The Independents

On The Independents: 2015 Resolutions, Predictions, Politics, Economics, Gadgets, and Cyberwars, With Peter Schiff, Michaels Moynihan and Malice, and More!


He was so good in 24 Hour Party People. |||

Tonight on The Independents (Fox Business Network, 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT, repeats three and five hours later) we gaze into our crystal balls to see what fresh horror the next 12 months have in store. Joining to help is a rakish yet elfin Party Panel of Michaels Malice and C. Moynihan, who will preview 2015's presidential candidates (frontrunner, longshots, crazies), whiz-bangy technological things, Star Wars, Stephen Colbert, and God knows what else. They will also take part in our 2014 News Quiz.

Well, at least the economy will be booming in 2015, right? NOT IF YOU TALK TO PETER SCHIFF. And so, etc. What about all the cyberwars and such? Cybersecurity person Allan Friedman will suggest some ways to think (and maybe calm down about) our frightening, infowars-style future.

Kennedy will harass civilians about their resolutions, the co-hosts will offer up a few of their own, and you won't want to miss our bah-humbug Black Swan predictions for 2015. It is a rollicking good time, and a perfect way to let your two-day-old hangover finally come down.

Follow The Independents on Facebook at, follow on Twitter @ independentsFBN, hashtag us at #TheIndependents, and click on this page for more video of past segments.

NEXT: Best of 2014: You Won't Believe This Border Patrol Checkpoint Refusal Video

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You sons of bitches would have Moynihan on when I can’t watch the show.

    1. Is he the rakish or elfin of the two?

      If Elfin it would explain why he can’t handle the reason comment trolls.

      1. I’m assuming rakish in Boris Karloff style – pasty white with a case of the inappropriate giggles.

        1. A dark elf sort of elfin?

          1. Delfin is greek for dolphin. You are seeking dark dolphins, sir. That task will not be easy and I regret to inform you that the military has hunted the dark dolphin into a managed extinction and now currently owns an armada of violence-exposed dark dolphins.

            Dark dolphins will not save you on your surf fucking board if a great white needs a snack. Dark dolphins are trained to twitter hysterically as your limbs are ripped off.

            Dark dolphins are not normal.

            1. Ride the wave player

  2. Well, at least the economy will be booming in 2015, right? NOT IF YOU TALK TO PETER SCHIFF.

    “So DON’T talk to Peter Schiff! Like, ever! Listen to us, your true masters! The economy is booming! It is BOOMING! Ya hear?”

    /Shills for the Federal Reserve.

    1. That’s a lot of letters to spell “shrike.”

    2. I’m waiting for Schiff to finally admit he was wrong and say the economy is looking up. That will be my BIG FLASHING Contrary Indicator to quickly invest my fiat currency in a Toyota Hilux with 100+ gallon fuel cells, twin .50s and maybe even a giant crossbow and get the Hell out of Bartertown and head out for the road-less wastes, because the SHIT is about to HTF..

      1. Schiff is a fucking wretched dealer of precious metals… he’s a porridge of the worst fucking amoral tendencies the worst planet the next 34 galaxies can produce. Never trust someone that takes 34 galaxies to find someone more calculated and insidious.

  3. Kennedy will harass civilians about their resolutions,

    Looks like she’s getting into this harassing shtick with too much enthusiasm.

  4. Bleeding Heart Libertarians Asks…

    “In honor of the New Year, let’s begin with a bit of epistemic hygiene. In your opinion, what’s the best argument against libertarianism? What’s the argument against libertarianism that keeps you up at night? The one that makes you uncomfortable? Or that has tempted you away from libertarian positions?”

    1. Re: Bo Cara Esq,

      “In your opinion, what’s the best argument against libertarianism?”

      Normally, the “best” one is normally a variation of “I just don’t want to be free.”

      1. ^ This

        I’ve had a number of people basically say after long debates that they don’t think ‘Freedom’ is all that great to begin with. Either in principle or in practice. ‘Oversold’, shall we say.

        When “individual liberty” is given a zero-value in any socio-economic/political consideration, the libertarian argument has to rely entirely on the case that free markets/strong property rights result in a far more net-net beneficial allocation of resources.

        Which it does… but that isn’t particularly appealing to people who don’t think any particular technology or human advancement has any value it it still fails to ‘provide material equality to everyone’.

        I had one person say (more or less) that if they could wave a magic wand, and trade the entirety of the 20th century of “progress” (*technology, medicine, culture, etc) for “global equality”, they’d do it in a heartbeat.

        They basically thought it would be neat – AND that there would be ‘world peace’ – if we all lived on small (government mandated) farms and had no luxuries to speak of

        (*he also was convinced we’d have plenty of ‘free time’ – which there is some argument for = however, i was skeptical of the relative benefit of leisure for its own sake sans ‘freedom’)

        1. Use the term ‘individual liberty’ in polite company.

          Watch the reaction.

          Take notes.

          For a sociological study or something.

        2. You should ask him ‘free time to do *what*?’

          Sit around to drink and fuck? Stare off into the distance?

          What use if leisure if you don’t have the wealth to fill it?

          1. Not for nothing, but free time on a farm is called winter.

            1. And if you managed to grow and correctly store enough stuff on your farm, you might get to see another ‘winter’.

              1. Why don’t you fucking stop pretending to be a fucking farmer, Hyp?

        3. I’m not sure why I bother, but…there’s a huge gap between ‘freedom is oversold’ and it being given a ‘zero value.’

          1. Do tell?

          2. I was waiting for you to tell me specifically which of your freedoms you were perfectly OK on sacrificing for the ‘greater good’?

            1. You are the lover boy of Christianity who has obviously never studied a single fucking second of the past. Why is Mr. Capitals asking questions about freedom? What the FUCK do you know about freedom, Mr, Capitals. Have you studied censorship lately and it relation to Christianity in this country. You do realize the only fucking reason the horrible virus of Feminism exists in the country is because of the Christians…

              Christ, I appreciate your massive contribution to a shit ton of threads over the years but this does NOT mean you get off light when you play the fool.

              1. You’re basing your perception of me as being “christian” on what?

                that i defend the constitutional freedom of religion?

                I don’t need to believe in god to recognize the first amendment, any more than i need to own any guns to defend the second.

                1. People have the right to worship freely. Absolutely! I will fight for the right for any American to worship their silly religion without government interference

                  People who worship have created considerable obstacles to freedom over the last 200 hundred years in America. Absolutely! These same people have created huge obstacles to human liberty because their bible teaches that Jesus sets the boundaries of ‘freedom’.

                  No true Libertarian wants Jesus or Marxism to set the boundaries of their freedom.

                  1. You said this =

                    “Christians are rabid enemies of human liberty …”

                    And I said this =

                    “Last I checked, people of all major religions simply don’t want their own personal religious practices to be circumscribed, delimited, or regulated.”

                    This makes me “the lover boy of Christianity”

                    1. You’ve spent textual capital on penning a Hobby Lobby description, Mr. Capitals.

                      Major religions have considerable play on local/state/ and federal law. They are like the Fraternal Orders of Police… they have huge impact on state laws and often beyond. They sway politicians. They propose laws through lawyer writs. They can affect the public through pressure.

                      Pastors are NOT immune to fucking with the system. Pastors are often PUSHING local feelings because many of the local authority sits in their pews.

                    2. “Agile Cyborg|1.2.15 @ 9:35PM|#

                      You’ve spent textual capital on penning a Hobby Lobby description, Mr. Capitals”

                      As i said, i support the first amendment. You think Hobby Lobby was decided wrongly? Fine. Say how.

                      But it seems like calling me a ‘christian lover boy’ is being steadily downgraded to “we feel differently about the threat of religion to other people’s liberty’

        4. Pretty sure there isn’t a whole lot of “Free time” left in the day if everyone toils on subsistence farms.

        5. +1 “Escape From Freedom” by Eric Fromm.

    2. In your opinion, what’s the best argument against libertarianism?

      It is sort of a sci fi problem I have.

      In a post scarcity post technological singularity universe what use does human community have if it no longer needed to produce and allocate resources?

      Won’t everyone just fly off into space in different directions never to talk to anyone ever again leaving behind only tyrants and their slaves?

      1. I wouldn’t say that’s an argument against it.

        Well, unless you’re one of those ‘bio-ethicist’ types who worry about assaults on ‘human dignity’ that things like intelligence enhancement, genetic engineering, prosthetic senses, etc represent to them.

        Human community is only worth preserving if it provides something of worth to the people involved.

        Human communities break up all the time – sometimes quite violently when some in a community won’t let others leave. How many civil wars are happening at any one time?

        Plus, to alleviate some of your fears, there will always be scarcity. Its just in the ‘post-scarcity’ society an individual might have the industrial capacity equal to the current wealth of the US. That sounds like a lot, enough to fuel a lot of crazy dreams. Until your dreams involve disassembling Jupiter and turning it into computronium.

        That ain’t a one man job.

      2. I think that there will always be something that is scarce. People have needs beyond material resources. People will find different things to trade and exchange when the things that we worry about now are take care of.

    3. The best argument against libertarianism is the question about taking care of those with no agency (children, animals, the mentally handicapped). That, however, is dwarfed by the best argument against statism (holy shit, look what the government has done now).

      1. That’s a good one, I tend to think charity would take care of that, especially if our burden under government were much lower. But, there could be some tough cases nevertheless.

        1. The issue with the ‘tough cases’ is what, *overall* is better.

          Sure, government may at least attempt to ensure no-one starves (and for the sake of argument let’s say they succeed instead of the normal cock-up these programs usually are) but at what cost?

          People don’t like to think about costs, and that’s at the core of libertarian philosophy – nothing is free, what’s the best way to deliver services.

          We’re considered cold-hearted bastards because when someone puts price on human life we may quibble about the price – but we don’t quibble about the price *tag*.

          1. Good points.

          2. This is a good observation. The failure of a lot of arguments against libertarianism is that they fail when you do a broad enough cost/benefit analysis. The “tough cases” are tough when you have to see them directly. No one wants poverty and want. But, if you are trying to find a utilitarian argument for libertarianism, you have to consider that trying to take care of all of everyone’s needs and wants is very likely to prevent even better things from happening, even if you could do it sustainably, which doesn’t seem to work.

    4. You should post this in a live thread. Maybe the links?

      1. I think this one will become ‘live’ when the show airs.

        1. If you consider dick jokes and making fun of peoples attire ‘live’.

    5. The best argument against libertarianism is libertarians.

      1. Bertrum gets a twinkie with a caveat. Libertarians are the best people ever but they are trapped in the wrong millennium in the wrong political systems.

        1. Hmmm, libertarianism is both compassionate and pragmatic because it considers and takes into account, in the most modern way, the nature of human nature. Because libertarians are human (for the most part) they are susceptible to all the foibles of human character. So, our ideology takes into consideration our shitty and wonderful character which is expressed every day here at H&R.

          1. The very same operating principles are why the free-market era has seen the largest increase in wealth and living standards compared to any other time period in human history.

            Largest by several orders of magnitude – the free-market caused a singularity.

            1. Singularity on the political spectrum leads to collapse, man…

        2. I know right? I should just cram everyone into my time machine and take them to the 25th century Free Republic of Mars (it’s national flag is a Martian holding an ‘assault’ laser rifle in one hand and a joint in the other).

          1. What’s in his other two hands?

            1. His/Her penis AND vagina?

            2. A potato and a portrait of Mark Watney?

              1. A hacked silicone phallic rocket filled with the jerking and humping souls of martian dreams and star sluts is the only thing I’ll accept, Bosephus.

            3. Martian’s don’t have four hands, two of their four arms end in extra mouths that constantly say ‘Fuck you, cut spending’ in Marsese. It’s an evolutionary change from when they had to kick these douchebags off their planet.

              1. Titor is projecting his alien eroticism on this innocent thread. Christ, man, you know you want a ton of martian hands in your butt, bro.

                1. Hey, if I wanted alien eroticism, I’d go to the Ioian Fuck Pits. Martians reproduce like angler fish.

                  1. Fuck Pits? Spacebro, I’m lusting after this Fuck Pit… likely filled with irradiated semen and hot astral babes with three vaginas and twelve tits and super hot fucking effulgent streams of collapsing atoms for hair. Imagine that orgasm… looping pleasure that inverts and then quad escalates into like three wormholes at once… Super-ultra-galactic money shots! Hell yeah!!! Astral hot chick facials!! Space yeah!!!

          2. Fuck Mars. Christ, Titor, you never earned a fucking single twinkie for thinking outside your goddamn solar system did you?!

            1. Oh yeah Agile Cyborg, you go ahead and travel outside the solar system. Good luck dealing with the Gorbuzlug Slave Empire and the Elder Gods. Or those assholes who keep leaving their damn Monoliths in all the good parking spots.

              1. Look at this fucking galactic civilian complaining about the FUCKING potholes on the asteroid belts!

                “Councilor Hot Stuff McVagina why are we tolerating insubordination from this feckless libertariogalactic scum?” SEIZE HIM and toss his ass into the floating lost spheres that never return because no one ever has any fucking idea where they float on the galactic jet streams…

                Christ, what an awful nexus this place has become… we barely have enough Twinkies and dildos to survive the next astral dust devil and those fucking damn Monoliths… Everyone hates those fucking damn Monoliths.

    6. Unregulated, efficient markets aren’t “FREE”, there is always a price to be paid. The price for free markets is spectacular failure for a few, or else risk moral hazard. Sometimes this price is hard to stomach (e.g. dead children in a free health-care market). The counter-argument is that the alternative systems have a higher price, or that charity will ameliorate some portion of the situation, but that counter-argument is relative rather than absolute. My compassion for the “losers” is hard to ignore, even though I know that there will always be losers, and that free markets do the relatively best job of providing for the many.

      1. Please explain the mechanism by which we’d have dead children in a free health care market. Your supposition that the counter-argument is relative isn’t supported by any facts. If there’s one group that generates almost universal support and charity, it’s kids. Now if you want to argue about old people or the poor dying (although that didn’t happen before Medicare and Medicaid so your evidence would be lacking), you might have a point, but again there’s no evidence to support the assertion. People die because they can’t get needed treatment in a tightly regulated market too, so claiming that a free market would also have dead people isn’t a reason to not have it.

        1. Surely we can’t have LESS regulated healthcare markets… what, do you want to descend into ANARCHY man?

          because remember when you had a ‘family doctor’? REMEMBER HOW BAD THAT WAS?

        2. The relative part of the argument is that it is likely that fewer dependants would die of preventable illnesses in an unregulated health care market than a related market. It is relative because it is a matter of degree of how many dependants would die. A free market requires that you don’t save the market failures because it would present a moral hazard, but a related system is claimed to be designed (honestly or not) to protect those who are most likely to suffer from failure in the market. So it is really hard for compassionate people to advocate for a system that requires dependants to die in order to work efficiently.

          Here is more about my question about moral hazard in health care markets:

          1. Not “related market”. “Regulated market” damn you statist auto correct!

    7. There are NO legitimate arguments against libertarianism.

      1. Can’t say I’m surprised this would be your answer. I don’t see you as a guy with a lot, or really any, doubts regarding whether what you think is right and wrong is so (just saying that descriptively not as an insult or praise btw).

    8. BHL hurts my head.It’s like Salon, only slightly smarter.

      ThaomasH Theresa Klein ? 2 hours ago
      Exactly how does Coase solve the atmospheric CO2 externality problem?

      1. Pigou taxes?

        1. How does one solve a non-existent problem?

          /Bleeding Heart Libertarian

          1. Not all libertarians think its a non-existent problem.

            1. My point exactly, Bo. Only the ones with brains and the ability to reason. Which eliminates 3/4 the people at BHL.

              1. Well, this surely isn’t going to help their case with you, but I guess I think AGW is, well, potentially some kind of problem. I think if most scientists say human activity is having some kind of impact, it probably is. Now, when I read those who say that, the scientists now not the alarmist pols who are riding this to try to take ever more power, what I see them saying is that this could, down the road, cause gradual yet potentially significant warming. It also seems to be a pretty ‘diffuse’ problem in that lots of things contribute in ways to the conditions that cause it, and it would be hard to fix every producer with how much of the actual problem they’re ‘causing.’

                OK, then I balance that though with my belief in the NAP (which should trump certain utilitarian concerns, diffuse, gradual, potential ones especially). Also, the activity producing the problematic conditions has vast benefits to human society, so any proposed action has to be balanced off that. Lastly, any action would have to take place in the real world, and I don’t see any treaties or what not that could possibly be enforced in a meaningful way. So long story short, I’m not willing to accept any restrictive government action on the issue.

                1. Keep in mind with the ‘warmist’ – even if they’re right about the warming, they really don’t know shit about the *damage*.

                  Economic models (yeah, I know – fucking models) say to put in place a Pigou tax and walk away. That the increased wealth of the people living in the next century will be more than able to counter any problems from shifting weather/climate.

                  The choice is to spend a fuuuuuuuuuuck-ton of money *now*, when we’re relatively poor (compared to people to be living in the 21st century) or do nothing, let the economy grow and let the extra wealth compounded over that time cover it.

                  The economist tend to go with option two.

              2. I don’t know enough about climate to have an opinion, and frankly I don’t give a shit. Whether AGW is true or not, the answer is to let people accumulate enough wealth that they start caring about the cleanliness of their environment and become willing to pay for technology to maintain their lifestyle with less pollution. Because if a top-down solution is tried, it will inevitably be fucked up. Impoverishing everyone is not an answer.

                1. This is well said.

                  I always compare it to earthquakes. Earthquakes happen, and when they do there are all these people who are in admitted dire straights. I’m not going to deny earthquakes happen. Instead what I say is that their existence does not warrant violating the NAP. People would live outside earthquake zones and private mechanisms and charities would address the problems caused by them in ‘libertopia.’

          2. Non-existant sure, but as a hypothetical, warming is a negative externality. You solve negative externalities by attaching Pigou taxes to the action causing that externality, allowing markets to accurately price the damage of the externality.

            Of course, that limits government intervention to setting that tax which is why ‘warmists’ and leftists of all stripes like to pretend the concept doesn’t exist.

            1. Externalities are eliminated by eliminating limited liability…a VERY libertarian position.

              1. eliminating limited liability would cause incomparable damage to an economy – to the point that it would likely destroy it.

                Even in the libertarian future of subscription courts you’re going to find some flavor of LL.

                1. Would it destroy it? Limited liability is not something that has existed throughout all history.

                2. I recant my position (or allow me to clarify). I didn’t mean eliminating limited liability wrt investors. I see NO problem with an investor being able to assume the company in which he’s investing is not bringing harm to another.

                  Decision makers OTOH (CEOs, BoDs…) You should be able to take the gold fillings out of their kid’s teeth. While it may not cover the damages, it will significantly dissuade malfeasance.

              2. Eliminating limited liability as a government-mandated system? Or eliminating businesses as distinct legal entities from their owners?

                1. The thing is, in libertopia there’s precious little difference between a government and a legal entity.

                  But, IMO, businesses as a separate entity from their owners/operators/employees would still stand under any number of optional legal systems. The advantages, both to the business and the economy at large, are too great to easily pass up.

                  1. Plus, simply eliminating LL is going to be of little effect in cases where the damage to any one plaintiff are going to be infinitesimal.

                  2. in libertopia there’s precious little difference between a government and a legal entity.

                    There’s a huge difference, legal entities would have power.

    9. I’ll go with the one that Team Red makes: People in general won’t go for it, so you need to back my team which at least pays lip service to some of the things you like.

    10. The only real argument against is the ‘lifeboat’ argument.

      That, in a lifeboat with limited resources, someone needs to take power to ensure equitable distribution of those resources, stop hogs, and make the hard decision.

      The counter to this is:

      1. What’s to stop the guy who takes charge from abusing his authority? The best counter to this seems to be ‘democracy’.

      2. We don’t live in a fucking lifeboat on the edge of extinction.

    11. OK, I’ll give mine. It’s the variants of the argument that following the NAP will lead to conditions that undermine the NAP. For example, following the NAP regarding migration/immigration could create political conditions that destroy a minimal state, or allowing unrestricted campaign spending could empower a regime of rent seeking interests, cronys and their paid and bought for pols, etc. I don’t think these are going to happen, but I don’t rule out its impossible.

      1. First – you seem to accept as an axiom that there will be a single, large, unified polity, or at least that polities are not something that will be created and dissolved at the whims of their citizens.

        In the libertarian future, the United State does not exist. So immigration to the people’s republic of Massachusetts isn’t going to have a lot of direct influence on the Arizona Territories.

        Second – if some filthy commie types want to infiltrate the AZT government – then the fractions of the AZT that don’t wish to go along will simply secede and create a new polity. And anyone who tries to stop us gets shot in the face – no NAP violation needed to *leave* a union unilaterally, its your right to freedom of association.

        Thirdly – Unrestricted campaign spending can only empower these rent-seekers, cronies, and their pols in a *strong government*.

        1. Well, yes, the arguments I’m talking about are of the kind where the conditions of a libertarian state (or states) leads to a non-libertarian state. So on one hand I guess you can say ‘well, when that campaign spending buys the government and it starts exercising NAP violations left and right, that’s no longer libertopia and therefore this is not a criticism of libertarianism.’ On the other hand if libertopia leads to something like that, then that’s kind of a problem for libertopia.

          Again, I don’t think any of these scenarios will occur, just saying these are, to me, the strongest potential arguments tempting me to betray the NAP.

          1. Its no more a problem for libertopia *than the CURRENT* system, which does the exact same thing.

            don’t make the mistake of comparing libertarianism to the real world and ‘conventional’ government to what it says in the textbooks.

            1. I hear you, I guess I’m saying if the debate is between ‘libertopia’ which currently does not exist and some also ideal not yet existing alternative that includes restrictions on campaign funding to prevent rent seeking/cronyism.

              1. Does a libertarian community which generally upholds the wealthy (like past and current societies) have the capacity to NOT be a derivative of its wealthiest?

                In other words, a libertopia finds itself like the Cretes… on an island and rather wealthy… What if the wealth was NOT necessarily of libertarian origin and, instead, was oriented from a religious or cosmopolitan communism streak of rich that COULD affect communal change that promoted satisfaction of the disaffected within the libertopia?

                1. I think for many wealthy people in the current system libertopia would be their greatest fear.

                  1. Yes! I am very familiar with wealth and it is stuffy, predictable, and enormously controlling… Liberty within wealth is secretive and off-putting.

                    I have zero fucking idea why libertarians love the ultra-rich.

          2. Bo, are you an anarchist? I ask because I believe that strict adherence to the NAP leaves no other choice.

            1. I certainly feel pulled (or pushed?) in that direction more and more when trying to line up various issues and the NAP (which I think is a moral imperative I’m ready to stake all on frankly).

        2. The tricky part is getting from here to the libertarian future that you describe without losing important libertarian principles.
          This seems to be the biggest driver of the big immigration debate among libertarians. There are those, like me, who try to stick to the purely principled view of open borders and those who think that that inevitably makes the country move in a less libertarian direction.
          How much can you sacrifice your principles to get from here to where we want to be?

          1. It would be less a conflict of principles and fears if we were free to move those borders without worrying about getting shot in the face.

            1. Open borders is not a strict application of NAP.

              Say I am Gulliver and a million tiny ppl sneak onto my ‘land’. They will claim I was not using each little part and cannot claim ownership of the whole thing.

              They would argue that their ability to live off a tiny portion of what I said was mine only…logically destroys my right to property. Their need my use. From each according to possession, to each according to need.

              In reality property rights social justice.

              The idea a person can own land is itself the core of this issue. Can it be done?

              My next question would then be: if all of latin america immigrated to the USA and it was very full (of brown ppl) and then Europe collapsed financially and all the white folks wanted assylum in the USA, would you let them in?

              The answer is obviously no. And it’s not because ppl hate NAP, its because SJW’s feel we ‘owe’ brown ppl some inherent debt.

              Open borders is not about NAP, its about social justice and importing poverty level conditions (specific type of supply to meet corporate worlds ‘demand’).

              The Native Americans did not believe in the idea of owning land. Napoleon claimed ownership of the new world without even occupying it. Somewhere between these 2 extremes lies our conception of property rights. If you believe in even a weak version of property rights, then Gulliver can tell the little ppl to fuck off. Even if he is a hyper-pure anarchist.

              1. Open borders is not a principled stand, it’s a temporary adoption of Native American conception of property rights. It’s inconsistent with our traditional perspective on NAP.

              2. system ate my greater than signs.

                Meant to say

                In reality property rights ‘are greater than’ social justice.

        3. So the libertarian future is Snow Crash?

    12. That’s a good question. It’s good to examine your beliefs like that. It’s too easy to get stuck in an echo chamber and no one’s beliefs are as fully rational as they like to think.

      I think that the best argument against it is that most people don’t seem to want it. I have some hope that that can change, especially as technology makes it easier for more people to be able to find ways to independently make a living. But I have little hope of any sort of pure libertarian minarchy will happen. I think that the best case is probably that technology will enable people to be more free in spite of government interference.

    13. “” is the answer to all of those questions.

      1. Also not surprised you’re not a fan.

        1. We know how clever you are.

          1. quit it. You are both clever when the sun sets especially. Both adorable fucking hacks. Both nutty fucks. Both worth a brain skim. Argue on- just had to emote.

            1. Gilmore’s shown up and the party’s not directed by or about him, and that’s the WORST.

              1. “the party’s not directed by or about him”

                Did you bake a cake?

                1. Take your enormous dick out and smash the fuck outta the cake.

  5. The Much Maligned Mr. Scrooge

    “Scrooge is no Grinch. Indeed, Scrooge is a very sympathetic character indeed?and one who exemplifies the good that can come from the pursuit of profit…

    Scrooge’s denial of aid to the poor seems to be based on his view that he’s already contributing to this through taxes, supporting both workhouses and prisons. Would he have helped the poor if these institutions didn’t exist? We simply don’t know…

    Scrooge does begrudge Bob Cratchit his paid day off at Christmas. But it’s still he who initiates the conversation about this, offering a paid holiday to Cratchit, even though it seems that he himself intends to work…

    what of the last two charges?that Scrooge demands payments from his debtors, and he shuns the company of his fellow man? Well, Scrooge can’t really be criticized for requiring the payments due to him that were agreed to by his trading partners. And…he can hardly be blamed for having a more reclusive personality. Indeed, even his own nephew notes that Scrooge’s lack of sociability hurts no one but himself.

    Scrooge, then, isn’t as bad as he’s made out to be.”

    1. Sounds like one of those exercises one of the old rhetoric teachers would assign.

    2. In real world capitalism Scrooge would have to move his shit to China work factories where fucking poorest of the poor Asians have to work for next to nothing because there are so many humans who will work for next to nothing. Hence the lack of robots in China.

      Honest and libertarian-minded Americans will refuse to be treated like shit by their asshole employer which means old amazing Scrooge would have the shittiest crackhead employees ever if he stayed here in ‘Murica. All due respect to the crackheads.

      1. Wait a minute, what if Scrooge was a robot? Christmas Carol meets Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

        1. This will take a long time, you might want to get some snacks.

          1. Moving to china is unnecessary if china’s system is imported to USA.

            When you import slave labor you don’t need to outsource to slave nations.

        2. Scrooge is an old man dildo. No one knows this but one person in the book who was fired because she decided to ride Scrooge’s bald head. I guess dildo equals robot, Bosephus.

      2. They are starting to buy robots in China. I personally oversee the production of quite a few of them.

        1. Shut up, Zeb, If you fuck with my post I will personally dispatch ninjas who will dispatch you with an efficiency only witnessed by cell division. I think cell division is efficient or something.

      3. Scrooge was in England.

      4. Honest and libertarian-minded Americans . . .

        It got nothing to do with ‘honest’ or ‘libertarian-minded’ and all to do with *wealthy* Americans not *having to do anything to put food on the table*.

    3. I’ve mulled this topic over a couple of times. Aside from Dickens’ palpable disdain for the low church and non-conformist sects (of which, it is implied, Scrooge is a member), we’re left with the question of how exactly Scrooge got to be so rich. Generally, mean-spirited misers don’t become wildly successful. People prefer to do business with people they find reasonably pleasant and trustworthy. Moreover, Scrooge is most certainly not portrayed as being the kind of risk-taker who’d parlay a fortune. Honestly, it would be much more likely the post-haunting Scrooge who’d amass the sort of fortune he’s implied to have.

  6. Kennedy does not have crystal balls. Stop it, scribe and now TV bobblehead (stated with an obtuse love, Welch).

    1. How do you know what kind of balls she has?

      1. What kind of balls does bro bo want delectable Kennedy to have?

        1. Ben Wa?

  7. C. Moynihan’s twitter feed and ensuing jibber-jabber neurals makes me appreciate my years-ago rejection of twitter. Snark is rather wonderful but too few characters makes it bark way too fucking loudly.

    1. It would be a shame to constrain you to 140 characters at a go.

      1. Zeb earns 3 geishas. Should be shipped by Monday I presume.

  8. Kennedy will harass civilians about their resolutions

    I hope Kennedy’s resolution is to stop lashing out irrationally and interrupting people.

    1. Sez the rebel.

      1. Yeah, an avowed Rebel suddenly has scruples about lashing people.

        1. An avowed Rebel SCUM at that, Not GKC.

  9. Dude thats some pretty crazy stuff man.

    1. Suck my cock, 32.

      1. Hey, that didn’t rhyme!

        1. Sperm decided a rhyme wasn’t likely this Friday evening, flying fire.

  10. Almost every anti-libertarian argument I’ve heard boils down to some version of “but if we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton?”

    That said, the most convincing anti-libertarian argument I can think of appeals to consistency. Almost everyone has made use of govt programs. Can people who got money for college from the GI bill legitimately complain about people on food stamps? Can Social Security recipients legitimately complain about money paid to military contractors? Can graduates with govt student loans legitimately complain about bank bailouts?

    If someone is handing out pizza and you take some, any criticism you make of the pizza giver loses its punch. Think of all the heat Ayn Rand got for taking Social Security.

    The only counter I have is to say that in a freer society, I would have less need to accept govt bennies to improve my situation.

    1. I don’t think this is much of an argument against libertarianism. Maybe it’s the heart of a charge of hypocrisy flung at libertarians (though since we don’t have much choice or say in the taking of our wealth to be put into these monopolistic programs I’m not sure that even works), but at the most it amounts to ‘hey, we’ve never let the conditions you desire to be in effect and look at you living other than you would if those conditions were in effect!’

      1. This. Derp, that’s a common argument, but not a particularly convincing one.

    2. If someone is handing out pizza and you take some, any criticism you make of the pizza giver loses its punch. Think of all the heat Ayn Rand got for taking Social Security.

      It isn’t a sound argument because Rand paid Social Security taxes just like I pay gasoline taxes for the road and two income taxes to fund state and Federal programs.

      If you’re robbed you aren’t legitimizing the theft if you take back some of the money from the robber if he offers it to you.

      1. If you’re robbed you aren’t legitimizing the theft if you take back some of the money from the robber if he offers it to you.

        But you don’t take some of the money back, you take back more. If everyone had “paid in” how can we be gazillions in debt?

        Accepting stolen money is morally wrong. Having been robbed in the past doesn’t make it morally right.

        Social Security is a glaring example of this. People who receive hundreds of thousands more than they “paid in” are also certain that stealing from future generations is moral because they “paid in”.

        Two government wrongs most certainly do not make a right.

    3. I’d throw out a constitutional question: The 6th Amendment says criminal defendants have the right to *compulsory process* to get defense witnesses.

      What about the witness’s rights?

  11. In defense of Mr. Potter from “It’s a Wonderful Life”

    First, the guy is in a wheelchair. I can’t bring myself to be angry at someone who can barely move. And I can’t help but admire the guy for being a shrewd businessman in spite of his disability. Potter even tried to give his nemesis George everything he wanted- travel, good pay, and secure employment. That’s a lot more than anyone else in the town offered him- including his own family!

    He did steal that envelope full of money from Uncle Billy. That’s bad, although Billy was an irresponsible drunk and somehow gets a pass for that.

    Finally, Potterville looked like a much more fun place to visit that Bedford Falls. Maybe if Potter had been in charge from the get go, George would have not been itching to escape.

    1. Is there anyone who upon watching that film doesn’t want to kill Uncle Billy with their own two hands?

      1. Tie the old cripple down and face fuck him with a massive black plastic cock that is what, bro bo.

    2. FDR was also in a wheelchair.

      1. I believe somebody said something about facefucking the cripple?

        1. I can call thee bro bo also, how piquant.

  12. Teaching maths:


    I’ve seen a variation of this joke with Arabic in place of Spanish in the last part.

    1. “Forecast: Teaching Math In 2013 and on.

      Who cares, just steal the lumber from your rich neighbor’s property. He won’t have a gun to stop you, and the President says it’s OK anyway cuz it’s redistributing the wealth.”

      1. “Trick question, the lumberman has software to figure that stuff out. Either that or an accountant who’s robbing him blind.”

        1. English Literature final exam:

          “Fill in the blank: I’m a __________ and I’m OK.”

          1. I’m a subverted colloquial and I’m OK.

    2. The Arabic one is presumably for Europe.

  13. Bent Hoops?

  14. Oh there’s worse than Jeb.

    1. Who… the fucking slimey fuck with 16 arms on that planet in the zerxus galaxum NASA has yet to discover?

  15. Santorum? For the Derp?

  16. The Independents Attire Review, 02 January 2015

    Social Justice-League-Edition

    Moynihan Wins.

    (really. you look great Mike)


    1. Why do you love Mike so? He’s not even European and rich?

  17. Rand would mop the floor with Warren in a debate.

  18. Hillary has never smelled like a new car.

    I’m thinking a couch that had a St Bernard sleep on it.

  19. For real = Warren vs. Paul would be worth watching.

    Edwards? forget it malice.
    Sanders? for the lulz
    Ben Carson? for the extra lulz

    but we should be prepared for Bush III v Clinton II and the subsequent horrors.

    1. Except all they would have to do is show the pictures of Rand sucking up to Al Sharpton, and most the Republican base will stay home…

    2. Bush the horrible corpse has already been chosen by the despicable establishment filth called American GOP.

      American politics is trickle down. NEVER grass roots or truly original.

  20. How can you be ‘kinda the antichrist’?

  21. No one wants Kennedy’s “special prize”.

    1. Only if Kennedy’s special prize includes her entire body wrapped in plastic and sent to Ohio for a weekend. In this case, YES!

  22. Kennedy is working blue tonight?

  23. Aren’t we still in the RE bubble, along with an Ed bubble?

    1. Bro bubble earns the rotunda award, sis.

    1. Bro, do you even lift Shift?

      1. Sez the shifty scummy…

        1. Isn’t there another thread you could be defacing?

        1. Auto-clutch doesn’t count.

  24. We’re leaving 13k TARGETS IN Afghanistan.

    That is the plan… yay.

  25. The world’s complicated.

    Fa sho.

  26. Crimea river, Moynihan!

  27. education is forbidden!

  28. Rand Paul will hit the Paul ceiling his father established.

    8% peanuts. Tops.

    1. Here he is, and right on topic.

      Everyone’s favorite chancre sore.

      1. I believe it is “canker”.

        1. A chancre 1] is a painless ulceration (sore) most commonly formed during the primary stage of syphilis. This infectious lesion forms approximately 21 days after …


        2. Palin’s Buttplug|1.2.15 @ 9:43PM|#
          “I believe it is “canker”.”

          Turd, you bleeve Obo is the savior!
          Fuck off.

      2. Rising corporate profits explained.…..gins?ifp=0

  29. Tying a cherry stem into a knot is not a treat, it is the promise of a treat.

    Just saying!

  30. Drop there pants and cry in front of their computers?

    I think you mixed your metaphors, Welch, unless you’ve been doing it wrong.

  31. the core problem with

    “Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism”

    The latter will always be subject to the former.

    everything i read there basically sounds like endless arguments (from a libertarian perspective) why “progressive liberalism isnt really all that bad””

    Like they’re trying to get laid @ a party full of academic progs. Which should be unsurprising, since it seems that most writers there are academics whose colleagues are all progs.

    oh, and Thomas Jefferson is a rapist, duh

    1. Either that or they are taking the most simple philosophy in the world, and trying to make it sound complicated to show their liberal pretentious academic cohorts how smart they are.

      1. property rights are complicated

        Does employment in a free market really involve coercion?”

        Regardless of whether one piece ends up slightly more on the side of “pro-property” or “no, contracts entered voluntarily aren’t coercion”… another will fall on the other side, and they will waffle endlessly about the ‘complicating factors’ that belie their ostensible libertarianism.

        As far as i’m concerned, they’re utterly useless.

        as bo noted above = “there’s a huge gap between ‘freedom is oversold’ and it being given a ‘zero value”

        sure –

        but when you’ve given up the ghost and said, “Ok, i’m willing to sacrifice some people’s freedoms in exchange for greater ‘economic justice'”, you’ve pretty much given up the whole thing. Yes! its *not* COMPLETE TOTALITARIANISM… but it just means you’re sure as fuck not a libertarian.

        Sort of like how you can’t be ‘half pregnant’, I’m generally disinterested in people who say they’re mostly for freedom, ‘with exceptions’.

        1. Kinda the antichrist?

        2. To quote the estimable Toddy Seavy on the Bleeding Heart Libertarians =

          Sticking [John] Rawls into libertarianism is like attaching a washing machine to a souffl?

          To add to that =

          I think ‘political intellectuals’ have way too overblown notions of themselves as being significant to *actual* political debates.

          I am personally a ‘policy person’. I care about actual laws and how they affect real people. Not about abstruse academic horseshit. Sure = I read that stuff for fun. But their over-wrought debates about the philosophical limitations of ‘property rights’ mean fuck-all in terms of things like ‘Civil Asset Forfeiture‘ by police or the IRS

          …a subject about which – looking just now – they have all of ONE article about… and its just a one-paragraph comment on some other piece by someone else.

          Which is basically my point – they’re far more concerned with ‘libertarianism’ as some kind of fucking academic posture = and seem to have nearly zero perspective on the real world outside and its very ‘unlibertarian reality’

        3. On the other hand, maps are not the territory, and ideologies, not even my personal favorite, are probably going to be 100% perfect guides to reality 100% of the time.

          I don’t just mean compromises that are inevitable in democracies. I mean that while I think libertarian principles are, on the whole, excellent ideological guidelines, I’m not going to rule out the possibility that in some situations they might result in absurdities that non-libertarian solutions might fix.

          I don’t think that’s being “half-pregnant,” I think it’s more of an acknowledgement that humans, and their conceptions, are often flawed. But then, I’m just not a purist by nature.

          1. ” while I think libertarian principles are, on the whole, excellent ideological guidelines, I’m not going to rule out the possibility that in some situations they might result in absurdities that non-libertarian solutions might fix.”

            See: foreign policy

          2. “ideologies, not even my personal favorite, are probably going to be 100% perfect guides to reality 100% of the time.”

            Natch, and i entirely agree.

            My point above you re: “i’m a policy person” was more to that idea. I’m not interested in the kind of intellectual waffling these BHL people do about the ‘finer points’ of libertarian ideas, and far more interested in the practical problems out in the day to day world – something they seem to be entirely oblivious of.

            nevermind that from the POV of the intellectual-libertarians that i’m just a ‘classical liberal’ when it comes down to it. I’ve never seen what the litmus test is supposed to be there anyway.

          3. This is where science fiction can play a role.

            What are the consequences of a truly Libertarian society?

            On the one hand, you have F. Paul Wilson’s LaNague Federation which is a semi-serious attempt at building one.

            More tongue in cheek, you have H. Beam Piper’s Planet for Texans, where it’s permissible to murder politicians who make awful laws (the one in the book was an income tax)

  32. Not Dahbs!

  33. I’m enjoying the big “ape-rising” scene in Conquest of…. 3rd best PotAs movie. Slightly better than Battle for…. Way better than Escape From…

    1. It’s like the Occupy Wall Street movement, only with less feces throwing.

  34. Sounds pretty solid to me dude. WOw.

  35. Up to I saw the paycheck which had said $7546 , I did not believe that…my… best friend was like realie bringing home money parttime from their laptop. . there sisters neighbour haz done this less than 14 months and recently repayed the morgage on their condo and got Alfa Romeo .
    Learn More Here ~~~~~~

  36. my classmate’s ex-wife makes $81 /hour on the computer . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her pay check was $18269 just working on the computer for a few hours. check…………..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.