Libertarianism

'Has the "Libertarian Moment" Finally Arrived?'

An excerpt from Robert Draper's August 7 cover story in The New York Times Magazine about the ascendance of libertarianism.

|

New York Times

Robert Draper's August 7 cover story in The New York Times Magazine about the ascendance of libertarianism in American political life featured a report from reason's "posh" Washington, D.C,. office, numerous interviews with reason staffers, and a glimpse at how libertarian thinking is changing American politics.

Below, some excerpts from the article:

"Libertarians, who long have relished their role as acerbic sideline critics of American political theater, now find themselves and their movement thrust into the middle of it. For decades their ideas have had serious backing financially (most prominently by the Koch brothers, one of whom, David H., ran as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian Party ticket), intellectually (by way of policy shops like the Cato Institute and C.E.I.) and in the media (through platforms like Reason and, as of last year, 'The Independents'). But today, for perhaps the first time, the libertarian movement appears to have genuine political momentum on its side."

"The age group most responsible for delivering Obama his two terms may well become a political wild card over time, in large part because of its libertarian leanings…Emily Ekins, a pollster for the Reason Foundation, says: 'Unlike with previous generations, we're seeing a newer dimension emerge where they agree with Democrats on social issues, and on economic issues lean more to the right. It's possible that Democrats will have to shift to the right on economic issues. But the Republicans will definitely have to move to the left on social issues. They just don't have the numbers otherwise.'"

"By cable TV standards, [The Independents], which is shown four times a week, is jarringly nonpartisan, for the simple reason that [Kennedy] and her co-hosts-the Reason magazine editor in chief Matt Welch and the entrepreneur Kmele Foster-are openly contemptuous of both parties…She, Welch and Foster take turns on the show bashing not only 'Obamacare' but also the N.S.A., neoconservatives and social scolds. It's not a hospitable forum for G.O.P. talking points."

"Nick Gillespie is to libertarianism what Lou Reed is to rock 'n' roll, the quintessence of its outlaw spirit. He is 50, a former writer for teen and heavy-metal magazines, habitually garbed in black from head to toe, wry and mournful in expression, a tormented romantic who quotes Jack Kerouac. For the past 20 years, Gillespie has been a writer, editor and intellectual godfather for Reason, the movement's leading journal since its founding in 1968 (and which today has a circulation of about 50,000, while its website receives 3.3 million visits a month). "

"'I was never conservative,' [Gillespie] told me as we sipped our gin. 'Republicans always saw libertarians as nice to have around in case they wanted to score some weed, and we always knew where there was a party. And for a while it made sense to bunk up with them. But after a while, it would be like, "So if we agree on limited government, how about opening the borders?" No, that's crazy. "How about legalizing drugs? How about giving gays equal rights?" No, come on, be serious. And so I thought, There's nothing in this for me.'"

"Gillespie likes to point out that unlike the words 'Democrat' and 'Republican,' 'libertarian' should be seen as a modifier rather than a noun-an attitude, not a fixed object. A cynic might assert that this is exactly the kind of semantic cop-out that relegates Gillespie's too-cool-for-school sect to the margins. Not surprisingly, he begged to differ. 'It's wedded to an epistemological humility,' he told me, 'that proceeds from the assumption that we don't know as much as we think we do, and so you have to be really cautious about policies that seek to completely reshape the world. It's better to run trials and experiments, as John Stuart Mill talked about. The whole point of America-and this is an admixture of Saul Bellow and Heidegger and Jim Morrison lyrics-is that it's in a constant state of becoming, constantly changing and mongrelizing. We're doing exactly what free minds and free markets allow you to do. Part of why I'm a libertarian is that if you restrict people less, interesting stuff happens.'"

Advertisement

NEXT: Andrew Napolitano: Thankful for Natural Rights

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. More like the ass-end-dance of libertarianism.

    “By cable TV standards, [The Independents], which is shown four times a week, is jarringly nonpartisan, for the simple reason that [Kennedy] and her co-hosts-the Reason magazine editor in chief Matt Welch and the entrepreneur Kmele Foster-are openly contemptuous of both parties”

    Knee-jerk “Pox on both their houses” sentiment may be technically nonpartisan, but it is still lazy, unserious, and hackish.

    1. +1.

      We were initially excited about the show; Kennedy has become completely campy and practically a bad, one-woman comedy segment (and frankly, her stance on many issues is simply ignorant). The typical “right” and “left” guests are generally particularly bad. The libertarian movement would be far better served with Matt/Kmele providing insights regarding issues, augmented by strong guests.

      1. but it is still lazy, unserious, and hackish.

        The libertarian movement would be far better served with Matt/Kmele providing insights regarding issues, augmented by strong guests.

        And no one would watch.

        In order to introduce your ideas to the world, it helps if you can get someone to listen to you.

        1. No one watches right now. It’s a late-evening FBN show where nice libertarians refrain from flaying eminently flayable people like John Bolton or that CIA creep who’s always on Redeye.

          It’d be fun to have a bomb-throwing Objectivist get a show for a while and abuse all his guests. That I would watch.

          1. I don’t watch it. Kmele is the only one who doesn’t annoy the shit out of me. Mostly.

          2. The most fun would be if s/he were literally throwing bombs & had a hand missing from having held on to one too long.

        2. And no one would watch.

          People would watch this show far more than they do if it were a serious political show rather than the Kennedy Wild and Crazy Guest Interruption Hour (with Side Kicks).

          1. Kennedy should take it to a more ‘serious’ tone because the issues are serious. She has to knock it off trying to interject and inserting her views at every turn.

            I don’t understand at all why people are wary of Welch. He can go on any show and present the libertarian perspective in a professional manner. He ask the rights questions and is prepared clearly in control of facts.

            1. ‘He asks the right questions and is prepared clearly in control of facts.’

            2. Welch is very good and the Independents is actually a better show when he hosts it.

              I agree. Welch does very well when he goes on MSNBC for example. I think Gillespie is not at all bad when he’s on TV, although I don’t know why his actual articles have become so dull and boring.

          2. People would watch this show far more than they do if it were a serious political show rather than the Kennedy Wild and Crazy Guest Interruption Hour (with Side Kicks).

            I disagree. More hardcore libertarians would watch, but what’s the point? They’re already onboard. That’s not the target.

            The target is teh Yutes. Same reason there is all the Millennial dick sucking going on around here. You convince the young that libertarianism is the next cool thing and they’ll at least take a look at it. Many of them will hop onboard just to be cool, but you’ll actually reach some.

            The future of liberty lies with the young.

            All that said, not sure the venue is right (FOX News) or that kids today think Kennedy’s cool.

            1. The target is teh Yutes. Same reason there is all the Millennial dick sucking going on around here. You convince the young that libertarianism is the next cool thing and they’ll at least take a look at it. Many of them will hop onboard just to be cool, but you’ll actually reach some.

              Francisco, I am a millenial and no one my age would be able to stand watching the Independents.

              You must think we’re retarded if you think anyone would watch this show. They’d get more intelligent people my age if they were a serious political show instead of…whatever it is they are.

              1. Hence the:

                All that said, not sure the venue is right (FOX News) or that kids today think Kennedy’s cool.

                But kids, at one time, thought Kennedy was cool. I guess you millenials have higher sensibilities than us Xers did.

                And they aren’t after the “intelligent” people. Intelligent people already made up their minds.

                BTW, those Jackass movies and Jersey Shore were awesome! 😉

                1. The first season of Jersey Shore was great. The second was ok. The Jackass movies are brilliant in their ridiculousness.

            2. All she has to do is be as funny as Jon Stewart to attract teh yutes.

        3. If the ideas you’re introducing are “we don’t like either party!” that’s pretty weak tea. Michael Bloomberg has the same flerking idea, you want to watch his show?

          I know that Matt Welch (not sure about Kennedy or Kmele) has a positive conception of libertarianism but it sure as hell doesn’t come across on the show, which has long since degenerated into mere bitching about what the people in power are doing.

          1. This website has a similar problem in that they’re so desperate to keep progressives from thinking libertarians are just pot-smoking Republicans that they try to ‘equally’ attack Republicans and Democrats.

            The problem is that from a libertarian or Classical Liberal perspective, the Democrats are vastly worse at the present moment.

            There’s a reason why progressives spend so much time attacking us and trying to discredit our views and the most we get from Republicans is periodic whining about how we ‘cost them’ an election by refusing to fall in line and vote for the Republican.

            1. The GOP was far worse 2001-09. Now they are doing the only thing they are good at – gridlock.

              1. We were much better off during most of those years than we have been in any of the years since.

                1. The country was drunk on easy private credit and massive debt before the collapse.

                  1. Right; now only the elites can get drunk on easy credit (and govt spending) and even more massive debt.

                    The rest of us get to go sober while still paying the bar tab, oddly.

              2. One person’s gridlock is another’s balance of power.

              3. The GOP was far worse in the 1970s.

            2. Blocking PB was the best decision I ever made. I see his name just floating up there, but unless I decide to click on it I don’t have to witness his stupidity.

              It’s a Thanksgiving miracle!

              1. How do you do that?

                1. Google Chrome with the Reasonable extension. Block trolls, and simple html.

                  Happy Thanksgiving to you!

            3. That was what Inquiry was like too, and at a time when it was much more a Hobson’s choice between Democrats & Republicans.

    2. Liberals want government to be their mommy who takes care of them.

      Conservatives want government to be their daddy who protects and disciplines them.

      Libertarians simply want government to treat citizens like adults.

      1. Libertarians simply want government to treat citizens like adults.

        Considering most citizens choose against libertarianism again and again, treating citizens like adults means you give them the govt they have now.

        1. That is a great example of a non sequitor. Bravo. I couldn’t have done better if I tried.

        2. Considering most citizens choose against libertarianism again and again, treating citizens like adults means you give them the govt they have now it looks like most of them want government to be their mommy or their daddy.

          ftfy, idjit

    3. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

      ?????????? http://www.walletwiki.Com

    4. I’m imagining if there were 3 or 4 major political parties or tendencies in the USA, how they’d try to squeeze between them and make it a pox on all 3 or 4.

  2. I consider myself classical liberal. Have since I was 18.If all laws were based on harm,to others,and we have very strong property rights ,including your body,I’d be happy.Have a nice Thanksgiving everyone here,I enjoy your comments.(Except Tony and and Buttplug who most likely think today is a plot by the Koch brothers)

    1. I am no doubt more classic liberal than you are. But like Hayek I have no respect for conservatives and that pisses Team Red off.

      1. And there it is

      2. I am no doubt more classic liberal than you are.

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        Oh, shit.

        *eyes tearing*

        Good one!

        1. I’m assuming the next PB comeback will be
          “Oh yeah? My dad can beat up your dad.”

            1. What was the 8% thing from again? Was it related to PB’s libertarian purity test?

              1. He claimed O-care was wildly popular but his click through link showed only 8% actually support it.

                  1. On no, that actually happened, and it was hilarious, as evidenced by how butthurt he gets when you mention it.

        2. thank you,I knew someone would crawl out of the basement for my comment as a C.L I would eliminate the departments of energy,commerce ,energy,Home land,TSA,DEA,ATF and AG to start.SS and medicare would be private.Also,police would need to respect the bill of rights in full and use force only to defend them self or others and be investigated as the same as other citizens. Obamacare would be abolished and MEDICAL insurance would be turned over to the market.No BP,your not a C.L

          1. Ok,so I’ drinking ,happy Thanksgiving

      3. Like 8% more, right?

      4. “But like Hayek I have no respect for conservatives and that pisses Team Red off.”

        No PB. You piss intelligent people off.

        Nothing you have ever posted that I have read, gives me any inclination that you agree with Hayek.

        You are a Turd Burglar.

    2. Also I have no issue with the Koch Bros. Hell I even admire their large donation to the ACLU. The only thing I say about them that might be construed as negative is that they inherited their fortune rather than earning it like Buffett or Gates. A fact.

      1. Try this for a deep dark secret. The great troll Palin’s Buttplug? it doesn’t exist. I invented him.

        Follow- I’d always love to rile up people, so I trolled and trolled, and put my names on the posts. A normal poster seemed so? normal. So I invented a troll. A decidedly mindless troll. Suddenly there were responses around the block. It was working like a charm. Until the day it showed up, with its empty talking points and horrible smell. And before I knew it, it assumed Palin’s Buttplug’s identity. Now I do the work, and it takes the bows. It’s a mendacious way to live, but as long as people buy it, I can get the job done.

        It never mixes facts with logic. Well? almost never.

        I don’t even know its real name!

      2. Buffett ‘earned’ his fortune largely by taking advantage of ridiculous estate tax laws and most recently from TARP, ZIRP, and QE policies.

        Gates at least didn’t have government help, but made his fortune by shady and questionable marketing and negotiation tactics, and happening to be the big fish at the genesis of the modern software industry, which naturally lends itself to consolidation, due to customer tolerance of inferior products so long as they interoperate.

        1. Bullshit. Berkshire is highly diversified and Buffet was worth $40 billion a decade before the financial collapse.

          1. and owns the rail roads that haul the oil that could be carried safer in a pipe line

          2. “Bullshit.”

            Solid counter bitch.

          3. Refresh my memory. How much does Buffet owe in back taxes again? Why wasn’t his property confiscated and sold off again? Why isn’t he in jail for tax evasion again? How much money did he give the Obama election and re-election campaign again? Does he own a railroad in Canada? Help me out here.

  3. “Nick Gillespie is to libertarianism what Lou Reed is to rock ‘n’ roll, the quintessence of its outlaw spirit.”

    So, Gillespie is a One (kinda sorta) Hit Wonder whose reputation far outstripped his actual accomplishments?

      1. Wait. Lou Reed is dead?

        1. LOU REED IS NOT DEAD.

          Or else it would have been reported here.

          Now fuck off with your blooger-thingy rumors.

    1. Yes, except with one less hit.

      1. Lou Reed is a one-hit wonder? Maybe if you’ve never listened to anything but Top-40 radio your entire life, and Casey Kasem and Dick Clark were your arbiters of quality music.

        Perhaps you’ve heard of this musical combo known as the Velvet Underground?

        1. Sure I have. And I can list every one of their hits:

          .

        2. Lou Reed and The Velvet Underground are too influential a band to be classified as a ‘one hit wonder’. And really, who gives is a shit if they were/are?

          1. That’s where the “kinda sorta” comes in. VU/Lou Reed have a small share of influential contributions to pop culture but they’re hardly more than a footnote in the grand scheme. VU especially is more an Andy Warhol performance art piece than a band.

            Oh, I suppose it’s down to opinion, really. One person’s Rebel Artist Too Cool For Mainstream is anothers marginal talent who didn’t do anything noteworthy since 1970.

            1. Yeah and probably.

    2. Because fawning over Bill Maher, speaking in favor of a “social safety net”, and joining the party in power in perpetuating the line that conservatives are anti-gay and anti-Hispanic is SO flerking outlaw.

      1. Unless you are partisan Team Red you don’t see Maher as the enemy. He is an independent who supported McCain in 2000.

        Mark Cuban is a self proclaimed libertarian who voted for Obama twice. Does that make him a Democrat?

        1. If I were partisan Team Red his support of McCain might make me like him more.

          Seeing as how I consider McCain to be just another statist with a different letter after his name, you’re really not helping Mahre’s case.

          1. Maher supported McCain slightly in the primaries over BOOOOSHHH

            DERP, CHRISTFAG!!

            PB is being as disingenuous as normal.

        2. Wouldn’t voting for Obama twice disqualify him from being a libertarian?

          1. “Wouldn’t voting for Obama twice disqualify him from being a libertarian?”

            Actually, voting for Romney, GW Bush, etc. would definitely disqualify anyone from being a libertarian – but at the same time, I’m sure many of the libertarians here did.

            We KNOW the Kochs, owners of this site and Cato, etc. are consider the financiers and bigwigs of the Libertarian world….and they certainly support ANY AND EVERY republican, not matter what!

  4. [Kennedy] and her co-hosts-the Reason magazine editor in chief Matt Welch and the entrepreneur Kmele Foster-are openly contemptuous of both parties…

    And ferrets and toads and warm turkey.

  5. OT: Black Friday deal from LaRue Tactical- the perfect hardware accessories for your AR15:

    http://www.laruetactical.com/l…..bo-package

    Hello Kitty sticker not included.

    1. I’d rather have this

      http://www.midwayusa.com/produ…..165-barrel

        1. Or? It’s the season for all of the above.

  6. Libertarians are faced with some tough choices in the near future, all of them coming down to “Is it better to maintain Doctrinal Virginity, or do we actually want to accomplish something?”

    Open borders isn’t going to fly, until one hell of a big mess in entitlements, lower end education, and similar Liberal satrapies gets cleaned up. We can’t afford the artificial underclass we have now. Until we break the Liberal mechanisms that maintain it, we can’t open the borders.

    Keep in mind at all times; the driving desire of the Western Intellectual Liberal is to lord it over a class of grateful peasants. You can see it in their futurist daydreams, like the factory town in the film MAJOR BARBARA. The whole structure of welfare payments, tenement housing, awful (and hard to escape) “education”, race pimps, etc. is purpose built to keep the brown people beholding to their kindly Liberal masters. The Libs never got over being kicked to the curb after WWII by the “working class” as the blue collar white folks headed for the suburbs and cars with tail fins. The Liberal really thought they would settle for Bauhaus Worker Housing and Public Light Rail.

    1. Contd.

      We can probably legalize Marijuana. I would LOVE to legalize the opiates; if one single chronic pain sufferer is kept in mystery by The War On Drugs, that’s barbaric. Cocaine? Meth? Whatever the fashionably chemical bogeyman of the week is? Probably non-starters. Hell, we can’t even wean the buttinskies completely off of Prohibition.

      We’re going to have a hard enough time keeping the twits from pushing tobacco into full outlaw status.

      There is all the difference in the world between being an Activist and being electable.

      1. Agreed. Happy Thanksgiving.

      2. There is all the difference in the world between being an Activist and being electable.

        No single person has to be both. They’re different roles and both are necessary. The danger is in activists damning the electables for not being activists.

        1. Yes, but some people must be ready to make the transition. In the ’60’s and ’70’s a lot of Black activists had the opportunity. Some of them did pretty well; Stoke in Cleveland comes to mind (I grew up there and then). Marion Barry, on the other hand, was screwed from the start; whatever the Home Rule decision for the District may have SAID, Congress wasn’t going to refrain from meddling in THEIR town. Every Mayor of DC has had to contend with powerful Congress-critters (both parties, all factions) who were SURE they knew best. Barry might have been just as big a disaster in some small city out of the spotlight, but in DC he never had a chance to be anything else.

          1. No, Marion Barry did very well. What he didn’t do was good.

      3. We’re going to have a hard enough time keeping the twits from pushing tobacco into full outlaw status.

        I’m super excited for the day there are violent cartels and inner city gangs based entirely on selling contraband cigarettes and fire arms after the government bans them.

        1. No way they’re going to ban cigarettes. They need the tax revenue.

          1. You assume that the governments, and the anti-tobacco Crusaders, are rational. I don’t know of an awful lot of evidence for this.

      4. Thank you, C. S. P. Schofield. That all sounds very reasonable to me. And now you can get accused of being a “nativist” and “racist” by Cytotoxic.

      5. We just legalized marijuana in Oregon. I doubt if it will turn the state into Galt’s Gulch just yet.

      6. C.S.P – thanks for the Thanksgiving reading material – all good points!

    2. Libertarians are faced with some tough choices in the near future, all of them coming down to “Is it better to maintain Doctrinal Virginity, or do we actually want to accomplish something?”

      That’s a false dilemma. You can maintain your principles while strategically allying yourself with larger groups you may disagree with, but also have shared interests with. It’s the difference between politics and church.

      1. You can, but not without taking a good hard look at what you WANT vs what is possible. We WANT open borders, with immigration limited by a reasonable level of benefit for the immigrants. If they want to come here and join us, great. We did pretty well absorbing all kinds of immigrant waves, though there were always problems. The present situation, though, would make open immigration a disaster for all involved.

        It isn’t a false dilemma. We don’t have to choose between standing outside the process and becoming just like the two parties now making a hash of things. We DO have to choose between “Fix it all at once or it isn’t any good” (an attitude we see too often in these pages) and triage.

        The entitlement mess has to get fixed BEFORE we open the borders. Even though opening the borders could happen sooner.

        Just as a case in point.

  7. I’d call it a matter of some dispute whether we have an ascendency of libertarianism, or an ascendency of SJW’s playing libertarian on spring break. I doubt most of these so-called libertarians know the difference between Rothbard and a graveyard.

    1. They don’t have to know the difference, any more than Democratic voters know the differences between Gramsci and Alinksy. No mass political movement consists entirely of people who follow politics that closely.

  8. Nick Gillespie is to libertarianism what Lou Reed is to rock ‘n’ roll, the quintessence of its outlaw spirit.

    A movement filled to the brim with brilliant weirdos and radicals, and they highlight gin-sipping Gillespie as our representative outlaw? Nick doesn’t even wear a bow tie or say controversial things about Lincoln.

    1. Lincoln? That statist hack!

  9. “agree with Democrats on social issues…have to move to the left on social issues”

    So…rejecting libertarian social doctrine? Democratic left-wing social doctrine can be boiled down to “I want cake/birth control, and the government must require people to give it to me!”

    1. That was pretty mendacious Eddie.

      1. Ah, since it was accurate, there’s no way it could be mendacious, and happy Thanksgiving to you, too!

        1. since it was accurate, there’s no way it could be mendacious

          How many libertarians do you know believe in entitlements?

          Know what I think? And yes, this is me putting words in your mouth. You don’t like the gays because Jesus and stuff, so you attempt to conflate the very libertarian position of equal rights for homosexuals with the very unlibertarian position of entitlements to discredit the former.

          You know damn well entitlements were NOT the social issues in question.

          1. I see – you misunderstood my point. I said Democrats and leftists understood social issues in terms of entitlements.

            My reference to libertarians was that Dems and leftists *reject* the libertarian view of social issues.

            Gosh, man, cheer up, I wasn’t disagreeing with you.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU

          2. Gillespie and Welch argued in favor of a “social safety net” (ie entitlements) in their “Declaration of Independents” book promo interviews.

            1. Gillespie and Welch argued in favor of a “social safety net” (ie entitlements) in their “Declaration of Independents” book promo interviews.

              I’ve heard both of them make similar remarks. I think, and I may be wrong, that Gillespie and Welch are incrementalists attempting to get through to potential converts by dragging them slowly in their direction to introduce them to other ideas.

              Saying “we should eliminate welfare” sounds heartless and if you say that you immediately turn people against you. So if you can agree with them to a degree, get them to agree on some libertarian shit that isn’t so radical (in their eyes) you may be able to extend it to things like welfare later, by suggesting “Hey, maybe we can take care of those truly down on their luck by some other means? Rather than the government stealing the money for welfare, we can provide it through private charities?”…

              Catch more flies with honey.

              And while a no-shit social safety net obviously violates libertarian principle, it’s way down my list of grievances.

              1. I agree. I am an advocate of incrementalism. As I often say, we didn’t get into our current semi-socialist mess because the Socialist Party won elections. One of the big barriers libertarians face is the sweeping dismissal: “You want to end all welfare and have poor people starve in the street!” I’m perfectly willing to compromise on a minimal, efficient safety net (for citizens), ideally run as locally as possible.

              2. Hayek was in favor of a minimal safety net and Friedman proposed things like the negative income tax in place of hundreds of other programs.

                Besides, a lack of transparency is critical to getting things passed in congress. It helps if you don’t read what you are voting on. Then you can’t be accused of misleading anyone.

          3. Sorry Eddie. I apologize. I read too much into that and my remark was way out of line.

            1. OK, mon, just relax, it’s Thanksgiving!

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOilSZ0LHk

              1. (assuming it’s permitted in your jurisdiction, of course)

              2. I’m a dick.

                *hangs head in shame*

                1. Well, my bishop wouldn’t like this, but –

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIGQArdu7Qc

                  1. NSFT (Not Safe for Relatives to Hear at Thanksgiving)

      2. Well he’s right. The left’s social issues today have nothing to do with freedom, they’re just carrots to give to certain special interest groups so idiots will willingly give up their liberties.

    2. Yep. During the Reagan administration it could be argued that libertarians and leftists agreed on social issues (with the exception of gun control and to some extent abortion).

      In 2014 that no longer makes any sense. Leftists are all statism all the time now, except on issues centered on genital activity.

      1. Leftists are all statism all the time now, except on issues centered on genital activity.

        If you’re making a general statement while allowing for exceptions, then maybe. I would say it is more accurate to argue that Democrats are all statism. There are some leftists out there who have been openly critical of the Obama administration although they are a minority right now.

        I suspect a lot more are not happy but they are good team players and won’t say anything yet. Kind of like how a lot of Republicans were unhappy with much of the Bush administration but held their opinions for the sake of the team.

      2. Leftists are all statism all the time now, except on issues centered on genital activity.

        They aren’t even that anymore (I’d argue they never were).

        Affirmative consent.

  10. “The whole point of America-and this is an admixture of Saul Bellow and Heidegger and Jim Morrison lyrics-is that it’s in a constant state of becoming, constantly changing and mongrelizing.”

    The gin probably made that sound cool.

    1. I didn’t even know Heidegger was a songwriter!

      1. He was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table

        1. and Socrates himself was permanently pissed

  11. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    =============================
    try this site ? ? ? ? ? http://www.jobsfish.com
    =============================
    GO TO THE SITE TEC NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP

  12. Happy Forgotten Genocide Day, you uncaring race murderers.

    1. I’d care about race murder, but someone already looted me so now I have nothing more to lose. Sorry!

    2. AKA Open Borders Day.

      The Indians are big govt and big biz elites, the Pilgrims are the Mexicans, and the turkeys are the American worker.

    3. Turkeys are a race now?

  13. Happy Thanksgiving Reasonoids! I am thankful for all the humor and insight you provide on a daily basis.

    I am thankful for my family and friends. I am thankful for my health and (moderate) wealth. I am very thankful that Starbucks was open this morning. I’m thankful that there is NFL football all day today. I am thankful that my in-laws are preparing a huge spread for the family today. I’m thankful for the opportunity to put their Christmas decorations up this afternoon. I’m thankful for Jim Beam, who will be assisting me in the Christmas decorating, and will be thankful that neither of us fall off the roof.

    But most of all, I’m thankful for the inevitable beatdown tOSU is going to lay on scUM this weekend.

    Merry Christmas!!!

    1. Drunk already, huh.

      1. I just finished my morning latte. But you know what? It’s a holiday, football is on– I’m gonna’ pour me a drink. Happy Thanksgiving!

  14. “while its website receives 3.3 million visits a month). ”

    Ok tough guys. How many are Canadian?

    1. “while its website receives 3.3 million visits a month”

      A tiny niche web site that I founded and built in about an average of 2 hours per day gets about 1/2 as many page views as Reason….and I did it without billionaire financing…..AND, that site actually draws people who are doers, as opposed to those looking to trade barbs.

      Draper,? Is this the Texan who wrote a book on GW Bush? Wow, if so….that’s really the guy we want to tell us when the Libertarians have arrived.

  15. So now I can get married to a dude which I will never do and I can smoke pot in a few states, something I might do once in a blue moon. Yeah, it’s just like living in libertarian paradise.

  16. I’m thankful for having been born in 1958. Not only did I benefit from real medical progress, but I was extremely lucky to be in the “sweet spot” of freedom in the USA. Hell, I was too young for Viet Nam, and too old to have to register for the draft. I’m not optimistic about the current political trends.

  17. Shithead Ohio Democrat wants to legislate triple pay for Thanksgiving. His reasoning is a smorgasbord of prog-think.

    A lawmaker in Ohio wants stores in the state to pay triple wages for employees who work on Thanksgiving ? an effort that comes as Macy’s, the holiday’s quintessential retailer, is allowing its workers to choose whether to work that day.

    Retailers are moving in this direction anyway, therefore regulation is necessary.

    State Rep. Mike Foley, a Democrat from Cleveland, said his bill would allow employees to bow out of the holiday shift without job sanctions while protecting family time from excessive consumerism.

    “You don’t have any right to decide what excess consumerism is. I’ll decide for you.”

    Foley said the idea for his bill came from a call last year from a Cincinnati woman who said both she and her 82-year-old mother had been scheduled to work their retail jobs on Thanksgiving.

    I think I speak for everyone when I say that it’s always a great idea to write state-wide regulations based on one call you got a year ago.

    1. Foley said the idea for his bill came from a call last year from a Cincinnati woman who said both she and her 82-year-old mother had been scheduled to work their retail jobs on Thanksgiving.

      Well if only one of them had been scheduled then they couldn’t spend Thanksgiving together.

      Jokes aside, how pathetic must it be to be working in the same retail job as your mom when you’re in your 50s.

      1. Well, at least she’s working and not living off welfare.

    2. I’m married to a nurse who often works holidays and weekends. Should healthcare workers get equal protection? How about firefighters? If my family can reschedule holidays, so can the families of retail workers. Yes, in a perfect (utopian) world everyone would celebrate holy days according to the calendar with mutual love and consideration. But we don’t live in a utopia, and I–for one–don’t want to.

      Let employers and employees decide when and how to do business and keep government out of it.

  18. Happy Thanksgiving my American pals.

    1. Thanks Rufus. Here’s a Canadian story for ya:

      http://www.livescience.com/489…..rctic.html

      1. Cool.

        I reckon global warming will make these discoveries more frequent.

  19. my neighbor’s mother makes $70 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for seven months but last month her check was $17589 just working on the computer for a few hours. hop over to here…..

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

    1. Bummer.

      Remarkable these sort of things don’t happen more often in MLB or cricket.

      1. Was wearing a batting helmet but got turned around on the shot. Half an inch either way and he would have been hurting but OK. Where he was hit it ruptured a major artery.

  20. Happy Thanksgiving, reasonoids! Hope you have a great holiday with your loved ones!

    The Independents needs to have Matt and Kennedy switch places permanently. And it needs to focus more on Libertarianism 101, rather than political and social commentary. My biggest criticism is sometimes it tries too hard to be cool and funny rather than substantial. It is what it is, I guess. The comments threads here are the best thing about the show.

  21. OT: I just read that, after 5 hours of discussion, OPEC has decided to maintain output (smart move for the Saudis who want to maintain market share). The price of oil plunged. Apparently the Saudi guy walked out smiling while the Venezuelan representative was visibly angry. I just like to imagine the conversation they had for 5 hours:

    Venezuela guy: We have to cut supply now! The price is too low!

    Saudi guy: No.

    Venezuela guy: BUT WE’RE GOING BROKE.

    Saudi guy: No.

    The best part is, at the end of the article, the Venezuelan representative started bitching about how Norther America has the worst form of production because fracking is bad for the environment.

    1. I am very happy that the drop in oil prices is hurting Venezuela, Iran and Russia. Ha. Hopefully the US frackers can keep their expenses low enough to stay in business, though.

      1. They will hurt, and then they will get stronger. Hopefully this price drop motivates oil-dependent government’s such as Alberta’s to lighten the regulatory load and theft by royalties.

        1. Apparently fracking tech is improving, so costs are dropping. Don’t know if they are dropping far enough to outrun the current price drops. And it depends on the fields: some have higher expenses than others. In any case, fracking is putting a ceiling on crude oil prices. We may not see $100/barrel for quite a while.

          1. Alberta’s real problem is labour shortages. Our idiot Conservative government put the kibosh to the excellent Temporary Foreign Workers program but they are slowly letting in badly needed immigrants. With lower oil prices, the shortage might ease and companies can start hiring for quality. A year ago they would hire ANYONE no matter if he’s addicted to drugs or not.

  22. Dear reason mag,

    I’m a libertarian and take the idea that government should be limited very seriously so I hope you won’t mind two quibbles.

    First , if we are going to pander to twenty-something’s maybe we should make a cultural reference that 20-year-olds are likely to understand. See “nick Gillespie is Lou reed.” I mean, I get my politics from an admiration of the anti-Vietnam war movement so I get it. However, not everyone is going to understand that when you refer to recently-deceased, long washed-up rocker you are trying to pay them a compliment. Did Kennedy help write this article? See section on washed-up.

    Second the picture that goes with the caption should maybe refer to a politician who doesn’t want to put american troops on the ground in Iraq and who doesn’t want to prevent gay people from getting married– you know, like Obama.

    1. Rand Paul doesn’t want to put American troops on the ground in Iraq either, and isn’t particularly keen on preventing gays from getting married. And you’re not a libertarian you’re an authoritarian piece of trash that history will bury.

    2. “I’m a libertarian”

      No you are not. By your own admission, you are a socialist. Also by your own admission, you inherited a lot of money, and never worked a day in your life. You also ripped a bank off, and scimped out on your mortgage payments.

      You are an immoral Turd Burglar.

  23. Happy Thanksgiving to you all.

  24. Happy AMERICAN Thanksgiving everyone (who is in America).

    1. Lick it, Canadian.

      1. We already had our Thanksgiving, during a nicer time of the year to have it in!

        1. It’s still nice down here. 58 today and I’m about as north as we get.

  25. libertarians live in a magical world of their own creation

    1. Uber and other innovations are pretty magical, and we helped create them. It beats your shitty world of shitty expensive government and soon, it will replace it.

    2. Er, no. Progressives are the ones that create a magic world mostly predicated on false premises, emotions and coercion.

      Their outlook runs contrary to the human spirit; not with it no matter how hard you want to believe.

  26. Interesting piece on the Democrat responses to Chuck Schumer’s scathing critique of the Obama administration and the passage of Obamacare in general. My favorite bit:

    Top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi also rebuked Schumer, saying in a statement, “We come here to do a job, not keep a job.”

    First, I’m sure the surviving House Dems from districts less blue than SF are thrilled that their leader has that attitude. Second, it lays bare the difference between the party’s lefty-loony ideologues and its smooth-operator weasels. Schumer may be a rancid statist but he’s probably the most competent politician in Washington.

  27. More government ever in the history of the US = libertarian moment.

  28. my neighbor’s sister makes $63 an hour on the laptop . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her pay was $18486 just working on the laptop for a few hours. have a peek at this web-site….

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

  29. Leilafair . you think Allen `s comment is astonishing, on friday I bought a gorgeous Aston Martin DB5 when I got my cheque for $8527 this past month and just over ten grand this past-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the most-financialy rewarding I have ever had . I began this 8-months ago and practically straight away began to earn at least $72, per hour .
    Published here ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com ??????????

  30. Gillespie is not too cool for school, he is too cool to be programmed. He forms his own opinions, they are not implanted in him. By doing so, he manages to be consistent, while democrat, and republican hypocrites tie themselves into knots trying to retain credibility.

    1. “He forms his own opinions, they are not implanted in him”

      Are you saying he’s not being paid to advance a certain POV?

      Really?

  31. Really depends on what you call the ‘libertarian moment’. If you mean as a ‘think-tank’ movement, absolutely. In fact I would suggest it is in its second stage (the first being during the Reagan years). As a political movement, absolutely not. Politics by definition requires a certain amount of horse trading and popularism, the very nature of political. Libertarians tend to be too idelogical, example Ron Paul where winning (at least on the national stage) will require political behavior such as Rand Paul or even Ronald Reagan (who called himself a libertarian). Evidence of my point here will be that some libertarians will throw rocks here at the non-purist.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.