Libertarian Party

Another Libertarian Moment?

Candidates vying for the Libertarian nomination sound better than those on the Republican-Democratic side.


The Libertarian Party might get more votes this year.

Before the primaries, Time Magazine, frequent pusher of trends that do not exist, put Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) on its cover and called him the "most interesting man in politics." Then Paul fizzled, and pundits said the "libertarian moment," if there ever was one, had ended.

But Sen. Paul never ran as a libertarian. He ran as a libertarian-ish Republican, and he wasn't particularly convincing when he got to speak in debates. Americans were unimpressed.

But now that, according to, the presidential race will be a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Americans may give libertarianism a second look.

My TV show recently held a debate between the Libertarian Party's three leading presidential candidates. Compared to the Republican and Democratic contenders, the Libertarians sounded so reasonable to me. Take immigration.

While Democrats pretend they will carefully vet refugees from Muslim parts of the world, Republicans talk about deporting 11 million people. By contrast, the Libertarians on my show talked about reducing border problems by simplifying our complicated immigration laws.

Immigrants often break our current laws because the alternative is waiting years while trying to wade through our immigration bureaucracy. According to some estimates, that wait could last forever—up to 100 years.

"Incentivize legal immigration so that we can cut down on illegal immigration," said Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen. "If we make a simpler path to citizenship, then people will not break the law, if they know that there's a chance that they can come here."

Republicans like Trump talk about illegal immigrants as if they're bad people who are bound to break other laws because they climbed over border fences. But as Petersen asked, "If you were living in a Third World country and your family was starving to death, who would not cross that wall?"

My parents came here from Germany in 1930. They wanted to get away from European stagnation. Who can blame them? I wouldn't be embarrassed if they had come here illegally.

Donald Trump shouts about bad effects of global trade, but his destructive bans and tariffs would do much more harm.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson asked during the debate, "Who benefits from free trade but you and I as consumers? If China wants to subsidize goods and services that they send to the United States, who benefits? We do!"

He's absolutely right. Cheaper goods from abroad mean Americans have more money to spend on other things, and cheaper ingredients for products we manufacture. Yes, some Americans lose jobs, but more gain work, and better work, because free trade helps Americans expand businesses—in America.

Republicans and Democrats also engage in foolish talk about "creating jobs." Donald Trump promises, "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created!"

God has yet to speak up, but Hillary Clinton says not only will she create jobs, she'll create "good-paying jobs"!

That's why Johnson was so refreshing in the debate. He said that in eight years as New Mexico's governor, "I didn't create a single job! Government doesn't create jobs. The private sector does."

Right. But government sure can get in the way.

"To start a business, I have to fill out a thousand forms and report to OSHA," the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said candidate John McAfee during the debate. "This is the fundamental problem. If we remove these barriers, industry will take care of itself and jobs will improve."

The Libertarian candidates were also skeptical about government imposition on drug users, on cellphone owners who don't want their phones hacked into and on people trying to accomplish things without first begging for approval from bureaucrats.

I liked how McAfee put it: "Some fundamental principles are all that we need to live together in a sane and harmonious fashion. We cannot hit one another. We cannot take each other's stuff. We must keep our word, our agreements and our contracts."

That's right. And that's enough. Government should enforce those contracts but otherwise stay out of our lives. I nodded in agreement when McAfee said, "Personal privacy and personal freedom are paramount to any society in which I would want to live."


NEXT: Newark Looks to Shake Down Uber Drivers For 'Fair Share' in Fees

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. I would happily support any Libertarian candidate in the General Election. McAfee is my personal favorite, but I think Gary Johnson is the most practical and safest choice.

    While I don’t agree with all of Gary Johnson’s positions, his stint as a two term governor, in which he balanced the budget add vetoed over 700 bills that would have only added waste and spending with minimal benefit, shows that he has experience in a similar job. I think previous experience in a public office is needed when it comes to being elected to the highest office in the land. At least 80% of his platform I agree with, which is good enough for me, and usually where I pick practical candidates of ideological ones.

    Whoo go Libertarian Party! I hope a Libertarian wins, and failing that get the 5% needed to make the Libertarian Party a major party.

    1. It needs 15% to get into the debates.

      1. Gary can probably pull that if Sanders doesn’t get the nod

    2. McAfee did considerably better than previous debates and spoke well and true to L platform. Johnson again showed his Libertarianish brand, which failed Rand. My guy is Petersen. In the Mississippi debate he stated something we all need to consider. Petersen is pro-life, but does not believe in using compulsion to enforce this position. His pro-life credentials open the door to a conservative alliance and potentially significant cooperation with conservatives who will be vacating the GOP in droves if Trumporama gets the nod. WE MUST GET OUR MESSAGE OUT TO THE MAINSTREAM. WE NEED TO GET TO 15%! We are not kooks, and many Americans share similar views as Ls, but are fooled by the 2 party narrative and uninformed of the L platform. Can you imagine the can of whoop a$$ that a well spoken L would unleash on the statists Clinton/Sanders/Trump. It would be the most significant day since the creation of the L party. Our message and brand would instantly gain tremendous exposure.

      1. Petersen is your guy if you are a republican who just wants them to be a little more libertarian (he is a spoiler for trump only… has no shot with anyone who leans left). McAfee is your guy if you want to spread the libertarian message, make some waves, but not get elected. (i really like him, but doubt the general electorate could swallow his past). Johnson is your guy if you want to hold to any slim hope libertarians could possibly win.

        to effect both parties, we need to pull form both parties. if we only serve to weaken republicans, dems will take advantage by digging in on their most partisan positions. McAfee and GJ are the only options i see. for practicality, and plausible elect-ability, i prefer GJ. i think he plays better to the center of the nation, even if he is not at 100% on the purity test.

        1. Foo_dd, I agree with your analysis of the candidates. Also, I do acquiesce that victory in the general election is a pipe dream (although one I will still indulge in). So for me it is about advancing the liberty message. GJ is a proven loser. Sorry but that’s just a fact, besides he pitches the message (suspect message BTW) without charisma and passion. McAfee did much better this time around and is earning my respect, but I’m still with AP, here’s why: He is spot on as far as L philosophy/econ. I’ve taken the time to read up on him and he is solid, please do you due diligence. 2nd, he is pro-life. Which is a contentious issue, but it opens the door to possible conservative alliances that could push us toward the 15% goal to get on the main stage in debates (THIS IS THE GOAL, NOT VICTORY IN THE GENERAL). Last, the dude is a much better pitch man then either of the others. He is no slick Willie, but he is definitely the best “salesman” of our brand, in my opinion. BTW why is it so bad to be associated with Rs? GJ won his NMex seat as a R. I registered R to get Ron on the ballot in Florida. I had to bath for weeks to get clean again!

          1. I voted for GJ in 2012. I’m not betting on the same horse twice.

          2. “BTW why is it so bad to be associated with Rs? ”

            it’s not that it’s bad, it is about what you hope to accomplish. if your goal is to prevent a trump victory, and force the GOP to evolve into a more libertarian animal, then he is absolutely your guy. if you want to win the election, or force the overall political establishment to move back to the middle, on more libertarian grounds (the later being the more practical, and what i realistically hope for.)… a way to temper the hyper-partisanship… then he is not. he would fare very poorly with those who even think about leaning left.

            the pro-life stance is a good example. this is a contentious issue, to be sure. and he makes it absolutely central to his pitch. someone who leans left might be able to hold their nose and vote for a pro-lifer… but not one who makes it the first thing they talk about in every opening statement. it, like many answers he gives, seems deliberately geared towards pulling in republicans, and in doing so, comes off as off-putting to those who are on the other side of the spectrum (like his opening statement where he all but physically made the air quotes around “reasonable” democrats.).

            i understand the goal of getting to 15%, but i feel you need to be able to pull from both sides to do that (even that poll where GJ got 11%, included him pulling some of that from Hillary)

            i do like McAfee. i only give Johnson a slight advantage over him.

            1. I agree AP does not pull from the left; however, GJ has the same problem on the right (before your retort that he won NM Gov. on an R ticket keep reading!). The GOP is splintering (not the DNC) and Ls need to take advantage of this! The disaffected factions are Cruz/Kasich supporters and Reganites; they could easily find homes with the Ls and AP, due specifically to his pro-life position. It is entirely possible that an anti-Trump coalition would see AP as a viable endorsement. I just want to see a Libertarian on stage with Clinton and Trump. AP is my choice, McAfee second, and GJ third. McAfee is an easy target for personal attack and GJ is a wet blanket. AP would shred Clinton and absolutely embarrass Trump. Folks criticize AP as a bumper sticker, which is fair, yet this is exactly what reaches large audiences during a debate. Then the effected listeners can learn more once they have the taste of liberty in their mouths.

              1. again, still comes down to intent. AP would be better at taking from the GOP, but runs the risk of alienating the left, in the process = the people libertarians and republicans agree we don’t like are guaranteed to be the ones who win, as we split the vote of the right.

              2. I think the best shot, though not a likely one to happen. Would be a Johnson/Petersen ticket. This pulls from both the Left(Johnson) and the Right(Petersen). On top of this Johnson would bring the exp, resume, and providing a credible face. Petersen would bring the passion, a more purist view and would still be able to run for Presidency in the future (w/ the bonus of having VP exp). On top of that Petersen wakes up Johnson’s passion, I saw the Texas Debate video. around the 1h50m-1h55m mark you see Petersen challenge Johnson and Johnson gets passionate.

                They would make a hell of a team, though probably at odds with one another most of the time.

                That I think would be the absolute best outcome for the nomination.

                1. (Insert “stimulating the Johnson” joke here)

    3. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $62 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired for eight months but last month her pay was $14139 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Check This Out ????????????? Click this link

    4. uptil I saw the draft for $9576 , I be certain that…my… neighbour was actually bringing in money in there spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has done this for under twenty one months and by now paid the debts on their apartment and bought a top of the range Car . see this website ????????????? Click this link

    5. my best friends mom got a 6 month old Mercedes-Benz GL-Class GL63 AMG only from working part time off a laptop. why not try this out
      I suggest this website ???????

  2. If China wants to subsidize goods and services that they send to the United States, who benefits?

    If China doesn’t open it’s markets to our goods, do we benefit?

    1. If the grocery store doesn’t buy stuff from you, do you benefit?

      1. a business and a country are vastly different entities, as there are undoubtedly entities within the country who would love to buy products that they’re being prevented from acquiring by the closed market. Also, if I were a farmer, I could very well be selling fresh produce to the grocery store and buying say, meats of livestock I don’t raise. But if the chain decided it would only buy produce from argentina, we both lose.

        1. Talk about missing the point.

        2. But if the chain decided it would only buy produce from argentina, we both lose.

          Not really. If you can still buy stuff from them, then you still benefit from having access to those goods. Sure you need to find a new customer, but you still benefit.

          1. Yes, you do apparently miss the point a lot.

            1. You really need to get out in the street and protest your trade deficit with the grocery store. It’s just plain unfair that they sell all this stuff to you but never buy anything from you in return. Obviously you are the loser in this trade deal. Seriously. Get out there and protest! Now!

              1. Your bad analogy would only apply if I had something to sell to them.

                Which in the case of the Chinese market, the agregate of the US does.

                1. What does it matter if you have anything to sell to them or not? It is still a trade deficit. And a terrible one at that. You sell them exactly zero goods, yet you buy all your food from them. That’s a 100% deficit! They’re robbing you by selling you stuff and not buying anything in return! You must demand justice!

                  1. Yes, burn your strawman, burn it good.

                    1. How is it a straw man? You were lamenting that consumers are worse off if they have access to foreign goods but can’t or don’t sell stuff to those same foreigners. Your trade deficit with the grocery store is the exact same thing. The only difference being some imaginary lines drawn on a piece of paper that denote which gang of men gets to use violence without consequence.

                    2. It’s a staw man because a grocery store is a single entity with a limited scope of business, versus a country-sized market which does not have the same limitation of the variety of goods and services it can demand. That is much more of a difference than an “imaginary” line drawn on a map.

                    3. Yes, we would be even better off if we could sell them stuff. Sure. But we’re not worse off for being able to buy their stuff.

                2. So for anyone who is involved in an industry that provides

                  accounting services
                  legal services
                  etc etc etc

                  It does apply to grocery stores? Seems like there is justification for a whole lot of people to protest.

    2. Yes because China takes that tangible goods money and buys capital goods from the US.…..cit-angst/

  3. Another Libertarian Moment?

    Don’t you need one first before you can have another?

  4. “Incentivize legal immigration so that we can cut down on illegal immigration,” said Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen.

    Let’s “incentivize” every statist illiterate third world peasant to come to the US. Yay! That’s sure to turn the US into a libertarian utopia.

      1. If we wanted to be more like Europe, we’d ban immigrants from getting jobs until all their paperwork is done then for the first 6 to 12 months after while at the same time provide massive welfare for them.

    1. Let’s “incentivize” every statist illiterate third world peasant to come to the US.

      So for you it’s OK if they’re statist but literate? Or statist but from a developed country? Or illiterate and statist but from a developed country? Or statist but not a peasant? Or…?

    2. We don’t need to “incentivize” immigrants to come here. We have jobs. That’s enough incentive for people to come.

  5. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson asked during the debate, “Who benefits from free trade but you and I as consumers? If China wants to subsidize goods and services that they send to the United States, who benefits? We do!”

    Gary, that first statement about free trade and your statement abotu China distorting the market are two very contradictory statements. Also, the beneficiary of a subsidized good is the ineffieicent producer who’s been subsidized. Why are you advocating propping up inefficient businesses in China, Gary?

    1. Consumers don’t benefit from being able to purchase subsidized goods at below cost?

      1. So you’re in favor of the farm bill subsidies?

        The short term benefits are outweighted by the long term losses created by subsidizing inefficiency.

        1. So you’re in favor of the farm bill subsidies?

          And here I thought we were talking about goods and services being subsidized by Chinese taxpayers, not American ones.

          The short term benefits are outweighted by the long term losses created by subsidizing inefficiency.

          Those losses are Chinese losses, not American losses.

          1. So market distortions by governments are okay so long as you’re not the one footing the bill. Got it.

            1. I said that consumers benefit when foreign governments subsidize exports. That is an economic argument, not a moral one.

              1. But they don’t benefit. Subsudies stifle innovation and competition which would do an even better job at delivering the goods at the same or lower prices.

                1. I see. So consumers are not better off when they have access to artificially cheap imports. Got it. Better if the stuff is more expensive. That makes sense. Might as well slap on some protective tariffs to make them even more expensive! Yeah! Innovation and competition, here we come!

                  1. Lets see, I’m arguing against government distortion of the market.

                    You’ve just declared that I’m advocating tariffs, a government distortion of the market.

                    I get the impression you’re arguing in bad faith here.

                    1. I’m just taking your argument to its logical conclusion. You’re saying consumers are worse off if they have access to cheap, subsidized foreign goods. Logically consumers would be better off if instead of those goods being artificially cheaper, those goods were artificially more expensive.

                    2. I’m just taking your argument to its logical conclusion. You’re saying consumers are worse off if they have access to cheap, subsidized foreign goods


                      You know that is not my argument. I have stated it plainly – I am arguing against government distortions of the market. Thus claiming I am arguing this other thing and then taking that to it’s irrational conclusion is simple mendacity.

                    3. So you’re intentionally ignoring the fact that consumers are better off when they have access to cheaper stuff. Got it. I’ll go look for an intellectually honest argument elsewhere.

                    4. sarcasmic|4.13.16 @ 8:09AM| block | mute | #

                      So you’re intentionally ignoring the fact that consumers are better off when they have access to cheaper stuff. Got it. I’ll go look for an intellectually honest argument elsewhere.

                      No, you’re assuming that the free market won’t undercut the inefficient producers when their subsudies go away. Go back to WalMart and enjoy your products that last half as long for only two-thirds the price. You’re the one who’s been intellectually dishonest.

                    5. How do you know what I am assuming? All I said was that consumers are better off when the stuff they buy is cheaper. Period. The end. I don’t see why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.

                  2. The consumers that are still employed are certainly better off. But as a great libertarian once said, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. How much social unrest are you prepared to tolerate to pay for your cheap shit?

                    1. Yet, America has gained jobs post-NAFTA. Sorry, but the industrial jobs aren’t coming back. Even if you close the borders and clamp down on international trade, guess what? Companies will invest more and more into automation which is already going to upend markets. Or are you going to demand regulations there? We can’t have robots taking American jobs, either, right? We can just lock our economy into a stasis and pretend that it’s still 1955.

                    2. How much social unrest are you prepared to tolerate to pay for your cheap shit?

                      How far are you willing to placate the mob to prevent social unrest?

                    3. Ask Marie Antoinette.

                      What the fuck does this even mean? What exactly are we supposed to her infer from her execution?

                    4. You might infer that angry peasants do nasty things when their livelihoods are under threat.

                      Obviously, you can do an end run around that by subsidizing the unemployed.

                2. The proposed “solution” to the “problem” of trade deficits is to impose tariffs on imported goods.

                  But tariffs raise prices to consumers and stifle the domestic innovation necessary to compete with imported goods.

                  Subsidies are wrong. Tariffs are wrong.

                  Two wrongs do not equal a right.

            2. There lies the problem with free markets. On an international level they don’t really exist, and likely never will.

              1. On an international level they don’t really exist, and likely never will.

                So. What.

                Everything I see designed to address the “imbalance” is a solution in search of a problem. China subsidizes this, Japan subsidizes that, Europe subsidizes everything.

                It would suck to be a Chinese, Japanese, or European taxpayer, but that’s their fucking problem.

          2. i agree. we should let Americans benefit from any attempt foreign governments make to subsidize their products. “made in china” has meant the same thing for decades…. lower quality, less durable…. and WAY cheaper. trying to punish our people for putting the cheaper part as a priority is wrong.

            what often gets lost in back and forth exchanges, like what follows here… is that we kind of are paying for it. with our massive deficit, we end up selling debt to China. they buy it, so they can control the value of their economy… because if they were not, their currency would be growing faster, and they would loose the cheap labor advantage. of course that’s a bit simplified, but if someone really wanted to make the argument against loosing jobs to china, they should be focusing on deficit spending… not the trade market itself. the market would correct itself, if we were not giving it an artificial support system with government debt.

            the more money that gets transferred to the economy in china, the more expensive the products get. they slow this by spending the cash on our debt instead.

  6. If libertarianism had developeded more along the lines of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism instead of low-tax progressivism it might have become a credible alternative to the status-quo. Unfortunately all it’s good for now is reinforcing our most dystopian social trends and leaving our most dysfunctional fundamental assumptions unchallenged. At this point more potent and relevant movements have picked up the mantle of “alternative”.

    Libertarianism: the alternative that wasn’t.

    1. Rothbard is the man and An-Cap is the way, says the philosopher in me. Now to the world we live in. I’m ok with being a “hypocrite”, “progressive”, or “incrementalist” in order to advance liberty. Look how the socialist progressives have incrementally devoured our constitution, one bite at a time. They never hesitated to take victories wherever they could be won. Please read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to understand your enemy and their tactics. If you seek to advance liberty, then take any victory, and then go for more. If you try to eat the entire elephant at once, you will fail and the movement wallows in an idealist stasis while the enemy continues to take inches every day.
      Please fill me in on the other relevant alt movements.

  7. Hans-Hermann Hope wrote an essay in The Journal of Libertarian Studies making the case for free trade and restricted immigration. Maybe libertarians should actually read up on the matter instead of just mindlessly believing that both free trade and open borders are good.

    1. Hoppe certainly has his desciples. The problem is almost all of them have disassociated themselves from the libertarian movement.

      1. I want to see some evidence of such an individual. Everyone I have seen who has “disassociated” himself from the libertarian movement is either a) a concern troll for the left or b) a concern troll for the right. And this has nothing particularly to do with immigration; yes someone can be in favor of “free trade and restricted immigration” but they are about as common as unicorns.

          1. … well that is something different, I’ll grant you that

    2. Border control creates onerous burdens for Americans as well as those awful fureners. We currently have border checks well into the interior of the country creating just one more situation where men with badges and guns get to demand to see your papers or else. The idea that closing borders enhances freedom is bogus even before you get to the issues of freedom of association.

      Your argument isn’t grounded in principles. It is at best pragmatic, but even there the argument isn’t very strong.

      1. One could just as easily make the argument: “were the border not so porous, there’d be no need for border inspections one hundred miles inland.” Personally, I believe that the feds would just find some other excuse to wield their power in border states where it constitutionally doesn’t belong.

        1. Just how much power on the border will they need before they stop intruding inside the country? On a scale of Switzerland to East Germany, where are we going to have to end up?

          1. The power needed is absolute. To prevent people crossing the border, frequent guard towers with machine guns are necessary. East Germany is a good example of what we’d have to do to truly close the border. I’m not advocating this. I’m just pointing out what the alternative argument might be. Personally, merely patrolling the border is good enough. Those who get by the patrols, just get by the patrols. There must be some resistance or we’d be overrun with foreign peasants looking for a better life on welfare. OTOH, cleaner, more efficient immigration laws would encourage those who wish to better their lives to come here and participate in our economy.

      2. Maybe they’re using their power further into the country because they’re not allowed to do a damn thing on he actual border.

        1. And maybe the police conduct no-knock gestapo raids at 3am because they’re hamstrung from doing “what’s necessary” in the war on drugs?

          If your job “requires” you to harass and intimidate the people you are supposed to be protecting and serving, then quit.

      3. Yea, let’s just put a military on the border and build a wall. Just screams ‘liberty’ to me as long as those guns are facing South. And it will be so much more successful than attempts to keep drugs out. The fuckers build tunnels to bring goods in illegally. They have their own subs, and you think you are going to stop them from bringing in people without infringing on the rights of Americans.

        Explain to me why yokels suddenly become such believers in the competence government and men with badges when it’s to keep out the illegals?

        1. Yep. Open borders at any cost! Because!

      4. +1 Citizen of the Conch Republic

    3. In Libertopia free trade and open borders ARE good.

  8. They did indeed sound much more responsible and even intelligent than the bozos currently running. BUT, for me, guys like McAfee who go on the run in Central America (for whatever reason), is not how you’re gonna sway people.

    Though I wonder if people even care. If they did, Hillary would not be where she is today.

  9. I’d like to add that airing a libertarian debate for people to see was an important step. Props to Fox Business and Stossel.

  10. Rand Paul must be wondering to himself with friends like these, who the fuck needs enemies? Every article on him Reason publishes now contains the false argument that his problem was not being libertarian enough while they simultaneously bash every other candidate left standing. They showed very little support for Rand in the lead-up to the primaries instead focusing on perceived flaws at a time when they frankly mattered little.

    Rand Paul running a more libertarian campaign is a nice little lie some people tell themselves to feel better about the current state of affairs.

    1. I backed Rand until his withdraw. I figured the hope was to capture the GOP machine to make a run at the throne. Rand was disappointing. I thought he failed to articulate the liberty position. When given opportunities to separate himself from the GOP malaise, he insisted on going centrist and establishment (my judgment, not Reason’s). I appreciate his filibuster and rabid attacks against the NSA, but he painted himself as just another neo-con, but with a twist.
      Look at Trump. He makes no sense at all, but because of his fire he has a following. I would have loved to see that fire from Rand, but he didn’t deliver. Now I do not see fire in the eyes of McAfee and certainly not Johnson, but Petersen has the pedigree, platform, and PASSION to ignite a fire. He is positioned to garner conservative support and the youth vote, not to mention he is a pretty good pitch man. If AP’s message can get out of our little REASONOID shoe box, he could spread the message where it has never before found fertile ground. 15% or bust!

      1. He makes no sense at all, but because of his fire he has a following.

        I disagree. He makes sense where it counts: Be tough on those rotten foreigners who are taking everything away from us through unfair trade and illegal immigration.

        1. I understand your point. I guess it is better stated that Trump’s position is not reasonable or factual, and does not make “sense” in that way. He of course makes “sense” as an emotional argument to an angry constituency, but without logic, reason, or fact to support is claims.

          1. I think Trump is really just the same as any other candidate that espouses certain ideas, although there is a great deal of personality worshiping related to Trump.

            Most people who support Bernie Sanders think a $15 minimum wage is a good idea, that Medicare for all is a good idea, that raising taxes on the rich is a good idea.

            Most people who support Clinton think keeping Obamacare is a good idea, that raising the minimum wage is a good idea, that “equal pay” is a good idea

            Most people who support Donald Trump think getting rid of all the illegals is a good idea, that raising tariffs and reducing imports is a good idea, that keeping the Muslims out is a good idea.

            Even on the personality front though, people who support their candidate often think that their candidate is super special. Sanders’ people think he can finally get things done. Clinton’s people think she can finally get things done. Maybe with Trump it’s more exaggerated, but I don’t think it’s necessarily something completely different from all other candidates.

            1. Yes I agree. Trump and Clinton are demagogues. They will bend their political ideals to whatever direction the polls blow and pander to identity politics. Sanders is more the ideologically pure candidate, if you believe in theft, violence, poverty, and coercion for a good cause. This is why we must educate people about the liberty message. People simply have not been exposed to what being libertarian/classical liberal means. When I get the occasion to find common ground with a D or R, and they see that what I’m saying is reasonable, logical, and just; it infects their brain and they are forced to grapple with the message. Problem is that few people hear the message. We need to get a good L (AP in my opinion) on the stage at a presidential debate. Then let the cards fall where they may. At the very least the message is pronounced on a scale we have not seen before. Americans are disposed to our message despite years of team programming.

  11. But now that, according to, the presidential race will be a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Americans may give libertarianism a second look.

    It’d be nice. But it’d also be nice if Americans demanded a binding “None of the above” on the ballot.

    1. That may require a constitutional amendment.

  12. “I didn’t create a single job! Government doesn’t create jobs. The private sector does.”

    Well, that should keep his vote total safely under 1%.

    1. Yep. I’ll bet that bastard didn’t *save* any jobs either.

  13. Problem is, libertarians may get 10-20% of the vote but the damned progressives will get 30-40% AND they’re gearing up to make political disagreement with them a crime. The game is over America is hosed. We stand on the precipice of a generation of one party control (a progressive Supreme Court will codify all their policies and punish all their political and enemie). One party control will lead to the pile of dead that ALWAYS comes from one party rule.

    1. Jesus, calm the fuck down.

      The left is not that powerful and certainly not that competent, and every time they do a victory lap they get smacked down in the next election.

      Yes, they have moved the Overton window leftward, and yes they get their way distressingly often. But we survived FDR’s “one-party rule” and we’ll survive these fucktards’ brief stints at the helm.

      1. You don’t think the rhetoric of making it a crime to disagree can somehow find its way into legislation?

        The fact people like Warren are making noise about it *should* worry people.

        It’s insane they even say it.

        1. I don’t know what is or is not going to happen. Maybe the next Lenin is among us and we’ll be in gulags within a decade. Or maybe we’ll have another century of “politics as usual”.

          Who the fuck knows? Why grow despondent over it?

  14. Time Magazine, frequent pusher of trends that do not exist

    Not to mention frequent publisher of some of the so-called “libertarians” at the modern Reason.

  15. The fuck do you mean, ANOTHER libertarian moment? There was no first libertarian moment. It’s nonsense.

  16. But now that, according to, the presidential race will be a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary

    Ummm, that site today said Trump had about a 50% chance of winning the primary. Hardly a done deal.

  17. I tried to get my old school dad to listen to the libertarian debate. He laughed and said ” you mean the people who won’t fight ISIS” When your parents are in their late 70’s and refuse to listen I’ve found trying to change their minds, arguing, is not worth the effort.

    1. Show dad APs response to this from the previous debate (part 1 of 2 aired on 4/1). If they are a credible threat, then there are constitutional remedies and plenty of “grizzled vets, who would love to do their country a favor” and wipe the floor with these inhuman thugs and slavers.

    2. Are they Christians? If so, remind them that Jesus was a libertarian. It’s the Democrats and Republican who are the Phrase is our age.

  18. Want to meet a girl? Welcome to
    the Best adult Dating site!

  19. Two of libertarians biggest problems in attracting people to vote for them.
    1. instead of making a cogent argument to keep out of other countries bussiness they blame America for the problems in those countries, just like Obama. We may be the problem but you can never sway people by making the actions of their parents a criminal act. You have to convince them that its in their best interest to leave others alone.
    2. Your opens doors border policy is a no go without some major rethinking. You could re institute the old green card system which did work well and create a vastly speeded up immigration system that allows people to visit their home country while being processed.

  20. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  21. 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
    ? ? ? ?

  22. John, when the Chinese Communist Party has to approve all deals, is it free trade? Last Sunday CBS 60 Minutes in a segment titled “Rising in the East” ( revealed that Hollywood values the Chinese audience more than the domestic U.S. audience and is making decisions on what blockbuster movies to green-light for production based on what will be approved by Chinese Communist Party officials. This is Hollywood now accepting the Chinese Communist Party as a censorship board for movies that will be shown to domestic audiences. How do you feel about the Chinese Communist Party being what the Hays Board used to be?

  23. John you are wrong about Hillary and good paying jobs. As she grow the size and scope of government there will more and more high paying job. The problem is that if half the population is working for the government then everyone will have to pay 50% in taxes. So a 50,000 a year government office worker will have to be offset with a 50,000 a year McDonald worker. Now if you have even a small % on welfare then taxes will have to be raised on everyone. See John the Progressives have it all figured out and you Libertarians are just pissing in the wind. And I bet you just thought it was raining.

  24. If you are a “conservative” that believes in less government, and live in California, there’s no reason not be register and vote Libertarian. In the presidential race, the Democrat will always get the 55 electoral votes.

  25. The Libertarians spit on America by having a Muslim as their Vice Presidential nominee. This is especially egregious since the Libertarians advertise themselves the party of the Founding Fathers, ignoring the fact that Islam was the enemy of America since the founding of our Republic. How dare “Reason Magazine” celebrate Thomas Jefferson’s birthday when they know that Pres. Jefferson was the President who finally had the cojones to make war against the Muslim Barbary Pirates who were enslaving Americans, forcing our young Republic to pay ransom (jizya). Islam should be banned in America (A proposed constitutional amendment to ban Islam) or, better yet, Mecca should be nuked and then say to the Muslims that with Mecca nuked there is no more Islam. They should be told to stop practicing their death cult.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

    1. The problem is poor people. Not religion.

      A lot of Christians in Latin America… and they all turned out to be commies… go figure.

  26. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

  27. When can we ass bayonette kim jon un like we did to quadaffi? Is this no longer a thing? I just cant keep up.

  28. I got GJ. McAfee aint bad either. McAfee gives me a heart attack with that photo of a gun to his head. He looks like he wants to prove a point, though, and I can reason with that.

    I don’t like Peterson at all with his pro-life stance. If a woman’s food and energy is given to another living being without her consent, I see that she has every right to cut off the transfer. I don’t even like his over enthusiastic temperament. He reminds me of myself when I first joined the workforce… he needs to understand what it’s like to fail, he’ll build a lot of character through that.

  29. Only the most cultish libertarians think it is cute that their presidential nominee has a cannabis company. For normal people that just shows a lack of seriousness, a confirmation of the prejudice against libertarians as shallow one-issue hippies.

    If there was an opportunity this year for a libertarian moment, a mainstream breakthrough for individual liberty and limited government, libertarians blew it. Libertarians turned against Rand Paul instead of rallying to his cause, some including Reason pandered to Donald Trump and now they are wasting everybody’s time with hopeless candidates for a third party alternative.

    1. Yeah, I remember when I couldn’t argue for the legalization of drugs when I was younger. It was too taboo. Gary Johnson has been a consistent, responsible force against the status quo. That should be the goal for the Libertarian party.

      Rand Paul had got the progressive’s mouth watering for any chance to use him as proof to discredit the libertarian philosophy. I still commend his work to drive individualism and liberal thought to the republican front. If anything, he showed his believers how dirty the political game is. That was his goal… to take one for the team.

      Let’s say Rand Paul was even worth a libertarian’s time. He compromises his beliefs for more campaign money. He bases his arguments on a Republican platform that has been designed to be ridiculed by our American propaganda machines. He never stood a chance.

      Why should I compromise with Rand Paul? So we can get another Reagan in the White House? He did espouse good values, I would shake his hand. I shake a lot of peoples’ hands. From what I’ve learned, there were things about Reagan that I would not support.

      1. I need to learn to click preview before I post these replies. My last paragraph is there to humor.

  30. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…


  31. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!

  32. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

  33. 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?


  34. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.