Bill Weld

William Weld: 'Taxation is Theft'!

Former Republican governor Weld of Massachusetts, who Gary Johnson wants to the Libertarian Party's vice presidential pick, has an interesting outlook that sometimes flirts with the radically libertarian, but mostly doesn't.

|

William Weld will likely be announcing his intention to seek the vice presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party (L.P.), in partnership with presidential hopeful Gary Johnson, the L.P.'s 2012 choice and the former Republican governor of New Mexico.

Weld/Mintz Levin law firm website

Weld was a former Reagan administration Justice Department official (who, winningly, in 1988 resigned in protest over Attorney General Edwin Meese's unpunished misconduct) and governor of Massachusetts through much of the 1990s.

He had a strong reputation but a checkered record as a government-cutter in his state, starting off strong but ending, according to some critics, failing to utterly rethink or shrink state government.

Weld gave a speech in the mid-'00s giving a wide overview of his beliefs about government, which should probably be studied by those considering him for the L.P.'s vice presidential slot.

It presents some things to make a libertarian smile, and a lot to make them question how much Weld gets the full-circle libertarian vision of government's purpose and role.

I'll lead with Weld's most radically libertarian expression, which should delight fans of silly libertarian internet memes: "I think coercive taxation is theft, and government has a moral duty to keep it to a minimum."

While some libertarians take the implications of "taxation is theft" to mean it's entirely improper, it is pretty rare to hear those words from a politician. It shows the right mindset, at least.

The giveaways, from the hardcore libertarian perspective, come thick and fast after that.

We need government as "a safeguard of our property" but also to "help us better our lot, to act as an economic catalyst. When I was the governor of Massachusetts, we used taxpayers' money to stimulate growth in biotech and telecommunications, two high-end industries that were tailor-made for the state because of all the universities."

He believes that in the cases of those industries, "government had a legitimate role in stepping in to address what I saw as a market failure."

Weld also talks up government's role in "redistributive justice," applying it first to education, where he thinks it's wrong for richer localities to have more money for schools than poorer ones.

He was proud his administration in Massachusetts:

already put in a statutory scheme of spreading the wealth around with a redistributive formula for financing education that went as far as was politically feasible: You have to get the votes in the Legislature. My Secretary of Education at the time was a woman, a native Cuban, who had been in the hills of Cuba with Fidel and Che in 1958. The joke around the statehouse was that this was the most Communist piece of legislation sponsored by a Republican administration in a long time.

That line could haunt him on the L.P. convention floor.

He goes on to praise government's role in righting wrongs, such as "slavery" and "Second-class citizenship for women." (Those wrongs were of course government-caused or at least government-buttressed, which Weld doesn't point out but many Libertarians might be likely to.)

He cops to:

depart[ing] radically from the Republican orthodoxy [on] the environment, or conservation, which is fundamental to human happiness. Natural resources are so vast that no single individual or business is going to protect them; they don't have an incentive to.

The creation of a Water Resources Authority to clean up the Boston harbor happened partly because of a suit I filed when I was US Attorney in 1983 against the State of Mass, saying this harbor is too damn dirty. That's one of the things I'm proudest of in my tenure as US Attorney. One of the things I'm least proud about is that I chickened out and never filed the suit against Ohio for public nuisance on account of the air blowing Northeast on the prevailing winds to Massachusetts. It is unlikely to have been approved in Washington, but it would have been interesting to try.

….In the Western part of this country, the property rights advocates think the government is riding roughshod over them. By and large I come down on the side of government assertiveness in that area.

There goes the Bundy Ranch vote, I suppose.

He's also proud of being for family leave legislation, which is "just government enacting support for the way the workforce has changed."

Weld sounds like a proto-"libertarian paternalist" when he says:

It's healthy for government to be a kind of moral catalyst, using the bully pulpit of high office. I am not talking about organized religion or being preachy. I mean moral suasion….Government can contribute to a shared sense of purpose on the part of the citizenry; that's its highest and best application.

He applies this idea in very vague terms to his sense of our role in the international arena, and fortunately doesn't openly say he's looking for reasons to use military force overseas.

He goes on to list some of his problems with government. These include: too much administrative bloat in education and health care, any kind of wage and price control, and regarding health care Weld wisely states: "It's not good for government to tell people that the world owes them a living and that things are free."

He states he's mostly for the idea of privatizing or ending government monopolies which have "proved to be a disaster" but adds the caveat that "I think transportation and corrections are not the first two areas that I would go looking for massive change."

He's terrible on campaign finance:

We need a complete ban on soft money, which is sort of an enveloping problem, and a ceiling on the amount of money that can be spent on a given race. The problem is the Supreme Court case, Buckley v. Vallejo, which says that any limited like that is unconstitutional, because money is speech…

Some libertarian pluses:

• "Managing people's sex lives is something that I don't think is a good role for government. I extend that to the abortion issue, I extend that to the so-called gay rights issue, I think this is a freedom principle and consistent with the analysis in the economic area as well."

• "Opposing the free flow of goods or people is a bad idea."

• "Telling people that we know better is one of my least favorite exercises of government. Government is the people, so the government, by definition, can't know better than the people."

Now, the above quote appears only slightly later in this speech than his praise for government moral suasion, a sign that in libertarian terms he hasn't forged a completely consistent and developed sense of what government is for.

That's often something Libertarians want or expect from their candidates, so while Johnson may be right that doubling up on "serious political credentials" might be a plus in the general election, it's by no means obvious it will be in the political battle that comes first: getting 50 percent plus one of the delegates at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando over Memorial Day weekend to pick him, and then pick Weld.

NEXT: Yes, Donald Trump can announce whom he would appoint

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

  1. Good god another Weld piece. He’s pushing Trump right out of the news. By the way, did Trump’s plane ever take off from Dulles?

  2. So at the rate this is going the LP will be Republican lite. Oh joy.

    1. Or Democrat lite. Take your pick.

      1. Well considering the behavior of the GOP, well yes. I mean the “anti-big government while not really doing anything about it” is pretty Republican.

      2. Team Purple Lite! Can someone start making our flag?

        1. An elephant and a donkey peeing on a porcupine.

          1. +1 Betsy Ross

        2. Purple? Kool-Aid can be our official drink!

          1. Flavor Aid?

            1. If the LP nominates GayJay they’re drinking a cyanide cocktail.

          2. Pandering for the black vote.

        3. Cloaks. Purple cloaks are awesome. The candidates have to wear those.

  3. Why not get a Romney-Ryan ticket while we are it?

    1. You already said that, like 6 times.

  4. Also will Bill Weld get the LP some Prog voters? I’m mean all those Northeastern Democrats that love Bill Weld….Hahahahahaha!!!

  5. “Weld was a former Reagan administration Justice Department official”

    Uh-oh.

    1. Why so glum? Look at Paul Craig Robertson…oh wait.

    2. Some more info on this dude:

      http://mlstrategies.com/profes…..m-weld.htm

      http://humanevents.com/2012/08…..ing-obama/

      1. The ML piece is standard corporate bio-boilerplate; NWS and I presume most everyone knows it.
        The other article defines him as ‘liberal Republican’, but who knows what that means? Some folks here ‘backed’ Obo and were decent enough to admit is was a horrible mistake; the other folks he pitched, I hardly know.

    3. It’s like the Timothy Leary/ G Gordon Liddy tour.

      GayJay’s the hippie and Weld is the Drug War Prosecutor

  6. What, there’s only one picture of this guy on the whole internet? I get more photos taken of me in one day than this guy in his whole career.

    Lazy interns. Sad!

    1. Those are two different pictures. He just never changes expressions.

  7. We need government as “a safeguard of our property” but also to “help us better our lot, to act as an economic catalyst. When I was the governor of Massachusetts, we used taxpayers’ money to stimulate growth in biotech and telecommunications, two high-end industries that were tailor-made for the state because of all the universities.”

    He believes that in the cases of those industries, “government had a legitimate role in stepping in to address what I saw as a market failure.”

    Awe inspiring pick by Gay Jay. Truly overwhelmed here.

    You know how NOT to sell libertarianism? By pushing yourself as Republican-lites. That is what this pick is about – a wrongheaded appeal to try and siphon off a few of the never Trump bunch.

    1. I think lighter Republicans would actually appreciate a VP that talked the real lp talk. Most people that would even look at the lp have some appreciation for the principles we stand for.

    2. You know how NOT to sell libertarianism?

      Why, yes, yes we do. We’ve got 40 years experience in not selling libertarianism. At some point you gotta figure it’s not because people don’t know what you’re selling, it’s that they do know. Maybe you have to consider that you’re going to have to choose between supplying a niche market or changing your product. If appealing to NeverTrumps gets them in the door, maybe we can sell them some of the other product we keep behind the counter. If we just keep trying to sell the one product, they’ll never even poke their heads inside to see what all we may have to offer.

      Whether or not Weld is the guy to try this approach with, I don’t know. But right now is the best shot we got at doing something different than all of us standing around the store reassuring each other that any minute now the customers are going to come busting through the doors – yep, any minute now they’re all going to realize what great products we carry here and then they’ll all want to get some of that. Any minute now.

      1. You can compare political parties to a free market. Bill Maher sure did that when he quipped to Nick how libertarians struggle in the marketplace for voters or some such. Maher probably should have looked in the mirror and examined how that applied to many of his own beliefs and political inclinations. He often laments the lack of a real leftwing party in the country.

        This isn’t an open market. It is a heavily regulated market where two political parties get to write the laws and control the institutions through which voters get their information. Most people in this country are mostly disengaged non-consumers of politics to begin with, but as the old adage goes – you may not be interested in government, but it’s interested in you.

        Most people can’t define libertarianism to include Republicans. Most have never heard of the NAP. Many of us started off as roughly aligning with one of the two parties at some point in our lives. And most of us did not need a watered down libertarianism when we went looking for an alternative.

      2. Very well said, Jerry.

        I support GayJo for that very reason. He is good enough and he won’t scare the straights. The message is worthless if you can’t get anyone to listen to it. GayJo is libertarian enough and can plant seeds where the other two won’t.

        That said, Weld sounds like the wrong choice. Picking him prior to the nomination will turn one mistake into two.

  8. I only came here cause I didn’t want Libertarian to cross the squirrel singularity on his own.

  9. All Taxation is Theft.

    We should eliminate all taxes and just close down the government.

    People who have fires should put out their own damn fires or hire someone to come put out the fire.
    Why should I pay for someone else’s fire.

    Same with the police. Why should I pay for the cops. People should just hire their own security or protect themselves.

    Anyone who supports the idea that I have to pay taxes is a SLAVER.

    1. Alice Bowie (is back)|5.18.16 @ 9:45PM|#
      “We should eliminate all taxes and just close down the government.”

      Ya know, reading isn’t difficult; even a caveman can do it. But Alice? Nope.
      Fuck off, slaver.

    2. Alice is feeling the need to expose that intellectual inferiority and get that general I am woe fetish on once again. Sigh, I’m trying to play some Space Pirates and Zombies 2 here, I don’t have much time to inflict you with an intellectual lashing right now. Don’t you have a cat-o-nine tails or something with which to flagellate yourself?

    3. Throughout human history, outside when theocracies, most people have rightly viewed government as a compromise. A necessary evil. Piece of shit bootlickers such as yourself, though, practically sprint to the voting box to vote away your rights. Why do progs feel the need for to have a big, strong, burly government to take care of them and their family?

      You propose those scenarios thinking them ridiculous, yet the fact remains that I highly resent knowing that if you were on fire, my tax dollars would be wasted trying to save you.

      You piece of shit.

      1. Be nice. Alice does not have a burqua into which someone can force her, or someone to stone her for her sins, without bigger government. Therefore, Alice needs more government, much more bigger stronger government to make her be a good girl, or else.

          1. According to Alice, he’s a middle-aged white guy who made some money by accident and presumes anyone else who made money was equally stupid/lucky.
            Alice is a typical limo-liberal, quite like H-wood ‘celebrities’ who made money by luck.

      2. There is absolutely no need for government.
        Practically every “necessary” function can be purchased.
        Police and fire services can be purchased by those who need them.

        If one needs to take one to court, one can hire their own lawyers and judges and can hire a private security company to execute any judgement.

        I don’t need a bunch of slavers taking my money to pay for other peoples services.

        1. Alice, why are you here? Why hasn’t big daddy gov prepared your safe space yet? There is no need for you to suffer the brutality of reality and mean old libertarians. Poor child, poor poor child.

            1. So you’re here to show you really are a pathetic excuse for humanity?

            2. See my post above about Alice’s fetish self flagellation.

        2. Alice Bowie (is back)|5.18.16 @ 9:56PM|#

          There is absolutely no need for government.
          Practically every “necessary” function can be purchased.
          Police and fire services can be purchased by those who need them.

          If one needs to take one to court, one can hire their own lawyers and judges and can hire a private security company to execute any judgement.

          Again, just like exists right now. After all, we can already purchase services from private fire and security companies, and binding arbitration has been a thing for longer than this country has existed.

          1. Private security? Are you crazy?!

            Why, if we had private corporations conducting law enforcement, they’d be out of control! They would probably shoot unarmed individuals at the slightest hint of risk! They would routinely steal money through “asset forfeiture”! Maybe this is just my morose imagination, but I think there would probably be incidents where private police officers shoot peoples’ dogs!

            You see, a private security company would have the incentive to do these things because of profits. When you take the profit motive out of it, people will behave much better! You should thank your lucky stars that police are run by the government in this country.

      3. “…Why do progs feel the need for to have a big, strong, burly government to take care of them and their family?…”

        Think “Batting Ts”.
        Juvenile proggies like Alice never grew up; the thought of acting as a moral agent is terrifying to such pathetic beings.
        If a ‘parent figure’ doesn’t tell them what to do, they are lost. And in their ignorance, they presume the same of actual adults. And they resent it mightily when their arrested development is pointed out to them.

        1. Oh, Alice?
          Along with learning to read, GROW THE FUCK UP.

      4. Now THAT’S the kind of stuff I want to hear McAfee spewing at the presidential debate with Hillary and Trump.

        1. Get me liquored up and a ticket to attend somehow, and I’ll go in and shout it during the debates.

      5. . . . most people have rightly viewed government as a compromise. A necessary evil.

        This is what I don’t get. I have anarchist *leanings* but I understand the midset that accepts that there are *some* things that are more efficiently provided as a group – even to the point of coercing those who will benefit but are unwilling to pay – but I don’t get all these people that want to keep shoving shit into that bag.

        There are technical limits to how much government can manage and how large a group it can manage. Guys like Alice like to point out how technology is not going to save the planet from global warming but somehow believe that our governing tech will always increase juuuuust in time. Despite evidence that unless we find a new paradigm soon, we’re rapidly approaching the limits of what the nation-state can handle and would be better off not *unifying* even more government but breaking them up into smaller, more manageable chunks.

    4. Alice Bowie (is back)|5.18.16 @ 9:45PM|#

      People who have fires should put out their own damn fires or hire someone to come put out the fire.

      Which is what we do already – we just don’t have a choice of service providers.

      Why do you hate choice Alice?

    5. People who have fires should put out their own damn fires or hire someone to come put out the fire.

      Would I be allowed to get together with my neighbors and form some sort of group that would be a just-in-case protection scheme? Like say, we could each pay a monthly amount into a pool and use that money to keep a fire crew on stand-by just in case one of us had a fire and then this crew could come put out the fire. We could probably do the same thing with pooling an amount of money to guard against the risk of our houses being damaged in other ways, like by storms or by burglars or something, too. Heck, we could even extend this concept to our cars, like in case we had an accident, or our health, like in case we got sick, maybe even our lives in case we got dead. Dang! Why hasn’t somebody thought of this sort of thing before? We all pool a little of our money together as an assurance that if something bad happens we’ll be able to take care of it. We could call it an assurance policy!

    6. We should eliminate all taxes and just close down the government.

      After the armed revolt, and you’ve been installed as Emperor.

    7. I don’t disagree with any of this. So that’s just a sarcasm failure.

  10. Reason is also moronically in it for Johnson. He’s not winning so guess what? His executive experience means dick. He doesn’t have name recognition, either. He’s a nobody and has a the charisma of a potted plant. Give me a strong advocate of real libertarianism. Not this bullshit ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ BS spouted by Johnson.

    1. He doesn’t have name recognition, either.

      Yep and any recognition he will get will be of the “Libertarians are crazy and/or evil” or “Libertarians are just evil Republicans!” variety. And Weld won’t have much either. And it’s not like this will get a bunch of Dems to vote LP or get the Never Trumpers either.

    2. I think Johnson does have some name recognition. The problem is the premature pick of a VP candidate that makes no sense at all. I mean I can think of a LOT of potential picks right off the bat that would have been vastly better. What about Peter Thiel?

      1. John McAfee fucking wins on name recognition.

        1. Augustus Sol Invictus wins on Satan recognization.

      2. Peter Thiel is a Trump delegate.

        1. Thiel is also a libertarian.

          1. Yes, a libertarian for Trump.

            If the LP nominates GayJay there is going to be a lot more libertarians for Trump.

            I pray they have the wisdom to nominate John McAfee. 2016 is the Year of the Outsider.
            Not the Year of boring moderate Retread Republican ex-Governors

            1. Anyone who supports Trump is not a libertarian. Just like anyone who supports Clinton or Sanders is not a libertarian.

              1. Must they also kiss your ring?

    3. Not this bullshit ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ BS spouted by Johnson.

      Ummm, that’s been the definition of libertarian for only 40 years now. In the only “Brand Preference” survey, 59% of respondents self-identified as fiscally conservative ad socially liberal. And 91% of them rejected the libertarian brand.
      Not sure what you mean by “real libertarian,” but I suspect it’s what 91% of libertarians reject. (Cato/Zogby survey)

      1. Ummm, that’s been the definition of libertarian for only 40 years now.

        .

        No, it never has been. In fact during those 40 years, the definitions of ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ have changed significantly. Ergo, you must believe that libertarianism has changed in the last 40 years.

        Libertarianism is NAP. Don’t initiate force.

        1. Ummm, that’s been the definition of libertarian for only 40 years now.
          .
          No, it never has been. In fact during those 40 years, the definitions of ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ have changed significantly.

          Which is it? Never been or changed? Do I believe you or the Cato Institute and Nick Gillespie, among others? (Nick just a few days ago)

          Ergo, you must believe that libertarianism has changed in the last 40 years.

          Ergo implies a logical conclusion, not an unsupported assertion. Liberty is still liberty.

          Libertarianism is NAP. Don’t initiate force.

          That’s backwards, NAP traces to Ayn Rand in 1961, That’s philosophical. Libertarian is political. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal means the same thing, but applied to a political context. You cannot violate either one without initiating force, right?

          Both mean not imposing your values by force, both fiscally and socially. That’s what sets us apart from, left and right, which are obsolete (as the only options)..

          Fiscally liberal and socially liberal is … liberal.
          Fiscally conservative and socially conservative is … conservative.

          When we were still unknown, we described it as, “Democrats want government out of your bedroom but into your wallet. Republicans want government out of your wallet but into your bedroom. Libertarians want government out of both.” Still true.

          1. Which is it? Never been or changed?

            Both are true. Libertarianism is NAP, don’t initiate force.

            Do I believe you or the Cato Institute and Nick Gillespie, among others?

            As you always hold yourself as the highest authority, I expect you to believe you, against all reason.

            Ergo implies a logical conclusion, not an unsupported assertion.

            If libertarianism means what you think it means, then libertarianism has changed over 40 years. That’s definitely true.

            That’s backwards, NAP traces to Ayn Rand in 1961

            So?

            That’s philosophical. Libertarian is political.

            There is precious little difference.

            Fiscally conservative and socially liberal means the same thing, but applied to a political context.

            No, it doesn’t. It didn’t 40 years ago, it doesn’t now. (It was kind of close to true 40 years ago, but not enough to actually count. Socially liberal meant anti-gun, for instance.)

            Both mean not imposing your values by force, both fiscally and socially.

            Close, but not quite. You may impose one of your values by force if your values include “don’t initiate force”. For instance, I may impose my values against thieves and murderers.

            Still true.

            For an elevator pitch? Close enough. For an explanation to other libertarians? Not really. Libertarianism is NAP, don’t initiate force.

            1. Do I believe you or the Cato Institute and Nick Gillespie, among others?

              As you always hold yourself as the highest authority, I expect you to believe you, against all reason.

              (laughing) I used Cato and Gillespie as the authority. .

              1. Until they disagree with you, at which point you’ll drop them like a hot potato.

                I would say the ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ label is right more than half the time, though barely. It’s political shorthand, but how we determine whether it is right (see the gun issue, dozens of others) is by asking if it initiates force.

                1. Which is it? Never existed or changed?

                  Both are true.

                  How can it be true that something changed if it never existed?

                  Libertarianism has been defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 40 years

                  If libertarianism means what you think it means, then libertarianism has changed over 40 years.

                  The definition HAS changed … BECAUSE Cato, Nick Gillespie and I (among many others) say it has NOT changed.

                  Do I believe you or the Cato Institute and Nick Gillespie, among others?

                  As you always hold yourself as the highest authority, I expect you to believe you, against all reason.

                  We should believe you over Cato, Nick Gillespie and all the others, . because …

                  I would say the ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ label is right more than half the time,

                  It’s never existed, but it did exit and no longer does ? and a definition that does not exist can still be right most of the time.

                  How can the same definition keep changing back and forth, being both correct and incorrect ? while ALSO not existing?

                  Are there any other definitions that are both right and wrong … back and forth … during the same week?

                  1. How can it be true that something changed if it never existed?

                    It only existed in your mind. The real definition, don’t initiate force, doesn’t change.

                    The definition HAS changed … BECAUSE Cato, Nick Gillespie and I (among many others) say it has NOT changed.

                    That’s either so profound I can’t grasp it or so stupid I can’t believe it.

                    We should believe you over Cato, Nick Gillespie and all the others, . because …

                    Appeal to authority. You should believe me because of logic and my arguments (liberal and conservative change meaning over time but libertarian doesn’t), not because I’m me.

                    How can the same definition keep changing back and forth, being both correct and incorrect ? while ALSO not existing?

                    Try to follow, please:

                    Slightly more than 50% of the time, ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ describes libertarianism. That percentage may change over time as “conservative” and “liberal” change meanings. But, and this is really important, that is not how libertarianism is defined. Small “L” libertarianism is ‘don’t initiate force’, really nothing more. How do we know this? Well, when we want to know if we want gun control, we look to see if that requires us to initiate force (and it does) so we don’t do it, even though that would be “socially liberal”. So, libertarianism isn’t defined on changing parameters.

                    1. Now you’ve confused a definition with what it describes.

                      Umm, small “L” libertarian means doesn’t belong to the party.
                      See, the PARTY has a capital “L” which is the connection.

                      we look to see if that requires us to initiate force (and it does) so we don’t do it, even though that would be “socially liberal.”

                      You have no idea what socially liberal means. Now you say the initiation of force means socially liberal. But I’m glad that you support gay marriage and adoption. And equal rights for transgenders, though I even understand you may exclude public bathrooms.”

                      So, libertarianism isn’t defined on changing parameters.

                      Nobody said it did. And you’ve flipped back to agreeing with me. Thanks. That was big of you.

                    2. Now you’ve confused a definition with what it describes.

                      No, that would be you.

                      Umm, small “L” libertarian means doesn’t belong to the party.

                      Not necessarily, it means what one believes, not which party one belongs to. One can be a Libertarian and a libertarian.

                      You have no idea what socially liberal means.

                      If it doesn’t mean “what the majority of liberals want in social issues”, then define it.

                      Now you say the initiation of force means socially liberal.

                      Sometimes it does (gun control). Sometimes it doesn’t (gay marriage).

                      But I’m glad that you support gay marriage and adoption.

                      And equal rights for transgenders, though I even understand you may exclude public bathrooms.

                      Not initiations of force (though if by “public” you mean “government”, well, government is an initiation of force…).

                      Nobody said it did.

                      We are (apparently) arguing over what “liberal” and “conservative” mean. What are your definitions if not “what liberals and conservatives believe”?

                      I wonder if you answered how you’d define them? I honestly can’t imagine you could answer that without reverse engineering NAP any possible way you look at it (if they can somehow combine to mean libertarian).

                      Is it “socially liberal” to want gun control? Is it “fiscally conservative” to want to spend a lot on national defense?

                    3. iYou have no idea what socially liberal means.

                      If it doesn’t mean “what the majority of liberals want in social issues”, then define it.

                      (snort) The same things libertarians do. Thank you for playing.

                    4. The same things libertarians do. Thank you for playing.

                      They want to force cakemakers into slavery? They want gun control? I could keep going…

                    5. That (NAP) is philosophical. Libertarian is political.

                      There is precious little difference.

                      If that were true, you could be arrested for initiating force. You can’t so it’s not true
                      If that were true, then speed limits would be established by philosophy major.s They’re not, so it’s not true.

                      In the political realm, philosophy deals with principles. Politics is how they are applied
                      Even Ayn Rand refused to confuse the two, explicitly. But I’ve just committed another appeal to authority. DAMN

                      .

                    6. If that were true, you could be arrested for initiating force.

                      I mean, if by “political” you happen to mean whatever government happens to do right now, then sure, you’re right. If by “political” you mean “what government should do”, then no, libertarianism’s politics and philosophy are darned near identical.

                      In the political realm, philosophy deals with principles. Politics is how they are applied

                      Well, when your principle is “don’t initiate force”, then application of your principle in politics ought to be “don’t initiate force” and potentially providing the mechanism to extract justice (repayment) from those who do initiate force. And no, the latter need not interfere with the former.

                      An aside: I think even Ayn Rand could get behind that.

                    7. I mean, if by “political” you happen to mean whatever government happens to do right now, then sure, you’re right. If by “political” you mean “what government should do”, then no,

                      You just agreed with me, admitting your lengthy comments and insults are entirely wrong. Big of you.

                      In the political realm, philosophy deals with principles. Politics is how they are applied

                      Well, when your principle is “don’t initiate force”, then application of your principle in politics ought to be “don’t initiate force”

                      But it’s not!
                      You need laws. That’s politics. NAP says NOTHING about fair elections, qualifications for office, etc. which is politics!

                      NAP is a principle. Fiscally conservative and social liberal is how we explain our politics as different from two major ideologies.We learn “genus and differentia” in high school

                      Your type HATES social liberalism, which exposes your lame “justification” for a big-government agenda.

                      I can’t dumb it down any further. You’ve been stalking me for over a month, I can now post
                      this link and say “this is what he REALLY is, a bully who launches serial aggression, on ignorance.”

                      Socially liberal is tolerant, does not initiate state force. Fiscally liberal REQUIRES initiating force. Hardly rocket science.

                    8. You just agreed with me

                      I’m not sure you understand how humans use words. I “agreed” with you, if you want to think that what we now see in government is libertarian “politics”. I mean, if you want to think that, it wouldn’t be the strangest thing you happen to believe.

                      ME: Well, when your principle is “don’t initiate force”, then application of your principle in politics ought to be “don’t initiate force”

                      YOU: But it’s not! You need laws. That’s politics.

                      And the law should be “don’t initiate force”.

                      NAP says NOTHING about fair elections, qualifications for office, etc. which is politics!

                      I’m an an-cap. I don’t like any government as all government is an initiation of force. So yes, not only does NAP say nothing about these things, it also precludes them.

                      NAP is a principle. Fiscally conservative and social liberal is how we explain our politics as different from two major ideologies.

                      #1, Yes. #2, Only to people who have zero knowledge of what libertarianism is. Afterward that initial sentence, we’d have to explain why we don’t want to enslave bakers or spend more money on “defense”.

                      Your type HATES social liberalism, which exposes your lame “justification” for a big-government agenda.

                      I hate all violations of NAP, government by definition.

                      I can’t dumb it down any further.

                      I’m sure you can.

                    9. You’ve been stalking me for over a month

                      I reply to lots of people when they make incredibly egregious errors in logic. I’ve seen many, many of your posts and didn’t reply because you were either right in your logic or not wrong enough to warrant a reply. This is how I treat all people on this site.

                      Socially liberal is tolerant, does not initiate state force.

                      So enslaving bakers and gun control isn’t socially liberal? Why do you refuse to answer?

                    10. So enslaving bakers and gun control isn’t socially liberal?

                      (sneer) More mindgames. Not all individuals are socially liberal, but the definition of libertarian politics is.

                      Applying negative stereotypes to an entire group is the definition of bigotry, (judging groups not individuals) which aligns with your social conservatism.

                      Your position on abortion is just one example of initiating government force, and why you lie about socially liberal.

                      Your bullshit ignores that both Life and Liberty are unalienable rights, thus precisely equal … along with all the other unalienable rights … based on the definition of unalienable … so that’s yet another word that extreme socon play mind games with … to deny their love of big government. But to be fair, most of them are eager to be brainwashed,.creating the fantasy that they are not fascists

                    11. Not all individuals are socially liberal, but the definition of libertarian politics is.

                      No, it still isn’t. The politics of a libertarian is to follow NAP and punish violations of it.

                      Applying negative stereotypes to an entire group is the definition of bigotry

                      Yes, and you call me “Christian Taliban”.

                      Your position on abortion is just one example of initiating government force, and why you lie about socially liberal.

                      Since you brought it up…

                      The human within the woman has rights, and killing it violates NAP, and part of the purpose of libertarian politics is to punish violations of NAP. Ergo, if there is one purpose for government (and there isn’t one) it is this.

                      The best you can do with “socially liberal” is claim that all issues contained within the term happen to coincide with NAP, when they most obviously don’t.

                      And knock off the nonsense about me being a socon and a big government lover. I want less government than you do.

                      -An-Cap

                    12. Snicker …. too funny

                      Hihn: Ummm, (fiscally conservative and sociailly liberal) that’s been the definition of libertarian for only 40 years now.
                      .
                      liar: No, it never has been. In fact during those 40 years, the definitions of ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ have changed significantly.

                      Which is it? Never been or changed

                      liar: Both are true

                      EXISTED AND NEVER EXISTED ARE *BOTH* TRUE?

                      liar: It only existed in your mind. The real definition, don’t initiate force, doesn’t change.

                      All that AND a Christian Taliban?

                      (tone and bold are in self-defense of serial aggression by a stalker)

                    13. You just can’t have a pleasant discussion for very long, now can you? You did pretty well there for a while, so good on you for that.

                      I see that you cannot follow simple logic. The definitions of conservative and liberal have changed over time and libertarian has not. Ergo, the definition of “libertarian” cannot be based upon the definitions of conservative and liberal. You can’t actually argue that simple fact so your brain takes the cognitive dissonance and stirs it up until the output can put your mind at ease but is nonsensical to all sane humans.

                      Your definition of libertarian, ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’, is true only in your mind and in the minds of other confused people. Your definition changes over time as conservatives’ and liberals’ beliefs change.

                      I’ll ask again (and I won’t get an answer, not a direct one, anyway):

                      Do libertarians want to enslave cakemakers? Do we want gun control? Do liberals?

                      Do we want more spending on national “defense”? Do we want more spending on immigration enforcement? Do conservatives?

                      How do you marry up these beliefs?

                    14. My stalker IMPLODES (lol)

                      Original (my emphasis)

                      Not this bullshit ‘fiscally conservative, socially liberal’ ……

                      me:
                      Ummm, that’s been the definition of libertarian for only 40 years now.

                      stalker:
                      No, it never has been. In fact during those 40 years, the definitions of ‘FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE’, SOCIALLY LIBERALl’have changed significantly.

                      Stalker’s 7th revision. (my caps)

                      The definitions of CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL have changed over time and libertarian has not.

                      Poof! FISCALLY and SOCIALLY vanish!

                      The definition of “libertarian” cannot be based upon the definitions of conservative and liberal

                      IT’S NOT!

                      Then he puts them back:

                      Your definition of libertarian, ‘FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, SOCIALLY LIBERAL, is true only in your mind and in the minds of other confused people.

                      CATO INSTITUTE, NICK GILLESPIE (the other day), ADVOCATES FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT, WORLD’S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ, DAVID NOLAN (founder of the Libertarian Party)

                      FISCALLY and SOCIALLY disappear AGAIN

                      Your definition changes over time as CONSERVATIVES’ and LIBERALS’ beliefs change.

                      Fiscal liberals, like Bernie, violate NAP
                      Social conservatives, like Santorum, violate NAP
                      Dumbfuck socons equate SOCIAL liberal with all liberals, to hide their love of big government
                      But I can link this for his next aggression!

                    15. This conversation got really special really quickly.

                      Poof! FISCALLY and SOCIALLY vanish!

                      Yes, “fiscally” and “socially” are modifiers. They modify the words “conservative” and “liberal”. That means that if “conservative” and “liberal” change meanings, then “socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative” change meanings as well.

                      CATO INSTITUTE, NICK GILLESPIE (the other day), ADVOCATES FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT, WORLD’S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ, DAVID NOLAN (founder of the Libertarian Party)

                      Stupid is a stupid does. Appeal to authority.

                      Fiscal liberals, like Bernie, violate NAP
                      Social conservatives, like Santorum, violate NAP

                      Social liberals, like Bernie, violate NAP (gun control, baker enslavement).
                      Fiscal conservatives, like Santorum, violate NAP (‘defense” spending, immigration spending).

                      Dumbfuck socons equate SOCIAL liberal with all liberals, to hide their love of big government

                      Show me a liberal who doesn’t violate NAP on a social issue. Simple, right?

                    16. Stalker: If mean, if by “political” you happen to mean whatever government happens to do right now, then sure, you’re right.

                      You just agreed with me, admitting your lengthy comments and insults are entirely wrong.

                      Stalker: I’m not sure you understand how humans use words

                      “You’re right” means agreement. (snicker)

                    17. Dumbfuck socons equate SOCIAL liberal with all liberals, to hide their love of big government

                      Stalker: Show me a liberal who doesn’t violate NAP on a social issue.

                      Dumbfuck socon does it again! Now TOTALLY out of control,

                      Stalkers NEVER stop attacking … even as big a fool as this entire thread. So collect enough links for the next assault and walk away laughing…

                    18. Show me a liberal who doesn’t violate NAP on a social issue.

                      It’s simple, if you can find one.

                      Show me a conservative who doesn’t violate NAP on a fiscal issue.

                    19. “You’re right” means agreement.

                      Yes, it does, unless the author is being obviously sarcastic.

                      So, again, is it “socially liberal” to want to enslave bakers and to want more gun control or not?

                      Is it “fiscally conservative” to want to spend more on “defense” and immigration control or not?

                      Why do you insist on refusing to answer these simple questions?

                      You do realize that any sane person reading this thread is wondering why I’m wasting my time and wondering how your brain can deal with all the cognitive dissonance you keep forcing on it, right?

                    20. You just can’t have a pleasant discussion for very long, now can you?

                      I posted your own words. If THAT offends you, stay in a “safe zone”

                      Or, why not simply control your potty mouth, which began here, when your first aggression humiliated you. .”

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..nt_6135122

                      If you can’t take the heat ,…

                    21. I posted your own words. If THAT offends you, stay in a “safe zone”

                      You called me a stalker, aggressor, liar, and Taliban. Yes, that precludes pleasant conversation.

                      As for my comment, I stand by it. You hold yourself as the highest authority. You reject all who aren’t you when they dare to disagree with you.

                    22. Now he lies about a comment directly above his! But he’s not a bully!!! (lol)

                      Hihn:
                      I posted your own words. If THAT offends you, stay in a “safe zone … control your potty mouth, which began here, when your first aggression humiliated you. .”

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..nt_6135122

                      stalker
                      You called me a stalker, aggressor, liar, and Taliban

                      If you can’t take the heat ,…

                      Poor baby. Stay in a “safe: zone”
                      NOW YOU DON’T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGGRESSION AND RESPONSE. As the target it is entirely my right to choose my manner of defense.
                      You poor thing.

                      If you can’t take the heat ….

                      Most humans are limited by their own sense of shame … the truly evil have none.

                    23. Now he lies about a comment directly above his!

                      Just like playing checkers with a 3 year old, Hihn changes the rules on the fly. To him a “lie” is what another person says when they disagree with him.

                      Poor baby. Stay in a “safe: zone”

                      It seems that one of us is getting emotional and the other one is writing in bold, italics, and shouting insults.

                    24. Heck of a typo: One of us isn’t getting emotional…

                    25. boldface and tone is response to repeated serial aggression by a cyber-bully, since here

                      Stalker:
                      Your definition of libertarian, ‘FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, SOCIALLY LIBERAL, is true only in your mind and in the minds of other confused people.

                      Hihn:
                      CATO INSTITUTE, NICK GILLESPIE (the other day), ADVOCATES FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT, WORLD’S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ, DAVID NOLAN (founder of the Libertarian Party)

                      Stalker:
                      Stupid is a stupid does. Appeal to authority.

                      SO, the entire libertarian establishment says you’re full of shit ….
                      BUT YOU KNOW BETTER, because (you say)

                      …. That’s an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!!!! (like a dictionary? LOL)
                      …..NONE OF THEM IS EVEN SANE!!! (everyone but you)!
                      ….And I’m STUPID for believing THEM instead of a cyber-bully?

                      LETS’A ALL HAIL THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST!
                      ace_m82. walks among us!!

                      Or ….

                      “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”

                      NewSpeak, the totalitarian mind George Orwells’s 1984
                      The people thus became enslaved.. Like the followers of many current cults

                      Many very extreme social conservatives use NAP (plus brainwashed excuses) to justify their extreme bigotry. When pressed, this thread shows they suffer denial even worse than Birthers. As a matter of faith.

                      One reason the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians (Cato)

                    26. SO, the entire libertarian establishment says you’re full of shit ….

                      Didn’t know that the (small “L”) libertarians had an “establishment”. Either way, logic proves they are wrong.

                      The intellectual dishonesty of your POV must be quite taxing. Answer the questions, if you dare:

                      Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?

                      Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?

                      (Hihn is a great example of what happens when you worship men instead of logic and reason.)

                    27. The entire libertarian establishment is “confused” on what libertarian is.

                      Let’s apply the “logic” of ace_m82
                      It’s not libertarian to initiate force, thus NAP cannot be the definition of libertarian

                      Many very extreme social conservatives use NAP (plus brainwashed excuses) to justify their extreme bigotry. When pressed, this thread shows they suffer denial even worse than Birthers. As a matter of faith.

                      One reason the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians (Cato)

                    28. The entire libertarian establishment is “confused” on what libertarian is.

                      A. There is no libertarian “establishment”.
                      B. If that’s how they define libertarian, they are wrong as proven, several times, by my simple questions.

                      It’s not libertarian to initiate force, thus NAP cannot be the definition of libertarian

                      I really, really want to put you in an fMRI and give you things to read that result in cognitive dissonance and see what your brain does. Science could learn so very much!

                      No, that’s near the precise opposite of what I believe. You have difficulty either reading what violates your beliefs or you simply have reading comprehension problems, full stop.

                      Now, I will ask again:

                      Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?

                      Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?

                    29. Bully: There is no libertarian “establishment”.

                      Denial is not an argument! The universe still exists if you refuse to see it. Again: They ALL say you’re full of shit: CATO, NICK GILLESPIE (the other day), ADVOCATES FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT, WORLD’S SMALLEST POLITICAL QUIZ, DAVID NOLAN (founder of the Libertarian Party)

                      But you know better!

                      Like too many NAPsters and extreme socons, you adopt a self-righteous, holier-than-thou belligerence … bullying others with the same “arguments” that so easily brainwashed you.

                      Bully: Now, I will ask again:
                      Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
                      Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?

                      I will respond again.
                      No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.(DUH)

                      The self-righteous, proclaim themselves to be perfect, even anarchists. They then look down on ANY variation from their perverse versions of libertarianism and Christianity. Like The Inquisition. And Stalin.

                      Your “logic” also has no clue how to establish a free society . You FAIL on the core purpose of a political philosophy ? TO GOVERN! Which starts by getting elected.

                      “No,” you sneer, “As an anarchist, I have no interest in governing.”

                      How do you achieve anarchy? (snicker)

                      Beware of True Believers.

                    30. Denial is not an argument!

                      You’re finally right about something. But, the person making the assertion (“there is a libertarian establishment”) has the burden of proof.

                      I will respond again.
                      No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.(DUH)

                      For the record, this is the first time you’ve answered. I’m honestly not sure if you don’t know that or if you’re being purposely dishonest.

                      So, what is the definition of “socially liberal” except that which liberals believe/desire concerning social issues? (Same question about “fiscally conservative”…) Who actually defines these terms (“socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative”) like this except the libertarians who want this to be the definition of their belief system?

                      What is the majority definition of the term, meaning the way the term is actually used? Go ahead, answer that yours is, prove to any reader how ridiculous your POV is…

                      You FAIL on the core purpose of a political philosophy ? TO GOVERN!

                      No, that’s not it. The core purpose of our political philosophy is to achieve NAP, first by doing it ourselves. As governing (when defined as “telling people how to live through government”) is a violation of NAP itself, then our core purpose would be to stop people from governing.

                      How do you achieve anarchy?

                      Either A. convince people to stop initiating force or B. shooting people who initiating force.

                    31. THE BASICS, one last time..
                      You can;t get into college until you pass kindergarten.

                      Who actually defines these terms (“socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative”

                      (sigh) Defined by David Nolan in 1970. His Nolan Chart shows why left and right don’t say enough. A vertical scale shows where one stands on government force. Both left and right can be above the line (non-aggression)

                      One more time It means non-aggression by government, in both economic and social issues.

                      And WHY all those people say you’re full of shit to claim libertarianism was never defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal

                      what is the definition of “socially liberal” except that which liberals believe/desire concerning social issues?

                      OMG. Pay attention this time
                      Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
                      Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues.

                      Fiscally and socially conservative is … conservative
                      Fiscal and socially liberal is … liberal

                      Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is neither. Thus hated by you extreme social conservatives.

                      AGAIN Liberals want government out of your bedroom but into your wallet.
                      Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.
                      We want government out of everything. NAP is more than your mere slogans

                    32. Part 1
                      We FINALLY see the moral an intellectual bankruptcy of extreme NAPster bullies.
                      There will always be those eager for brainwashing. Watch the doubletalk.

                      Hihn:
                      You FAIL on the core purpose of a political philosophy ? TO GOVERN!

                      No, that’s not it. The core purpose of our political philosophy is to achieve NAP,

                      See the con. He replaces the definition (of everything) with our(his) delimitation. The authoritarian mentality. His way or the highway, Orwell’s Newspeak on steroids!

                      As governing (when defined as “telling people how to live through government”) is a violation of NAP itself, then our core purpose would be to stop people from governing.

                      SEE? He imposes HIS view of anarchy as being libertarianism ? and lying about it all along. And he starts with HIS (anarchist) definition of government,

                      He began with what libertarianism has NEVER been … then why he disagreed with what never existed …. then replacing the real thing with HIS thing. A True Believer, running in desperation.

                      This is extreme anarchy, to match his extreme social conservatism. Both rely on self-righteous bullying by holier-than-thou authoritarians,

                      Continued (includes REAL libertarian anarchy)

                    33. Part 2 bullshit anarchism

                      In 1974, llibertarian anarchists and minarchists agreed on a common goal (Dallas Accord) We’re all on the same train, heading in the same direction, both working together. Minarchists will get off the train first. Anarchists accepted that they will complete the journey alone ?. and cannot get there without passing through monarchy Which is where the bully collapses

                      How do you achieve anarchy?

                      Either A. convince people to stop initiating force or B. shooting people who initiating force.

                      Just start killing government officials and workers, self-defense to the wackos.

                      Ummm, can we go from today’s government, directly to anarchy, by “convincing people” and NEVER ELECTING ANYONE? (snicker)

                      Can he reach his goal WITHOUT first electing anyone to reduce government? (Umm, that’s how you “convince people” in a free society)

                      Merely click your heels for anarchy!! In the mythical Land of Oz

                      Ace_m82, this was all resolved in 1974, SFTU and sit down.
                      At the children’s table.

                      (I’m not even close to being an anarchist, but these bullies have held back, retarded and possibly destroyed the liberty movement … their unholy alliance of extreme anarchists and extreme social conservatives, hysterically advancing their agenda by aggression. Verbal aggression is legitimate, but the same mentality as physical aggression. A compulsion to control others,)

                    34. In 1974, llibertarian anarchists and minarchists agreed on a common goal

                      Just like a “social contract” theorist claims I’ve signed the social contract, Hihn is claiming I’ve agreed to some agreement made before I was born.

                      Just start killing government officials and workers, self-defense to the wackos.

                      You asked and I answered. I’m not saying that I would do it (right now), but it would eventually accomplish what you asked. Quite obviously, libertarianism isn’t really winning through the political process as government hasn’t shrunk in memory. You’re losing and people are becoming more dependent on government every day.

                      Ummm, can we go from today’s government, directly to anarchy, by “convincing people” and NEVER ELECTING ANYONE?

                      Yes, though not without at least a little war (that’s coming one way or another).

                      Can he reach his goal WITHOUT first electing anyone to reduce government? (Umm, that’s how you “convince people” in a free society)

                      I’ve convinced many people of things without electing anyone.

                      extreme anarchists… hysterically advancing their agenda by aggression

                      Speaking of Orwellian speech, you just called those who literally refuse to ever aggress, as their Sine quo non, as being aggressors. It’s really never occurred to you to use words in a consistent manner, has it?

                    35. Out a moron … watch it collapse!!!!

                      In 1974, llibertarian anarchists and minarchists agreed on a common goal

                      Just like a “social contract” theorist claims I’ve signed the social contract, Hihn is claiming I’ve agreed to some agreement made before I was born.

                      MORE diversion and denial! Now claims there were no anarchists until him. (flush)

                    36. Now claims there were no anarchists until him.

                      You have reading comprehension problems. Probably a symptom of your massive case of cognitive dissonance.

                    37. (yawn) Stalker RETURNS …. more bullshit of course

                      Hihn
                      In 1974, llibertarian anarchists and minarchists agreed on a common goal

                      Bully
                      Just like a “social contract” theorist claims I’ve signed the social contract, Hihn is claiming I’ve agreed to some agreement made before I was born.

                      Hihn
                      Now claims there were no anarchists until him.

                      Bully
                      You have reading comprehension problems. Probably a symptom of your massive case of cognitive dissonance.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..nt_6149425

                      (walks away laughing)

                    38. Speaking of Orwellian speech, you just called those who literally refuse to ever aggress, as their Sine quo non, as being aggressors

                      (yawn) Another pathetic lie. I said YOU are a fucking liar and a fraud as a NAPster, and I proved it. Your aggression was launched here.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..nt_6135122

                      One more time. Verbal aggression is legitimate free speech, but so is “Fuck you, ni**er, and it conveys the same mentality as physical aggression. Control. Imposed conformity. Thuggery.

                      If anyone drops in late, click that link and then scroll down to here too see a bully and an aggressor who keeps humiliating himself.

                      See how the dumbass even reverses his original attack after being smooshed … then launches an attack for the opposite reason!!

                      This one is a double psycho … an extreme social conservative (Christian Taliban) ,, and a phony anarchist (rejecting libertarian anarchism).

                    39. One more time. Verbal aggression is legitimate free speech…

                      Coming from someone who attacks everyone with the surname “Paul” every chance he gets, this is a classic case of projection. I told you that you were wrong and then proved it. You further proved it by changing the definitions of words you use in the same post!

                      And speaking of changing definitions of words in the same post, you use “aggression” to mean something like “verbal attacks”. Fair enough use, though that’s not what I was doing. But then, in the same post, you conflate that to the use of “aggression” in NAP, which is the initiation of force, noting verbal. You are intellectually dishonest in the worst way.

                      Now as to whether or not I’m an “actual” anarchist, well, I don’t use government to initiate force against anyone. You, on the other hand, know that libertarianism seeks to prevent the use of government to initiate force, but then you desire to “govern”, aka control people, and say you are the one true libertarian.

                      I can’t possibly see how this makes sense even in your own mind.

                      If you keep up this nonsense, I will just keep quoting your own words as I did below. You took 2 whole posts to commit 2 fallacious logical inconsistencies and you absolutely refuse to see that is indeed what you’ve done. This entire chain of comments has been a gold mine for me to link to (turnabout is fair play) just in case you insist on making the same error in a future argument. Thank you!

                    40. And speaking of changing definitions of words in the same post, you use “aggression” to mean something like “verbal attacks”.

                      http://oregonstate.edu/instruc…..ssive.html

                    41. Psycho stalker f*cks his own ass again!!

                      One more time. Verbal aggression is legitimate free speech…

                      Coming from someone who attacks everyone with the surname “Paul” every chance he gets, this is a classic case of projection

                      FIFTH REPEAT. VERBAL AGRESSION IS LEGIIMATE FREE SPEECH (LOL)

                      And you finally confirmed why NAP was rejected for libertarianism.
                      It “justifies” imposing your BIGOTRY by government force … for you, as a Christnan Ayatollah and a follower of the Paulista cult

                      “On, but,” the puppets blurt. “it’s not initiating force to deny marriage equality.”
                      Precisely, you dumbfuck fascist

                      Ron Paul says “rogue judges” struck down DOMA. He defends states against federal intrusion. Ummmm, DOMA imposed a federal definition of marriage over states, DUH.
                      He will use ANY LEVEL of government, with any excuse, to impose his bigotry
                      And cult of bobbleheads nods in agreement. Like drinking Kool aid at Jonestown!

                      Throughout human history, the worst abuses have been committed by those brainwashed to believe they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous

                      Thus his months of stalking, aggression, personal insults and hatred
                      He’s doing “the Lord’s work.” Hallelujah

                      Are you clear yet on what “legitimate free speech” means.
                      (walks away sneering)

                    42. We FINALLY see the moral an intellectual bankruptcy of extreme NAPster bullies.

                      Interesting, you see the core libertarian principle too “extreme” to actually do in a logically consistent manner. Yet you said:

                      One more time It means non-aggression by government, in both economic and social issues….
                      We want government out of everything.

                      So which one is it?

                      This is extreme anarchy

                      Anarchy means “without archon (government)” or zero government. “Extreme anarchy” would seem to be a meaningless distinction, as it would be an “extreme” zero government.

                      Both rely on self-righteous bullying by holier-than-thou authoritarians

                      I’m the precise opposite of an authoritarian. I want to use government to do nothing and use the market to punish violations of NAP (in proportion to the violation). You, on the other hand, want to “govern” (read: control) at least part of people’s life, even if it’s only theft through taxation and using force-of-arms to prevent people from seeking justice through another method. On the continuum of authoritarians, I’m on the zero side, as far as you can go (“extreme anarchy”, remember?) and you are somewhere closer to the center.

                    43. Retarded? denial? PROOF!

                      We FINALLY see the moral an intellectual bankruptcy of extreme NAPster bullies.

                      Interesting, you see the core libertarian principle too “extreme” to actually do in a logically consistent manner.

                      RETARD ALERT!!
                      “Extreme NAPster bullies” are no all NAPsters, Same way he fucked up libertarianism. Confuses concepts with individuals.

                      Done with this one

                    44. “Extreme NAPster bullies” are no all NAPsters

                      If it’s a principle, heck the principle on which libertarianism is based, then holding to it in an “extreme” manner is no vice.

                      Done with this one

                      If I were as consistently wrong as you are I would have quit a long time ago.

                    45. (laughing harder)

                      Hihn
                      We FINALLY see the moral an intellectual bankruptcy of extreme NAPster bullies.

                      dumbfuck stalker
                      Interesting, you see the core libertarian principle too “extreme” to actually do in a logically consistent manner

                      (snicker)Read your own comment, Slick
                      I said “extreme NAPster bullies” — that’s you — are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
                      And you just proved it AGAIN!!!!
                      (walks away snearing at the aggessor)

                    46. Rather than responding to your constantly multiplying “replies” that are no more coherent than a bowl of alphabet spaghetti and prove that you both cannot understand what words mean and also use words differently as you go along, I’ll just quote you again:

                      Fiscally and socially conservative is … conservative
                      Fiscal and socially liberal is … liberal
                      Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is neither.

                      Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
                      Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues.

                      Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
                      Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?
                      Hihn: No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.

                      There are actually two fallacies in here, if you can see them both.
                      #1, That “socially liberal” is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with “fiscally conservative”).
                      #2, That “socially liberal” is what liberals believe on social issues, but that apparently doesn’t include enslaving bakers or wanting gun control.

                      Every time you reply, you’re just giving all readers more reason not to believe your insane ramblings. You committed 2 fallacies in 2 posts, within 48 hours of each other (one entire fallacy contained in a single post, quite the accomplishment).

                    47. All squirrels are animals, but not all animals are squirrels
                      Anyone else confused on that?? (lol)

                      Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.

                      #2, That “socially liberal” is what liberals believe on social issues, but that apparently doesn’t include enslaving bakers or wanting gun control.

                      LOL Socially liberal is what liberals believe on social issues.
                      Is NOT the same as everything liberals say being socially liberal
                      Like all squirrels are animals, but not all animals are squirrels (snort)

                      EIGHTH REPEAT FOR THE STALKER: SOCIALLY LIBERAL MEANS KEEPING GOVERNMENT OUT OF SOCIAL ISSUES
                      Fiscally conservative means keeping government out of fiscal issues

                      Second repeat
                      And you finally confirmed why NAP was rejected for libertarianism.
                      It “justifies” imposing your BIGOTRY by government force … as a Christnan Ayatollah AND a follower of the Paulista cult

                      “Oh, but,” the mindless puppets belch. “it’s not initiating force to deny marriage equality.”
                      Precisely, you dumbfuck fascist

                    48. (yawn)

                      me
                      The purpose of the 9th amendment is to protect unenumerated rights

                      stalker
                      such as the right to property, ergo the right to not have that property stolen by government.

                      that’s an enumerated right. 4th and 5th Amendments, ergo dumbass.

                      Apparently not, because the Supreme Court thinks that Eminent domain means the government can steal your land.

                      (laughing )
                      1 )Enumerated means listed in the Constitution, not rulings, ergo dumbass.
                      2)Eminent domain is in the 5th Amendment I cited. ergo, dumbass ? “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’

                      your fascist denial of a woman’s unalienable rights

                      No-one has the right to murder.

                      5th request: Why do you reject a woman’s unalienable right to liberty ? since all unalienable rights are equal ? by definition

                      6th request: Where do you find your wacko claim:
                      “the legitimate powers that government has come from the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent and you have anarchy. The 9th amendment recognizes the right of the people to do so at will.

                      9TH AMENDMENT; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

                      7th request Why do you deny that all unalienable rights are co-equal, by definition?

                    49. Why are you replying to that now, on an entirely different thread? Haven’t you been proven wrong enough here? But sure…

                      Why do you reject a woman’s unalienable right to liberty

                      5th reply, no-one has a right to murder, ergo I do not deny anyone’s unalienable rights.

                      Where do you find your wacko claim:…

                      The Bill of Rights + simple logic.

                      Why do you deny that all unalienable rights are co-equal, by definition?

                      They are, or more specifically the one right to not have others initiate force against them is equal from one human to another (all “rights” stem from this one right).

                      So you don’t have the right to initiate force and neither does anyone, regardless of which sex they are.

                      Is it that you’ve realized that you cannot respond to this topic without recreating another fallacy so you’ve decided to restart another argument that you’ve already lost? I highly doubt you are that self-aware, I think you’re too stubborn to quit.

                      It’s not a bad thing to have been proven wrong, it’s a bad thing to remain wrong afterwards.

                    50. Why do you reject a woman’s unalienable right to liberty

                      5th reply, no-one has a right to murder,

                      THE QUESTION IS LIBERTY, Why do you deny a woman’s unalienable right to LIBERTY?

                      HOW DARE YOU DEFY THE WILL OF GOD?

                      “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
                      -Declaraiton of Independence e

                      Why do you deny that all unalienable rights are co-equal, by definition?

                      They are, or more specifically the one right to not have others initiate force against them is equal from one human to another . ON WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU DENY JEFFERSON AND THE FOUNDERS?

                      On what authority do you AGAIN deny that all unalienable rights are equal. by definition?

                    51. THE QUESTION IS LIBERTY, Why do you deny a woman’s unalienable right to LIBERTY?

                      I don’t. You have no “liberty” to murder.

                      Why do you deny that all unalienable rights are co-equal, by definition?

                      This one can be solved by simple copy/paste…

                      They are, or more specifically the one right to not have others initiate force against them is equal from one human to another (all “rights” stem from this one right).

                      So you don’t have the right to initiate force and neither does anyone, regardless of which sex they are.

                      (Further proof you cannot see anything that defies your preconceived notions…)

                    52. SOCIALLY LIBERAL MEANS KEEPING GOVERNMENT OUT OF SOCIAL ISSUES…

                      Previously: Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.

                      You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen. Liberals keep government out of social issues.

                      Why should anyone believe you if you can’t even keep your own definitions straight?

                      it’s not initiating force to deny marriage equality

                      You must have me confused with someone else.

                    53. psycho liar

                      SOCIALLY LIBERAL MEANS KEEPING GOVERNMENT OUT OF SOCIAL ISSUES…

                      You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen. Liberals keep government out of social issues

                      READ YOUR OWN POST! (laughing) Social liberals.

                      On what authority do you deny a woman’s unalienable right to liberty?
                      On what authority do deny that all fundamental rights are equal to each other, by definition.

                      The Christian Taliban … still ttreating women ;llke property

                    54. READ YOUR OWN POST! (laughing) Social liberals.

                      You honestly cannot see the fallacy here, can you?

                      Let me walk you through it:

                      Socially liberal is what liberals believe on social issues.

                      Restated, what liberals believe on social issues is “socially liberal”.

                      SOCIALLY LIBERAL MEANS KEEPING GOVERNMENT OUT OF SOCIAL ISSUES…

                      So, what liberals believe on social issues is “socially liberal” and “socially liberal” means keeping government out of social issues. Therefore, liberals believe in keeping government out of social issues.

                      (This is the transitive property. If a = b and b = c, then a = c)

                      Now, we know that liberals don’t believe in keeping government out of social issues. Ergo, your logic is wrong somewhere.

                    55. The Nolan Chart is wrong. Socialists don’t want more personal freedom and Conservatives con’t always want more economic freedom. I don’t need to disprove what is ridiculous.

                      One more time It means non-aggression by government, in both economic and social issues.

                      Then why is NAP not the definition? It’s much more simple (doesn’t require several steps to get there) and doesn’t confuse everyone.

                      you’re full of shit to claim libertarianism was never defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal

                      I didn’t say it was never defined that way, I said it was incorrectly defined as such. People could define “dark” as “as bright as possible” but that wouldn’t make it so.

                      Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
                      Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues.

                      No, it isn’t. Liberals want to enslave bakers and want gun control. Conservatives want to spend more on immigration enforcement and “defense”.

                      Thus hated by you extreme social conservatives.

                      I’m an An-Cap. I don’t want government to exist. Whether I recognize the LORD as God doesn’t actually affect you in any way, unless you happen to initiate force against those I’m to protect. So, live the way you claim you want to and we have no quarrel.

                    56. The bully continues collapsing,

                      The Nolan Chart is wrong.

                      COWARDLY EVASION. Here’s what I said

                      He began with what libertarianism has NEVER been … then why he disagreed with what never existed …

                      He began assaulting me by saying “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” has NEVER defined libertarian. Now it is the defintion, but he disagrees,

                      Socialists don’t want more personal freedom

                      Unless they’re SOCIALLY LIBERAL (bwaaaa haaaaa)

                      NOW HE QUOTES ME … BUT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT I SAID!

                      tSocially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
                      Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues.

                      No, it isn’t. Liberals want to enslave bakers and want gun control.

                      Not SOCIAL liberals, Sluggo. Why keep repeating memorized slogans?

                      Conservatives want to spend more on immigration enforcement and “defense”.

                      Not FISCAL conservatives.

                      Then why is NAP not the definition?

                      NOBODY SAID THAT
                      One more time, reality does NOT disappear if you refuse to see it.

                      We’re watching a manipulated puppet, who repeats memorized slogans, incapable of thinking,
                      So he shoots the messenger. Like all bullies,

                      Stop whining and be a man. Do you still say “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” has NEVER defined libertarian?

                    57. Rather than responding directly to this word soup, I’ll just quote you:

                      Fiscally and socially conservative is … conservative
                      Fiscal and socially liberal is … liberal
                      Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is neither.

                      Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
                      Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues.

                      Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
                      Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?
                      Hihn: No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.

                      There are actually two fallacies in here, if you can see them both.
                      #1, That “socially liberal” is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with “fiscally conservative”).
                      #2, That “socially liberal” is what liberals believe on social issues, but that apparently doesn’t include enslaving bakers or wanting gun control.

                      Honestly, it I were you I’d just quit while you’re behind. You cannot keep to a consistent definition of the words you use. It’s like playing checkers with a 3 year old, the rules keep changing.

                    58. but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with “fiscally conservative”).

                      27th time Libertarianism is both together AGAIN per my words that YOU quote!

                      Rather than responding directly to this word soup, I’ll just quote you:

                      Fiscally and socially conservative is … conservative
                      Fiscal and socially liberal is … liberal
                      Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is neither

                      Anyone else confused by that?

                      Again, extreme social conservative …seeking to impose his social values through government force … while claiming to support NAP … must lie and evade what it means to be libertarian.

                      Even screeching that these people are WRONG about the definition of libertarian … wait for it …
                      Cato Institute, Nick Gillespie just recently, Advocates for Self Government, World’s Smallest Political Quiz ,… even David Nolan founder of the Libertarian Party and Nolan Chart.

                      While he’d defend a father allowing his own son to starve to death
                      Stalking me for over a month because I publicly demolished his pro-life fallacy.
                      “Revenge is NOT mine,” sayeth his lord, the antichrist

  11. “already put in a statutory scheme of spreading the wealth around with a redistributive formula for financing education that went as far as was politically feasible: You have to get the votes in the Legislature. My Secretary of Education at the time was a woman, a native Cuban, who had been in the hills of Cuba with Fidel and Che in 1958. The joke around the statehouse was that this was the most Communist piece of legislation sponsored by a Republican administration in a long time.”

    “Not a true Scotsman” doesn’t begin to define *that* stand. I’m sure it came with a 5-year plan.

    1. MORE hysteria. All they did was make education a statewide per-pupil-funded program. It does make sense to those who understand school funding. State and federal funding, combined, are much greater than local funding. I don’t know Mass, but that was true way back in the 80s when I was on a school board.

      With a few targeted exceptions, all state and federal funding is per-pupil. This appears to make the local funding equal across the state, which makes school choice more viable in many more communities. And it makes not a jot of difference to the local taxes. So …….???

  12. To be honest – this guy sounds horrible.

    He’s obviously not a libertarian. Not even libertarian leaning. There is simply no way to pair ‘small government’ with ‘redistributive justice’.

    ‘Taxation is theft and so we have a moral duty to keep it to a minimum’ is just a WTF statement. Its something said by a guy who has no idea what ‘moral duty’ means. He’s like Trump – he says shit that he thinks will resonate with his current audience without regard to whether or not it even makes sense.

    Oh, and he’s perfectly fine with a massive and unaccountable bureaucracy (headquartered a thousand miles away from the property they’re ‘managing’) controlling somewhere around 50% of the West – because he doesn’t understand *incentives* or what ‘tragedy of the commons’ means. BLM and its peers do not have any incentive to manage their lands ‘in the best interests of the people’ not only because there is on such thing as ‘the people’ (which a libertarian should know) but also because its not ‘the people’ signing their paychecks – its the pols in Washington. So the lands will be managed in the best interest of those politicians.

    1. No. No, FUCK NO. This guy does not need to be VP for a Libertarian candidate – I don’t even understand why he’s seeking that position as he obviously has pretty much no respect for personal liberty.

      IMO, and I don’t know jack about the third candidate, if Johnson or MacAfee got the nod, their best candidate for VP would be the other. MacAfee/Johson or Johnson/MacAfee – both bring goods to the table that the other can use and neither comes with the policy bullshit that Weld does.

      1. I think I’m totally on board with the ‘No. No. FUCK NO’ thing here. Yeah, I’m totally on board. WTF, Gary? You’re dead to me.

      2. i completely agree. those are my two favorites, and the ways they contrast with each other could help immensely. it is definitely the best option, that is visible to me

        when i see the write up on Weld, i have to say WTF?! this guy does not seem even close to libertarian… he has a record of supporting big government and redistribution…. he is a republican that even a lot of hard core republicans would have a hard time supporting. even, on the off chance this was successful… and it pulls some GOP support for this one election… it will alienate us form the very middle we represent, and severely tarnish what being libertarian means.

    2. You’re speakjn for about 5% of the electorate.
      If Gary’s smart he’ll target the 59% who are Nolan libertarians (fiscally conservative and socially liberal) 91% of whom reject libertarianism (the ideology) (Cato survey)

    3. This explanation may cool your unfounded hysteria.

      https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..nt_6136518

  13. Enough with the shingles commercials, TV people!

  14. I understand the LP will have infighting between the pragmatics and the radicals and the cosmos/yokels but couldn’t they settle for more than “Good for a New England Republican”?

    1. Are you joking? I mean seriously? Is that, what the fuck is that?

      1. Weld’s status as a libertarian think tank favorite was because he was regarded as less shitty than a typical New England politician?

        1. The case for Romney maybe, but for a libertarian VP candidate?

          1. That was what I was trying to say? Weld being less shitty than your typical New England Republican is one thing but not what I would expect from a Libertarian Party?

            Well if we are going for a Massachusetts Republican why not someone more like Calvin Coolidge?

            1. Because there is no Mass Repubs like Coolidge? I suspect if you really want to make your name as a libertarian Republican, Massholio is not on the consideration list.

          2. Frankly, if anyone expected a third party to win big in November, it’s going to be a GOP alternative candidate.

            1. I’ll vote for Rand if he runs third party. And I fully expect him to NOT pull any brain dead bullshit like Johnson just pulled.

              1. You mean like some of the brain-dead shit he pulled in the GOP race where he repudiated some of the stuff that made him even moderately palatable to libertarians and trotted out the stuff that turns them off? The stuff where he de-emphasized what made him different and emphasized what made him just like all the rest?

              2. You mean the Rand Paul who showed that his father’s coalition is too flaky to be expanded?
                Rand did great and proper outreach at Berkeley and elsewhere, on civil liberties and non-intervention … then pissed it all away by calling for religious tent revivals against marriage equality,

                Talk about politically inept. That was the worst strategy since General Custer.

        2. Largely that even w a heavily D legislature, he was able to get some cuts…for a while. That plus he’s a policy wonk, and some of his wonking happens to work in a libertarian direction, plus he made enemies with the GOP nationally re the drug war while earning their respect. He’s a maverick! There must be something to that!

          20-30 yrs. ago all it took to get heavy consider’n from organized libertarians was to be against some facets of the wars on drugs. It was such a rare thing for pols to deviate from the consensus on that it was weighted very heavily in the eyes of libertarians. Still is today, except that what was cutting edge then isn’t any more (because of progress re pot & OTC syringes), which means that very soon it becomes an extreme outlier position again, because who’s going to advocate anything more than possibly loosening up on painkiller prescribing?

          1. Doctrinaire Libertarians have never been able to select 5 or 6 key positions that are most likely to win votes and have a chance to be adopted. This is the deadly fallacy of being the Party of Principle. It’s like going to an auto dealer and the salesman teaches you how the internal combustion engine works.

            Local libertarians know better, which why several thousand are in local elected office. Much better than the old days, when they ran for City Council by campaigning for repeal of the federal income tax , or military nonintervention.. (TRUE!)

        3. Largely that even w a heavily D legislature, he was able to get some cuts…for a while. That plus he’s a policy wonk, and some of his wonking happens to work in a libertarian direction, plus he made enemies with the GOP nationally re the drug war while earning their respect. He’s a maverick! There must be something to that!

          20-30 yrs. ago all it took to get heavy consider’n from organized libertarians was to be against some facets of the wars on drugs. It was such a rare thing for pols to deviate from the consensus on that it was weighted very heavily in the eyes of libertarians. Still is today, except that what was cutting edge then isn’t any more (because of progress re pot & OTC syringes), which means that very soon it becomes an extreme outlier position again, because who’s going to advocate anything more than possibly loosening up on painkiller prescribing?

    1. You fucked Link!

        1. What a great movie

    2. Insufficiently precise URL. But then this happened.

  15. Is there no evil men will not do?

    FiveThirtyEight finds column inches with one of the most pointless articles ever.

    1. Are men sabotaging youtube dislikes on the Ghostbusters trailer?

    2. He says sex and the city is aimed at women. Does he have a cite for that?

    3. That article made my menstrual cramps start

    4. Now, if men didn’t feel compelled to crap on shows that plainly aren’t aimed at them, this might not be a problem.

      So the crux of it is that some viewers don’t deserve a voice because they turn out in a higher proportion.

      Okay, thanks, Walt.

    5. So, we need government intervention in IMDB, right? Only reviewers who match the target demographic can review.

      Frankly, I’m just surprised that men rated Sex and the City a 5.8. Way too fucking high.

      Zero point zero.

  16. OK OK OK

    I got it. Government is a necessary Evil.

    Nevertheless, we don’t need to tax everyone to pay for it.
    People can pay for the services they need.
    And, instead of taxes, people can voluntarily give money towards those that can’t afford government service.
    You know, charity.

    1. Alice Bowie (is back)|5.18.16 @ 10:09PM|#
      “OK OK OK
      I got it. Government is a necessary Evil.
      Nevertheless, we don’t need to tax everyone to pay for it.”

      Once again, Alice proves himself incapable of understanding simple concepts.
      Now, this could be willful ignorance, in that (like commie kid) Alice does understand, but then, in a warped attempt at cleverness, feigns not to.
      But given Alice’s record, even that elver of stupidity is doubtful; it seems Alice is just fucking stupid.

      1. Sevo, have u been using too much aderall. You appear to have no serotonin left.

        Lighten up !!!

        Besides, don’t you believe “All taxation is Theft”?

        If so, why not eliminate taxes and have government funded by fees and charitable contributions ?

        1. Still too much government.

          Drowning it in the bathtub was too charitable. Crushing like a roach is better.

        2. Alice Bowie (is back)|5.18.16 @ 10:30PM|#
          “Sevo, have u been using too much aderall. You appear to have no serotonin left.
          Lighten up !!!”

          Alice!!! You’re full of shit!!! And for a second opinion, stupid, besides!!!

  17. Ya’ll want a libertarian with ballz and who can speak? I hope this guy doesn’t scare you too much. Apparently, he’s too crazy to be welcomed in polite libertarians circles.

    Adam Kokesh

    1. I like him, but his speaking style is like 100 full throttle at all times based on that speech. Need to build to it.

      1. He is pretty high energy.

        1. He would have been a hero in 1770, now he’s a crazy. I personally really like the guy, always have.

          1. And we have to have someone like that in the libertarian party, not everyone can be the calm and compromising Rand Paul. We need Kokesh, we actually need thousands of him.

            1. Rand Paul’s Samuel Adams?

    2. No.

      He sounds fine on a few things, then he goes full retard.

      I think the way he was arrested for his gun-right antics was horrible, and i think he should be defended from certain criticism in the “extremism in defense of liberty”-type way… but otherwise? i can’t stand to hear the guy talk. Adam vs the World was not a good look.

      1. There were a few derp points to me about consumerism and such.

        1. I think Hyp is right that “we need people like him”… he’s enthusiastic and seems to bridge a gap between the Occupy Wall St and the Malheur Occupiers in a way… speaks to both audiences… but a bit too “Alex Jonesey”, shall we say. A good, well intentioned dude, but prone to excess.

  18. Who is the milf on Srange Inheritances? I don’t like blonds much, but what a rack this girl has.

  19. Socially liberally/fiscally conservative is in theory supposed to be the best elements of both parties yet in practice it seems to be the worse parts of both parties…

    1. Funnily enough the worst elements of both parties, no matter how much lip-service they pay to the concepts, are neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal.

      1. Depends on what you mean by “liberal”. If you mean “leave everyone alone” (something that even Reason glosses over when speaking of “social liberalism”) then yes. If you mean “force everyone to have the right values” on the other hand…

  20. I think we get a good idea of what “economically conservative and socially liberal” means in practice.

    Sure, they’re economic conservatives, but on the *social issue* of redistributive justice in education, they want to spread the wealth around (which of course is the same phrase Obama used with Joe the Plumber, but let’s not get hung up on that).

    Sure, they’re economic conservatives, but on the *social issue* of fairness for women, they’re for mandatory family leave.

    Sure, they’re economic conservatives, but on the *social issue* of gay rights they will force bakers to make gay cakes. If that means forcing small businesses run by religious families out of business, that’s not economics, it’s just breaking a few eggs to make a…cake.

    I think it’s time to rethink the entire “economic conservative, socially liberal” paradigm. Social liberals can’t be conservative, and they can’t be real liberals either (if we’re using the term “liberal” to mean concerned with liberty).

    1. “Economically conservative and socially liberal” was pretty much always a reactionary appeal to a non-existent 1960s-1970s era past. Looking at Nixon/Ford and LBJ/Carter shows what those two terms meant in practice.

    2. The term socially liberal should be replaced with snobbishly liberal.

    3. Can you see the clear, bright dividing line between social issues and economic issues in the examples above?

      Neither can I.

      1. It would barely matter because even if we did have a clear division, the ‘liberal’ left’s solution to those social problems is always more government. There is no issue progressives are reliable allies of libertarians on because their end goals is always to force compliance.

    4. What it means in practice is that the politician claiming to be so is either flat-out lying or has so many ‘buts’, ‘ifs’, ‘whens’ and so on because they’ve never actually examined their core principles – if they had they’d have realized that they are either not fiscally conservative or socially liberal or not both.

    5. “Economically conservative and socially liberal” is different than what you describe, which is “economically conservative and socially progressive.”

      1. Only, socially liberal these days is socially progressive. They might as well be synonymous since most of the people who consider themselves the former fall into the latter camp.

        1. Reminds of when Zeb complains about how there are no liberals anymore and complains that Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ were not liberals. He seems to be referring to a definition of “liberal” that hasn’t been around for over a century yet acts as if these “liberals” existed during his lifetime.

          1. Mort Sahl said 40 yrs. ago that there are no more liberals, there are only social democrats.

      2. To repeat what I said above, “Social liberals can’t be conservative, and they can’t be real liberals either (if we’re using the term “liberal” to mean concerned with liberty).”

      3. Seems the term “social liberal” originally referred to those Edwardian Liberals who rejected laissez faire. And they were big social reformers at that The term “social liberal” as used by Reason and other libertarian has always been referring to a non-existent tendency.

        1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

          In American political usage, however, the term “social liberalism” describes progressive stances on socio-political issues like abortion, same-sex marriage or gun control, as opposed to “social conservatism”.

          The third issue is unlibertarian and for the first two the liberals are far from “leaving people alone” on them.

          1. I’m mostly pro-choice, with reservations that I think are better addressed privately between individuals than through public policy.

            I have no doubt that, given enough latitude on the issue, progressives will reintroduce eugenics within a generation.

            1. Will should be would. Given enough latitude, they would.

  21. Johnson/ Weld 2016

    “Spread the Wealth Around”

      1. And yet the proponent of that very plan himself refused to follow it.

        Progessivism – plans so good you need to force others, at gunpoint, to execute them and work hard as hell to not have to live by yourself.

  22. 90+% of those who have ever voted for an LP candidate for president have never joined the LP, sent in a check, or remained interested beyond election day. They are protest votes for the most part. Running a “real libertarian” with no credentials won’t likely attract even more protest voters and won’t do much for the LP in the long run. I wish Richard Winger could chime in with an analysis of how many states would be in play for future automatic ballot status if the LP candidate could draw A,B or C% of the votes. Perhaps 2016 is the year to play for future ballot status so the grind and expense of ballot drives could to better use in 2018 and 2020?

    1. You want to goose those percentages?

      Knowles/Ritchie 2016!

        1. She’ll turn 35 this year, according to Wikipedia, and that’s the minimum age for President.

        2. Why didn’t you just Bae so?

    2. Then the LP should draft Romney

    3. creech|5.18.16 @ 10:33PM|#
      “90+% of those who have ever voted for an LP candidate for president have never joined the LP, sent in a check, or remained interested beyond election day.”

      As it should be.
      Politics should be worth about 1/365th of our attention. It’s the janitor of the world, and should clean up on Aisle 6 when someone drops a box of cereal and STFU otherwise.
      I used to send checks and ‘joined’, but after a bit of reflection, I wondered why I had to ‘join’ a goddam political party. Not even the Ds or Rs require ‘joining’; you just vote.
      Not sure what your intent is for the candidates, but I hold firm to the theory that I’d rather vote for what I want and lose than the alternative. Starchild ain’t on the June SF ballot r he’d get my vote. Other than that, I voted against every spending measure (all were to cover ‘shortfalls’ from the former measures that somehow got spent elsewhere) and I think there was an anti-Kamala Harris candidate that got my vote (I sent it last week, and like I say, it was due that much attention).

  23. These aspirants for the Libertarian nomination remind me of link text“this guy.

  24. One would think that all the hatred towards Trump and Hillary would had made someone like Gary Johnson a great alternative for both Dems and Republicans.

    1. “One would think that all the hatred towards Trump and Hillary would had made someone like Gary Johnson a great alternative for both Dems and Republicans.”

      He ain’t offering free shit, which is what drives the majority of the voters.

  25. Governor Weld: as an unrepentant professional thief, how ought you be punished?

  26. Hmm, I didn’t see the free market enslave folks for 100 years, and then create the black codes in 1866, followed by jim crow which lasted for another 99 years, only to create a drug war that goes on till this day. That along with stealing half of everyones incomes after the fed and state are through with folks.

    Oh, don’t forget the well over 70 plus interventions into foreign lands that occurred in the name of “freedom”, which the result has been less of it.

    Slaves like Alice and Winston will never get it. They believe the douchebags on “their side” are benevolent, and can rarely do wrong. these are the folks that call themselves compassionate, while advocating robbery, coercion, and extortion take place against others. Of course they would never engage in those acts themselves. They know they would face consequenaes for their actions. This could be kung fu, a dog, knives, or firearms (which they want reatricted so badly). That is why they don’t rob their neighbors and “redistribute” the stolen money to others.

    They get to hide behind the politicians, who hide behind their own standing armies. Who seriously thinks Harry Reid or John Boehnor would be capable of extorting someone? They might make it past one gate, until they get the shit kicked out of them and get left in the road.

    They are the ones who allow the likes of pol pot, hitler, mao, stalin, etc. and all these other douchebags to rise to great power as they lick their boots in support.

    1. Slaves like Alice and Winston will never get it. They believe the douchebags on “their side” are benevolent, and can rarely do wrong. these are the folks that call themselves compassionate, while advocating robbery, coercion, and extortion take place against others.

      I would like to see links to the posts where I said those things…

    2. Malcolm x was murdered by a bunch of blacks that felt that Mr X was simply NOT RACIST ENOUGH.
      George Wallace was left Paralyzed by a White Man that felt that Georgie was simply NOT RACIST ENOUGH.
      Itzhak Rabin was murdered by a Jew that felt that Mr Rabin was simply NOT RACIST ENOUGH.

      Poor Alice Bowie (A very left-leaning libertarian) is frequently thrown under the bus for simply being NOT LIBERTARIAN ENOUGH.

      1. Unlike the other three, you keep coming back.

        1. Not True, George Wallace lived for years after being shot.

            1. Don’t we wish Alice was…

              1. Not really. All commenters are welcome.

                1. “All commenters are welcome.”

                  Your generosity is appreciated (by some), but Alice, like commie-kid, shows up and posts the same crap regarding libertarians regardless of the number of times people have tried to explain where Alice (and commie-kid) have misunderstood the issues.
                  By now, it is obvious that the mental abilities of the two of them are simply not up to understanding what has been explained, even when folks have attempted it at a very elementary level.
                  I will agree that I have no particular wish that Alice is dead, but I *do* have a wish that Alice would permanently fuck off. Yes, I appreciate that cockroaches are successful as survivors, but I still have no wish to have them around; Alice is at best, vermin.

      2. ‘left-leaning libertarian’? You mean a big-government socialist?

  27. Johnson isn’t a libertarian. He’s more of a Michael Huffington Republican. His VP pick confirms this.

    1. So he’s gay and his wife will create a bunch of leftist sites?

    2. ProLifeLibertarian
      Johnson isn’t a libertarian.

      Umm, does ProLifeLibertarian (sic) advocate government force to violate the rights of pregnant women, whose unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal ta fetal child’s unalienable right to Life?

      That’s what unalienable means, by definition. Or were Jefferson and the Founders functionally illiterate? Hmmm, which side is defending liberty, and which is demanding government force in defiance of individual rights?

      1. If you recognize that an unborn child is a living human being, then you also recognize that one of the govermment’s (few) roles is to protect that life.

        If you believe that GJ is a better libertarian than me, then I have to assume that freedom of conscience, drone strikes, Guantanamo, foreign military engagements, and burqa bans are of secondary concern to you. Add in Weld, and that equation also includes gun control, affirmative action, campaign finance “reform”, and criminal justice/drug reform. All issues I’m a libertarian on, and all issues that GJ/Weld turn their backs on.

        1. “Or were Jefferson and the Founders functionally illiterate?”

          If you recognize that an unborn child is a living human being, then you also recognize that one of the government’s (few) roles is to protect that life.

          If you accept the founding principle of unalienable rights, then you accept that government defends ALL rights equally.

          If you believe that GJ is a better libertarian than me,…

          “But he did it first, Mommy!”

          All issues I’m a libertarian on

          I really don’t care which of you has the longer dick.
          You deny the founding concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights … presumably for every person in America. A number FAR greater than the number of fetuses. (Just comparing heresies, since all individuals and all fetuses are precisely equal. )

          There are foundational principles and how they are applied. If the principles are correct, then I have more confidence in that person, versus somebody who denies the core principles. But that’s just me (and many others)

        2. Stop feeding it. If you feed it, it just keeps coming back begging for more.

      2. Ha. Even Wikipedia calls Weld a liberal Republican. But sure, I’m the anti-libertarian here.

        1. Ha. Even Wikipedia calls Weld a liberal Republican.

          Ha. Caught you in another one.

          William Floyd Weld … businessman and Libertarian politician from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Weld, a liberal Republican[1] … He then … moved back to his home state of New York, where he ran as both a Libertarian and Republican candidate to be elected Governor of New York in 2006. He was nominated by the Libertarian Party of New York

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

          OOPS! In New York state it’s common to run under two parties, major and ideological. Some run run GOP+Conservative Parties … which is why GOP+Libertarian is called liberal.

          Among conservative ideologues, libertarian Republicans are called liberal (except Reagan and Goldwater). Because, of course, ONLY the “liberal agenda” is pro-choice, or non-interventionists, or defending gay equality (like Reagan and Goldwater did.), even filing a Supreme Court brief in support of gay marriage equality, or pro-immigration, etc. etc,

          But sure, I’m the anti-libertarian here.

          If you’re talking about me, that’s as dishonest as your wikipedia assertion. If not, I sincerely apologize.

          As an aside, the very definition of libertarian, for over 40 years, is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
          Any questions?

      3. You’re projecting modern understanding of equality onto the Founding Fathers, who did not mean “men, women and children” when they wrote:

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        While I’d argue that it’s more moral and just to include those, it’s not what they meant.

        1. You’re projecting modern understanding of equality onto the Founding Fathers, who did not mean “men, women and children” when they wrote:

          Of course they did.

          While I’d argue that it’s more moral and just to include those, it’s not what they meant.

          At what age do I obtain all the fundamental rights endowed by a Creator? Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others?

          Women could not vote and own property, but that had been true for all of human existence, as had slavery, which we ended in less than a century. Women and children could not be murdered or have their liberty denied.

  28. Probably won’t be the last time I link to this.

    1. I think this sums it up nicely, too.
      I’ve been feeling blue ’cause you need me some of the time, that’s the way it stays. (When I think of all you’ve said and done, you’d think you could read my mind when I try to tell you these are my ways.)

      1. Hey, that’s catchy, thank you for the link.

    1. TL;DR he thinks it’s awesome and totally scientifically accurate.

      /sarc

          1. She’s a rocket scientist?

            1. Wait, I didn’t see Vivica Fox.

            2. She knows how to launch my rocket.

              1. Assuming that all systems are go, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

    2. . . . and it costs no more to write well than it does to write poorly.

      Says the guy neither paid to write nor paying others to do so.

      1. Yeah, I think the ghost of Carl Sagan would like a word re: why Contact was panned by viewers and critics. You want realistic sci-fi? Well, Neal Stephenson published a ~1100 page book that posits what happens if the moon spontaneously fragments. It’s painstakingly detailed from event to mass extinction. Somehow I doubt he’s getting any calls from producers.

        1. Its not even that – a lot of the holes the guy points out in the article really could be patched if someone had spent the time to think things through, without impairing anything or, really, even changing a single bit of what you saw. They would just need to change up the dialogue with more believable stats.

          There would of course still remain the cliche problems – no reason for the invasion in the first place as there’s nothing on Earth (including living space) that isn’t more readily available in the rest of the solar system and without the pesky hairless ape infestation.

          But it would have taken *time* – either to find writers that have already internalized this stuff or to have someone on hand to point out those problems. And time is money.

          So it does cost more to write well than to write poorly – because I don’t believe the people making movies are complete idiots (certainly not the guys *financing* them) and because so many movies are poorly written, I would have to assume that there is a price difference between poor writing and good writing.

          1. That’s true. These are just vehicles for telling stories, after all. Well, no. Vehicles to sell tickets. The stories are pretty much bolted on after the plot device has been explained.

            1. Actually, no. Not because they couldn’t change some key stats, but because a lot of the film was a matter of playing up the gigantic and overwhelming nature of the visitor. So either the alien craft would need to be (relatively) unimpressively small, or they’d need to fudge the science a bit.

              1. Not at all – mention the amateur astronomers and how that discovered it first and how the whole world knows what’s coming.

                You can have a gigantic alien craft, just make its density is less than water – keep the size, change the mass. It won’t make a difference to the average viewer (3.5×10^8 Gigatons vs 1.8×10^10 Gigatons) and the people who do know would appreciate it.

                A mention about how much energy is being manipulated upon re-entry and how their control of it raises the stakes.

                You’ll still have to handwave the Endor Holocaust that ‘winning’ will result in, but its a hugely smaller problem than the fact the the very arrival and landing are extinction level event in themselves.

    3. I’m sure lots of rocket scientists got their inspir’n from Independence Day sky rockets.

      1. Goddard did.

        Gerald Bull probably got his from Roman candles.

  29. Johnson/Weld have the potential to be taken seriously as a libertarian ticket. They have better records than either major party candidate. This is one of the few elections where it is faintly plausible to imagine the LP getting over 10% of the vote. That won’t happen if the LP goes with someone who’ll just spout off orthodoxies at the first sign of press attention. Does anyone really think there would be a Cake Executive Order on day one in office?

    1. Pretty sure I’ve voter L for the last 5 or 6 pres. elections, but this:

      “already put in a statutory scheme of spreading the wealth around with a redistributive formula for financing education that went as far as was politically feasible: You have to get the votes in the Legislature. My Secretary of Education at the time was a woman, a native Cuban, who had been in the hills of Cuba with Fidel and Che in 1958. The joke around the statehouse was that this was the most Communist piece of legislation sponsored by a Republican administration in a long time.”

      is enough to keep me from voting L.
      Dunno about others here, but I don’t vote the party ticket; I vote the platform.

      1. agreed. i would probably still go with GJ, but having this guy on the ticket would require putting more thought into it.

        1. A “typical” LP vice president nominee would totally destroy any chance he had of doing well, and make victory impossible.

      2. I think it’s a bad joke, but no one with any actual political experience is perfect. I cannot think of anyone who has been in politics who never said or done anything I objected to. If you want a ideological purist then you’ll only find people who have never actually governed, and I wouldn’t expect better of them once/if they actually do.

        1. THAT is awesome … having been elected in two different states, winning a local tax revolts and managing dozens of campaigns and/or their web sites.

          That was a lot more difficult than being an expert in something i know nothing about. 🙂

  30. He has some good qualities from a libertarian perspective, but overall, this is yet another disappointment from Johnson. Looks like he is trying to pander to the #NeverTrump crowd. Regardless, this duo would be infinitely better than anything consisting of Clinton or Trump, and I will most likely be voting for them in November.

  31. GayJay is probably the best for crossover appeal. He’s super squishy on “rights.” Peterson might be the most Libertarian. Capital L. McAfee is probably the best for this election, as far as crazy-seeks-attention quotient. There’s no correct answer, since breaking 2% is really the goal. All I ask is that my Florida friends(as a native born and raised Floridian) vote Augustus Sol Invictus for Senate. The rest of the nation looks to Florida for crazy.

  32. This by the Minister of Propaganda for Ron Paul’s extreme social conservatism, homophobia and anti-constitutional babble, all masquerading as libertarian.

    Individuals can be anti-abortion homophobic, even totally bigoted … but may not impose those views by the force of government power.

    In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus activated his state militia, an armed threat against nine black school children. President Eisenhower sent an even greater force, a federal troops, to defend the individual rights of nine kids.

    Like two armed forces fighting over nine playground swings at an elementary school!

    The moral premise of equal rights is that each individual is entitled to government protection of their rights…which is why they’re called individualrights. No group has rights beyond those of their individual members.

    Faubus later excused his actions as defending the voters or Arkansas from an intrusive federal government .. the perverse view of States Rights created by southern racists and adopted by Ron Paul (among others)

    States Rights creates excuses to justify defiance of Constitutional rights. They claim to be Constitutional Conservatives, but deny core principles – separation of powers and three co-equal branches. They whine that “rogue judges” have NO power to defend our rights from abusive laws, Despite Jefferson and the founders, we are defenseless against state power.

  33. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  34. My best friend’s sister makes $97 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her check was $15950 just working on the internet for a few hours.Go to tech tab for more work detail..

    .Read more on this web site…

    See Here Now.———————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  35. My best friend’s sister makes $97 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her check was $15950 just working on the internet for a few hours.Go to tech tab for more work detail..

    .Read more on this web site…

    See Here Now.———————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  36. RE: William Weld: ‘Taxation is Theft’!

    We need government as “a safeguard of our property” but also to “help us better our lot, to act as an economic catalyst. When I was the governor of Massachusetts, we used taxpayers’ money to stimulate growth in biotech and telecommunications, two high-end industries that were tailor-made for the state because of all the universities.”
    He believes that in the cases of those industries, “government had a legitimate role in stepping in to address what I saw as a market failure.”

    Weld is just another opportunist.
    He’ll tell people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
    Just like Trump the Grump, Heil Hitlery and Comrade Bernie.
    You’re either a Libertarian, or you’re not.
    Weld is not.

    1. Maybe he wants to appeal to more than 5% of the electorate.

  37. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  38. 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
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  39. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $15000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.

    Read more on this site.————————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  40. Amelia . although Gregory `s story is shocking… on sunday I bought a top of the range volvo from making $4129 this last 4 weeks and more than ten thousand last-month . it’s actualy the most-financialy rewarding I have ever had . I actually started 7-months ago and almost immediately started to earn minimum $85… per-hour . go to this website…..
    —- http://www.MaxPost30.com

  41. Amelia . although Gregory `s story is shocking… on sunday I bought a top of the range volvo from making $4129 this last 4 weeks and more than ten thousand last-month . it’s actualy the most-financialy rewarding I have ever had . I actually started 7-months ago and almost immediately started to earn minimum $85… per-hour . go to this website…..
    —- http://www.MaxPost30.com

  42. You didn’t mention Gov. Weld’s really great accomplishment. Appointing the first official state astrologer ever in the United States, bringing Massachusetts to the forefront of 16th century beliefs.

  43. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do ?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  44. I looked at the bank draft which had said $7437 , I be certain …that…my friend could realie earning money in their spare time on-line. . there neighbor has done this for less than twelve months and resently paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Lancia . have a peek here….

    Simply tap On This sort of Link –

    =========? http://www.Path50.com

  45. 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…————————- http://www.cash-spot.com

  46. Now, coming to the Showbox app, this is another superb app developed for movie lovers who want to get a better experience of watching movies and tv show on a bigger screen with more detailings.

  47. And one of those applications is Showbox apk app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.