Libertarian Party

Reminder: Watch 3 Libertarian Presidential Candidates Debate Each Other at 9 pm ET on FBN's #StosselForum (UPDATED)

Gary Johnson, John McAfee, and Austin Petersen slug it out on Fox Business Network's Stossel; Matt Welch and Kennedy provide commentary


Also, he really didn't kill that man. He says. ||| Fox Business Network
Fox Business Network

As previewed in this space yesterday, tonight on Fox Business Network's Stossel program you can watch a refreshing change of pace from the statist, Hillary vs. Bernie, Trump-Cruz-Kasich slog we've endured lo these past eight months. Three top candidates from the Libertarian Partythe third party in American politics at the moment—will be talking for a change about what the government can stop doing to you.

Who will you prefer between former 2012 LP presidential nominee Gary Johnson, software entrepreneur/man of action John McAfee, and cherubic liberty-movement vet Austin Petersen? Consider this an open thread to hash it out live; you can also follow along on Twitter using the hashtag #StosselForum. At the tail end of the discussion (the first of two parts; the second airs April 8), Kennedy and I will provide spot commentary. Gentlemen, start your freedoms!

Read Stossel's preview here. UPDATE: He also gave an interview with TVNewser with some initial impressions. Excerpt from that:

Well, all three would be better than Donald or Hillary! Gary Johnson has an amazing record; he was a two-term governor, a Republican who got elected in a Democratic state. He balanced the budget and allowed for lots of job creation because he got government out of the way. He is an actual "do-er," but he doesn't always come across as passionate, or so far he hasn't. In the middle of the forum, I give him a hard time about being sleepy, as if he is high on weed. For him, it's a matter of presentation. He could be so good, but he sometimes comes across as a little slow in his speech. McAfee is an odd character with a checkered past, but he speaks very eloquently about liberty. Petersen, I give him a hard time by saying he acts like he's 12 years old. When he responds, he comes back at me with a long list of people like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who when they were young men accomplished great things for America.

NEXT: Whose Foreign Policy Is Really Dumb; the Elephant Man Theory of Beauty Pageants, and 'Some Idiot Wrote This'—Introducing The Fifth Column Podcast

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

  1. Who still has cable? Can someone post a YouTube link for this?

    1. Haven’t had cable in nine years.
      $50/month * 12 months/year * 9 years = $5,400

      1. Wow, that’s almost double digits.

        1. I bet they don’t even have a TV!

      2. basic cable is like $75 plus now. I cut the cord a year ago. I get all the entertainment I need from the internet.

  2. So we have Gov. Johnson. We have Austin Petersen, who seems nice, but I don’t think he’s ever done anything but work with Judge Napolitano on his show. And we have John McAfee, who is actually crazier than Sol Invictus.

    1. McAfee: I don’t always debate. But when I do, it’s with other libertarians.

    2. John McAfee, who is actually crazier than Sol Invictus.

      [citation needed]

      1. I’ve wracked my brain on this over and over again. Why? WHY? Why do they think we’re crazy and refuse to vote for us?

        (i.e. Floridians, not libertarians)

        1. Well Jeb was a Floridian, and he got like 90 people to vote for him. That’s pretty good for one of…you people.

          1. Please clap.

      2. “The Libertarian Party of Florida’s candidate for the U.S. Senate has admitted to frequent LSD use and released what he calls his “LSD Journals,” a long, rambling set of observations and musings that range from longings for elusive love and friendship to fantasies of rape and murder.”

        Wait a minute, this all sounds very familiar…it’s like I’ve read this guy’s work before…

        1. Reading poetry and stream of consciousness stuff under the influence makes it more interesting than it would be otherwise, but nothing you write that way is worth the paper it’s written on.

          The greatest drunk, acid freak, and junkie writers of all time wrote sober. They often did it for inspiration. It takes a lot of concentration and clarity to emulate that kind of feeling in text.

          It’s the same thing with music. Phish sounds great when they’re improvising live and high as a kite–to their stoned and tripping fans. To everyone else, they sound like shit.

          And the exceptions prove the rule. 1) If Charlie Parker could play better than everybody else after downing a fifth during the intermission, that’s a testament to how unusual his talent was–not that people perform better artistically when they’re smashed. 2) Charlie Parker sounds better on recordings before intermission than he did after he downed a fifth.

          Writing your thoughts for the world to see when you’re trippin’ is basically drunk dialing the whole world. Because what you read is more interesting in that space doesn’t mean what you write is more interesting, too. It’s fucking gibberish–even if it seems coherent.

          1. It seems somebody’s not an Agile fan.

          2. Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner was written while high. Case closed.

            1. Coleridge used laudanum for pain. He wrote Kubla Khan under its influence–not Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan is an unfinished, partial work because the laudanum messed him up so badly. It is generally considered–not just by me–that Coleridge’s work declined the more dependent he became on opium. What would you expect?

              That is generally the way things go with heroin addicts. Their work can be productive and great when they’re clean, but the more their addiction takes over, the worse everything gets–and their work is the first thing to go. It’s the same way with alcoholics. From Coleridge to Bukowski and everyone in between, being inebriated can bring inspiration, but writing while inebriated makes for shitty work.

              1. This is a really good interview with Carver about writing drunk, by the way:


          3. Whereas your genius comments will be remembered for generations after you die, am I right?

            No. You will be utterly forgotten long before the crappiest Phish jam ever recorded.

            Kate Bush, David Yow and Dylan Thomas all did their best work under the influence of some chemical or another. Lots of Irish people spend their whole working life under the influence.

            And did it ever occur to you that many artists need intoxication to cope with the fact that there are so many self-satisfied bloviating ignoramuses like you in the world?

            Of course, there have been many worthy sober artists as well. All manner of people have made important contributions in many fields. Hell, it’s almost as if vapid generalizations by pompous fools are, well, vapid.

            1. Hi Tulpa!

              Still lonely, angry, and longing for acceptance?

  3. I had a conversation with a coworker about this. Basically he is of the opinion that not voting for a major candidate is throwing your vote away. My response was that as long as people think like he does, a lesser of two evils (which is still evil) will be elected. I refuse to vote for a major party candidate because I want my conscience to be clean. I felt soiled the last time I voted for a major, and I will not do it again.

    Oh, and CMW, I have cable. You fucking hipster. Ditch the skinny jeans and buy some Levis.

    1. Not voting your conscience is throwing your vote away. And what if your “major candidate” loses? Didn’t you waste your vote? And don’t tell me that I have no right to complain if I don’t vote. If your guy wins, YOU are the one who has no right to complain later.

      1. If you voted for the winning candidate, you wasted your vote, they would have won without you.

      2. I like to tell people that their vote is like throwing a cup of water into that tsunami wave that wrecked Japan’s coast.

        1. More like teaspoon.

    2. Yeh, that cycle has to break at some point.

      “You fucking hipster. Ditch the skinny jeans and buy some Levis.”

      Lol. Or be a man’s man and go with Lee.

      1. Approval Voting breaks it. It will take decades but I think it will eventually be used everywhere.

        1. Not a chance, remember who writes the election rules.

      2. I bought a pair of Lee’s in december and one of the belt loops ripped literally the first time I wore them. Are there any good jeans left?

        1. If you are paying less that $40 for jeans, you are buying crap.

          1. I’ve had good luck with Costco (Kirkland Signature) jeans at $30 but they take a while to break in.

          2. If you are paying more than $30 for jeans, you’re full of crap.

            It’s denim and thread, not rocket science.

            1. What about the wash and the cut? You know, the stuff that makes jeans good? That is like saying a steak is just a slab of meat.

              1. I would say the washing and cutting of denim falls under the ‘not rocket science’ umbrella.

          3. I buy cheap jeans because no matter how much I spend on jeans, they will always rip in the right knee. Always.

        2. Wranglers advertise “the most comfortable jeans you’ll ever wear.” I’ve stopped buying any other kind.

    3. “I had a conversation with a coworker about this. Basically he is of the opinion that not voting for a major candidate is throwing your vote away.”

      You’re not throwing your own vote away.

      Voters like him are throwing your baby out by voting for bathwater.

    4. Levi’s makes great skinny jeans you old bag.

    5. This is my pitch to people that are dissatisfied with the Republican or Democrat parties but won’t vote third party because they “don’t want to throw their vote away.” I live in Texas so I tell people look Texas is going to go Republican whomever you vote for. Why not register your dissatisfaction by making your vote a protest vote, sure Johnson is not going to win Texas and the Republicans will most likely win the state no matter what. However you can join with others and vote third party and if the number is high enough they will try and cater to you. I’ve told leftists to vote green party if their dissatisfied with democrats and republicans to vote libertarians. Of course I always try and make the libertarian party pitch to democrats but I emphasize do not vote for who you believe is the lesser of two evils. Hell don’t vote at all if you don’t like any of the third party candidates just don’t vote for the fucktard Repubs and dems.

      1. As a former Democrat, I’m going to tell you how to cater to Democrats to help them switch to Libertarian. Attack the angles that Democrats care about most. The social side of it. The War on Drugs, Civil Rights, Liberties, Peace. That’s how you draw them in. If they mention the economics, kindly explain why you feel the economics feel right to you, and explain w/o capitalism we wouldn’t have like 80%+ of the stuff we use everyday. Don’t harp on the economic side or even bring it up unless they do. I say that because I didn’t fully accept the libertarian economic policies until I had been a Libertarian Party member for awhile, and I kept thinking about them.

        If you need an extra boost when it comes to the social side, show them how weak the Democrats are at their own platform. Obama continued the Patriot Act, Signed the NDAA w/ articles 1021,1022, continues the War on Drugs, got us into more conflicts, and supports the NSA.

        The big key of course to getting someone to become a Libertarian, is to find the common ground, be polite (even when they are being frustrating), and stay logically consistent. If you’re convincing people online, leave a discussion for later if you need to.

        1. “The War on Drugs, Civil Rights, Liberties, Peace”

          My experience talking with Democrats on these issues is that they are no better and often worse than Republicans. Even if you can get them to agree a law is bad they won’t take the next step to advocate getting rid if it which is just pig-headed and bizarre

          1. In my experience, many Democrats will uncomfortably admit (when cornered) that their politicians have done a shitty job on these issues. But they’ll usually retreat into one of two excuses:

            A) “The Republicans would have been a million times worse!”

            B) “SOMALIAAAA!!!!!”

            C) “The Libertarian Party might sound good on certain issues, but they’d basically let corporations run the country and they’d throw the poor out into the streets to die!”

            The problem with a lot of Democrat voters is that they have some screwed up principles drilled into their heads. They believe that corporations – even without the government’s help – can somehow “force” the people to buy their products. They believe that the desire for profit is some abomination that must be scrubbed from the human psyche. They believe that every single poor person must be supported at public expense, even if that poor person is poor because of laziness and idiotic decisions. They believe that fighting “income inequality” (read: some people doing better than others) must be stamped out with the full force of government, even if it means sentencing everyone to an 1800s standard of living. They believe that government regulators are angels of self-sacrifice who are just trying to improve life for everyone.

            You’ll never sell them on libertarian ideas until you get them to ditch these screwy premises. That’s hard to do.

      2. I’ve been working to try to make a classical liberal argument to Ds & Rs also. I’ve found that politeness, listening, and common ground are the keys. If I run roughshod with a reasoned, consistent, and sound argument , I get shut down. If I in any way suggest illiteracy or intellectual shortfalls, I get shut down. Name drop, shut down. If I attack, shut down. I’ve found that letting someone willingly walk into a honey trap and then point out the similarities between their “correct” philosophy, with my “also correct” philosophy is effective. Then while they try to wipe the libertarian sticky stench off of their hands, they will grapple with their own minds and hearts, or not. Most party politics is tribalism, and is impervious to logic, but open to pathos and ethos plays respectively.

  4. So, what’s the debate going to be about? Whether Obama is Hitler, Mao or Stalin?

    1. We know, Susan, everything is about Obama. Bride at every wedding, corpse at every funeral. But this debate will be about the future, not the shameful past.

      1. That sounds like something Hitler would say… 😉

    2. I thought he was Muhammad?

  5. Well, John Mcafee just lost everyone but the 22 or so regular posters with that craziness. “Belong to ourselves” Pfft. If we’re not talking about abortion on demand, that argument falls completely flat.

    1. McAfee is lucky he isn’t dismissed outright for founding one of the biggest purveyors of malware in existence (I have no idea how much he had to do with the software turning into horrible bloat).

      Of course having given up Windows sort of wipes the slate clean on my part, anyway.

      1. I don’t run any on-demand, livescan anti-virus any more.

        I go commando, and occasionally do a sweep with Malware Bytes.

        BTW: Mcafee admitted openly he didn’t run Mcafee on his systems because it’s “too annoying”. I suspect that like any other huge company, at some point Mcafee had little to say on the day to day. And why would he? He was too busy banging hot chicks and snorting his weight in cocain every day.

        1. The Rob Ford defense, with hot chicks this time.

      2. Hey this may help you with your McAfee issues

        1. If I had the choice between Bernie, Hillary, and McAfee, I’d pick McAfee solely based on that video… Well, also based on the fact that he’s neither Bernie nor Hillary.

      3. Original McAfee software seemed pretty benign. Of course, I work mostly on Macs so I don’t have much malware and annoying BS like that to worry about.

  6. They scheduled it for April Fool’s Day? Seriously?
    And we wonder why nobody takes this seriously.
    Tone deaf — it’s a brand we can lose with.

    1. *shrugs*

      As I am no longer 9-years-old, it’s just “Friday” to me.

      1. You never struck me as a fun-sucker before now, HM.

        1. It’s 3rd in the list of terrible holidays.

          1.) St. Patrick’s Day
          2.) Halloween
          3.) April Fools’ Day

          1. Hey! Any excuse to hide an onion amongst a tray of caramel apples is a good day.

          2. What about Arbor Day?

            1. Arbor Day fucking rocks!*

              *Not a link to the Matt Welch mega-hit.

              1. If more than 10 libertarians ever got together in one place, that’s what it would be like.

                1. And if 72 libertarians ever got together, it would be like Islamic heaven.

                  1. And if 72 libertarians ever got together, it would be like Islamic heaven.

                    And friends, just imagine. Just imagine, if 72 libertarians, imagine if 72 real, live libertarians walked in and sang 2 bars of Alice’s Restaurant and then walked out…..

          3. Halloween rocks, but I will defend unto my death your right to be wrong.

          4. You spelled best wrong.

          5. I like Halloween because I have kids and we make their costumes together.

            My son has been The Riddler, Doctor Octopus, and Loki the past three years.

      2. “it’s just “Friday” to me.

        It is also the 71st anniversary of the start of the Battle of Okinawa.

        1. Striker?

        2. “Those kids have no idea whatsoever of what went on at Stalingrad.”

    2. Re: Shirley Knott,

      They scheduled it for April Fool’s Day?

      A lot of things are scheduled on April Fool’s Day.

    3. I livestreamed this debate on a computer and I was scared that the youtube channel I was on was only pranking that they would livestream it but it worked out well.

  7. It’s about time we get a Johnson back in the white house.

    1. Hey, if Democrats can vote for a candidate because vagina…

    2. Huh? It’s been johnsons in there as far back as I can remember…

  8. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    And GayJo.

  9. Here’s a reader’s comment at where Glenn Reynolds mentioned tonights Libertarian debate:

    Yea, that oughta be a hoot.

    Free dope, cheap illegal alien labor and buttsecks for all.

    1. As opposed to the adults at the table for the Rs and Ds.

      The Libertarian motto should be, “It couldn’t be any worse.”

      1. Bernie’s motto is, “oh, yes, it could!”

    2. Free? Nobody understands libertarians.

      1. And no one will if they read the comments at Instapundit. It’s as if they are trying to be stupid obtuse.

    3. Freedom from want. It’s all that they understand when it comes to freedom.

    4. Ok, which one of us was that?

    5. Free dope?

      No, market-priced dope, dope.

  10. Please, please , please convention attending Libertarian Party members, nominate John McAfee. I really want to have someone to vote for this general election.

    Please, Please, Please

    1. I think he’ll be blocked.

        1. Because I was trying to make a bad pun, that’s why.

          1. I am filled with rage now.

            1. Yeah, I get that a lot.

          2. Getting rid of McAfee is almost impossible though.

            1. The software that’s the punishment for being dumb enough to install it in the first place.

    1. Fuck you, I do what I want!

    2. Herding cats…

    3. Form Of Mustache!

      Or, ummm, I guess just whatever form you feel like forming.

  11. Ugh,women sports ball players complaining about wages.

    1. They should be happy with Title Vagine

  12. LIE! There’s not 3 libertarians! Oh… you mean in the entire country. Ok then.

    1. I’d vote for him just on facial hair alone.

      1. Don’t waste your vote. He’s not running!

        1. Fuck it, I’m writing him in!

          1. In Florida, write-in votes LITERALLY do not count.

            1. Another reason to never live in Florida!

      2. You know who else had a moustache?

          1. I haven’t seen such scintillating wit since these guys.

            1. Thank you. I’m here all week.

    2. I wanna see Stossel drink milk.

      1. It better be raw milk, unless he’s a sellout.

        1. Across state lines.

  13. I can’t wait until the 21st century so that I can watch stuff on my laptop.

  14. Wow, three completely different opening statements from them, interesting.

    1. That was quite a contrast.

    2. Pfsshh – none of them bragged about the size of their hands. What sort of lame-ass debate is this?

      1. I think the wife/girlfriend/mother insults are supposed to come during the 2nd or 3rd round of questions.

      2. Nobody is looking to win the female libertarian vote.

  15. Stossel / McAfee 2016! Because facial hair matters!

    1. And Magnum!…..-sandwich/

  16. Youtube link if anyone needs it:

    1. Thanks. Just got there via Stossel’s twitter.

    2. and so far McAfee makes the most sense and has the most presence. I admit I am surprised at how well he presents himself

      1. It’s his voice. He sounds like he could do voiceovers for Monster Truck rallies.

      2. Me too. Johnson sounded like a cosmo. peterson was okay but McAfeee whom I had the lowest expectations for did pretty well.

  17. Shit – is GayJay going to start off every answer with reminding us that he’s an experienced member of the Stupid Party?

    1. I actually think that he’s the worst debater of the three, but his experience as Governor makes me think he’d be the most capable executive.

      1. He’s the only one of the 3 that, at this point, I’m at least fairly certain is not insane.

        1. I don’t know much about Peterson, but so far he sounds OK.

      2. Most capable executive?

        WTF does that have to do with being a LP presidential nominee?

  18. Blond Tony Stark sounds more eloquent than the other two

    1. Just wait. The night is young.

    2. Shouldn’t they be drinking some bourbon instead of the water that presidential candidates typically sip during debates? Maybe in the bottle, actually. And if they passed a joint around during break, that would make the entire thing seem more legit.

      1. It would definitely loosen them up, so I’m all for it

  19. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

    1. Lord knows they cost enough.

  20. Where is the love?

  21. Who is the guy looking for Love?

  22. Stossel hosts the libertarian party debates. Awww, that’s so cute. It’s like… it’s sort of like… umm, I’m thinking here damnit! It’s like, it’s like that time when Cartman had a tea party with Polly Prissy Pants, it’s like that!

    1. Aren’t all of them like that, regardless of party.

  23. But I’m really loving that these guys are pretending so hard like this is a serious thing. It’s kinda surreal. I wish I had a big joint of some good bud right now and I haven’t smoked any weed in nearly 30 years.

    1. Here (passes blunt)

      1. You just passed that stuff over a state line, mister! You’re busted!

  24. “the audio sound will be back after the break” as opposed to the non audio sound?

  25. This is the 21st century. I had to steal my mom’s IPad to watch this thing. What did I miss?

  26. GJ’s way of speaking reminds me a lot of Ron Paul. Never noticed that before in his interviews.

    1. Yeah, I noticed that as well.

  27. Listen up here, fellow comrades. We ain’t going to let them two major parties show us up here! They got the Berninator and the Donald! That’s hard to top! We’re going to nominate McAfee! Or else get that Vermin Supreme dude down here! Nobody fucks with the libertarians!

  28. Uh oh, McAfee is marketing his new cyber security software already…

  29. MacAfee: “Let’s be more like China and Russia!” Fuck, I miss Reagan.

  30. McAfee: we can get rid of ISIS the way my software removes virii

    Peterson: let’s kill ’em all

    Gay-Jay: we can’t kill hydra; only starve it

    1. McA: “We are at war with China.” WTF?

      1. Yeah, I’m expecting McCain to pop out of him like he’s John Hurt.

      2. As a Hong Konger, not many hate the Chinese authorities more than I do, but even then, that was just silly saber-rattling. The US is hacking into stuff too, as are the Russians, the Brits and every other major country.

        I wish Stossel pressed him harder on that.

        1. Nice, English-only comment filter! I feel microaggressed right now!!

          Has this been enough English script to satisfy?


  31. I’m not sure the format of “”libertarians arguing with other libertarians”” is ever going to be a good way to sell people on libertarian policy.

    just a thought. Something like the Indys was actually the best way to do it – get some libertarians in a room with some mainstream liberals and conservatives and talk policy.

    1. From your mouth to GJ’s ear — he wants to be in the debates with the Ds and Rs.

  32. I’m really liking the Libertarian Horse, myself. It has a charisma that seems to be lacking from these ‘talk too much’ people.

  33. The LP needs a celebrity candidate like Donald Trump – only with brains.

    Mark Cuban or Penn Gillette will do.

    GJ is stoned.

    1. GJ looks like an adult smurf. And he sounds like one too. But I still like him

      I’d love to see Penn call bullshit on Hillary and Trump in nationally televised debates. It would be epic.

      1. I can just see it. You had a state department server in your bathroom closet? What the fuck!?

        1. And then Teller makes her missing emails appear out of thin air. It’ll be amazing

        2. Exactly. With a steady rain of F-bombs, the bleeping out of expletives would be deafening.

    2. Mark Cuban is a libertarian?

      Well, you wouldn’t know, your brain is damaged from licking cankles.

      1. He says he is.

        He failed the Peanut Paleo-Con Purity Test?


        1. Someone failed the sentience test.

        2. Why do you even bother posting here? Do you get some sort of hipster satisfaction from posting on the libertarian forum rather than trolling on breitbart? Is trolling conservatives too mainstream for you so you decide that its much more original to troll libertarians?

  34. The kiss!

    1. Yeah, the D’s and R’s haven’t done that yet. I can’t believe they were able to find something they hadn’t done.

  35. You know who else had a Nazi wedding cake?

    1. Charles Lindbergh?

    2. Stevie Wonder. He could Nazi it.

  36. And in 2016 the LP cannot manage to get their debate to stream successfully.

  37. Didn’t like that answer.

  38. Abortion thread!

  39. Excellent dissertation and analysis on the current status of the hillary email sitch. Discussions about what kinds of immunity Brian pagliano has received, standing of the case etc.

    Strongly recommend viewing if you’ve grown weary of the campus news beat and trumpmania.…..ons-emails

    1. How in the fuck anyone was able to install a private home server for use to handle official state department business is mind blowing to begin with and totally illegal as all fuck. How it was even able to happen in the first place is almost beyond belief.

      Go ask your boss if you can just take the company email servers home and put them in your closet. And this was the fucking state department for the sake of jeebus. We are totally fucked as a nation of laws. There is no fucking law when someone can get away with something like this. If she can get away with this, she’ll get away with just murdering political enemies right out in the open.

      1. Seriously, watch the video. The guy talking is a former U.S. attorney and he gives a very dispassionate point-by-point on the real details of the case.

        Some highlights:

        Brian Pagliano committed a per se crime when he didn’t disclose to the state dept. That he was on the Clinton payroll.

        The “original sin” in this case the setting up of the server. The content of the emails are secondary.

        When Clinton claims her predecessors did this, it’s a bald-faced lie. Not one predecessor had a personal email server to conduct state department business. Predecessors occasionally communicated state dept business from personal email. That’s an entirely different situation.

        Hillary hasn’t yet been interviewed because that’s standard investigative procedure . you talk to everyone else around the case before you interview the target.

        1. I’m going to. Thanks for the link, btw.

        2. And of course the server is the problem! It always has been. It’s sad just how dumb the general public is about things like this.

        3. the clip of hillary bullshitting about how “everyone did it, it was fine, there was nothing ‘disallowed'” etc. cut to the CNN moderators for a second (@8:02)… and the looks on their faces are like, “uh huh. right. sure. yeah.” They don’t believe a fucking word of it. Anderson Cooper is holding his face to prevent it looking too incredulous.

          1. oh, i guess its not anderson cooper, because he’s latino.

            Her line about “it was all permitted!” seems to be a pretty audacious claim, attempting to conflate her homebrew server with someone else’s personal web-based email accounts.

        4. I think the guy makes a good point in centering the discussion on the mere existence of the private server, which as he says, “violates every known federal law related to the protection of classified information”.

          As paul says, the content of the emails is secondary… not just secondary, but mostly ‘irrelevant’ (*unless there are other potential charges related to that content) – its the act of moving all of her communications onto a separate, unprotected system which was unavailable for FOIA inquiries, subpoenas, etc. that is the real root crime which can’t be handwaved away.

  40. McAfree scores on the abortion question – so does GJ.

    The other guy goes for the Paleo-Con vote.

    1. PB

      And you took the under, lost, and will now shirk paying off this gambling debt. No?

      1. Hillary’s getting low on funds paying off so many people to hide her latest corruption. She’s almost out of money to pay Buttface for licking her nasty cankles, ewww, I feel sick.

  41. “I met Austen at a gay bar.” Winner, McA.

  42. I started out as a GJ supporter, but McAfee is winning me over. Tony Stark’s doing well

    1. I’m still bothered by his “War with China” answer. He sounded more pro war than any Libertarian I’ve ever heard.

      1. I am too. I’m also disturbed by the GJ responses to the freedom of association and equal pay issues. Still, I’d have either of those over Austin

      2. I missed that part. I am afraid that if I go and watch the whole thing, I am gonna end up not liking any of them.

        1. They did OK. They sounded better as a group than what I’ve heard in the past. And it was at a high level compared to the major parties, too.

    2. Any one of them is like a York peppermint patty compared to the fetid tootsie rolls we’ve been listening to for the last 6 months.

    3. Same here. How the fuck is McAfee coming across the best?

      1. McAfee is at least a little crazy. How crazy is the question. All libertarians may be a little bit crazy when looked at from the viewpoint of your so called ‘normal’ folk. You know, the ones who can make a case for voting for Hillary or Trump and never think anything is wrong with that? Then you have the more crazy libertarians, like McAfee and Adam Kokesh. Now, I like Kokesh, a lot. But he scares most people, and so will McAfee.

  43. A one hour debate.


  44. Absolutely amazing how short a candidate’s answers can be when he is honest and not trying to spin in order to make everybody want to vote for him. Nothing remotely similar to the R and D debates. Congrats to all 3 on that point.

  45. To the Peanut upthread – Mark Cuban is richer and smarter than Trump. Their debate would be epic.

    1. You fleshed on a bet. YOU are now the Peanut.

      1. Welshed, damn autocorrect.

      2. A big cankle licking peanut.

      3. That is a lie. I sent $20 directly to Matt Welch at Reason.

        1. nobody believes that, and my understanding is Welch informed your counterpart that no such funds were received.

            1. PB

              Not paying a debt. Are you an american socialist sockpuppet?

            2. you are toast, bitch, you are done here….fuck off

          1. Republicans wouldn’t let him do it.

  46. Kinda depressing to think it’s mostly libertarians watching this – not all those people who think they know what libertarians are all about so they ain’t interested in hearing them talk.

  47. Matt Welch is poised, funny and on point. Can we just make him the candidate instead?

  48. ARGGHHH! BILDO REILLY! Why is he there?

  49. Austin did remind me a hell of a lot of Rubio – slogans and memorized bullet points. But I would like to see him develop the libertarian pro-life case. (Hint: Does “a woman’s right to choose” include 75th trimester abortion? At what point does the baby have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?)

    1. When the magical baby fairy sprinkles the ‘you’re a human’ dust on hit, and not a minute sooner.

      1. on hit

        Christ, even I can’t keep up with these new pronouns, and it’s kind of my job to do so.

        1. Nice, that actually made me laugh.

        2. Fucking H just jumped out of my keyboard on it’s own. You doing some of that voodoo again, HM? Be careful, I got some Macumba here.

    2. Not only did he sloganeer like Rubio, but he even looks a little like him.

  50. Did they ask about political prisoners in Cuba?

    Gitmo, I mean.

    1. Good catch, it’s awful how the Libertarian Party officials have been betraying their campaign promises and keeping Gitmo open.

    2. Hey, buttplug, Gary specifically mentioned it is ok to discriminate based on stink. How do you feel about that?

      1. I’ve been in some dark smelly holes.

        1. You leave your mom out of this. She treated me well, and I’ve heard she went out of her way to accommodate many others in the same way she accommodated me.

        2. Obama’s ass for nearly 8 years now.

          1. ZING!!!

            But, seriously–what Hyp said.

    3. Gitmo? Is that still open? I thought your master closed that joint down almost a decade ago?

      1. Congress won’t let him.

        Separation of powers and all.

        Look it up.

        1. He’s got a pen and a phone, doesn’t he? And weren’t the Donks in charge from 2009-2011? Too busy sucking up to Lily Ledbetter to do real honest work huh?

          1. I actually almost fell out of my chair laughing at the retard. You can always predict almost exactly what he’s going to say, but sometimes it’s even more retarded than what you expect.

        2. Haaahaaahaaaaahaaahaaaaa, bwaahaaahaaaaaa!!! Poor Obama, Rethuglicans won’t let him do it, waaahhhh, and George Bush did it too! You’re a true comedian.

        3. PB

          What a medacious piece of shit you are.

            1. Thanks Denver J.
              I will now go back to the original post, click on the “edit” button, and DOH!

              1. What’s wrong? Is your edit button not working?

  51. Most of the college kids on uber liberal campuses these days would just take one look from McAfee, just lock eyes with him for a moment, and they’d need a safe space for life, lol.

    1. His eyes wete conveying Trump 2016 in chalk writing.

    2. take one look from McAfee, just lock eyes with him for a moment, and they’d need a safe space for life

      Heheheh….Just like in that song by Iron Maiden!

  52. Hello y’all! I’m a longtime lurker but first time poster. I guess you can say I am Reason comments section virgin. Anyways I watched the debate tonight in fact I got my whole liberal family to watch the debate and made it out to be this big deal. But I was pretty disappointed. The candidates seemed unprepared and it was much more shallow then I was expecting. Will be voting libertarian anyways as I did in 2012 but still i’m disappointed especially with the format.

    1. I got my whole liberal family to watch the debate and made it out to be this big deal.


      Hell, i don’t even *say* the L word around my family. they have no idea what it means. I think my dad said, “HUH? What like lyndon larouche??” once.

      1. My grandmother who was a 60s hippy liberal march in the streets feminist actually said they made some good points but were “too idealistic.” And she cringed at the women’s pay gap question responses especially Peterson and said that she didn’t like that guy she also asked who the hell is he?

        Ironically she like McAfee the most, she called him charming.
        The rest of my family was asking when is this going to be over?

        1. And she cringed at the women’s pay gap question responses especially Peterson and said that she didn’t like that guy she also asked who the hell is he?

          This was my first thought. It was a facepalm moment.

          “Yes, yes, yes, child. But you don’t say that out loud in a political debate!”

          Pity, because he ended it on a particularly fine note. He should have led with that, and slid the facts in after he’d sweetened the pot.

          1. I agree and disagree. Sure if you want to build a big tent you’ve got to cater a bit. I figured most “normal” people weren’t going to be listening anyway. I was looking for much more solid libertarian answers, so I was personally happy with his answers. I like that Peterson called out the BS propoganda behind the gender pay gap political slogan.

        2. One of the keys to being a libertarian-minded individual is to go out of your way to *not* include as many people as possible. The fewer the better.

      2. My socon parents were telling me a few weeks ago about how they didn’t much care for Trump. I said “I don’t know if I can vote for him. I’m pretty likely to…”
        *here I freeze and lose the balls to just say it*
        “…throw my vote away.”

        I’m still kicking myself for that one.

    2. Dude. It was Stossel. On his regular show. Not even FBN.

      Be thankful you got to hear them give their opinions at all.

      1. I know I love Stossel and thats what I told them. That it was a miracle they were given an hour at all. Still I wish Ron Paul was up there.

        Side question: Why does everyone hate peterson? I know nothing about him but I liked a lot of his answers.

        1. I would agree, I think he’s got kind of a smug manner but I thought he was generally on point, and has perhaps the best crossover appeal for the anti-Trump Repubs that need to be eased in to libertarianism this year.

        2. He came across better than I expected, both he and McAfee did honestly. I was a big L libertarian for several years, and have heard candidates that went over the purity cliff pretty fast.

          But he did sound like he was just quoting the pertinent parts of his stump speech instead of answering Stossel’s questions, which tended to be more pragmatic than idealistic.

          1. “But he did sound like he was just quoting the pertinent parts of his stump speech instead of answering Stossel’s questions, which tended to be more pragmatic than idealistic.”

            that is the main turn off for me as well. he speaks in catch phrases and slogans. he comes off as a combination of naive and slimy.

            the second part is the making the pro life thing so prevalent. i know that abortion is not a settled question with libertarians, so i won’t down him for the position itself, but it fits with a general tone that he sets, that feels more like a “reformed” or “evolved” republican, than a real libertarian. it feels like he could only ever be a spoiler for the GOP nominee. no way a disgruntled democrat sees him as better than Hillary. now it you only want to have a spoiler candidate, to try and force the GOP to change… he might be your guy… but he could never be a serious contender to win, no matter how far we let our hope wander. i

            McAfee was the big surprise for me. i can actually see myself giving him a shot now. we’ll see how the second part looks this Friday.

        3. I’ve been following Petersen for several months now, and doing my due diligence before making a decision. He’s got a campaign website, a periodical, YouTube vids, Stossel interviews, and other radio/podcast interviews. I’ve decided I will carry water for him now, as I’ve had the time to peruse his platform, policy, and debate performances. He is the one candidate that has a broad appeal (esp. with pro-life Republicans), is what I consider ideologically pure in econ & philosophy, and reasonable in policy. His youth is an asset, not liability. He certainly needs to get a coach in order to tone down his perceived (or perhaps actual) conceitedness. He is more than able to ruthlessly attack the bullies, but the soft persuasion required for a fence sitting independent is really lacking. Any way, it is nice to see the LP in such a relevant position. TY dysfunctional GOP and polarized DNC!

    3. I’m a longtime lurker…

      And yet you still used the word ‘virgin’.

      I disagree on unprepared. I thought Austin Peterson was gauche, but it was probably past his bedtime. He’ll get better with experience. McAfee and GayJo sounded practiced, and McAfee was surprisingly eloquent.

      Shallow, I agree. This could have been much more impactful. Opportunity squandered.

      1. Yes I used the word virgin because I know you guys make perverted jokes which i find hilarious especially crusty and oldmanwithcandy.

        McAfee sounded good which was surprising to me at least. But Gary Johnson stumbled a bit and failed my libertarian purity test with his bakery answer and the gender pay gap answer. I do not believe people should be forced to serve anyone. Your business is your property and its up to you to decide who you do and do not serve. Iiked Mcafee and Peterson’s answers better.

    4. It was pretty much like I expected. Very much in the Stossel style. And as I stated above, it was pretty adult compared to what’s been happening with the major parties. But with the shorter time, Stossel’s fast cut style, and being in a small studio instead of a big stage with hundreds of people, it’s going to suffer in comparison.

      1. My sister a Bernie Sanders supporter was shocked at how small the audience was, she was saying that Bernie Sanders can attract much bigger crowds. I told her it was the venue. It was in stossel’s studio not like the main party debates which are held in big audiotoriums. She tried to interrupt a couple of times but I told her to “shut up commie.”

        1. Go full Godwin. Tell her Hitler always pulled big crowds, too. Right and popular aren’t the same thing.

          1. Eh I agree but my sister wouldn’t get that line of argument and would probably just say but Bernie is Jewish he can’t be compared to Hitler. Which is missing the point, but It would still be ineffective. She is the kind of person that severs relationships with people that disagree that socialized medicine is the way to go. However I have been working on her. I sent her articles on the socialized medicine provided by the VA which has caused tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths but she is the kind of person that still thinks that if the right TOP MEN were in charge the system could be perfected. Honestly she is not really intelligent but I think I can convince her eventually.

      2. it was pretty adult compared to what’s been happening with the major parties

        Excellent point. It was certainly less of a circus than we’ve been watching with Team R&D.

        1. Gary Johnson has more executive experience than all the other candidates combined. That he is not taken more seriously is sad and pathetic. Right now the choices are between a failed Secretary of State who could soon be under indictment, two fringe senators, and a horrible television personality\real estate guy.

          1. Excellent summary. It seems we could get a better selection picking names off of a prisoner list.

          2. GWB had executive experience, that really worked out well.

            1. Proves the maxim of “necessary but not sufficient”.

              1. Also it shows how you govern. I don’t think how Bush performed as President was reflected in how he acted as Governor.

                1. Correction – how he acted as POTUS WAS consistent with his record as Governor.

            2. Executive experience is not meaningful, but it is also not meaningless. Figure that one out, dude.

    5. Why is everyone feeding Tulpa?

      1. I thought we were all Tulpa.

        1. We are, but the handle and intentionally sloppy typos seem Tulpical to me. It would totally be in his character to creep a late thread like this with another one of his socks. Throw in the BS about getting his “whole liberal family” to watch it, his “I’ll vote libertarian anyway”, and his annoying/blissfully “ignorant” questions (Side question: Why does everyone hate peterson? I know nothing about him but I liked a lot of his answers.) to “everyone”, and it smells like a Tulpa Friday to me.

          1. Come on man. I’ve heard people refer to this Tulpa BS before but I’m not real sure who he is. I guess a prog troll like American Socialist or Palin’s Buttplug. I am not a prog at all. I am an avid reader of Rothbard and Mises I was a supporter of Ron Paul when he was running. Rand was a little too libertarian light for me though. Any typos are because first I’m drinking beer and second fuck grammar its the internet, I’m not writing a dissertation. I chose the user name and made the virgin comment because you guys make a lot of funny comments and I wanted to provoke some and also stand out with my username. I am a huge Rothbard fan. And I really have no idea who peterson is because I have never read the libertarian republic. I’ve visited Reason, dailypaul and for my libertarian news. Why are you so hostile? Just chill smoke a joint or drink a beer.

            1. second fuck grammar its the internet, I’m not writing a dissertation.

              Have you met these pedants?

              1. Its funny but I am actually in Phd program for political science which yes i know is bullshit. But i was inspired by a prof with libertarian leanings who told me that the “discipline” had a need for a diversity of opinion. I teach classes on international relations and am usually quite harsh on my students for poor grammar but I’m drunk at this point and this is not a graded essay. BTW my department hates me because they know my political leanings and I don’t go along with bullshit. My department put up a poster that said safe space and i put up a sign on my door saying “not a safe space grow up.” I’m exposed to prog brainwashing everyday and i know the harm it is doing to college students. They go along with the flow because they think its cool and prog politics is “in.” I hope to one day have one tenth of the impact on one student Rothbard had on me when I was an undergrad. I am proudly Rothbard’s bitch because he was the greates thinker of the 20th century. He created intellectual arguments for liberty and laid out the groundwork for a free society.

                BTW my favorite part of the debate was Peterson’s speech on the true meaning of charity and how government funded charity is essentially putting a gun to the head of productive citizens and saying give there is nothing moral about that. Man now I am becoming an angry drunk.

                1. You seem innocent enough. Only dick pics will tell. Welcome to Reason!

                  1. Thanks. I guess this was some sort of fraternity like hazing event? Its probably the reason I never joined a fraternity I would have punched somebody in the face.

                    1. If you want frat hazing shit, talk to our resident douchebro Crusty Juggler. He was never actually in a frat, but would collect all the cards from rush week and put them in his diary.

                2. I’m also a big MNR fan boy and it was disheartening to hear some criticisms from Petersen about him but upon reflection they are valid. Rothbard is ideologically pure and carries the reasoned argument to a logical conclusion, which is anarcho-capitalism. However, this logic escapes nearly all of the public and it is unreasonable to think that one could hope to persuade the majority to this position, however logical, as it is a long ways from “home” for most. Realistic policy with pure ideology is Petersen, youthful energy and sharp reasoning also. Welcome to Reason and thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. BTW I believe that if MNR were still with us, he would embrace other monetary systems (read as blockchain powered crypto currencies) instead of his steadfast metalism.

            2. Don’t pay attention to Los Doyers. He is a known millennial troll, and one of my few Internet enemies. He is the Riddler to my Batman.

              1. He is the Riddler to my Batman.

                I presume that makes me Chief O’Hara.

              2. Since I often walk around in public with a mask, I’d actually prefer Scarecrow.

      2. I love hearing myself comment.

        1. Your mom stays complaining that you talk to yourself to much. I ain’t paying her to tell me her problems!


            1. Her texting is very annoying. I did not teach her how to text, but I know who did, and he is lucky to be alive.

                1. My brother very well may be DoucheHitler

                  1. Gilmore is old and picked up that I was making a reference to the old 60s television show. You kids with your scarecrows. Cillian Murphy is cool , but he was no Frank Gorshin or Victor Buono, or Milton Berle.

                    1. Gilmore is old

                      I found a grey hair in my beard and everything. Someday i hope people will call me “sir”

                    2. Grey hair makes you seem distinguished. So does premature baldness. I’m pretty sure I read that somewhere that lets me not feel old.

                    3. Another plus is that being prematurely gray makes it MUCH easier to get booze when you’re underage.

                    4. He’s definitely no Christopher Lee, or Viggo Mortensen.

  53. McAfee much, much better than I expected. I took him to be a single-issue kook with only the brief glimpse we’ve gotten so far. He’s a kook, but seems to have his heart in the right place and a way with words.

    I think Johnson was a little disappointing, but only on the scale of libertarian disappointing, he’s still miles better than the options we will get from any other party. It does seem kind of retarded to argue that denying service for religious reasons constitutes aggression against the poor cakeless people, which is what he seemed to be getting at, but whatever. If he’s going to cut spending, I can deal with a little bit of enforced equality. I did really smile at his line that Jimmy Carter set up the Department of Education, not George Washington. It was brilliant snark that was made more brilliant by the fact that he just dropped it quietly into his argument and didn’t try to showboat on what a great line it was.

    Peterson was fine. As a person who myself still has a lot of ties to the Republican world, I see his appeal as a crossover candidate. I doubt he beats Gary, but I wouldn’t be against building him up as a future libertarian big name.

    1. Yeah, I liked him more than I expected. I’m still really put off by his “we’re at war with China” stuff, but I think Libertarian candidates are usually too quick to say they’d just walk away from all of our current commitments. I like that he indicated that while it may be the right direction, we needed to work through these things and not just drop them.

      1. Yeah the two times McAfee struck out with me were the china remark and they cyber surveillance remark. I didn’t like Johnson’s bakery answer or his gender pay gap answer.

        1. The big difference is that Johnson has a track record. His time as Governor reflects his libertarian credentials. I honestly think it’s unique in politics. The only people even close to him are Amash and Massie (among active pols).

          So his debate performance is less important to me than the other guys. Of course when it comes to the general public, I wish he was a stronger speaker.

          1. I have voted for Johnson before and will vote for him again. Johnson’s version of libertarianism is 100X better than Trump, Clinton or Sanders. So any criticism of Johnson by me should be understood as relative. If I could vote for Rothbard’s corpse I could but I’ll take Johnson over the fascist Republican or Democrat party.

    2. Peterson needs to work on his tone. He sounds insufferably smug, and since I agreed with almost everything he said for him to turn me off as much as he did seems to show a real issue with presentation. Ideologically he was pretty much perfect.

      GJ really lost me on the free association thing. Not only was his answer bad in terms of libertarian doctrine, his attempt to spin it as a religious discrimination issue where muslims would be left out in the cold seemed forced and somewhat off topic.

      McAfee was the big surprise to me. I expected a wild eyed maniac ranting and raving and mugging for the camera. Instead he was generally coherent, pretty strong ideologically (except maybe on foreign policy, although I would want to hear more before judging), and a shockingly good speaker.

      1. But he seems to want to emulate Hollywood Hogan during his NWO phase.

        1. The biggest icon in libertarianism.

      2. I agree. I think McAfee has a really good voice. That’s way underestimated in how much presence and authority it can generate. It helped him a lot.

      3. Peterson would make a good spoiler for the GOP, but his tone is too far right to be a real contender.

        McAfee was the big surprise for me too. i want to see more, but i did like what i saw.

        Johnson is still my favorite. though he does have the whole articulation problem. i think i understand, and agree with what his point is on the bakers, but he is awful at describing it. it’s not about trampling freedom of association, it’s about creating a legal loophole that will promote discrimination.

        the problem is that the question is always framed around a cake.. which is a pretty silly thing to get sued over not selling to someone. there have been what, 5 or so of these cases since gay marriage legality started to grow? do we really want to enact new laws over a rarity that will diminish on its own? do we really want a modern day version of Jim crow, where we legitimize discrimination like this? (“they can buy the same thing somewhere else, so it’s not really a hardship” is EXACTLY the logic that was used for Jim Crow) i can side with those who’s occupations require participation in an event (photographers, ministers, catering), but if you are selling a standard product at a standard price, i just don’t see how it hurts your religious beliefs to sell that product like you would to anyone else who came in the store. since when is it libertarian to promote adding new laws that will have predictable unintended consequences for an extremely rare occurrence?

    3. So I’ve had some time to digest the Mississippi debate and the most current (4/1). I’m throwing down with Petersen. McAfee and Johnson fail to make a good delivery (very important in trying to make persuasive arguments) and are simply not exciting. It may not seem like a relevant criticism, but this is the pitch man to bring the libertarian philosophy & free market economics to the general public. The pitch is just as important as the message, if you want to get anywhere. Petersen needs to be slightly rebranded to not appear a condescending ass, but is solid in philosophy, econ, and realistic in policy, while remaining constitutional. Johnson’s insistence on obligating bakers is foolishly anti-liberal, and keeps a foot in the door for censorship and moral legislation. McAfee is better, but baggage is heavy, and delivery (again) is like Mr. Magoo. Petersen’s statement (in Mississippi) about his pro-life credentials being street cred for a conservative coalition is enticing and at least possible if not likely (Johnson’s response to the life question was the best). Can you imagine the carnage that Petersen would inflict on the statist Hillary and the fool Trump in a live debate. Status quo can never allow this, as it would utterly destroy their candidates.

      1. Peterson’s biggest problem is that he sounds like a republican trying to get libertarian votes. he could not pitch libertarian values effectively to anyone who leans left, at all. his second biggest problem is that he rarely speaks in anything more specific than broad generalizations.

        he did stumble a little if not on a topic he had a bumper sticker ready to throw out. he might make some good hits on Hillary (in a way that, again, would only appeal to republicans) but trump would chew him up.

        i still like Johnson. i think many libertarians don’t realize how much the issue of a baker selling to a gay sounds just like Jim Crow. why is it libertarian to put the “feelings” of the person selling the item (they don’t have to do anything different in the transaction) over the added harm to the buyer (who, at a minimum, has to spend more time/distance/gas to purchase an equivalent item)? i can see the argument for those who’s work requires being at the wedding (photographer), but someone selling out of a storefront is just being an asshole. no one says they need to attend. i say let the GOP stay the party with a racist/bigot image.

        McAfee does have baggage to overcome, but he did well. need to see more from him, but i’m less willing to write him off than before the debate.

        1. I agree that Petersen is attractive to conservative Rs. Why is this a problem? The object is to garner as many votes as possible. I disagree that he cannot pitch to the left. Ds are socially liberal, so are Ls. This overlay means that there is room on an L platform for Ds and Rs. Again, we are trying to build a coalition to get as many votes as possible. If you question Petersen’s L pedigree please do some reading of his online magazine “The Libertarian Republic”, and peruse his campaign website. They are chalked full of classical liberal and free market ideas and citations.
          As far as the use of generalities, I disagree. He provided succinct answers in the debates and his campaign website outlines specific policy (which he references in the debate). This is completely contrary to the populist D & R presumptive nominees who bend to the slightest breeze of polls and surveys.

          1. he makes his conservative credentials central to his pitch. he might be perfect if your goal is to be a spoiler candidate to force the GOP to be more libertarian going forward…. but he will have little to no impact on the dems. the most he could accomplish would be to guarantee a Hillary/Bernie win by primarily pulling almost entirely from right leaning voters. if you think he could sway many democrats, you might not know many democrats. going pro life in the every opening statement is an automatic red flag to those who tend to vote blue…. and that is just where it starts. he comes off more as a republican trying to win libertarian votes than a libertarian just trying to pull in republicans.

            i prefer someone who can force both sides to move closer to the center, more than someone who can only move one side.

        2. On the baker issue you are concerned about optics and not substance. The right to dispose of your property in a manner of your choosing is core to libertarian values. It is tantamount to an expropriation (theft) to force someone to exchange against their will. Voluntary exchange is the cornerstone of a free market and is the path to wealth and liberty (Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard). Intervention CAUSES misallocation of capital, CAUSES structural unemployment, CAUSES boom/bust. Everyone is A-OK with it until it is their shit being stolen. I reject this out of hand. I voted for Johnson in the past, and will do again if he is nominated, but his stance on the baker issue is anti-liberal and I do not support that in particular.

          1. The object is to get as many tribal D and R voters exposed to the philosophy of liberty. Once they become comfortable with the portion that they find attractive, they will see the consistency and logic of its application to areas where they previously disagree. The cognitive dissonance is glaring and most people, especially Americans, actually believe in liberty. I will forever be an optimist and believe in the good nature of people. Perhaps at my own peril.

            1. pro life and allow bakers not to sell to gays are central themes… how many tribal D voters do you think are going to keep listening after that?

          2. it’s not just optics, it is a bad position. yes, you have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit… but these people have already made the decision as to how they will do that when they opened a store. they are subject to basic rules of operating as a public space. i can agree with independent contractors who have to participate in the event (photographers, officiators, catering, etc.), but not someone running a storefront where walk in customers are standard operating procedure.

            my biggest problem with this issue, is that it is a blatant attempt to twist a libertarian idea to do a non liberal thing. that is, you are using this concept to legitimize discrimination. it is about protesting gay marriage legality, not freedom to do business as you see fit. do you think we should bring back jim crow laws? because it is the exact same logic, for the exact same reason (not a hardship if they can shop elsewhere). do you think that is the way to win people over to libertarian-ism?

            my second biggest problem… why do we need this? since when is it libertarian to push for new laws, with known unintended consequences, to address an already rare situation that will correct itself as gay marriage becomes a more common reality?

  54. I agree completely!

  55. OT: One of the the things I do to stave boredom in the Army is make song parodies.

    I see a little silhouette of a man
    Trigger squeeze! Trigger squeeze!
    Aim for center of mass!
    Bullets all go flying
    Very, very frightening!
    Lock and load! Lock and load!
    Lock and load here we go
    Here we go oh oh…


    derp derpaherpa derpa herpaderpa herpaderpa
    derp derpaherpa derpa herpaderpa herpaderpa

    Sweet bunks are made of sheets
    Corners at 45 degrees
    Everybody’s gettin’ inspecting
    Some of them want to phase up
    Some of them want to go off post

    1. These songs have *got* to be against the Geneva Convention.

      1. (meaning they’re bad)

    2. good to see you back in the game, derpy, i’m an old fuck but man you hit the nail on the head…best wishes wherever you are at.

  56. You take Johnson’s experience and pragmatism, Peterson’s Constitutionalism and abilty to look comfortable in front of a Mic, and McAfee’s charm, swagger, and passion for personal liberty and you have a pretty decent candidate. All three certainly have significant flaws but I would take team purple over teams red or blue any day

    1. I’d enjoy a Johnson petersen ticket with some top cab being McAfee. Petersen in the treasury maybe?

      1. Johnson/Peterson sure. McAfee as drug czar:)

  57. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ?

  58. I feel like Johnson is for the left leaning people who might be interested in the lp, and petersen is for the right.

    1. my guess is you don’t really have any idea what libertarian is…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.