Libertarianism

Libertarian Moment Update: "Wall Street is getting tired of funding socially conservative Republicans…"

The future clearly belongs to socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidates. Which means Dems and Reps have some growing up to do.

|

Via the Twitter feed of Mike Hewlett comes this Business Insider piece that rings true to all of those regular Americans who identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Here's hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman quoted on a recent Wall Street Week episode:

"I tend to be more Republican in my views, but socially very liberal. I'm going to have trouble with any Republican that does not disavow a fixation with social issues," he said. 

"Republicans have to understand that because young people in our country are not grabbed by those issues."…

During the last presidential election, it looked like Wall Street might finally get the kind of Republican they were looking for — Mitt Romney.

For most of his career, Romney was known as a moderate technocrat.

But when he ran for president, Romney was forced to turn to entice the party base. He played up his conservative family values instead.

Many on Wall Street loved his private-equity/business background to be sure. They liked his ideas on foreign policy, even, but they weren't crazy about his sudden lurch to the right on issues like abortion.

More here.

Let's file this sort of comment under "no duh." As noted here just a few weeks back, social conservatives are losing steam, with Gallup finding for the first time ever a tie between those of us who identify as liberal and conservative on social issues. At the same time, more of us identify as fiscally conservative than liberal on economic issues. Similarly, a composite "libertarian index" dating back to the early 1990s finds record-high beliefs that the government should do less in both social and economic realms. A year ago, Reason's poll found that 53 percent of millennials would vote for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative candidate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the future belongs to those who, to paraphrase Rand Paul, belong to a "live and let live" party that also learns how to balance its books.

It's not all sunshine and rainbows regarding hard-core libertarianism, for sure. As Business Insider's Linette Levin notes, Wall Street types would be pretty happy with someone like Mike Bloomberg, who is generally pro-business but also the poster boy for all sorts of nanny-state bullshit, ranging from soda, smoking, and trans fat bans to gun control to highly dubious green initiatives; add to that his patently stupid comments against pot legalization.

However, it's also worth keeping in mind that NYC money men Daniel Loeb and Cliff Asness (the latter a rock-ribbed Ayn Rand-digging libertarian) were responsible for the Empire State's legalization of gay marriage. Surely the GOP would pick up far more votes than it lost if its presidential candidates emphatically stated that many social concerns are simply not the province of the state and should be addressed through civil society rather than top-down mandates.

NEXT: Cato Institute podcast on "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain" [updated with an embed of the podcast]

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. Yet the checks keep on coming for Chuck Schumer…

    1. And he wanted an added pound of flesh – a get-out-jail card – if you dare give up your US citizenship.

      You want to escape America? It will cost you 40%.

      1. Chuck’s bitch tits are a 99% composition of ex-pats money.

        1. You know who else wanted 40% exit tax?

          1. Iraq?

  2. The future clearly belongs to socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidates.

    Voters keep kicking that future down the road.

    1. It will arrive with your fusion reactor and flying electric car.

    2. And Michael Bloomberg defines what is meant by “social liberal”

      1. This times 1000. Reason is whistling in the dark to say otherwise. Wall Street isn’t your friend.

      2. Just remember, whenever “socially liberal” and “fiscal conservative” come into conflict, socially liberal wins every single time.

        Essentially, the “socially liberal/fiscal conservative” label may be a nice stated preference, but the revealed preference of those who claim it is “socially liberal”.

        1. Essentially, the “socially liberal/fiscal conservative” label may be a nice stated preference, but the revealed preference of those who claim it is “socially liberal”.

          That thinking has been proven wrong, repeatedly, for over 40 years. Your own revealed preference is clear. Try getting out more. Outside your tribal cave.

          1. Most “socially liberal” policies cost – making the claim of combining them with “fiscally conservative” bogus.

            1. Most “socially liberal” policies cost

              You seem totally unaware of what socially liberal means, which is simply tolerance –live and let live. And if policies cost then they’re fiscally LIBERAL, not conservative.

              Here are the five questions from the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.
              Which one(s) cost anything? Anything at all?

              1) Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.
              (What does that cost you?)

              2) Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
              (what does that cost you?)

              3) There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
              (and that?)

              How about this?

              4) Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.

              And this:

              5) There should be no National ID card.

              No offense intended. It’s common in politics to see people either lying or totally ignorant about their opposing tribe.

              In this case, the confusion comes mostly from trying to squeeze everyone into one of only two boxes — a notion which has been obsolete for decades … as a growing majority of individuals choose to think for themselves.

              Or as we stated it originally, which may help you visualize.
              Democrats want government out of your bedroom but into your wallet.
              Republicans want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.
              That doesn’t apply to all of them, but clearly NEITHER of those descriptions has a damn thing to do with fundamental human liberties.
              Any questions?

          2. Are you high right now (not rhetorical)?

            When, in the last 30 years, let’s keep the discussion to Federal acts, when the two have come into conflict, has the Fed decided NOT to grow in size?

            Has it happened? I can’t think of one time. Regardless, if it has happened, the “fiscal conservative” loses at least 99% of the time.

            When was the last time the government shrunk? When was the last time government spending or power was cut?

            1. WOW! The United States is NOT libertarian!!. I never heard that before. 🙂

              When, in the last 30 years, let’s keep the discussion to Federal acts, when the two have come into conflict, has the Fed decided NOT to grow in size?

              When the two what have come into conflict?

              1. The author of the original post (to which we are referring) doesn’t seem to be implying that he’s speaking of libertarians, but in general.

                If we assume that he is speaking of libertarians, such as those who write for Reason.com, I still have to agree with him.

                When the two what have come into conflict?

                “Socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative”… Whatever they happen to mean today…

                1. Socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative”… Whatever they happen to mean today

                  You say social liberals win 99% of the time, but I’m FAIRLY certain that you — like many folks — confuse social liberals and social conservatives. Economic liberals can of course also be social conservatives. But some try to jam everyone into one of only two boxes, which has been repeatedly proven to be obsolete (if it ever existed) for several decades now.

                  1. Your entire POV is meaningless, as “socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative” are nebulous terms! If you want to be defined as such, then go for it. Saying that the two define libertarianism is simply ridiculous!

                    NAP, that is what libertarianism is based on. Basing it off of anything else, especially that which changes, is stupid.

                    1. Your entire POV is meaningless, as “socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative” are nebulous terms!

                      One more time: The presence or absence of government coercion .. which is NOT nebulus.

                      And you’re the one who says even HUGE tax cuts are NOT fiscally conservative!!!

                      Saying that the two define libertarianism is simply ridiculous!

                      They’re the same thing. For over 40 years. In the political context.

                      NAP, that is what libertarianism is based on.

                      Which MEANS the presence or absence of government (in the political context)

                      Fiscal conservatism is the lack of aggression by government.
                      Social liberalism is the lack of aggression by government.

                      Economic liberalism is aggression by government.
                      Social conservatism is aggression by government.

                      SEVENTH REPEAT: The presence or absence of government coercion.

                      Basing it off of anything else, especially that which changes, is stupid.

                      Umm, it has NOT changed. Aggression has meant the same thing for thousands of years. Do you not know what aggression means? How can you possibly believe taxes are not aggression? Are you perhaps a social conservative?

                      The presence or absence of government coercion = NAP (in a government context)

                      NAP is a principle, not a policy.

            2. Regardless, if it has happened, the “fiscal conservative” loses at least 99% of the time.

              If it hasn’t happened, then how can there be ANY winners or losers
              And if it has happened, do you have any examples?

              1. Allow me to use more words in my sentences as you either can’t understand them or are willfully obfuscating.

                “Regardless, if it has happened…” meaning if, IF “fiscally conservative” has ever, in the last 30 years of the Federal government, been chosen over “socially liberal”, (and I’m not sure it ever has), then, at best, the ratio between the choices, when they come into conflict, are 99% “socially liberal” and 1% “fiscally conservative”.

                And if it has happened, do you have any examples?

                Premise, organizations always seek to consolidate or increase their power(s).

                Governments are organizations. Therefore, they will always choose to increase their powers. Spending more money increases their power. Therefore, they will never voluntarily choose to be “fiscally conservative” for any reason.

                Therefore, if the two ever conflict, the politicians laugh and still never choose “fiscally conservative” because it would decrease their power.

                Do you have ANY examples of it not happening? I cannot.

                1. When was the last time the government shrunk? When was the last time government spending or power was cut?

                  You say tax cuts — even huge tax cuts — are not fiscally conservative! How convenient to your point. 🙂

                  HIHN ASKS: do you have any examples?

                  STILL none.

                  … they will never voluntarily choose to be “fiscally conservative” for any reason.

                  Social liberalism has been forced by the courts, which is their job. (Ignore Ron Paul’s lies)

                  Therefore, if the two ever conflict, the politicians laugh and still never choose “fiscally conservative” because it would decrease their power.

                  Tax cuts under Kennedy, Reagan Clinton and Bush 2.

                  Do you have ANY examples of it not happening?

                  It’s impossible to prove a negative. You need examples of where it DID happen — most of the time — which you keep refusing to give.

                  You may be confusing, like many others, socially liberal with socially conservative, both on the “left.”. Forcing bakers and photographers to serve homosexuals against their will, is socially conservative. Marriage equality is socially liberal (removing government) Mandated service is socially conservative (adding government) Bigots try to conflate the two, to generate hysteria and manipulate people. The gay agenda bullshit.

                  You’ve still never even said when they’ve been in conflict.

                  1. You say tax cuts — even huge tax cuts — are not fiscally conservative!

                    No, they aren’t. Government spending is an increase in taxes either now or in the future.

                    STILL none.

                    You’re an idiot… Forcing bakers to make cakes through force of arms? Increase transfer payments? Increase Fed financing of College? Need I go on?

                    Again, tax cuts are not “fiscally conservative” as long as government spending increases. Current tax loads are almost meaningless compared to taxation. And the tax laws keep getting more complicated. You’re an idiot.

                    It’s impossible to prove a negative.

                    Paid attention one day in your government school, huh? Good job!

                    Oh, and then you redefine the slippery words you define yourself with… to a point that no-one uses them.

                    NAP is the the sine quo non to libertarianism. Your insistence otherwise would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.

                    1. Now he goes off the rails!

                      HIHN: You say tax cuts — even huge tax cuts — are not fiscally conservative!

                      No, they aren’t.

                      (laughing)

                      HIHN: STILL no examples.

                      You’re an idiot

                      (snicker)

                      Forcing bakers to make cakes through force of arms?

                      Social CONSERVATISM

                      Increase transfer payments? Increase Fed financing of College? Need I go on?

                      When do you START?

                      HIHN: It’s impossible to prove a negative.

                      Paid attention one day in your government school, huh?

                      Umm, why did you ask me to prove a negative?

                      Oh, and then you redefine the slippery words you define yourself with… to a point that no-one uses them.

                      (off the rails)

                      NAP is the sine quo non to libertarianism. Your insistence otherwise would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic

                      Fourth repeat: NAP means the absence of government coercion (political context)

                      Lack iof government aggression: Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.
                      Government aggression: Economic liberalism and social conservatism

                      Basing it off of anything else, especially that which changes, is stupid.

                      No, the meaning of aggression has not changed in thousands of years.
                      The presence or absence of government coercion = NAP (in a government context) Go it NOW?

                    2. When do you START?

                      Did they give the typewriter to an idiot or a room full of monkeys, I don’t know.

                      Umm, why did you ask me to prove a negative?

                      It’s entirely possible to prove a negative if I only ask you to do so over a limited set, in this case, the actions (heck, even laws) done by the Fed. You can prove that it didn’t happen. I didn’t ask you to prove there isn’t alien life in the universe.

                      Fourth repeat:

                      Not to me, no. I don’t read all the rest of your rantings you give to other people.

                      Lack iof government aggression: Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

                      Interesting, so your POV is that if you define the words precisely wrong (how no-one uses them), then you can get to almost as simple a definition as NAP. And that helps you… how again? Why not just say NAP? Oh, then you’d actually have to follow that logical consistency… nevermind, I understand you now. Much easier to keep believing in your preconceived notions and muddle the definition of words until you can actually believe it and no one on planet Earth can “prove” you wrong because you simply change the rules as you go. It’s like playing checkers with a 4 year old…

                      It’s really to bad that your use of words is not consistent with any known language used by humans. Your logic is not falsifiable.

                      Therefore, you’re an idiot.

                    3. Fifth request: If aggression does NOT mean the initiation of force then, ummm, what does it mean?

                      It’s entirely possible to prove a negative

                      (snicker)

                      your POV is that if you define the words precisely wrong (how no-one uses them),

                      Why do you claim nobody uses “aggression” to mean the initiation of force?

                      Social conservatives of the left (forcing bakers and photographers to serve gays) are just as fascists as social conservatives on the tight who seek to impose THEIR values by force .
                      Which is why we’ve followed NAP since 1969 (

                      Why not just say NAP

                      Umm, FIFTH explanation:
                      1) The “P” in NAP is a principle not a policy or behavior
                      2) Fiscal conservatism is how we APPLY that principle in economic matters.
                      3) Social liberalism is how we APPLY the same principle in personal matters.

                      Which part of that do you challenge? And why have you been stalking me for three days? Oh yeah, Eric Hoffer explained it

                      Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.” -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers”

                      Throughout human history, the worst moral atrocities have been committed by those who believe they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. . The militant self-righteous.

                    4. Fifth request: If aggression does NOT mean the initiation of force then, ummm, what does it mean?

                      Let’s be clear, first request. You decided to define the term stupidly, not me. Aggression is the initiation of force. Just because you defined one term correctly (once, and only partially) doesn’t mean you’re not an idiot. Notice how the definition doesn’t have the words “economic”, “social”, “liberal”, or “conservative” in it.

                      Why do you claim nobody uses “aggression” to mean the initiation of force?

                      When? Do you know which commentor you are talking to?

                      Social conservatives of the left…

                      You are literally the only person I’ve ever heard of who uses this term in this way. Either change the way you use it or stop using it or resign yourself to having unnecessary confusion in all your political arguments.

                      Fiscal conservatism is how we APPLY that principle in economic matters.

                      No, you just don’t assault or steal from anyone. NAP is central. You’ve put the cart before the horse. You call for aggression because you’ve become convinced that A = B and B = not A. Stop it.

                      It is entirely possible to prove certain negatives. If I give you 10 cards, I can ask you to prove that there are no jokers in those 10 cards.

                      I have not stalked you. I’ve proved you wrong, over and over. I don’t suffer fools well.

      3. Bloomberg defines Crony

      4. True. For the moment. But as John points out, “socially liberal” & “socially conservative” are unstable terms, because the “socially liberal” keep redefining themselves, moving the agenda.

        1. Not to mention how mean and heartless it is to be financially conservative. The thoughtlessly social liberals can’t square financial conservatism with their feelings of altruism (with someone else’s money).

          1. Umm, your tribal ignorance is showing.

        2. because the “socially liberal” keep redefining themselves, moving the agenda

          How so? That looks more like social conservatives (i.e. using government force against photographers and bakers if they refuse to serve gays)

          The REAL “agenda” has not changed since our founding. Don’t use government to deny or disparage equal, unalienable and or God-Given fundamental rights. Jefferson’s Declaration.

          For example, government has NEVER been delegated any power to define, regulate or control marriage. So we see BOTH liberals and conservatives trying to move their agenda. (some of them)

          But that NAACP officer in Seattle who says she is African-American. Does that mean she is? Did she move anything other than her own agenda, or the agenda of social conservatives (properly defined).

    3. Only one minor problem: in real world experience, socially liberal and fiscally conservative are mutually exclusive concepts. Other than that it makes for a nice buzz phrase to drool into a martini at the upscale cocktail party.

    4. Fist of Etiquette|6.15.15 @ 11:34AM|#

      The future clearly belongs to socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidates.

      Voters keep kicking that future down the road.

      They’re 59% of the voters … and still waiting for a candidate ….
      … instead of “libertarianish” candidates who are extreme social conservatives, trashing individual liberty and the lying about the constitution (even about our founders’ writings.)

  3. How about “Wall Street” stop funding politicians…period? They all end up over-regulating and disappointing. Can’t even stay bought.

    1. You don’t buy politicians with money – you lease them. To buy takes something a bit… different.

    2. Does a business have a choice anymore? You must pay off bureaucrats so they’ll leave you own.

      Just like La Cosa Nostra.

      1. Obozo Nostro

    3. That’s the comment I was looking for. Just try an experiment, Wall Street: turn off the ATM for both parties and see what happens. Or start funding issues, not candidates.

  4. Oh please. Wall Street doesn’t give a damn about social issues or young people. They will fund anyone who allows them to maintain their stranglehold on the economy. Citi, Goldman, etc throw their support behind the candidate they believe has the greatest chance of holding power.

    1. Just as those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul, those who do not rob Peter can always count on the support of Peter.

      But there are more Pauls than Peters in this world.

      1. Judging by judges there appears to be quite a contingent of Dicks.

  5. If you blinked, you missed your libertarian moment.

    I’d be truly surprised if 5% of the people who are going to vote in the next asshole even knew what “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” meant. Rs don’t vote for Ds and Ds don’t vote for Rs, period.

    1. Not to mention that Wall Street is easily the most cronyist part of the economy. That has received roughly $13 trillion (that’s roughly 150 years worth of food stamps) in subsidies/distortions over the last 8 years.

      My question is are they libertarian because they are ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’? Or because they quote Ayn Rand while living off the teat?

    2. I’d be truly surprised if 5% of the people who are going to vote in the next asshole even knew what “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” meant.

      In a 2006 Cato survey, commissioning a top political pollster (Zogby), 59% self-identified as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Your 5% guess applies to self identified libertarians (5.3%)

      The World’s Smallest Political Quiz has been teaching fiscally conservative and socially liberal for over 30 years, to tens of millions of people. And the people volunteered their time.

  6. If the Supreme Court drives a stake through the heart of the gay marriage issue, it may be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

    1. If the Supreme Court drives a stake through the heart of the gay marriage issue, it may be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

      I assume you mean ruling that marriage equality is a fundamental right, per the 9th and 14th Amendments.

      But the GOP theocrat wing will go bonkers like they did with abortion for several decades now — and still are, often ahead of more pressing fiscal issues.

  7. So are we supposed to hope that repubs/conservatives pander to Wall Street in order to get their money for elections? Or is the point to somehow gloat over the confirmation that uber-wealthy New Yorkers are socially liberal while folks in the flyover states aren’t?

    What exactly am I supposed to get out of this article?

    1. What exactly am I supposed to get out of this article?

      The exact opposite of what you did get.
      Well, it was way overstated, which Nick specializes in.
      But he gave another example of wealthy libertarians, as if that was news.

      As Rand Paul continues collapsing, Nick seems to be walking back his effusive praise for extreme socially conservative anti-Constitutionalists, Ron and Rand Paul.
      This will dismay all the extreme socons Reason often panders to, with more proof … PROOF … of a libertarian moment. It’s about fundraising via hysteria, like every other political tribe.

      From the other direction, you’ve insulted the flyover states.

  8. I’d sure like to know when we’re finally going to get some of that fiscal conservatism to go along with our social liberalism for once.

    It’s great that people can march in the gay pride parade and all, but we’re going bankrupt and many of our kids have no job prospects and no future.

    1. Never, as “social liberalism” is social progressivism not social libertarianism.

    2. I’d sure like to know when we’re finally going to get some of that fiscal conservatism to go along with our social liberalism for once.

      Ironically, the fiscally conservative wing of the GOP was wiped out by the social conservatives — exactly as Goldwater predicted. It’s now the exact opposite of the party of Goldwater, Reagan, Kemp, Buckley, etc.

    3. I’d sure like to know when we’re finally going to get some of that fiscal conservatism to go along with our social liberalism for once.

      A legitimate concern, but perilous.

      Fiscal conservatism would cause the vast middle class to lose all or part of the massive subsidies they get from the rich.

      Social liberalism causes nobody to give up nothing.

  9. The problem is that voters care about social issues in elections far more than they should. People vote for or against candidates often on single issues like abortion, but it is not just the right that is overly fixated here. Most liberals would never vote for a pro-life or anti-gay marriage candidate no matter how great they were. They will vote for people who say they are those things during a campaign, but only as long as everyone knows they are lying. The liars tend to win, and thus keep lying, so who’s fault is that?

    1. That’s true, largely because fiscal issues have become overwhelming, ungraspable. Once gov’t is taxing & spending so much, the amount gets to be a non-issue in people’s minds. Plus, they’ve gotten used to a lot of it on the state & national level (& not only in the USA) being seemingly on auto-pilot. Witness “social insurance” (SS in the US) & gov’t employee pensions. It’s so hard to resist, people turn their att’n to where it seems they might have an effect. Even within fiscal issues in the USA (maybe in other countries too), foreign aid gets a disproportionate amt. of att’n, for symbolic reasons.

      Similarly re foreign & military policy, it seems that once you’ve got the gunboats, it becomes mostly a matter of how, where, & when you’re going to use them, rather than whether. As many of you may know, I believe in utter ruthlessness when it comes to war, and I think that’s how people in general ought to think about it, i.e. that if you’re going to war, you should make it horrible, & never try to make it anything but horrible. Instead people seem to think about it as routine, humdrum, nothing to throw a fit about.

      1. Even within fiscal issues in the USA (maybe in other countries too), foreign aid gets a disproportionate amt. of att’n, for symbolic reasons.

        The problem is the people focusing on it don’t know enough to know those reasons are symbolic. They are too ignorant to know the real financial problems are entitlements.

        1. They are too ignorant to know the real financial problems are entitlements

          Massive middle-class entitlements are only part of the iceberg.
          There’s also two trillion or so of middle-class subsidies and loopholes in the income tax.

          Who’s got the guts to stand up and say that? Other than Mitch Daniels, and he abandoned politics entirely!

    2. Most liberals would never vote for a pro-life or anti-gay marriage candidate no matter how great they were

      That’s a tautology. And like the conservatives who would NEVER support a social liberal, no matter how greater they are on fiscal issues. The same conservatives who talk about “God-Given Rights only when it’s conveen-yent, thus placing their own will above the Will of God. Or who blather about being strict constructionalists,as they trash, lie about and piss all over the Constitution. And negative stereotyping entire groups, instead seeing people of individuals (identity politics). It’s like when the Klan believed they were somehow righteous.

  10. “However, it’s also worth keeping in mind that NYC money men Daniel Loeb and Cliff Asness (the latter a rock-ribbed Ayn Rand-digging libertarian) were responsible for the Empire State’s legalization of gay marriage.”

    Wow, that was a Libertarian Moment, wasn’t it?

    “Cynthia and Robert Gifford are caught in a same-sex nightmare. They’ve been forced to defend themselves against claims that they’re lesbian-hating homophobes.
    “We respect and care for everyone!” Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,” she said.

    “”We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.”

    “But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 ? a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.” All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.

    “This is scary,” Cynthia Gifford said. “It’s scary for all Americans.”

    http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/c…..heir-farm/

    *That’s* what Wall Street people mean by social liberalism.

    1. *That’s* what Wall Street people mean by social liberalism.

      What did Wall Street have to do with the Giffords?. The only Wall Street content was the “NYC money men”

    2. *That’s* what Wall Street people mean by social liberalism.

      Which is actually, of course, social conservatism.

  11. I think this is largely true, with one huge exception: immigration. The majority of Americans (Dems, Reps, or independents) want less of it. The only ones who want more are Democrat politiicans who want to elect a new people, some business types who want cheaper labor, leftists who a want more Third World U.S. (“End the white capitalist patriarchy!”), and doctrinaire libertarians who don’t see how “freedom of movement” can work against all other libertarian values.

    If libertarians could somehow keep the rest of their principles but be restrictionist on immigration, they would have far more support, and be more likely to get what they want in many other areas. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to square that circle.

    One downside of Team thinking that people want their ideologies to be “consistent.” This means they will often take principles too far. But principles are abstract mental constructs that may not be perfect fits with reality in all instances. So when one conflicts with reality, people tend to dismiss the evidence of their senses rather than admit that part of their beliefs aren’t working.

    1. So. Who makes the list of ‘undesirables’?

      1. Too much of anyone is not a good idea. We certainly don’t need to further drive down the cost of unskilled labor, or further strain the welfare state with more poor people and refugees. I’ve also come to dislike the Silicon Valley love of H-1Bs, which often amount to indentured servants. We don’t need to turn the US multilingual by importing so many non-English speakers, and in what’s clearly going to be a generations-long cultural and religious conflict, it’s idiotic to allow immigration by more than some tiny number of Muslims.

    2. immigration. The majority of Americans (Dems, Reps, or independents) want less of it. The only ones who want more are Democrat politicians who want to elect a new people

      Expand your reading, like the Wall Street Journal and National Review. Check the polls.

      1. Every remotely credible poll says the American people are sick of seeing their cities turn into third world socialist ghettos.

        1. Which has nothing to do with immigration. The polls also show most Americans favor a path to citizenship which — like abortion and climate change — shows how both extremes of an issue can be bat-shit crazy. And I always shudder when politicians (or anyone) claims to speak for “the American people.” It’s usually bullshit.

    3. Actually I’ve noticed for about the entire time of the modern libertarian movement in the USA a wing of it that was restrictionist on immigr’n (& in some cases on int’l trade). You’d never notice in the rest of their views anything putting them at odds with libertarianism generally. This was true of, for instance, radio talk show hosts (David Brudnoy, Gene Burns, some lesser known), “patriot”/”sovereign”/”Constitutionist” types (who litigated pro se vs. gov’t a lot), & bikers.

      1. Robert, I believe most of the libertarian sentiment against immigration was based on the welfare state attracting them. The one’s I noticed anyhow.

  12. The only thing Wall Street cares about is the bottom line.

    “Libertarian moment?” What the fuck are you talking about, Nick? All levels of government (city, state, county, federal) are, to varying degrees, violating the constitution. Cops murder people with impunity. Counties steal people’s property. King Obama engages in illegal “kinetic actions.” Courts abdicate their responsibility to keep other branches in check. Kids get kidnapped by the State for the temerity of playing outside. The US still has the largest prison population in the world. Media companies get harassed for what their commentators print. Etc. fucking etc.

    Tell you what, Nick. Go try to pump your own gas in Oregon. Go ride a bike in Spokane without a helmet. Go smoke a joint in Louisiana. Go sell some loosies on the streets of New York City, then come and talk to me about your “Libertarian Moment.”

    Outside of gay marriage (I would consider marrying Warty to have access to his music collection) and marijuana, freedom is in retreat on all fronts.

    1. Yeah, I can’t wrap my head around using what Wall Street/New Yorkers deem socially ideal as a politician’s litmus test.

      Nor can I wrap my head around abortions-for-all and legal-recognition-of-gay-marriages-for-all as the do-or-die libertarian choices we must make. I can think of quite a few individual freedoms I rank higher than those two (including free drugs for all) and that would be much easier to rally the other 51% of Americans towards. Yeah, yeah, i hate the war on drugs too. But to dismiss the other half of the country as backwoods squares is just plain foolish and will never ever give you a libertarian moment. Why not appeal to those folks too Nick?

      1. “Why not appeal to those folks too Nick?”

        First he’ll have to overcome his sense of ritual pollution which he seems to feel at any contact with icky SoCons.

        1. This seems to be the case. And is why I’m disappointed in what I thought was a largely philosophical, rather than cultural, movement.

        2. Socons in cahoots with Progressives gave us Alcohol Prohibition.

        3. First he’ll have to overcome his sense of ritual pollution which he seems to feel at any contact with icky SoCons

          … and icky collectivists, which libertarians have been doing for over 40 years.
          Was Stalin icky? The Inquisition? Hitler? Salem witchcraft trials? Pol Pot?
          The abuse of government power is more than icky.

      2. “Why not appeal to those folks too Nick?”

        They are losers. Libertarianism is a philosophy of winners.

        1. They are losers

          Umm, drug legalization has been winning for a few years now.

      3. Nor can I wrap my head around abortions-for-all and legal-recognition-of-gay-marriages-for-all as the do-or-die libertarian choices we must make

        One is either for liberty or not.

        I can think of quite a few individual freedoms I rank higher

        And that’s why we’ve been fucking failing for decades. Too many people have their own pet liberties and fuck anybody else’s.
        Freedoms do not get “ranked”

        Why not appeal to those folks too Nick?

        Do you read Reason regularly? Search this site for “war on drugs” or “pot legalization”, any common phrase for the issue. You’ll see a LOT more than anything on gay issues — because the Paulista cult is ant-gay (which Nick defines as a libertarian moment, go figure).

        Libertarian moments are flowering all across America … at the local level .. by Nolan Chart libertarians (59% of the people) Reason basically reports to movement libertarians (5.3% of the people) what is being achieved by Nolan libertarians (59% of the people)

    2. “Outside of gay marriage”

      If you are interested in Freedom, you might want to look into that a little more closely. Why is it that the gay movement (not just the marriage issue) have been unique in advancing Freedom in our society? I would have thought Libertarians (one of the least successful Freedom advancing movements) would pay more attention to how the gay movement has achieved its remarkable successes.

      1. Because that has not been about freedom, but equality. The gay rights movement does not really give a fig for freedom (which is why they are keen on forcing people to do business with them). Any expansion of freedom is incidental, it is not the goal.

        1. Equality? The gay marriage movement zoomed right past that stop when it started going after people’s livelihoods and getting the state to enforce its “protected class” status and privileges.

          As between the folks who own Liberty Ridge Farm and the lesbians who sicced the cops on them, who do you think is more equal?

          1. “started going after people’s livelihoods and getting the state to enforce its “protected class” status and privileges.”

            You are repeating the same idiocy as Mickey Rat. The state doesn’t need the gay movement or anyone else to egg it on to go after people. When Rights are granted, Enforcement is just around the corner.

            What’s odd here is that the only social movement to have recently advanced Freedom in society recently is excoriated in a so-called Libertarian forum.

          2. Equal access to largesse is important.

        2. “Because that has not been about freedom, but equality.”

          I disagree. It’s about the freedom to be yourself. I don’t think anyone in the gay movement believes that gayness equals straightness. The movement is defined by the disparity in sexual tastes, not their equality.

          “which is why they are keen on forcing people to do business with them”

          You are confusing the gay movement with the government. But you do have a point in there somewhere. Once a movement wins rights, the government must step in to protect them. With rights come responsibilities.

          “Any expansion of freedom is incidental, it is not the goal.”

          Something tells me you don’t think too highly of the gay movement. Is that why you resist studying their unique success in advancing Freedom?

          1. What he’s getting at, I think, is that the gay rights movement is not, for most of its adherents, driven by a desire for equality. It’s driven by an egocentrism, a desire to “get something for my people.”

            Hell, I’ve gotten a progressive to proudly admit he doesn’t care about equality so much as power for “his people.” Never forget: progressives don’t have principles.

            And as for the rest of the dumb masses? They really want to signal socially that they feel the right feelings about homosexuals. And that’s as far as it goes for most of them.

            1. You seem to be confusing gays and progressives. One is a sexual preference, the other is a political preference.

              I think gays typically want to live their life out of the closet without suffering for it too much. Like the ability to hold a job without be fired for being gay, for example. Maybe this is egocentric or unprincipled, you’d have to convince me though.

            2. Wait, stop. Everyone, STOP.

              Let’s be clear about the difference between legitimate civil rights issues and the jacking of those issues by leftists who want to control society by pulverizing it into competing special-interest groups.

            3. the gay rights movement is not, for most of its adherents, driven by a desire for equality. It’s driven by an egocentrism, a desire to “get something for my people.”

              That’s a common excuse — but lame — of bigots in the other extreme on that issue. Both extremes are self-righteous, as Eric Hoffer first identified in “The True Believers”

              “Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”?

              Throughout human history, the worst abuses have been committed by those who believe they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. The militant self-righteous. Zealots and fanatics.

              1. “I think gays typically want to live their life out of the closet without suffering for it too much. Like the ability to hold a job without be fired for being gay, for example. Maybe this is egocentric or unprincipled, you’d have to convince me though.”

                I honestly believe that too. But it seems like both TEAMS blow things out of proportion. The Left makes a fuss over a baker or photographer refusing to be a part of a gay wedding, and suddenly commerce is no longer voluntary. But the Right does its share of bloviating, too, when they oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it’ll advance the gay/progressive agenda and we’ll end up giving the leftists everything else they want. As if their only solution to the US sliding into third-world dictatorship is to keep gay marriage illegal.

                1. Bingo, Thomas. I strongly suspect that the “gay agenda” hysteria, that all supporters would force bakers and photographer to serve gays, is just a lame excuse for mostly homophobes, who clearly know nothing about gays.

                  I love to watch them freak out when I mention that Reagan defended gays as teachers in public schools, shortly before announcing his successful campaign. That would destroy him today, especially for the reasons he gave.
                  1) Homosexuality is not a choice.
                  2) (my favorite) Gay teachers are no threat to our children, because homosexuality is not contagious, like measles.

                  He was instrumental in defeating the anti-gay Briggs Initiative in California, the first defeat for the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade, a major player in social conservatism at the time. But it collapsed soon after, brought down by the Gipper. I never heard Reagan talk about forcing anyone to service gays. Nor Goldwater.

                  Indeed, Reagan and Goldwater were defending gays in the 70s, 20 years before Clinton signed both DADT and DOMA, and over 30 years before Obama crawled down from the fence.

        3. “Equality” needs to be in scare quotes there, but you’re absolutely right.

      2. One big difference: Hollywood has lots of gays, but not lots of libertarians.

        1. “Hollywood has lots of gays”

          Not all that many. Gays make up, what, 10% of the total population. That’s a far cry from 50% + 1. They’ve done very well despite that since the movement started in the late sixties.

          1. Gays are more like 2-3% of the overall population, but there is a much higher percentage in the entertainment industry, and some of them are very powerful and wealthy. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

            1. “but there is a much higher percentage in the entertainment industry”

              So are Jews and Scientologists but I don’t see anyone claiming that these groups have advanced Freedom. Jews run a horrid little apartheid state in Israel and Scientologists are notorious for their cultish practices.

              1. Jews run the freest country in the region by far.

                1. You mean Arabs are allowed to buy homes in Jew-only settlements? That’s what you mean by Freedom?

                  1. mtrueman|6.15.15 @ 9:02PM|#
                    “You mean Arabs are allowed to buy homes in Jew-only settlements? That’s what you mean by Freedom?”
                    Trueman is not interested in facts; trueman lies. Nothing trueman posts is to be trusted.

              2. mtrueman|6.15.15 @ 3:34PM|#
                “[…]Jews run a horrid little apartheid state in Israel[…]”

                Keep in mind that trueman lies. Trueman lies whenever trueman wants to make an argument.
                Trueman is a liar and nothing trueman posts is worth shit.

              3. Re: apartheid State. Have you checked wit Saudi Arabia lately? Tried being gay there? Or try being gay in Gaza. It is a hanging offense.

                1. “Re: apartheid State. Have you checked wit Saudi Arabia lately?”

                  If trueman said to look east for the sun tomorrow morning, you would be well advised to keep an eye westward.
                  Trueman lies; that’s all trueman does.

                2. “Re: apartheid State.”

                  You don’t appear to disagree with me.

                  1. And Jews are welcome to visit Saudi Arabia.

          2. They’ve (gays) done very well despite that since the movement started in the late sixties.

            That’s just as wacky as those who believe everyone supporting pot legalization MUST be a pot smoker. Try to stop shitting on individual liberty.

          3. The gay population is no where near 10%. It’s closer to 1%. Not that it matters when it comes to these political issues, but it’s important not to overestimate the number of people we are talking about.

            1. That’s for self-identified homosexuals. But 9% of men and 15% of woman report sexual attraction to the same gender, or sexual experience with the same gender. Neither, of course, has any bearing on equal rights and individual liberty.

      3. Libertarians — and I’ve been there from the beginning — have failed to advance liberty because we talk only to ourselves, are THE most tribal political group in America, think it’s “dirty” to seek elected office, go apeshit happy when somebody “wants” major spending cuts over anybody who actually achieves anything.

        That’s why the libertarian brans is rejected by 91% of libertarians (Cato/Zogby)
        But that’s movement libertarians. Nolan Chart libertarians (59% of the population) have been deeply involved in every liberty advance (including gay equality). Movement libertarians are only 5.3% of the people.

        Bluntly, you’ll never hear the Libertarian Establishment have a single thought on governing. The really believe we will arrive at a free society … never electing any libertarians.

        And a libertarian society, as extolled, is not even close to being a free society. We defend libertarianism for ourselves, instead of liberty for everyone (which we have no clue about).

        But go down to the local level, and thousands of libertarians are making small (tiny) advances every year. But they’re Nolan libertarians.

        1. I wish we could get more of any kind of libertarians employed by civilian gov’t as police, child protective workers, & teachers. I did some gov’t work, but only temporary & in a capacity where there wouldn’t’ve been great scope to fuck people over (Census Bureau), but I did my best to see to it they weren’t, including an “oopsie” w the rules.

          I was in recruiting, & got someone’s incomplete appl’n to try to follow up on. A phone conversation w her husband made clear to me she was demented (which I’d suspected from her appl’n & a phone convers’n w her), & that sending her into the field would’ve been dangerous for her. My sup’v. wanted me to follow thru w her appl’n, saying the man I talked to on the phone might’ve been oppressing her by keeping her from working, but I misfiled her folder to make sure she’d never be called again.

          1. Robert, I think you’ve been at least moderately active in state or local politics. NY?

            I was HEAVY into it, pure local. The winning tax revolt I launched is when I learned how many Nolan libertarians are out there. The organizing, meetings and active events. It was after that when I was the first paid director for a state LP (WA), and focused on local candidate development. Holy shit! I was fairly new to the state but never “saw” all the party libs in office already. Then I started looking at national conventions and found dozens more. My experience there is too small to be statistically valid, but if I was close then we must have easily over a thousand libs in local office — both large and small L.

    3. What period of time are you looking over? You might have a case re the time since the turn of the century, but that’s a short period to be getting a good avg. over. If I look back over 20 or more yrs. I see freedom increasing quite significantly.

      Most of the bad things you mentioned either have not actually increased (or can’t be proven to have), or are merely new versions of things that’ve gone on in somewhat different formats for a long time. I get tired of listing all the increases in liberty that’ve occurred over the past 20, 50, or 100 yrs.

      1. Indeed, Robert. Having grown up in the tyrannical 50s, the expansion of liberty since then is truly marvelous. There are those who claim “tyranny” as individual liberties slowly continue expanding, as they have been since the Enlightenment began shutting down the church/state atrocities, ever so slowly. It’s like the slavemasters who opposed emancipation.

  13. It’s a mistake to assume that Wall Street players are right-leaning. Being rich people, they:
    * are targets of left-ish agitators, which is bad for business if the noise gets loud enough. Best to buy them off with donations.
    * are influential and subject to the temptation of all influential people to protect their rice bowl first
    * can rent-seek their way to profit, and have no reason to care about level playing fields.
    * can afford regulatory compliance, and benefit from it to the extent that it raises the barrier to entry for potential competitors.

    Masters of the universe are primarily interested in continuing to be masters of the universe, which is why they get along so well with politicians who are primarily interested in keeping their power. Libertarianism in no way supports that goal, so the masters of the universe are never going to break Libertarian.

      1. That statist embodiment of the military-industrial complex? Nah, if anyone I’d say Battlecat…

    1. Very true JTR. Many big corps depend on government contracts to enrich themselves. My experience in healthcare taught me that if you wanted to get filthy rich, you figured out a way to legally bilk Medicare or Medicaid through some absurd government healthcare program. No matter how conservative the employees and execs are at home, all big healthcare people become flaming libs when it comes to expanding or cutting federal healthcare.

    2. Also, they want to get invited to the “right” cocktail parties, and that’s not going to happen if they oppose gay marriage or anything that the “right” people (and their wives) believe.

    3. Libertarianism in no way supports that goal, so the masters of the universe are never going to break Libertarian.

      I guess we throw our lot in with Skeletor, then

      1. I guess we throw our lot in with Skeletor, then

        Only those who have already thrown their lot in with George Wallace, Orval Faubus. David Duke, Ron and Rand Paul, the Klan, the Inquisitors who slaughtered all those Jews in the First Holocaust, the Salem witch “burners,” Pol Pot, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and elsewhere … and on and on since at least the mass genocide of the Canaanites

  14. So billionaire donors telling Republicans how to vote is The Libertarian Moment these days?

    1. So billionaire donors telling Republicans how to vote is The Libertarian Moment these days?

      That’s a rather shameful distortion of the article. Some people try to shut down and censor the SUPPORT of candidates who don’t mindlessly conform to their prejudices, as they assault free speech with pious sounding bullshit.

  15. I think Nick missed an opportunity here to reiterate something he’s articulated in the past. Maybe his views have changed.

    I personally don’t think “Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal” is (or should be) the description of the Libertarian brand. Its a cliche formula that i think misleads people about what kind of politics represent the libertarian ideal.

    Because whether or not I have “socially liberal” or “socially conservative” views should be irrelevant = I don’t believe in making “social” things political at all

    I don’t want politicians who sell themselves based on having “the right” social views, or voters who want to impose these views on the rest of America.

    I want politicians who believe that what makes America great is the freedom we allow for people to live whatever kind of life they want.

    If those views are religious and conservative = more power to them. if they are secular and liberal = whoop de doo. Go for it. What I don’t want us anyone enforcing one group’s POV over the other. The implication that we “as a country” are moving in any direction is meaningless to me because I don’t give a shit about ‘the country’ as some homogenous totality, but rather the freedoms of the range of individuals within that mix.

    1. I disagree. I think it’s a fair approximation for quickly explaining libertarianism to someone who knows nothing about it.

      The only problem I have with it is that progs are no longer liberal…they are becoming full-on statist.

      1. “I think it’s a fair approximation for quickly explaining libertarianism to someone who knows nothing about it.”

        The problem is that it reduces the Nolan chart to a 1 dimensional “left/right” axis, and fails to communicate anything about “liberty”

        the underlying principle that fails to get communicated is the idea that some things should be beyond political control

        I could also quibble with the point about fiscal ‘conservatism’. I’d prefer to describe it as “sanity”

        1. I put it to you that (the stated) fiscal positions of Republicans (free markets) and the social positions of liberals (keep government out of my bedroom) are in support of personal liberty. Although, I do agree neither live up to their stated positions.

          It’s a good jumping off point.

        2. The trouble w “sanity” is that many would think of that similarly to fiscal policies that’ve been described as “sound”, “conservative”, “responsible”, or “prudent”, by which was meant minimizing borrowing by any means available, including raising taxes.

          1. Or asshole Republicans stealing from income taxes to buy votes with Medicare Prescriptions … now stealing nearly a quarter of the entire personal income tax, well over $200 billion per year (because the income tax is a massive middle-class subsidy extracted from the rich).

            This was after the Bush tax cuts created the biggest wealth redistribution since FDR, sending 85% of the cuts to taxpayers grossing under $250,000, who were paying only 45% of the personal income tax! Wealth redistribution, GOP version.

            Then, after the GOP pissed away trillions of dollars to buy votes, they lost to Obama!! The fucked up totally on healthcare, allowing the other party to piss away trillions, also to buy votes … as the partisan bobbleheads on both sides nod in support. But let’s restrict abortion, hate gays and place nuclear booby traps all along the border.

            Time yet to start learning Chinese?

      2. I agree with Gilmore. The problem is that there are a whole bunch of people who think they are socially liberal because they support gay marriage and legal abortion but it never occurs to them that their support for gun control, food regulations and any number of hundreds of other nanny state regulations is not socially liberal by any reasonable definition of the term.

        To the extent most of the people who claim to be socially liberal actually are, it mostly relates to sex and maybe Pot and not much else. And that is a problem.

        1. I agree with Gilmore as well. It’s a good shorthand formulation, but only up to a point. It’s one thing to be “socially liberal” in the sense of “let gay people be gay.” But that has now shifted, and now “socially liberal” can mean “force that priest/baker/pizzamaker to serve at a gay wedding,” or “you must address me by my preferred pronoun (which we invented last week),” and all sorts of other illiberal crap.

          1. Because the Progs use the term as a political weapon. They are the creators and the aggressors in the culture war not the right. The Progs use the culture war as a way to avoid debating the merits of their position and to marginalize their opponents.

            1. Because the Progs use the term as a political weapon.

              Like you use Progs as a weapon?

              They are the creators and the aggressors in the culture war not the right.

              Partisan tribalism would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad. The social Nazis came decades before the so-called Progs. Tell us where the Progs were in the 1970s, when the so-called “Christian right” emerged — and Goldwater said they were a major threat to his party — and Reagan was defending gay teachers from far-right attacks.. Google the Anita Bryant Crusade.

              When Reagan strongly attacked the Christian Right, gays were still mostly in the closet, but targeted in the military (which Goldwater ridiculed)

          2. The trouble w that is that in most of the advanced world by now they do let gay people be gay (or lesbian); it’s only the backward countries where that battle hasn’t been won.

            Meanwhile when it comes to drugs, about as far as most of the progs will get you is not jailing users.

            Aside from that, where will they get us, liberty-wise, starting w where things are & where they are? They’re no longer good on porn, even. They’ve even started to move to the wrong side re antisemitism (although they’re not against Semites) & anti-orientalism.

          3. now “socially liberal” can mean “force that priest/baker/pizzamaker to serve at a gay wedding,”

            Only to bigoted assholes on BOTH sides of the aisle. For all of human history, tyrants have fomented hysteria to seek and maintain their hold over loyal subjects.
            Like Chicken Little, the sky is always falling. “Send me money, votes and more power over others.”

      3. Yeah, but the problem is that to a lot of people that winds up being translated into “liberal Republican” which isn’t at all correct. Or if it is, then just be a Republican and be done with it. The key difference between a libertarian and a conservative or a Progressive is the belief that all aggression is inherently immoral, and the natural consequence of that belief is that government aggression in the forms of things like taxation, regulation, etc. is immoral to varying degrees. There’s actually a fair bit of daylight between, “Government shouldn’t interfere with how people live their lives,” and “Government has no right to tell people how to live their lives.”

    2. Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal as a social signifier is deeply subversively damaging to libertarianism, IMO.

      As a social signifier, fiscal conservatism can mean “higher taxes”, if the fundamental goal is balancing the budget (which is generally what it means).

      As a social signifier, socially liberal is generally taken to mean support for proggy causes, most of which are deeply hostile to liberty.

      It is perfectly possible for someone who is a full-on statist to identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative by calling for higher taxes and the continued expansion of the Total State into every aspect of your life (except, needless to say, your uterus). And by associating the libertarian brand with social signifiers that are hostile to libertarianism, you are damaging the libertarian brand.

      1. Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal as a social signifier is deeply subversively damaging to libertarianism, IMO.

        Those are secondary. How else would we serve the core principle of rejecting government force?

        socially liberal is generally taken to mean support for proggy causes, most of which are deeply hostile to liberty.

        Only by extreme social conservatives. This is an issue of how libertarians self-define, which obviously excludes the more vocal social conservatives.

        And by associating the libertarian brand with social signifiers that are hostile to libertarianism, you are damaging the libertarian brand

        We cannot be responsible for every dumbfuck idea.
        It’s like that white woman claiming she’s black. Does that damage all blacks?
        When Elizabeth Warren claimed to be native American. Did that damage native Americans?
        And 59% of Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Cato/Zogby)

        1. I think it may be time soon (like next month) for me to do a phone poll to ask people if they’re socially liberal & to ask them what it means.

          I encourage others of you to take your own polls. It’s really cheap these days by phone. If you’re willing to hit a lot of non-working numbers, random (or modified random) dialing is the way to sample.

          1. Robert, have we ever traded notes on the Cato/Zogby survey in 2005 or 6, that had 59% of respondent’s SELF identify as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That doesn’t tell us how they define it, but it’s been a log time since I met anyone new who was NOT socially tolerant.

            I wish we’d use the word tolerant more, like Gary Johnson. It’s almost universally a positive trait.

    3. I personally don’t think “Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal” is (or should be) the description of the Libertarian brand

      Where were you in the late 60s!?

      I don’t believe in making “social” things political at all

      Neither do libertarians. And it’s the Huckabee/Santorum crowd that need to hear that,

      I want politicians who believe that what makes America great is the freedom we allow for people to live whatever kind of life they want.

      How is that any different than fiscally conservative and socially liberal? (I do prefer Gary Johnson.’s fiscally responsible and socially tolerant, mostly because liberal and conservative can both be attack words.)

      We do have people who practice attack politics, convinced that all social liberals are the hated Progs, or that the entire Christian right are dastardly theocrats.. It’s really bigotry on both ends.

      The Progs and the Theocrats are both minorities in their tribes, but are the loudest.

      1. How about “fiscally cheap” or “stingy”? “Fiscally responsible” has been used too much to mean anti-borrowing.

        1. Robert, I have the same concern on the fiscal modifier, I’ve taken to giving examples like

          “socially tolerant … like live and let live”

          “fiscally responsible … like controlling my spending?

          I can see us using “cheap” or “stingy” verbally, face to face, with a smile.

          I just hate to use conservative and liberal because they each have strong negatives to the very people we’re trying to reach.

  16. Surely the GOP would pick up far more votes than it lost if its presidential candidates emphatically stated that many social concerns are simply not the province of the state and should be addressed through civil society rather than top-down mandates.

    This isn’t even likely, much less sure. We shouldn’t kid ourselves.

  17. As noted here just a few weeks back, social conservatives are losing steam, with Gallup finding for the first time ever a tie between those of us who identify as liberal and conservative on social issues.

    Nick, you do mention the problem of defining “socially liberal” some paragraphs later, but it is still important to emphasize the fact that most people who are “socially liberal” tend to prefer social policies that seek to cocoon people from the vicissitudes of life, like our resident Marxian Tony would say, “Freedom means being free of want.” This would man that socially-liberal people will support policies that would steer people towards perfection. What, in essence, is that different from social conservatives who wants people to be virtuous?

    And another question: What if the social conservatives just want to be left alone? Why is it that when the topic of social conservatism is brought up, the assumption is always that they invariably are for interventionist social policies? Why is the assumption that the Socially-Liberal are NOT?

    1. This would man that socially-liberal people will support policies that would steer people towards perfection.

      “Steering” people is NOT socially liberal.

      What, in essence, is that different from social conservatives who wants people to be virtuous?

      You can “want” people to do whatever you want. But you can’t impose YOUR version of virtue. The essence of libertarianism.

      What if the social conservatives just want to be left alone?

      Then they’d leave others alone! And NEVER try to “steer” anyone.

      Why is it that when the topic of social conservatism is brought up, the assumption is always that they invariably are for interventionist social policies?

      It’s not, but a good question. If they’re not rightwing fascists, then they’d bitch at Santorum and Huckabee as disgraces to Christian conservatism — instead of bitching at Nick. And they’d avoid concepts like “steering” people!

      Why is the assumption that the Socially-Liberal are NOT?

      Because they wouldn’t be socially liberal! It’s like that woman falsely claiming she was black. Does that mean she is?

      If you’re saying that forcing bakers to bake a cake is wrong — as I believe it is — what if the enforcers are trying to “steer” people toward THEIR perfection, which may be quite different than YOUR perfection … which ultimately answers your first quoted question.

      1. Re: Michael Hindered,

        “Steering” people is NOT socially liberal.

        That’s not the point. Address the point, Michael: How many so-called “socially-liberal” minds are, in reality, socialists?

        It’s not, but a good question

        I beg to differ – it IS the assumption.

        What was the assumption behind Chick-Fill-A’s decision to take the government to court to stop Obamacare from mandating the company to provide abortion pills (as “contraceptives”) for its female workers? Why, what else but that the company is “imposing its values” on its workers, was it not?

        what if the enforcers are trying to “steer” people toward THEIR perfection, which may be quite different than YOUR perfection

        Why would that question be relevant? The idea of steering people by force is morally wrong, unethical, against people’s right to choose their own destiny, repulsive, reprehensible… you name it. I don’t pretend to steer anybody towards anything. I don’t pretend or seek perfection at all.

        I am not here to provide a value-judgment on the types of perfection each side seeks. What I am here to say is that there is some naivete in the notion that socially-liberal people are also friendly to freedom and personal liberty.

        1. HIHN “Steering” people is NOT socially liberal.

          That’s not the point.

          You mentioned it twice, as your premise,

          Address the point, Michael: How many so-called “socially-liberal” minds are, in reality, socialists?

          That’s the first you’ve mentioned it. Relevance?

          MEXICAN: Why is it that when the topic of social conservatism is brought up, the assumption is always that they invariably are for interventionist social policies?

          HIHN: It’s not, but a good question. (balance of my reply deleted)

          MEXICAN. I beg to differ – it IS the assumption.

          Now you’re doing exactly what you accuse them of!!

          Chick-Fill-A’s decision

          It was Hobby Lobby as PLAINTIFF, doesn’t prove it always happens, and a private company is not government.

          HIHN:what if the enforcers are trying to “steer” people toward THEIR perfection, which may be quite different than YOUR perfection

          Why would that question be relevant?

          Umm, you defended social conservatives “steering” people to THEIR perfection. Double standard confirmed.

          What I am here to say is that there is some naivete in the notion that socially-liberal people are also friendly to freedom and personal liberty.

          That’s not what you first said, and applies equally to social conservatives.

          You keep distorting your own words, so I’m done.

    2. most people who are “socially liberal” tend to prefer social policies that seek to cocoon people from the vicissitudes of life, like our resident Marxian Tony would say, “Freedom means being free of want

      The “most people” part is bullshit. The Marxist part violates fiscal conservatism. Just that simple!
      And do the math. The number of social liberals is MUCH greater than the Marxists.
      Marxists are as few as the extreme social conservatives, who together are less than 25% of the population (meaning those who votes are largely or entirely influenced by socialism or social conservatism). When we get outside the echo chambers, the vast majority of social conservatives are NOT “theocrats”, and the vast majority of economic liberals are not collectivist/statist. Popular usage of those terms can be deceptive.

      1. Yes, they jyst beluve in massive government regulation and wealth redistribution. They are marxists in all but name.

        1. Yes, they jyst beluve in massive government regulation and wealth redistribution. They are marxists in all but name

          It’s still bullshit, and false negative stereotypes are a definition of bigotry.
          I’ll assume you have zero experience in retail politics.

          1. Keep your hands OFF my Medicare, says the Granny with a cross around her neck.

            Call me a skeptic, but there are no fiscal conservatives anymore.

            1. Call me a skeptic, but there are no fiscal conservatives anymore.

              Hypocrites have existed since, well, at least the time of Christ. That’s why libertarianism seeks to keep both fiscal conservatism and social liberalism properly defined (as the Founders did). Problem is, most libertarians isolate themselves from political activism — the only political movement that rejects political action! — and thus are easily brainwashed about what Americans are like.

              Either watch the polls more carefully or walk the walk. Thousands of libertarians have done that — big L, small L and Nolan Chart libs — and have formed genuine local coalitions that have advanced liberty in tiny baby steps … as the Libertarian Establishment sits masturbating in their ivory tower — only a slight exaggeration 🙂

  18. “Republicans have to understand that because young people in our country are not grabbed by those issues.”…

    The young people are grabbed by “socially liberal” issues that the proggies have pushed for decades. When you mention “fiscally conservative” they know it means “less free shit”. The political left is one stop shopping for social liberalism and, free shit, so why would they bother with libertarians?

    1. And you tell me how anyone is ever “socially liberal” enough for them. As soon as the Progs win on a social issue and the other side folds, they just move onto something else. They create the culture war as a way to constantly marginalize the Right. Does Nick just not understand that?

      1. So, thanks to the negligence of their opponents, liberals control the terms of every debate by always demanding “more” while never defining “enough”. The predictable result is that they always get more, and it’s never enough.

        …Joseph Sobran

        1. Exactly that. What Libertarians should be doing is defining what society and government should look like and working towards that. They need to stop worrying about fitting anyone’s label.

          1. Yup. And that applies to non-cultural things as well. E.g. to a leftist, the problems of Baltimore are due to a lack of “investment in education” and inadequate government spending and meddling in the economy. The fact that they’ve had lots of that for generations is ignored or dismissed.

          2. They need to stop worrying about fitting anyone’s label.

            A standard, lame excuse by many social conservatives who are totally clueless on libertarianism. You want to roll over and play dead, when so-called “progs” distort social liberalism, so you can tar all social liberals as progs … which you’ve done up and down this entire page.

            You both pose a grave threat to individual liberty, both seeking gummint power to impose your standards on everyone else — thankfully shrinking to now less than 25% of the electorate (combined).

            Fighting for liberty means fighting for tolerance. Your time has expired. But libertarians are opposed to activism and governing, believing that a free society will spring from the ground like weeds as they look out the high windows of their Ivory Tower.

    2. The young people are grabbed by “socially liberal” issues that the proggies have pushed for decades.

      So have libertarians. For over four decades now.
      Liberty is a basket of rights … not of issues. I thought everyone knew that.

      1. Re: Michael Hindered,

        So have libertarians. For over four decades now.

        You’re jesting.

        1. You’re jesting.

          You’re quite new I take it. Libertarians were first defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal in 1969, and ever since.. That’s over four decades.
          See David Nolan and World’s Smallest Political Quiz.
          Any other questions?

          1. And Hihnsanity strikes again…

            How do you think Hillary Clinton would define herself?

            Perhaps “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”?

            I’m sure she will be an asset for advancing libertarian policy…

            1. Here’s a typical example of anti-rational “thinking”

              And Hihnsanity strikes again…

              Childish name-calling often suggests a bigot. Then they go wacky, like this:

              How do you think Hillary Clinton would define herself?

              Lord of War insists … insists … that reality is defined by … wait for it …. Hillary Clinton!

              Perhaps “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”?

              (laughing hysterically) This is how the Christian Taliban “think.” Christianity will cease to exist, even if one non-Christian claims to be Christian (gasp) Yes, that’s precisely the “principal” he or she has applied.

              I’m sure she will be an asset for advancing libertarian policy…

              For those who are new at this, Lord of War has actually defended social bigotry, by lying through its teeth about fiscal conservatism AND social liberalism — phony definitions — aka the strawman fallacies we learned about in junior high.

              Anyone else believe that fiscally conservative means attacking inequality and promoting wealth redistribution???? I didn’t think so.

              They walk among us. And they vote. As gullible as Birthers.

  19. First, the idea that Wall Street wants “fiscally conservative” candidates is laughable. Wait until they need another bailout and see how interested in fiscal conservativism they are then. Or have a candidate of either party question the wisdom of the Fed forever screwing savers and the middle class with easy money so stock and asset prices can forever inflate and see how “conservative” Wall Street is.

    What a joke. Beyond, that as Old Mexican points out above, “socially liberal” is a relative term. There is no objective definition of what set of views constitute socially liberal. So Progs just constantly move the bar. It used to be anyone who thought gays should be able to live openly was “socially liberal”. Then anyone who didn’t think the states should be forced to grant them marriage licenses is out of the “socially liberal” club. Now anyone who thinks that transvestites are anything but the greatest most courageous people on earth is out. And soon it will be something else. Progressives are using “socially liberal” as a way to slowly destroy our freedom and make us into the nasty and intolerant society they so long to create. And Nick is cheering them on.

    More culture wars and Wall Street bailouts. The Libertarian moment has arrived.

    1. Wait until they need another bailout and see how interested in fiscal conservativism (sic) they are then.

      Amen Brother.

    2. as Old Mexican points out above, “socially liberal” is a relative term. There is no objective definition of what set of views constitute socially liberal. So Progs just constantly move the bar

      Libertarians have defined it the same way for over 40 years now.
      Very simple. don’t use government to deny equal rights.to anyone. For anything.
      It would also violate the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments!

      The term is not changing, as part of the vast Progressive conspiracy. You apparently never knew what it meant — which seems quite evident in your mythical “changes.” You were wrong to assume liberty applies to only your chosen elites, which is your problem..

      1. Whatever my problems are they pale in comparison to your problem of being an idiot. Libertarians don’t own the term. And it is relative anyway. What is socially liberal in one place and time is not in another. Libertarians like you who are either not bright enough or honest enough to understand the nature of the culture war and why progs wage it spend your time trying to endlessly fight it and fit in with the Prog definition of it only to see the progs, since they basically own the mass culture, move it and forever leave their political opponents marginalized and on the defensive.

        If you can’t understand that process, you are just stupid and likely never will.

        1. hatever my problems are they pale in comparison to your problem of being an idiot.

          One of us is ….

          Libertarians don’t own the term.

          I never said they did.

          And it is relative anyway.

          Already debunked. I’ll try to make it more clear for you..

          What is socially liberal in one place and time is not in another.

          One more time: Very simple. don’t use government to deny equal rights.to anyone. For anything. It would also violate the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments! The principle dates to our founding. “Socially liberal” is just one of many current labels for the eternal principle. What you call “progs” lie about that, just as many socons lie about the Bible and Constitution. Tribalism. Liberty is liberty, despite your denials

          The term is not changing, as part of some vast Progressive conspiracy. You apparently never knew what it meant — which seems quite evident in your mythical “changes.” You were wrong to assume liberty EVER applied to only your chosen elites, which is your problem

          The 9th Amendment was ratified with the Constitution, in 1788. The 14th was ratified 1868. Liberty is liberty.

      2. Re: Michael Hindered,

        Libertarians have defined it the same way for over 40 years now.

        You’re jesting.

        Very simple. don’t use government to deny equal rights.to anyone.

        Which equal rights, Michael? That is the crux of the issue: how are “rights” being defined by the SoLibs.

        As I proposed above, most SoLibs tend to define rights as whatever cocoons people from the vicissitudes of life, which would impose a burden on others to provide. Instead, we libertarians define rights as those things we already have: the right to our lives, to our bodies and our property. This imposes a burden on EACH of us to respect other peoples right to their lives, their bodies and their property.

        1. Which equal rights, Michael? That is the crux of the issue: how are “rights” being defined by the SoLibs.

          What’s a SoLib? And how are they any less bullshit than the socons??

          As I proposed above, most SoLibs tend to define rights as whatever cocoons people from the vicissitudes of life, which would impose a burden on others to provide.

          Some do.

          Instead, we libertarians define rights as those things we already have: the right to our lives, to our bodies and our property. This imposes a burden on EACH of us to respect other peoples right to their lives, their bodies and their property.

          Who tells Ron/Rand Paul and the other extreme SoCons?

          Oh yeah,

          Michael Hindered,

          It’s Hihn,

      3. Except, you are using government to deny my right to say “no”.

        Isn’t that true?

        1. Except, you are using government to deny my right to say “no”.
          Isn’t that true?

          No. And shame on you for mixing the two.

          1. Shame on you! I was asking for clarification. That is being polite.

            You should have stopped at “no”.

            1. It’s Hihn, the only real libertarian in the western hemisphere. Were you expecting something else?

              1. Woodchippin’ 4
                Shame on you! I was asking for clarification.

                Lie.

                You should have stopped at “no”.

                How the fuck was government supported as denying your right to say “no”
                Shame on you for confusing social tolerance with social fascism, then not having the balls to defend your statement.

              2. Ceci n’est pas un woodchipper|6.15.15 @ 7:40PM|#
                It’s Hihn, the only real libertarian in the western hemisphere. Were you expecting something else?

                (snicker) How was government supported as denying anyone’s right to say “no”?

                (this is how bigots display their intolerance .. in this case anyone who attacks their bullshit by knowing what socially liberal means … as they assert that I’m the only person on earth who disagrees with them!!! … while ALSO refusing to explain the lying statement. Accept their word without question, or else!!).

                For all the non-libertarians checking out this site, don’t judge libertarianism by these bigots, who exist in every political tribe. Look around some more about what get’s published ABOVE their screeching. Have a favorite topic or two? Use the search window to see the truth.

    3. First, the idea that Wall Street wants “fiscally conservative” candidates is laughable

      And your negative stereotyping is the definition of a bigot.
      Wall Street is not an individual, which is laughable. Individuals each have their own standards.
      And libertarians, by our nature, tend to judge people as individuals, rejecting your “identity politics.”

        1. He’s not a libertarian. He is a bigot. And Mozilla is not the government.
          Free markets include boycotts. Firing him strikes me as dumb, but Mozilla is a private employer and I doubt he’s still unemployed.

          Now, what does he have to do with anything I said?

    4. When I went out on some errands earlier I heard Rush saying the same thing.

      1. See!! I knew all of you Peanuts just take your marching others from Fat Rush!

        /shriek

  20. So…. libertarians have to get into bed with Wall Street – and by that I mean crony capitalism – to gain political power?

    Uhm… no thanks.

    1. Lord Humungous. Take a course in reading. That was really dumb.
      Most likely another social bigot lobbing blank hand grenades as a diversion, which is what they do here — especially for articles promoting social liberalism (which they also lie about)..

  21. Appeal to Bullshittery is not much of an argument.
    I stopped reading; did we get a quote from that flimflam artiste Leo Hindery? What about that babbling idjit Jack Welch?

  22. So, the billionaire is trying to close down Ron and Rand Paul?
    Isn’t Gillespie the same dud who says the rise of extreme social conservatives is “proof” of a libertarian moment? And the growth in social liberalism is also “proof” of a libertarian moment?

    I guess if the sun comes up tomorrow that will be yet more proof of a libertarian moment.
    It’s getting difficult to keep up.

    1. When did Nick Gillespie say the rise of ‘extreme social conservatives is proof of the libertarian moment”?

      Because the article does not say that.

      1. HURR DURR DURR RON AN RAND PAUL R EXTREEM SOSHUL KONSURVATIVS

      2. When did Nick Gillespie say the rise of ‘extreme social conservatives is proof of the libertarian moment”?
        Because the article does not say that.

        Check my phrasing, and he’s been around long before this article.
        He’s repeatedly written that the Paul’s are part of a libertarian moment, and they’re extreme social conservatives. But the growing approval of socially liberal views on drugs, gays, etc, are also proof of a libertarian moment.

    2. The Paul’s have done more to advance the cause of individual rights than you could ever dream of doing, Michael.

      1. The Paul’s have done more to advance the cause of individual rights than you could ever dream of doing, Michael.

        On net, positives and negatives, I’m way ahead. You have no idea what I’ve done in public office, which tells me all I need to know about you.

        Now … explain how one can advance individual rights by trashing individual rights in the Constitution?? Isn’t the Constitution supposed to be the primary guarantor of our individual rights?

      2. Dude, just ignore him. Seriously, do a little bit of huntin’ on the Interwebs for “Mike Hihn”. I was going to rip him a new one for the post below but it would’ve been too damn cruel.

        1. Dude, just ignore him

          Note to casual or new readers. It’s called cyber-bullying, personal attacks all over the page, but never any substantive comments, because they have no substantive thinking.
          They travel in packs like wild animals, gang up on people like street thugs, giving each other high fives, stuff like that. You may have visited Reason.com to escape that type, but they’re everywhere on both the left and the right.

          Extreme social conservatives act like thugs … precisely like extreme economic liberals … because only thugs use government to punish people and/or to forcibly control the lives of others. ..

  23. I fucking despise SoCons. But, as has been pointed out above, anybody who pretends “fiscal conservative” wins out over “socially liberal” in that self declared overlapping population of survey respondents is an idiot.
    We’re DOOOOOOOMED.

    1. that self declared overlapping population of survey

      The most formal survey I’ve seen, Cato hired Zogby a top political pollster, found 59% self-identifying as BOTH fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

      The World’s Smallest Political Quiz has shown a majority in the libertarian quadrant since day one, but that’s people who walk into a libertarian booth on their own volition.

  24. OH SHIT! Another libertarian moment and I missed it again!

    1. wooosh!

  25. Plot the number of subpoenas received by Reason by decade. Tell me about that libertarian moment again.

    1. Plot the number of subpoenas received by Reason by decade. Tell me about that libertarian moment again.

      The most recent one was downright humiliating. But not unexpected.

  26. Surely the GOP would pick up far more votes than it lost if

    Those things are never sure.

    The trouble is that even the independents aren’t independent. They too have their clusters of opinion (& other clusters of social influence) which, even if they don’t appear at a given moment to align with a Team, make them subject to herding rather than independently weighing each issue of interest to them. You can never tell if some peccadillo will upset a few opinion leaders currently aligned or unaligned with a given Team who’ll then pull a bunch of folks with them according to affiliations you’d never have considered (membership in their church or club, fandom for some celeb, etc.)?& the opinion leaders aren’t all the professional “opinion leaders” you think of by that phrase; they can equally likely be anyone who gets temporary att’n for some reason.

  27. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.worktoday7.com

  28. Honestly, the candidates in the race that most identify as “social conservatives”, Huckabee and Santorum are polling terribly. The only reason any of the others even talk about it from my perspective is the media trying to elicit some sound bite with gotcha questions about attending ssm’s and whether they believe in evolution and whatnot. Don’t think it’s quite the fixation the guy’s making it out to be.

    1. Don’t think it’s quite the fixation the guy’s making it out to be.

      It damages the brand severely, at the same time many of them are playing that 20-week abortion game, opposing marriage equality and otherwise toadying to the socons.

      I keep hoping that Huckabee’s and Santorum’s polling weakness would give the others some balls, but Iowa can be a bitch on that.

      And anyone his age remembers well how Goldwater said the Moral Majority was a threat to his party. You don’t have Repubs today with strong socially liberal creds like Reagan and Goldwater had.

  29. Surely the GOP would pick up far more votes than it lost if its presidential candidates emphatically stated that many social concerns are simply not the province of the state and should be addressed through civil society rather than top-down mandates.

    Excellent summation and my new favorite campaign slogan. Perhaps a bit wordy but on point…
    “Not the province of the state”

  30. I clicked on the link hoping to a closer up view of the chick in the t-shirt, instead some old white guy pointing his finger.

    That is fraud! Where is Senator Warren when I need her?

    1. You’re hoping to see Fauxcahantus instead of some random white guy? What is wrong with you?

      1. No! The brunette with the “Legalize Reason” t-shirt

  31. One can not be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The socially liberal wants the fiscally conservative to pay for idiot human rights programs. You mean socially libertarian, I’m sure !!

    1. The socially liberal wants the fiscally conservative to pay for idiot human rights programs. You mean socially libertarian, I’m sure !!

      Your example was NOT fiscally conservative. Have you ever seen the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. 10 questions, five on economic issues, five on social issues. For over 30 years. Here’s a cut-and-paste. See how they play off each other.

      Personal Issues
      Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet.
      Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
      There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
      Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
      There should be no National ID card.

      Economic Issues
      End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business.
      End government barriers to international free trade.
      Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
      Replace government welfare with private charity.
      Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.

      Large numbers score high on both types of questions, personal (social) and economic.
      Google the quiz if you’d like to see how the responses are plotted on a two-dimensional table.

      1. I’m a libertarian leaning Christian conservative.

        I would list the 5 personal issues as libertarian, not liberal, because they (particularly 4 & 5) let people make their own choices.

        Liberalism is about removing responsibility. “It’s not your fault you’re…(poor, pregnant, unemployed, making minimum wage, etc, etc) and most of those require other people’s money to “solve”, making them incompatible with being a fiscal conservative.

        Personal
        absolutely
        except maybe in absolute emergency (last resort)
        probably, although you have to define “consenting” and “adult”
        some drugs are really dangerous, but I’ll talk about it
        I’ve always thought that, but some things like illegal immigration make me pause

        Economic
        all, absolutely

        1. I’ll suggest that it’s the MIX of liberal (social) and conservative (fiscal)) is what displays libertarianism. The distinction traces to David Nolan in the late 60s, who began by saying the traditional left-right axis was obsolete. He was correct since the majority of Americans will self-identify as fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Cato/Zogby survey, 2006)

          I’m a libertarian leaning Christian conservative

          But … but … but … there is no such thing! (joke)
          Actually, I’ve known many who self-identify as you do, which even libertarians often dismiss. We (the movement) hardly ever defends legitimate to us (libertarian) positions of the Christian right. I’m an atheist, but I’ve organized hundreds of local Christian conservatives for tax revolts and the like. They knew I was an atheist — many often ask if I’d found Jesus — but they didn’t give a fig. I wish more Americans would look past the stereotypes and see that.

          1. I’ll suggest that it’s the MIX of liberal (social) and conservative (fiscal)) is what displays libertarianism.

            As you’ve said before. The problem is, you’re entirely wrong. The words change as times change, so if that’s how you define yourself, your beliefs will change as the times do.

            Libertarianism (small “L”) is NAP. Defining it any other way is dangerous, and potentially stupid.

            1. The words change as times change,

              Umm, aggression has meant the same thing for thousands of years. And I understand that you’ve just begun learning about libertarianism.
              Focus on aggression and you’ll stay out of trouble.

              Libertarianism (small “L”) is NAP. Defining it any other way is dangerous, and potentially stupid.

              No, stupid is not grasping what aggression is and is not.
              I’ll go slowly for ya this time.

              NAP is non-aggression (private and government)
              Socially liberal means no government aggression in personal matters.
              Fiscally conservative means no government aggression in economic matters.
              That’s why libertarianism has been defined that way since 1969.
              Now flip it for further proof.

              Fiscal liberalism MEANS government intervention in economics.
              Social conservatism MEANS government intervention in personal matters.

              and potentially stupid.

              But if you don’t know what aggression is, how can you begin to grasp the meaning and purpose of NAP???? Libertarianism is so much more than memorized soundbites.

              You do know that NAP means Non-Aggression Principle, right?
              And that principles are not policies, eh??

  32. Some have apparently forgotten what happens to fads like “free love” of the 70’s. Always
    some who are afraid to go against those who proclaim homo beavior the newest thing – been around for 40,000 years (as long as murder, incest, etc) and never made sense to those who
    don’t suffer from sexual mental illnesses. Look at the logic – it stinks. Always has, always will.

    1. I agree. Your logic stinks 🙂

    2. Arthur, are you claiming that physical attraction to the same sex is ‘mental illness’?
      If so, I think you got lost on your way to Storm Front or some such.

      1. you got lost on your way to Storm Front or some such.

        My thought also. The mental illness thing. But he says it’s not just the people who are attracted to the same sex, it’s also any straight who defends their constitutional (and/or God-Given) right to do so.

    3. Some have apparently forgotten what happens to fads like “free love” of the 70’s

      And some have forgotten that it was the 60s. 🙂
      The 60s saw a major breakthrough in the rejection of hateful bigots. And homosexuality was not really a part of Free Love. FL was mostly wife swapping, group sex and open nudity.

  33. Hey – what’s up.
    I click on the hot chick pic and I get a tired old may pic

  34. That’s great, Nick. How does he feel about funding crony corporatists? Sounds like he’s half-way there. A step in the right direction. I’ll take.

  35. “Libertarian moment”, huh? That’s been happening for how long now? I mean, gay marriage is neat and stuff, but ya think maybe we should hold off on the bunting and the parades and such until, I don’t know, we don’t have the IRS enforcing mandatory health insurance, or maybe we’re not fiddling around half-assedly in the Middle East, or perhaps we’ve abolished the DHS and repealed the Patriot Act even?

    I mean, as a Redskins fan this puts me in mind of last season when a tight end would get a first down and celebrate at the friggin’ 42 because, hey, it’s a first down, and that’s progress! Nick’s like, “Oh boy, some millenials think gay marriage is the shit and maybe people shouldn’t go to prison for smoking pot sometimes! LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!!!”

    1. This thinking is why the libertarian brand is rejected by even 91% of libertarians, and how libertarian activists have been punished for decades by “libertarian purists.
      See for yourself. Progress does not exist, or is not worth appreciating.

      I mean, gay marriage is neat and stuff, but ya think maybe we should hold off on the bunting and the parades and such until, I don’t know, we don’t have the IRS enforcing mandatory health insurance, or maybe we’re not fiddling around half-assedly in the Middle East, or perhaps we’ve abolished the DHS and repealed the Patriot Act even?

      See? If you’re driving from New York to Florida, then reaching Georgia is a meaningless waste of your time.

      (Nick is indeed a bit wacky on the libertarian moment, but for including decidedly non-libertarian things. School choice, for example, is NOT a libertarian idea. Brand libertarians had nothing at all to do with it for the past several decades.)

  36. This is really funny, because Wall Street gives way more money to the dems than Republicans. The whole place is mostly white and liberal. The notion that Wall Street (outside of some libertarian leaning hedge fund managers, I suppose) is TIRED is a sponsoring socially conservative Republicans is….. is unlikely.

    Who was most excited about the Hillary Clinton campaign, even more than feminists? It’s Wall Street.

    The elite’s fixation of “social issues” is the height of hypocrisy. I shouldn’t even ask if they make money in countries in which abortions are TOTALLY illegal and women aren’t allowed to drive. Their leaked private emails reveal them to be racist little cretins. “Deportation” is the solution to illegal immigrants in Mexico and socialist European paradises.

    These people don’t care about social issues. They hate the construct of their ideological foes that exist in their minds. Which is why feminists are more outraged by “rape denialists” than the actual act of rape.

    You’re telling me these Wall Street guys will be 100% happy if their lily white daughters smoked pot all day and brought home a black boyfriend? Bullcrap.

  37. The left with the help of much of the “main stream media” is doing a wonderful job of lumping libertarians in with “extreme right wing conservatives”. It is sad to see how often Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are both referred to as Tea Party candidates. Libertarians still have a very long road ahead.

  38. If you don’t like baby murder, grow up!

    1. On what authority do you (apparently) reject a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God-Given right to Liberty? Are there any other fundamental rights that can be suspended temporarily? Which ones, under what conditions and for how long?

      If we assume a fetal child has full rights at conception, how does the woman lose her rights at the same instant?. Is there some limit on how many humans can have fundamental rights?

      If we check the definition of unalienable, we see that the rights to Life and Liberty are precisely equal (and some others). Jefferson knew what words mean and wasn’t stupid.

      Somewhat obviously, my right to Liberty cannot be denied or disparaged to save a Life 2,000 miles away. That would be morally obscene, right?

  39. Michael Hihn|6.16.15 @ 9:33AM|#

    “On what authority do you (apparently) reject a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God-Given right to Liberty?”

    On the authority of the unborn child’s God given right to life and liberty to be free from murderous assault. It is the most basic right which creates the basis/necessity for all other rights. No life means no possibility for liberty. To state they are precisely equal is intellectually disingenuous IMO. The loss of only one of those permanently negates the possibility of the other.

    What about quarantines, suspension of habeas corpus, martial law and curfews as denied and disparaged rights.

    1. He doesn’t understand (or like) NAP.

      You could make an argument that abortion doesn’t violate NAP; you’d be wrong, but you could make the argument. He won’t because he doesn’t think NAP is necessary to be a libertarian.

      1. Hihn: “On what authority do you (apparently) reject a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God-Given right to Liberty?”

        On the authority of the unborn child’s God given right to life and liberty to be free from murderous assault.

        Still no authority to trash the woman’s. Can you deal with the questions honestly? Are there any other fundamental rights that can be suspended? Which ones, under what conditions and for how long? On what authority?

        It is the most basic right which creates the basis/necessity for all other rights. No life means no possibility for liberty.

        That’s why I stress what unalienable means. The Constitution trumps your mere opinion.

        To state they are precisely equal is intellectually disingenuous IMO.

        The definition will document your error.
        http://www.merriam-webster.com…..nalienable

        The loss of only one of those permanently negates the possibility of the other.

        Again, why do you claim my Liberty can be denied to save the Life of somebody 2000 miles away? Isn’t that a moral atrocity?

        What about quarantines, suspension of habeas corpus, martial law and curfews as denied and disparaged rights

        Irrelevant here. But just as wrong as your demand. Have you now reverted to a moral double standard? Life and Liberty are fundamental rights. Why do you also reject the Constitution and the will of a Creator?

      2. He doesn’t understand (or like) NAP.

        He’s documented as a bullshitter here:

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/06…..nt_5374144

        And summarized below.

        He won’t because he doesn’t think NAP is necessary to be a libertarian.

        One more time for the integrity challenged:.

        NAP is the Non-Aggression Principle, for both government and personal actions..
        Here’s how the principle is applied to government:

        Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism both mean no aggression by government.
        So that’s how libertarians apply NAP to define the legitimate actions by government, since 1969..

        Economic liberalism and social conservatism both require government aggression
        That’s how we use NAP to describe government actions which attack individual liberty. Extreme socons are pissed because it calls out their aggressions so clearly.

        Basing it off of anything else, especially that which changes, is stupid.

        (lol) The meaning of aggression has not changed for thousands of years.
        Extreme Social Conservatives invent all sorts of lame attacks and lies; their target is social liberalism, which exposes them as aggressors and bigots. They can’t grasp that NAP is a principle, not a policy.

        For how much longer will he continue stalking me?

        1. Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism both mean no aggression by government.

          No, they don’t. You are the only human on this planet that use these words in this way and you ARGUE on the internet.

          I know you’re a narcissist, but still, it’s easier for you to change the way you use words than for the entire human race to change their way of using words.

          For how much longer will he continue stalking me?

          Definite proof of your mad rantings… May God have mercy on your soul.

          He’s documented as a bullshitter here:

          For showing that tax cuts are not “economic conservatism” unless they are paired with spending cuts? Government spending is a tax increase either now or in the future.

          But I will prove you wrong in another way: if, indeed, “economic conservatism” requires no aggression, then government would have to spend… nothing at all and tax at a rate of zero. Anything not reaching this point (by your own ridiculous use of the term) fails to reach non-aggression. So even you prove you wrong.

          1. HIHN: Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism both mean no aggression by government.

            No, they don’t. You are the only human on this planet that use these words in this way.

            (snicker) Pity the fool,
            David Nolan, libertarian founder (in 1969)
            World’s Smallest Political Quiz (since 1978)
            And …. (laughing hysterically)

            Libertarian Cato Institute: “We asked the other half of the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?

            http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

            ====

            All your ilk ever has is denial and insults, like the Birthers.
            And not a single ounce of shame.
            Extreme socons all the same, on both left and right

            (walks away laughing)

            1. You’re still an idiot. Socially liberal (at certain times, and only in certain ways) could mean non-aggression, to some people. But, if you take that term throughout history, at no point have “liberals” (modern American use of the term) ever been totally against aggression on social issues. Nor have I seen a “conservative” ever be totally against aggression on economic issues.

              Some people attempt to define libertarian like that, but only to try to explain the term to people stuck in the left-right dichotomy. You ought to know better. It is (at best) a gross simplification. We libertarians believe in NAP. If social liberals or economic conservatives violate NAP (as they do every day), then we oppose them. Why must you use counterproductive terms when the right ones are right in front of you?

          2. But I will prove you wrong in another way:

            … be a public ass again

            if, indeed, “economic conservatism” requires no aggression,

            I never said requires, liar

            then government would have to spend… nothing at all and tax at a rate of zero.

            What? Government is NOT economically conservative!! OMG
            And no individual can be, because Slick says we’re defined by our rulers!
            No user fees? (snicker)

            Anything not reaching this point (by your own ridiculous use of the term) fails to reach non-aggression.

            Umm, I don’t have the power to tax. Plus (laughing) …

            Your “logic” says it’s impossible to be a socialist … until government abolishes every instance of private property. Until government reaches that level (per your ridiculous “mentality”).. SOCIALISTS DON’T EXIST!!

            Your “thinking” also concludes it’s impossible to be a Christian … until one reaches the same level of holiness as Jesus Christ.. Any person not reaching this State of Grace (by your ridiculous “mentality”) fails to be a Christian

            You just keep proving that we’re correct about extreme social conservatives committing fascist aggressions (many in the name of Christ — as He weeps in silent shame).

            Go burn some witches

            (One final lesson on aggression. My level of ridicule is in self-defense … of the repeated personal aggression by this thug. That’s how it works!)

            1. Government is NOT economically conservative!

              You said something right! The broken clock was right!

              Wow, you really are stupid. Words change meaning as you use them. I will restate as you seem to be completely incapable of understanding anything that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions.

              If an “economic conservative” were to control government, they would HAVE TO make taxation and spending go to zero in order to comply with the (supposed) non-aggression in that portion of their beliefs. I have seen the attempted 0 times and I have heard conservatives champion it 0 times. Therefore, your terms are wrong, or at least, are some of the very worst terms available.

              My level of ridicule is in self-defense … of the repeated personal aggression by this thug

              I have aggressed against you by showing how wrong your thinking is? Well I suppose people “aggress” against you all the time!

              Question for you: If “economic conservatives” and/or “social liberals” ever violate NAP, which one do you do? We know that happens all the time…

              Now, given your answer (which you almost certainly won’t give but will only think), why would you say you are either if they violate NAP?

              Next question: Do you think “socially liberal” means the same thing it did in the 60s and 70s? How about “economic conservative”?

  40. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  41. Sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman! I salute you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.