattoos are fading as a personalized cultural statement. Your HR person is as likely to be as pierced as your barista.

    1. I always liked Telly better in “Battle of the Bulge”, “Kelly’s Heroes” and as the psycho in “The Dirty Dozen”….

      Can always picture that woman in the pink dress he nabs….”Wolfang? Wo bist du? Woflgang…”

      *grabs her – stabs her to death slowly – creepy as fuck*

  25. You should vote Democratic because Republicans are monsters, morons, or both, and those are the only two choices you get.

    1. You lack imagination. There are worse things than monsters and morons. And you fail to make the case that Democrats are not also largely monsters or morons.

      1. “And you fail to make the case that Democrats are not also largely monsters or morons.”

        I dunno. It seems he makes that case every time he posts.

    2. and those are the only two choices you get.

      Just to be clear, are we allowed to be unhappy that we have to choose to between two shitty options?

      Also, I hope that’s not your strongest argument for advocating for the Dems.

      1. You are allowed to be unhappy for whatever reason, and to deny reality for that matter. Doesn’t change reality.

        I don’t have a strong argument for voting for dems, but I think that putting a tourniquet on things by not letting Republicans gain power is possibly the best thing we could do for the human species.

        1. Why are you terrified of the GOP? Why not be terrified of the Dems? Can’t Obama wave his magic [pen] and simply make their laws go away?

          1. “Why are you terrified of the GOP?”
            He might have to make his own decisions!

        2. Perfect Dem BS: Vote for us, because the other guys are scary! Why? Because, reasons.

    3. Tony Toolbox
      Hard Hat on
      Empty toolbox
      hokum

    4. Tony, who won’t admit that Jews had a right to their own lives during the holocaust, is calling other people “monsters”?

      Yeah, that’s about par for the course.

    5. Tony voted for Kodos.

  26. Once again the main H&R page lead-in confusingly mixes third and first person:

    Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) believes that libertarians should vote for Democratic candidates, particularly as our Democratic nominees…[emphasis added]

    Similarly with the earlier-posted Libertarian party exhortation, and IIRC with an even earlier Republican one.

  27. Jared Polis can eat shit.

    1. Well, like I said earlier, from this article it seems like he’s full of it.

    2. Brevity is definitely the soul of wit.

  28. I believe that libertarians should vote for Democratic candidates, particularly as our Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of individual liberty and freedom than Republicans.

    Preposterous hogwash.

    1. Reading between the lines…

      “Democrats are almost universally pro-choice. The ability to legally abort a fetus is the culmination of individual liberty and freedom. Everything thing else we do is for your own good. You’re just too dumb to know it.”

      1. and

        “Economic liberty is completely irrelevant. Pay no attention as I try to stamp it out forever.”

      2. Don’t forget the gays!!

  29. Well, let’s put it this way, about the two articles about “voting for party X”. If you DO vote for either party, based on the fraction of policy that MIGHT be libertarian, you STILL are placing a vote that, in vast proportion, supports the sclerotic politics entrenched in either party. Simply too much evil embedded inside for either party to even try to work out the calculus of which is the lesser. I gave that shit up over a decade ago. I haven’t voted for 14 years, and don’t intend on ever voting again. The only thing that will happen if I do is I’ll likely be called for jury duty. Too pointless a behavior to risk that bullshit.

  30. Aggg! Mein eyes! Must lash self 400 times and read 1,000 articles on reason.com by rand Paul.

    1. I know, strange that a representative of an increasingly authoritarian party would get a tepid and mocking reception from a libertarian commentariat.

  31. Both Polis and Norquist would have been infinitely more credible if they highlighted indidivudal Republicans and Democrats that libertarians might be inclined to support, and urged us to throw our weight behind those individuals, rather than just shilling for parties that are demonstratably not friendly to libertarians.

    1. ALL WITHIN THE TEAM
      NOTHING OUTSIDE THE TEAM
      NOTHING AGAINST THE TEAM

      1. LOL. Still, I followed a link from David Friedman here, arguing that libertarians should infiltrate BOTH of the broken major parties, and not view one of them as “a better vehicle.” I can’t help but see the logic in that “Fabian approach.” He’s certainly right that the GOP is worthless.

        Also, I agree with Lynchpin1477.

        Also, suggesting that real libertarians infiltrate the mainstream totally-broken-and-sociopathic parties to run for State Legislature is far different from arguing that those parties are not totally broken. Sadly, Polis seems to argue that the Democrats aren’t totally broken here.

  32. Fuck you, Reason! You made coffee come out my nose.

  33. When you step back and look at where the Republican Party has drifted over the years, and how well the Democrats have stepped in to represent individual freedom, your choice should be clear.

    they both suck. but the republicans mostly fail to actually restrict sexual/reproductive freedom while the democrats excel at actually restricting economic freedom.

    1. It’s kind of surprising that Republicans haven’t tried harder to court the socially conservative black vote. There are certainly a lot of black religious socons out there.

      1. My knee-jerk reaction was that would be stupid. Then I thought about the past few election cycles, and it’d be perfectly in-line with their ultimate strategy of appealing to as few voters as humanly possible.

        1. It just seems like it shouldn’t be so difficult to get more of the black vote away from Democrats given that a lot of blacks disagree with Democrats on some of their central issues like abortion and gay rights.

          I’m not endorsing a particular policy. Those are some of the few areas where I somewhat agree with Democrats. I just find it interesting that that isn’t a bigger part of Republican strategy, seeing as a similar strategy with mostly white conservative Christian voters worked pretty well for them for a while.

          1. Until black voters are assured that Republicans won’t reinstate slavery, they aren’t going to be interested in the Republicans’ social views.

            1. And who’s to say I haven’t already reinstated slavery!?

            2. Well, when the entire platform of the other party is dedicated to continuing that narrative, among others (war on women, blah blah blah), what are the chances of that?

  34. Oh REASON. =D

  35. I’ll follow up with an additional observation. Does anyone here really think the Democrats are or can be perceived in the foreseeable future to be the party of personal liberties? The party of Affirmative Consent? Of campus speech codes? Of “rape culture”? Of #yesallwomen? Of public accommodation? Of gun control? Of “nudging”? Of the contraception mandate?

    The Kulture War is over. The socons lost. They aren’t going to be imposing traditionalist values any time in the near future. At this point, what we’re seeing is the progressives attempting to use the state to both impose their will on and humiliate the traditionalists. Consistent libertarians, if they deserve the title of such have to oppose this.

  36. “hey guise, dems are rly pro liberty this time because gays war on abortion social security. Vote dem, it’ll be ok, we promise!”

  37. His voting record seems to be a mixed bag:

    http://votesmart.org/candidate…..FJdrOcvsXw

    Among some of his votes, he voted, generally speaking, against internet control; for CA high speed rail; against Amtrak appropriations; co-sponsor of the USA Freedom Act; voted against finding Lerner in contempt; voted against a bill to force IRS to stop targeting groups because of political beliefs.

    1. He’s good for a Democrat, which is why they asked him to make the case. But “good for a Democrat” is like “hot for a fat girl”.

      1. *standing applause*

      2. You’re saying John likes him?

  38. *Vote Democrat for Real Libertarian Values*

    In other news, freedom is slavery!

    1. “Liberty is tyranny!”

      /tony

  39. Wow, can I have some of what Polis is smoking?

  40. Wow, this is funny. Is this an Onion news article? The paragraph on tax reform makes me think this is a joke article. You have liberals like Clinton and Warren, just to name two, who love corporations. Massive bailouts of corporations under the guise of “to big to fail” is a democrat legacy, started by bush and perfected by obama. I love the no tax increase on anyone making less than $250k a year then a massive payroll tax that affected the middle and lower class more than the rich. Neocons got us into the iraq war, democrats kept us in that war, then pretends to get us out while looking for reasons to get us back. Democrats don’t like to regulate policies? Their middle name is regulate. Democrats have become a party of individual freedoms? Like the freedom to choose your school? Freedom to carry a weapon? Freedom of speech that does not agree with a democrat, i.e., on campuses? Freedom to choose and keep your own doctor? Proposed rules on Internet-based campaigning and the attempt to to regulate online political sites and news media is a clear indication of democrats true feelings of freedom.

    I do have to admit, this was a funny read.

    1. 93% Presidential approval leading to the Iraq Invasion…both parties signed off, regardless who was pushing the cart hardest.

  41. I believe that libertarians should vote for Democratic candidates, particularly as our Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of individual liberty and freedom than Republicans.

    As long as it’s the freedom to get gay-married or abort a pregnancy. But what else matters, really?

  42. I assume we’re still waiting on a “don’t vote” post from KMW?

  43. …voting is our best check on government…

    Ha ha ha! Seriously Jared, that’s some funny stuff you got there!

    When I am working in Congress to expand and enhance our freedoms like stopping the Drug Enforcement Administration from enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states where it is legal, removing the authority of the National Security Agency to engage in mass surveillance, and keeping the government out of our private lives, I can count on most of the Democrats to support me.

    As indicated by the reduced number of drug raids…oh wait, that didn’t happen! Well, surely he’s referring to the bill that rescinded the NSA’s authority to gather data from…that didn’t happen either? Surely Mr. Polis is talking about when he valiantly stood up for gun owners who had their names published…oh right, that didn’t happen.

    Not giving me a lot to work with here, Jared.

    Democrats are almost always the first to embrace new, disruptive technologies and innovations. More than that, we tend to understand them better and know how to craft effective policies to embrace them, not ban or regulate them.

    Yeah, TEAM Blue is all about that frack, bout that frack, bout that frack, no treble.

    Seriously, how does a person just lie this boldly? Is there some surgical procedure? Are people just born without the capacity for shame or consistency?

    1. A Reason staffer probably called him, reminded him of how he’s talked to Reason so much, so maybe he could make the case for his party in a forthcoming inter-libertarian debate, and it would be awesome.

  44. At least the ones by Rand and Grover are serious. The arguments for the Democratic side just read like hilarious troll attempts.

  45. I think I’ll just come back after the election. This tripe is total fucking bullshit.

  46. First, I read the article on why I should vote R, and I thought, “Wow, thats about as retarded as you can get.” Then I read this one. And I was wrong.

    1. Never go full retard man. Never go full retard.

  47. “Who will let you have control of your reproductive health choices?”

    Abortion should not be a libertarian principle. After all, it is the destruction of an innocent human life. I would think that Mr. Polis, an openly gay man, would recognize the dangers of abortion to particular populations. Already, abortions targeting people based on race and gender have been normalized. Science has shown that homosexuality is genetic (and not a lifestyle or a mental disorder); when the genetic basis for homosexuality is determined, gays run the risk of being killed in the womb, too.

    If anything, gays should be pro-life, as should all libertarians who oppose war, the death penalty, and all other forms of aggression. Nothing to do with religion or Jesus and everything to do with being consistent.

    1. What about being pro-choice but anti-eugenics?

      1. So it’s her body, her choice, unless she wants to get the clump of cells scraped for something other than acceptable reasons?

        Sounds legit.

        1. Technically, you are a clump of cells. Does that mean it’s ok to murder you?

          1. Sure, why not? Why should I live if I pose an inconvenience to the people who spawned me, or if they determine that my life is simply not worth living? We all have to be willing to do a little give and take.

            1. Give and take implies that there is reciprocal push-back which a small child lacks all ability to do.

              1. Good comeback.

            2. Killing a person out of convenience is reprehensible. And all scientific evidence (basic embryology here) clearly indicates that unique human life begins at conception.

              1. Sorry, you’ll never convince me that a single-celled organism should have all the rights of a human being.

                We generally define death as occurring when brain activity ends. I think it makes ample sense to define human life as beginning when brain activity starts. Prior to that point, I’d argue that the body is just a clump of cells that doesn’t yet have a “soul” (for lack of a more scientific term).

                I’m keenly aware that the choice of where you define life as beginning is fundamentally arbitrary. If you want to argue that it starts at conception, I won’t say you’re wrong. I’ll just say that I disagree.

                1. Seriously? Souls? I spend all this time constructing a secular defense of unborn life, and you come back to me with “souls”?

                  “We generally define death as occurring when brain activity ends.”

                  Screw “generally”. I’m referring to the scientific definition of life and death.

                  “If you want to argue that it starts at conception, I won’t say you’re wrong. I’ll just say that I disagree.”

                  Sounds like what liberals do all the time. Yeah, I realize that GMO’s aren’t dangerous, but I’m still scared of them. Go figure.

                  Human embryology dictates that life begins at conception. Simple as that.

                2. I agree with you: beginning of brain activity is the abortion cut off point for me since it is the best indication we have, at this point, of a unique human life existing. The only other exception, in my mind, that doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle is when the sex was not consensual. Conceiving is a very real possibility of having sex without being careful; it’s like Fry playing roulette with the robot-devil knowing full well he could end up with rectal-exam-bot’s hands, it’s the risk you take when you play the game, and if you can’t be on your game enough to us protection or take plan-b the next morning (or even get an abortion in the first trimester), then you are essentially making a contract with the fetus.
                  Anyways, Polis fails if he thinks Libertarians are monolithic on abortion rights, goosestepping in line like good little team blue players.

                  1. Wrong again. Human embryology has, since before 1973, shown that unique human life begins at conception. When the sperm and egg fuse, gender, blood type, and DNA are all determined. That’s when unique human life begins. Furthermore, a child conceived through rape/incest is still deserving of life. Libertarians are against killing rapists, so they should also oppose killing innocent people who were conceived as a result of rape. And another thing: Plan B is capable of acting as an abortifacient; once again: not compatible with libertarianism (defense of human life).

        2. Not a “clump of cells”, but a person. Just follow the science.

          If killing for reasons of discrimination is wrong, then ALL killing is wrong.

      2. I don’t see how you can be in favor of reproductive freedom, but anti-eugenics (for values of eugenics that include only the parent(s) choices on how to manage the genetic inheritance of their offspring).

        1. Abortion is the epitome of eugenics. Nat Hentoff has pointed that out numerous times before.

          Abortion is the taking of another’s life; for that reason, it is incompatible with libertarianism or any other worldview which values civility.

      3. If it’s wrong to kill a person based on race/gender/sexual orientation, then it’s wrong to do so out of convenience.

    2. Abortion should not be a libertarian principle

      It isn’t. Nice try though.

      1. Huh? Last I checked, a lot of libertarians I talk to enjoy mocking abortion, as if ending another person’s life is funny. I’m just saying that libertarians should be just as vehemently pro-life on abortion as they are on, say, drone strikes.

  48. Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of individual liberty and freedom than Republicans

    Citation needed. Republicans aren’t exactly great when it comes to invidual liberty and freedom, but dems are just as bad if not worse. The only way this makes any sense is if your definition of invidual liberty and freeedom is limited to abortion and butt sex. What a load of horseshit. They both suck, it’s not even a choice between a douche and a turd sandwhich anymore. It’s more like a choice between a turd sandwhich with bits of undigested peanuts in the turd or one without. Sometimes you feel like a nut…

  49. my friend’s step-mother makes $65 /hour on the computer . She has been without work for nine months but last month her paycheck was $15236 just working on the computer for a few hours. find out here now….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  50. This is the party that drafted a constitutional amendment fo restrict free speech right?

    1. speech, schmeech, war on women man!!

  51. The Democrat policy/beliefs/vision on guns says all I need to know about the Democrats. They do not understand the concept of rights – as in “that which the government shall not infringe upon”.
    Nothing else needs be said for me. If they don’t get that ANY government infringement on a citizen’s right to (fill in the blank)is tyranny, they can go fuck themselves.

  52. I am not even going to read the article. The title tells me it is the dumbest fuckin’ shit to be published today.

    Just replace the title with ‘Freedom is Slavery’ and be done with it.

  53. “our Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of individual liberty and freedom than Republicans. When I am working in Congress to expand and enhance our freedoms like stopping the Drug Enforcement Administration from enforcing anti-marijuana laws in states where it is legal, removing the authority of the National Security Agency to engage in mass surveillance.”

    I almost choked over that one.
    Could you at least pretend to speak the truth
    Your modern liberals have as much in common with Libertarianism as a 1950’s bible belt preacher.
    Thanks for a good laugh though.

  54. Is this guy delusional? Every reason he gives that you shouldn’t vote for Republicans, the Democrats are also guilty of despite him telling you they aren’t. And Democrats aren’t exactly friends of new technology. Just technology that donates heavily to their campaigns like green energy and software. But screw you if you want to create a network to enable ride sharing that might compete with their union taxi contributors. Democrats may not spend as much of your money on the military, but they’ll fight wars anyways and they just spend that money on kickbacks and vote buying instead.

    Maybe if all you really cared about was drug legalization, gay marriage, and abortion, you could justify voting democrat, but i would argue against even they way they support those issues as well.

  55. Well Democrats do make great trolls and we have a lot of trolls on this site and they all claim to be libertarian, so…

  56. If voting is our “best” check on government we’re all fucked.

  57. Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of individual liberty and freedom than Republicans.

    Eat the rich! Grow the bureaucracy! Stifle free speech! Disarm the peasants! Nationalize healthcare! Punish the expats! Expand the unfunded liabilities! Eliminate property rights! Yay freedom! Vote Democrat for all of this real freedom.

    1. You forgot one: bomb the brown people (as long as it’s Obama doing the bombing)!

  58. Off hand, there are about three republicans in the house that I have favorable opinions of, and perhaps one democrat. Let’s throw in Rand Paul in the senate, and I’d say odds are 4-1 that I should favor republicans over democrats.

    More to the points, odds are 530-5 that I should favor libertarians over either of the two major parties.

    If you want me to vote for democrats, give me some pro-liberty democratic candidates. I don’t mean just pro-abortion democrats either, I define liberty in much broader terms than that. When you’re reliably anti-war even if it means going against your president, when you’re ready to end the war on drugs, when you’re ready to balance the budget by actually *cutting* spending *now*… then come and ask me for my vote. Until then, there isn’t much point in asking.

  59. Democrats are libertarian in only a few ways and those ways are often cancelled out by what they do when voting for laws that repress the freedoms of the citizens of this country and restrict small businesses with so much paperwork and new taxes it hardly pays to be in business anymore.

    If Democrats would treat American citizens as nicely as they treat their preference groups, women, illegals and blacks then this country would be much better off.

    As it is, they seem to think that the fact that almost all of the jobs created in this country have been taken by illegals since the year 2000 is no problem for Democrats as well as some Republicans.

    Plus Democrats like open borders which invites all sorts of undesirable people into the country along with their diseases and their law breaking tendencies.

    Then when thousands of illegals who convicted violent crimes are released into the public by our president, I decided to put my foot down and refuse to vote for any Democrat this time around. They’ve got to start representing the rights of American citizens or I’ll never vote for them again!!!

    Guess I’ll hold my nose and vote for the other people on the ballot.

  60. I can totally see myself voting Democrat! I’ll need some things first.

    *a lobotomy
    *zero self-esteem
    *zero principles
    *enthusiasm for destroying everyone else’s property, principles, and self-esteem

    Oh, wait…I guess I really just need that lobotomy.

  61. Don’t worry: Jared’ll be back next week with his libertarian defense of gun control and campaign finance reform. Join us then!

    1. And for the record, I’ll take liberty-minded Republicans (Rand Paul, Amash, Walter Jones) over capital-l libertarians any day of the week. Heck, even regular Republicans don’t bug me that much. Some of them have come around to the side of anti-interventionism, and most of them already recognize the stupidity of economic regulation. They’re also pro-life, which the capital-l libertarians (hypocritically) aren’t.

      The only issues which really need redress for Republicans are foreign policy, surveillance, marriage, and drugs. Long road, but much easier than re-educating the liberals. That, and the fact that libertarianism is an offshoot of (paleo)conservative thought.

      1. You’re pro-meat, not pro-life. Human life is defined by intelligence, something you, as a mysticist, lack.

  62. Ryan Mcmickle The article is full of nonsense. “On tax reform, where are the so-called tax breaks that Republicans like to brag about delivering?”. Not a fan of bush, but the Bush tax cuts lowered tax rates for everyone. Can’t lower taxes with a Democrat controlled congress/executive branch. The last thing Democrats would ever do is lower tax rates. Which makes their comment of “trying to reduce tax rates for the middle-class” absolutely hilarious.

    It sure would be nice to avoid having more SCOTUS members like Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. I’m pragmatic, don’t really care about gripes against parties’ failings. What I do care about is keeping the SCOTUS from becoming a liberal swamp of deliberately anti-constitutional heresy.

  63. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

  64. “Libertarian-inclined voters”

  65. Differences between Democrats and Republicans?
    Are you kidding me?
    The only differences between them lay upon the Idiot’s graph of left and right.
    They just vary a by a few shades over how much authority per political issue.
    However,
    On the proper political axis between Dictatorship and Anarchy, Democrats and Republicans are EXACTLY even.

  66. My neighbor’s mother-in-law makes $88 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her check was $21643 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Have a peek at this website. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  67. How does this author come to the conclusion that Democrats support individual rights when the Democrats in lock step pushed required healthcare down our throats. I guess as long as you don’t think you can be a Democrat.

  68. Hmm. Which is more important? Abortion and pot? Or the right to keep and bear arms?
    Which costs more? War in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or the Demoncraps “Great Society” welfare machine?
    Which party is the party of tax and spend? (Both of them. Which one wants higher taxes? The Demoncraps.)
    As for surveillance – what administration has threatened Snowden? What president has the power to rein in the excesses of the NSA, FBI, DEA… but doesn’t?
    What is the political orientation of the president who stands ready to facilitate a flood of criminal aliens that Americans do not need and do not want?
    To what party does the Obozo who unilaterally attacked Libya – without even NOTIFYING Congress – belong?
    Which party has lied, and covered up scandals that make Watergate look like a Rose Garden tea party? Fast & Furious where the corrupt attorney general stonewalls with the backing of a corrupt Obozo?
    Which party is dragging its feet on investigating IRS abuses?
    The list seems endless.

    The Republican neocons have become socialists. The Demoncraps have become communists. The only element of either party worthy of libertarian support is the Amash/Paul/Cruz/Lee sort – none of which are Demoncraps.

    Give Demoncraps a shot? Will .308 caliber do?

  69. Democrats: Dictatorial, socialistic, economically ignorant, spendaholics.

    Republicans: Authoritarian, religiously obnoxious, economically hypocritical, spendaholics.

  70. OK, first problem is… you don’t vote because you want to be on the winning side. You vote to support your agenda. Democrats are consisently trying to enlarge government power. So long as the “cure” for global warming is to lose our rights to control our own lives, I will not vote for a Dem. Reagan got the idea, but anyone who proposes enlarging government power should be voted against… even if it means voting for a “sure loser”.

  71. This particular bait and switch has already been done. There was this new breed of Democrat who was pro-gun rights, wanted to repeal the Patriot Act and get the U.S. out of Iraq, a “netroots”, “crashing the gates” of the party establishment. The term “libertarian Democrat” was even used. Just turn off your brain and vote TEAM BLUE.

    Imagine, passing off James Webb as an anti-war candidate, when he had just written a book about his personal butthurt over the anti-Vietnam War movement as an affront to his Scots-Irish heritage. Imagine, passing off Kirsten Gillibrand as pro-gun rights. Schweitzer, Tester, Richardson, the Udalls, and Polis were part of this new breed of Democrat based in the intermountain west who was not so beholden to the party’s urban coastal establishment.

    What did we get instead? The cult of St. Barry. This same “netroots” doesn’t even pretend to care about liberty anymore. It was a bait and switch game all along.

    Priority issues now for these liars and phonies include Obamacare, attacking the NRA and demanding more gun control laws, conspiracy theories about the Koch family, demanding more government regulation of “Wall Street” and the banking sector as if they aren’t already overregulated to death as it is, and stamping their feet demanding Immediate Action Now because the end of the world is nigh and polar bears are all gonna drown and it’s all the Kochs’ fault. Their favorite snarl word now? You guessed it, it’s “libertarian”.

    Screw them.

  72. and Mr. Polis, I have a suggestion. Instead of this tired rhetoric to get out the vote for TEAM BLUE!!, how about instead let’s see you seriously go up against the Democratic party establishment from an across-the-board libertarian direction, the way Justin Amash and Thomas Massie and Walter Jones, and before them Ron Paul, do in the Republican party.

    In other words, show us the money. Then come back and talk.

  73. I will take Polis’s advice and become a card-carrying Democrat IF he successfully personally prevents Ross Ulbricht from being successfully prosecuted. That is what it will take to make me believe he is in favor of disruptive technology. That means:
    1) He must make vocal and impassioned public pleas, every day until the trial that directly attack Charles Schumer for pronouncing Ulbricht guilty.
    2) He must point out that the murder charges against Ulbricht have been dropped, but that the judge is still allowing the prosecutor to claim that they exist, as a means of poisoning the jury against him.
    3) He must point out that the common law referred to by the 6th Amendment and 4th Amendment (habeas corpus) do not allow anyone to be charged for “crimes” (non-crimes) that lack a valid “body of the crime” of “corpus delicti.” (Such a corpus must be comprised of both “injury to a specific, named party” and “intent to injure the same specific, named party.”)
    4) He must encourage the jurors to nullify the laws that Ulbricht allegedly broke, even though this then means he might be charged with jury tampering. (Because it’s the right thing to do.)
    5) In short, Polis must cling against the system with his full weight, on this issue, to show me he is SERIOUS.

    If he’s not serious, then fuck him, and fuck the totalitarian Democrats –they’re not fooling anyone.

    The same goes for Amash, Paul, and the GOP.

    Follow Thoreau’s advice, or be looked at as what you are: an indecisive novelty.

  74. http://www.freeross.org -Free Ross Ulbricht (Alleged Silk Road 1.0 admin; solid libertarian; disruptive tech advocate)

  75. Best reasons to vote Democrat are:

    1) because of what type of limits on government the name implies. Networked brain-based limits (limits based on the feedbacked ability of the people) are the primary cause of civilization. This has been true since Richard Overton and Free-born John Lilburne’s leveller uprising, in London, around jury rights. Republican limits (laws) do nothing but “inform the government about when they can hope to encounter resistance.” (Lysander Spooner) However, the democratic limits on government power directly limit government power, in and of themselves. (Some democratic mechanisms that limit government power are: proper jury trial to the extent it is proper; proper elections to the extent they are proper; widespread private gun ownership; freedom of speech and assembly). The USA has few of these today, and hence, it has correspondingly very little liberty. For more liberty, repair these mechanisms.

  76. 2) There is no legitimate historical or logical reason to call oneself a “conservative” if one is not evil, socially-intolerant, and bigoted. When people call themselves “conservatives” but then claim they are fiscally conservative but socially tolerant, what they are telling you is that they are bigoted in some way, or they are stupid or uninformed in someway. Othewise, they’d already call themselves libertarians, so as to avoid the onerous stench of social intolerance. However, as Hayek notes in his essay “Why I am Not a Conservative,” the proper term for libertarianism is actually “liberal.” (Many people qualify this with the term “classical,” so as to avoid confusion with the illiterate socialist faux-liberals of today, but Hayek himself didn’t like this, since he simply preferred to refer to the history of liberalism as a forward-thinking philosophy that was capable of adaptation and evolution. Such cybernetic systems can be made more survival-fit, or less survival-fit, depending on the will of the network components themselves.)

  77. 3) Both of the major parties have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with their root definitions at this point. It’s as easy to run for state legislature as a libertarian Democrat as it is to run as a libertarian Republican (probably easier). The Libertarian Party reached its high water mark in 1978 when Dick Randolph got elected as a Republican. Then, he helped get Andre Marrou and Ken Fanning elected as big-L Libertarians. Nothing says the same can’t be done in the Democratic Party by focusing on a return to principles within the Democrats, and campaigning on a democratic, limited government platform. (Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with “getting the mainstream Democrats to act in a principled manner.” It has everything to do with walking door-to-door and campaigning for small enough offices to be won, as a small-L libertarian. The current Mainstream Democrats will not ever be libertarians, because sociopathic power-seekers cannot be made into libertarians. That said, if you win, you will attract more followers, and your influence and effect will rise to that small extent.

  78. If you win 51% of a State Legislature, then you have more ability to effect change. Of course, this won’t happen, because libertarians don’t want freedom as much as they want comfort. Serious libertarians who are capable of making these changes can’t even get a single donation from such libertarian doofuses, much less any serious or committed support. –And, the National Libertarian Party is externally controlled, probably by a few FBI guys. What government agency they work for doesn’t matter. The National LP is purposefully made useless by people who don’t want it to win.)

  79. 4) Mainstream Democrats and Republicans both have a tendency to be totally illiterate in the areas of History, Philosophy, Economics, and Law. However, most people are not “emotionally invested in” or “passionate about” Economics, which is the only legitimate area where one might consider themselves a “Republican.” So, because people tend to “vote their emotions,” the passionless subject of Economics won’t get them to vote against their perceived cultural identity (who their parents told them to vote for, when they were children). However, people occasionally break with the authorities on moral issues, especially when one can demonstrate that innocent people are being harmed. Showing bleeding heart Democrats will elicit an emotional “empathy” response, by causing mirror neurons to be fired. This may generate some legitimate feelings of resentment against the government in them. Show the same harm to a hard-nosed “Republican,” and he will react with all the social conditioning that has caused him to thus-far reject libertarianism. (Milgram’s experiment did a great job of revealing this reaction, but every Libertarian Party petitioner, such as myself, has witnessed it thousands of times.)

  80. Edit: “Showing bleeding heart Democrats *victimless crime defendants* will elicit an emotional “empathy” response, by causing mirror neurons to be fired.”

    Example: freeross.org

  81. Reason.com too dumb to autodetect a domain name that has .org suffix? Too dumb to allow edits? Too dumb to allow up-ranking and down-ranking? Too dumb to post crude editing rules above the comment window, like Lesswrong and kurzweilai.net do? OK, then, I’ll make another post entirely!

    http://www.freeross.org

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.