Election 2016

Let Us Now Praise Really Insurgent Candidates Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders

Don't let the media or party hacks talk you out of New Hampshire's historic wins for non-party candidates.

|

Daily Beast

There's something happening here. To be sure, what it is ain't exactly clear, but still: When is the last time when the winners in the Democratic and Republican New Hampshire primaries weren't even real members of those parties?

I'm guessing never.

Yet neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders really belong to the parties for whose nominations they are vying. And yet there they stand, with two silver medals in Iowa and two yuge wins last night. Do not expect party regulars either to fully acknowledge or grasp just what a blow that is to the partisan status quo. And most folks in the media to meditate on this, either. Instead, get set for an endless procession of pieces about how Hillary Clinton is primed to win in South Carolina and will up her ground game blah blah blah. And how the real takeaway from last night for Republicans is how strong John Kasich did, how little Ted Cruz spent, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

A more trenchant take was written a few weeks ago by political consultant and ABC News talker Matthew Dowd:

Two independents are not just doing extremely well. They are major players creating havoc for the establishment in the nomination process. This shows the broken nature of the two political parties and the depth of the desire for change from the status quo. It is an incredible development that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump, men who have very little party allegiance, are creating the most energy in their respective campaigns for party leader….

Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump have put an exclamation point on the weakness of the two incumbent parties. The evolution of the 2016 election has shown that the two major parties are going to have to deal with the disruption independents are forcing on the system. This cycle is likely to be an accelerator for the success of independents locally and at the state level-developments that can only be good for our democracy.

Dowd notes what everyone knows but is slow to fully grok: Whether Trump and Sanders secure their nominations, they are setting the agenda for this election and they are the source of energy and enthusiasm that's leading to record turnouts and enthusiasm. 

Huffington Post

Full Dowd here. 

That is a genuinely weird and ultimately wonderful development—and I say that as someone who is deeply troubled by the specifics of both Trump's and Sanders' platforms.

We may not be on the verge of the sort of cataclysmic crackup that Matt Welch and I discussed in The Declaration of Independents, in which we talked about how ostensibly impregnable duopolies fall apart seemingly overnight. Remember that between them once upon a time, Fuji and Kodak owned 100 percent of the film business around the globe, right up to the moment that the film industry was deader than the buggy-whip industry. The GOP and the Democratic Party are not going away any time soon, but long-simmering frustrations, disappointments, and anger with these two pre-Civil War entities are slowly dissolving and remaking them, whether they like it or not.

What Trump and Sanders offer up in many ways is almost a parody version of their respective brands. Trump's xenophobia and penchant for treating government like a business is hardly unknown to Republican loyalists and Sanders' socialism is simply the Great Society of steroids. Both drink deeply at the fountation of anti-Wall Street populism that has flavored U.S. politics since there was a Wall Street. In this sense, neither of them represent something truly new in our politics (that would take a libertarian candidate, one capable of legitimately pushing for "Free Minds and Free Markets"), but like white-hot dwarf stars that are hyper-condensed versions of right-wing and left-wing catechisms, they may just burn the whole thing down and set the stage for something truly different and better to rise from the ashes.

Related video (90 seconds): "Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders & The Triumph of Independents"

NEXT: Trump and Sanders Take New Hampshire, Social Justice Activist Kills Himself Outside Ohio Statehouse, FBI Can't Unlock San Bernardino Shooters' Phones: A.M. Links

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. the Great Society of steroids.

    *on*

    What do I win?

    1. “drink deeply at the fountation”

  2. It’s like the voters aren’t really TEAM players.

  3. Meh. They’re both close enough to being Democrats, but only one has a real possibility of handing the Democrats seats in mid-term elections.

  4. So moving both parties in the direction of bigger government is good, as long as they’re moving?

    1. According to Nick, but part of me suspects he is actually Nikki, and thus the worst.

    2. Progress for progress’s sake.

    3. You say that like “moving both parties in the direction of bigger government” was something that would have happened without Sanders or Trump. We’d get big gov regardless of establishment or outsider. This just has an added chance of tearing the main parties apart from the inside.

      1. *was something that would not have happened

      2. You guys don’t realize just how big the government that Sanders is proposing truly is. Go read his website.

        1. Bernie is also not tearing the party apart – just moving it to be socialist.

          I guess that would stop cronyism (I actually doubt that – you just get different kinds of cronies.)

      3. You have one possibility of someone trying hard for smaller government, Cruz . and running against Bernie he could win

    4. I see little reason to believe that Trump will bring more big gov than, say, Bush or Rubio.

      1. Yeah, if anything, I’d expect Trump to successfully drive a harder bargain and thus keep the spending lower. Bush strikes me as the type to say, “You know I want an extra half trillion for defense so I’ll agree to an extra half trillion on social welfare. What, you want $800 million? Well, ok. But you’ve got to make sure the NYT’s writes a really nice piece about how I’m a swell guy.”

        1. If Jeb got them to drop from half a trillion to 800 million, he would have my vote. That’s a 99% reduction.

        2. Maybe.

          Or maybe his idea of a deal is he gets to ban Muslims but he gives Pelosi universal pre-K schooling.

      2. What’s Trump plan for healthcare?

        1. What’s wrong, are you too incompetent to read it for yourself that you need someone else to tell you? You want to be spoon fed what you should think like the rest of the grubers?

    5. As long as they’re DOING SOMETHING!!! Doesn’t really matter if it’s burning children alive and eating their remains, as long as they DO SOMETHING!!! Clearly, SOMETHING needs to get DONE!!! That’s what the election is all about, “doing something.”

      Methinks Reason’s staff needs to be reminded that there are worse things than a the status quo; might I recommend William Shirer’s the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or one of Robert Conquest’s books to illustrate the point?

  5. This is the kind of shit that makes me think that at some point, it’s time to stop braking and instead just gun it to the edge of the cliff.

    1. Outside of the improvement, we’ll never know the difference.

    2. “This is the kind of shit that makes me think that at some point, it’s time to stop braking and instead just gun it to the edge of the cliff.”

      So, you want to light the Nitro and Feel the Bern, then?

      1. Trump – Sanders 2016!!

        Sanders – Trump 2016!!

  6. Listen to you.

    Yeah, it’s a rejection of the 2 parties, but you know what else it is? A rejection of the media telling voters what they should think. And Reason likes to call out media, as if it’s not part of it. One of the first outlets to laugh about Trump, and to predict he has no chance of winning was Reason.

    Oops.

    And it’s also a rejection of monied interests. One of Trumps interesting comments on the last debate was when he pointed at the audience and said to the TV, “You know who they are? They are the donors.” And he got booed. And those watching on TV knew he was right.

    1. By “knew he was right,” I assume you mean “knew he was lying.”

      1. Aren’t those audiences usually chock full of high donors or people who have collected large amounts of donations? I think the first rows in the audience are “reserved” specifically for them.

    2. Why is a rejection of the two parties and “monied interests” inherent good? Rejecting bad in favor of worse is not an improvement. Why don’t more people understand that moving faster in the wrong direction does not get you closer to your destination?

  7. So, let’s see. The “insurgents” are a long-time crony capitalist, tightly connected to the establishment, and a lifelong politician with nearly 3 decades in congress.

    What a breath of fresh air.

    1. ^This

    2. Yup. The “breath” we’re talking about is simply a particularly putrid version of the normal halitosis that the “establishment” breathes on us.

    3. Exactly. The editorial management at this magazine needs an overhaul. So glad I didn’t donate, I’d hate to think I monetarily support such stupidity.

      1. To be fair, I agree with Nick’s sentiment only to the extent that these men’s supporters believe they are outside the establishment.

    4. exactly…could not agree more.

      Public outrage is being channeled to the wrong candidates.

  8. There’s nothing for libertarians to “celebrate” in Trump’s or Sanders’ win in New Hampshire. You know all that stuff libertarians claim they really, really hate about the two parties’ Establishments? Well, each of them is worse on those things, from a libertarian perspective, than the Establishments that libertarians despise.

    1. I think the line of thinking goes that these types of candidates will weaken the establishment enough for actual Libertarian candidates to stand a chance.

      1. In other words, ” burn the whole thing down and set the stage for something new to rise from the ashes.”

        What the hell that might crawl forth from that conflagration is anybody’s guess, but I’m pretty sure it will beat more of the same. Just imagine, a constitutional republic [ok, I can dream, can’t I?]?

        1. I’d like to see examples where this happened.

          When everything burns down, its a crisis, and people choose the Man on the White Horse in that kind of environment.

    2. Yeah Bill. They pretty much are.

    3. INDEED! Trump is a caricature of the very worst aspects of the GOP and Sanders is a caricature of the very worst aspects of the Democrat Party. One is a fascist and the other a commie. I don’t see anything to celebrate.

      1. Whatever you think of Trump, Bernie is most certainly a fascist by any reasonable definition. Bernie is a no shit national socialist.

        Trump is hardly a Libertarian and I certainly understand why Libertarians don’t like him or support him. I do not however see how he is by any reasonable definition a fascist. I am sorry, saying we should enforce the immigration laws and secure the border does not make you a fascist. And neither does thinking we should play hard ball with the Chinese on trade. It may make you foolish or mistaken but it doesn’t make you a fascist.

        The other thing about Trump is that he is not a social conservative. Maybe I missed it but he never mentions social issues that I have seen and he has a long history of being a liberal on things like abortion and gays. So, I don’t see how libertarians can say Trump is the “worst aspects of the GOP” given the amount of vitrol Libertarians have directed at SOCONs. Whatever Trump is, he is not Huckabe.

        1. Thinking we should “play hard ball with the Chinese on trade” doesn’t make him a fascist, it just makes him an economic imbecile.

        2. “The other thing about Trump is that he is not a social conservative. Maybe I missed it but he never mentions social issues…”

          Maybe you let others do the listening for you and tell you what you should think.

          Trump wants to deport all the illegals.
          Trump wants to temporarily halt Muslim immigration.
          Trump fully supports the 2nd Amendment and thinks concealed carry should be national.
          Trump wants to repeal odumbass care and replace it with market driven solutions including cross state insurance competition.
          Trump wants veterans to be able to choose any provider they want for their healthcare.
          Trump wants to cut taxes for everyone and reduce the corporate tax so they will bring their overseas money back to the USA.
          Trump will tear up the Iranian agreement.
          Trump wants to get us out of the crappy trade deals that send American jobs to foreign countries.

          You want to tell me how many of those are leftist positions? Every one of these positions is on his website, so why are you too lazy to go read them rather than have me tell you about them? If you are going to be an informed voter, then do your homework and quit depending on others to do it for you. The LSM and that includes (un)Reason have been lying to you.

          1. woodNfish — You are absolutely 100% correct. While I like a lot of the Libertarian positions, a couple of them, open borders and unlimited immigration is insane and will keep the party inconsequential for decades to come.

            Trump in 2016, 2020, 2024, 2024…

    4. But they are independents and that makes them special because they’re not part of any tribe aside from the independent tribe but that doesn’t count because, um, they’re independents!

      1. Someone should write a book about the phenomenon.

  9. It’s about time the two parties were actually challenged.

    However, they’re being challenged within their party structures which just shows how durable the parties are and how melded our country’s governmental institutions are to these two political parties. And I’m not hearing any ideas from these two candidates about divorcing the parties from the government.

  10. Sanders – Trump 2016!!

  11. Yep in all instances of “burning it all down” always lead to gains in Liberty. Oh, wait…

    1. The funny thing is, “lets give the same-old same-old another go” doesn’t seem to deliver liberty, either.

      1. It does seem to deliver a slower descent into tyranny.

    2. It’s pretty well documented over the centuries that people don’t want nor understand what liberty is. This confounds me but I know there are reasons…

      What were the reasons again?

      1. It’s because they think liberty means freedom.

    3. Worked in the 30’s.

  12. In a real democracy where people actually got what they wanted, both parties would split into two (or more) parties. The democrats should split up into the Clinton Party and the Communist People’s Party, and the republicans should split up into the Bush party and the TEA Party. It would be a far more accurate reflection of the true state of the country.

    1. I foolishly hoped the Tea Party people would push the GOP into a real small government direction.

      No, instead we got xenophobic warmongers.

      1. I remember when Kasich was considered too far right to run for president. Now he’s considered the moderate one.

  13. Nick’s the kind of guy who would have cheered on Stalin during the Bolshevik revolution because = “change”! “Insurgency”!

    Hell, why don’t we cheer on those dynamic grassroots insurgents at ISIS while we’re at it?

  14. The funny part about Trump is that he is a social liberal and his campaign as far as I can see never mentions or relies on culture war issues like abortion and gay marriage. Hasn’t reason been saying for the last 20 years that the Republicans need to drop the culture war and social issues if they ever want to win national elections? It looks like a Republican finally took their advice.

    1. Yes, they have.

      Of course, the Democrats are not dropping the culture wars.

      1. Funny that. And the culture wars are never settled. We got rid of the sodomy laws and then moved on to gay marriage. Now we have that and the left has moved on the transgendered rights. Legalized abortion wasn’t enough, it had to be paid for by the government and minors had to be able to get them without their parents knowing about it. It just never ends. Yet, reason is totally convinced that it is the SOCONs who are the real threat.

        1. And the culture wars are never settled. We got rid of the sodomy laws and then moved on to gay marriage. Now we have that and the left has moved on the transgendered rights. Legalized abortion wasn’t enough, it had to be paid for by the government and minors had to be able to get them without their parents knowing about it. It just never ends.

          Because PROGRESS! FORWARD, COMRADE!

    2. Being a xenophobic racist is definitely part of the culture war.

  15. Trump makes sense not being a real republican because those claiming to be republicans aren’t acting like republicans so may as well roll the dice and vote for anyone who says they will do what they say. the chances of us getting what we want done are just as good or better.

  16. Trump makes sense not being a real republican because those claiming to be republicans aren’t acting like republicans so may as well roll the dice and vote for anyone who says they will do what they say. the chances of us getting what we want done are just as good or better.

  17. Trump makes sense not being a real republican because those claiming to be republicans aren’t acting like republicans so may as well roll the dice and vote for anyone who says they will do what they say. the chances of us getting what we want done are just as good or better.

    1. dam echos again. we need self comment removal button

    2. Exactly Ron. People are wrong to think that Trump’s success means that Republican voters don’t want small government. It doesn’t mean that. What it means is Republican voters have become so cynical that they don’t believe any candidate will deliver smaller government and are voting for Trump because they figure he will at least do something on immigration. They only trust Trump on immigration. They don’t trust him or like him about much else. But that is still one more issue than they trust the rest of the party on.

      1. They don’t trust him or like him about much else. But that is still one more issue than they trust the rest of the party on.

        Most of his supporters also seem to trust him on protectionism. He’s for it and they’re singing its praises.

        If you’re for protectionism, you can’t really be said to be for small government.

        1. It depends on what your definition of “small government” is. You can’t be for protectionism and be for “libertarian government”. That is certainly true. Remember, the US was very protectionist for most of the 19th Century. If it is true that you can’t be for protection and also be for small government, then by your definition the US didn’t have a small government in the 19th Century. And I can’t see how that is true by any measure.

          I don’t like protectionism anymore than you do. It is not, however, the greatest or only evil of big government. I would happily accept some protectionism if in return the government did something about overall spending and the accumulation of debt and pulled back the regulatory state.

          I am not saying Trump will do either of those things. My point is that you can certainly in my opinion be for small government and also be okay with protectionism. You just can’t be a libertarian and support protectionism. But not every person who supports small government is a libertarian.

          1. Why would you prefer protectionism over government spending? Both end up costing us more. At least with government spending we can much more easily see how much we’re getting screwed, which presents a better opportunity for getting the electorate behind fixing it.

            1. It all depends on degrees. I would prefer a small degree of protectionism if that was the necessary political price to avoid national bankruptcy. I don’t think protectionism is good. It is just that it is not the only bad thing or anywhere close to being the worst thing government does.

          2. Trump’s base is a core Democratic group from 30 years ago: blue dogs. The Democrats are the socialist party (please spare me the pedantry about the state not owning the means of production du jure because de facto is all that matters). Small gov’t has never commanded a majority of the general electorate and frankly many libertarian standard bearers are all too ready to chuck their notional commitment to fiscal conservatism as soon as their social priorities are in any way inconvenienced.

            1. There is a lot of truth to that. “Small” is a subjective term. To a libertarian these people don’t support small government. If, however, these people ever got their way, the government would be smaller than it is today and a hell of a lot smaller than if the Progs got their way. Whether that is “good” depends on your perspective.

              1. You morons are talking out of your asses. You haven’t got a clue.

        2. Trump is the first ‘Republican’ in a long time who is actually speaking to the economic interests of blue-collar ‘Reagan Democrats’. The Republican strategy to carve that group out of the New Deal coalition was to focus exclusively on that groups ‘social concerns’ while completely undermining their ability to earn a living (via elite/crony-imposed ‘free trade agreements’ and illegal immigration).

          Libertarians (at least the Reason type) serve as nothing more than useful idiots for the economic policies of the GOP establishment on both ‘free trade agreements’ and illegal immigration. I haven’t seen a single article on Reason that remotely indicates that millions of Americans at/near the bottom of the ladder have actually been harmed by those ‘free trade agreements’ and/or illegal immigration. Hell, individual Americans themselves are mere puppets in a philosophy that doesn’t even accept the notion that the American government itself has any real legitimacy. On these economic issues, libertarians are required to be ‘citizens of the world’ (valuing the freedom of Mexicans to migrate and the upward mobility of Chinese peasants) – not Americans.

          The reality is that that philosophy does not and cannot result in small government. Because any system of thought that encourages imposing any sort of ‘global’ order (including ‘liberty’) is gonna result in a more intrusive government than a notion of government that restrains its actions/authority to within a physical border.

          1. The GOP leadership is really pathetic. They seem to operate under the assumption that the entire country is filled with voters who are libertarian on economics and immigration and conservative on social issues.

            And the reason libertarians refuse to admit there is any downside to their ideas and think the way to promote these ideas is to call anyone who objects to them a ignorant racist who expects welfare because “the foreigners took our jerbs”. And they just can’t understand why these dumb fucks won’t come to Jesus and support Libertarian ideas.

            They also can’t see the connection between the Progs winning the culture war and society no longer valuing individual responsibility and freedom. The Progs really do play them like violins.

            1. The thing is – I do think that classical liberal economic ideas really do mostly appeal to those at the bottom and those who are economically marginalized. But at some point, ‘libertarianism’ decided instead to demonize them – and cover-up the real tilting of the playing field that eliminates ‘free markets’. And now wonders why those morons don’t accept the wisdom of those who know what’s best for them.

          2. I just can’t see how building walls along borders, the power to ask anyone anywhere for their papers, and requiring every employer to report their employees to the state is consistent with small government.

            1. Depends on your definition of small government. What if they did that while also killing off the EPA and OSHA and simplifying the tax system and actually restricting federal power. Would that not if not “small government” smaller than what we have today? Or is “small government” defined by open borders and nothing else?

              1. All of that would be awesome and I would support it irrespective of other areas.

                But support for liberty is not an either/or thing. You can definitely have priorities: I would prioritize those things over reforming the immigration system. But that doesn’t mean I have to actively clamor for increased government power in the immigration space.

                I have regularly traveled to “the valley” area of south Texas (Brownsville/Haringen/McAllen). 45 minutes north of the valley there is a federal government checkpoint. On both the north and southbound lanes of the highway there are huge phalanxes of cameras and sensors. Coming north, every car is stopped. I have only ever had the guy look in my vehicle at every member of my family and ask if we are American citizens. I answer yes, and we are on our way. In the meantime, drug sniffing dogs are led around my car and each and every other vehicle that comes through. The presence of the dogs is in brazen violation that the purpose of the checkpoint is only to verify immigration status and cannot be used for any kind of general law enforcement activity. Usually, there are a couple vehicles pulled off to the side with people out and trunk open.

                Every time I go through the checkpoint, I start my phone recording just to be sure. And the whole time I’m thinking how in the ever-living fuck did we allow this to happen in America?

                So, no, I want no more power added to the federal government in this area.

            2. Both of those (building walls and e-verify) are merely statist options of how to deal with cross-border migration. In the 19th century, we required that all immigrant ships come through identifiable points of entry (eg Ellis Island) and produce documentation for every disembarking passenger. Ships that did not comply with that US govt requirement were not allowed to dock. Before the American Revolution, every immigrant came here as either the result of a court decision (transport) or explicit permission from either the King or the colony charterholder.

              There was never – ever – a notion that government had no authority whatsoever on the issue. Because government exercising its authority at a border – on one side of the border and NOT on the other – is the clearest example of a government that self-limits its authority. That is the only type of government that can itself then be limited by the terms of a social contract.

              Anarchist ‘open border’ notions deny the ability of a people to self-govern. That doesn’t lead to minarchy. It leads to dictatorship by the bastard with the biggest guns and the lowest ethical restraint about using them.

              1. Anarchist ‘open border’ notions deny the ability of a people to self-govern. That doesn’t lead to minarchy. It leads to dictatorship by the bastard with the biggest guns and the lowest ethical restraint about using them.

                YES. God I wish there were a way to get that through people’s thick skulls.

              2. Anarchist ‘open border’ notions deny the ability of a people to self-govern.

                In what way? Be specific.

                And I’m not for “open borders”. I want legal immigration to be expanded greatly and made much easier to do. I want people inside the borders of the US to be left alone unless they commit a crime against another. If this person is found to be a non-citizen, then deport them. Of course I want no federal welfare benefits for non-citizens. I’m not too worried about other state government benefits in Texas, since there is no income tax and the immigrants pay the same sales tax as I do.

                Where I am, people want immigration to be stamped out, yet they use Mexicans to trim their trees. And they’re really happy with the quality of the work most of the time. And I know of no one who asks if they are a citizen or not.

                1. Free Radical,

                  There is a difference between supporting immigration while still recognizing the sovereign right to control it and denying any right to control the border at all. Jfree is speaking about the second group.

                  1. Well, ok. But in JFree’s first post, I hear a lot of protectionist talk about illegal immigrants harming blue-collar Americans.

                    Also,

                    It leads to dictatorship by the bastard with the biggest guns and the lowest ethical restraint about using them.

                    could have been uttered by an anti-gun progressive and it would have meant the same thing.

                    1. re illegal immigrants harming blue-collar workers. Yeah of course they have. It’s nowhere near as significant as the harm that was done to them by ‘free trade agreements’. Those (and the financial sectors imposition of the dollar as global reserve currency) are what killed ‘good jobs’ in manufacturing for physical labor. Illegals mostly killed off the ‘backup jobs’ in construction/trades and such. And its unfortunate that illegals then become the local face of ‘the people who took the jobs I used to rely on as backup to keep my family fed’ – because then a divide-and-conquer demagogue like Trump can demonize the ‘other’.

                      But the combo of those two is just deadly for that large group of Americans who rely on their hands and their energy for work/jobs? The powers-that-be have essentially stuck them in the garbage can of history. They will now compete with Chinese peasants (and chattel slaves somewhere else if Chinese peasants get too uppity). Are they supposed to kill themselves and go away (golly apparently they are)? Reason-libertarians think there’s a bright future for them as Uberchauffeurs and – hey why not – prostitutes – to the folks who fired them. Are they supposed to mortgage their future income in order to return to school to learn how to run a hedge fund?

                      Do libertarians offer them one fucking thing – apart from some snarky advice about how they are actually lazy little shits who need to learn a lesson in self-reliance by having SS/Medicare taken away too?

                    2. Let me fix that first paragraph for you:

                      re illegal immigrantsToyota harming blue-collarauto plant workers. Yeah of course they have. It’s nowhere near as significant as the harm that was done to them by ‘free trade agreements’ Carter’s inflation and the fuel crisis. Those (and the financial sectors imposition of the dollar as global reserve currency) are what killed ‘good jobs’ in manufacturing for physical labor. IllegalsToyota mostly killed off the ‘backup jobs’ in construction/trades and such. And its unfortunate that illegalsToyota then becoame the local face of ‘the people who took the jobs I used to rely on as backup to keep my family fed’ – because then a divide-and-conquer demagogue like TrumpRonald Ebens can demonize the ‘other’.

                2. At core, ‘open borders’ denies the ability of a group of people (let’s call them Americans) to voluntarily associate to prevent people from outside that group from trespassing/squatting/crossing property (land) they deem to either own individually or agree to defend as a group. They can associate to adjudicate internal property disputes (via govt courts) and to recognize the grant of land as individual property (via govt land patent). They can associate to prevent trespassing/squatting of people within the group (via eviction notices, forcing the homeless to wander around, etc). But they can’t associate to impose rules on what defines the group itself?

                  This (land as property) ain’t an easy issue (and is why most 19th century anarchists went left and denied land as private property). And it becomes much worse when land ownership inside the group gets so concentrated that the internal landed v landless conflict overwhelms whatever commonality that group originally had. But the ‘open borders’ notion only aggravates that even more.

                  1. Ah, it’s making more sense now. JFree is a collectivist who doesn’t really believe in the idea of private property and thinks it came from the “left”.

                    Therefore he defines “trespassing/squatting/crossing property” not as a violation of the rights of an individual property owner, but as a crime against the collective, irrespective of the wishes of the actual property owner. So the collective always has the power remove an invited guest of a property owner because the collective has “voluntarily associate[d]” to “defend” this property.

                    How warm and cuddly is the idea of the INS being a group voluntarily associated to protect me from my visitors.

                    1. You are clueless about history. Your land as property did not originate in your efforts. It originated in that land being taken by force – by someone else – from someone else who also claimed it – and then granted to someone else by govt as a land patent/monopoly – and then passed to you via courts where you enforce your claim to it via different courts. You do not defend your own land. You rely on others to defend your claim to it. You then expect all of that to be paid for not via a tax on that property – but on the forcible taking from others of their income (land based or not). All of that is – cronyism. That property is a government-granted monopoly.

                      And yes – anarchists of the 19th century went LEFT with respect to the issue of land as property. That’s just a fact. Including the anarchists who Rothbard relied on for his BS form of anarchism 80 years later. That does not mean that I believe that land ownership is collective. It means that I think anarchists are generally clueless morons – and Rothbard was a deceitful POS moron. YOU are the one who is advocating an anarchist belief – not me. You just don’t fucking realize where your own belief actually leads.

                    2. So, yeah, you don’t believe in private property.

                      I’m familiar with the origin problem of private property. But by now, it is one of the backbones of freedom and the operation of the economy. That’s just reality.

                      I pay pretty high taxes on my property here in Texas, so I don’t know what you’re talking about there. One of the most important components of the “social contract” between government and citizens is that government action to defend me and my property is an extension of my natural right to defend myself against aggressors. We pay a lot of taxes for that assistance. And you think I’m an anarchist? That makes no fucking sense.

                      BTW, did you read my story about the immigration checkpoint? Do you have any thoughts on that?

                    3. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone but shitty workers are worse off for free trade. Blue collar losers should gain some skills or work for Uber if they can’t handle competition.

                    4. not a shred of evidence that anyone but shitty workers are worse off for free trade. Blue collar losers …

                      Yes. They are also obviously too stupid to know what’s good for them. And too stupid to know that Trump/Sanders are just demagoguing them. Thankfully, libertarians know exactly what will help shitty stupid losers. But can’t quite figure out why those shitty stupid losers are so resentful of people who call them shitty stupid losers. It’s a total mystery ain’t it.

                    5. I think the stuff that can happen at those checkpoints is appalling – and internal checkpoints are, by definition, the wrong place to enforce border stuff. The border itself is the place where a sovereign entity should enforce whatever cross-border laws they have – so they don’t need to enforce them internally via a general police state. Govt enforcing anything is, best case, gonna resemble the DMV – and when it is something like immigration it can be worse. eg individual immigrants being separated from their families at Ellis Island to be put into quarantine because they had a contagious disease while others in their family didn’t.

                      If you want to change the laws, then you change them. If you want to make sure the enforcement of them is humane and fair, then do that. But failing to enforce the laws that you do have simply because you want to undermine them or don’t want to think about them or benefit from the failure to enforce them is much worse because that is nothing but rule by whim.

  18. Trump definitely is an insurgent within the GOP. But is Sanders’ really an insurgent? Maybe. But I think you can also make the case that his success is the result of the damage Obama has done to the Democratic party. Thanks to the brutal beatings the Democrats have taken at the state level and in the last two off year Congressional elections, the Democrats are completely without any rising stars. The biggest reason Sanders is doing well is because someone had to. If someone like Devel Patrick or Wendy Davis had actually managed to win an election or leave office seen as anything but an abject failure, my guess is Bernie would be pulling 2% right now.

    1. Maybe they’ll turn to Liawatha.

      1. Maybe. If Liawatha were running, Sanders would be the fringe candidate he is. I would love to know exactly what Hillary did to ensure she decided not to run.

        1. “You’re too young, bitch! Wait your turn.”

          Liz will be 67.

    2. I think if you keep getting elected w/o being on that party’s ballot line, yeah, you’re an insurgent, doesn’t matter why people are voting for you.

  19. I’d like to join the others and respond incredulously, but I actually read Nick’s post.

    1. You must be new here. The sequence is 1. Read the headline. 2. Post indignant comment. 3. Start arguing about the comments. 4. Post off-topic stuff, beg for hat tip.

    2. I did too and it was sillly.

  20. OT:

    The EPA wants to ban the conversion of street cars into race cars.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..race-cars/

    1. Someone posted that yesterday. I wish people would stop pretending that Progressives are “socially liberal”. They are more socially conservative than the worst snake handling evangelical. If you want to the government to ban a small hobby that harms no one, you are not socially liberal. There is more to freedom than abortion and ass sex.

      1. Sorry I didn’t know someone had already posted that. But you are definitely correct.

        1. Don’t be sorry. It is outrageous and can’t be posted enough.

          1. I suspect the thinking is just like the thinking behind the “structuring” regulations about money. You can’t deposit over $10,000 but you also can’t deposit just under that amount because then you are obviously getting around the law.

            This reg also bans the sale of certain parts related to emissions. The EPA is convinced that modders and the industry supporting them are really there to get around the thicket of regulations that entangle street cars and reduce their performance.

            1. Sure. With the rise of computer controlled ignition and fuel systems and custom tuning of them, I would imagine it is pretty easy to do to a street car what VW did. Just have one tuning for every day and another tune on the day you have to pass emissions testing.

  21. I’m sorry, but why should I celebrate this?

    I am all for an independent revolution in politics….but that is not what I see here.

    Our choice is between…

    1. stark raving mad racist facism.

    or

    2. misguided socialism.

    1. How is Sanders not fascist and Trump is? You know the Nazis were socialists and hated the free enterprise system.

      1. Trump is more of a nationalist than a socialist, which characterizes the fascist.

        Sanders is more of a socialist than a nationalist, which characterizes the commie.

        1. Sanders is every bit the nationalist Trump is. Sanders and Trump have the same opinions regarding immigration.

          And there is more to being a fascist than being a nationalist. That is an appalling slander. If that is true, the US, which has always had a strong sense of nationalism, is a fascist country. And that is just bullshit.

          What characterizes fascism is socialism, plain and simple. Are fascists also nationalists? Sure but that is not what defines them because not all nationalists or even most nationalists are fascists. What makes you a fascist is being a socialist. The big difference between a communist and a socialist is socialists are not generally internationalist.

          I am sorry but the claim that Trump is a fascist is retarded. It just is. And I think the people who make it do a great disservice to their case.

          1. the US, which has always had a strong sense of nationalism

            Citation need.

            “I am sorry but the claim that Trump is a fascist is retarded. It just is.”

            Nope that’s reality. That you don’t want to admit it is a product of your own fascism.

          2. No, fascism is not simply characterized by socialism; it is also characterized by (indeed, of far more importance to fascism are) nationalism, racialism, and militarism. Trump is definitely worse on those last three, hell ‘make America great again?” That idiotic hearkening back to a golden age of greatness is pretty damned nationalistic.

  22. Is it too much to ask that the “outside the box” guys actually be statesmanlike? A “get off my lawn” quack and a reality television goon isn’t exactly an INSPIRING shift. There are plenty of “outside the box” people around who are actually smart and can carry themselves well. If it’s “Dope and Change”, I find nothing to celebrate. It shows that the people are getting radicalized but they aren’t choosing wisely…

    Put another way, it feels like we’re on the cusp of entering a Bruning, Von Papen, Von Schleicher phase to this whole mess. Granted they weren’t directly elected, but it has the feel of slapping anybody in there just to see what sticks…

    1. I agree. The fact that people are turning to Trump and Sanders shows how degraded our political system has become. In a healthy political system people would not see the need to turn to such candidates.

      1. Trump is an anomaly. He is a celebrity tycoon. We may get more of those in the future (Zuckerberg, Oprah), but they have been rare. Bloomberg was not a celebrity in any way comparable to Trump.

        And the tycoon/celebrity has to have thick skin.

    2. Is it too much to ask that the “outside the box” guys actually be statesmanlike?

      Ron Paul tried this approach (several times) and failed miserably, as did his son just this year.

      Statemanship doesn’t get you anywhere in America right now. That’s not who, what, or where we are at this time.

      1. Ron was four years too early. I like Rand but he just never showed the magnetism necessary.

        The rise of Trump should make Libertarians sad but not for the reasons they think. Trump is doing well because he filled a vacuum left by a corrupt and intellectually bankrupt Republican Party. That is a vacuum that should have been filled by someone better than Trump. The opening was there. The problem was that to fill it, the candidate had to be both nationalistic and willing to support doing something about the border. And Libertarians won’t do that and that is a shame. If they were, instead of Trump who uses his position on immigration to camouflage his support for big government, we could have a candidate who used their position on immigration as a way to shoehorn people to support reducing the size and scope of government in other important ways.

        Of course Libertarians are forever in search of ideological purity and claim that you can’t be for reducing the size and scope of government unless you are for open borders. I don’t really understand that and would be happy to see someone reduce the size and scope of any aspect of government even if it meant enforcing immigration law for a while.

        1. I think if Rand Paul had just showed more passion he would have done much better.

          Did his voice ever change in volume? Was he even the slightest bit animated physically? Did he ever seem happy to be there?

          1. I like Rand a lot. I think he has real balls. But he comes accross as too much of a nerd. Someone with Rand’s style could do well in the Democratic Party. Democrats view their love of eggheads as sign of superiority over the rest of us. But you can’t be that way and fill the void Trump is filling. You have to be a bit courser and more rough and ready.

            The other thing that has driven Trump’s appeal is his willingness to tell the media and the PC masters to fuck off. And that is something Libertarians need to be doing but sadly don’t seem to be. If there is one up side to Trump’s success it is that maybe it will have broken the stranglehold the leftist assholes in the media have over the national debate. Hopefully after Trump they won’t be able to just dismiss candidates by saying “you are not serous”. That would be a good thing for Libertarians, who are more often than anyone the victim of that.

        2. I would have liked a better candidate than Trump too, but I don’t think that the libertarian position on immigration had any effect on who filled the void created by the bankrupt GOP. Libertarians are too small a population (unfortunately) to have that much clout.

          1. Trump fills the gap due to his celebrity, money, and bombast. It has less to do with his politics, although the issue he picked was a good fit for his style.

            Rand could have ridden the NSA and waste of precious soldiers in foreign wars if he had been loud and passionate enough. He’s too wonky.

          2. “Libertarians are too small a population”

            And this is the core of the problem. Not that libertarians are too small a part of the population. But that libertarians simply dismiss everyone. That’s not how you market an idea. Most people don’t care about big ideas qua ideas. They care about little stuff – I want to be better off. I want my family to be better off. I want to be left alone. etc

            The more big ideas are made small, the more relevant they are. The ‘social issues’ side of libertarianism gained influence (worked) precisely because they were made small. ‘Gay marriage’ and ‘Pot legalization’ succeeded (or are succeeding) because they were turned into ‘Leave me alone’ or ‘live and let live’ – not because people suddenly care about either gays or pot. And success on the ‘social issues’ of libertarianism has resulted in precisely NOTHING for the ‘economic issues’ of libertarianism because libertarians insist on remaining ‘big’ with economic issues.

            For example Reason has, quite noticeably to me, ignored TPP now for months. One article way back on ‘fast track’ – and one a couple days ago on ‘intentions’ and frequent repetition of ‘free trade’. So is this gonna make anyone’s life better? Is it just a bunch of cronyist crap that will further tilt the playing field against regular folks? On one of the bigger economic issues, the Reason crowd of libertarians at least chooses to remain irrelevant. And will no doubt soon whine that ‘there aren’t enough libertarians’.

        3. Trump is doing “well” because he’s pandering to idiot neoCons with the usual “DEY TRRK R JERBS!” hysteria. That hardly represents any shift in mainstream Republican attitudes.

          1. Those aren’t neocons. Those are paleocons and other racists.

      2. Ron Paul was a loon.

      3. I blame the Kardashian syndrome. We’ve sunk that low as a society.

  23. Gillespie and his libertarian moment are in K?bler-Ross’s bargaining stage today.

  24. Did nick just read “juice’s” comment and decide this was the theme to run with?

    Juice|2.9.16 @ 8:11PM|#

    Two of the top-polling candidates in the primaries are independents who just happen to be running in party primaries because that’s how it’s done. But they are still independents, really, and they both have tons of traction. People are fed up with the two party system.

    …or is Juice *actually nick*??? (or at least channeling nicks shtick?…which is probably gay)

    1. It appears so. But why does being an independent necessarily make you an insurgent? Are the two terms the same thing?

      1. “why does being an independent necessarily make you an insurgent? Are the two terms the same thing

        Maybe not. i don’t know.

        I don’t think sanders is doing well because he’s “Independent”… he gets young people and the hard left, basically people that are all Dem voters anyway. He’s an ideologue, not an bridge-builder who is pulling from both sides of the aisle the way obama did in 2008.

        Trump is actually winning because he’s bringing in non-traditional GOP voters, lots of extra blood that isn’t concerned with traditionally-conservative issues. He’s “indepdendent” and doesn’t even need the support of the party.

        if nick believes the latter is supposed to be indicative of a ‘good thing’, i don’t see why.

        Trump reveals that “fiscally conservative/socially liberal” can describe the american independent vote… but it doesn’t make them even remotely “libertarian”

        1. If the GOP establishment were not such corrupt lying assholes, Trump would represent the triumph of the establishment. Trump is exactly what the establishment claims to want; a economic centrist who embraces the role of government in society and leans left on the culture war. They only hate him because they are more interested and the payoffs from the business cronies for providing cheap immigrant labor than they are in anything else. They would support anyone as long as they knew they would keep the money flowing.

      2. If you’re coming from outside the party establishment (the “regulars”), let alone the party itself, to run for a party’s nomination or a party office, that’s an insurgency.

  25. “Burn the whole thing down and set the stage for something new to rise from the ashes.”

    Just what the hell that might crawl forth from that conflagration is anybody’s guess, but I just hope it will beat more of the same. Just imagine, a constitutional republic that actually limits the power and scope of federal government and we decide things like our children’s education [and apply what is now wasted in taxes to support a dysfunctional bureaucracy] on a local level.

    Ok, I can dream, right?

    1. No. History teaches that the reaction to chaos is to turn to a strongman.

  26. *Channeling Reason’s support for Obama in 2008*

    America needs to be punished and punished hard! Trump – Sanders 2016!

    1. After losing the election to Dinkins, Ed Koch really did say that he would not run for Mayor again because “the people have spoken and now must be punished”.

      I didn’t agree with Ed Koch about much. But damn was he a great guy.

  27. they may just burn the whole thing down and set the stage for something truly different and better to rise from the ashes

    Different, but I highly doubt that what will rise from either party will be anything remotely better from a libertarian perspective. I think it’s more likely that the Democraps will go full retard on Socialism, while the Repulicunts go full retard on Fascism with a big dose of nationalism. Hopefully I’m just being a cynical asshole, like always. But I’ve learned over the years to never get my hopes up about anything: you’re just asking to be disappointed.

  28. I’m hoping for a Trump/Clinton matchup. Not for political reasons, but I’d look forward to seeing the torrent of abuse The Donald would be certain to unleash on the Hildabeast. Couldn’t happen to a nicer lady.

    1. I’m sure no one looks forward to that more than Hillary.

  29. The great thing about democracy is that it lets the people select their own leaders.
    The terrible thing about democracy is that it lets the people select their own leaders.

  30. My last pay check was $16400 working 8 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and she works about 19 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do……..

    A?l?p?h?a-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.c?o?m

  31. Can we seriously knock off this “Bernie Sanders isn’t a status quo Democrat” bunk?

  32. If Bernie gets the nomination, the words “Venezuela”, “700% inflation” and “toilet paper” need to be made to get stuck in peoples’ heads like an annoying Justin Bieber ditty.

  33. Darn it, Nick! I *want* to believe that this is some kind of clever protest vote against the Duopoly, I really do. It would be great if it is. But all I can think of is that all the crazies went to the voting booth to support two crazy candidates!

  34. a wealthy man and a socialist, one creates wealth, the other takes it

  35. If Trump wins the nomination, he will get buried in a damning mountain of skeletons that media is sitting on so restlessly in anticipation to reveal. I’m sure we all know what that would entail! Sanders is a straight up unicorn socialist who thinks his one last try for government-knows-best utopian bliss is going to finally be the winning formula, like all those before him believed…. Or so claimed they did. If this doesn’t open enough eyes, all they will have done is help to accelerate our descent into what we all [who pay sufficient attention] know as another painful trip full-circle for countless citizens, not to mention the tragic effects on children and their families. The history is there and it provides us with ample warning but who’s looking back? Why do we continue to run headlong into the future without a single thought of how our repetition has failed us with alarming consistency in the past?

  36. The choice between Sanders and Trump is the choice between European-style “democratic socialism” and Chinese-style “state capitalism”.

  37. Up to I looked at the draft which was of $7319 , I be certain …that…my neighbour was like they say realie receiving money part time at there labtop. . there moms best frend started doing this less than and just paid the mortgage on their apartment and bought a gorgeous Lexus LS400 . site here……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ???? ? ? ? http://www.Wage90.com

  38. before I looked at the receipt of $thirty thousand , I have faith …that…my cousin woz like they say realy receiving money in there spare time at their computer. . there dads buddy haz done this for only about 14 months and just repaid the mortgage on their place and got themselves a Honda . try this …………..

    — A?l?p?h?a-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.c?o?m

  39. before I looked at the receipt of $thirty thousand , I have faith …that…my cousin woz like they say realy receiving money in there spare time at their computer. . there dads buddy haz done this for only about 14 months and just repaid the mortgage on their place and got themselves a Honda . try this …………..

    — A?l?p?h?a-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.c?o?m

  40. I find amazing the number of absolutely uninformed and stupid comments by a bunch of dumbass Trump haters who have never bothered to actually go to the man’s website and read his positions yet seem to think you know everything about him. This really is the level of the average (un)Reason reader. Gillespie should be proud since he is one of the biggest Trump trolls out there.

  41. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.