Webathon

Support Reason…and Commit a Crime Against Nature!

|

Here we are, closing out the second day of Reason's 2014 Webathon! Thanks to all the folks who have already given—and a pox upon those who have yet to drop some coins (gold, bit, what have you) into the hat.

Reason magazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV are all published by the nonprofit Reason Foundation and we're looking for $200,000 in (tax-deductible!) donations to support our journalism in 2015.

In all of our work and across each of our platforms, Reason promotes libertarian approaches to politics, culture, and ideas. We believe in "Free Minds and Free Markets," that economic and civil liberties are indivisible, and that increasing individual autonomy, choice, and responsibility is a good thing.

We believe in open borders (for people as well as goods), deregulated markets (and no bailouts for banks or automakers), school choice, drug legalization, sound science, religious freedom, and pluralism. And if you can believe it, we kind of insist on equal treatment of people under the law.

All of which apparently doesn't just make us an enemy of the state but of evolution (which we believe in, honestly)!

Writing in Sunday's New York Times, University of Illinois at Chicago anthropologist John Terrell announced:

The sanctification of the rights of individuals and their liberties today by libertarians and Tea Party conservatives is contrary to our evolved human nature as social animals. There was never a time in history before civil society when we were each totally free to do whatever we elected to do. We have always been social and caring creatures. The thought that it is both rational and natural for each of us to care only for ourselves, our own preservation, and our own achievements is a treacherous fabrication. This is not how we got to be the kind of species we are today. 

You got that? We libertarians are not just a little odd but are actual, honest-to-god freaks of Nature (Hi, Mom)!

And to make things even worse, the good professor—who curiously quotes not a single line, word, or punctuation mark from a libertarian in his essay—rubs our nose in the fact that "self-described libertarians generally also pride themselves on their high valuation of logic and reasoning over emotion." What is it that Dr. Smith used to say on Lost in Space? "Oh the pain! The pain!"

I can't speak for "Tea Party conservatives" and wouldn't dare to speak for the rest of my colleagues at Reason, much less the heterodox, rag-tag crew of glorious, crazy bastards collected under any and all definitions of the term libertarian. But this sort of smug, fact-free, ahistorical, and just plain dumb dismissal of libertarianism is yet one more thing we're fighting here at Reason. Add it to the list that includes such me-me-me concerns that we cover frequently such as sentencing reform, occupational licensing hassles, marriage equality, and eminent-domain abuse.

A simple scroll through today's articles at Reason.com suggests just how out-to-lunch Terrell's brand of criticism is. There's all those goddamn stories about how the NYPD cop who placed Eric Garner in a lethal chokehold wasn't indicted by a grand jury. You know why? Because we just don't fucking care about other people, that's why! And then there's that interview with anti-Putin activist and former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov. Could we have been thinking that the experiences of people living under past and current repressive regimes might be of interest? Nah, come on already!

And that story about how some conservatives are rethinking their support for the death penalty. You know, that story simply can't exist because as Professor Terrell wrote, we care "only for ourselves, our own preservation, and our own achievements." Don't believe your eyes—also a product of evolution, come to think of it—when you stumble across Reason stories and videos that talk about the lives of others and the communities they build when they are given more freedom to choose for themselves where to live, what to eat, whom to love.

Wikipedia

Founded in 1968, Reason does indeed try to bring "logic and reasoning" to discussions of public policy. That's not because we think we stand apart from evolution or civil society or other humans or because unlike the rest of you looters and moochers, we paid full-market rent in the womb and breast-fed ourselves as babies. No, it's precisely because we're human. Rationality is every bit as much a part of evolution as is emotion, I'd wager. And contra Terrell, we emphasize that part of being human is being fallible and epistemologically limited. One of the biggest problems the world has always faced is the surplus of folks who think they have indeed got everything figured out. Beware the man with a plan so perfect that he needn't convince you of its wisdom but instead just bullies or coerces you into doing what he thinks is best. But if you do insist on using emotion to forge public policy, I've got some Salem Witchcraft Trials, Japanese-American Internments, and Ritual Satanic Child Abuse Panics I can show you.

If wanting to inform public policy with, uh, rational discourse makes us freaks, then all I can say, with apologies to the Ramones, is we accept you, we accept you.

So if you are able and willing to donate to our 2014 Webathon, you'll not only help us reach our goal of $200,000 (and get some cool swag in the deal), you'll be committing an honest-to-god crime against Nature!

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Bill De Blasio's Comments on Eric Garner Grand Jury Decision Are Full of Shit

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. That cover is a crime against nature. Never publish it again.

    1. You have something against lumbersexuals? You bigot.

      1. I have nothing against lumbersexuals I just don’t want to see it. Just like I don’t want to see the Doomcock, or Episiarch’s mom.

        1. Well I don’t want to see her either! You take her! I think Warty is done with her…

          1. Warty is never truly done with anyone.

            1. The Doomcock thirsts for more pillage!

            2. True. Like with your mom.

              1. Egads Warty is even more depraved than I thought. My mom is an incredibly obese arctic frigid fundamentalist. I wouldn’t wish that on STEVE SMITH.

                1. STEVE SMITH ATTEND SENSITIVITY TRAINING! STEVE SMITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR FATTIES AND FUNDIES TOO!

              2. He already said dogs.

        2. On the plus side, you don’t have to worry about seeing Epi’s mom because she is a creature of the 5th dimension. She is therefore only visible to dogs and certain species of hummingbird.

          1. And to your mom. That’s why they’re such good friends *cough* fuckbuddies *cough*.

          2. On the plus side, you don’t have to worry about seeing Epi’s mom because she is a creature of the 5th dimension.

            Wouldn’t you like to fly in her beautiful balloon?

      2. I don’t even know what a lumbersexual is. But I’m pretty sure I can find at least one reason to hate them. I can hate pretty much any group(including groups that I myself belong to.)

        1. I despise my friends. They are such bad judges of character.

        2. I don’t even know what a lumbersexual is.

          Dudes who like to dress in flannel and fuck chainsaws.

        3. I don’t hate them so much as the people who coined that word to describe them.

          1. Fist is “people” now? I don’t think so.

  2. There is nothing that douchebags like Terrell want–actually, more like need–to do more than to project their own internal failings on others, and they have recently picked libertarians as the target for that projection.

    You can rest assured that every single thing Terrell accuses libertarians (or any ideological enemy) of, he does all those things himself. If he accuses them of being selfish, you can bet your bottom dollar that he’s a selfish fuck. If he accuses them of not caring about others, you can rest assured he doesn’t give a fuck about anyone but himself. And so on.

    Part of the underlying purpose of partisanship is to throw all the crappy shit that you do onto the other side in a mass expulsion of guilt and responsibility. Your side doesn’t do that stuff (even if you do personally), only the other side does it. By joining a TEAM, you just expunged all your “sins” because only the other TEAM has them.

    And this is why partisans are repulsive scum.

    1. You can rest assured that every single thing Terrell accuses libertarians (or any ideological enemy) of, he does all those things himself. If he accuses them of being selfish, you can bet your bottom dollar that he’s a selfish fuck. If he accuses them of not caring about others, you can rest assured he doesn’t give a fuck about anyone but himself. And so on.

      Hey now, The New York Times cares so much for other people, particularly the poor and the oppressed, that they got angry that America lets Cuban doctors immigrate here when they’re oversees.

      This is particularly funny given that Cuban doctors are basically the victims of human trafficking who are used by the Castro regime as a source of wealth and soft power. For just one example, Cuba actually sends doctors to Venezuela in exchange for oil and oil money. The doctors are forced to live on subsistence wages in Venezuelan slums and see virtually none of that wealth.

      The New York Times is therefore literally pro-slavery. There is no other way to put it. They favor human trafficking. Any time they publish anything attacking our beliefs, just remember that we’re basically being attacked by 1855 slavery advocates in slightly more modern dress.

      1. But you don’t understand, Irish. You’re pro-slavery, not them, because TEAM, no matter how repulsive their actual beliefs are. Understand now? Because they sure do.

      2. “The New York Times is therefore literally pro-slavery. There is no other way to put it.”

        Walter. Duranty.

        The NYT is pretty much a commie rag. The sooner they go under and their building is taken over by real rats, you know- the kind with actual integrity, the better.

      3. Those doctors are being trafficked by their state and are therefore contributing to the greater good. Letting them kidnap themselves away to America is literally stealing from everyone else on earth.

        Is that pretty much the gist of their argument?

        1. It’s more that we’re big meanies for contributing to ‘Cuba’s brain drain.’

          Of course, the only reason there’s a Cuban brain drain in the first place is because of the oppression and poverty faced even by highly educated Cubans. The Times article also has this hilarious sentence regarding the human trafficking allegation:

          But the State Department says in its latest report on human trafficking that reported coercion of Cuban medical personnel does “not appear to reflect a uniform government policy.”

          Got that? It’s not a ‘uniform’ government policy. Sure it happens, but if it doesn’t happen to every doctor there’s really nothing to complain about. What’s a bit of human trafficking now and again between friends? It’s all good so long as you don’t do it too often.

  3. The sanctification of the rights of individuals and their liberties today by libertarians and Tea Party conservatives is contrary to our evolved human nature as social animals. There was never a time in history before civil society when we were each totally free to do whatever we elected to do. We have always been social and caring creatures. The thought that it is both rational and natural for each of us to care only for ourselves, our own preservation, and our own achievements is a treacherous fabrication. This is not how we got to be the kind of species we are today.

    Wow, this is so fucking stupid for a host of reasons. Let us count the ways:

    1. Naturalism fallacy. The fact that humans behaved as essentially socialist when they were cave men does not provide evidence that this is a good thing. People also had an odd tendency to die at 35 back then, but that doesn’t mean living past 35 is a bad thing.

    2. Assuming that opposition to government socialism is opposition to any sort of organization. This is especially bizarre given that conservatives particularly are obsessed with families. As a result, conservatives and libertarians obviously agree we’re social and caring creatures, they just think we should choose who we care about rather than having government coerce people into pretending to give a shit about people they actually hate.

    1. It’s also strange given how distant bureaucracies are from being organic social institutions. Even Communists in the Soviet era (e.g., Lenin) bitched about how much power bureaucrats were gaining as a result of the revolution’s prerogatives.

      Even if you go with the White Indian theory of humanity being best-fitted for some form of anarcho-communal living, that’s still a far cry from social democracy of the sort supported by John Terell.

    2. 3. He uses ‘natural’ and ‘rational’ as if they are synonymous. In fact, they’re frequently opposed. It is natural to fly into a rage and attack someone if he sleeps with your girlfriend, but our legal system frowns on such things. It is rational to think about how much money you’ll have come retirement age, but it isn’t natural since ancient man had no conception of ‘retirement.’

      4. “This is not how we got to be the kind of species we are today.” Actually, since 17th and 18th century liberalism and capitalism resulted in the greatest increase in wealth the human species has ever seen, it is how we got to be the species we are today – so long as you like being the kind of species that doesn’t have to worry about polio or leprosy.

      1. Look, Irish, if you’ve got a species?-you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

    3. There was never a time in history before civil society when we were each totally free to do whatever we elected to do. We have always been social and caring creatures. The thought that it is both rational and natural for each of us to care only for ourselves, our own preservation, and our own achievements is a treacherous fabrication. This is not how we got to be the kind of species we are today.

      Everything we do, at some level, is what we want to do. Even when coerced – on some level, we want to avoid the consequences of going against the coercion.

      I don’t look at history and think “Gee, what caring, social creature us humans are.” Sorry, that’s just not my perspective.

      I don’t think it has anything to do with being selfish. I think it has more to do with the fact that if I have control over anything, it’s over myself. I can’t control other people, what they do, think, etc. I can’t control most of the world around me. I do have some level of control over my own volition.

      He’s assuming that society can exist without the individual. If I remember correctly, Kierkegaard and Hegel went back and forth about this – whether the individual can exist independently of a society. Hegel’s full of shit. My identity as an individual is not dependent on any external factors. To argue otherwise would imply that the individual exists for the benefit of society. This seems to be the root of collectivism.

    4. Also;

      “There was never a time in history before civil society..”

      That is correct. Before civil society the majority of people toiled under horrific conditions, large populations were held as chattel slaves, and almost everyone was victimized and robbed by warlords of various stripes.

      He clearly admits that liberty is the product of civil society. Then he says it is unnatural and we should not have it. I read that as saying that we should destroy civil society and bend under the lash.

      What an idiot. Fuck that guy. Fuck him with a rusty posthole digger.

      1. There’s nothing dumber than an anthropologist basing his arguments about modern politics on the fucking hellish dystopias that he spends most of his time studying.

        Human history was, until the advent of individual liberty, basically one long series of malicious and violent actions, usually carried out against defenseless civilians. This idiot should go and look at how people actually lived throughout most of the time period in discussion before arguing that we should emulate them.

        1. Irish|12.3.14 @ 7:40PM|#
          “There’s nothing dumber than an anthropologist basing his arguments about modern politics on the fucking hellish dystopias that he spends most of his time studying.”

          The biologist Paul Ehrlich studying his lab rats disagrees.

        2. There’s nothing dumber than an anthropologist basing his arguments about modern politics on the fucking hellish dystopias that he spends most of his time studying.

          Especially since the conventional wisdom is that primitive societies have been frozen in amber for 10,000 years and therefor represent the ‘true state of natural human development’. When in reality they have been evolving for the same period of time that ‘modern’ cultures have and that their deviation from the norm may well be driven by competition with surrounding cultures.

      2. Also more;

        Civil society enabled vast improvements in technology which enabled vast amounts of wealth which is what enables personal liberty.

        This prog piece of shit is admitting here that he wants to destroy wealth, to impoverish the human race in order to stamp out personal liberty.

        I have been saying this for years. The proggies hate dispersed wealth because it disperses power. They must impoverish everyone in order to concentrate power. It is the middle class that they despise.

        What vile, evil people.

    5. For ‘progressives’ they aren’t terribly original since they are rehashing arguments made two centuries ago and subsequently disproven.

    6. Or how about this:

      There was never a time in history before civil society when we were each totally free to do whatever we elected to do.

      I love ridiculous comments like that.

      Yeah, the consequences of actions is really a modern thing. Back then, you could pretty much just do whatever you want. Unless, of course, you didn’t like the consequences. Which is totally different from today, because…. you know, you can still do pretty much whatever you want, understanding that there will be… consequences.

      I was watching a documentary about some primitive, violent tribe hidden somewhere in the jungle. Basically, murder was highly tolerated. And the native was telling a story about a guy who just took it too far: he just started killing people left and right. So, they all killed him.

      Nobody has ever been as free as they claim libertarians want to be.

  4. I wouldn’t be surprised to see douchey hipster guy as Time’s man of the year, assuming they still do that.

    1. er, person of the year

    2. Time’s man of the year

      CIS SHITLORD!!!!

      IT’S TIME’S PERSON OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!

      /My inner SJW sometimes comes out in one big burst

      1. I should really refresh before having a fake SJW hernia.

        1. The premature rage makes it seem more authentic.

  5. Wait just a damn minute. Are you saying that the NYT published a screed written by a social sciences professor from University of Illinois Chicago on why we should all strive towards a brave new world?

    I find that very hard to believe.

  6. The Ramones?

    Millenials don’t care about some ancient baby boomer band whose members are all as dead as Lou Reed.

    1. Lou Reed is DEAD?!

      WHY WAS I NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS IN MULTIPLE POSTS AT REASON.COM?!?!

  7. “There was never a time in history before civil society when we were each totally free to do whatever we elected to do. we were each totally free to do whatever we elected to do. We have always been social and caring creatures….”

    1) these 2 things have nothing to do with one another
    2) and the first one is a canard = ‘totally free’? ‘whatever’? Its assumes anything other than his own assumption of what is the ‘right’ degree of individual autonomy is some kind of extremist absolute that does not exist in nature.

    And then following sentence doesn’t even follow from these two unrelated statements=

    “The thought that it is both rational and natural for each of us to care only for ourselves, our own preservation, and our own achievements is a treacherous fabrication.”

    Where did you just demonstrate this? Not only is it “rational and natural” – its the BASIS of our self-awareness and application of reason. We are not the fucking Borg, and while we are also not *entirely* solipsistic, his communitarian platitudes do not somehow erase the factual reality that individuals are *autonomous* beings.

    1. There is one word being completely ignored. Voluntary. Communities have thrived when participation was voluntary. When they get coercive, they inevitably wither and die.

      1. Voluntary really is the key here. What’s he going to do? Mandate that everyone stop being “selfish” under threat of violence.

        It may sound juvenile, but my response to this really is “Make me!”

        And tacit in his statement is “If you do not willingly give what society demands of you, then it will be taken from you.”

        It comes down to Reardon’s statement in Atlas “As soon as your greater good requires victims, count me out.”

        1. It may sound juvenile, but my response to this really is “Make me!”

          Jefferson makes it sound much less juvenile

          The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    2. Yeah, but he really, really hates the fact that individuals are autonomous beings; or he’s a sociopath who doesn’t even see other humans as autonomous beings, just pawns in his autonomous game.

      Either way he’s a piece of shit.

    3. A lot of people have a hard time with the concept of freedom. The kind of freedom they want is where other people give them stuff so they can write their shitty book full time or something. SO they can’t get that what we mean by freedom is something very different. It is the freedom of each person to do as he will within the natural constraints that exist. It’s not some fantasy notion that everyone can do anything or that there should be no consequences for bad choices. Simply that people can choose among the choices available.

      Are these attacks on the very notion of freedom as a good thing new? It seems like the left used to be a lot more into freedom, even if their ideas of freedom often involved stealing other people’s money or forcing people to behave a certain way.

    4. A lot of people have a hard time with the concept of freedom. The kind of freedom they want is where other people give them stuff so they can write their shitty book full time or something. SO they can’t get that what we mean by freedom is something very different. It is the freedom of each person to do as he will within the natural constraints that exist. It’s not some fantasy notion that everyone can do anything or that there should be no consequences for bad choices. Simply that people can choose among the choices available.

      Are these attacks on the very notion of freedom as a good thing new? It seems like the left used to be a lot more into freedom, even if their ideas of freedom often involved stealing other people’s money or forcing people to behave a certain way.

      1. Woops, sorry. The weather is fucking with my connection.

  8. The SOOOOPER Smart Set Comment o’ The Day:

    Imo redistributing wealth is an incredibly good idea, and society should do more of it. This is despite the fact that wealth redistribution requires weakening property rights (many bad effects) and requires empowering a government that will invariably abuse those powers (you cannot have full privacy and a working IRS etc). However wealth is so incredibly fat tailed that the benefits easily outweigh the extremely large costs.

    This sort of comment from what is no doubt a 130+ IQ person should really be more infrequent than it actually is.

    1. Redistribution of wealth doesn’t require ‘weakening’ property rights, it requires their elimination.

      If you believe the government has the right to basically take money from some people and give it to other people who have done no work to earn that money, then you don’t believe property rights exist at all. Period.

      1. I was more amazed that someone would reiterate the libertarian critique and hand-wave it by references to a supposed “fat tail” in a wealth-happiness curve. Because being able to buy a 48-inch TV instead of a 60-inch TV is definitely worth “empowering a government that will invariably abuse those powers” and “weakening property rights”. Apparently.

        1. On this note, no study I have found strongly correlates long-term happiness with $$$, except at the far left of the curve. General life success, relationships, and disposition are far more indicative of what one’s long-term happiness will be than money, especially the amounts doled out by even the most generous welfare states.

          1. What these idiots also ignore is a host of studies which show that things like not working and getting your money from the government are correlated with negative happiness outcomes.

            People who don’t work and live on the dole are less happy than people who work, even when the people who work earn the same amount of money. This is because both people don’t actually want limitless free time, they want accomplishments. Therefore, wealth redistribution from the government is unlikely to improve the happiness of individuals because it is unearned and therefore has no meaning to them.

            1. Also, other libertarian critiques of the welfare state include arguments about the fact that welfarism often results in people not working, causes the decay of low income communities that fall into a cycle of dependency, and results in less production and fewer opportunities because the productive are punished for their success.

              Therefore, his fat tail argument doesn’t address a host of other complaints leveled against the welfare state.

            2. This is true.

              I don’t endorse everything he says, but Charles Murray makes an excellent point that members of the left gentry promote all sorts of things they wouldn’t be caught dead doing or teaching their children. Upper-class leftists preach free love, getting on the dole if you’re poor, and the bohemian lifestyle — but it is not how they socialize their children. This has been particularly salient in the Jewish community, where a Jew looking to move up is not likely to use welfare services even when eligible and will work hard, but where the Jewish community will vote en masse for socialism (whether in Israel or the US).

              That old amorphism about Jews living like Episcopelians and voting like Puerto Ricans is sadly true — and maybe if Puerto Ricans worked like Episcopelians (something leftists fight tooth and nail to prevent any low-income group from being incentivized to do well), they would look more like the gentry left than like the left’s helot class.

        2. There is zero reason to believe that wealth redistribution contributes to a utilitarian increase in overall happiness.

          Until someone derives a means of comparing subjective utility scales between individuals, much less across all of humanity, the subjective well-being research is lagging more than 100 years behind Austrian thought. I can understand why psychologists soldier on in spite of that–for pretty much the same reason mainstream economists do, as the philosophical objection undermines their entire field foundationally, and to a lesser extent they’re unaware of how important the Utility Monster and other attacks on utility measurements actually other–but the field is DOA philosophically so far as I can tell.

      2. Even minarchists have to tax something. Are property rights less weakened if the money stolen is used only for supposed public goods? Can property rights really exist at all if property is subject to taxation?

    2. The use of the phrase “fat tailed” makes me thing that this person tried to read Nassim Taleb and completely missed the entire point of everything he has ever written.

    3. “This sort of comment from what is no doubt a 130+ IQ person should really be more infrequent than it actually is.”

      No.

      “Educated” people are “stupid” in identical proportion and frequency as “Uneducated” people.

      “Stupid” is a factor independent of one’s IQ.

      “Stupid” is not part of IQ at all, but rather an entirely different force of nature, one which is a constant throughout the population, and afflicting the rich, the poor, the quick-witted and the dull in *exactly equal amounts* when examined as a whole.

      I refer you to The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity by Carlo Cipolla

      I’ve never much liked ‘intellectuals’ myself. ‘High Intelligence’ people IMHO are usually ENTIRELY wrong about things far more often than ‘average intelligence’ people. Average-intelligence people have far less invested in their own self-perception as ‘intelligent’, so therefore are more likely to base their judgements on practical *effects* of ideas as opposed to their intellectual appeal.

      1. I’ve never much liked ‘intellectuals’ myself. ‘High Intelligence’ people IMHO are usually ENTIRELY wrong about things far more often than ‘average intelligence’ people. Average-intelligence people have far less invested in their own self-perception as ‘intelligent’, so therefore are more likely to base their judgements on practical *effects* of ideas as opposed to their intellectual appeal.

        Sowell’s “Vision of the Anointed” touches on this very point.

        Frankly most intelligence in the US languishes in college, to later be squandered on academia. Outside a few special instances, your average intellect will be more productively cultivated in a Victorian-era salt mine or a Burger King than in your average agitprop mill.

    4. I question your estimate of that person’s IQ.

      1. Strike my comment.

        What Gilmore said.

        1. Yeah, that was a good assessment. It’s too easy to assume that being wrong means being unintelligent. Intelligent people can be very good at getting themselves to believe silly things. Especially when insulated from reality by academia. And none of us is a rational as we would like to think.

    5. How do you know (or why do you think) “Princess_Stargirl” performs so well on standardized tests?

      1. Educated guess.

        The website I link to is conversational, but discusses many subjects which require a significantly higher-than-average level of comprehension and academic knowledge — such subject matter and academic discipline tends to select for high-IQ (though apparently not high levels of common sense and practical thinking).

  9. and a pox upon those who have yet to drop some coins (gold, bit, what have you) into the hat

    So, because my schedule and cash flow did not permit me to make a contribution by now, I am to be cursed?

    Guess you don’t need my money at all, then, Nick

    Wow – for a website called “REASON”….

  10. Whoever donated in memory of J sub D: that was classy.

    1. I think someone has every year since he died. Not sure if the same person.

  11. By the way, all of these careful critiques of the two pieces of shi…I mean proggies linked to here are not a waste of time. People will read them and see the light….some of them. However, those guys themselves will never be convinced partly because they aren’t even convinced of their own arguments. They will never quit. When you discredit one argument in the public’s eyes, they will just start another one.

    Progressivism is about total power. It is about enslaving the world. Nothing else matters. All of their arguments are like the UVA rape story, the Ferguson narrative; fictions to support the narrative, and the narrative is that you are not your own. You are their slave.

  12. Open borders? Really? Why Libertarians WHY! I am aligned with you more so than not but can’t understand open borders….and WTF is a lumbersexual? A man can’t grow a beard now? A label has to be put onto them. Im getting to old I guess..

  13. I suspect Terrell makes the same mistake a lot of leftoids make, which is to conflate government and society. And so because libertarians are “anti-governemnt” (another misunderstanding on his part) he thinks that means that we’re anti-social deviants as well.

    Unfortunately, pointing all that out to him and oher tardos like him will do about as much good as accusing chessnuts of being lazy.

  14. He sounds like my ex husband, who criticizes libertarians based on what he reads in huffpost, Think Progress and Americans Against the Tea Party.

  15. But enough about them, let’s talk about *me*!

    I think we all count you as an honorary millennial, Nick.

  16. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend 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. This is what I do,
    ???.s?w?i?p?e?b?o?s?s.?????

  17. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend 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. This is what I do,
    ???.s?w?i?p?e?b?o?s?s.?????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.