Bernie Sanders

Here Is the Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders, in One Chart

The candidate least likely to send ground troops to Syria is Sanders.

|

There is a libertarian case for Bernie Sanders, and it's one sentence long: he is the candidate least likely to order a ground invasion of Syria. 

In fact, on foreign policy issues—and civil liberties that pertain to them—Sanders is significantly better than Hillary Clinton or any of the Republicans. 

The American Conservative has put together a helpful chart comparing the various candidates' hawkishness. It should come as no surprise that Sanders has the best report card. The rest are a mixed, mostly awful, bag. Two other things of note: 1) Marco Rubio, seen by many on the right as the only candidate who can beat Trump for the nomination, scores significantly worse than Trump, and 2) a Clinton presidency would be an interventionist nightmare of epic proportions. 

Progressives tend to focus on Sanders' redistributionist views on domestic issues—and Sanders himself is much, much more comfortable talking about wealth inequality than war—but for libertarians, there is no denying that his relative dovishness is the most admirable thing about him. 

Of course, libertarians have received false assurances from anti-war liberals before. Barack Obama, too, was billed as a non-interventionist candidate—supposedly, that was the one redeeming thing about his candidacy. And there were arguably better reasons to believe Obama would actually govern as an anti-war president than there are to believe Sanders would do the same: Obama, unlike Sanders, talked about ending wars. Obama, unlike Sanders, made military de-escalation a major component of his sales pitch to young people. Obama, unlike Sanders, took office at a time when the public was clamoring for the U.S. to withdraw from the Middle East. In other words, why should libertarians expect Sanders to be good on foreign policy, in the face of manifestly weaker incentives? Arguably, they shouldn't.

But even so, Sanders opponents are all hawks, to varying degrees of incoherence. Libertarians know exactly what they would be getting with Clinton, or Rubio, or John Kasich: more of the same horrors.

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.

279 responses to “Here Is the Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders, in One Chart

  1. 😐

  2. + more orphans.

    1. Where do orphans rank on a priority list compared to abortions?

      1. Somewhere after ass sex and Mexicans.

        1. Hey, ass sex eliminates the needs for abortion.

          That makes going back door an act of religious devotion

          1. Yeah, but abortions impair the supply of orphans. Its a dilemma. How is a libertarian going to maintain a stockpile of orphans if abortion is available on demand?

            We could avoid the whole problem if we could just buy the damn babies, but nooo . . . .

          2. Can jelly babies qualify for welfare?

  3. Didn’t they try this already? Or was that with trump? ALSO, do you really think Bernie wont cave and just bomb the shot out of places? I don’t know- I hope not, but I don’t know. He’s not all that bright.

    1. Honestly no I don’t.

      Bernie may be mind numbingly stupid on most issues but he has also been ridiculously consistent over the years on most issues. In a great many respects he is the socialist equivalent to Ron Paul

      1. Sort of like how Khrushch?v was the libertarian equivalent to Hitler.

      2. Consistently stupid isn’t reassuring.

      3. Yep, in his high school yearbook, he was voted Least Likely To Invade

  4. …he is the candidate least likely to order a ground invasion of Syria.

    You say that now, but when he needs a distraction from the havoc his economic policies causes…

    1. We have always been at war with East Asia Syria.

    2. You know what other socialist government was said to be least likely to bomb their neighbors?

      1. Vermont?

  5. Sanders also has a helpful list, on his campaign website, of the 2 trillion dollars per year in additional spending he plans, and the new taxes he plans to implement to make us pay for it. Because clearly, government is 50 percent too small right now.

    The libertarian moment just lingers….

    1. Did you have to, did you have to let it linger?

      1. I’m such a fool for you.

        1. In your head, in your head, they are fighting.

          1. With their tanks and their bombs, and their bombs and their guns…

            1. I-isis, I-isis, I-isis,
              hey, hey, hey, ho

    2. Which is better?

      A politician who probably won’t get us into a ground war in the mid east but is pursuing a quixotic platform calling for a 50% increase in federal spending, 90% of which has no shot in hell of ever being enacted.

      or

      A politician who is actively itching to get us into a ground war in the Middle East and maybe North Africa for good measure and is calling for a couple hundred billion a year in new military spending that almost certainly will all come to happen?

      1. Military spending is not inherently as problematic as other spendings. If anything, military spending is generally less obnoxious. The problem is we need another Eisenhower to make sure they don’t spend it on useless crap. Evenso, it’s better than spending it on monstrous bureaucracies aimed at crushing the life out of the taxpayer.

        1. And it would be nice if they did somewhat to treat the veterans more consistently assholes.

      2. Ground wars are in the constitution.

        Granted, they have to be declared, but it’s a perfectly valid function of government.

  6. Alright, TLCFBS is out of the way. We can all go on with our lives.

    1. *puts down sparklers, walks away*

  7. So: Trumpism, Socialism, or Hillism is what the choices are looking like.

    Where is my bong?

    1. It’s been seized by the cops as part of an asset forfeiture program.

      1. *finds bong, loads oversized chunk of Blue Cookies, lights and inhales deeply*

        Ahhhhhh, that’s better…

        Really who gives a fuck if it’s Bernie Trump, Hillary Sanders, or Donald Pantsuit?

      2. I read that as “ass sex forfeiture program”.

        To the barricades, comrades!

  8. I’m sure once the Generals warsplain the situation to him, he’ll have us invading everyone.

    1. Is this before or after they resign en masse because he expressed some anti-military beliefs 50 years ago?

    2. At least we’ve Carson, in that article, regularly deferring to them. I’m doubtful that the wars are instigated by the military, for the most part. And in many cases, they’d probably advise against it, but as is needful they have to go where they sent and die, whether they agree or not. None of these bozoes seem to have any grasp of military realities and so are pretty fucking untrustworthy.

      1. Did any of the actually, umm… serve in the military?

    3. I’m sure once the Generals warsplain the situation to him, he’ll have us invading everyone.

      I don’t even think it will take that.

      Sanders has basically laid out that the Saudi Princes are rich and they need to lead the change in the ME and that, if they do, he has no problem committing support to the effort.

      Remember all those Republican-led wars that were started because of ties to all the Saudi Princes’ pockets? Remember blood for oil? Remember when OBL and other terrorist groups repeatedly denounced both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia for interventionism and the military dealings with Saudi Arabia?

      Sounds like Sanders’ plan is to play yet another hand in the region and he doesn’t even care if we get oil out of the deal.

  9. I came for a chart, am leaving disappointed.

    1. Hillary, who voted FOR the Iraq war, gets only a ‘C’ on the Iraq war?? Why not ‘F’?

      It’s a joke.

    1. Spend: Rebuild America Act
      $1 trillion/ 5 years

      Pay: Taxing corporate offshore income
      $1 trillion / 10 years

      Spend: College for All
      $75 billion / year

      Pay: Wall Street speculation tax
      About $300 billion / year

      Spend: Social Security Expansion Act
      $1.2 trillion / 10 years

      Pay: Remove payroll tax cap for earnings above $250,000
      $1.2 trillion / 10 years

      Spend: Employ Young Americans Now Act
      $5.5 billion/ 2 years

      Pay: Closing carried interest loophole
      $15.6 billion / 10 years

      Spend: Offer 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave

      Pay: Additional 0.2% Payroll Tax
      $319 billion/ 10 years

      Spend: Keep Our Pension Promises Act
      $29 billion / 10 years

      Pay: Closing tax loopholes on estate taxes and artwork
      $29 billion / 10 years

      Spend: Responsible Estate Tax Act
      Progressive estate tax on inheritances over $3.5 million; closes estate tax loopholes.
      $214 billion/10 years

      Spend: End Polluter Welfare Act
      $110 billion /10 years

      Pay: Ends tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies
      $135 billion/10 years

      Spend: Medicare for All Health Care Plan
      $1.38 trillion / year (oh, is that all?)

      Pay: Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures.
      $1.39 trillion / year

      1. Of course, every spending program will cost more than estimated, and every tax increase will bring in less than estimated.

        Sanders may be unlikely to “invade,” but you know he’s damn sure to deploy the military because of some “humanitarian” crisis. I have lefty friends who thought we should have sent troops into the Rwandan genocide.

        1. he’s damn sure to deploy the military because of some “humanitarian” crisis.

          Ding. Ding.

          I’m sure Bernie regards the military, not as a machine for killing people and breaking things, but as a combination social experiment petri dish and international aid organization.

      2. Pay: Taxing corporate offshore income
        $1 trillion / 10 years

        Not listed: accompanying legislation outlawing the purchase of American companies by foreign ones.

        1. Pay: Ends tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies
          $135 billion/10 years

          These always kill me. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a real study that actually quantifies the net result of the way the tax code treats drillers and integrated oil companies – they just assume that all these carve-outs exist and that there is no corresponding way they get hosed on the other side.

          As I recall from my master’s classes on International Accounting and Corps, Estates, and Trusts (which, granted, took place all the way back in 2014), each taxable event is as follows: for event X result is Y, unless the organization is involved in the oil or mining industry. Then for event X result is Z because A, B, and C adjustments must be made to income derived from integrated oil companies or mining activities.

          1. My vague recollection is that resource extraction companies have different rules for depreciation, because they are consuming their assets in order to create salable products and revenue.

      3. I just love made-up numbers based on fantastical assumptions.

      4. If you add up the costs of invading Syria, it’s not even a fraction of what Bernie wants to do. Invading Syria mostly impacts the military who, guess what? Would mostly love to go fight ISIS if you let them. They signed up for that shit.

        The area is already a warzone.

        So, as a libertarian, supposed non-intervention in Syria is supposed to trump all that spending? It’s ridiculous. Non-interveniontalism is not the cornerstone of libertarianism.

        And beyond that, BERNIE SUPPORTS REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA! He knows dick about foreign policy. LBJ didn’t care about Vietnam, but he still let himself walk into a stupid war under the pretense that he didn’t want to distract from his prized domestic agenda. Bernie prioritizes one thing – redistribution.

        1. Bernie also supported the Iraq I and Kosovo campaigns.

          1. Don’t look at a person’s track record! Take their campaign statements at face value!!

            /robby

            1. Wonder how long it will be before Reason endorses Sanders vice Gay Jay.

              The comments are far more compelling than the majority of the articles on this site, or so it seems.

        2. BERNIE SUPPORTS REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA

          As does Obama. Who has done pretty much zip to make it happen, believing, apparently, that a press release is sufficient effort for nearly any goal.

          Folks who think the deed is the word are extraordinarily dangerous in foreign policy.

      5. I like how college for all is only $75 billion a year. There are currently around 13 million full-time college students, so he is assuming an average cost per student of only about $5,500 per year. The real cost would be more on the order of $260 billion a year, not even accounting for the guaranteed rise in costs due to it all being covered by Uncle Sugar.

        1. True i think it would be much higher especially if the poor or people with terrible HS grades are allowed in.

          But to be fair does the full time number include private colleges?

      6. All of that is really fucking awful.

  10. The libertarian case is that rolling a D20 enough times will find one or maybe two points where “democratic socialist” support the same idea that is a foundation principle in libertarianism.

    Please stop this bullshit. THERE IS NO FUCKING LIBERTARIAN CASE FOR A SANDERS PRESIDENCY.

    1. #BernAllThisShitDown

    2. I appreciate that DM Sanders doesn’t want to ban the Gunslinger class outright, but I think it’s pretty shitty to force players to pass a DC20 wisdom test before purchasing a pepperbox.

    3. Please stop this bullshit. THERE IS NO FUCKING LIBERTARIAN CASE FOR A SANDERS PRESIDENCY.

      I’ve heard people compare Trump’s cult of personality and xenophobia to Hitler. But his popularity with Evangelicals and his complete lack of policy kinda blows the whole narrative.

      If I had to pick a candidate that I expected to seize power at every opportunity and exterminate the Jews, it would be Sanders. Not to mention, “We’re not going to war, we’re annexing and invading them for their own good.” sounds 1000% like something Sanders would say.

  11. “on foreign policy issues?and civil liberties that pertain to them”

    I’m not sure what that means.

    Here’s my Sanders’ actual civil-liberties positions, from an old post of mine when someone else praised him as a civil liberties defender.

  12. Robbie, I hope the cocktails are worth your dignity.

    1. Um, are you saying that and article saying that the Libertarian Case for Sanders is one issue long is an endorsement?

      1. And half the article is spent explaining why we shouldn’t even believe Sanders on that issue.

      2. “re you saying that and article saying that the Libertarian Case for Sanders is one issue long is an endorsement?

        This is the third or so time that there’s been a reference to this idea that “bernie is the most libertarian choice” in the pages of the mag.

        this is just the first time its been argued that “national security” provides a slam-dunk, single-issue case for it.

        1. In other words, why should libertarians expect Sanders to be good on foreign policy, in the face of manifestly weaker incentives? Arguably, they shouldn’t.

          SLAM DUNK!

          1. ok, change that last sentence to

            this is just the first time its been argued that “national security” provides a single-issue Libertarian case for Bernie which is somehow supposed to offset every other issue which Bernie is a fucking libertarian nightmare on

            I didn’t mean slam-dunk as in his ‘national security case’ was super-strong, but that it is being presented in an isolated fashion, pretending that it by itself somehow wipes clean the slate of “many other reasons a libertarian should be nauseated by Bernie Sanders”

            Hope that’s better

            1. Only if you insist on interpreting “case” as an endorsement and take it 100% literally. He doesn’t say anything about any slate cleaning; you are inserting that to uphold your narrative.

              Another way to read the article is something like, “This is the one issue where a libertarian can agree with a major party candidate, but even that is questionable.”

              1. “”Another way to read the article is something like___________

                All you’re suggesting that “the most generous and inclusive reading” is the obvious one,

                while i’m suggesting that the Headline and base-argument claim is what’s more important.

                There’s nothing wrong with taking the first view. But its not an argument against what i said.

                I don’t think his single-issue case is “libertarian” at all, fwiw, which i go into below.

            2. It’s amazing he’s managed to put forth a set of proposed spending increases NONE OF WHICH is even minimally harmful nor the slightest helpful. I was sort of assuming that in that mess he would have to by accident have hit upon some proposals which would be on the balance improvements to the current state of affairs, but nothing is even neutral.

    2. It’s pretty fucking close to me, yes.

      1. Well that’s pretty fucking retarded.

      2. Hey, it’s retarded. No need to make a rational argument. This is clearly the first time a writer on Reason has flirted with this idea. I’m sure the ‘libertarian cases’ for Trump and Hillary are in the works as we speak. Hell, Ted Cruz can’t even get one.

  13. So he will use all of the federal government’s war powers on its own citizens?

  14. So he will use all of the federal government’s war powers on its own citizens?

    1. Yes, I believe that’s what it means. Remember Stalin? That’s what it meant with him, and he’s one of Bernie’s idols. Fortunately, I think the US military is less usable to that end than was the soviet fuckers.

      1. Unfortunately, he’ll have a heavily armed, militarised, and totally undisciplined federal police forces congeries to call on if the military is no good for it.

  15. No.

    I want my donation back, or at least the tiny sum that helped pay for this.

  16. Foreign Policy is a no brainier with Bernie. Why get involved in all those foreign issues when you need all your ammo and weapons for when you want to put your own citizens up against the wall.

    See….. easy to understand………Comrade

    1. I’ve said it before, real socialists like to concentrate their ire at home.

  17. So if Bernie drops it’s the libertarian case case for Trump?

    1. Nope. Hil.

      Mark my words.

      1. Nah, it’ll be made for Carson or Rubio or… fuck I don’t even know who’s running on the GOP side.

        Gary Johnson said he was running, I haven’t heard another thing about him since.

        1. Rubio is easy. He’s an amnesty guy.

          1. Johnson is easy. He’s not as stupid and obnoxious as everyone else, by a long chalk.

  18. Here Is the Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders, in One Chart Word

    Gridlock

    Because he is the most economically loopy, Sanders is the president who will get the least of his policy through Congress. That’s pretty much the best that can be said about him.

    1. Of course, there needs to be a libertarian case for his running mate too.

    2. What makes you think he needs Congress? He’ll do what Obama does: give executive orders and have the administrative state do what he wants.

      1. He’ll at least need to run them through the Central Committee first!

      2. Pen. And. Phone!

        Also, supreme court.

    3. “Here Is the Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders, in One Chart Word

      Gridlock

      Gridlock is an argument for “anyone in the party not controlling congress”

      It says nothing about Bernie, applies equally to hillary, arguably. And how long does that last? I think its a weak case if it depends entirely on the whims of the balance of congress.

    4. That seems good.

    5. Gridlock

      Except Scalia and whichever other parts of the Nazgul retire or drop dead will be replaced by Bernie or whomever his successor is should he drop first. Obstructionist congress can work, but there’s no way they’d bar nominees for an entire term without costing themselves major seats and handing out tons of re-election fodder.

      Somebody else said it somewhere, Cruz isn’t perfect but is far-and-away the best of the *existing/viable options* in this regard.

  19. Robby, surely you know that Bernie (at least his comments and natural instincts) on Title IX type issues are better than both Clinton and Rubio. Of course, I’m sure he’ll “evolve” on that issue to please the Dem base in the same way that he has on guns.

    1. How is Bernie better on that? Bernie who let BLM piss all over him and has been courting them? The guy who calls himself an honorary woman, and who posts pictures of himself getting arrested to show his civil rights cred?

      1. And yet his supporters claim he is genuine and doesn’t pander like other politicians!

        1. I think he is genuinely that obnoxious.

      2. pictures where he looks like a total asshole…

      3. Bernie said that such campus charges should be tried in real court, and feminists attacked him.

        Rubio is co sponsoring Gillenbrand’s horrible bill ti reduce due process in campus procedures.

  20. Fuck the lotto.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..py-it.html

    1. Gotta love the Russians.

  21. he is the candidate least likely to order a ground invasion of Syria.

    I suppose if I shove all of my libertarian principles into this one basket, I’ll go ahead and shrug to this.

    1. Its not a very “Libertarian” case if the argument is,

      throw out everything you believe about the limited powers of the state and the necessity of free markets as a precondition for human liberty…. in exchange for the very-weak and uncertain promise of a candidate who *might* be slightly more restrained in his exercise of military power abroad*”

      …the promise of which I don’t believe for a second anyway.

      The prevailing belief among the nonterventioners is that if we have a president who espouses non-intervening views, then magically the rest of the world will respond to this in ways which “make us (and others) safer”….

      ….rather than take advantage of our self-stated disinterest and forge away at expanding their own influence, increasing the likelihood of conflict abroad which would inevitably draw the US in.

      IOW, they seem to throw out the entire notion that there is any ‘balance of power’ which maintains global security. Or handwave it away. I think there’s definitely problems with the idea that US presence in places like the South Pacific or the Gulf keeps China or Iran from asserting authority… but presuming that everything would be just hunky dory sans our presence is monumentally ignorant.

  22. “The 16-year-old boy says he is ‘boiling inside’ at the prospect of his prize.”

    Wow, just wow.

  23. I don’t really care about this but I swear to god, if someone writes a post titled “The Libertarian Case for Hillary Clinton” I am emailing your fundraising people and asking for my money back. _

  24. “”he is the candidate least likely to order a ground invasion of Syria.”

    Thinking this matters requires the profoundly stupid assumption that after Russia & Syria take Aleppo that there’s going to be any point to “invading syria” anyway.

    And none of this has anything to do with “Libertarianism”. Just because most libertarians hold ‘non-interventionist’ views does not mean Libertarianism by definition requires a rigid one dimensional view of foreign relations and national security issues. Libertarianism is about the relationship of the citizen to the state. How that state relates to other states is something libertarianism is mostly silent on, in my view.

    1. How that state relates to other states is something libertarianism is mostly silent on, in my view.

      I think there’s a pretty decent NAP argument to be made in how I want my state to act towards other states.

      Unfortunately, at the diplomatic level, 100% of all wars are seen as “defensive”.

      1. “I think there’s a pretty decent NAP argument to be made in how I want my state to act towards other states.”

        I don’t believe there’s any relevance at all.

        The NAP is what libertarians use to justify the presence of government authority in the first place = to protect individuals against violations of it.

        But in international relations there is no arbitrating/moderating structure like the way Government exists in relation to the citizen. There is no one to ‘police’ relations.

        Its not a question of what you should ‘desire’ based on some principle. States (can/should/do) adopt a non-interventionary posture for the sake of basic self-interest. Not because of any super-principle. Ultimately what guides state-state relations has nothing to do with those sorts of abstract ideas and has everything to do with self-perpetuation.

          1. who exactly is supposed to step in and defend people against violations, then?

            of course we could have our theoretical all-voluntary security forces… but in the ‘world that exists’, we at least acknowledge that the government serves a legitimate purpose playing that role.

            maybe i phrased that badly but i think the point should be obvious.

            1. e.g.

              “”States

              Some libertarians justify the existence of a minimal state on the grounds that anarchism implies that the non-aggression principle is optional because the enforcement of laws is open to competition.[57] They claim competing law enforcement would always result in war and the rule of the most powerful.“”

              Which specifically connects to my point which is that the international relations between states – unlike the relations between the citizen and their government – are *inherently anarchic* and operate on a completely different dynamic where the NAP is in fact ‘optional’ and un-enforcable.

              Any given state that adopts the NAP for itself has no guarantee that any other state will even acknowledge its position; even if states engage in voluntary structures like the UN etc. there is no mechanism for any actual neutral arbitration which would be un-influenced by the most-powerful states in that organization.

              which is basically why the UN only ever ‘enforces’ things on parties with the least relative power.

            2. who exactly is supposed to step in and defend people against violations, then?

              Me and my two fists of iron… Meet the girls.

        1. The NAP is what libertarians use to justify the presence of government authority in the first place = to protect individuals against violations of it.

          Wait a second, Gilmore, you… or you think I am confusing pacifism with the NAP. Be assured, I’m not. The pacifist who says he won’t own a gun because it violates his principles but he’ll push three buttons on a phone that will result in getting someone killed isn’t a real pacifist. They’ve just outsourced their violence.

          I’m not making that argument. I’m neither a pacifist nor a complete anarchist– mainly because I know that despite whatever bullshit I espouse, I expect that at some point I’m going to outsource some violence.

          Its not a question of what you should ‘desire’ based on some principle. States (can/should/do) adopt a non-interventionary posture for the sake of basic self-interest. Not because of any super-principle.

          I guess I don’t see why we can’t demand our state act with the same moral principles I try to live by. Don’t start shit.

          1. “I guess I don’t see why we can’t demand our state act with the same moral principles I try to live by”

            Start here

            Its worth noting that the people who’ve injected theories of “morality” into international relations are the ones who have gone to war most often.

            1. Its worth noting that the people who’ve injected theories of “morality” into international relations are the ones who have gone to war most often.

              I think that is more a result of the self-selection the people that want to run the state. The morality that drives people to war is the same morality that makes Hillary or Bernie want to run for President. They see people doing stuff they don’t like, so they’ll get elected and stop them. If your morality is based on not starting fights with other people- regardless of their morality to any number of things– their own people etc., then that takes a lot of the “police” out of “police action”.

              1. I was just pointing out that things like prioritizing self-interest, or maintaining ‘restraint’ in relations, is rarely consistent with people’s conception of Morality.

    2. Gilmore:

      This so true, and something I have been trying point out in many of my libertarian writings.
      There is libertarian life/living philosophy, and then there is the more practical applied libertarian legal domestic rule.
      Libertarianism in practice would be centered upon domestic libertarian legal administration, and in fact I say that is all that it really is, a domestic legal system.
      International law cannot be controlled by libertarian principles, because you are dealing with non-libertarian sovereign entities, the relationship there is more of an anarchistic one

      So libertarianism really doesn’t have much to say, legally, as to international interactions, and that includes immigration, warring across seas, or treaties in general.

      To bring the point to a head, I could envision a rigorously libertarian nation, that was a warring, conquering or colonizing one as well.

      As long as the people you are dealing with are not citizens of the libertarian nation, the relationship with them is anarchistic one, not a libertarian one, and with anarchy all legal constraints are off.

      Of course, in that fantasy, once a country was annexed, then their citizens become citizens of the libertarian nation, and the whole panoply of libertarian right ensue to the new citizens.

  25. the only libertarian case that could be made is he will spend to the point where the dollar will be worthless, the gov. collapses and the world berns.

    1. How’s that working out in Venezuela?

      I’d rather not.

    2. The problem with that theory is that whatever rises from ashes of the berned world will in all likelihood be nowhere near libertopia.

      1. If our odds of libertopia under the present system are zero, it might a bet worth taking.

        1. It might be worth it for the lulz and the Mad Max style wasteland warring, but I’m sure roving bands of lunatics in assless chaps will get old really fucking quick.

  26. Invading Syria would be exponentially cheaper than everything Sanders wants to do. So, frankly, fuck off, Robby.

  27. So did you hear there’s a dating website for singles who are fans of Bernie? First you have to take a math test involving how to pay for his trillions of dollars of extra spending. If you fail all the questions, you’re in.

  28. Fucking Millennial retards. To the woodchipper with all of you.

    1. BERRNN!!!

    2. There’s a few of us that are ok!

  29. Has Robby watched ‘Wag the Dog’?

  30. Let’s go back down memory lane to 2008, when several Reason writers either endorsed Obama or said “At least he’ll be good on foreign policy, healing the racial divisiveness, and the drug war.”

    1. What, you don’t like all the racial healing we’ve had for the last seven years?

      1. Or all those dead Pakistani kids?

        1. They should have had better parents. /Eric Holder

    2. Well, to be fair, they were only working with what he was lying to all of us about.
      Were there any warning signs at those early stages?

  31. Reposting, but the Crusty Juggler case to support Bernie Sanders (better known as the CJCTSBS) is shown at this link, listing the artists and cultural leaders who support Bernie Sanders.

    If Patch Adams, Anthony Kiedis, and Bonnie Rait are wrong, then damnit I just don’t want to be right.

    1. Awww….Dammit, CJ. You’re my man, fifty grand and all, but couldn’t you at least put cultural leaders in quotes? That is such a vomitous list, I find myself wanting them to all go bankrupt for their posturing.

  32. Sorry Rico, Bernie ain’t winning. You’re just going to have to settle for Hillary.

    1. yeah, and this is the other Epic-Retarded thing about Robby’s claim

      – not only is there zero libertarian case for Bernie…
      (because any such case would require sacrificing 90% of core libertarian principles in exchange for 10% ‘sort of nice-to-have’ stuff)

      but any such case is completely fucking irrelevant to begin with, since he’s not going to win enough states to even make a dent in hillary’s nomination.

      Its politics as meaningless fashion-statement. Which should surprise no one.

      1. Unless Hillary drops dead or gets indicted, which look like distinct possibilities.

        1. those things are irrelevant to any secular “Case for Bernie” based on the facts as they stand right now

        2. Those are distinctly unlikely possibilities.

          1. I dunno about drop dead, but I could see her health problems taking her out of the race, and not as a long shot, either.

            Or, my fantasy life is getting out of hand. Either way.

        3. Under either of those scenarios, Uncle Joe will ride in on a white horse and save the day.

          1. I’m warming up to Biden. Too dumb to do much harm.

            1. I’d take him over Hillary and Bernie. And Marco. Probably over Cruz, who can’t seem to keep his jackboot in his pants. Trump, I dunno, the entertainment value is tempting, especially since I have no clue what he would actually do in office.

              1. A jackboot who believes in the Constitution is always preferable to one who does not.

  33. I like you Robby, but you’re on your own on this one.

    1. ‘Now I gonna have to turn my back’.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JsmXrrOwus

      1. Young Ray Liotta had hair kind of like Robby’s. Just sayin’

  34. I would argue that we have absolutely no idea what Trump would do at all. Even if he says he will bomb places or something, I wouldn’t be surprised if he turned out to be the most pacifist president in decades. I also wouldn’t be surprised if he invaded Russia. We have absolutely no idea. He talks about keeping all the Muslims out. Wouldn’t that mean he wouldn’t want to go there? The question is whether he’s worth the risk.

      1. My exact thought.

    1. Yeah, I agree with you on this. Trump just says whatever the fuck he needs to in order to come out looking superior to the other candidates. Nearly every policy he’s endorsed (with the exception of eminent domain abuse) is a contradiction of something he’s previously said. We have no idea how Trump would actually govern (except that it almost certainly would not be remotely libertarian).

  35. For our resident commenters who see cosmotarians lurking under their bed and will head to the comments to vent their rage after only reading the headline:

    Of course, libertarians have received false assurances from anti-war liberals before. Barack Obama, too, was billed as a non-interventionist candidate?supposedly, that was the one redeeming thing about his candidacy. And there were arguably better reasons to believe Obama would actually govern as an anti-war president than there are to believe Sanders would do the same: Obama, unlike Sanders, talked about ending wars. Obama, unlike Sanders, made military de-escalation a major component of his sales pitch to young people. Obama, unlike Sanders, took office at a time when the public was clamoring for the U.S. to withdraw from the Middle East. In other words, why should libertarians expect Sanders to be good on foreign policy, in the face of manifestly weaker incentives? Arguably, they shouldn’t.

    1. Rico: let me try making a point. Now, let me fully undermine that point. Why am I writing this piece again? Who cares, *publish*

      1. It racked up the comments, didn’t it? Put asses in chairs and eyes on the screens.

        1. Yeah, people seem to forget that the Reason writers don’t work exclusively for the assholes in the comment section. We are just pawns in their little game of attempted media relevance.

    2. will head to the comments to vent their rage after only reading the headline

      [perks up]

      you rang?

  36. But even so, Sanders opponents are all hawks, to varying degrees of incoherence. Libertarians know exactly what they would be getting with Clinton, or Rubio, or John Kasich: more of the same horrors.

    Oh no! We would be getting the same horrors…which is essentially fighting the people bent on our total destruction over there instead of over there after they come here and blow up some shit, which will inevitably happen regardless of who is elected.

    GWB did not run as an interventionist. He became one after 9/11. So did a lot of people, for that matter. So let’s not pretend Bernie won’t commit an irrational act the same as a lot of otherwise rational people did in response to a terrible evil being perpetrated against us. (Leaving the blowback angle out of the equation since we’ve already crossed that bridge.)

    We need to look at the things we can control. And in that respect, Bernie Sanders is the worst national politician from a major party since…well, since I can remember. He is a fucking theiving piece of shit that bases his decisions on class envy. He’s a fucking loser that’s never done anything productive with his life and should be ignored by any thinking person.

    1. “GWB did not run as an interventionist.” So you claim. My sources tell me he was planning on invading Iraq ever since mean old Saddam tried to assassinate his daddy and it was all part of his nefarious plan, with the help of Halliburton of course.

      1. Maybe he was secretly plotting to invade Iraq all along, but he certainly didn’t run on invading anyone.

      2. What else do the voices tell you?

        1. I’m pretty sure it’s sarcasm, but the whole “Bush always wanted to go into Iraq” crowd seems to forget it took Congressional authorization to invade Iraq.

  37. Could we all “chip” in and buy an island for all the millenials to go live in socialist paradise with Bernie? We all know some, it can be a collective early Christmas present

    1. What about us productive millennials? Is there an opt-out? I don’t want to be the only person left to rob.

      1. We’ll allow those still alive after 6 months back into society.

        1. I like this idea.

      2. Just follow my lead. I was born a millennial, but I self-identify as part of the greatest generation

        On the socialist island idea, I just thought of something better…we can get a Hollywood producer to pay if we just pitch it as a reality tv show.

        1. Most of the Hollywood producers will already have to live on the island anyway. It could work.

          1. Except Hollywood producers don’t want to live in socialist paradise, they just want to force everyone else to.

        2. I was born a millennial, but I self-identify as part of the greatest generation

          Then weren’t you a toddler when the whole swing revival thing happened? You missed out.

          1. I remember the 90s, I’m barely too young for gen y

    2. It would be like Lord of the Flies with more weeping.

      1. I doubt they’d last as long as those kids did, though. SUCKS TO YOUR ASTHMAR

    3. Save the money and use our re-opening with Cuba in a reverse Mariel boatlift.

    4. Most of the bernie supporters I know are gen-x or baby boom age. Of course, I try not to associate with millennials.

    5. There were never socialist morons before Bernie ran for president!

      1. I’m completely guessing here. But I am going to say that the proportion of people in their early 20s who are socialist morons has been pretty constant for several generations now.

  38. I can just hear his inaugural speech:

    America is a whorehouse… where the revolutionary ideals of your forefathers… are corrupted and sold in alleys by vendors of capitalism…(now go out there and find me some banksters…I didn’t have these gallows erected for laughs.)

  39. the libertarian case for Bernie Sanders

    I KNEW IT!!!11!!!! YOU FUCKING COOOZZZMOOOOOOO!!!!!!1!!!!!!! /sarc

  40. I dont see Gary Johnson on chart. Case fails.

  41. Here’s why Soave should be taken as seriously as Ed or Nick (ie not at all) in one column.

    The guy was in favor of Iraq I (which lead to the current involvement in Iraq) and bombing Kosovo.

  42. Isnt the Sanders campaign the one that forecasted 324B in drug savings per year? Didn’t bother to look in 2014 that the entire US spent 305B.

    He is a joke. It is embarrassing that he is a senator.

    1. “We’ll get the drug companies to pay us to take their pills!”

  43. If that’s the libertarian case, then I don’t think we have to worry about a lot of libertarians jumping on the Sanders bandwagon.

    I was hoping for something more like a “burn it all down” argument.

    1. Did you not see my hashtag for that?

      1. Sorry, you don’t have the proper journalistic credentials.

  44. There is a libertarian case for Bernie Sanders

    I haven’t read all the comments, so I’m sure this was said above. But in case it wasn’t…

    Reason…STOP SAYING STUPID SHIT LIKE THIS!

    That someone happens to hold one common opinion with libertarians, does not make them libertarians.

    Knock it off. You’re confusing the straights. There is absolutely NOTHING libertarian about BS.

    1. The libertarian case for Stalin: he’ll get rid of corporate welfare!

  45. “Here Is the Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders, in One Chart”

    And I was expecting (no, naively hoping) there would be a blank chart.

  46. That should be “a”, not “the”.

    Because “libertarian” doesn’t mean “isolationist”; it’s one wing of the set of libertarian theory, just like Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is just one wing, not the whole set.

    (And yes, I mean “isolationist”, not “non-interventionist”, because every time I see it come up here I can’t see any alleged difference, no matter how hard the authors try to say there is one.)

    I’d trade ten invasions or “peacekeeping missions” in Syria* for better economic policy and less invasive “safety nets” than Sanders would try to foist on the nation.

    (* Indeed, a KFOR/Kosovo-style “just stop people from farkin’ killin’ each other all the time” mission has little libertarian downside, except that taxation has to pay for it.

    And “just stop having an army capable of doing that” is not on the table in the US – nor, I think, should it even be.

    Nobody is obliged to follow my brand of libertarian theory, of course … but if you try and tell me it isn’t at all, I’m just gonna laugh at you.)

    1. “”I’d trade ten invasions or “peacekeeping missions” in Syria* for better economic policy and less invasive “safety nets”

      You are denying Robby’s right to arbitrarily pick and choose which libertarian ideas to pretend to support and that’s Not Okay

    2. Isolationism usually refers to trade policy as well as military, I think. So there is a huge difference. There is nothing isolated about a country that doesn’t send it’s military on optional adventures all over the world, but engages in trade in a reasonably free way.

      1. “Isolationism usually refers to trade policy as well as military, I think.”

        That’s right, i think. the way its historically been defined.

        The commonly bandied idea of “Trade with all – Alliance with None” which people use to characterize the theoretical libertarian foreign policy view is riddled with contradictions.

        Trade results in a commingling of interests. there has never been the possibility of trading ‘neutrally’ with everyone without eventually running into a situation where our ‘neutrality’ interfered with another’s interests and led to conflict.

        The case-study i’ve often referred to is the 1812 thing, but there are plenty of others. You can’t trade with 2 warring parties and expect either of them to remain ‘neutral’ to you and your relative influence on their situation. Inevitably, one will insist you stop ‘helping’ the other, or face consequences.

        1. Inevitably, one will insist you stop ‘helping’ the other, or face consequences.

          And if they initiate consequences, it isn’t intervention, now is it? At that point it’s defense.

          1. Yeah, not too many total pacifists here. Self defense is different.

          2. “And if they initiate consequences, it isn’t intervention, now is it? ‘

            I’ve seen non-interventionist purists tend to back the chain of causation back as far as to describe trading itself as “willfully provocative”

            see: Richman and US opening markets in former soviet states.

            Where YOU decide there’s an intervention does not necessarily align with what someone else will consider an intervention. In the above scenario, one party considers US trade to be ‘intervening’ in their conflict.

            the point is that the concept of trade combined with some theoretical refusal to engage in any other kind of diplomacy is a fools errand that has little real basis in how relations are conducted. pretending that you can have trade in a diplomacy-free bubble is a fantasy.

            1. Nonsense.

              The line is where it always is. Applying force or threat of force to impose your will on another. PERIOD! That is the line because a person (or nation) may do as it pleases provided it doesn’t infringe on the rights of another.

              Define it. Live by it. And you may claim the moral high ground.

              The fact that another nation may define it differently is irrelevant. If they cross your line, it is defense, and that’s what militaries are for. They are there to defend your interests when another nation crosses your line.

              You are simply making excuses to act immorally short of the outbreak of war.

              1. I’m sure your cartoon version of international relations works magnificently on paper.

                1. works magnificently on paper

                  As it will in reality.

              2. just as a side note = was “imposing our will” on Cuba, conducting a unilateral embargo during the missile crisis infringing on their rights to arms, and free-trade with their partner Russia?

                Tell me more of your moral high-ground.

                1. ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY!

                  It’s okay for us to have em in Turkey, but somehow different when they have them in Cuba?

                  Please Gill.

                  1. So preventing Cuba from getting nukes was “immoral”.

                    thanks for your POV

                    1. Of course it was. Had the tables been reversed would you claim it moral?

              3. “making excuses to act immorally “

                You’ve confused me with someone who thinks International Relations issues are ‘moral’ questions. See above.

                1. Yeah, I read your citation on realism and there was absolutely nothing in it precluding the state from morality, other than the author’s say so.

                  Again, it’s an excuse to do whatever you please based on a false assumption.

                  There is nothing that precludes the state from adhering to the NAP if it chooses to.

                  1. “Preclude” has nothing to do with it.

                    The guiding principle of international relations is self-perpetuation and self-interest. There’s no “moral high ground” when you’re surrounded at gunpoint.

                    The work of foreign policy is at best choices between “lesser evils” rather than adherence to the “good” regardless of consequence.

                    As Morgenthau put it = “”Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states (…). The individual may say for himself: “Let justice be done, even if the world must perish”, but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. (…) While the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of (that moral principle) get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival.“”

                    1. The guiding principle of international relations is self-perpetuation and self-interest.

                      Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states

                      You start your argument from a false assumption and so does Morgenthau. Further argument is pointless.

                      The guiding principle is liberty. The NAP, or a fair approximation thereof. Anyone claiming different is immoral. It apples to people and nations until the threshold of war is crossed.

                    2. “You start your argument from a false assumption “

                      Yes, everyone in the foreign policy world since WWII is “wrong” because they don’t use your impracticable morally-self-satisfied ideals as the basis for policy.

                      You really need to explain this to the brahmins at Gtown and SIPA. you’ll blow some minds.

                    3. Yes, everyone in the foreign policy world since WWII is “wrong” because they don’t use your impracticable morally-self-satisfied ideals as the basis for policy.

                      Correct. Glad we got that straight.

                    4. “The guiding principle is liberty. “

                      Again =

                      You’ve already argued that Cuba should have been allowed to have nukes on the basis of some bullshit moral principle

                      Now you’re saying that somehow that idea is the one most conducive to “Liberty”?

                      You can’t be “free” if you’ve given up security in the name of some theoretical ideal. its classic “cutting of your nose to spite your face”. This is exactly what Morganthau was talking about.

                      There’s no “liberty” for anyone in state that doesn’t prioritize self-preservation

                    5. You can’t be “free” if you’ve given up security in the name of some theoretical ideal. its classic “cutting of your nose to spite your face”. This is exactly what Morganthau was talking about.

                      Another false assumption.

                      The USSR having nukes in Cuba isn’t an issue unless they use them and is no different than us having them in Turkey. Kennedy acted stupidly. He brought the world to the brink of nuclear war because the Soviets did the same thing we did. There is no way in hell they’d ever be used for the same reason nukes will never be exchanged between nuclear powers…because third leg of the triad would have obliterated the USSR within minutes.

                      There’s no “liberty” for anyone in state that doesn’t prioritize self-preservation

                      Agreed.

                      But you are lying and calling self preservation something it isn’t. Your claim is that the US wouldn’t have preserved itself if we hadn’t initiated aggression against Cuba. That claim is patently false.

                      You can defend yourself without initiating aggression. Your philosophy on this issue is morally bankrupt.

            2. I’ve seen non-interventionist purists tend to back the chain of causation back as far as to describe trading itself as “willfully provocative”

              Willful provocation isn’t aggression, so no libertarian principles are violated.

              one party considers US trade to be ‘intervening’ in their conflict.

              How in the world do arguments about US/Russian governmental trade policy have anything to do with libertarianism?

        2. Sure. The practical version is trade with as many as you can and try to stay out of other people’s fights.

          Of course my ideal is just let individuals do what they want as far as trade is concerned and don’t have a national policy at all besides losing tariffs and barriers to trade.

          1. Would you let Lock Mart sell the F-22 to Iran?

            I generally agree with you, trade should be between people, not governments. But there are some interesting questions that generates.

            1. Lockheed wouldn’t have an F22 to sell if its development hasn’t been financed by the US government.

          2. “The practical version is trade with as many as you can and try to stay out of other people’s fights.”

            Of course, but the point is that the “principal” of “trade with all, alliance with none” dissolves on contact with the real world.

            Those sorts of abstract ideas about policy fail in practical application because every relation has a multitude of commingled interests involved.

    3. (And yes, I mean “isolationist”, not “non-interventionist”, because every time I see it come up here I can’t see any alleged difference, no matter how hard the authors try to say there is one.)

      OK: what is “the American interest” in Syria? Or what was it in Iraq or any of the other campaigns in our lifetime?

      That’s one possible way to distinguish between the two, and is likely to arise when “non-interventionists” talk history (WWII, Civil War, 1812, American Revolution). Notice that Robby even limits his argument to a ground invasion of Syria.

      1. Americans have no more interest in Iraq than Germans had in Poland. But both countries were burdened by a huge National Socialist party with a hard-on for the military-industrial complex.

  47. The Libertarian argument for Bernie Sanders (or Donald Trump) is: the backlash against this candidate winning will lead to gridlock for at least two or three years.

    1. Which makes no sense

  48. You know which candidate (among D&Rs;) has the least foul smelling feces?

    What’s that? You don’t WANT to know that?!

    Yeah, me neither. Just like I don’t care which of these stinkers is, maybe, just a bit libertarian-ish on a very few issues.

  49. So does Libertarianism mean anything to Robby beyond “promise not to go to wary in Syria”? Robby apparently thinks his economic freedom is less important that America fighting a war that Robby will never be asked to fight?

    And what exactly makes Robby think Sanders can be trusted on this issue?

    1. I don’t think foreign policy is more important than economic policy. I think it *might* be more important when it comes to picking the president, because the executive branch is far less constrained on foreign policy than it is on domestic policy. A Republican-controlled Congress can thwart Sanders’ economic agenda (to some extent, at least).

      I’m not going to vote for Sanders, mind you.

      1. Again Robby, what makes you think Sanders is telling the truth? Moreover, just because you want peace doesn’t mean you are going to get it. And how is that Republican Congress doing with stopping the Obama agenda?

        And if we are going to go with strategic voting now, okay, then explain to me when that requires voting for a Republican because reason seems to never make that case. There seems to always be a need to strategically vote for the Democrat but never the other way. Funny that.

      2. Oh, that’s bullshit.

      3. ” because an executive branch is far less constrained on foreign policy than it is on domestic policy . .. . ”

        Because the Left has everything it ever wanted on economic policy. Social Security (check). Medicare (check). Medicaid (check). Minimum wage (check) Higher minimum wage (check). EPA (check). College loans and grants (check). Roads and bridges (check, check, check).

        Although, with a Sanders Presidency, you’d get 4, possibly 5 SCOTUS seats and THEN let’s get the party started!
        You thought regulating the raisin industry was bad, oh, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

      4. You’re assuming that Sanders would actually live up to his campaign promises. That’s naive. Wars are usually caused by the domestic economy failing and leaders trying to distract from that. Sanders would do the same thing.

  50. I have a question about the NAP that is vaguely related to foreign policy. In a society that upholds the NAP and that is attacked by one that doesn’t, there are generally two outcomes. The NAP society musters enough resources voluntarily to defend itself against its aggressor or it is defeated and the NAP is lost. So what about the in-between, where the society in question has raised enough resources voluntarily to hold off the aggressor, but not quite enough to stop it? Does the society cling to the NAP and probably lose because of that, or does it violate the NAP in order to protect the NAP?

    Many people who adhere to the NAP might say that eventually enough people would volunteer to stop the aggressor, but that may not be the case. There are pivotal moments where having just enough or too few resources can mean victory or defeat, and at some point it seems reasonable to assume that those adhering to the NAP might face so many defeats that it becomes impossible to muster the resources to defend it, whereas if they had violated the NAP to get the resources earlier they could have preserved it. Thoughts?

    1. You can’t defend a principle by violating it. The principle would be destroyed when it is violated and the organisation defending the society would not be defending a society that upholds the NAP. That being said you’re talking some seriously deep Rothbardian type libertarianism there that will probably never exist outside of science fiction anyway.

    2. The NAP is a principle guiding individual actions, not a law that societies are judged by. In fact, libertarians don’t have “societies” in the usual sense, just alliances for specific purposes that they choose to be members of temporarily.

    3. Judging by the election returns we in These States are surrounded 50 to 1 by looters who worship the initiation of force. The folks outside These States, I can assure you firsthand, are much more committed to murder, looting, fraud and violence. They are just sneakier and more cowardly about it.
      In the 80s we had communist anarchist infiltrators claiming the Non Aggression Principle required us to surrender to soviet communism and encourage child prostitution. Todays infiltrators bleat that “we” must unquestioningly admit Saracen nihilists infected with Ebola and hauling tactical nukes. These are idiotic assertions, of course, but the puspose is to shout them from the rooftops to frighten casual voters away from the LP. Frightening voters is much easier than making sense, as our adversaries know only too well.

  51. Hmm… I was expecting this to be much sloppier, but you did add enough conditions and specifics to protect yourself. Well played, Rico.

    1. A better title would have been “Here is the Libertarian Case for Bernie Sanders. And it Really Sucks.”

      1. Whoa, big man, actually reading the article.

        1. I think RC’s point is probably more-damning than Robby’s caveats proved ‘exculpatory’.

          it reminds me of the Steve Martin joke, “Side Effects

          e.g. The Libertarian Case For Bernie Sanders = (Warning: May Utterly Destroy Liberty)

      2. It only sucks to the degree that you prioritize a non-interventionist foreign policy to other libertarian positions.

  52. That table is fucked up. Kasich scores the same as Trump? Bernie Sanders is more of a war monger than “paleocon isolationist” Donald J Trump. That’s why the neocon GOPe is flipping out so much.

  53. this report card is shite. reading the details, Carson seems preferable, despite getting an F, whilst the jerkoffs with Cs are lunatics.

  54. The libertarian case for Sanders is to let everything else go to hell (free speech, free markets, property rights, etc.) on the chance that, once in office, Sanders will not succumb to any Wilsonian impulses on foreign policy?

    That is pretty damn weak.

  55. Doesn’t Cruz and Kasich have a higher score on Libya than Sanders? He has the highest overall score, but on Libya, others score better…

  56. I think if we can learn one thing from history, it’s that avowed socialists rarely use military force against other countries.

    Right?

  57. Though Sanders might not invade another country, he will invade your property, your paycheck and your liberty.

    Failure to obey will result in the standing armies he hides behind, to first send you threatening letters, visits by state agents, until your property is stolen from you for failure to obey and pay the extortion rate.

    1. So? What if you simply resist?

  58. Stop, Reason, just fucking stop.

    1. Yes. Just stop. Bernie advocates for state violence. so yeah, FULL STOP

  59. What an unreasonable post.

    Rothbard in all likelihood would have supported Trump.

    Right Wing Populism – Rothbard
    http://archive.lewrockwell.com…..r/Ch5.html

    In Defense of Demagogues – Rothbard
    https://mises.org/library/defense-demagogues

    1. Rothbard had serious nihilist streak. He believed that anyone who opposed the state in any way using any means was an ally. He couldn’t see that the Black Panthers was merely a street gang using political speak as a recruiting tool and to engage in “Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers” (Tom Wolfe, 1970).

      He was a solid economist but his talents ended there.

      1. Rothbard was also sarcastic. Reading him in the first person singular dispels the notion that he endorsed anarchy. To totalitarians, anyone wanting a single ounce of freedom–libertarians, objectivists, liberals with dictionaries–is by definition an anarchist. In Mein Kampf the word anarchy appears in a lengthy diatribe against people who do not wallow in religious dogma.
        Each of us found ways to needle and irritate Nixon’s nationalsocialist majority. Rothbard’s analysis of the depression, better than most, STILL missed the real problem, which was religious fanatics using tax law asset-forfeiture to enforce a law making beer a felony. Money fled, banks collapsed, FDR became President-for-life.

  60. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ———— http://www.Wage90.com

  61. It’s interesting. When I took a poll on issues to find out who I Side With, I had like 97% libertarian, Rand paul was my number one, but Bernie Sanders was up high in percentage, even above Trump for me. it seems Bernie, although he is a progressive/socialist, he has a lot of libertarian stances on other things related to government. such is maybe the commonality of ‘revolutionary’ political ideology. both socialists and libertarians want to dismantle many parts of government. The difference is in what to do afterward. It makes sense.

    1. it seems Bernie, although he is a progressive/socialist, he has a lot of libertarian stances on other things related to government. such is maybe the commonality of ‘revolutionary’ political ideology. both socialists and libertarians want to dismantle many parts of government.

      It only makes sense because you want it to make sense. Aesop already covered this one ages ago.

      Doctors and axe murderers both cut people’s people open. No matter what else he tells you or how precisely the axe murderer cuts you, his overall goal is still to kill you and he, therefore, isn’t in any way a doctor.

      I understand the deception and that people refuse to understand it or want to believe the lie, but that doesn’t change the facts and believing a lie doesn’t exactly or automatically ‘make sense’.

  62. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ———— http://www.Wage90.com

  63. This is why libertarians aren’t taken seriously. Thanks, Robby!

  64. Hey Robby – why didn’t you include Gary Johnson in your handy-dandy chart?

  65. Robby, what kind of libertarian are you? You’d give up 23 different types of deodorant for this?

  66. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————! http://www.Wage90.com

  67. Says more about Reason contributors than it does about Sanders.

  68. HILLARY IS SAVED BY MONICA, reports a newspaper on the Whitewater Prosecutors’ criminal case files, released Jan 28, 2016 after a five year FOIA lawsuit.

    Prosecutors dropped their Whitewater criminal case, in order to work on the newly developing Monicagate, in which Big Bill was suspended 5 years from practicing law, fined $90,000 for false testimony and contempt of court, and subjected to impeachment proceedings. There was no follow up on the Whitewater case.

    The prosecutors’ wanted to prosecute and spelled out specific reasons why they smelled criminal corruption, and collusive cover up in their Clinton Whitewater case files. They did not think well of and did not trust both Clintons’ character and behavior.

    Fans of Hillary will say, no prosecution means no evidence. This is a nothing.

    Some say, Hillary has a pact with Lady Luck’s Super Pac at her side, as in coin tosses and such.

    What do you think?

    Hillary saved by Monica
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..r-scandal/

    Overview of Whitewater Prosecutors’ Criminal Case File Released Jan 28, 2016
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/b…..y-clinton/

  69. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  70. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  71. Libts ought first be concerned about government limitations at home–Because if they aren’t limited at home, they sure as hell won’t be limited elsewhere. Less-war is a result of domestic libertarianism, Not vice-versa.

  72. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  73. Obama would have scored high on that chart too, before he actually became president. Progressives talk peace during elections and then turn into war mongers when things don’t go their way.

  74. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  75. Why should we listen to assurances from looters? The whole value of Bernie is that he does not want to coerce pregnant women or bomb mohammedans for lot loving Jesus. If he were to win the election the GOP would have no choice but to hunt down all christianofascist infiltrators and deport them back to the Tee and Prohi parties or never win another election. A GOP free of insane fanatics would be in a better position to adapt to a world population increasing by a million people a week, many of them dangerously insane mystics. Spoiler votes cast for small party candidates is how individuals can quickly make the world a better place.

  76. I have often thought that Bernie Sanders’ description of himself as a “democratic socialist” is a lot like a woman’s bikini: what it conceals is more interesting than what it reveals. On the issues of war and peace, civil liberties, and social issues, he is by far the most libertarian of all the candidates. In terms of economic policy, there are indeed differences between those of us who call ourselves “progressives” and support Bernie Sanders, on the one hand, and traditional libertarians on the other. Most broadly, we believe (and they do not) that government has not merely a negative role to play, in preventing private coercion and fraud, but a positive one in ensuring the economic, social, and environmental climate in which individual liberty can be both meaningful and permanent. Without minimizing those differences, I would note that the kind of corporate statism espoused by both Hillary Clinton and most Republicans–which Bernie opposes–is hardly consistent with libertarian principles.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.