Does Donald Trump Belong at FreedomFest?


FreedomFest is an annual gathering of speakers and listeners interested in, as the title indicates, "Freedom." Reason folk have likely appeared at every one of them; I've personally spoken at more than three, and this year as in past years there is a dedicated Reason Day at the conference, Saturday July 11. The event launches tomorrow at Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas, and is projected to attract around 2,000 attendees.

A last minute addition to the roster was announced this week in a press release I received via email from FreedomFest:

Donald Trump, now one of the leading candidates for President, will address us on Saturday, July 11 in the Celebrity Ballroom.

We've asked Mr. Trump to speak on "What the American Dream Means to Me, and How We Can Make America Great Again." 

We expect a standing room only crowd with this last minute addition to our program. His address will be followed by Q&A from the audience, and a press conference. 

Donald Trump is to tell a FreedomFest crowd about making America great. Mr. Trump—a fine TV entertainer to be sure—whose bona fides vis a vis freedom include loving (and practicing) eminent domain, hating free immigration, being pro-tariff and pro-war and believing Social Security and Medicare are secure and should be inviolate. (He has been good on the drug war in the past.) He's been losing business partners all over the place since his controversial presidential campaign launched over various unsavory and unpopular views, most aimed at people who dare cross the American border. Some grumbled that Trump was an inappropriate choice for this gathering.

Event organizer Mark Skousen (who has a history of inviting political figures to libertarian events whose presence pisses people off, as see his welcoming Rudy Giuliani to a confab of the Foundation for Economic Education back when Skousen ran that operation) tells me in an email today that he thinks the choice is appropriate, even though:

I agree that Trump is not a libertarian.  But we are a big tent conference with both libertarians and conservatives speaking at FreedomFest.  We also bill ourselves as "the world's largest gathering of free minds," and I'd like to think that libertarians are open minded enough to hear and debate Trump.  He will be questioned by the audience, so here's your chance to express your differences with him.  

Libertarians who decide to sit through Mr. Trump's presentation at FreedomFest on Saturday, the challenge is before you.

NEXT: 5 Things to Know About the Iran Deal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That's a fucking huge tent, Mark.

    1. But still not big enough for Christie.

      1. Epic burn!

    2. Does his hair count as trans-humanism?

      1. It's sort of a something something for the poor. It's like 'you can be poor in 2015 and still have better hair than a billionaire'.

    3. Donald Trump, now one of the leading candidates for President...

      God have mercy on our souls.

      1. Only because of the name recognition and the fact the Republican field is split between what, 15 candidates nowadays? 20% or wherever he is pooling today may look impressive, but that's probably his peak and that's not going to win him diddly squat.

      2. 'Donald Trump, now one of the leading candidates for President...'

        Fortunately for the US, he's only a leading candidate for President of South Africa.

        (And I am fully aware that nobody here is going to get that joke. I really wanted to include the links to the past week's Madam and Eve, but unfortunately, my skill with links is even worse than Sugarfree's.

        If anyone with decent linking skills would like to try, you can find the strips at Africartoons.)

      3. He can't be any worse than any of the other, major party candidates.

        At least we can laugh at him. And he will likely laugh with us.

        I don't think Hillary will laugh at much of anything. But, she'll be happy to go all Queen of Hearts on us for laughing at her. As would most, if not all, of the other "serious" candidates.

        It might be nice to have a laughable and laughing POTUS. A real turn from the fake seriousness of the usual, power hungry mob.

  2. Sure. Everybody needs a laugh.

  3. He's not Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden, so from a libertarian perspective, Trump is a distinctly lesser evil. And he's more right about immigration than many libertarians, who are blinded by ideological consistency and so won't acknowledge the many negative effects of mass immigration.

    Due to squirrels I couldn't post this earlier on the LA housing story, so:

    "When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year," Antonovich said in a statement. "These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education."

    And all those welfare cases need places to live. That might impact housing, no?

    1. The squirrels got me in that thread too. What I wanted to know is how a city with an essentially stable number of people(in a state that's losing population) can have a housing crisis? That seems like it would take an almost supernatural ability to fuck things up.

      1. Is it really "an essentially stable number," though? Are we sure every illegal shows up in the official numbers? If CA is losing population, it's losing it in the middle of the state, which suffers most from the drought and is in far worse financial shape than the coast.

      2. in a state that's losing population

        Is California actually losing population or this a "slower rate of growth" type situation.

        1. Immigration has outpaced out-migration and non-immigrant replacements in the Golden State for more than 20 years.

    2. Trump is at least willing to speak his mind. A woman in your town was killed by a serial felon who is illegal, and the left is steadfastly defending letting him stay. Meanwhile, the argument gets made here that the welfare state and open borders cannot co-exist, but some refuse to hear it.

        1. DHS? EPA? IRS? Department of Education? USDA?

          I wanna know which branch of federal law enforcement. I expect we're going to get a slew of ass-covering lies followed by low-profile promotions for everyone involved.

          1. I'm hoping for whatever would look stupidest, which I'd say would be something like the EPA, Education, or any other agency that would cause people to think: "Why do they need guns?"

      1. Open borders and democracy can't coexist. Democracy is self-rule by a community (it's a fuzzy thing, and might not sit with ur-individualists, but the general notion is that it is less repressive due to the fact that the majority is much less likely to be deeply at odds with the needs or beliefs of any particular member due to the shared values which actually make them a community).

        Open borders presents too much temptation for a party to secure power by importing new people to represent who are wholly dependent on or otherwise powerless against that party (for similar reasons, the free states wanted to stop slaves from being counted for Congressional representation). That same temptation also tends to undermine assimilation, so that you end up with multiple, very distinct communities within one electorate. When multiple communities vie for power over one another rather than internal autonomy, it's war, whether it's the gentle war of the ballot box or an actual civil war.

      2. "the welfare state and open borders cannot co-exist"

        I thought that was the Libertarian stance? Let them in unfettered. But, no special dispensation of any kind to be allowed.

    3. "Blinded by ideological consistency" - lol. I should use that one in my daily life.
      "Where is the rent?" asks the landlord.
      "Come on, man, don't be so blinded by ideological consistency. I can skip a month here and there."

      1. By that I mean that people tend to take ideological constructs too far, even when they obviously conflict with the reality right before their eyes. So libertarians, believing in the rather utopian ideal of "freedom of movement," tend to ignore the financial and social and human costs of mass immigration, especially by illegal immigration from the Third World. Libertarians tend to see humans as economic units and bundles of rights, but people also have culture and habits and human failings. And they refuse to believe that South American peasants steeped in socialist rhetoric at home, and then in the school and welfare systems here, will overwhelmingly vote for the Free Shit Party. This is part of the Democratic Party/progressive/socialist plan, but when I point it out here, it's like I farted in a crowded elevator.

        Anybody can be blind to real-world challenges to their beliefs. Try asking a progressive why Baltimore sucks so bad when it's been run by Democrats for generations, has very high school spending, and has had extra billions poured into it. They'll babble on angrily, but they won't really have an answer.

    4. Honest question...do those numbers take into account any taxes immigrants pay (sales tax, for example)? In other words, is it a gross or a net cost?

      What would the net cost be if you replaced all the illegals with legal citizens? Because it's not like legal citizens don't consume public safety, healthcare, and education.

      Or, a better question, what is the marginal cost of an illegal immigrant? Because a lot of public safety, education, and to some extent healthcare costs don't really change from the addition of x number of people, for certain values of x.

      1. Very good questions. Looking for good responses. Thanks LynchPin.

      2. In a welfare state, poor people are a net cost, from their welfare consumption alone. Plus: schooling and criminal justice costs. They drive up housing costs, especially in areas with restrictive building rules, like California. (Great for landowners, sucks for everyone else.) They drive down wages, especially low-end wages. (Great for employers, sucks for everyone else.)

        Plus, they are pawns and cannon fodder for the left. "Look at all these poor suffering people! They need more welfare! The government must be bigger and more powerful to take care of them! You're a racist if you object!"

        1. Actually immigrants tend to be less likely to utilize public services. They tend to be younger, so they are not on social security or Medicare yet. Not too many grannies are trekking across the desert. Those services will have long since died or have been reformed by the time they are ready to use then.

    5. That's nothing compared to how much we spend on state funded welfare for white people. Let's kick them out too.
      ::checks the color of his skin::
      Uh, anyone got the number of the makeup artist that NAACP chick was using?

      1. Feeble. The point is to not import people to add to the welfare roles.

        1. Wrong, the point is to eliminate the welfare state.

          1. Which is never, ever going to happen.

            In the mean time, you have open borders allowing more and more immigrants in who go on welfare and get other "free" government services, and at the very same time, lower salaries for Americans, who also have to get government support because they can't earn enough money to make ends meet.

            1. So the welfare state is sustainable, just so long as we cut off unskilled immigrants?

              Seems like bringing them in and recognizing their existence, and getting them to pay FICA and Medicare/Medicaid taxes, would largely even things back out. I mean, if the welfare state is sustainable.

              1. Poor immigrants hasten the collapse of the welfare state, true, but I don't see that as the best option. Welfare state collapse is not pretty: see Greece.

                No, "bringing them in" doesn't help. The taxes that the poor pay do not nearly cover their expense. E.g. they may pay FICA, but their kids are on SNAP. And once they're legal, they get subsidized housing. And the more who come in, the more others want to come in. And, sooner or later, vote for more socialism.

        2. Those welfare roles are taken by people already here. If anything an influx of young workers will help put off the impending collapse. Not long mind you, it's still not sustainable.

  4. How many lawsuits do you think Trump will file after the Q&A?

  5. What the American Dream Means to Me, and How We Can Make America Great Again.

    My answer to both is, endless appeals system.

    1. +1 thank you for smoking

  6. various unsavory and unpopular views, most aimed at people who dare cross the American border

    Remember that libertarian views are also dismissed as unsavory and unpopular.

    Please don't stoop to the level of the typical Team Blue/Red shill. Adjectives are not arguments.

    1. Thank you.

    2. Love your handle, derpetologist.

      1. And they say they love your handle......in the morning.

        1. A derp's love is very different from that of a square.

    3. Remember that libertarian views are also dismissed as unsavory and unpopular.

      Many Reasonoids forget that libertarianism is still pretty fringe so any appeal to popularity, status quo or ickiness is incredibly disingenuous. The anti-austerians, for example, seem to regard libertarianism as nothing short of genocidal,

      1. I think Libertarianism is more popular than people think. It's just Libertarians people can't stand.

        1. 91%!

        2. This is true. I know anecdotes are not empirical evidence of a nationwide trend, but I've talked to a lot of people who are very warm to the ideas of libertarianism, but they are stuck in this belief that no third party will ever win, so they might as well vote for the lesser evil of the major two. Of course, the hardcore progs and hardcore socons don't belong to this group, but the on-the-fence people are not exactly repulsed by the libertarian platform.

    4. Remember that libertarian views are also dismissed as unsavory and unpopular.

      And? You know who else is now dismissed as unsavory and unpopular? It's for good reason.

      Adjectives are not arguments.

      Stupid, baseless, exploitative, simplistic, derptastic (ahem!) are also adjectives. And Brian listed several bad positions that Trump holds immediately before your truncated quote. The "adjectives" are not even supposed to be arguments, but an accurate description of the response to Trump's campaign announcement. Hell, Brian isn't even being coy with the title of the post, he seems to be genuinely asking for feedback. If you think Trump 'belongs' there, make your own argument.

      You shame your own name, sir.

  7. Is there going to be woodchippers there?

    1. One evening they should have a Woodchipper's Ball.

  8. There's usually a nice selection of anti-vaxxers, quack nutritionists, new-agers and other sketchy sorts at the Freedom Fest.

    1. I would fall into the other sketchy sorts category most likely.

  9. Freedom is the tolerance of those who would misuse it.
    The potty mouths under free speech.
    Those who think guns are iconic under the 2nd.
    Everyone ought to state their case.

  10. I've personally spoken at more than three

    Four? Do you lose count after three? What?

    1. The flakka and bath salt samples flow freely at Freedom Fest, I assume. With "nutraceutical" entrepreneurs being a prominent contingent.

    2. One, two, three...few, many... I count good!

  11. I'd like to think that libertarians are open minded enough to hear and debate Trump.

    Some have quite the SJW stink as of late so you might be asking a lot.

    1. That seems to be the direction the libertarian movement has been going for quite some time. Rothbard and von Mises notwithstanding, from a practical perspective all that's left of it is another cheering section for progy social agendas (most of which are doing fine without their help, thankyouverymuch).

      I think that was inevitable. If you look at the history of classical liberalism it seems to evolve (degenerate?) into SJW type liberalism every time. In the case of the libertarian movement it seems to have happened astonishingly fast.

      1. I see a racist fascist supports you, SIV. What a fine vindication of your ideas.

        And again, fuck off, Slappy.

  12. Maybe Team Blue could tricked into regulating illegal immigration if someone told them it affects interstate commerce?

    1. Also add in that illegals do not usually join unions...

    1. Yet another topic the GOP could use for a killer campaign ad. "The Democrat Party used the IRS to persecute patriotic non-profit organizations...."

      1. Unfortunately, the ones in SC seem to be more interested in defending the Stars and Bars with robocalls:


        Way to step on that rake, guys.


        1. They are in such a tight spitroast with the SoCons and the Southern heritage types that they can't see that there are better issues to work.

          1. Like ENDA, amnesty and affirmative consent. There's you winning issues, Team Red.

            You can thank me later after you win all those elctions.

            1. The IRS and Ocare should be enough.

              1. No prog votes to be had there. The GOP need Prog votes. The Christfags and Confederate apologists are all dying off and old white people never vote anyways.

                1. What? Old white people are a hefty voting block.

                  1. It's a joke. People offering "advice" to the GOP always tell them to jettison whatever issues appeal to old white people. They're the most reliable, if not the largest voting block. They keep dying off but somehow also replace themselves in larger numbers. I blame demographics and time.

                    1. Then a "Whoosh" for me on that one....

    2. Old news, phake skandul, yawn...

  13. Is Trump still in favor of drug legalization? I think he used to be for some sort of "harm reduction" legalize-and-tax-for-treatment scheme.

    1. Probably only if people went to Trump brand rehab centers.

  14. He's better than Giuliani. At least he's never been a scum-sucking politician and is still just a wannabe. Then he'll prove to be an authoritarian like all the others of his kind, I'm sure.

  15. OT: looks like the Reason 6 have started themselves a genuine internet meme (as opposed to a reason meme, I guess):


    Check the last image.

    1. It's safety orange. Not libertarian at all since we oppose all efforts to reduce injuries on the job.

      1. So what is the libertarian color...? I mean when they start winning contests across the land they have to choose a color for the map.

        1. The darkest black to match the color of our capitalist souls.

          1. Works for me.

        2. Or gold. Shiny, wonderful gold.

      2. This is a way more libertarian pic, although it lacks monocles or weeping orphans.

      3. Orange is also the color of Protestant discrimination and of Apartheid.

        1. And oranges.

        2. and of Buddhist monks and plant killer chemicals

          1. And....uh....certain types of ants I guess?

        3. and the General Lee!

          1. You mentioned a stock car so....raceist!

          2. Well, Bubba is painting it now.

            Looks like I'll have to root for someone else.

    2. About 20 years ago we had a 'merit selection of judges' movement here in Louisiana. It failed mostly because all of the sitting judges (elected) fought it tooth and nail.

      Nice woodchipper. Looks like it has never been used. That is a shame.

  16. dedicated Reason Day

    So....woodchipper salesmen?

  17. I remember ~30 YA when embattled libertarian activists in NYC briefly thought Trump was pretty good. It was like, here's a guy getting a lot of att'n, he's in NYC yet doesn't seem to think business is evil, sometimes has to fight city hall...that sort of thing. We got that way in NYC a lot. Like anybody prominent or outspoken who temporarily didn't seem like Stalin was promising.

    1. Chris-Chris looked good for a bit, too.

      1. ???........Maybe to the local grocery store.

        Guy was a douche all his life.

  18. Freakout time - 14 North Carolina magistrates have recused themselves from performing marriages - any marriages - presumably due to objections to gay marriage.

    Now there are only 656 magistrates left who are willing to marry anyone or anything the feds tell them to marry.

    Their names aren't getting released, which is very oppressive toward the gay-rights crowd - how will they know where to phone and email their threats and insults? How will they be able to organize boycotts against every restaurant, grocery store, and hot-dog vendor they patronize?


    1. Gay marriage pisses off socons so much that they will work to get rid of marriage licenses altogether.

      It's a beautiful thing.

      1. That's fine - I'm no fan of marriage licenses.

        But you realize, of course, that even without marriage licenses, the government must still decide which purported marriages to recognize?

        If Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice call themselves a polyamorous married cou-I mean quadruple, the state will still have to decide whether the asserted marriage. The fact that they didn't need prior approval of some clerk doesn't decide the question of whether the state will let the four file jointly, invoke marital testimonial privileges, etc., etc.

        1. "the state will still have to decide whether the asserted marriage is valid."

        2. No it won't.

          1. Abolishing licenses doesn't mean that anyone who calls themselves married will be recognized by the government as married.

            So if a guy is asked in court whether he had sex with a camel, he can't just plead some spousal-testimonial privilege, he must be able to show that the camel is actually his spouse, and some jurisdictions may not recognize the relationship.

            1. So if* a judge asks me what I was doing in Taylor Swift's bushes, and I say it's none of his business because we're married, the judge will decide for himself whether she's actually my wife, and won't just take my word for it, even in a license-free regime.

              *not to prosecutors: hypothetically speaking

              1. *note* to prosecutors - hypothetically speaking.

              2. I would expect that if both all alleged spouses certify that they are married, that would be enough.

                That just raises the real problem, though. Unless they have entered into a written marriage contract that the court can apply to whatever dispute is in front of it, what are the "default" terms of being married?

        3. Do they have a contract with Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice's signature on it? Marriage is a 'partners in life' contract, so I guess the contract would have to contain certain elements.

          1. OK, a contract doesn't mean Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice can invoke marital testimonial rules, etc., etc. That would depend on whether the government recognizes their relationship.

            A prior license doesn't change that principle, and the absence of a prior license doesn't mean anything goes.

    2. Will any of these refusnik magistraights bake me the cake of *my* choosing?

    3. Their names aren't getting released, which is very oppressive toward the gay-rights crowd - how will they know where to phone and email their threats and insults? How will they be able to organize boycotts against every restaurant, grocery store, and hot-dog vendor they patronize?

      Maybe they'll give them a consolation prize.

    4. A whole county clerk's office quit en masse in Tennessee. Government employees resigning and refusing to perform functions of the state? LIBERTARIAN MOMENT, MOTHERFUCKERS!

      The South's Gonna Do It Again

      1. That's inspiring, though of course the purged civil servants will simply be replaced by a bunch of Vicars of Bray who will marry anyone or anything, animal, vegetable or mineral, the feds tell them to.


        1. My principles I will maintain
          Until my dying day, sir
          That whatsoever king may reign
          I will be Vicar of Bray, sir.


  19. Does Donald Trump Belong at FreedomFest?

    I don't know. Was he invited?

    We've asked Mr. Trump to speak on "What the American Dream Means to Me, and How We Can Make America Great Again."

    We expect a standing room only crowd with this last minute addition to our program. His address will be followed by Q&A from the audience, and a press conference.

    Well, there's your answer.

    1. His address will be followed by Q&A from the audience

      That will be interesting.

    1. I am not going to tell you if I am right or not, but I am taking a guess at what those two people look like.

      1. OK, they don't say who they are, but I am guessing they both have to belong to at least two aggrieved classes, possibly three.

        1. And gay.

      2. Lena Dunham

    2. And people say downplay the problem of sex discrimination in education! If only two people have been subjected to 1,700 incidents of discrimination, imagine how much discrimination we'd find by muliplying that by the population!

    3. If the next GOP president were smart, he'd send a team from to interview those two people personally. Publicize those complaints! Of course they'd turn out to be hilarious and bogus, and discredit the entire bureaucracy. That would be a good excuse to eliminate it.

    4. And this shows how a very small group of activists can leverage/capture a federal agency to do vast damage.

      Whaddaya think, gang? Another coat of grease on that slippery slope, or do you think its got all it can stand already?

    5. "In response to this massive surge, the U.S. Department of Education is seeking to hire 200 additional attorneys and investigators. The new hires would enlarge the already-hefty Education Department civil rights bureaucracy by nearly a third."

      I am shocked.


      Who could have conceived that inventing new problems might require larger bureaucracy to provide 'solutions'?

  20. And, just for fun I am tossing this out. I keep getting annoyed by people using this metaphorical expression: A fish doesn't know it is in water.

    A fish does know it is in water. If you don't believe it, take a fish out of the water and place it five or six feet from the edge of the water and see what it does. The last time I saw this expression used it was Ken White trying to explain how federal prosecutors can overreach, he presumes unknowingly because they don't know they swim in power. He is partially right. Prosecutors don't know they swim in power like fish don't know they swim in water. That is true.

    Prosecutors are mostly sociopaths. They sought out that position precisely for that reason.

    1. All I know is they're tasty when fried up in a pan and seasoned with lemon and tartar sauce.

      Fish, I mean.

      1. Well, just reading the first sentence I thought you meant prosecutors. Thank you for clarifying.

        1. Well, it was obvious to me since he left out the 'tenderize in a woodchipper' part.

          1. Prosecutor sticks could be a tasty new market for foodies though

    2. I don't think that's entirely right. Certainly, some are, and regardless it's a job that succors sociopaths. But it's also the sort of job a fresh-out-of-law-school graduate brimming with personal esteem and wanting to prove himself in the arena is bound to take. There's just a great deal of overlap with sociopaths, and no mechanism for policing the ranks. Add to that the huge political imperative, and it's honestly a wonder there aren't more Christian Bales running around with nail guns.

      1. Yes, but the non-sociopaths don't stay there long.

      2. I didn't mean each and every one, of course. Our office here has a pretty good guy as DA, but the one in the district north of us and the one west of us are solid psychopaths.

        The best stats I can remember is that stone-cold, true sociopaths make up about one percent of the general population and about twenty percent of elected officials and court officers. The highest percentage are in the prison population with guards being about equal to that of the prisoners. I don't remember that number.

        Also, among the elected officials/cops/court officers crowd, the higher you go the higher the percentage is. An States Attorney General or Governor is far more likely to be one than your local Justice of the Peace.

  21. So "The Donald" thread is where it's at? Tough; you get it here, too, re the Grestupidity:

    1) An EU 'summit' was called today to deal with the Greek issue. Merkel made it clear that the EU had no new offers to make and it Greece wanted a new 'deal', they had better show up with a scheme which could be presented to the multitude.
    2) Tsipras lefties have now been in power since January, and it is (or should have been) obvious that the EU was not going to sweeten the pot. Or at *least* there was a very good chance of that, and a competent leadership would have made plans with some alternative offers.
    3) SOMEBODY in that group has to understand that they are dealing with finance ministers, and a "plan" will include expected revenue and expenses, budget allocations, detailing cuts to various spending sectors, the expected savings and (since they are lefties) details of the harm resulting, "see table 2A". That's what finance ministers consider a plan. And those plan(s) should have been prepared, A, B, C and Oh My God.
    4) Tsipras and his new lefty FiMi side-kick showed up with some notes scribbled on hotel stationary and (it seems) a power-point presentation. No wonder Lagarde asked the Greeks to please send adults.

    1. (cont'd)
      4) Tsipras and his new lefty FiMi side-kick showed up with some notes scribbled on hotel stationary and (it seems) a power-point presentation. No wonder Lagarde asked the Greeks to please send adults.
      He still seems to imagine that Greece leaving the EU represents enough cost to the EU that hey will yield to his demands. That "ace up his sleeve" and that hope was gone as of today.
      5) What had been ignored, brushed aside, not discussed, denied and whispered-about today was presented to Tsipras as an alternative:
      Either Tsipras comes up with an acceptable plan at the (full) meeting on Sunday, or the EU begins arranging for the legal and orderly removal of Greece from the EU.
      6) Gridiots on various boards are claiming the EU is 'denying the Greek democracy (of voting yourself others' money?), that Obo is going to pressure Merkel to make a deal because of the military bases, that Putin is gonna ride his white horse to the rescue.
      7) And the absolute WORST of it is Tsipras making those slimy, miserable Eurocrats sympathetic by comparison. I didn't think it was possible.
      Oh, and the absolute BEST of it is the continued sniveling of Krugman, Stiglitz, Piketty, Sachs, JKG and other lefty 'economists' being totally ignored except by the Gridiots quoting them.
      Straw? Please see grasping hand...

      1. Fools and their money, Eurocrats included, are soon parted.

        Stupidity, meet Perfidy and screw both of you.

      2. Tsipras thinks he's a suicide bomber on an airplane. Give him what he wants or else!

        He's in fact a suicide bomber still in the workshop, which is also located in the basement of his house.

        1. Good analogy, but he does have close neighbors.

  22. Why not? It's fecking Freedom Fest, isn't it?

  23. I think Trump is a fan of freedom given his wild-west style of business, but like most people just the freedom he likes in the flavor he likes.

  24. So serious question, this Freedom Fest thing is supposed to be a big tent, but I note it caters to libertarians and 'conservatives'. Are there no liberals there? What do we make of that? Or has the entire concept of 'freedom' just generally been written off as a dog whistle for racists by anyone left of center?

    1. What liberals? We ARE the liberals. Surely you are not talking about progressives?

      1. I'm sure if Hillary or Bernie wanted to come give a speech they'd find a time slot for them.

        But, to be fair, few if any politicians are willing to go that far off script and that far out of their zone of control. Be like Ted Cruz going on Univision.

      2. Maybe he meant Marxists?

    2. There's still a few shreds of common ground between libertarians and conservatives.

      Proggies, though? Not even a millimeter. They are Total State fascists, who even manage to turn "rights" into government powers and programs.

  25. Does Donald Trump Belong at FreedomFest?

    Does the event feature clowns?

  26. Now that The Donald has been invited, I have one word to describe the proceedings at Freederp Fest:


  27. Hopefully he will talk about free speech

  28. "Does Donald Trump belong at FreedomFest?"

    No, but then FF invited Krugman - the convention is being overrun by statists. I have attended in the past, but no more.

    Here's an example of why the Donald is bad for liberty. Remember the heinous Kelo decision by the SC that legalized stealing people's homes (using eminent domain) to build a commercial business that has higher tax revenue? Here's the Donald's position: "I happen to agree with it 100 percent," he told Fox News's Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision. No wonder, the Donald has used that exact same tactic for his casinos.

  29. 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.online-jobs9.com

  30. Libertarianism isn't just about freedom, it's also about property rights, whether individual or collective.

    I presume anyone who believes in completely unrestricted immigration has no fences around their yards nor doors on their houses allowing anyone to come in at any time, otherwise they would be hypocrites.

  31. After Trump's speech, I suggested to Skousen that he had set the freedom movement back by causing the media to associate Trump with libertarianism. He, shaking his finger in my face and very defensive, said: 1) He never claimed that FreedomFest was libertarian; if the media thought so, that was their mistake; 2) I was close minded for not wanting Trump there; and 3) Didn't I see that he had created a standing room only crowd? Since he thinks a big crowd has more importance than associating libertarianism with fear, hate, war, etc., I will not be attending the Fest again. Well, and because the event master says it is not libertarian, anyway. Conservatives can have Trump, FreedomFest, and their very thin veneer of liberty.

  32. The problem is not that Mark Skousen invited Donald Trump to speak at Freedomfest. The problem was allowing a format where Trump got to blather on about whatever he liked and there was no prominent libertarian on the stage to challenge him. So the only Freedomfest event that got Freedomfest into the national news spotlight was the one with zero libertarian content and allowed an association between Trump's fascistic views and libertarianism.

  33. I would much rather hear from Trump than any of the other GOP nominees. He's much more entertaining and he's probably the only republican who even has a chance of beating Hillary.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.