Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders: Socialism = Cops

Telling the truth?

|

BernieSanders.com

Some left-wingers sometimes mock some right-wingers for likening every government program to socialism.

Not Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the leading Democratic presidential candidate not named Clinton. He embraces the idea that socialism is just a word for government, which is just a word for the things we do together.

It's the strategy he plans on using to sell his vague idea of "democratic socialism" to American voters. Up to now, Sanders' explanations have largely involved pointing to Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Denmark, which are far more socialist in the minds of American left-wingers than they are in the real world.

But as Sanders comes tantalizingly close to being within the margin of error of Hillary Clinton in the polls, he's decided he needs to push democratic socialism like he means it. Sanders' plan is to explain that socialism consists of things like public libraries, fire departments, and police departments.

The New York Times reports:

"When you go to your public library, when you call your Fire Department or the Police Department, what do you think you're calling?" Mr. Sanders said. "These are socialist institutions."

While Mr. Sanders may have a point, he drew some blank stares from liberals in the audience who are probably used to hearing the police described with other terms. He didn't dwell on the point, veering back to his concern about social safety nets.

Instead of wallowing in their own ignorance, liberals should face the fact that police departments are, if not exactly socialist institutions, certainly institutions that, in a democratic society like America's, are more or less representations and embodiments of the popular will. The implications of that are not just theoretical. Cops engage in police brutality in large part because "we" want them to. The cops who killed Eric Garner, for example, did so because they were ordered by their superiors to crack down on loose cigarette sellers, who threaten not corporate profits (a loose cigarette has already been purchased, at some point, from the tobacco company) but government revenue (a loose cigarette evades local taxation). Those superiors, in turn, ordered cops to crack down on loose cigarette sellers because that's what New York's democratic government wanted.

After Garner was killed and several other local incidents of non-fatal police brutality over petty law enforcement issues got a lot of press, Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) insisted he would continue to order police to vigorously enforce such laws. "A violation of the law is a violation of the law," the mayor said, illustrating why law enforcement, when met with resistance, can become deadly.

Bill Bratton, the police commissioner, made the same point Sanders did, that his liberal supporters are so uncomfortable with, that the police are a democratic institution. "It's important that when an officer does approach you to correct your behavior, that you respect them," said Bratton. "That's what democracy is all about."

It is. And while it may be fashionable today to blame the policies that lead to excessive police brutality on things like white supremacy, it would be far more productive, and lead to real harm reduction, to engage police brutality as a true expression of democracy, and to correct our expectations of government.

Sanders' tactic, however, shouldn't be surprising. He learned to be an ally of cops, to treat them as part of the "labor" class not, say, an apparatus of the ruling class, decades ago. When Sanders is asked about criminal justice and moves to economic issues, it's not just that he's a one-note pony but that he understands the importance of police unions in creating "good jobs," even if they come at the expense of systematically trampling on the rights of Americans, with a particular focus on the poor and marginalized.

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.

359 responses to “Bernie Sanders: Socialism = Cops

  1. Cops engage in police brutality in large part because “we” want them to.

    Among other things, po-po are the revenue generators and enforcement arm for so many central planners’ sweet utopian dreams.

    1. That kind of vitriol sounds.. seditious, citizen. Stick to your knitting..

    2. A cops job is to enforce the law no matter how immoral, period. Protect and serve is PR. A good cop is a bad person.

  2. While Mr. Sanders may have a point,

    No he doesn’t. He’s just playing the proggy’s favorite game “Words Have No Meanings”.

    1. yup. This talking point of “all govt activities are socialism” is first-rate bullshit. Any civil society is going to have some govt, some list of services and activities people have deemed as done most efficiently through the public sector. That’s not socialism, that’s govt 101.

      1. No, your point is first rate disguised defecation.

        Governance need not be obtained through violence.

        1. I don’t see how you do it without violence. If people refuse to comply with whatever instruments of government there are, what options are there to obtain it?

          1. Hence, the push for a cashless economy.

          2. The key is that the use of force by government should only be RETALIATORY never INITIATORY.

        2. the only one mentioning violence here is you. Even libertopia is going to have some rules and some means for dealing with issues that will arise.

          1. There’s only one rule in Libertopia.

            The Platinum Rule:

            All actions are allowed except those involving the initiatory use of force, threats of force or fraud.

            1. And that rule is enforced on threat of….

              Kittens? Hugs? Pomegranates?

              A rule isn’t a rule if it isn’t enforced (or until someone breaks it, threatened to be enforced with) violence. Any other ‘rule’ is just a polite suggestion which the violent, opportunistic, or desperate people will gladly ignore.

              1. It’s enforced with the RETALIATORY use of force. There are two types of force, initiatory and retaliatory. The first is bad, the second good.

      2. “public sector” as in that part of the economy characterized by goods and services produced by government monopolies? Sounds pretty socialist.

        1. public sector that I don’t recall the likes of Friedman and others opposing. It’s not socialism; it’s self-governance. People deciding how to organize their society is what it is. Are libertarians now disputing the validity of the proverbial umpire in the game?

          1. public sector that I don’t recall the likes of Friedman and others opposing

            Yes the Chicago school doesn’t deserve the free market credibility that they receive. Friedman and his ilk are most certainly not the standard bearers of economic freedom.

            It’s not socialism; it’s self-governance.

            That’s why people have to be expropriated to finance it.

            People deciding how to organize their society is what it is.

            Apparently you think it’s the same thing as a criminal gang.

            Are libertarians now disputing the validity of the proverbial umpire in the game?

            The smart ones are disputing the ethical legitimacy of tax financed umpires, yes.

            1. more like “the smart ones” are becoming virtual caricatures of themselves. But hey, keep claiming I said things I didn’t say because it makes the “we’re so much smarter” narrative work better.

              You act as if all this high-minded things like individual autonomy and political freedom and the primacy of the individual happen in a vacuum. They don’t. Every game has umpires, whether they are tax-financed or privately paid.

              1. more like “the smart ones” are becoming virtual caricatures of themselves. But hey, keep claiming I said things I didn’t say because it makes the “we’re so much smarter” narrative work better.

                You asked a question, that if libertarians as a group believe X. I told you basically that some of them, the ones who are right, do. But not all libertarians are anarchists.

                You act as if all this high-minded things like individual autonomy and political freedom and the primacy of the individual happen in a vacuum. They don’t. Every game has umpires, whether they are tax-financed or privately paid.

                You act as though some libertarian anarchist on this board is claiming that a lack of laws or rules regarding human interaction would be a good thing. If you literally think that’s what anarchism means, then everyone is wasting their time talking to you because you are too woefully ignorant on the subject matter to even warrant offering your opinion in the first place.

                If however, you do know better, then everyone is wasting their time talking to you because you are just making disingenuous strawman arguments.

                1. You act as though some libertarian anarchist on this board is claiming that a lack of laws or rules regarding human interaction would be a good thing.

                  No, I don’t; haven’t said a word about anarchists at all. I have simply said that rules are going to exist in any civil society and someone is going to be in charge of those rules, be that actor public or private. Our society has chosen public law enforcement with private (mostly) advocates for the accused. That this offends you is not my problem.

              2. Well said. Libertarians don’t believe in no government, but a limited government whose job is to protect individual liberty. You know the ideas that the United States was founded on.

                1. The US has sure done a great job of protecting individual liberty!

                  1. I know the United States is terrible if you ignore everyone else, and all of human history.

                    1. A friend of liberty would not be supporting a nation state that has seen fit to commit war crimes and mass murder for centuries.

                      A friend of liberty would not be supporting a warfare / welfare state.

                      A friend of liberty would not get weepy-eyed over a fly-over.

                      A friend of liberty would not support a nation state that sees fit to tax its citizens on their world-wide income.

                    2. A friend of liberty would not get weepy-eyed over a fly-over.

                      Huh? Some story behind this? Who flew over what? Do you mean friends of liberty are unsympathetic to “flyover states”? Don’t get teary-eyed when they look down from an airplane & marvel at the technology of flight? Or of the beautiful scenery? Or don’t admire other aircraft flying overhead?

                      Or is this about an overleaf page of some document?

                    3. Or some international incident involving military access thru some country’s air space?

                    4. The ironic thing is that your over the top rhetoric is far more an “enemy of liberty” then I could ever be. Do you think anyone lurking on HnR, curious about libertarianism would be swayed by you comments, or would they run from them?

                      Alienating everyone that is willing to move the country in a more pro-liberty direction is not going to advance any cause.

                2. Well said. Libertarians don’t believe in no government, but a limited government whose job is to protect individual liberty

                  The libertarian tent is big enough to include anarchists, so no libertarians don’t necessarily believe that. There are also those, like myself, who think it is at least something to question.

                  1. Anarchists are not libertarian. Anarchy brings you back to rule by force.

                    1. Bullshit. Anarchy is liberty. You talking about rule of force and trying to label Anarchy as such, while ignoring gov’t requires force to exist is nonsensical.

                3. Gov’t protecting liberty is a fantasy, as they are incapable of doing so. There is so much evidence of this, yet you limited gov’t folks just don’t get it.

                  You want to enslave everyone else thinking the right master will come along this time and make things right.

                  1. Who’s going to enforce any rules in an anarchic society?

                    Really, do any of you wonder why there aren’t any successful, developed anarchies in the world? “Well, there would be, if teh governmentz didn’t come along and ruin it!” Well that’s the point: establish anarchy and it will be a short while before one free person enslaves or murders or robs another; and before groups of free persons band together realizing they can better exploit individual free persons better with the strength of numbers, and so on until you have what they call a state.

                    States are inevitable, so the smart move is to keep the one that’s just powerful enough that a worse, more powerful one couldn’t easily arise and replace it, and no more so. It’s pretty telling that Madison helped found one of the most successful and prosperous societies in history, while Proudhon helped found nothing but the book collections of pretentious intellectuals.

                    1. Just limit government authority to the RETALIATORY use of force.

                    2. “tablish anarchy and it will be a short while before one free person enslaves or murders or robs another; and before groups of free persons band together realizing they can better exploit individual free persons better with the strength of numbers, and so on until you have what they call a state.”
                      That’s what Gov’ts do. Until you have State, you say? No no, State robs, decimates, and murders more than any other. There is no comparison. There is no greater loss of innocence, no greater theft of society, than that which is actualized by State. State is just the pinnacle of this cycle, a cycle that has as of yet, repeated, do to the fairly tale belief you and so many others hold dear.

                      “the smart move is to keep the one that’s just powerful enough that a worse, more powerful one couldn’t easily arise and replace it, and no more so.”
                      That’s what most the US framers thought. Which has lead the people inevitably here… to the most powerful State in the world. Yet another fairy tale belief.

                    3. The Framers failed to explicitly state that government authority would be limited to the RETALIATORY use of force.

                      “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.” ? ? AYN RAND

      3. Society can not be considered civil when gov’t exists. Violence is in no way civil, and violence is what is required for government to exist. If you want someone to rule over you and force you to do things join an S&M club.

        1. You’re anti-govt. Got it. Then this might be the wrong place for you.

          1. A libertarian blog is the wrong place for those who are anti-government?

          2. A libertarian blog is the wrong place for those who are anti-government?

          3. You label yourself a libertarian, which speaks of the non aggression principle and liberty. Gov’t is antithetical to liberty. So maybe speaking about freedom and liberty is the wrong topic for you.

            You should be talking about limited slavery, and how the right “top men” will get it right this time.

            1. Do you not understand the difference between initiatory and retaliatory force?

        2. “join an S&M club.”

          go on ….

          1. Yeah, in my second-hand experience all they do is argue about the official club uniforms. It’s called the fetish community for a reason.

        3. RETALIATORY force is absolutely civil. How else is negative liberty to be defended?

          1. When one aggressors against your liberty, retaliatory force is a given. When it becomes uncivil is when you believe “top men” should have a monopoly on it, and force everyone to obey.

            1. Buddy, you can wave your principles around all you want, the fact of life is, in anarchy, you don’t own your stuff or yourself; the biggest or best armed guy in the neighborhood owns you and your stuff, it’s just up to him if and when he will assert said ownership.

              1. In other words, you’re here to claim the only way to make sure your stuff is ‘your stuff’ is to make sure others have the monopolized power to take your stuff (aka taxation), by violence if necessary (aka Gov’t enforcement), whether you agree or not, all to purportedly ‘protect’ your stuff. Cognitive dissonance.
                You’re here to declare you know it surely impossible, in all your infinite wisdom, that there actually be a better way than monopolizing violence (of which history has a clear track record of that result)… perhaps for people to pay private business to do the same, whereby forces of violence are held accountable to markets. Oh wait, free markets are great… expect when I don’t agree… right? More cognitive dissonance.

            2. Retaliatory force can’t be used to “force you to obey”. That is the provence of the initiatory use of force.

      4. It’s 1 version of socialism. Sanders says public libraries, etc. are examples of it, & he’s right. He wants to expand the range of tax-financed goods & services, as socialists of his kind (which seems to be most of them) are wont to do now. However, he’s more socialist than are those who want gov’t only to pay for it (as thru vouchers or insurance), not organize it, because the examples he uses are not just gov’t-financed but gov’t-run. So how do you say he’s wrong about that?

  3. ‘Government’ is just another word for the people we choose to kill together.

    1. Don’t forget the people we choose to threaten with death together!

      1. Also permanently disable and then pay for expensive medical care.

      2. And the people that we , umm… intern together.

    2. And the people we decide to sterilize together.

  4. Sanders is a blowhard, but he’s not an idiot. He knows he will have to crack a few skulls and disappear a few families to implement his vision for America. A socialist state is a police state; there’s no other way.

    1. Yeah but it will be the super-wealthy elites who occupy positions of power that get black-bagged, not the debt-swamped liberal arts majors with no jobs and no connections who voted him into office, r-right?

      1. Bernie’ll get to them eventually. They can pull their weight or get billed for the bullet.

        1. Look, when I said I supported the National Infrastructure Work Corps, I didn’t think I would be the one getting drafted to tamp hot asphalt for 10 hours a day.

          1. You’ll work harder with a gun in your back, for a bowl of rice a day.

            1. But you’ll get three months off if you have a baby!

              1. Arbeit macht frei.

              2. I can’t say that I’m happy you’re splitting the movement, Nicole.

            2. It’s not that yucky GMO golden rice is it? Because people not going blind from malnutrition is just unnatural.

            3. Its a Holiday in Cambodia!

              1. +1 Jello Biafra

          2. Yeah, really; I thought I was just gonna get to live on Berniecare (aka “guaranteed minimum income”) and make Che Guevara posters ‘n’ shit while living in a subsidized apartment in a trendy neighborhood. I can’t do road repair; it’s too triggering.

      2. Hugh, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few useful idiots. Ok, a *lot* of useful idiots.

    2. I was looking at reddit recently (I know, I know) and some wide-eyed college kid posted some story about how Sanders had said that drug dealers and stuff don’t belong in prison, corporate CEOs are the ones who belong in prison. There was a lot of circle-jerking about how wonderful Sanders is, but the point is clear: at the end of the day it’s still all about putting your political enemies in prisons. Sanders gets it – he may be ignorant of economics, but he’s not ignorant of politics.

      1. “Sanders had said that … corporate CEOs are the ones who belong in prison.”

        Has anyone just taken a moment to consider how fucking terrifying it is that these people seem to think that popular demand is a valid reason for putting someone in jail?

        BRB, re-oiling guns and double-checking ammo stores…

        1. That’s the historical norm.

          Actually, the historical norm is that popular demand justifies execution. We’ve actually made progress.

  5. “When you go to your public library, when you call your Fire Department or the Police Department, what do you think you’re calling?” Mr. Sanders said. “These are socialist institutions.”

    While Mr. Sanders may have a point, he drew some blank stares from liberals in the audience who are probably used to hearing the police described with other terms. He didn’t dwell on the point, veering back to his concern about social safety nets.

    Are they? Or were these actual liberals, or are we again conflating liberals with progressives? Because to be progressive is to rely heavily on outsourced violence. How do all those egalitarian rules enforce themselves? You need armies of SWAT teams to bring people to heel when you go socialist. Especially in a country as populous and diverse as the U.S.

    Or were these “liberals” actually progressives that haven’t yet thought their own ideas to the logical ends?

    1. What progressive HAS thought their own ideas to their logical ends?

        1. Hitler benefitted from his predecessors ruling through executive order and federal control of a state police force because of their alleged incompetence. Can’t Happen Here!

    2. What do you mean by actual liberals? The classical liberals haven’t been around much since 1900 or so. The New Deal and Great Society liberals were statist fucks too.

    3. In context, it strikes me that “liberals” in that passage is a cover for what the author really meant, which is “myself”.

  6. Liberty does not entertain the socialization of police, fire, and defense services.

    Cops and soldiers are not paid by means of a free and voluntary exchange; to the contrary, they are the beneficiaries of a violent, socialist construct.

    1. but liberty also requires some means of preserving it. Generally, this will mean some agency of the public sector. Defense is enumerated as a federal power and the Founders were not averse to some law enforcing entity. Still, that is not socialist; that is simply a component of the civil society.

      1. If you force everyone to pay for your program and it’s run entirely through the government while banning any private competition, that’s socialism straight up.

        So we have socialized defense and policing. Doesn’t mean those things can’t be private.

        All sorts of things could be socialized and people can just as easily call them “a default component of civil society.” It could be courts, roads, healthcare, food distribution, housing, etc.

        1. who said force? And what is it with some of you putting words in other people’s mouths? I didn’t say things like defense and police cannot be privatized; I said one is an enumerated power of the federal govt, along with courts, presuming that some jurisdiction or other would have a police-type agency. Ask them why they did not opt for a private means of doing it, but don’t change the argument into something it’s not.

          1. who said force?

            Huh? Police, military, and the courts are currently funded by force.

            I said one is an enumerated power of the federal govt, along with courts

            You claimed that they aren’t socialism. What difference does it make if they are enumerated in the constitution? Doesn’t make it less socialist.

            1. so now the Constitution is socialist? I can’t imagine why libertarians are not running the world, let alone the country. Socialism is not schools or an army. Give me a break.

              1. so now the Constitution is socialist?

                well it’s certainly statist.

                Socialism is not schools or an army. Give me a break.

                A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

                1. ignore the previous comment about not running the world since you have now clarified why you should be taken seriously in the first place.

                  I wonder what that place of freedom, absent from any tie to the state, would be called.

                  1. so now the Constitution is socialist?.

                    The parts that socialize defense, the post office, and allow eminent domain, etc. are, yes.

                    1. then I guess that magazine cover was right – we’re all socialists now. It’s just a matter of degree.

                    2. we’re all socialists now

                      Well, at the least we’re subjects of socialists, whether we want to be is another matter.

                  2. Floating around on a sovereign iceberg?

          2. Since when is the realm of liberty cabined by the contents of a document the authors of which clandestinely and illegally (the Articles of Confederation did not permit a secret convention designed to overthrow it) convened to write?

            1. the Founders were all idiots and only the sages of H-n-R, like you, are right. That document was a pretty solid attempt at creating the single best and longest-lasting experiment in self-govt in human history. But hey, now that it’s all been exposed as the work of an evil cabal – despite built-in mechanisms for changing things people may not like, which has occurred in our history – let’s just treat as a different sort of hundred-year old document written by guys, some of whom owned slaves.

              1. I would like for some of these critics of the constitution to point to a document that is better, and has worked in the real world, and not some idea that has only existed in theory.

                1. How has it “worked”?

                  We live in an electronic cage, a papers please, society that incarcerates more people than any other country and that is hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt.

                  With success like that, who needs failure.

                  1. How has it “worked”?

                    Really? Because those things you cite has always defined the nation; they are indictments of the system itself, not the individuals running it. Ignore all the stuff in the past where people enjoyed political and economic freedom; it never happened.

                  2. I ponder whether you’ve ever thought, for a moment, what actual anarchy would be like to prefer it to your abysmal status quo. .

                2. I would like for some of these critics of the constitution to point to a document that is better, and has worked in the real world, and not some idea that has only existed in theory.

                  This isn’t the argument. The argument is whether state ownership of the means of production of defense, policing, etc. are socialism or not.

                  1. The argument is whether state ownership of the means of production of defense, policing, etc. are socialism or not.

                    and now we have moved the goalposts to go far beyond economic systems and to cover anything and everything a public hand might touch. You are making the type argument that defines Salon, just from the opposite direction. Ultimately, you both wind up claiming that anything in the public realm is socialism. If only these private armies and cops and schools and everything else existed, things would be perfect.

                    1. and now we have moved the goalposts

                      What? If anyone has moved any goalposts, it’s been you.

                      This is entirely a semantic argument so I don’t know where the big disconnect is. Lets recap.

                      Here’s you:

                      Defense is enumerated as a federal power and the Founders were not averse to some law enforcing entity. Still, that is not socialist; that is simply a component of the civil society.

                      You argued that state ownership of defense and cops was not socialism. I argued the opposite, that state ownership of these things was indeed socialism. I made no judgement of the merits of such things being socialized. I simply showed that these things fit the definition of the term.

                      If you force everyone to pay for your program and it’s run entirely through the government while banning any private competition, that’s socialism straight up.

                      Then you somehow tried to argue that it’s not socialism, but you didn’t really make an argument, you just restated your claim.

                      Socialism is not schools or an army.

                      Those things don’t have to be socialist but in the US today, they are. Why are schools and armies special? So you’d be ok with state owned and run health care and housing? Socialism isn’t healthcare and housing! It’s only socialism when the government owns and runs the things I don’t want the government to own and run!

              2. Most of the founders, though certainly not all, desired a strong central government that would oversee the creation of an American mercantilism to match and supersede that of the British empire. In short, they supported what would later be called the “American system” denoted by humongous protective tariffs (socialism), internal improvements (socialism), and national banks (socialism).

                The “American system” was later championed by the likes of Henry Clay and Lincoln, the mass murderer.

                You expose yourself as an enemy of liberty to the extent you worship the constitution. If it is, as you put it, a great attempt at creating self-government, then, by definition, it would not prohibit you and loki from governing yourselves, not beholden to it.

                Does not self-government mean that any association of individuals can freely choose not to be governed by the public sector institutions created by the constitution?

                Or does self-government mean mob rule?

                Does it mean that it is one size fits all?

                Does it mean that in its name people can be caged for not coughing up a third to half of their income in order to support it?

                1. Point to one actual society that has been more pro-liberty then the United States. Just one. Great Britain, Holland, Switzerland are all the close 2nds.

                  There is not one society in human history that has been more pro-liberty then the United States. If there were you would have stated it.

                  That is what I meant by worked. Show me something that someone has tried in the real world that has had some actual degree of success.

                  All I hear is bitching about how nothing is perfect.

                  1. Vampire already mentioned ancient Ireland.

                    Why is Switzerland a close second to the US? By what measure?

                    Does it incarcerate more people than the US?

                    Does it incarcerate more people per capita than the US?

                    Does it have a 20 Trillion dollar public debt?

                    Does it tax its citizens on their worldwide income?

                    Does it have an equivalent to FACTA?

                    Do its police kill more of its people?

                    Does it have a War on Drugs?

                    1. Everyone has a (socialist) gun.

                    2. Switzerland is, in fact, one of the very few countries that DOES TAX WORLDWIDE INCOME.

                    3. “ancient Ireland”
                      Hahahaha.

                      That’s what I’m supposed to prefer to the modern day civilized world? Call me a statist and a socialist all you like, it sounds better than getting clubbed to death roving celtic lunatics.

                      I’m sorry, but you guys sound as nutty as the feminists trying to dig up past matriarchal utopias as evidence of their beliefs.

                2. You expose yourself as an enemy of liberty to the extent you worship the constitution.

                  And again, I invite you to show me the mechanism that has produced better results for its citizens in terms of their relative freedoms over an extended period of time. Or you can keep pretending that your ridiculous pronouncements about half of people’s incomes and mob rule are things I said.

                  1. I love how we’re “enemies of liberty” now. Hilariously. How tenuous does your grasp on reality have to be to make that claim?

                  2. What you support has wrought the mass murders, the permanent war machine, empire, and things like:

                    The IRS;

                    The FBI;

                    The CIA;

                    Homeland Security;

                    The TSA;

                    The income tax;

                    The estate tax;

                    The gift tax;

                    The automobile excise tax;

                    The 20 trillion dollar debt;

                    The 200-300 trillion in unfunded social security obligations;

                    The several trillion dollar public retirement unfunded obligations;

                    The WAR ON DRUGS;

                    To name just a few.

                    The US is a socialist cesspool. It has always been.

                    1. Mike, I’d just like to point out that the vast majority of these items you list came into existence after 1913, i.e., the Progressive statist movement began. IMHO, Americans need to fight to take back America. But we have an uphill fight.

                    2. The US is a socialist cesspool. It has always been.

                      Be reasonable. Sure the US has always had socialized postal services, “justice” services, and warfare services. Then it got into the socialized infrastructure business and went into fiat money and banking services racket on and off.

                      But the difference in magnitude of socialized services between a socialist state and the US was such that the US consistently ranked #3 as the most economically free country in the world using various objective metrics. Since the Bush/Obama regime, however, it has slipped to #17. Compared to the rest of the world, the US is no cesspool … but it is the aboveground part of the outhouse and falling fast.

                    3. “What you support”
                      Does that mean that if I buy one of Althusser’s books I am partly responsible for murdering his wife? Next I suppose people who buy Volkswagens are responsible for the Holocaust. Even that of course is more credible than anything you’ve said. Learn to logic, then come back.

            2. It wasn’t secret. Outside people knew it was happening and the minutes were kept and published. In addition is was ratified by the states.

      2. A civil society would not tolerate the monopolization of defending liberty.

        Its not as if the best way to have liberty defended is by means of legalized corruption, murder, mayhem, war, inefficiency and spectacular misallocation of resources.

        1. Its not as if the best way to have liberty defended is by means of legalized corruption, murder, mayhem, war, inefficiency and spectacular misallocation of resources.

          To be fair, government and it’s defenders call those things by different names. Without euphemisms, all government action would be seen as the criminal action that it is.

        2. I keep hearing that govt’s key responsibility is protecting the rights of the individual. Then, various posters rush in to say that’s not so. All the other stuff you keep tossing out – war, corruption, murder – is extraneous to the point that any civil society is going to have some rules and some means of dealing with how rules are enforced.

          1. is extraneous to the point that any civil society is going to have some rules and some means of dealing with how rules are enforced.

            I don’t know a single anarcho-capitalist or agorist who promotes a stateless society devoid of rules, laws and the like. Except maybe the imaginary version of that person living inside wareagle’s head. You should know better by now that you’re really abusing that strawman.

            1. it would seem that you actually do know a few of these stateless society types, starting with yourself. Every mention of rules or laws is met with a pants-shitting cry of “violence” or some such. Re-read your own posts; my point has been consistent regarding rules and someone in charge of them. And this is a libertarian outpost; govt is part of such a society.

              1. it would seem that you actually do know a few of these stateless society types, starting with yourself. Every mention of rules or laws is met with a pants-shitting cry of “violence” or some such.

                Cool story.

                Re-read your own posts; my point has been consistent regarding rules and someone in charge of them. And this is a libertarian outpost; govt is part of such a society.

                Maybe you should read my posts and point out to me where I advocate social organization devoid of all social organization. If you’ve read so much as the book cover of an single libertarian anarchist’s book, you’d know better than to claim that we oppose all violence or all rules. So for you to keep claiming this just gets more pathetic each time.

                1. you’d know better than to claim that we oppose all violence or all rules.

                  Except I didn’t claim that. I said rules are necessary for a civil society and someone is going to have put in charge of those rules. You and Mike seem to take issue with that because “force!”

                  In an ideal world, rational people might say “I fucked up; my bad. How do I make it up to you?” But that’s not reality and even you admit that violence is sometimes needed.

                  It’s interesting how wound up some people get over the apparently controversial statement that a civil society has rules and, in this society at least, we have decided to do that mostly through the public sector. That’s not a defense of rogue cops or crooked prosecutors, it is a statement of fact. Along the way, perhaps you could point out the place that crafted itself a better document for self-governance than the US has.

                  1. Backcountry Somalia under Xeer is a “an example of how customary law works within a stateless society and closely resembles the natural law principle”.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer

              2. The cornerstone of libertarianism is the NAP. It is manifestly not liberty within the constructs of a nation state.

                As for your assertion that folks like Free Society and myself react with “pants-shitting” cries of “violence” every time rules or laws are mentioned, is just one more iteration of beating the straw man to which Free Society alluded.

                Note that, above, I employed the word governance in asserting that it need not be obtained through violence as is the case with the US. Governance, in a truly free society, is obtained through peaceful and voluntary exchange, i.e., by contract, freely executed, without coercion.

                Contracts have rules, including rules for adjudication of disputes and enforcement.

                1. Governance, in a truly free society, is obtained through peaceful and voluntary exchange, i.e., by contract, freely executed, without coercion.

                  Please tell me which society that is, so that we might all move there and live harmoniously. To date, the society we have has been the best effort at such a result.

                  Contracts have rules, including rules for adjudication of disputes and enforcement.

                  Yes, and this would be the role of the umpire to whom I have referred repeatedly. Whether you want this actor to be private or public is neither here nor there; he must exist or the rules are meaningless. Your own statement admits that.

        3. No the best way to defend negative liberty is by the use of RETALIATORY force. What you list requires INITIATORY force.

      3. Wareagle,

        Many of the founders despised standing armies because they are a threat to liberty. They would never have approved of a standing police force.

        Defense in the founders time was more efficient and effective through the private production of defense.

        Violence is not civil, stop with this “gov’t is necessary for a civil society” nonsense. Ancient Ireland was plenty civil without government for over a millennia.

        1. Ancient Ireland civil? Are you sure about that? The Irish seemed to have no problem raiding the coasts of Britain after the Roman Empire collapsed. Doesn’t seem like civil behavior to me.

          1. Vampire is right that Ireland was a very free society without a central government for a long, long time.

            There was not a continuing orgy of violence as has existed in the United States since its founding.

            To wit, there is no evidence that ancient Ireland was home to a several century mass murdering effort to wipe out a race of people.

            1. If you are referring to the natives with your “mass murdering” claims most of them were wiped out before the United States was even an idea.

            2. You must be fully retarded to say this. Modern day US is one of the safest and most prosperous places that has ever existend in human history; hell, almost anywhere on the planet easily makes the top 5%; but the evil civilized world you malign next to *ancient Ireland?* Congratulations, you’ve just made your case into a joke.

              Do you sincerely believe that Ancient Ireland was more peaceful and less brutal than the modern US? Have you ever read anything about the nature of ancient societies? I’m beginning to wonder if you and Vampire aren’t just pulling stuff from some Irish Nationalist site making claims of a pre-colonial Irish utopia. Seriously though, come back to reality. Ancient Ireland, the libertopia of which I dream while sitting in the nonstop blood bath that is my life in modern day United States. Lol.

          2. See, ignoring all the British killingsof the Irish to try and bring them under their rule, and then blaming Ireland for attacking them is fun when we ignore history. YAY!

        2. stop with this “gov’t is necessary for a civil society” nonsense.

          so these societal rules that are part and parcel of most orderly societies, the contracts with their means of dealing with disputes and conflicts, who is going to do that? You may believe that this would be best done by a private concern, but it is still going to have to be done.

          Our society chose to do certain things through the public sector. We’re not likely to see that go away entirely. I don’t see it as a windmill worth tilting against.

        3. Rome civilized Europe.

          Seriously.

          1. Before the Romans came along and brought teh oppressionz, all the Gauls got along with each other and lived in peace and harmony, and they respected nature and were in touch with their feminine sides too.

    2. they are the beneficiaries of a violent, super awesome socialist construct contract.

      FTFY /Tonytard

      1. You are not only a slaver, but, apparently, a blind and ignorant one as well.

  7. Sanders’ tactic, however, shouldn’t be surprising. He learned to be an ally of cops, to treat them as part of the “labor” class not, say, an apparatus of the ruling class, decades ago. When Sanders is asked about criminal justice and moves to economic issues, it’s not just that he’s a one-note pony but that he understands the importance of police unions in creating “good jobs,” even if they come at the expense of systematically trampling on the rights of Americans, with a particular focus on the poor and marginalized.

    I’ve been sayin’ it for years now, unaccountable police violence must always be painted as a purely racial problem, not a problem of unaccountable government power. The former just requires that you occasionally exorcise some bad officers who got caught using the n-word– problem solved!

    But the latter requires you rethink entire institutions of power. The latter is unthinkable to your garden-variety progressive.

  8. Bill Bratton, the police commissioner, made the same point Sanders did, that his liberal supporters are so uncomfortable with, that the police are a democratic institution.

    Democracy is mob rule, at the end of the day. And often the mob doesn’t feel like getting its hands dirty with enforcing its own whims. That’s what the police are for (besides their own self-serving actions). Without the police, sometimes the mob has to pitchfork somebody, and that’s only fun occasionally. It’s better to just hire some enforcers to deal with it most of the time.

    1. Democracy is mob rule

      It’s two dicks and an asshole deciding what movie to go to.

      1. Or stay home for porn.

    2. It’s better to just hire some enforcers to deal with it most of the time.

      Not sure that qualifies as a “hire” any more than a shopkeeper “hires” the Gambino crime family to protect their wares. Yes police are ostensibly a force for law and order. But some would rightly argue that law and order are economic products better procured through the market and voluntary interaction between consumers and producers.

    3. Good thing we are a Republic.

  9. “It’s important that when an officer does approach you to correct your behavior, that you respect them,” said Bratton. “That’s what democracy is all about.”

    It is.

    Bullshit. “Democracy” does not require that you “respect” every government official who approaches you to “correct your behavior”.

    C’mon, Ed: just because a government is democratically elected doesn’t mean everything it does is ipso facto correct, legitimate, and deserving of respect.

    This is on par with saying that the government of Venezuela was democratically elected, and therefor Venezuelans shouldn’t disrespect it by criticizing or (peacefully) resisting its insane kleptocratic diktats.

    1. C’mon, Ed: just because a government is democratically elected doesn’t mean everything it does is ipso facto correct, legitimate, and deserving of respect.

      Ed didn’t say democracy actually conferred legitimacy.

      1. Bratton’s nickname is “Ed”. Bill “Ed” Bratton.

        1. Bratton said it. But Ed agreed with it. I don’t expect better of Bratton, but I do of Ed.

          1. I’m not sure if Ed agreed with it, so much as merely agreed that it was what it has ultimately come down to. There’s a difference.

          2. Ed agreed that that’s what democracy is about. It didn’t sound like he was saying democracy was actually good in any way. More like proof that it’s shit.

            1. It didn’t sound like he was saying democracy was actually good in any way. More like proof that it’s shit.

              Maybe. I hadn’t thought of that angle. Even so, I’m having a hard time getting past the “respect all cops, no matter what” bit.

              1. Even so, I’m having a hard time getting past the “respect all cops, no matter what” bit.

                But, if you buy into the notion of democracy as a be-all, end-all value in itself, it’s hard to avoid that conclusion.

      2. Perhaps not, Nikki. I was assuming that this putrid line of thinking was based on the idea that democracy confers legitimacy on the government.

        Of course, I may have been too kind. Ed may have been agreeing that every official and their correction of your behavior are deserving of respect regardless of whether the government is legitimate.

        1. There is literally no way that was what Ed was saying. Have you not read him before?

          1. I think RC is hanging on the “It is.” followup from Ed. I interpret it as Ed’s merely pointing out reality, not agreeing with how it should be.

            1. I think RC is hanging on the “It is.” followup from Ed

              I don’t how else to read it except as agreement with Bratton.

              I don’t think it can be read as Ed agreeing that’s just unfortunate reality; Bratton’s comment is more prescriptive: that we should/must respect all cops regardless, because democracy.

              I’ll admit, I’m not quite sure how to read the rest of that paragraph; it seems confused/garbled to me, perhaps an attempt to turn “because democracy” to our service.

              1. Are you willfully ignoring all of Ed’s past writing and opinions, or are you just masturbating furiously for the fuck of it?

                1. I’m trying to parse something he actually wrote, right up there. It jumps out because it is so contrary to what I expected.

                  1. Your desperate need to “gotcha” the writers at reason to expose them as crypto-progressives is tedious beyond belief. And to go after Ed of all people is absurd. He’s basically an anarchist (though I don’t really want to speak for him, that’s just been my interpretation).

                    1. Your desperate need to “gotcha” the writers at reason to expose them as crypto-progressives

                      Well, only the crypto-progressives.

                      [makes furtive secret hand signal, waits hopefully for recognition, wanders away disappointed]

                    2. In somewhat more seriousness, though, I got off on this kick not because I actually believe that Reason has hired more than a very few crypto-progs, but because during the Great Rape Kerfuffle of 2015, the Reason writers just could not stop granting the proggy premise that there was a rape crisis on campus, that the women filing false reports must have been raped somehow, etc.

                      Proggy premises are so epidemic in academic and media circles that its hard not to internalize them, and I think Reason hasn’t been as vigilant as they should be on that front.

                    3. It’s a wide stance first, then the “secret handshake”.

              2. He’s agreeing with Bratton that that is what democracy means.

                It is what democracy means. And that’s why you should “engage police brutality as a true expression of democracy” and perhaps realize along the way that democracy is utter bullshit.

                1. He’s agreeing with Bratton that that is what democracy means.

                  If so, my original statement stands, because “democracy” requires no such thing.

            2. As a practical matter, I agree with Ed completely. To act otherwise when in an real interchange with lawful authority is to risk one’s life at the hands of a thug with sovereign immunity.

          2. There is literally no way that was what Ed was saying.

            I’m actually taking a pretty literal reading of exactly what he wrote, which may be where I am going wrong.

            But to say that there’s “literally no way” to read it that way is, well, wrong.

            1. But you’re injecting the assumption that “democracy” is a good thing.

              1. Eh, its a lot of work to put into a couple of sentences.

                I’m liking your approach, that this is Ed taking a swipe at “democracy”. Its a little opaque, though. I can see him meaning something like:

                “IF democracy is all about respecting the cops, no matter what they do, then . . . “

    2. “C’mon, Ed: just because a government is democratically elected doesn’t mean everything it does is ipso facto correct, legitimate, and deserving of respect.”

      In fact, this is exactly the opposite of who owes respect to whom.
      That government official is my employee; as such s/he owes me the respect due to any boss.

      1. That government official is my employee; as such s/he owes me the respect due to any boss.

        Ha! Your fly is down and your social contract is hanging out. It ain’t pretty.

    3. Wait, so if 6 out of 10 people think the other 4 should hand half their money over for the “good of the group” those 4 are suddenly obligated to do so on pain of death? This sounds suspiciously like that “social contract” bullshit. Sorry, but liberty doesn’t mean anything if it’s subject to a vote.

    4. Why should they peacefully resist insane diktats?

      1. That’s the point, Epi.

        According to Bratton (with Ed’s concurrence), they shouldn’t resist them at all, because “respecting” government officials and what they tell you to do is what democracy is all about.

        1. Once again: if you think that Ed is concurring with him, you must have ignored all of Ed’s previous articles. Why you are grabbing onto this like a terrier with a bone is beyond me.

          1. Why you are grabbing onto this like a terrier with a bone is beyond me.

            His Philosophy degree?

            1. I got a lot of different stuff from Kierkegaard, myself.

              1. He was a mystical dope.

            2. Sug, its more my law degree, I’m afraid.

              1. I know. It was more of a throwback joke to earlier.

        2. There’s zero evidence Ed concurred with that.

          1. Well, “It is” is a pretty funny way to express disagreement, Nikki.

            1. He agreed with what Bratton said. He didn’t agree with the extra assumptions you are making.

          2. I thought it was pretty obvious that he had his sarcasm generator turned up to 11.

            And while it may be fashionable today to blame the policies that lead to excessive police brutality on things like white supremacy, it would be far more productive, and lead to real harm reduction, to engage police brutality as a true expression of democracy, and to correct our expectations of government.

            How can anyone read that as an *endorsement*?

            1. Alright, I see it now. The clue I missed was in the equation of brutality and democracy there.

              1. I had to read it a couple times myself.

                1. Well, having Epi AND Nikki both climbing my boxers for a comment I made does tend to make me think I’m probably onto something. 😉

          3. Democracy is about submitting to the will of the people. Fuck democracy.

    5. Bullshit. “Democracy” does not require that you “respect” every government official who approaches you to “correct your behavior”.

      Didn’t Giuliani say that freedom was all about authority?

      1. The authority of a “911 survivor”.

  10. …government, which is just a word for the things we do together

    I prefer a different quote (wish I could remember the source) to this general effect:

    “Government exists to spend other people’s money on things no one would pay for themselves.”

    1. I like this one:

      Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

      Attributed to George Washington (who, as a slave owner, knew something about troublesome servants, I am sure).

      1. Let’s attribute it to R C Dean instead. He seems like the sort.

    2. The tragedy of the common(er)s.

    3. The proper function of government is to defend individual negative liberty with the retaliatory use of force.

  11. “”left-wingers sometimes mock some right-wingers for likening every government program to socialism.”

    Then they will turn on a dime and insist that the Post Office and Roads and Public Schools and Sweden are all “Socialist” and how can we really hate that?

    Then, when cornered, will perform a pirouette and insist *actual* socialism has never existed

    And they will simultaneously smugly maintain that they represent the side that treasures “intellectual inquiry” and is “open minded” and “rationalist”

    1. I like how that guy handwaves Venezuela and North fucking Korea by calling them another form of capitalism.

    2. And the ever irritating ‘pro-science’.

  12. Of course most anti-cop politicians are authoritarian fucks. See Castro, Khomeini, Chavez, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc…

    1. Has Winston finally been broken?

      1. Why, did I say anything false?

        1. Given that all those people liked police so much that they formed large, secret organizations of them to oppress the citizenry and keep them in line, yes.

          1. Point is they hated the cops, while in opposition, that is. Lenin sounded kinda libertarian at times before Red October after all. Khomeini had nasty words for how the Shah’s men treated drug dealers. I wonder how many anti-cop politician actually want to decrease their power or do they hate the cops for not being used against their enemies?

            1. You’re confusing partisanship for principles.

              Same as Democrats today and the NSA.

        2. Very simple, yes. “Most” means a majority. You’ve listed six names. Regardless of whether they were “anti-cop politicians,” I think there are more than eleven anti-cop politicians in history.

          But more importantly, what the fuck does this mean? What does it pertain to? What point do you think you’re making? Who the fuck cares?

  13. I’m a bit perplexed. American leftists have long acted as though use of the term socialism to describe the policies they prefer is a false, nasty smear. Now that a no-shit, self-described socialist has come along on the national stage, many of these same people are going all in for the guy.

    1. many of these same people are going all in for the guy.

      It’s like a constipated leftist bowel movement that’s finally giving way.

    2. They were lying. Does that surprise you?

  14. Sad story that happily ends in us throwing her in a cage. Fucking asshole prosecutors

    “Megan Vore is another sad story of a young woman who turned to opiates and that addition led to her becoming a large scale drug dealer,” said Athens County Prosecutor Keller Blackburn in a news release. “She is now facing a severe penalty for her poor choice.”

    http://nbc4i.com/2015/10/19/wo…..king-ring/

    1. She’ll get the help she needs in prison, assuming the help she needs is being raped by a guard.

      1. Listen, NutraSweet, rapist prison guards need help too. Help getting victims.

        1. What are you? A union rep?

          1. Look, I only represent rapists. That’s why I’m Warty’s agent. And STEVE SMITH’s. You looking for some representation?

            1. Do you handle child acts?

              1. For 10%, not the usual 5%.

                1. How about family acts? Do we get a group discount if we include your mom?

                  1. I already represent her, along with your mom. So no.

            2. I already get insurance through Internet Sadists Local 156.

              1. Hermes: So you’re telling me I could fire my whole staff and hire Grunka Lunkas at half the cost?

                Glurmo: That’s right. They think they have a good union but they don’t. [whispering] They’re basically slaves.

                1. Grunka-lunka-dunkaty-darmed-guards…

            3. STEVE SMITH NOT GET MONEY WORTH OUT OF DUES, WANT TO OPT OUT. FEEL LIKE BEING RAPED BY UNION.

    2. It was only kinda sad when she was an addict and a dealer.

      What makes it very sad is this sadist throwing her in a cage.

      But, I suppose we should “respect” the prosecutor for doing so, on account of democracy.

      1. it is curious how addiction is a disease when it happens to someone rich and famous, but a crime problem with someone like this woman.

    3. The fucking asshole prosecutors are what the brave men and women in uniform are defending. They are defending “our way of life.”

      Don’t forget to thank them for their honorable service.

      1. It takes a special kind of sociopath to do this shit to people. 14 fucking years. You have to be shitting me.

  15. Are we going to have another Sheldon Richman article where he bitches about “capitalism” is not the proper term but that he is the real socialist because of some obscure 19th Century writer since he is such a forward thinker?

    1. I think I missed that article. I thought Sheldon Richman did foreign policy.

      1. I’m referring to his article: Individualism, Collectivism, and Other Murky Labels. The link is too long for this post.

        1. Whoomp, here it is!

          1. Oh, shit, now I have to post this

            1. “Oh, shit, now I have to post this”

              No. No you didn’t have to.

          2. This is why philosophy is bullshit. It’s mostly a fucking semantics game played by people who think that they’re the only one’s who really get it.

            1. I wonder how many philosophy papers and books would lose their appeal if translated into an unambiguous language.

  16. OT: RIP Irwin Schiff.

    There are people who are real, genuine heroes, who stand up to Leviathan, not serve as its apologists, enforcers and killers. People like Muhammad Ali when he defied the conscript capos, the kid in front of the tank in Tinamen Square, and Schiff.

    Schiff aptly named one of his books, The Federal Mafia.

    1. Was he allowed to go home to die or did he die in prison?

      1. He died shackled to a hospital bed.

        1. Damn. All because he wrote a book.

      2. No, he died while caged, notwithstanding the efforts of his son, Peter.

      3. Died a prisoner. Here’s an article.

        Irwin A. Schiff, who built a national following by arguing that income taxes are unconstitutional and spent more than 10 years in prison for evading them and for helping thousands of others to do the same, died on Friday at a hospital affiliated with a federal prison in Fort Worth.

        1. Yeah, if he was still under arrest, he was probably shackled to the bed.

    2. Died in a cage for refusing to be expropriated. What evil institution that we supposedly just can’t live without.

    3. At least whoever owns the Loompanics back catalog might hope for a few more sales.

  17. I remember the heady days of 2004 and 2008 when Reason and Rockwell were trying to tell me that Howard Dean and then Obama were the purveyors of a more libertarian Democratic party since Bush sucked so much and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. My how things change. Libertarian Moment!

    1. You are just a boring, whiny little bitch, Winston. How’d you get like this? Would The Jacket not send you back a dick pic? Did Sullum beat you in a lesbian look-a-like pageant?

      You’re such a basic bitch, Winston.

      1. Homophobe.

        Also how dare I point out that Reason’s own overly delusional claims of a “libertarian moment” are nonsense especially considering that the statist assumptions underlying modern society haven’t really been questioned?

        1. Still fucking whining, I see. Poor Winston. So put upon by the world.

          But thank you so much for making the exact same lame-ass point you’ve made a hundred times before. Such a useful contribution, much like a parrot that can only squawk “Fuckhole, Fuckhole.”

          1. I would absolutely buy a parrot that did that. And keep it at work.

            1. “I would absolutely buy a parrot that did that. “

              Fuckin’ A..

            2. My friend had a (very loud) parrot like that. Its vocabulary was mostly “motherfucker” and “cocksucker”.

          2. Shorter SugarFree: Groupthink is bad unless it disagrees with me and you’re a shithead. *Insert drinking game reference*

            1. “Fuckhole, Fuckhole”

              There… I hear it again.

              1. I see someone is towing the lion again.

              2. Now I don’t want that parrot anymore. Thanks a lot.

        2. It’s kind of impressive actually that you can even fit through a door being that obtuse.

          1. So do you think that Bernie Sanders is a libertarian socialist and that Donald Trump caused the stock market to go down? Both were published in Reason.

            1. “Fuckhole, fuckhole”

              I mean, it’s not just me, right? Other people are hearing this?

              1. I just hear incessant whining, NutraSweet. Sort of like a high keen.

                1. His flailing for some sort of counter attack is always entertaining. He throws out a few buzzwords, tries to act like he belongs, and then complains about “cliques.”

                  Do these whining little shits have some sort of script they read off of?

                  1. tries to act like he belongs

                    Then you claim you are not acting cliquishly.

              2. No it’s not you.

                The guy really is a whiny bitch.

                The word “unflushable” also comes to mind.

            2. That’s…not even what you were talking about like one post up. You should try keeping your head perfectly level so the thoughts don’t dribble out of your ears like that.

              1. I get called a whiner for criticizing Reason which seems to imply that any criticism of Reason is wrong.

                1. Are you crying? Oh sweet Jeebus I hope you’re crying.

                  1. “All I wanted to do was go to the Reason board and make the same lame fucking comment over and over again.” [sniffle] “I’m just so butthurt about someone suggesting that things might somehow be getting better for libertarianism!” [wail of grief]

                  2. And Winston’s not a Tulpa, right? Because all of this sounds very familiar.

                    1. And Winston’s not a Tulpa, right?

                      I don’t think even Tulpa could be this boring and one note. You could replace Winston with a few lines of computer code and no one could tell the difference.

                    2. There are posts where I managed to post several comments while Tulpa’s sock posted several comments during the same time period. Of course this could be evidence of me being sock but if he and me posted at different times this would also be proof of me being his sock, right? I suppose the fact that I’m defending myself makes me guilty?

                  3. I know how this works. Call someone a whiny bitch so they either have to accept it or defend themselves which will be used as evidence that they are a whiny bitch.

                    1. “Fuckhole, fuckhole”

                2. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Reason. But if you do so by leaning on a tiresome willful misconstrual of of the libertarian moment concept after we have patiently and repeatedly corrected your moronic ilk on its meaning then you shouldn’t be surprised let alone offended when we call you a retard.

                  1. your moronic ilk

                    Are you implying that I’m one of those “Hit’n’Runblicans”?

                    1. We also would have accepted “yokeltarian.”

                3. There are a handful of commenters that only know how to insult, and seem bound and determined to drive out ever dissenting opinion on here until Reason HnR becomes just a retarded little circle jerk.

                  It’s sad really. It seems only a year ago there was far more diversity of opinion.

                  1. Oh wait, I know this one…

                    “Go ahead and be Winston’s white knight. You know he won’t actually fuck you, right?”

                    1. Thanks for proving my point. Don’t worry you guys already drove away people like John I’m sure you’ll have your hive-minded collective soon enough. Until then perhaps HnR can install a safe room for those afraid of dissenting opinions.

                    2. OK, let me check… yes “echo chamber.” I can check that one off.

                    3. Um ok…

                    4. Those pixels HURT!

                  2. Problem is that Tulpa and Shriek also complained about that and they are dishonest shitheads using that line cynically so using that line makes one look like a dishonest shithead who just wants to be a dishonest shithead.

                    1. Poor little Winston… Will no one let him whine in peace?

                      “Boo-hoo-hoo,” said Cindy Lou Who

                    2. Are you denying that you don’t take arguments that Reason is “echo chamber” seriously because Shriek and Tupla used them?

          2. His low parietal width helps a lot, Hugh.

            1. I know I’m not part of your clique so it’s okay to call me a disabled retard?

              1. That’s what he calls my mom.

              2. It’s ok to call you a disabled retard because you are one. However, we must all drink now because you said “clique” again. Be careful, you could get us pretty drunk here.

                1. I’m drinking olive oil!

                  1. I didn’t know you had adrenoleukodystrophy, Hugh. That’s a shame. Especially considering all your…other problems.

                  2. Damn. I better switch from Everclear.

                2. How can I get into this clique? Does it involve public masturbation, because I would totally have a wank in public to get in the clique.

                  1. You have to discharge your fap sauce on a sparrow, and post the pic on a chan board…

    2. Anyway I think the real problem is that the notion that Depression was solved by the New Deal hasn’t really been challenged and is one thing that is still widely believed by politicians of every stripe. This and the desire to “Do Something” causes the left to go full retard during recessions.

      1. I think people in general have this “Do something!!” mentality whenever there is a crisis. Politicians are just trying to get their votes.

      2. The worse notion is that it was solved by World War 2!

        1. “Look at the drop in unemployment! Right when we drafted a shit-ton of working aged men and sent them off to fight!”

    3. I haven’t read the comments here in a few months, but I do distinctly remember that the last time I did, this same Winston character was saying this same silliness almost verbatim, and it was almost as unrelated to that thread as this comment is to this thread.

      My parrot actually says different things once in a while. Perhaps that’s a goal to which you should aspire, Winnie? That is, once your testicles descend and you get over the “too cool for school” attitude, of course.

  18. According to the National Fire Protection Association, 69 percent of firefighters in the United States are volunteers. Add in contracted private fire fighting services and corporate fire fighting units like the ones at Boeing and the vast majority of fire fighters are NOT working for the government.

    1. Do you believe that 69% of the firefighters are volunteers? Not me.

      1. “Volunteer” firefighters are not necessarily unpaid firefighters. “Volunteer” departments usually means “not a government agency”.

        No idea about that 69% number, though.

        1. There are a lot of volunteer firefighters, so it could be that high.

          1. Yes, I do not contest that there are lots of volunteer firefighters, just the percentage.

            1. The googles say volunteers do make up that high of a percentage, for what it is worth.

            2. I could beleive it. They’re probably counting up all the rinky dink little volunteer fire districts and all of it’s non-professional responders. I don’t think it’s implausible that a thousand places like Dogdick, Iowa have enough volunteers to outweigh the labor pool of all the municipal fire departments.

              1. Where I grew up, there was a very large volunteer FD. About 1/4 were actually ‘qualified’; the others showed up for the beer at the meetings.

                1. Where I grew up, there was a very large volunteer FD. About 1/4 were actually ‘qualified’; the others showed up for the beer at the meetings.

                  So, just like regular firefighters.

                  *ducks*

                  1. In 2014 I learned a name for firemen’s drinking gatherings: soakers. Or maybe it was soaks.

      2. I have it on good authority that ~8% is the sweet-spot..

      3. I think it’s a long tail?

        In rural areas, most firefighting companies seem to be volunteer, so give how much rural area there is, it might be 69%.

  19. Other than as a shelter for the homeless, what’s the point of public libraries, especially in this day and age?

    1. Government employees to vote for more free shit? And an easy way to accuse any budget cutter as being a savage that hates learning?

      1. I saw somebody post about this on Derpbook the other day. Not only do you hate learning, but you hate the poor. And a bunch of other people. I have to try and find it.

    2. It was only this summer that I signed up for my first library card since I was a little kid, so I feel qualified to answer: books.

      1. MJ-

        I loved getting my first library card when I was 5 (it took me that long to be able to write my name).

        A group of us 13-14 yr olds all got our new library cards at the same time. Suddenly, Malcolm Young, John Paul Jones, Keith Moon, Jimmy Page, and Ritchie Blackmore (me) all had valid ID cards from the Westerville Public Library…

    3. Yeah, that’s what we all think of now, but Sanders was just using it as a familiar historic example, because most people who aren’t too young would remember when libraries were useful.

  20. Deion Sanders is a socialist? Damn, dude.

  21. Bernie is essentially a ringer for Hillary since he gives the hardcore progtards the illusion of choice and the catharsis of rebelling against the less progtard Democratic mainstream before they quietly fall in line behind Hillary.

    It’s useful idiots all the way down.

    1. His supporters can be shrill beyond belief, but he is certainly not running with the intention of anyone but Hillary winning.

      1. Sanders debate performance was proof-positive for me that his true intention is move the Democratic Party leftwards. If he was genuinely interested in winning, he’d have slammed Hillary and the others for their war-mongering Iraq War authorization and he’d have slammed Hillary for her long record of scandals and her utter failure as secretary of state. He actually did pretty much the opposite of those things.

  22. If roads, libraries, and police are examples of socialism, then the Roman Empire was socialist.

    derp

    1. It’s part of the whole “all government is socialist” argument. I thought it was retarded when I first heard a prog at work make it, and I think it’s equally retarded hearing libertarians make it.

      1. What in principle is the difference between government mobilizing resources to fight wars and government mobilizing resources to deliver universal healthcare? That you like one and not the other is not a principle.

        1. What is the war based on? When did they advocate for mobilizing resources to fight wars? I missed that. Also it isnt all or nothing for government responsibility

          Universal healthcare? Single payer health insurance or payment isnt the same as healthcaee btw. Also thought you were opposed to monopolies…curious why you want government to have a monoply on health insurance

        2. The constitution authorizes the govt to make war and pay for a military. It doesn’t say anything about providing healthcare or education.

          If you want govt run healthcare, get an amendment for it.

          The phrase “promote the general welfare” from the preamble is not an enumerated power nor does it refer to food stamps or unemployment payments.

          1. Because a piece of paper says so isn’t a principle either. The constitution clearly allows for Obamacare too, as the supreme court has said.

            1. First you say that the constitution doesn’t count because it’s just a piece of paper, then you say the opinions of 7 judges written on pieces of paper are holy scripture.

              Truly, sir, you are a philosopher king, straddling the earth like an intellectual Colossus.

              And they did not say the Constitution allows Ocare. They said that tax credits apply to both the state and federal exchanges.

              1. Obamacare is regulations and taxes =/= healthcare

              2. Tony always bringing tales from the derp

            2. Why do you support government monopolies?

            3. Forget it guys, Tony is the smartest man on the planet. He should, nay DESERVES, to rule over us all.

              This may come as a shock Tony, but you’re not entitled to the services of the police or military any more than you are the services of a doctor. That’s why the US, and just about every state, constitution makes sure to note that every citizen has the inalienable right to provide for their own self defense.

        3. “What in principle is the difference between government mobilizing resources to fight wars and government mobilizing resources to deliver universal healthcare?”

          Other than he obvious?

      2. But it’s true. Socialism is a matter of degree. So is libertarianism. Everybody’s somewhat libertarian, it’s just a matter of how much.

  23. Bernie obviously doesn’t think government should take over all the means of production. He decided, from the comfort of Vermont and various leafy college campuses, that it would be cool to call himself a democratic socialist to align with European moderates and progressives who take the socialization of certain industries for granted.

    But that was a mistake if he ever wanted to run for president. He can’t disavow the term, so he’s going to try to educate the American people. That may be the most fairy-tale aspect of his campaign so far, and that’s saying a lot. America, known the world over for its appreciation for nuance.

    1. Yeah. The country that loves baseball doesn’t get nuance.

      Bah.

      1. America, land of ludicrously complicated sports. Maybe that explains our ridiculously simplistic politics in some way.

        1. I don’t find baseball all that complex.

          Football in its schemes and patterns perhaps.

          Sports are not that complicated; the tactics and strategies can be.

        2. Does it bother you that you cant rule over us without restraint?

          1. It really really does.

  24. The cops who killed Eric Garner, for example, did so because they were ordered by their superiors to crack down on loose cigarette sellers

    Looks like the bloggers here are going to keep repeating this lie, never acknowledging the truth.

    1. Whar is the truth?

      1. What

    2. And what is the truth?

      1. NYPD No. 3’s order to crack down on selling loose cigarettes led to chokehold death of Eric Garner
        EXCLUSIVE: Chief of Department Philip Banks made the order to investigate complaints over the sale of untaxed cigarettes in Tompkinsville, Staten Island, a source told The News. That fierce crack down resulted in the lethal manhandling of Eric Garner.

        Which means Eric Garner was guilty of denying the state light-bringing revenues and healthcare to poor children.

    3. Damn, you got burned on that one.

      1. Perhaps he meant that at the time the cops werent busting him for loose cigs is the only thing i can see. My understanding is they recognized for being one that sells loose cigs…started harassing for nothing and then we all know what happened

        1. That was the point. He wasn’t selling loose cigs at the time, had none on him or in his car, wasn’t at the usual place he’d previously sold them, but had attracted att’n because he’d just broken up a fight. The statement that he was being arrested on suspicion of selling cigs is a patent lie made up afterward to justify the violence of apprehending him & thereby killing him.

          I heard from another source that he was viewed as a troublemaker in that neighborhood for shaking down businesses, but nobody could prove that, so he just became a “usual suspect”. Selling loosies was the last thing he’d been busted for, so that’s what they pulled out of their ass to accuse the corpse of.

          Unfortunately it suit’s HyR bloggers’ agenda to tie the action in to a crackdown on cigarets. What, it isn’t enough just to have another case of devil-may-care police brutality, you have to get a 2-for-1 hit?

          1. Suspicion of having cigarets is a convenient excuse for police behavior. If he didn’t believe he had any on him, why would he “resist”? Of course their idea of resistance doesn’t leave much room for conversation! So they had to take him down hard. Oh, he didn’t have any cigarets on him? Then it’s his fault for “acting as if he did”!

            Don’t you see that they could’ve use anything as an excuse like this? It doesn’t matter in a case like this whether there’s a law against selling loosies or not, because there’d always be some law about something. They could’ve said they thought he had a bloody knife from a murder he’d committed around the corner. Not much different from the Diallou case, or whichever case it was, where, oh, you don’t have any drugs to sell us? (Or people to rape, or something?) Blam, blam, blam, blam, blam!

    4. You’re absolutely right because when they killed him he hadn’t been selling cigarettes he had just broken up a fight between two kids and that’s why the cops were there.

  25. I think Bernie’s on to something?

    1. that’s awesome

  26. BTW: Bernie not wanting to socialize the means of production but have government control the results of production, there’s a word for that. I’ll let the cool kidz google it.

    1. Fasciitis?

      1. I’ve had that, a couple times.

    2. No, he does obviously want to expand the public sector to have gov’t do more of the prod’n?probably mostly of services, but possibly of some goods as well.

  27. All of us are more brutal and vicious than any of us.

  28. All of us are more brutal and vicious than any of us.

  29. Wha[t] is the truth?

    RESISTANCE IS FATAL

  30. Capitalism: one money hungry greedy evil fat cat equals thousands of people with paychecks.

    Socialism: one power hungry greedy benevolent politician equals thousands of people without a paycheck.

  31. NYC does not have a democratic government. They have a representative government. Very different things.

    The people of NYC don’t give a rat’s ass about sales of loose cigarettes. The people’s will is filtered through a political class which has rigged the electoral system to limit the choices available to the people so that they can maintain power while doing things the people don’t approve of.

  32. This article fundamentally misunderstands the progressive critique with police: they don’t cringe at state authority and brutality, they crave control of state authority and brutality.

    It’s not that authority exists, it’s that it’s exercised against the wrong people. That’s why it’s “black lives matter” when over half of people killed by police are white. It’s not who’s exercising power, it’s who it’s being exercised against.

  33. US military is socialism at its finest: free housing, free education, free health care (including govt controlled prices on services and prescriptions), and it even includes free food.

    Cops, fire fighters — are recepients of public benefits too. State pension programs, state (public) funded health care (which is cheaper than the private market one). State (public) throws its weight in to bring cost of services down and ensure a middle class existence. Now compare that to the private assault on teachers — charter school movement, which has destroyed the quality of education, destroyed teachers wages. Imagine if we did that with police and fire fighters — allowed that anyone with a little bit of education/training (“highly qualified police officer”) can go out in a squad car on $25K a year??? If a “highly qualified fire fighter” came to put out a fire on your home, while some suit has set up a “for-profit” fire station to “Deliver quality fire fighting on a business model to bring the costs down” (read: he is pocketing the profit subsidized by the public). THAT is the “socialism” Sanders is talking about.

    1. charter school movement, which has destroyed the quality of education, destroyed teachers wages.

      HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

    2. My father was a career Marine officer and we never got free food. We did shop at the Commissary which was tax free but that’s it.

  34. “…crack down on loose cigarette sellers”. LOL, that made the whole article worthwhile.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.