Libertarianism

Anti-Libertarian Mad Libs

Behold the secret formula for lousy anti-libertarian writing

|

Well, isn't that a special report! |||

The other week Robert Kuttner, co-founder of The American Prospect, put online his winter-issue rant, headlined "The Libertarian Delusion," featuring one of the better all-time Mad Libs lead paragraphs. I'll underline some words so you can see what I mean:

The stubborn appeal of the libertarian idea persists, despite mountains of evidence that the free market is neither efficient, nor fair, nor free from periodic catastrophe. In an Adam Smith world, the interplay of supply and demand yields a price that signals producers what to make and investors where to put their capital. The more that government interferes with this sublime discipline, the more bureaucrats deflect the market from its true path.

But in the world where we actually live, markets do not produce the "right" price

So let's rewrite, changing the underlined words:

The stubborn appeal of the progressive idea persists, despite mountains of evidence that increased government intervention is neither efficient, nor fair, nor free from periodic catastrophe. In a John Maynard Keynes world, the federal goosing of aggregate demand yields economic growth that signals producers what to make and investors where to put their capital. The more that deregulation interferes with this sublime discipline, the more one percenters deflect the economy from its true path.

But in the world where we actually live, central planners do not produce the "right" economic growth

See how easy that is?

When you start to view the increasingly crowded genre of anti-libertarian commentary as a formula into which any undergrad with a keyboard can add inputs, some clearly identifiable patterns emerge. Breaking the pieces down this way also makes them considerably more enjoyable, as in this latest screed from Salon:

Name: Conor Lynch, Salon

Heavy-breathing headline:

Welcome to "Libertarian Island": How these One Percenters are creating a dystopian nightmare

Take Ayn Rand, some tech billionaires and Rand Paul—and the result is a scary new movement. Here's their plan

Fanatical utopianism alert:

It is a utopian ideology, as was communism, that has an almost religious-like faith in the free market, and an absolute distrust of any government.

The stated fear:

The problem with self-regulation is that, consumers do not know what goes on at a corporation behind closed doors, so how would they force a company to act ethically if they are not aware of their misdeeds.

The more plausible fear:

While overall, Silicon Valley still supports the Democrats over Republicans, it would not be surprising to see a shift in the coming years. The libertarian philosophy is very attractive to those who worship technology and entrepreneurship, which is nearly all of the techies. And with millions of potential campaign dollars coming out of the valley, it could very well be a problematic territory for liberals in the future.

(Heavily disputed) history proves it:

More recently, the lack of regulation in the financial industry, particularly in derivatives, contributed to one of the worst economic crises in history, and hurt many people in the process.

Mandatory Koch Brothers reference:

The famous oil billionaire Koch brothers, who are also fanatic libertarians, have knowingly avoided regulations, and have hurt people in the process. 

Fragrantly terrible writing:

Had the government not gone after Google for privacy violations, users would have never known. Google and other tech companies have a constant crave for innovation over everything, and bypass things like privacy when they get in its way. 

Deconstruct your own anti-libertarian screeds at home! (And please share in the comments….) Some other recent Reason commentary about our anti-libertarian friends on the left and right:

* Sheldon Richman, "Another Would-Be Critic of Libertarianism Takes on a Straw Man"

* Jesse Walker, "Social Conservative Worries That the GOP Is Getting More Libertarian, And Also That It's Getting Less Libertarian"

* Nick Gillespie, "Libertarians Will Never Be Successful Because EDWARD SNOWDEN"

NEXT: Surprise: Cops Write More Tickets When Their Employers Get a Big Cut of the Cash

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. But in the world where we actually live, markets do not produce the “right” price.

    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

    Thomas Sowell

    1. I was curious what he meant by “right” price as well, and how he determined such. His first example:

      Global climate change is the most momentous. The price of carbon-based energy is “correct”?it reflects what consumers will pay and what producers can supply?if you leave out the fact that carbon is destroying a livable planet. Markets are not competent to price this problem. Only governments can do that.

      I am curious about how competent he actually believes government has been at pricing the problem. I mean, if they’ve been competent at it, then it shouldn’t be a problem any more, should it? Does he believe global climate change is still a problem?

      1. For some bizarre reason, the most environmentally devastated countries in recent history all have or had command-style economies.

        I know, I know, they had the right ideas but wrong leaders. Next time it’ll be different!

      2. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the government must price fossil fuels is in the pocket of Big Oil. Everyone knows this.

        You see, it is the responsibility of government to raise the price that people pay for fossil fuels, so as to cause them to buy less and find alternatives such as solar or wind.

        Likewise it is the responsibility of government to raise the price that employers pay for young and unskilled labor, which will not cause employers to hire fewer of such workers or find alternatives such as automation.

        Government is magic!

        1. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the government must price fossil fuels more is in the pocket of Big Oil.

          At one point, IL, Cook County, and Fedgov were collecting $0.80/gal. *already*. Only $0.011 of that going to pay “environmental taxes”. The rest is, apparently, various forms of overhead.

          I’d be more than willing to hand over $0.80 in fuel taxes to help the environment, so long as it’s not in addition to the taxes already levied.

          Hilariously, these are all the taxes that suddenly get waived when demand goes up and supply drops. So, literally, the IL gov’t says, “You really wanna burn more fossil fuels that bad, huh? Well, fuck the overhead and/or the environment, here’s a little extra so you can drive that SUV around despite any ability to supply you with gas.”

      3. Such an outdated argument.

        It’s as if he has not heard anything about carbon taxation or pricing in externalities via liability.
        If one can prove that a particular harm is caused by carbon emission, then , according to every libertarian legal theory one is perfectly justified in filing suit to claim damages.

        Of course, many libertarians are fine with a carbon tax for simplicity as long as it is set in a scientific way and the proceeds actually go to compensate people affected by climate change.

        1. He is in no way smart enough to think at that high of a level. He’s claiming only governments can fix climate change, while ignoring that governments have utterly failed to fix climate change. The only other alternative is that he believes we really have been in a completely free market, and that government finally needs to step in and do something.

          In other words, he’s an idiot.

      4. The moment I read this paragraph, I knew that anything following would just be some sort of bloviation, and therefore, there was no need to read any further. I thank the author for saving me time and grief.

      5. Maybe robc is busy this afternoon, so in his stead:

        Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase Coase

        1. I think you mean Coase, right?

      6. So far governments have not been competent in proving that global warming IS an actual problem in the first place.

        1. Eh, I was just trying to follow the author’s internal logic and was stipulating to his premise for the sake of argument.

      7. the fact that carbon is destroying a livable planet.

        It’s really tough to unpack this much concentrated idiocy.

        I think he’s a Horta.

        1. More like “carbon is necessary for a livable planet in the first place.”

      8. And my counter-question is how good is Mr. Lynch’s government at costing it’s actions? For example, if AGW proves false, how much will he have to pay for imposing any errant policy on others? Nothing? It’s all going to be on the oil companies or “the rich”? Well, then, as far as I’m concerned he can go fuck himself.

      9. And my counter-question is how good is Mr. Lynch’s government at costing it’s actions? For example, if AGW proves false, how much will he have to pay for imposing any errant policy on others? Nothing? It’s all going to be on the oil companies or “the rich”? Well, then, as far as I’m concerned he can go fuck himself.

        1. Even if AGW theory proves correct, will the proposed fixes work? And even if they work, will they be worth the economic cost they impose?

      10. People love to ignore the positive externalities and with fossil fuels, there are a lot, including not cutting down all of the forests for fuel, cleaning up cities so they aren’t full of horse shit all the time, and providing and easily portable and readily available fuel that can be used to increase human well being in many, many ways. It seems to me that it is far from clear that the problem of climate change is one that should have a price. The great majority of people in the world benefit from the use of fossil fuels. Outside of accidents and the direct effects of drilling and mining, for which it is pretty easy to compensate people who are harmed, there are probably not many people who lose more than they gain from the use of fossil fuels.

        The of course, there is the ridiculous hyperbole of “destroying a livable planet”.

        1. And you didn’t mention the positive externalities of a warming climate, if one exists, whatever the root cause of such warming.

    2. Another important truth is that many consumers usually continue willfully using products, even if a company has done something that is contrary to their moral beliefs. It is a sort of hypocritical selfishness where one puts comfort or convenience over ethics. Just look at Apple: everyone is aware of the appalling factory conditions and the tax avoidance, but that doesn’t stop many people from buying the latest iPhone.

      Besides not setting the ‘right’ price, the market is pretty damn screwed up in that it gives people what they want rather than what they ‘should’ want. People ‘should’ want to value ethics over comfort or convenience, but those selfish hypocritical bastards keep buying cheap shit instead of organic, fair-trade, free-range, locally-sourced, artisanal grade bullshit like what Salon puts out.

      1. “The market doesn’t work because it doesn’t hit, shoot, stab, beat, kidnap and extort people nearly enough!”

      2. Tax avoidance?! The horror! How dare anyone pay less in taxes than they have to.

    3. So markets don’t create the “right” price, even when buyers and sellers freely agree on it? Do we need Top Men to set the prices so the market doesn’t just clear, but serves social justice?

  2. Most anti-libertarian writing that I’ve read starts from the generally incorrect assumption that libertarians are completely egoistic and wish to harm others. You don’t find this cynicism in comparable writing on other political ideologies. Even the libertarian critique of progressivism usually starts with the admission that progressives are driven by good intentions and genuinely believe they are doing good.

    1. assumption that libertarians are completely egoistic and wish to harm others

      It’s called projection. Note the constant use of the terms “fanatic” or “utopian” or “absolute”. Coming from people who worship the state and politicians.

      Projection is part and parcel of the prog existence. But they do it particularly badly to libertarians, because they actually do not and can not understand libertarians. At all.

      1. All they understand is force, and they don’t even understand that very well. They see liberty as some application of force by the rich and the corporations. Except that only government uses force. Combine that with their total incomprehension of basic economics, and there’s no way they can comprehend libertarianism.

        1. The government doesn’t want to use force. Well, unless it’s controlled by Republicans. The corporations make the government use force. Republicans go along with this willingly, but saintly democrats have to be forced into it by the corporations. They try to stop it but they can’t, which is why they need much, much more power so that they can.

          /progs

      2. Well, there is a tendency to conflate “egoism”, which is a moral philosophy that espouses self-interest, with “libertarianism” which is a political philosophy that espouses non-violence and self-ownership.

        To be fair, this is mostly the fault of writers like Ayn Rand.

        But libertarianism in the political sphere does NOT inherently entail egoism in the personal sphere. In fact, egoism can co-exist with pretty much any political system, and if anything libertarianism TAMES egoism by (first) acknowledging that all humans are basically egoistic, and (second) providing a legal framework in which a bunch of raging egoists can co-exist in a peaceful, cooperative, and productive society.

        1. ^^^This. I want everyone to have access to high-quality, affordable health care. I don’t want people to suffer. I don’t want people to die from a lack of care. But government is what makes care expensive and government is what restricts access to care. But when I oppose single-payer and expansion of the government into healthcare I’m called all sorts of hateful things. Never mind the people that suffer or die because the wonderful socialist systems in their country has rationed care.

          1. I just want people to be free to make whatever voluntary mutually beneficial arrangements they wish to provide for their healthcare. If people want to form health cooperatives where everyone pays in an equal amount every month and then is completely covered when they get sick, they should be able to. They just shouldn’t be able to force anyone else to join to co-op.

            Heck, if they want to make it a 10 year contract, or a lifetime contract starting at age 18, that should be permitted too. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, be as socialist as you want, amongst yourself.

          2. “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” — Frederic Bastiat

            Of course, when the State is in charge of raising grain, you get… well, there were a few million Ukrainians who could tell you what you get, if Stalin hadn’t starved them to death.

        2. this is mostly the fault of writers like Ayn Rand.

          Oh bull. They’d be just as dishonest without her.

          1. But they’d have to find their ammunition somewhere else. There scarcely exists an anti-libertarian screed that doesn’t use, as it’s sole source of libertarian philosophy, a mischaracterized argument or quote from Ayn Rand.

            1. They’d just lie. That’s all their ammo is.

          2. Well, Rand herself advocated egoism as a moral philosophy, and doesn’t really do anything to separate the libertarianism from the egoism. If anything she’s pretty adamant that libertarianism sans egoism is a terrible philosophy. She really thinks people should do only what is in their self-interest, all the time.

            Note, I’m not arguing that egoism is entirely wrong. My point is that libertarianism and egoism are two different ideas.

            1. But in her view, the charity you do for others, is actually for yourself since you get enjoyment from it, otherwise you wouldn’t do it. To be fair to Rand, no one ever bothers to delve even to those shallow depths while critiquing her argument.

              1. To be fair to Rand, we should note that no one ever bothers to delve even to those shallow depths while critiquing her argument.

              2. Well, Rand is pretty clear that she thinks donating to charity is a stupid thing to do, that most people only do because society mkes them feel guilty.

                1. The heroes of Atlas Shrugged loved giving to charity. Rand herself said that charity was not as great as it was made out to be but not evil.

                  1. Well she was saying that it’s not the altruistic circle jerk that everyone makes it out to be. In her view, giving is about satisfying your own ego. Which might be true 99% of the time but I know for a fact that it’s not, having had a relatively influential empathy chip installed recently…

        3. To be fair, this is mostly the fault of writers like Ayn Rand.

          Rand (and her followers’) main problem on this score is insisting that certain words (egoism, selfishness, sacrifice, altruism) have definitions that hardly anyone else uses.

          For example, a few years ago, Rush Limbaugh said something along the lines of “Americans should appreciate the sacrifices previous generations made.” At least one prominent objectivist freaked out about the word “sacrifice”, insisting that what our forbears did weren’t sacrifices because they didn’t “give up a greater value for a lesser one”, even though Limbaugh pretty obviously was using it the way non-objectivists do, i.e. “giving something up in exchange for something else.”

          1. That we Objectivists insist on using the only meaningful definition of these terms is not a problem. The problems is with everyone else.

            1. Please tell me that’s sarcastic humor.

              1. No, Cytotoxic is quite certain that everything he believes is the one true faith and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

      3. And most of the comments on that last fluff piece at Salon about Ayn Rand, Rand Paul, and Peter Thiel all sounded like they were written by Tony, stuff like:

        Good, I hope all the libertarians move to an island so that we can blow it up!

        Liberals, they’re so funny.

        1. Progressive have this fantasy that if only they can get to their ideal society, that there would be zero political disagreement. Somehow all opposition would vanish and there would be peace and universal acceptance of the essential system. The only disagreement would be debates over things like the exact number of windmills needed to ensure that the transgendered vegetarian commune gets their socially just share of electricity.

          1. Just take your Soma, Hazel. TAKE. IT.

  3. More recently, the lack of regulation in the financial industry, particularly in derivatives, contributed to one of the worst economic crises in history, and hurt many people in the process.

    This is lefty myth much like the righty myth that minorities (CRA) caused the financial crisis.

    Derivatives brought down only one company (AIG) who was stupid enough to insure all the bad MBS created by Wall Street.

    1. No one says minorities caused the financial crisis, you dishonest fuck. The government, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, caused the financial crisis, and then exacerbated it. There is tremendous evidence for these facts, but you don’t care, so just fuck off.

      1. Took five seconds to prove you wrong:

        Yesterday in a House hearing on the financial crisis, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
        spoke on what caused the situation. To make her point, she read from an article called “How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable,” written by Terry Jones in the right-wing publication Investor’s Business Daily.

        The article criticizes the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for pushing “Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities.” Jones goes on to say that Clinton was misguided to push “homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.”

        http://thinkprogress.org/polit…..n-economy/

        1. That’s not blaming minorities; that’s blaming government for imposing lending requirements.

          But idiot trolls can’t be bothered to spot the difference.

          1. There were no lending requirements. Lehman, Bear, Merrill and other Wall St banks were never required to loan a dime.

            And neither were the retail mortgage originators. They loaned to anyone with a pulse so they could book the fees and then sell to the idiots on Wall Street that later failed.

            If the credit agencies had done their job and marked the MBS as “shit” this charade would have been mitigated.

            1. And if the Office of the Comptroller for the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and a number of other Federal Agencies/Federal actors hadn’t moved on behalf of the financial intuitions for whom they truly advocate and thereby preempted each state’s Attorney General from protecting their state’s citizens from predatory lending (et cetera), the whole charade would have been mitigated and some of it actually prevented.

              The Federal government was with the “Too Big To Fail” institutions from the beginning, bailed them out at the expense of taxpayers, and still operates with them/at their behest.

              The “idiots on Wall Street” rotate into and out of the Federal government during lengthy and cozy relationships.

            2. And neither were the retail mortgage originators. They loaned to anyone with a pulse so they could book the fees and then sell to the idiots on Wall Street that later failed.

              Why might they have done this? If you had $100 in your pocket to loan out, would you run up to a homeless bum and hand it to him expecting to be paid back with interest? No? Well would you loan it to the first bum you come across if I promise to pay your losses in the event the loan fails?

              So why do think the banks would do this then? Perhaps because they know the government has promised to cover their losses?

              If the credit agencies had done their job and marked the MBS as “shit” this charade would have been mitigated.

              The government actively threatens and subpoenas the credit agencies when they don’t view risks the way government wants them to.

            3. There were no lending requirements.

              Lies.

              1. But let’s assume Buttplug is right and that the banks were just handing out cash. Why the fuck would they do this? What’s advantage in pissing money away? That’s why this particular conspiracy theory never made much sense to me.

        2. Read Wallison’s dissent from the FCIC for a better explanation of the mechanism than some off-the-cuff remark by a grandstanding backbench congressman. Simply put, the banks were putting an increased focus on subprimes as a way to fulfill CRA targets that were preconditions for merger approval.

          If you ever paid attnetion to the way the regulatory sector works, you would realize just how likely this is.

          http://www.aei.org/wp-content/…..issent.pdf

          1. Wallison “dissent” for real. Even the Republicans thought he was full of shit. He lost 9-1.

            1. That’s a great way to avoid the subject matter. I don’t buy it as a full and complete explanation for the financial crisis, nor did the Republican appointees, but it is a great report on how FedGov policy served as a catalyst for the bubble’s inflation.

              The majority opinion was a total political hatchet job and completely unbelievable; if it just said “DEREGULATION BAAAAAAAAAAD” in big letters on one page it would have provided the same contribution to our knowledge of the subject. The Republicans offered a more complete explanation, but didn’t flesh it out the way Wallison did since they knew they had no chance of winning. Wallison’s report is well reasoned and well sourced and is a useful contribution to any history of the period.

              But hey, stamp your feet and yell “Scoreboard!”. It serves well to show us just how deep you actually think about the subjects you purport to be knowledgeable about.

    2. The CRA did indeed have plenty to do with creating bad loans and contributing to the financial crisis:

      https://reason.com/blog/2012/12…..ent-act-in

      1. For humanity’s sake, Buttplug for Brains, don’t read that article. (Shhh, reverse psychology)

        1. Read the comments. I was active and on point.

          1. The only point you’ve ever had was the at the tip of the dunce cap on your head.

  4. The “right” price? FFS, this is like trying to argue economics with a kindergartener.

    1. Telling someone the right price is any amount I’m willing to pay to someone who’s willing to sell just leaves too much room for error.

  5. What is the “right price”?

    “I’d buy that for a dollar.”

    1. Depends on the product. The right price for anal from Episiarch’s mom, for instance, is indeed a dollar, but you don’t buy it, you only rent.

      1. A dollar?!? You overpaid, dude. But I guess that’s just more money for my college fund. That’s right, I never went to college. I’m thinking of running for office but I’m afraid not having a college degree will disqualify me.

        1. I’m thinking of running for office but I’m afraid not having a college degree will disqualify me.

          Well that or the fact that you view TOS as the best iteration or just maybe because you would call your political opponent a tribalist/totemist in the middle of a debate.

          1. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT KIRK YOU ANIMIST ASSHOLE

            1. TOS was the best, but Kirk was clearly inferior to Picard.

              1. Please. Outside of one quality rant in First Contact, Picard isn’t fit to hold Kirk’s junk.

                1. Picard isn’t the inspiration for every bad acting joke known to man.

              2. Shall we say, when compared to Kirk, Picard was “a 90s man”.

          2. Other than the Abrams movies, which are of course in a class of their own, TOS is the best iteration.

  6. You know what’s worse? Is when someone (a proggie or neocon) tells you, a libertarian, that you don’t really know what libertarianism is all about, and proceeds to tell you what libertarianism is all about. Like, anyone actually believing that stuff must be naive and deluded and must be educated about the Real Libertarian Ideology?

    1. Well, yeah. Libertarians are children who don’t want to ask permission and obey orders. Like children, they are totally naive about what it is that they childishly believe and support. So adults must educate childish libertarians on the ramifications of their childish beliefs, and likewise adults have nothing to learn from childish libertarians about, well, anything. After all, they’re children.

      1. And comically, progressives want to be children, living without the need to make decisions for themselves under the gentle, but sometimes firm (for their own good of course) hand of Daddy Gubmint.

        1. Dude…projection, projection, projection. It’s basically what progs do.

    2. That’s sort of like belonging to a religion. Try being Catholic or Mormon and have all the Baptists explain to you what you really believe and why you are deluded or lying if you don’t agree with them.

      1. That’s not exactly the same for Catholics. As an open, top-down religion, it is actually very easy for outsiders to know what Catholics believe. Mormons, who are second in secrecy only to Scientologists and Clintons, who the fuck knows what they actually believe?

        1. It is easy for outsiders to learn about Catholicism. It doesn’t prevent large swaths of non-Catholics from just making shit up or doing half-assed research when writing about Catholicism.

          1. True.

        2. Mormons, who are second in secrecy only to Scientologists and Clintons, who the fuck knows what they actually believe?

          Yeah, other than having their beliefs in writing in books that they’ll hand out to anyone for free, and holding semi-annual General Conferences where they talk on a worldwide TV and radio broadcast about their beliefs for an entire weekend, and have about 50,000 missionaries in the field at all times going door to door trying to tell people about their beliefs — other than that, those Mormons are totally secretive!

          1. Some details I had to ask the missionaries about, I asked about details I’d read about in a Protestant work, and they confirmed them, but hadn’t volunteered them.

  7. Who said that you should “judge people by the quality of their enemies”?

    By that measure… we’re not doing well. These people are fucking retarded.

    1. Meh, Salon is just trying to piggy-back on the rise of libertarianism into the mainstream by writing click-bait.

      Remember, Salon hasn’t been profitable in years. They very much need something to give their rag attention so they troll libertarians.

      1. makes sense.

        Still, I’d feel better if they assigned Joan Walsh or Thomas Frank to the 2mins Hate task, rather than handing it off to No-Name-20-something morons who seem to be endlessly rediscovering the same ‘frightening’ facts about the evul liburtarian ideology

        1. Frankly, I’d rather not read anything by Joan Walsh, ever, for any reason. I’ve made that mistake too many times, and always regretted the migraine it caused.

      2. Salon is just a make work project for left-leaning idiot hacks.

    2. By that measure… we’re not doing well. These people are fucking retarded.

      Yes we’ve made enemies with the most retarded unthinking band of cretins to ever slide out of their mom’s subsidized birthing tube. I think we’re doing well to have them as eternal foes as opposed to intellectual allies like the socialists would have them.

  8. Salon =

    “jonvaljon 5 minutes ago
    @robjectionable @jonvaljon

    You should ask yourself why the idea of people wanting to do their own thing in their own space without hurting anyone else bothers you so.

    chons 4 minutes ago
    @jonvaljon @robjectionable It’s because them doing their own thing hurts everybody else who can’t afford to.

    1. Whoa. That’s some of the most mask-slippy honesty I’ve seen from a prog. They’re getting less and less good at always hiding their true motivations.

      1. Frankly, I found the comment so stupidly idiotic that I couldn’t help but laugh.

        1. Oh, that goes without saying. But it isn’t just funny, it’s honest.

    2. What a surprise, a progressive who has the same mentality as a 5 year old screaming about the other kid having more building blocks.

    3. So it’s not that the people are leaving, it’s that they have the audacity to take their money with them.

    4. I wonder how much it hurts to be the person who posted that reply. I mean, does it cause them physical pain to think? Or is it no-less-real-but-different psychosomatic pain, due to the inherent cognitive dissonance and teh stoopid they engage in to come to these conclusions?

      Naaaaah – I don’t care. I just wonder how they manage to survive, since they’re clearly not smart enough to feed themselves. Amazing.

    5. It always boils down to envy with the Progressives.

      1. Don’t underestimate them. If they were just jealous they would be easier to deal with. There’s an underlying evil. The smartest Progs… know exactly what they’re doing.

    6. Holy colander was that deeply revealing and unsettling.

    7. It gets worse:

      Yeah, the seasteaders can only live out their libertarian ideal close to shore, where the waters aren’t so rough and there’s a nearby state to help them out if anything goes wrong. Sort of like a kid pitching a little tent in his parents’ backyard and pretending he’s roughing it on his own. After eating the dinner his parents made for him, of course.


      That’s libertarianism for you — nothing but childish clueless pretending all the way down.

      I don’t even…

      1. It burns.

    8. Wait a minute, aren’t they always telling us libertarians to move to Somalia and good riddance, but the minute they think we’re going somewhere they start screaming ‘hey, come back here with my stuff, it’s not fair!’.

      There was some comments on one of the stories over there, yesterday, where a guy was saying, why don’t you liberals work together with us libertarians on stuff we agree about like legalizing gay marriage and weed, and all of the liberals absolutely refused the idea of ever working with evil libertarians on any issues, ever, because, well just because.

      1. You go to Somalia. But your money and all your stuff are still welcome here. You didn’t build that, after all.

      2. It just exposes where their true priorities like. Controlling people’s economic choice always trumps uncontrolling their sex lives.

        I can’t even say “private choices” anymore because liberals want to control what you eat and drink and smoke (if it’s tobacco), and even what you can say (if it’s offensive), so pretty much the only thing they are aligned with libertarians on is penis and vagina related items.

    9. Whats the over/under on the second commenter (the derp one) being a person of comfortable means?

      1. Comfortable enough to dick around on the internet, anyway. I’m sure he smiles when he pays taxes.

    10. Is there a follow up to that? Like “how does that make any sense?”.

      I guess it is either the usual Marxists nonsense that assumes that there is a fixed amount of wealth around to be redistributed or that if successful people are allowed to leave, then we can’t tax them anymore.

    11. “It’s because them doing their own thing hurts everybody else’s feelings who can’t afford to.”

      FTFY.

  9. Progressives seem increasingly frightened of libertarianism. It used to be that it was dismissed with a few jokes, but it feels like word has gone out on whatever replaced JournoList that libertarianism has become a more dangerous enemy, and there’s a coordinated attack going on.

    1. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win get harassed by bureaucrats, then thrown in jail if you still won’t get your mind right, and eventually they just toss aside the mask and try to kill you.

    2. What’s particularly awesome is that they are scared shitless about our philosophy, but they don’t really understand it, because they live in their own insular little thought-circles, where their entire knowledge of libertarian beliefs comes from a straw-man caricature that they’ve concocted amounst themselves.

      This is what makes it so easy to swat down their attacks. You can’t mount an effective critique if you have no idea what you’re actually arguing against. And progressives are so, so, good at insulating themselves from scary outside ideas.

      1. They know that more government is the answer. It’s always the answer, except when it comes to the military.

    3. What’s particularly awesome is that they are scared shitless about our philosophy, but they don’t really understand it, because they live in their own insular little thought-circles, where their entire knowledge of libertarian beliefs comes from a straw-man caricature that they’ve concocted amounst themselves.

      This is what makes it so easy to swat down their attacks. You can’t mount an effective critique if you have no idea what you’re actually arguing against. And progressives are so, so, good at insulating themselves from scary outside ideas.

    4. “Progressives seem increasingly frightened of libertarianism.”

      I noticed several blogs and articles warning the readership (fellow progressives) to start opposing libertarians/libertarian ideas shortly after Rand Paul made inroads among youth and some of the pundits.

      It also seems to me that libertarianism has been growing in popularity since the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul. The more “mainstream” sounding Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and others and their (slightly?) growing influence in the GOP are of great concern as well the establishment Republicans, I think.

      One thing progressives/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans do not want is to lose power. Libertarians pulling voters into their camp is to be avoided. Smear campaigns are one way to prevent losing some of your usual voters.

      1. The idea of youth supporting some ideology other than socialism must be terrifying to them.
        Not only does it undermine their self-image as the vanguard of the future, but it raises the distinct possibility that there is a new vanguard out there and it’s not them.

        1. History is supposed to move in one direction, dammit!

          1. Exactly. Fucking Marxist historical dialecticism. We are eternally progressing towards the ultimate socialist end-state. No other end-state is conceivable.
            This is why they hated ‘The End of History’ so much. It thumbed it’s nose at the Marxists by suggesting that History was progressing towards something else.

        2. I honestly never understood how socialism, if properly understood, is the default “rebellious” ideology of the young. You are actually advocating for MORE control over your life and the lives of others. How is that rebellion?

          1. If the foundation of your worldview is envy, as many parents and institutions teach their children, then I can see how the rich guy down the street is more menacing to you than the “altruistic bureaucrats” that steal so much wealth from you that you never even know you had it.

          2. I’ve never understood how it’s the default ideology of creative artists, who tend to be individualists in other ways.

            1. It’s less painful to be a starving artist when you can authorize 3rd parties to rob your neighbors and give you cut.

            2. Easy answer: How productive are creative artists, really?

              90% of the “artists” I have known have basically been deadbeats who just wanted to screw around and make art, because it’s fun. And it gets them laid.

              So if your life is basically about slacking off and making pottery for fun, why WOULDN’T you support a philosophy that tells you are entitled to a handout ? That way you don’t actually have to produce anything GOOD, you don’t have to make anything that takes real work, that people will actually pay for.
              You can smear feces on a canvas and call it art, and the government will pay you for it. Why wouldn’t creative artists want that?

              1. Because menstrual blood is much more fun?

  10. “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    —-Mahatma Gandhi

    If they’re starting to fight us, I guess that means we’re past stage 2.

    1. *facepalm*

      AND THIS IS WHY SOMETIMES IT HELPS TO READ AHEAD BEFORE POSTING.

      At least I modified it…

    2. “The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

      Just sayin’…

      1. Quote by noted scientist and user of high-grade weed Carl Sagan

        1. Sagan was a Bozo the Clown. His endless quotations explaining the smallness of man are disgusting, he was a worm.

          1. That’s as may be, but with the Libertarian Party holding less that 150 offices nationwide (mostly county and municipal offices) and only a couple of nationally know public figures you can safely ally with I really doubt that victory is around the corner.

            1. And yet you constantly stalk a libertarian website.

              1. Seems like a reasonable observation. I will be very surprised if real no-shit libertarians start to “win” in any significant sense any time soon. Why the hostility?

                1. If you’re asking me personally, I have no hostility. I disagree with a lot of things but I don’t find the whole notion disagreeable. Unless, of course, you feel that anything less than 100% agreement is hostility. I just can’t imagine any situation where a libertopia would, once the details had been worked out, be better or worse than the situation we have now. And I have yet to see an attempt at libertopia that wasn’t a con from the start or an abject failure in the end.

                  From anyone else? People love to click on critiques of libertarians so it’s likely just a business decision. The market has decreed that bashing y’all is good for getting those ad revenues up 😉

            2. Christianity didn’t have any major offices within the Roman Empire–until, suddenly, you couldn’t be the emperor anymore unless you were a Christian.

              Our goal was never to seize the levers of power and inflict libertarianism on America from above.

              We argue, we persuade, we ridicule, we expose…

              We “convert” more and more people to libertarian ideas.

              20 years ago, the idea that there would be gay marriage or that recreational marijuana would be legalized was ridiculous.

              Now we have those things–and hundreds of millions of Americans support them for the same reasons libertarians have been espousing for 45 years.

              Substantive change comes from the bottom up. Electing the right (libertarian) politicians will never be the permanent solution to our problems.

              You couldn’t be the emperor of Rome unless you were a Christian, and 2,000 years later, you still probably can’t be the POTUS unless you proclaim your Christianity. Someday, lasting change may come–because every U.S. president of whatever party feels it necessary to make certain assurances that they believe in libertarian ideals. Just like the Roman emperors had to do with Christianity.

              And that my well happen without any member of the LP ever winning the White House.

              1. Ken, my very first post here was asking how many pro-pot types were real libertarians or if they were just along for the ride. Now, are you sure that those hundreds of millions that you speak of aren’t just picking and choosing the ideas they like out of any context? Are you sure that you aren’t just engaging in wishful thinking and confirmation bias? Perhaps even the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”? It’s entirely possible that liberals and conservatives don’t like, say, being spied on by the NSA without having to have read The Road to Serfdom, you know. It is, in fact, quite possible to disagree with the government or government policies and still not think government is a malevolent, faceless evil.

                As to why I’m here, I’m here to gather information to form opinions. It’s the same reason (!) I go to ThinkProgress or The Blaze.

                1. They may not recognize the ultimate source of their own arguments, but that doesn’t mean those arguments didn’t come from where they came.

                  And, regardless, our impact on public policy isn’t just a function of how many politicians we get elected.

                  The Reverend Martin Luther King’s influence went far beyond what would have happened if he had been elected to some national office. Jim Crow didn’t disappear because some freedom loving politicians led the way; Martin Luther King and his legacy dragged them kicking and screaming–and made it impossible for Jim Crow to survive by taking his arguments over the heads of the politicians and straight to the American people.

                  A great example is George Wallace. In 1963, he was all about “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

                  Come 1972, after he saw what was happening in the polls, he suddenly had a change of heart!

                  Don’t bother looking to politicians as leaders. Part of being a libertarian is recognizing that politicians are not the solution to our problems–not even libertarian politicians. Real change happens at the water cooler, in the lunchroom, after church, and around the Thanksgiving table. And libertarians are kicking everybody’s ass in those forums. And it doesn’t matter whether the American people credit their change of heart to libertarians, specifically. What matters is that their change of heart is towards more libertarianism.

                  And that’s what they’re doing.

            3. I’m not saying you are wrong, but political change happens fast.

              The reality is that both the Republican and Democratic parties are in trouble and the coalitions that hold them together are breaking down. The Republicans are a bit further ahead already being in a low level civil war among themselves but the Dems aren’t far behind and when the first party splinters it will cause a massive reshuffling of the US political scene.

              We’ll probably still come out of that with a primarily 2 party system (although there are likely to be viable 3rd parties for a few election cycles) and they may still be named Republican and Democrat but it is a pretty good bet that the political landscape in the US will look vastly different 20 years from now than it does today and it is not at all inconceivable that libertarianish ideals will play a significant role in that landscape.

            4. with the Libertarian Party holding less that 150 offices nationwide

              That number has as much to do with the growth of libertarianism as the number of Socialists in office has to do with the growth of socialism.

          2. Oh, Sagan is alright. What’s wrong with encouraging people to think about the grand scale of things beyond our influence?

  11. Fragrantly terrible writing

    That section does smell like shit.

  12. But in the world where we actually live, markets do not produce the “right” price.

    What a patently idiotic statement. In the real world, where we actually live, there isn’t just the right amount of stuff to satisfy everyone’s needs exactly. That’s what prices are FOR. Scarce goods are more expensive, plentiful ones are cheaper. This provides people with signals about what to make more of and what to make less of.

    And some things are just inherently scarce because there is a finite supply of the basic natural resources used to make them. So those things are never going to be available at the “right” price, meaning the price that everyone can afford them, because the fact that they are scarce means BY DEFINITION that there will never be enough of that to satisfy everyone’s needs. Even if you fixed the price to a lower level, you would just get shortages and queueing.

    1. None of that makes any sense when your worldview consists of “give me everything I want for free”.

      1. Which continually reinforces my belief that progressives are fundmentally incapable of allocating scare resources.

        Heck, they are fundamentally incapable of acknowledging that scarcity exists.

        They whole philosophy depends on there always being an adequate supply of goods which simply need to be “distributed” properly. As soon as you run into a situation where there isn’t enough stuff to distribute to everyone, their whole philosophy goes to shit.

        1. As soon as you run into a situation where there isn’t enough stuff to distribute to everyone, their whole philosophy goes to shit.

          Their philosophy doesn’t turn to shit, it turns to executing the evil kulaks and wreckers who refuse to produce enough free stuff to distribute to everybody.
          .
          People like this think we have a natural right to paradise here and demand an explanation as to why we have wars and hunger and poverty and ignorance when the fact is, war and hunger and poverty and ignorance are some of the few things there is no scarcity of – and therefore the natural condition of humans for most of recorded history – and it is more necessary to explain why some few don’t have war and hunger and poverty and ignorance.

          1. You, right, by calling it “shit” i was beeing too generous.

        2. Heck, they are fundamentally incapable of acknowledging that scarcity exists.

          Until they have power. Then they discover scarcity exists. In spades.

          1. Only because of kulaks and hoarders.

  13. To follow Matt’s lead:

    The problem with self-regulation is that, consumers do not know what goes on at a corporation behind closed doors, so how would they force a company to act ethically if they are not aware of their misdeeds.

    The problem with democracy is that, voters do not know what goes on at Congressional meetings behind closed doors, so how would they vote informatively if they are not aware of their misdeeds.

    (is any of the punctuation in this sentence correct?)

    1. Yaaaaay, underline didn’t work.

    2. Further, they are perfectly happy to ignore misdeeds they’re aware of, assuming the perpetrator has the correct letter after his/her name and/or promises free shit.

    3. The problem with *oligarchy* is that, voters do not know what goes on at Congressional meetings behind closed doors, so how would they vote informatively if they are not aware of their misdeeds.

      Fixed that for you.

    4. Information is opaque everywhere. One thing you don’t see is libertarians arguing for less transparency, or for restricting the rights of the press to investigate wrongdoing.

      Nobody’s saying we should get rid of accounting requirements on company financials, or stop reporters from interviewing employees of firms to find out if they are violating the law.

      I fail to see what the government is supposed to do about any of that anyway. If people want to break the law, they are going to hide it from regulators.

  14. “the lack of regulation in the financial industry”

    I have yet to meet anyone who has made this statement who has passed the Series 7

    1. ‘I have yet to meet anyone who has made this statement who has passed taken the Series 7′

      ……better…..

      …mmmm…..

      ‘I have yet to meet anyone who has made this statement who has passed/taken knows what the Series 7 is

      …..just right.

      1. I had a Series 7 license back in the Before Time.

        1. if you want to be a secretary ‘executive assistant’ in a bank, you have to take the Series 7. (*if they work for someone who ‘takes buy/sell orders’)

          its like the barest of bare minimums, and it requires 1000X more information than any Salon writer knows about “the financial industry”

          1. I was working at an exchange and needed it for my job, which wasn’t of the assistant variety, though it wasn’t a great job, either, being my first out of college.

            1. For a ‘basic certification’ exam, its completely unnecessarily comprehensive and enormous. its not ‘hard’, but its just a shitload of stuff that has nothing to do with most people’s jobs.

              it requires people to learn the entire ‘soup to nuts’ outlines and legal structure of the financial services business… usually just to @(#*$ answer phones and enter “buy/sell” orders.

              When i first took it, it seemed stupid to me. “why do i need to know how REITs are regulated, again? And what is all this shit about selling health insurance?”.

              My boss laughed and said, “Look, you can only filter dangerous idiots out so many ways – and look how many still make it through!”

              it seems to serve as a kind of ‘minimal standard’ that keeps the mouth-breathers to…well, makes sure the mouth-breathers can ‘fake it’ if necessary.

              Which is basically my point = the sweaty GED-holding morons who work in day-trading boiler rooms know more about financial industry regulations than the most accredited post-graduate douchebag writer @ Salon

              1. I do remember a lot of memorization. Not that I remember any of it.

      2. Sounds like some sort of baseball reference…?

        1. Baseball, finance, what’s the difference?

        2. Actually, its also a semi-amusing film about a fictional reality-tv show where people are randomly chosen to try and kill one another

          made by the guy who came up with “The Real World” for MTV. i think the movie was a way for him to exorcise a great deal of self-loathing. its actually pretty good for a single-viewing. I love the granny and the teenage girl plotting various ways to murder one another. (*especially how the teenage girl’s parents keep trying to help her, driving her to her murders, helping get her the best equipment, etc)

          The star was the girl who was the fatty in Silence of the Lambs

          1. Series 7 was actually pretty damn good and a very early all-digital production.

      3. Now, now, Gilmore! What makes you possibly think your Series 7 stacks up to their bachelors in Transgendered African American Studies?

      4. To be fair: I don’t know what the Series 7 is and I still think the statement is moronic.

        1. Or in other words what’s a Series 7?

          1. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/series7.asp

            DEFINITION of ‘Series 7’

            “A general securities registered representative license administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) that entitles the holder to sell all types of securities products with the exception of commodities and futures.

            The bulk of the Series 7 exam focuses on investment risk, taxation, equity and debt instruments, packaged securities, options, retirement plans, and interactions with clients such as account management.

            Successfully completing the Series 7 exam is a prerequisite for most of the FINRA principal examinations. “

            As per the last point there = pretty much everyone in the financial services world has to take this exam, regardless. Even if what you do is not even remotely related to securities transactions.

            (As noted = even ‘secretaries’ take it to ensure they’re not ‘out of compliance’ if they accidentally get “buy/sell” orders left on their voicemail)

            Its considered “step 1”, the bare minimum, most basic, entry-level information required to work in any aspect of the financial services world. Whether you’re selling insurance, a stock broker, a compliance officer, a derivatives trader, an analyst, or @#(*@# human resources…. everyone has to take it.

            over half the exam is just familiarizing yourself with the SEC and FINRA rules.

            aka “that unregulated, wild-west world of finance”

  15. How can the individuals that participate in the market be paying the wrong price?

    They’re paying the right price for them!

    What standard is he using to say it isn’t the right price?

    He’s saying it isn’t the right price–for him. Yes, the market doesn’t just serve his purposes–it’s serving everyone else’s, too.

    I want a ’41 Willys gasser that’ll do a 1.4 in under 10.0–and I want it for less than $2,000. If I can’t get it for less $120,000, then the market hasn’t priced it wrong.

    I’m just not willing to pay the market price.

    That’s the real world.

    1. The progressive knows what the right price is. They divine it from the aether.

  16. Dumb Dora was so dumb [“How dumb was she?“] she sent her cultured pearls to blank.

    1. The opera house

      1. Gene, I’ll go with Richard Dawson.

    2. The swine?

      1. Boy George.

  17. The stubborn appeal of the Padishah Imperial idea persists, despite mountains of evidence that control of the spice melange is neither efficient, nor fair, nor free from periodic catastrophe. In a Harkonnen world, the Shai Hulud yields a quantity of spice that signals producers what to make and investors where to put their capital. The more that the Bene Gesserit order interferes with this sublime discipline, the more Fremen deflect the sandworm from its true path.

    But in the world where we actually live, sand trout do not produce the “right” spice.

    1. +1 Kwisatz Haderach

    2. We merely have plans within our reality, not plans within plans within plans. Sure, we have flans within flans within flans, but that’s another matter altogether.

      1. I have pans within pans within pans in my kitchen.

        1. Yes, one must acknowledge 21st century superiority in this regard. Such pan-nesting is lost after the Butlerian Jihad.

        2. Well Hazel, if you cannot fold space at least you can save it.

          1. +1
            Made me laugh.

          2. Well done.

      2. I think you have glans in your flans. Or vice versa.

    3. the more Fremen deflect the sandworm from its golden path.

  18. Had the government not gone after Google for privacy violations, users would have never known.

    Had Edward Snowden not gone after the government for privacy violations, Americans would have never known.

    Google can’t put people into prison or exile for pointing out their misdeeds. The Government can. Likewise, nobody is forced to use Google; try opting out of government.

  19. First of all, Salon is not a serious publication, it’s pure fluff.

    But as for the real world, Maduro in Venezuela fully agrees with the Salonistas and is putting it into practice. It’s working out great, all of the Salonistas should move there to escape the scary libertarians and support comrade Maduro.

    1. They will, but only if they can take all your stuff with them.

  20. can add inputs

    Let’s be fair. Mad Libs is about random inputs. This really has nothing to do with Mad Libs. A better analogy is a Form Letter.

    1. I’ve played Mad Libs, and I can assure you that the selection of words is hardly random.

      1. Or even varied. Though I remember that time explaining to the guidance counselor what the word motherfucker meant.

        1. That’s the kind of nonrandom I was thinking of.

  21. Free is the “right” price.

  22. OT: No more Top Gear for this season: bullshit, or really bullshit?

    1. Absolute bullshit, but not quite as bullshitty as if they replace it with a “feminist environmentalist” car show.

  23. A libertarian hosts ‘The Price Is Right’.

    Take that Progtards!

    1. +1 over highest bidder

  24. The stubborn appeal of the libertarian idea persists, despite mountains of evidence that the free market is neither efficient (1), nor fair(2),

    How little red Marxians argue, 101:

    (1) First, misconstrue the concept of “economic efficiency.”
    (2) Second, indulge in question-begging.

    nor free from periodic catastrophe.

    This is a meaningless quibble. What on this green Earth is free of periodic catastrophe? Inquiring minds would like to know.

    But in the world where we actually live, markets do not produce the “right” price.

    This is Marxian claptrap. Of course the market always produces the right price because it is the point the market clears, when all buyers and all sellers go home satisfied. The main complaint against government intervention is that the price clears at a different point which may not be the same if the market was free, but the price is still what it is.

    But for litlte red Marxians, who still operate under the same tired, old, debunked (and left for dead) Marxian Labor Theory of Labor, the “right” price is the effort you applied to making the piece of shit you’re trying to push on me nad not my own valuation.

    These guys are so pathetic it is no longer funny.

    1. Post-menopausal women?

  25. The problem with self-regulation is that, consumers do not know what goes on at a corporation behind closed doors, so how would they force a company to act ethically if they are not aware of their misdeeds.

    The investors know. And they do force a company to act more ethically even if it were true the consumer is totally oblivious.

    More recently, the lack of regulation in the financial industry, particularly in derivatives, contributed to one of the worst economic crises in history, and hurt many people in the process.

    The above statement leaves no doubt the person is a fucking liar. The financial industry is one of the MOST regulated in the U.S. and precisely BECAUSE of that we’ve seen problems as people try to avoid those regulations as much as possible. Unregulated markets (like computers, for instance) had NO such pitfalls precisely because people could concentrate on making money by increasing value for their customers.

    It is regulation (and not lack of it) which places an industry in peril.

    1. But libertarians want to poison our water and air, let women and children die in the streets, and put minorities back in chains. There’s your free market, mister!

      1. I smoke so I’m used to poison air. And who needs water when there’s tequila? I guess that the minorities’ bling doesn’t count as chains
        .

  26. I’d do a Salon parody of the Two Minutes Hate, but I can’t be bothered.

    And someone upcomments prolly already did.

    1. It’s funny how they are so terrified of libertarians, a political entity which has virtually no political power at all.

      Really, how many influential libertarians can they even name? Peter Thiel and Rand Paul? They are terrified of these 2 guys when progressives control the media, our education system, and half of the federal government and libertarians control exactly what?

      It’s laughably pathetic.

      1. Really, how many influential libertarians can they even name?

        KOCH BRUDDERZ!!!

        1. Oh yes, the evil rapists of mother gaia and all that is good in the world. How could I have forgot about the great kochtopus.

    2. Paul Krugman: Libertarian populism is a lie – Salon.com
      Pervert or sexual libertarian?: Meet John Money….
      Grow up, Libertarians! – Salon.com
      Don’t ally with libertarians: Ideologues co-opt an anti-NSA rally
      Rand Paul’s libertarian hoax: Why his latest strategy is a sham
      Cliven Bundy’s next sick libertarian paradise:
      Libertarians: Still a cult – Salon.com
      11 questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites – Salon.com
      The lesson of Rand Paul: libertarianism is juvenile – Salon .
      The secret libertarianism of Uber & Airbnb – Salon.com
      Libertarians’ reality problem: How an estrangement from….
      Paul Krugman exposes libertarianism’s “foolish fantasy ….
      The inside story of a libertarian scam – Salon
      Proof the GOP’s newfound “libertarianism” is a big ol’ sham …
      Libertarians’ true identity revealed: Rich conservatives OK ….
      Ann Coulter: Libertarian voters are “idiots”
      Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited …
      Libertarianism is for petulant children: Ayn Rand, Rand Paul …
      Confessions of a recovering Libertarian: How I escaped …
      Nightmare libertarian project turns country into the murder capitol…

      and that’s only 60% or so of “page 1″….

      1. Nightmare libertarian project turns country into the murder capitol

        So, libertarianism is a failed socialist regime that collapses into a military coup and massive corruption?

        The title has absolutely nothing to do with the story.

      2. “YEAH WELL ALL YOU SOCONS EVER DO IS CONSTANTLY HARP ABOUT “PROGS” ITS TOTALLY THE SAME THING”

        /tard

  27. Step three of Gandhi’s four step process.

    1. I just can’t figure out what has driven them to the 3rd stage. Maybe some of their proggie friends and acquaintances are quietly starting to take libertarian ideas seriously or maybe even quietly agreeing with libertarian ideas. That must really be terrifying to them if that’s what it is, they really fear anyone leaving the hive. I don’t know what else it could be, we have virtually no power or influence at all.

      1. I attribute it to the combination of the failure of the Obama administration to bring about the utopia they all thought would happen by now plus the viability of a guy like Rand Paul as a legit candidate for the Presidency. I don’t know if he’ll get the nomination or if he’ll win but a libertarianish candidate that isn’t coming off like some bat-shit crazy oddball is scaring the shit out of them.

        1. “I attribute it to the combination of the failure of the Obama administration to bring about the utopia they all thought would happen by now”

          You bastard…by *a minute*, you beat me.

      2. “Hyperion|2015/03/16 14:25:28|#5157734~new~

        I just can’t figure out what has driven them to the 3rd stage”

        Witnessing the failure of their “High Water Mark” progressive-moment?

        The Lightworker has not fulfilled the prophecy. Ergo, they have turned from utopian idealism? to going on assault against all of their perceived ideological enemies

        They can’t bear to look at their own policies and the abysmal failures they’ve wrought. Where are all the stories at Salon about the Great Achievements they’ve made? the super-popular policies they’ve supported? No = even their “Affordable Care Act” coverage? is 100% a series of stories about “Horrible GOP Evil Nasty Dastardly Fucking WrongThink”.

        Its all about “Enemies”, all the way down. its all they do.

      3. we have virtually no power or influence at all.

        Apparently, we do, or they wouldn’t be worried. Both the left AND the right see libertarianism as a threat capable of dethroning them. And we will. We have the benefit of being correct. We have the benefit of being principled. They have they detriments of their historical records.

        Nick isn’t blowing smoke. There is a libertarian moment happening. People are sick to fucking death of status quo in Washington and are desperate for something new. We’ve got this Senator with new (or old) ideas presenting an alternative, that when scrutinized objectively, makes a lot of sense. A mere 5 years ago, the word “libertarian” wouldn’t be mentioned in a MSM piece for months. Now it’s common.

        Political revolutions happen all the time throughout history. Look at the Socons taking over the Republican party 35 years ago. To think they won’t happen again is naive. They (both sides) are afraid of losing their power…and they should be.

        1. Well, I’m not questioning that we’re causing a stir. That’s extremely obvious as you said, just a few years ago no one talked about libertarians in politics, now everyone does.

          The problem is, the SoCons and the Proggies and the political establishment of both major parties hate us way more than they hate each other, and in the end, they’ll team up on us if they feel the least bit of fear of us gaining any real influence.

          1. Perhaps. BUT politicians still need to represent the people. That’s why the Paul’s tactic of educating the people is superior to trying to change the minds of the entrenched party establishment. The party will change to reflect the will of the people out of necessity.

            The real question is, can enough people be convinced to move the party, despite the establishment’s wishes?

            The abysmal approval rating for Congress would suggest it’s possible.

            1. BUT politicians still need to represent the people

              ha

              The party will change to reflect the will of the people out of necessity.

              ha

              The real question is, can enough people be convinced to move the party, despite the establishment’s wishes?

              The abysmal approval rating for Congress would suggest it’s possible.

              ha ha

              1. Yes, FS, we know you are an anarchist. Got it.

                Maybe we could play on the same team, at least until we establish a minarchism before we start fighting?

                I know you have an ideal end-state in mind. Ever considered how you’d get to it from where we are now?

                1. Yes, FS, we know you are an anarchist. Got it.

                  What’s this now? I can’t disagree with your social contract theory without you making some reference to my anarchism. For my part, all I did was laugh at the notion that politicians “represent the people”.

                  Maybe we could play on the same team, at least until we establish a minarchism before we start fighting?

                  Why? Yes if I have to be raped, I’d rather it just be the tip instead of going full girth. That doesn’t mean I’m obligated to support getting fucked just a little bit.

                  Ever considered how you’d get to it from where we are now?

                  The obsolescence of the state. Privatize law enforcement and courts for starters. Statutory reform packages will last exactly as long as it takes the next asshole to swoop in with a proposal for more statism.

                  Wherever the path to a stateless society may be, it doesn’t run through statism.

        2. Sorry, but I think you’re sort of mis-characterizing the nature of the threat libertarianism poses to the two sides. For your average rank-and-file conservative, libertarianism isn’t so much a threat. My (perhaps mistaken) impression is that more and more of them are coming around. It’s only for the movement and party elites that libertarianism is threatening. For the proggies, my impression is that the rank-and-file is even more hostile than the elites.

          1. You know, I never thought about it until just now, because I’ve always laughed it off as silly, but maybe it’s these newly self decreed ‘leftist libertarians’ that are scaring the proggies so badly. I mean, the fact that they are partially identifying with libertarians and admitting that we are right on at least some things would be truly terrifying to a true proggie, since the hive is of utmost importance to them, anyone leaving the hive is troublesome.

          2. IF, repeat IF, the old adage that a libertarian is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, then there should be a portion of Democrats that still care about civil liberties that can be stolen by libertarians.

            And since “progressives” keep moving farther and farther away from civil liberties, it furthers our advantage even more.

            1. Honestly, I hope you’re right. It would give me a lot more hope in the future of American politics. The thing is, I don’t see it happening. Maybe I’m missing something, but most of the “new” libertarians I run across tend to come to libertarianism from a conservative background.

              Again, I’d agree it would be healthier to have libertarianism being energized from both the left and right. The thing is, the sort of pro-liberty liberals you’re talking about that I see have either signed off on progressivism, go along with the progressive agenda “because the other side’s worse”, or plain out don’t know what to make of things.

              1. No doubt that libertarians have slightly more in common with Republicans than they do with Democrats because more issues overlap. The demographic on the left to focus on would be those who are big on civil liberties and don’t really care so much about economics.

        3. It’s a long way from being a libertarian moment, but young people are naturally libertarian, Keynesian economics has clearly failed, and social conservatism is outdated. They’re trying to crush the future.

  28. Had the government not gone after Google for privacy violations, users would have never known. Google and other tech companies have a constant crave for innovation over everything, and bypass things like privacy when they get in its way.

    Bad economic arguments based on arbitrary moral preening from the left, I’m just used to at this point. Most people don’t know anything about economics so whatever.

    This shit right here is what gets me the most. It’s as if while bashing the evil corporations, they ignore the fact that we just had a big scandal and an American stuck in Russia for leaking info on the government collecting mass data on its citizens. If not for someone doing something the government decided to make criminal because it embarrassed them, there wouldn’t even have been a discussion.

    Someone leaks dirt on Google, the most that happens is they lose their job. You leak info on the government that the people have a right to know (the ones government supposedly ‘services’), and you are better off living running to fucking Russia.

    These people have no decency and even less intellectual honesty. Free markets are a dangerous religion? Look at the level of lying and stooging these people do for government…

    1. And unlike Google or a corporation, the government hasn’t changed a thing. The NSA hasn’t missed a beat. And they collect way more data on Americans than Google and Facebook combined.

    2. Very good point. You can’t grandstand about the awesomeness of the government for exposing privacy violatons when your in the middle of a huge scandel aout the government invading everyone’s privacy.

      1. And yet he did.

  29. About a third of the anti-libertarianism comments at the Salon page are like this: “Libertrians [sic] have never, and will never build anything. They are far too antisocial to engage in the sort of cooperation that such an enterprise requires.” Another third are some form of: Libertarians don’t understand history/society/reality. And the final third are variations of: Libertarians are mean ol’ poopy-heads! Clearly, they are so much smarter than we are. Or at least, that seems to be the consensus of the anti-libertarian commenters.

  30. The simple fact is that when the free market is prohibited from operating, the cost of living rises, with the most “hurt” being done to those who can afford it the least.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.