Libertarian Party

'There Ain't No Party Like the Libertarian Party—and This Could Be the Year it Gets Hot'

With Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as standard bearers, the LP is more serious and in touch with America than the Dems and the GOP.

|

Reason, Matt Welch

Yes, let's go ahead and suck it up: That guy, James Weeks II (his eponym must be so proud), who disrupted the Libertarian Party convention by stripping down to a thong while announcing his withdrawal from the chairmanship race, is an embarrassment to his party and the larger movement for which it stands.

Such antics, along with what Brian Doherty has rightly called a candidates debate packed with puerile questions better geared for a late-night college bull session, make it easy for conservatives and liberals to troll the LP and dismiss a serious challenge to the played-out politics of the Democrats and Republicans.

Here's the latest version of that, via National Review's Ian Tuttle:

The Libertarian party is a reminder that no one truly grows out of Dungeons and Dragons. Around the Rosen Centre [in Orlando], there are lots of suits-with-sneakers and punk-rock hairstyles and impromptu chants of "Taxation is theft!" Organization-wise, it's the political equivalent of the cantina scene from Star Wars. Since its founding in 1971, the Libertarian party has been a catchall for political misfits. "We're weirdos," says a Georgia delegate who has been in the party since 1972. "We've always been weirdos." No offense, but no kidding. (And in a display of pure, untrammeled, glorious cosmic irony—enough to make me revise my disbelief in Fate—MegaCon, an annual gathering of 80,000 comic book fans, sci-fi cosplayers, fantasy-lovers, and gamers, is taking place over the same 48 hours, and at the very same Orlando hotel.)

Har har har.

And yet…lest we forget, it's the Republican and Democratic parties that are imploding, with the former group split over a candidate who openly mocks handicapped people, has zero grasp of even the most basic policy issues, and calls for the forcible removal of 12 million (his count) illegal immigrants and their children (even if the kids are actually U.S. citizens).

And before "real conservatives" object that they are #NeverTrump, remember that Trump is saying exactly the same stuff they've been calling for over the past 30 years. Here's the editors of National Review's "Against Trump" house editorial from late last year, which called Trump soft on immigration!:

Trump says he will put a big door in his beautiful wall, an implicit endorsement of the dismayingly conventional view that current levels of legal immigration are fine…

Trump piles on the absurdity by saying he would re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they had been deported, which makes his policy a poorly disguised amnesty…

The mind boggles that anyone belonging to an ideological movement or party that calls Trump a pushover on immigration has the temerity to mock Libertarians because they still dig Buffy the Vampire Slayer or something. Suits-with-sneakers! Getta load of this!

When it comes to the right wing, the elephant in the room isn't that Trump somehow hijacked or stole the conservative movement and its causes. Rather, it's that virtually everything he stands for is the fulfillment of precisely what Republicans and conservatives have demanded for decades, just with an added dose of crudeness and less fear of the gays. To the extent that his yammerings make any sense, we know Trump is anti-immigrant, bellicose when it comes foreign policy, and is obsessed with a backward-looking vision of "American greatness." If he wants to keep Obama's universal health insurance in place, then he's what, like Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential candidate who was not only endorsed by National Review, but is constantly being pushed by The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol as a cure to what ails the GOP?

On the Democratic side of the aisle, things are just as sad, with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tripping over each other to denounce Uber, Airbnb, and other avatars of the sharing economy, which is a rare bright spot in a generally sluggish economy. Why? Because such "gig" jobs don't come with the gold-plated benefits the GM offered during its protectionist heyday in the 1950s or something. Don't you know that kids are going hungry because we have too many flavors of deodorant? Sanders, whose only play now is to Gillooly Clinton so much that she agrees to raise the minimum wage to $15 rather than her relatively measely $12 per hour. Clinton is a hawk's hawk who, like Donald Trump (at the same time!) called for censorship of the internet because of Islamic terrorism.

At each next rally, she recites her resume lines more loudly for the simple reason that despite 25 years in the public eye, she has no discernible vision for the future of the country she so desperately wants to lead. Clinton is anti-trade and has been attacking NAFTA since 2008 or so, when she tried to outflank Barack Obama on the left. She calls Edward Snowden a traitor, has never met a surveillance program or secret presidential kill list she didn't want to add a few names to, and has the most censorious history of anyone currently running for president. Seriously, look it up.

And yet…and yet, it's the Libertarians who are a joke, because despite no funding and help from ballot-access laws and other schemes designed to silence alternative voices, they have somehow managed to nominate two successful, centrist former governors who believe in economic and cultural freedom, that the government is too big and expensive, that overseas interventions should be less frequent than they have been during the past 15 years, that school choice and reproductive choice and legalizing weed are good things…

Let's stipulate that however silly Libertarians may be, and however much they might desperately want the future to feature only private sidewalks and for Soylent Green to be purchased exclusively with Bitcoin or Ethereum, they are not as batshit crazy and unhinged as Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the two parties and movements they represent. Yes, we libertarians (big L and small l) like comic books and science fiction and have people who show up at national conventions wearing boots on their heads and strip down to thongs and argue over whether such unannounced nudity contravenes the non-aggression principle. Dunno about you, but when I look at a future in which I can be hanging out with the likes of Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee or Elizabeth Warren and Anthony Weiner or with Vermin Supreme and James Weeks II, I'm happy to choose the latter pair every time.

I think it's effectively impossible that Johnson and Weld will win in the fall, but that's also not the real endgame here either. As I write in a new Daily Beast column, the important thing is to change the general direction in which politics is headed. To the extent that the two major parties are having problems, it's because of who they are and what they represent. Each of the parties is still locked into a mind-set where its people should control large areas of your everyday life—how you do business, say, or whom you can marry. Those days are over for pragmatic reasons (thanks to technology, it's easier than ever to route around government and just get on with your life) and to changes in belief systems (we really are a more live-and-let-live nation, thank god).

Politics is a lagging indicator of where America is headed as a country. For the past half-century or so, we've been trending to greater and greater freedom and possibilities of how to live our lives. We are more comfortable with choices about what to eat, whom to marry, where to live, how to learn, how to express our values through our work and social commitments, and so much more. There is a reason why our identification with the two major parties has been falling over that same time frame: The Republicans and Democrats exist only in yesterday's America and fewer and fewer of us want much to do with such hollowed-visions that only 29 percent identify as Democrats and just 26 percent as Republicans.

Johnson and Weld and the Libertarians won't win this time around. Even a post-Kardashian, post-body-shaming America isn't quite ready for a striptease performed at a national convention.

But everything they stand for, and that the American people are demanding—more peace around the globe, more choice here at home, the ability to innovate and speak freely—will be absorbed either into both major parties, or by whatever replaces them.

So go ahead and make the Dungeons and Dragons jokes (remember when Al and Tipper Gore freaked out over that back in the 1980s, when they put two Prince songs on the Parents Music Resource Center's "Filthy Fifteen"?), the Star Wars cantina band jokes, and drone on about how important it is that we make Uber more expensive or just it ban it outright and how we really need to bomb more countries because it's all been working out so well and oh my god, don't even get me started about the gays and the trans people taking over all the bathrooms…

You're welcome to your own world, liberals and conservatives, but sooner or later (and whether you realize it or not), you'll be living in a libertarian world that is freer, fairer, and more fun than ever.

Advertisement

NEXT: Memorial Day Observed, White House Locked Down, Eric Holder Slightly Praises Snowden: P.M. Links

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

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
      http://www.realcash44.com

    2. 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.earnmore9.com

      1. My wife really wants to see that movie.

        1. It’s good.

          1. Cool thx.

          2. The book is better!

      2. And since so one got the gist: Remember to do a little dance now that you found something to keep you going for the next few years across the wilderness, but keep in mind the backseat is still full of plutonium.

  1. Woohoo libertarian moment!!!! Trump, Trump, Trump!! Wait, am I doing it wrong??

    1. No, you’ve got it right.

  2. Bill Weld is about as Libertarian as Tony.

    1. Didn’t Weld endorse Obama in the last election?

      1. He did in 2008. He said he was sorry and endorsed that great Libertarian Mitt Romney in 2012.

        1. Well, as I recall, it was a year in which several members of the editorial staff of a libertarian news magazine also supported Obama.

          1. Which is why it’s an inappropriate purity test for libertarian ideology. Ideology is a completely different issue from political strategy (though in terms of voting, people really should be smart enough to know their personal vote doesn’t really matter under any circumstances), and it’s perfectly possible for a person to be an ideological extremist to favor a moderate strategy (the Stalinists were a near-perfect example of this).

            There are many much better reasons to raise an eyebrow at Weld (and even Johnson, who is further from purity than Rand Paul in a few respects) than who he pulled the lever for in the voting booth.

            1. “even Johnson, who is further from purity than Rand Paul in a few respects”

              A few respects? He is like 50% as libertarian as Rand Paul. I am not even sure I can think of an issue where Gary Johnson is more solidly libertarian than Rand Paul on.

              1. Most people say abortion, LGBT, and immigration. Even where I agree with Johnson, I firmly disagree that these are “core” libertarian principles. I think people may find these things important in a practical sense, but those who think they are better litmus tests of libertarian ideology than the ways in which Johnson is worse than Rand have a very superficial way of looking at libertarianism. (Defense is a different story.)

                1. Issues like abortion, foreign policy, and immigration don’t have formulaic libertarian answers. Libertarians will disagree forever on those issues.

                  Gary Johnson gets core economic and property rights issues wrong. Johnson gets the definition of libertarianism wrong. He says a lot of things that no libertarian thinker sides with him on. He operates very much on an instinctive level which is the most frustrating thing with him.

                  1. I assume you know from the above that I agree with that 100%. I probably did understate Johnson’s flaws in the first place, but I wasn’t too guarded about that because it was a minor sideshow to the point I was trying to make.

                    1. I did get what you were saying.

                      I wanted to expand on it for anyone who might glance at the comments because for 8 months I saw Rand Paul dinged constantly for pretty minor things. And now I see Reason enthusiastic about Gary Johnson. Just very incoherent.

                  2. JulioFranco is onto something here.

                  3. If all the Libertarian voters abandon Johnson, he’ll still win the centrist mainstream independent vote.

                1. I hear those charts are foolproof!

                  1. No, they are a tool.

                    What’s foolproof is JulioFranco’s opinion. Much more objective than referring to a common standard.

                    1. Might the cognitive dissonance be related to Rand Paul staking out some tepid freedom of association ground before retreating and Johnson being a supporter of wedding cakes for fags?

                    2. What do you mean common standard?

                      Issues like abortion, gay marriage, and immigration move Rand away from the libertarian standard on that chart. Those issues are highly debatable among libertarians.

                      Gary Johnson, for example, supports anti-discrimination laws. No libertarian, by definition, supports anti-discrimination laws. It isn’t really a debatable topic among any faction of libertarian.

                    3. What do you mean common standard?

                      Nolan chart.

                    4. Apparently you did not read the rest of what I said.

                    5. http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Justin_Amash.htm

                      Nolan Chart lists Justin Amash as a Right Conservative and Gary Johnson as a Libertarian. Obviously the criteria is flawed.

                    6. Here is a quick way of thinking about it:

                      –Abortion: I have the metaphysical belief that fetuses are people, and they do not bear a relationship to the mother wherein they would otherwise abdicate their right to life as individuals.

                      –SSM: Government solemnization of marriage is not a “freedom.”

                      –Immigration: Border security is a legitimate function of the watchman state; and the libertarian state owes nothing to foreigners.

                      I am far from a devotee of this sort of “Ron Paul libertarianism”; and, space being limited, I have not made the best case for them. But I trust you get the idea. You can yourself reject this type of libertarian ideology; you can even think it’s based on shoddy reasoning. But you should clearly see how a libertarian might arrive at such conclusions. Forcing a Christian to bake a cake celebrating gay sex, on the other hand, simply cannot be seen accommodated within any form of libertarian ideology; it must be an “impure” concession to other desiderata, or else the product of a concept of freedom that is in no way libertarian.

                    7. Well said, sir.

                      Have the posters at Reason always been more libertarian than the editors?

                    8. Have the posters at Reason always been more libertarian than the editors?

                      Often that seems to be the case, yes.

                    9. “Someone” has to keep the jacket and all those hipsters on their toes.

        2. that makes total sense. Lots of libertarians often confuse Romney and Obama for the very definition of the term. And for each other.

      2. Obama has increased spending the least since Ike:

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri…..07e48e57ec

        I know the rednecks still think he is a Muslim (Led by Trump) but facts are facts.

        Give Weld credit there.

        1. There is a difference between saying that Tweedledee is less bad than Tweedledum, and endorsing Tweedledee, like Weld did.

        2. If we just attribute his first 2 years of spending all to George W. Bush, that sure checks out.

          Just imagine if Obama hadn’t been such a goddamn piker, we might have doubled the national debt during his presidency.

        3. Obamacare is the largest spending program of the nation in the last 30,40 years. States that expanded medicaid will have to pay more out of their pockets.

          Let’s not forget that the Republicans gained big at local and state levels and dragged Obama into a prolonged sequestration fight. Obama did not have popular mandate to go on more spending spree after the public soured on his healthcare measures and stimulus spending. Knowing that he was out of luck and that the house wouldn’t play his game, he resorted to executive decisions. Remember that?

          Obama incurred gazillion of new debt and unsustainable spending at a time when spending was bound to come down as the nation dialed back its war efforts overseas.

        4. Only because Obama started with Bush’s “one-time” TARP bailout budget as his baseline.

          1. I love how the demfag always conveniently “forgets” that.

            1. Also the ’emegency’ stimulus that Obama signed a couple of weeks after his inauguration somehow,gets counted as Bush’s spending.

      3. Half the Reason staff endorsed Obama too. They’re still libertarians.

    2. That’s still more than Trump or Hillary.

      1. In Johnsons case, sure. But I don’t see how Weld is a Libertarian at all.

        1. Not being staunchly pro-second amendment instantly disqualifies anyone from being considered a champion of liberty.

        2. He might be, maybe, libiterian-ish, compared to Trump and Hillary. But then I bet half of Congress is more libertarian than those two.

          Johnson wasn’t my fav, but if he can get into the debates, maybe it’s better than a real libertarian who doesn’t. Even if a real libertarian were elected, Congress would end up overriding most of his vetoes. In the end, all that matters is education, and that starts with keeping an audience.

          I’d like a series of educational commercials with simple explanations of libertarian philosophy. Say, explain how oppressive occupational licensing is with examples of unskilled and poor people who can’t cut hair because the state demands a year full time of schooling. End each with a libertarian logo and a simple message, maybe “Live free” or “Freedom means less government.” Have a dozen or so that alternate, but repeat often enough that people recognize them. Keep to such simple non-controversial subjects, like occupational licensing, that no one could oppose without looking like an oppressive idiot.

          I’d send money every month for that.

          1. He might be, maybe, libiterian-ish, compared to Trump and Hillary

            good to know the bar is being…..er….not raised. Never mind.

          2. How would Johnson distinguish himself with his support for coerced association, carbon regulation and tepid support for gun rights?

          3. I think Weld is a slightly better Bloomberg/ European “liberal” party type–i.e. “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” Libertarians do themselves no favor in educating the public by repeatedly describing themselves in this way, despite the fact that the aforementioned prominent examples illustrate just how far “fiscally conservative” and “socially liberal” as currently conceived are from “government noninterventionist.”

            Of course such a person really is going to see eye to eye with libertarians on quite a few matters too. But Weld is quite blatantly on the ticket for his strong ties to Republican Nevertrumpers and Bloomberg Democrats. That is why Johnson is so insistent to his wing, “If you are serious about your pragmatism you must be on board with this. If I am pure enough for your tastes, it’s because you’re serious about putting up some numbers this fall; note that **I** am the one running for the position with power, and Weld will only help us big time.”

          4. I’d send money every month for that.

            Amen, brother.

          5. Johnson wasn’t my fav, but if he can get into the debates…

            Everybody who is making this argument can’t possibly have ever seen Gary Johnson on a debate stage before. The only possible way to relegate the LP to further irrelevancy than it has already achieved would be to let Gary Johnson go be its spokesperson.

            1. Everybody who is making this argument can’t possibly have ever seen Gary Johnson on a debate stage before. The only possible way to relegate the LP to further irrelevancy than it has already achieved would be to let Gary Johnson go be its spokesperson.

              This x1000

            2. Certainly better to have no representation than a former Governor.

              1. I know a lot of you folks have very recently become really, really enamored with state executive power, as if, say, Jeb Bush would be a great ambassador for libertarianism on account of having been elected to lead the state of Florida. But having been a governor doesn’t really say anything at all about one’s skill at debating, particularly on a national stage. It says even less about one’s principles.

                And yes, sometimes it’s better to have no representation at all than poor representation, or worse, misrepresentation.

                1. But having been a governor doesn’t really say anything at all about one’s skill at debating

                  It says they were good enough to have been elected Governor.

                  1. Yep. So was Jeb Bush. Way to address the point.

                2. Btw, I say all this as someone who voted for Johnson the last time. He was good for a protest vote before he decided to become tumblr incarnate. But even in 2012, I would have rather had nearly anyone else on a debate stage with the major party candidates than Johnson. He’s just a poor debater, and even when he’s saying things I agree with, he still usually ends up looking like the dumbest person in the room. Even Ron Paul is better in debates, and he’s not good either.

                  1. Weld is a horrible debater. He got his ass kicked by John Kerry in 1996 – not just the election, but in debate as well.

            3. Gary Johnson was deadly dull in the debates in 2012. However, that’s not what most viewers will notice, compared to there being no LP nominee there. What most people will see is, “There was a Libertarian candidate in the debate. That means he must be an important person. So I should take the Libertarian Party seriously.”

          6. No, I don’t think Congress would end up overriding most of his vetoes. Most bills get bipartisan support only because of the compromise that they are. Those compromises would be much more favorable to liberty interests if a libertarian had veto power. You’d find the bills that passed, and that the libertarian prez signed, much more to your liking, or at least much less to your disliking, than otherwise.

          7. ” Keep to such simple non-controversial subjects, like occupational licensing, that no one could oppose without looking like an oppressive idiot.”

            Great idea…..which is exactly why it won’t happen.

        3. The NYLP thought he was.

    3. Maybe that’s the point. Perhaps the idea is to attract a wider audience of voters. It’s not like the VP does anything other than decide ties in the Senate. Seriously. That’s the jobs only responsibility (other than taking over should something happen to the president, and how often does that happen?).

    1. Nazi cakes, bongs, sodomy, and Mexicans all around.

      1. You know who else liked cake?…

        1. … all the former employees at Aperture Science?

        2. Nigerians if it was yellow?

  3. “There Ain’t No Party Like the Libertarian Party ? and This Could Be the Year it Gets Hot”

    Yikes, someone been doing the pots.

    1. It’s the year of the left leaning former Republican. Didn’t you know that?

    2. What happens if the l party draws more disaffected Democrats than Republicans? If that happens and Hillary loses, I don’t think the staff’s Prog friends are going to be very happy with them.

      1. The only disaffected Democrats are the ones who want more socialism, and aren’t getting it from the Democrats.

    3. “…cuz a Libertarian Party don’t stop!”

  4. Glad Johnson got the nomination and will be glad to vote for him again.

    1. You and the same 1.2 million people as in 2012. Gary Johnson is the Mitt Romney/John McCain/John Kerry/Al Gore/Michael Dukakis/Walter Mondale/oh give it a break, of the libertarian party now. The ONE year we have a real shot to at least he Ross Perot significant, and we nominate two Republicans…

      1. Two more than the gop has nominated.

      2. And 2 candidates more qualified and more mainstream than Trump-Clinton.

  5. It’s not really Reason’s M.O. to report on LP politics, let alone their duty to help them improve themselves. But over a weekend in which one candidate withdrew from the raise in the form of a striptease on a “dare,” and after a debate in which (putting aside any matters of pragmatists vs. idealists, minarchists vs anarchists, drivers licences, or where child prostitutes should buy their heroin) half of the candidates were just plain clownish, the media narratives have been writing themselves. Har har indeed.

    .
    I love Nick, but like many libertarians he often seems addicted to optimism. And in this case, it’s feeding the kind of victim mentality that prevents movements from taking a good hard look at what they need to improve. Reminds me a bit of the NRA when the Left makes for the upteenth time the juvenile suggestion that they are a bunch of racist yokels who have no use for any amendment other than the 2nd and even then would react very differently to a bunch of armed black men–and we all sputter in indignation and so forth, without taking a good hard look at how completely we have turned our backs on libertarians and minorities and oriented ourselves to feeding the resentment of angry white men. So is it for the LP’s lack of seriousness, period. Stripteases and professional trolling have nothing to do with ideology.

    1. Nick’s a great guy, but he has a very tough job, representing and promoting an unpopular ideology. Of course he has to cheerlead, and of course that’s going to look silly much of the time.

      This year is both good and bad for libertarians. Good because the main parties are in turmoil, but bad because the core issues animating voters are largely in conflict with libertarian ideas. Turns out that voters aren’t thrilled with the “freedom of movement” meaning that anyone in Latin America and the Middle East gets to move here. Democrats like it because it means more poor brown people for social programs and votes. The GOP establishment likes the cheap labor.

      I think I am becoming a “libertarian nationalist.” I’m not willing to sacrifice my tax dollars and liberty so that foreigners can escape their shitholes, and come here and make my country more like their old shitholes. (Yeah, I’ve heard it: “Just get rid of the welfare state!” No happening anytime soon, folks. Until then, we need to restrict immigration.)

      1. You need to be careful. With views like that, you’ll fail the purity test.

        1. Oh, I fail all purity tests. Ideologies are maps, not territories. They always have simplifications, distortions, omissions. I think libertarianism is the one most generally correct, but it has its flaws and internal contradictions (like immigration, and the common Enlightenment predisposition to view all religions as essentially the same).

          And I have a pragmatist’s disposition: I think it’s absurd to try to apply an ideology to every little thing. Have some humility, humans. The world is complex, and our brains are limited. If your ideas don’t seem to be working in reality, it’s not the fault of reality.

          1. If your ideas don’t seem to be working in reality, it’s not the fault of reality.

            When have libertarian ideas ever really been tested in reality?

            Oh, oh, I know! SOMALIAROADZ!!1!!1

            Seriously though. When do those with power give liberty a chance?

            1. I get your point, but still, as an example: illegal immigration has not been some sort of unalloyed good. That should be clear. The open borders types are reduced to absurdities: “Well, they commit less crime and use welfare less than natives!” Well, why are we importing people who commit any crimes and get any welfare? Let’s be really picky.

              1. Let’s be really picky.

                On the one hand I get you. I really do. I once thought like that. But then I asked myself who would make those decisions, and on what criteria? After I thought about that, and how it could would be abused, I reconsidered my stance.

              2. I don’t want to be a dick, dude, but you’re falling into the progressive/liberal trap of “problems created by government can only be solved by more government.”

                You are asking for major controls on immigration that could only be accomplished by hiring new government employees and maybe creating a few new agencies or departments.

                They’re not going to go away, and they’re only going to get bigger and more powerful.

                That’s why I rethunk my position on immigration.

                More government to fix too much government?

                1. Why not, if it’s run by Top Men?

                  /sarc

                2. One of the few legitimate functions of government is to protect the country. That includes securing borders. We don’t need new government departments. Heck, we don’t even need new laws: just enforce the ones we have: no public charges (including refugees, sorry), no disease carriers, no criminals, no threats to national security, nobody who doesn’t believe in American values. Those last two leave out Muslims, in my view.

      2. I’m not willing to sacrifice my tax dollars and liberty so that foreigners can escape their shitholes, and come here and make my country more like their old shitholes.

        Since we got a bunch of brown skinned immigrants from the other side of the ocean in the area where I live, markets and restaurants run by immigrants and catering to immigrants have popped up here and there. And they’re pretty cool, with some pretty cool stuff for sale. The food I’ve tried so far has been excellent, and I got a box of fabulous tea for cheap at one of the markets. The guy insisted that I buy I bag of cardamom seed pods with it (also very cheap) and the combination is amazing. What can I say? They made it to my heart through my stomach.

        1. And when they disproportionately vote for more government, you’ll be happy?

          1. It’s the restaurants. Always the restaurants. The seen vs. the unseen. Pleasant people selling yummy stuff from food trucks: seen. Voting for bigger government, overloading schools and emergency rooms: unseen.

          2. And when they disproportionately vote for more government, you’ll be happy?

            I’ve seen mixed results on that, depending on who is taking the survey. Perhaps they do on average. How does that make them any different than natives? I’m sure the people starting those businesses aren’t voting for more government anymore than anyone else caught up in the maze of regulation set up to stop anyone from doing anything productive.

          3. And when the disproportionately vote for more government, you’ll be happy?

            That’s the question I have been asking ever since Gillespie started taking pointers from the Huffington Post and began accusing closed border people like myself as “anti-immigrant,” as opposed to anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. Setting his disingenuousness aside, in what parallel universe do millions of welfare expansion Democrat voters help the libertarian cause.

            Gillespie needs the Republicans to suck as much as the Democrats, or there will be far less need for guys like him. The fact is, his comparisons of the two parties are severely lacking. He only cites the issues that the mainstream media will cover. There are a lot of other horrible things the Democrats are doing that never make the news (re-engineering predominantly white neighborhoods, funneling our tax money to leftist community organizers, taxpayer funded healthcare carve-outs for unions, pushing climate change hysteria on school children, packing courts with activist judges who will make anti-freedom decisions like ruling against bakers who don’t want to participate in gay weddings, STILL weaponizing agencies, etc. I could go on and on. The Republicans are nowhere near as busy with clandestine nefarious activities like these.

            1. as opposed to anti-ILLEGAL immigrant.

              Only the ones who have the patience and means to go through this?

              The only way to enforce that is with more enforcers. More government men with all kinds of power and zero responsibility.

              Yeah.

              Sure.

              1. responsibility accountability

              2. Why not advocate for streamlining and rationalizing the legalization process rather than just saying, “To hell with it, open the borders to anyone who shows up”?

                1. “Why not advocate for streamlining and rationalizing the legalization process rather than just saying, “To hell with it, open the borders to anyone who shows up”?”

                  Absolutely. Pushing for open borders when we have a huge welfare state is the straw that breaks the camel’s back for me. I cannot vote libertarian because of that. If the Nick Gillespies of the world are willing to sell out small government in so many other ways, just to be purists on the border issue, then I see that as a fatal conceit.

                  I was willing to accept the libertarian message that we should ignore the Chinese trade barrier (manipulated currency) to maintain the “free” trade we have today. But enforcing border laws in non-negotiable for me. Making existing laws optional because groups are too lazy to work to change them is a bridge too far.

              3. “The only way to enforce that is with more enforcers. More government men with all kinds of power and zero responsibility.”

                I don’t buy that. Even if we did need significantly more border agents, the cost of that would be far lower than what the illegals are costing us in entitlements and additional bureaucrats to administer them.

                We have border agents whose hands are tied. And, I trust them to be accountable for more than bureaucrats.

                1. the cost of that would be far lower than what the illegals are costing us in entitlements and additional bureaucrats to administer them.

                  You say this as though you’ve actually looked into it. Do you have any data on what the illegals are ‘costing us’ in entitlements? because what i’ve seen tends to show that they use less than they contribute in sales tax and other lower costs of marginal economic inputs.

                  Of course other sources (like heritage.org) and other anti-immigrant groups say otherwise by trying to claim that the natural-born children of ‘illegals’, being US citizens by mere-birth, should still be counted as “net drains” in their reception of benefits – while ignoring the fact that these same children will (unlike their parents) pay many times more taxes over the course of their lives.

                  1. “Because what I’ve seen tends to show that they use less than they contribute…”

                    What have you seen? Do YOU have any data? Reason.com articles are not adequate.

                    1. Here

                      Has pretty much every source linked on the matter. Including the Heritage ones which Papaya cites below, which as i already mentioned gets to their numbers by pretending the US-born children of illegal immigrants are somehow not really citizens or (future) taxpayers.

                    2. “Pretending the US-born children of illegal immigrants are somehow not really citizens…”

                      Notice how that issue has dropped off the media’s radar. That’s because there are about to be legal challenges to that idea. It’s based on one or two lines in a SCOTUS opinion from the early 80s. To say that the authors of the 14th amendment intended for people to have kids just so they could stay defies all manner of common sense.

                    3. RE: Gilmore’s source

                      Fair enough. You provided a source that cited a roughly 1% net gain in our economy. I’ve heard that before too, even from pro-open borders sources. The problem I have with 1% is that it is a ceteris paribus argument. It ignores that the overwhelming majority of these people will vote democrat to increase their benefits. And democrats have proven time and again that their policies are devastating to economic growth (Obamacare, cap and trade, killing coal/logging, endless barriers to pipelines, 81,000 pages of new regulations per year, shaking down companies based on bogus racial disparities, forcing usage of expensive and unreliable solar/wind, proposing criminalizing oil companies’ denial of climate change). I could go on for hours, but would run out of text space.

                    4. re: Paradigm|5.31.16 @ 12:21AM|#

                      But again – I asked you to substantiate your claim.

                      The sources *i* just provided you i already know about. Unless you have something better, the net of those is that the case is basically either positive or negligable.

              4. It can at least be argued that the government was granted the power over immigration and naturalization. Not so much with the EPA, DEA, or the Dept. of Education.

      3. Oh, I think Nick, Reason, and the general “Reason-centered community” right down to Lenore Skenazy are by far the best thing going for the popular future of libertarianism, bar none. But I don’t see how repeating “The libertarian moment is upon us!” particularly helps that goal. That pollyannish tendency, buttressed by a bunch of rigged “political quizzes,” and so forth, just buttresses unhealthy delusions among the already-converted.

        The Bush-era “liberaltarian” anti-authoritarian alliance has collapsed in a pile of Obama crushes and “Please listen to us; we are in pain” chants from campus “militants” who would have made Malcolm X throw up. The youth are our future? Please. Meanwhile all those folks in tricorn hats waving around copies of the Constitution from four years ago? Look for them at the Trump rally.

        I actually respect the “idealists” at the LP convention more sometimes. At least they have consciously **chosen** to treat their ideology as a sort of fantasy social hobby.

        1. The youth are our future? Please.

          I can fairly assume you’re over 30. Probably over 40.

          Because everyone over 30 or 40 has been saying that since people starting living to 30 and 40 and beyond.

          1. What on earth are you talking about? I am talking about those who (falsely) believe young people are becoming more libertarian. That was quite clear from the context.

            1. Well, I didn’t get that. Sorry.

              I’ve got a stepson who is in his mid 20s, and another who is in high school (my weak sperm only produced a daughter). Anyway, they’re both surprisingly libertarian. They’ve been controlled all their lives at school, have seen the stupidity of stubborn people with power, and want to be left alone. There might be more hope than you think.

              1. Well, I certainly hope so. But there’s quite a lot to overwhelm those two data points. Even for you I’d say wait until your younger gets through **today’s** college atmosphere. Every “resister” currently in college (from personal conversations with me, and from the reports of activists at FIRE, etc.) seem to say things took a **dramatic** turn to present ugliness less than four years ago (I forgot precisely when). I’d noticed some authoritarian rot quite a bit earlier (how perverse is it that **students** are leading the charge for campus smoking bans–the more “radical” the campus the stronger the charge? Youth is truly dead), but clearly something clicked then.

                1. Yes my sample size is small. I realize that. But it may represent hope.

                  Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna shit in one hand and hope in the other, then see which fills up first.

                2. My limited experience dealing with my daughter’s peers is that it’s cool to *say* you’re a libertarian.

                  Mainly because the idea of transgressive sex, weed and hacking are appealing, while the underlying principles are kind of icky and shouldn’t be extended to the wrong kind of people. Dig beyond the superficial, and their K-12 indoctrination shines thru’.

                  1. Amen; couldn’t have said it better myself.

                    Weed and LGBT are cool to tolerate now (and the latter is an “oppressed” group; check your privilege!). At **most**, upper-middle-class young folks are now “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” Neither one of these distinctions is a particularly close synonym for “government-noninterventionist,” and they are getting further and further away from that each year. But scratch the bitterest, bitchiest libertarian, and an optimist shines though–they are by far the truest believers in humanity and progress the world has ever seen. With that seems to come a bit of delusion as to their popularity, however. There is no “moment,” certainly not now.

                    1. Weed is important. Seriously. The government’s enforcement of laws regarding illegal weed has caused pain and misery people close to many of these kids and young adults. “Oh, hey! There’s a political party that says that shit shouldn’t be illegal! That’s cool! What else do they have to say?”

                      I’d like to say that it’s the same way with the LGBT crap, but it’s not. In this case true libertarians abandon their principles and support legislation that criminalizes free association.

                    2. A very fair point, and maybe it’s unfair to expect high school seniors to jump from “free weed and Mexican ass sex” to fully-formed libertarian orthodoxy, and I’m interested to see how my daughter’s cohort evolve in the next few years, but given that most of them are jumping right back into education at college to get BSc/BA qualifications, I’m not awfully confident of the outcome.

                    3. In this case true libertarians abandon their principles and support legislation that criminalizes free association.

                      [citation required]

                    4. Oh, I agree that weed has potential to be a good “foot in the door”, for now at least, to provoke deeper thought about libertarian principles. But so did LGBT, once upon a time, and as you point out that moment has passed.

                      Both the weed and LGBT movements gained sympathy with the broader public for largely nonlibertarian reasons. Basically young people think of weed as beer now (plus the wildly exaggerated medical benefits), and it is very popular to use, so it is an approved vice. And cute folks like on Will and Grace and Queer Eye are gay, plus many in my family, plus they were “born this way,” so I hereby who am I to judge? I hereby **morally approve** of these things, hence legalization. The core of the change in attitude has little to do with libertarianism…

                    5. …Sure, people will mouth libertarianish stuff about “it’s none of the government’s business,” but scratch the surface and they refuse to extend this courtesy to even adjacent activities. Possession of one mushroom (a drug with more medical potential than weed and even less user risk) is still a **felony** in states with recreationally-legalized weed, smoking bans expand faster every day (pushed hardest by “social liberals”), and new drugs are locally banned in moral panics as we speak. Progress is about an inch deep.

                      The reason LGBT appears different than weed is because its cause is more advanced at present. As far as libertarians go, that revolution is over; whereas for “social liberals,” who have really been calling the shots, there is much work to be done in forcing evil Christians to stop their “hate” (ie personal moral disapproval of a freely chosen activity) or at least bake cakes celebrating gay sex. Once weed legalization is a done deal too, its potential as a “foot in the door” for libertarian evangelization will be done too. Expect **no** movement on any other drug, and even calls for tighter regulation on e.g. edibles “for the children.”

                    6. Unfortunately this is how progress must proceed. Very few people think of liberty as a value that must supersede all other consider’ns, so the way we get more liberty is to have any other consider’ns that may oppose liberty in some cases diminish in their force. We probably won’t progress much beyond legal pot until we convince people that some other substance is less dangerous than they think, & the way to do that is to make its use more popular. Then the interest in liberty will outweigh concern about its danger on the scale that determines policy. Tobacco has become less popular, so the trend is the other way re it.

                      This means you sometimes wield a double-edged sword. Gays become more popular, so that stops people from bashing them & starts people privileging them.

                  2. The indoctrination runs so deep, I wonder if A) it can ever change and B) perhaps it’s just the way people want it to be.

                    Take my apolitical wife. Smart as a button but consider the recent development in outlawing smoking in a car where kids are present. Never mind the anti-smoking zealotry passing off as a campaign was never supposed to enter the private sphere, she said she was ‘fine with it’.

                    I had to remind her why she shouldn’t be. She basically said, ‘I know. You’ve told me already but I still think it’s good because (wait for it….wait…for….it….) children’.

                    1. Nothing works.

                3. Obama’s “Dear Colleague” letter?

              2. I’m a product of public school indoctrination, but always instinctively knew the messages were bullshit.

                So here I stand a Libertarian millennial. DiegoF’s right though, there really aren’t that many of them.

                1. I feel like as a longtime homeschooler who went to a majority-conservative university, took a major without many politicized classes, and graduated in ’09 right before colleges in general got more crazy, I dodged so many indoctrination bullets. Congrats on surviving public school as a young libertarian though!

        2. “I think Nick, Reason, and the general “Reason-centered community” right down to Lenore Skenazy are by far the best thing going for the popular future of libertarianism, bar none.”

          Then we’re doomed. Nick is a joke of a writer. This community is infested with know-nothing peons and that’s just the worst of it.

      4. I suppose Papaya subscribes to Huntington?

        Also, I thought libertarianism was less an ideology and more a set of principles or mindset.

        1. I think it’s a distinction without a difference (ideology vs principles).

          What it does do is force you to confront some ideas that we have all had drummed into us from a very early age, and some of it can be quite unsettling. The imperative to interfere in the lives of people whose lives we were taught to disapprove of is powerful social conditioning. The impulse to say “there oughta be a law!” is strong.

          Sadly, I’m finding that many people don’t *want* freedom. And many wouldn’t use it responsibly even if they had it – which I find deeply depressing.

        2. I think it’s a distinction without a difference (ideology vs principles).

          What it does do is force you to confront some ideas that we have all had drummed into us from a very early age, and some of it can be quite unsettling. The imperative to interfere in the lives of people whose lives we were taught to disapprove of is powerful social conditioning. The impulse to say “there oughta be a law!” is strong.

          Sadly, I’m finding that many people don’t *want* freedom. And many wouldn’t use it responsibly even if they had it – which I find deeply depressing.

          1. I think you’re right I’m afraid.

    2. without taking a good hard look at how completely we have turned our backs on libertarians and minorities and oriented ourselves to feeding the resentment of angry white men.

      A lot of minorities just aren’t interested in liberty.

    3. but the LP did improve when they needed to improve: they nominated 2 viable candidates in a year when half the US is looking for a third option.

  6. I’m still trying to figure out my favorite part of the Libertarian convention. Maybe it was when the audience booed the idea that selling heroin to fifth graders is wrong. Or when the fat guy started stripping and dancing on stage. Or when Gary Johnson talked about how we need carbon regulations.

    Yep, libertarian moment indeed. Totally a serious party filled with serious people who have a real shot at power. Seriously.

    1. I’m glad someone is treating the political process with all of the gravitas it deserves.

    2. The fat guy stripping is not some kind of phenomenon unique to libertarians; to the contrary, it is mainstream, pop-rock, baby-boomer, gen x, millennial cultural gibberish.

      1. Reminded me of the fat oily guy stripping that Vince McMahon (or someone else making decisions in WWE) seemed to think was the world’s most fucking hilarious thing for years upon years back when I watched wrestling.

    3. Why shouldn’t fifth graders be able to buy heroin if they want?

      1. Maybe the pharmacist doesn’t want to sell it to them.

        1. Public accommodation!

    4. To be fair, the question was whether selling heroin to fifth graders **should be a crime**, which is very different. But your larger point stands.

    5. Is this coming from the party who nominated a candidate who didn’t know what the nuclear triad was and said that he could shoot someone in the head and not lose any votes or the party that’s nominating Cankles for President? In either case I’ll stick with the party that has the stripping fat guy, Dungeons and Dragons, and Weed, they somehow managed to nominate two 2 term Governors and hell at least they make me laugh.

      1. When people complained about Trump’s not knowing what the nuclear triad was, it reminded me of Murray Rothbard’s complaint that Earl Ravenal’s positions on military policy were all technical stuff about “dyads and triads”. (Ravenal wanted to get rid of the land-based missiles.) Rothbard was saying those are minutiae, and that what was important was the broad sweep of policy. Could not the same be said for Trump?

        1. I’m tempted to smh at some of the criticisms of Trump, not because I support him, but because I think they’re pretty thin gruel in a target-rich environment.

          The ‘Nuclear Triad’ is a case in point. Trump has never claimed to be a foreign policy expert, and I see no reason to assume that he’s lying; indeed, as such a recent entrant into serious politics, I doubt he would have come into contact with policy people who would have used the term in his presence.

          You then get to his ‘financial support of the Clintons’. Setting aside Trump’s *actual* political inclinations, paying off a crime family when you’re trying to run a high profile business sounds to me like a prudent course, in that with the Clintons, there’s no point in informing the FBI. In general, Trump wouldn’t have to buy Team Red off because they’re somewhat less likely to use punitive lawfare on him. In order to prosper, he has to offer heung yau, it’s simply a cost of doing business.

          I work for a firm with a solidly (and outspokenly) Republican board, and even they make significant donations to Democrat NY and national politicians – and I know with absolute certainty that they don’t want Hillary running the show.

          1. Why wouldn’t a couple of thousand bucks every 4 years be preferable to having some bogus ambulance-chasing NY AG sicced on you? Or Al Sharpton ginning up some fake outrage. For fuck’s sake, Trump is a property developer, in NY. If you don’t pay off the unions, the pols, the bureaucrats and all their hangers-on, you don’t get shit done. It’s just a cost of doing business.

            Then there’s the “Oh, he could never do that, it’s impractical!”. The problem – and why people are underestimating the guy is that his context is making a *deal* – not setting policy (and this is primarily *why* I’m skeptical of what he offers above all else) – it’s his *opening bid* – he doesn’t expect to get what he’s saying on the stump. He can’t say what his expectations are, because that’ll expose his hand. He has to lead with an outrageous bid, expecting to receive an equally outrageous counterbid. The deal – such as it is – won’t be *either* of the bids. And that’s what drives the talking heads mad (assuming they understand the point) and why we (i.e. the *whole* electorate) can’t trust what he says on the stump.

            The contrast is, of course, all the career politicians, who also say things on the stump that we can’t trust because unlike Trump we *know* they’re lying.

          2. If you were an adult by, say the time of the MX missile debate, or the Trident submarine debate, or the one about the B-2 bomber, and you read a @%$#! newspaper or watched the evening news a couple of times a week, you’d know what the triad was. I’m an outlier: PoliSci BA who wrote papers on arms talks as an undergrad in the 1970s. Remember MBFR? SALT? Trump’s a decade older than I am. If he was that clueless during the Reagan administration, he was not paying attention. Obviously, he has no patience for being briefed on things he ought to know that are not top-of-mind. – Kevin R

  7. Organization-wise, it’s the political equivalent of the cantina scene from Star Wars.

    HEY! We don’t serve their kind here!

  8. After all of the reports from the LP convention I still have one burning question: Were there any Libertarians there? There clearly were none running for office.

  9. It’s a libertarian moment…weeeee!

    http://giphy.com/gifs/vintage-…..00zVAdhrJC

  10. That convention could have scared Hunter S Thompson into sobriety.

  11. This isn’t the year for an open borders ticket. Maybe libertarians should rethink immigration?
    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..derbyshire

    1. Maybe libertarians should rethink immigration?

      Of all the hills on which to die, i think immigration is one the dumber ones.

      I foresee the “oh, ‘Freedom for me but Not for Thee, huh?!?” retorts. But in all seriousness: where is the Reason poll asking people to rank the issues which we think are the most crucial to advance ASAP? What aspects of liberty are the most-threatened by current policy, and what should we be looking at as ‘areas we can realistically change’ in the immediate future?

      On my own back-of-napkin list, nothing related to immigration is even in the top 5. In the top-10 is “end immigration checkpoints”, but otherwise the only priority i’d have re: immigration is ‘leave it alone’

      1. I agree; immigration, like legal abortion, is not a “core libertarian issue” in that, while it certainly is a core part of a lot of people’s libertarian ideologies, others have crafted intellectually respectable ideologies that do not include these things but can reasonably be called libertarian. Such is not the case with gun control, smoking bans, drug illegality, “helpful and reasonable” business regulation, and so forth.

        It’s funny how those who would never question Ron Paul’s bona fides turn around and scoff at the idea that a “real” libertarian could ever be pro-life or anti-immigration.

        All this said, John Derbyshire is a disgusting white supremacist who was kicked out of National Review long ago. Maybe best to take his claims about the universality of his personal obsession with a grain of salt.

        1. Do not be a Good Samaritan to a black in distress. Words to live by.

            1. Heroic Mulatto, I can only take what you say half seriously.

              1. To top it off, both Derbyshire and his wife are naturalized US citizens. It sounds like the classic “lock the door behind you” attitude. Check the Wiki for more yuck.

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

                That NR column is 10 years old. He’s been slumming it with the VDARE crowd, since.

                I started reading NR in the late 60s. They’ve published ur-libertarians of the Meyer and Chodorov types, but have also harbored nostalgic imperialists and royalists. Buckley and Co. had a huge crush on Franco. I think it was the longing for pre-Vatican II Catholicism. If Libertarians are simpatico with SF&F fen and RPG* nerds, certain conservatives’ mindsets would not be out of place at the Pennsic war, only leaving out the “let’s pretend.” – Kevin R

                * either Role Playing Game or Rocket Propelled Grenade are cromulent.

                1. He’s been slumming it with the VDARE crowd

                  VDARE, itself, having been the brainchild of an British immigrant.

                  If Libertarians are simpatico with SF&F fen and RPG* nerds, certain conservatives’ mindsets would not be out of place at the Pennsic war,

                  Who know how else wouldn’t be out of place at Pennsic?

                  1. I actually would defend the English-immigrant VDARErs from the charge of “kick the ladder from under you” hypocrisy. That crowd are rather blatantly **racial**-nationalist xenophobes, with very little sense “civic nationalist” xenophobia to hide behind. Forget about the Trumpers; the **KKK**’s xenophobia was actually less pure in its racialsm than these guys’.

                  2. I’m well aware of who Cariodoc is. I’ve participated in many discussions in the USENET sf groups with him, over the years. He plays at being a Duke, but doesn’t want to be one IRL. Unlike some. – Kevin R

            2. What the hell is that?

              1. Here’s something just as confusing (i have never seen any anime) but far more entertaining

              2. Hey, I thought it was halfway decent. I don’t know whether some “conservative” pranksters have indeed been trolling Black kids to demonstrate how violent they are, but it’s a good spoof of the white-victimization mentality either way.

                1. I don’t think there is a particular political ideology to the trend, but there has been more than one channel trying to get internet famous by doing “social experiments” that basically boil down to taunting people in the inner city until someone starts swinging.

                  1. Wow. I remember that kid who pretended to be stabbed but this shit is even more fucked up.

                    This kind of thing, of course, is just plain unwise in any working-class community of any color (minorities just have more common sense than to go into white ones acting like this). The interesting thing is that even though there’s a racist edge to this kind of prank and it’s undoubtedly feeding the “violent monkeys!” audience’s beloved narrative, the only impression it leaves on me is kind of the reverse: It lets me know that, with reduced violence, white folks actually feel safe enough to pull this kind of shit in the hood. It’s kind of hard to imagine anyone having done this in 1991, cameraphones or not.

    2. Yes, we should. As I said above: libertarian nationalism. The idea that importing poor statists into a broke welfare state is “libertarian” is absurd.

      1. Yes, we should. As I said above: libertarian nationalism. The idea that importing poor statists into a broke welfare state is “libertarian” is absurd.

        We have a winner.

    3. People crossing the border isn’t the problem. Government incentives distorting the economic forces is why non-productive people are enticed to come here.

      1. Especially incentives and disincentives from governments like Mexico’s.

        1. This. The reality is that migration from Mexico is not occurring because the prospect of cleaning gringo toilets and getting food stamps in future is so appealing. It is happening because Mexico is one of the most cronyist countries around and our cronies (esp on Wall St) are doing everything they can to help make that situation benefit them personally (and get bailed out by the worse. To that crowd, driving emigration is the safety valve to lower the odds of revolution.

          It’s a shame that libertarians here are either fixated on open borders crap or US safety net crap. But then libertarians have always had a bit of the useful idiot streak in them.

  12. I commented on that story at NRO, observing that if a libertarian publication wanted to do the same thing at a Republican convention, all they would have to do is follow around people like Louis Gomert. Comment removed, of course.

    1. Smdh. Those damn Anti-Semites.

  13. The problem with characters like Johnson and Weld is that they openly say that the free market is the best way to raise the general standard of living and then go to say that with just a little tweak it can be even better. Little tweaks have a habit of turning into the EPA or the EEOC.

    A carbon tax is insane unless you can demonstrate actual damage done by CO2. That’s not a simple proposition. Tort law is never simple. Maybe Thomas Massie understands what’s involved because he has a masters degree in engineering from MIT. How many other congressman know anything about engineering or the “hard” sciences?

    “Nazi wedding cakes” isn’t a argument, it’s a form of emotional blackmail.

    These little tweaks can steal thousands of hours of human life per capita. Unless your candidate understands this, all the free market talk in the world comes to nothing.

  14. “Let’s stipulate that however silly Libertarians may be, and however much they might desperately want the future to feature only private sidewalks and for Soylent Green to be purchased exclusively with Bitcoin or Ethereum, they are not as batshit crazy and unhinged as Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the two parties and movements they represent.”

    It has never been easier to sell voting for the Libertarian candidate than it is this election.

    Tell your friends and family.

    It’s the Dems and Republicans that are kooks.

    1. I can count 3 groups who are highly disinclined to vote Libertarian this election:

      1.Conservative Republicans

      2. Moderate Republicans

      3. libertarians

      Hell, even Will Wilkinson and Conor Friedersdorf are both “Ready For Hillary”

  15. While I do take issue with Johnson on some issues, I will gladly support him over the status quo. Trump and Cliton aren’t even close.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

    1. Was that a deliberate misspelling of the Senator’s name? I am surprised this hasn’t caught on widely with her less classy enemies, tbh.

      1. I’m surprised it hasn’t caught on with her supporters.

        1. She’s too sexless for that to catch on. Maybe back in the 90s….. Kevin R

    2. Gary Johnson on Drugs


      States are finally** seeing the failure of the War on Drugs. (Jan 2016)
      Why do we tell adults what they can put in their bodies? (Jan 2016)
      People 95% positive on legalizing; incumbents 100% negative. (Aug 2012)
      Marijuana is safer than alcohol. (Aug 2012)
      75% of border violence with Mexico is due to drugs. (Jun 2011)
      Marijuana is safer than alcohol. (Jun 2011)
      Legalize marijuana instead of 1.8 million arrests and $70B. (May 2011)
      Harm-reduction: health issue rather than criminal issue. (May 2011)
      Drug policy today parallels Prohibition in the 1920’s. (May 2011)
      Other governors privately support ending drug war. (Oct 2002)
      War on Drugs is a miserable failure; $6M for treatment. (Apr 2001)
      Drug use is up despite $30B spending on War on Drugs. (Jan 2001)
      Prescriptions for heroin & methadone at local pharmacy. (Jan 2001)
      Allow medical marijuana and needle exchanges. (Jan 2001)
      More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)

      I suppose you could call it “evolution”. But the ‘finally’ is a bit silly. Most people should have been aware of the insane futility and unholy waste of the Drug War by the late-90s.

      1. Most people should have been aware of the insane futility and unholy waste of the Drug War by the late-90s.

        By then, Trump was nearly 10 years in to his public opposition to the drug war

      2. I wonder if that wasn’t a mis-print. I doubt he changed his position in one year.

        1. from their quotes link =

          More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War.

          Johnson adopted the National Governors Association policy:

          To reduce the presence of illegal drugs, drug-related organized crime, and the adverse effects of drug and alcohol abuse in society requires a comprehensive strategy involving federal, state, and local governments.

          The Governors believe that one of the most severe public health threats is the recent rise in substance abuse among children
          – The Federal Role

          The profits from illicit drug trafficking can be effectively used to help state efforts to dry up the demand for these drugs. The nation’s Governors urge the President and Congress to fully fund drug and alcohol abuse education, drug courts, treatment, prevention, and law enforcement efforts, including the initiative to combat and clean up methamphetamine production laboratories, at the state and local levels of government.

          -Intensified Eradication and Interdiction

          Federal funding for use of the National Guard in drug and border enforcement deserves continued support.
          The Governors urge the President and Congress to utilize the role of U.S. military forces in interdiction efforts.
          ….
          – Drug Legalization
          The nation’s Governors believe illicit drug legalization is not a viable alternative, either as a philosophy or as a practical reality.

          1. So he adopted the policy. He didn’t say that. He went along.

            I’m guessing there is a story there. Be interesting to ask him what he thinks about that decision now and why he went that way. It contradicts everything else he’s said about drugs.

            1. Must be that the legislature made him do it, just like everything else inconvenient about his governorship. The legislature runs the National Governors Association right?

              1. Why, no, it doesn’t.

                I’m not defending his action. I’m simply curious why he adopted it when it is clearly 180 out from his personal position.

                1. Politicians will say the darndest things when there’s little cost for saying so.

    3. If Johnson had a chance in hell of winning, of course I’d vote for him. Unfortunately, he does not, even this year. So, it comes down to whether Trump or Clinton are better (or least bad) for liberty. I think it’s clear that Trump is preferable in many ways, a tie in others, and I have a hard time thinking of any way in which Hillary is better.

      Plus, I’m in a disruptive mood. Trump is disruptive. Hillary is the same old leftist statist bullshit on every score. Obama needs a rebuke. Democrats and SJWs need a rebuke. The whole political establishment needs a rebuke.

      Will Trump disappoint? No doubt. But he might well have some good effects: judges, guns, reducing regulations, reducing Muslim immigration and illegal immigration. Hillary is bad on all of those. I also sense that for all his faults, Trump really does love this country. Hillary, like all leftists, want to “improve” us with more government. Fuck that.

      As someone wrote recently, Trump is Groucho to Hillary’s Margaret Dumont. The choice is clear!

      1. You have always been a TEAM RED! shill.

        So your little editorial is wasted here.

        1. False, like so much of what you write. Tactical voting and incrementalist tactics aren’t “shilling.”

      2. If Johnson had a chance in hell of winning, of course I’d vote for him.

        I wonder why the LP can’t get any traction?

        1. Trouble is, if every single voter who ever considered voting libertarian voted that way, it still wouldn’t be enough votes to win the presidency.

          That said, I have at times voted libertarian. (Fun fact: once I was nearly roommates with a Libertarian candidate for SF mayor. His “Of course children should be allowed AK-47s” stance seems to have doomed his campaign.)

          I’m just being realistic, and advocate the Fabian socialist strategy that turned the Democrats into socialists. It’s easier to influence and take over an existing party than to get a third party into office.

      3. Plus, I’m in a disruptive mood. Trump is disruptive.

        This is another key factor in why Trump is viable. Disruption is necessary for longer-term changes. There needs to be lots of people shook up and agitated so ideas can get out there. Chaos is good.

        If it’s Hillary, the status quo just keeps on ticking and the system settles into a low-energy steady state where likelihood of change grows less and less.

        1. But that’s the problem – chaos *may* be good.

          As time (and the entropic death of political choice) extends, chaos becomes more and more necessary, but it becomes correspondingly harder and harder to anticipate an outcome that we would favor.

          1. I’d rather gamble on unpredictable chaos than settle for predictable decline. The latter is terminal, and society will never get another shot.

            Like AJ Toynbee basically pointed out, most civilizations simply shrivel up and die quietly once they reach this point.

            1. Well yes, that would argue in favor of having the chaos now, and not in a few decades’ time. It’s something I personally would prefer.

              But chaos now is not on the cards. Nor will it be until enough frogs realize the water’s become unbearably hot. And that’s the paradox. When there are enough, it’s going to be very messy.

              1. IMO there won’t be enough frogs a few decades from now.

        2. The American Revolution was chaotic, but then so was the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. Chaos isn’t inherently good or bad, but it’s just as likely to lead to a bad outcome as a good one.

          1. The only alternative is 100% bad, just on a somewhat longer timescale.

            I’ll take the 50% chaotic gamble for something good.

            1. ^This. Hillary has no upside. Trump might.

      4. We know what Hillary is. Basically Obama 2.0 (or Bush 3.0). Crap and continuing the downward spiral of prosperity and freedom in this country.

        Trump is more of a Latin American strongman. Venezuela is what we are looking at.

        1. Trump is more of a Berlusconi-type. Italy is what we are looking at.

  16. That convention could have scared Hunter S Thompson into sobriety.

  17. How is it that the NHL and NBA seasons became so closely synced up with their schedules?

    1. It’s the male version of menstrual synchrony.

  18. I’ll probably cast a ballot for the Johnson/Weld ticket, because why not. That being said, if I could choose neighbors, I’d take 10…no, 50, screaming anarcho-capitalist mullets over just one Trumpkin.

  19. A Libertarian Party ticket with no libertarians on it. I’ll still vote for it, but I can’t actually say why.

  20. This was a great weekend for the LP and for America. The people have a viable choice for the next leader of the free world. The accusation of ‘republican lite’ is absurd. They are fiscally conservative and socially liberal and honestly what more could you want. Oh you don’t want to have to get a driver’s license? Haha ok good luck with that. Oh you think you have to create violent, throbbing painfully long videos to appeal to millenials? Haha ok if you say so. Meanwhile, Johnson/Weld can safely distance themselves from the radical, anarchist wing of the LP. They are no longer useful. Reminds me of how the gay rights movement (supposedly) started with an uprising by drag queens at Stonewall. So thank the freaks for getting us on the ballots. Now, buh-bye.

    1. “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”

      No libertarian on the planet uses that as definition for libertarian.

      Weld and Johnson aren’t even fiscally conservative.

      1. it was in common use 35+ yrs. ago, although maybe not as a definition in many cases.

  21. I never got the appeal of D&D.

    Guess I’m not a true libertarian.

    Oh, I read somewhere that Vince Diesel taught fellow actors on the set of one of his movies how to play that game.

    I wonder if he’s a libertarian… Either way the dude is a total dork.

    1. The D&D folks can be a little strange. I never played the table stop stuff, but I’ve played some pc games based on D&D. No matter how good the game is, all the D&D fans will do is bitch about the rulez. OMG, only 7 factions, there should be 10!, there’s no half elves! And the rulez! Meh.

      1. Yeah, I don’t understand that. It’s not that difficult, use AD&D 2nd Player’s Option or don’t play. I don’t get why folks have to be so obstinate.

        1. I don’t know, but every time a party based RPG is released, Pillars of Eternity for instance, the amount of bitching about D&D rules is crazy.

          1. Yes, whining about tabletop rules in a computer game is stupid.

        2. Meh. 1st Ed with a very minimal set of customizations.

          And Ars Magica, 4th Ed.

        3. Moldvay’s Basic set is about as perfect a set of rules as can be.

          I also really like “D&D Tactics”, otherwise known as 4th edition.

      2. They’ve got their own rules. I’ve always like physics and math. Rules that, I dunno, make sense.

        *shrug*

        1. Game rules make sense to the designers of the game. “Makes sense” is an extremely subjective term.

          1. Hey, did you know in real life horses can move in other directions than just an “L”-shape?

            That’s why chess is retarded.

            1. Hey, did you know in real life horses can move in other directions than just an “L”-shape?

              I don’t know what kind of horses you’ve been riding.

    2. I don’t get D&D, either.

      Which is why I stick with Warhammer Fantasy roleplay.

        1. Shocking confession: I have never played under GURPS rules.

          I did just finish up an Only War campaign, which ended when the Orc shaman’s (who was the main opponent warboss) head exploded the second time he tried to cast a spell from too much Waaaaagh! energy. The GM about shit himself, but we all saw the dice. I was a commissar and didn’t get to shoot anyone : (

          We’re also anxious to start up a Call of Cthulu campaign, seeing as how it’s so different from other games. If you get into combat, you’re probably fucked. But it’s hard finding someone to GM something like that.

          1. I’ve done a few modern-day GURPS campaigns. I’ve always wanted to run a Weird War II game.

      1. I’ve never played that either, including one of the PC games. I kept seeing them and wondering, what is all this Warhammer stuff?, until one day I googled it.

        1. I actually play the tabletop version. If you have $3k to sink into a game, and six hours* on a Saturday to kill with friends, it’s really fun.

          *I believe I could cut our average time in half if we weren’t drinking so damn much while we played.

  22. Shreekytard is the most predictable little sock monkey on the intertoobz. I say shreektard will do something and before long, guaranteed, little sock monkey does it. Roll over shreektard, sit shreektard, shill for Hillary shreektard.

    1. How dare someone criticize your beloved GOP!

      1. Sock monkey knows it’s name, good sock monkey.

    2. Smug. That’s the word that comes to mind. That kind of smug that only shows itself on the internet, because doing it in person is inviting a (justified) knuckle sandwich.

      1. Hyperion is a smug bastard. You have him pegged.

        1. As if the stench from the Chantix farts wasn’t bad enough. Now you show up.

      2. This is a good example of why Trotsky’s and Hitler’s time-honored tactic of ‘cracking skulls’ just won’t fly in the internet age. What are the options? Tell the commenter to punch himself in the face? You guys should take lessons from the Steppers – they are much better at the bullying and insults.

        1. What are the options? Tell the commenter to punch himself in the face?

          Swatting

          1. LOL try it – it will backfire big time. You guys are zombies. You lost it’s just a question of when you will realize it.

            1. Not everything is about you.

        2. You really need to work on your resentments, dude.

          1. There you go! Now, add “Resentments are a deathly business for the true alcoholic”:

            1. Resentments are a deadly hazard, and they are very similar to beets, which are deadly serious.

        3. Funny, but from what I’ve seen the vast majority of violence this political season has been instigated by leftists like you.

          1. You mean leftists like Trump? Because he’s the only one instigating violence. “Punch him in the face!” “I could shoot someone walking down fifth avenue!” “Bomb the hell out of ISIS!”

            1. I mean the protestors. Leftists. Like you.

              1. LOL ok well hey, thanks for “fighting” for my right to protest. Good Libertarian you are. Fitting for the holiday. Sorry for gloating. 🙂

                1. So you admit that you support those who get violent at political events. Very fitting.

                  1. Shreek’s always been a progtard.

  23. It looks like Trump is the most libertarian candidate this election. Let’s hope he doesn’t ruin it by picking Kasich, Corker or Christie as his VP.

    1. Trump is likely to pick the entire Dept of Homeland Security as his VP. Or John Bolton.

      Maybe Charlie Sheen on ideology and temperment.

    2. My wild-guess is he picks Newt.

      1. Trump is, of course, the **least** libertarian candidate this election, and that probably includes the Green Party. But if he’s smart, he’ll pick Corker if Corker will have him.

        1. Ways in which Trump is more libertarian than Hillary:

          Pro 2A
          anti government regulation
          anti Obamacare
          better judge choices

          Ways in which Hillary is more libertarian than Trump:

          ??

          1. “Ways in which Hillary is more libertarian than Trump:”

            I’ll play.

            Less protectionist. She is not threatening a 40% tariff on Chinese and Mexican goods.
            More inclined to free movement of labor (though I understand your more anti immigrant stance)
            No huge taxes on hedge fund managers
            No erratic foreign military adventures? (Here Trump just seems schizophrenic. He could be better than Hillary, but he could also be a crazy interventionist. I don’t know).

            And more “presidential” demeanor. Oh wait…the strip video.

            1. I grant #1, but it might be canceled out by the typical liberal “let’s restrict trade to help civil rights/the environment in foreign countries” thing that Hillary for which is susceptible.

              #2 is a negative in my view, as you note. She mainly wants more D voters and welfare cases.

              #3 doesn’t concern me. While I am not generally in favor of higher taxes, how many hedge fund managers are there? One made $1.4 billion last year. If his taxes go up, meh.

              #4 I think it’s a wash. Trump talks tough, but is a bluffer/negotiator. Hillary has a record here.

              #5 is a wash, or in Trump’s favor. People put too much weight/hope/faith in presidents, anyway, as libertarians know. Trump will help cure that.

        2. Corker can get bipartisan deals done like nobody else in the Senate. That’s why I don’t like him.

      2. Newt seemed like a really bad option until they started floating Corker.

    3. Lardass is going to be his AG. That alone should make anyone who cares about liberty not vote for him.

      1. Early in the campaign Trump said he wanted Gowdy. Then Gowdy kinda tanked his own Benghazi investigation and endorsed Little Marco.

        When has an AG ever been good for liberty? All I got is “Ashcroft…that one time.”

    4. The fact that you actually believe this might be scarier than seeing Hillary’s clit.

    5. Because libertarians brag about ordering the military to commit war crimes.

      Because libertarians want to kill off freedom of speech

      Because libertarians love to use eminent domain to help private business

      And libertarians are known for having thuggish followers that use violence to quash any opposition…

  24. It must really irk the ex-military types that they “fought” for my right to ridicule them mercilessly. And thereby herald a new age of peace and freedom. Sorry. Get used to it. Johnson/Weld 2016. 🙂

    1. Not at all.

      a. Peace and freedom is what the vast majority of military types want.

      and

      b. Yes, if need be, I’d have fought for your right to be a complete retard, despite disagreeing with your positions.

      1. I do have to ask (and this is coming from someone who was disqualified at MEPS–I was a dumbass and let them fool me into telling the truth, whereas everyone else just lies), isn’t it possible that this military worship among nonveterans is too blunt and may be doing society a net disservice? The fact is that the overwhelming majority of folks hold noncombat jobs; said jobs are statistically not particularly dangerous in the scheme of things; and most do not enlist for reasons of patriotic duty. But your average Joe nonveteran thinks of anyone who put on a uniform as some sort of unfathomable badass killing machine–despite the fact that he just saw the skinny nerd who works on computers all day pass him in the train station with his utilities on.

        I’m not saying there should be less gratitude, or less recognition that the military lifestyle is a total-life dedication with a profoundly different mentality. Just that there should be less **awe**, and that said awe is both problematic and symptomatic of a larger problem. Say what you want about the restore-the-draft crowd (I have zero sympathy myself), but they are dead right about the ill effect of the new distance between the military and the general population.

        1. The “hero” thing is bullsht and does a great disservice to those who really are/were. The odds of dying in today’s military is a fraction of what it was 40 years ago. Heros do something above and beyond, not just show up for work.

          I don’t like the worship.

          1. As someone who really wanted to get in, I still wonder what it would be like if I did. To be doing my job, in the world of sanity and proper information, in a world where we know what people actually do and hold it in proper perspective: **These** are the people who regularly get a phone call to fly halfway around the world to a place we are not officially in, and regularly kill people by the dozens and see their friends get killed; **these** are the people who are willing, if shit goes out-of-the-ordinary wrong, to say a long goodbye to their loved ones and ship out to put their lives in danger and stand ready to kill some folks who get in their way for a few weeks of very tense waiting; and the rest–the great majority–are doing their jobs to help the first two groups do what they do.

            Then you get off base, and you can simply play the “military card,” on purpose or otherwise, and 95% of the people you see will change their expression instantly in the presence of some sort of space-alien superman. “Thank you for your unimaginable sacrifice,” they will say, out of genuine, I-can’t-begin-to-relate awe. And they **can’t** relate; they know nothing of jobs, nothing of the lifestyle or mentality, nothing of that world whatsoever. So even if you were being a total punk asshole, they will totally change their way of thinking once they know you served. They’d react that way even if they didn’t fear your snapping them in half with your giant military muscles.

    2. A lot of military types just like to fight. They’re not really doing it to defend your rights.

      1. And you base this opinion on?

        1. Frank, as I have pointed out to you before:

          (1) What have the soldier boys done to end the income tax?

          (2) What have the soldier boys done to abolish the IRS?

          (3) What have the men and women in uniform done to end the WOD?

          (4) What have the oorah boys done to terminate the DEA?

          (5) What have the military types done to stop occupational licensing?

          (6) What have the descendants of the greatest generation done to abolish Dodd / Frank?

          (7) What have the jarheads done to protect a Christian baker’s right not to make cakes for gay couples?

          (8) What have the grunts done to eradicate asset forfeiture, aka highway robbery?

          (9) What have the cannon fodder done to end the electronic cage aka the panopticon through which big brother listens, observes, and tracks all?

          (10) What have the military boys done to end public education?

          1. And as I’ve pointed out to you before, these are not functions of the military.

            1. Okay, then we agree that the military does not protect “our freedoms”.

              1. If being employed correctly, they defend you from foreign invaders who would take your shit, in furtherance of the government’s only legitimate function of protecting the rights of the individual.

  25. Isn’t shreekytard’s passive aggressive voice, AddictionMyth so cute? Shreeky makes bet, fails to pay when he loses, disappears, comes back as whiney sock puppet who pretends everyone here is mean to him. Gets called out and what happens 10 minutes later? Why shreek reappears like magic! Most predictable, monotonous, boring, dull sock puppet on the whole intertoobz.

    F-

    1. “He was bullying us online, Mr Trump!” “Yeah Mr Trump, he was ganging up on us with his sockpuppets!” “Mr Trump we need to nationalize Christie’s cyberbullying legislation real quick-like!”

  26. Sounds like wishful thinking to me. I agree with MOST of the libertarian party’s policies (minus open borders). But I do not see them winning many elections, even locally. The Republicans and Democrats have infrastructure and money. And, even more important then those two things, the two-party system is deeply ingrained in the US psyche. Even if, by some miracle, the LP was to win majorities or the presidency, they’d eventually start disappointing their constituency too.

  27. I love the libertarian party; I love being a libertarian (small and big l as you pointed out), but it’s so damn hard when we are the only party with a 2016 ticket made up exclusively of candidates from the freedom hating two-part system. Unless somehow Hillary runs with a non-socialist…

  28. Are you kidding me? I’ll skip the part which assumes libertarians all want abortion to be legal, and comment on this:

    “two successful, centrist former governors who believe in economic and cultural freedom”

    No, as a matter of fact, they do not, if by cultural freedom you mean the right of a business to choose its own customers.

    “Oh, but that’s just a “purity test”!” /derp

    No, a purity test would be insisting that the LP candidates crusade for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A candidate can be impure enough to accept a long-established law, or even to say it was needed to fight Jim Crow.

    Saying that the candidate should oppose the *extension* of the 1964 act into new areas – sexual orientation, “gender identity,” political affiliation – that’s no purity test, that’s a “do you believe in freedom or not?” test. Where’s the Jim Crow system keeping gays from buying cakes for their gay ceremonies? For that matter, what’s stopping nazis from buying cake? Maybe you can say, “the ladies’ room is the new “colored” restroom!” but that would just be insane, i. e., only a prog would believe it.

    1. “But they were governors, and ex-governors will be totally popular in this election season!” /derp

      That’s what Jeb Bush said.

      1. And observe how it’s really tough to discern where “cultural freedom” ends and “economic freedom” begins.

        We’re seeing businesses facing crippling fines for following what until a couple years ago were perfectly legal practices re their choice of customer.

        Is that cultural or economic? It’s both, duh.

        Why not drop the idea of two separate, hermetically sealed boxes, one marked “cultural issues” and the other one marked “economic issues.”

  29. You wanna know my hypothesis?

    I think nominating Johnson and Weld is kind of the flip side of the zaniness of the LP people.

    LP members talk in terms of purism vs. pragmatism, but if you think that freedom of association for bakers is based on the same freedom principle as heroin vending machines in kindergarten, then by surrendering the former principle they don’t think they’re making any greater concession than by surrendering the latter. It’s all part of compromising to get elected, right?

    Add to this what I have described as the ritual horror at icky sky daddy bleever fundies, and they really don’t see how a vast expansion of the Civil Rights Act is a fundamental betrayal of principle by the “Party of Principle.”

    1. “Yeah, we have to avoid freaking out the squares. It’s a drag, but you have to make compromises. Wearing clothes to the convention, and vastly expanding the ‘civil rights’ bureaucracy,’ are all unpleasant concessions you gotta make. Look how realistic we’re being!”

      1. Hey, I’m sweating here in my boxers, pretty apolitically.

        1. Metaphorically too, I hope.

          1. Nope. *Cracks open beer.*

    2. I’m pretty neutral on Johnson, but I think one of the more effective things that might be said against him is that he is **simply not worth it**.

      There may be something to be said for renting the LP presidential line out, during an election cycle where there is much intraparty disaffection and the certainty of a president with an unusually blatant embrace of authoritarianism, to the so-called “libertarian” wing of the Republican Party (not the new Justin Amash crowd, but the traditional antagonists of the “cultural warriors,” in the longstanding Republican-consultant parlance). But Johnson is not a good enough vessel for such a movement. Since retiring from public life he has become a marijuana entrepreneur and returned to being an admitted active user. This completely disqualifies him in the eyes of the squares. There’s a big difference, in their mind, between climbing on board for a president who says he supports legalizing weed, and one who is an actual pothead drug kingpin.

  30. As I’ve said before, voting for the Libertarian party is essentially a protest vote. So why fill it with people who are part of the thing people are protesting?

    1. Bingo.

    2. Maybe that should change though? Costa Rica and other countries have less doctrinaire and far more successful ‘classical liberal’ parties. The LP should become that. Johnson may have the right plan for that but god he is a horrible candidate.

      1. Less doctrinaire, far more successful (possibly) – so – I guess you mean the PML?

        While their standard platform is somewhat libertarian-ish, they were crushed in 2014 for opposing legalization of abortion, and going so-con on gay marriage. I seem to remember that they ended up with under 10% of the seatc in the assembly as a result.

        Not really libertarian exemplars, and tone deaf.

        Not a great role model, y’know?

        1. “While their standard platform is somewhat libertarian-ish, they were crushed in 2014 for opposing legalization of abortion”

          Because all libertarians believe in legalised abortion.

      2. Less doctrinaire, far more successful (possibly) – so – I guess you mean the PML?

        While their standard platform is somewhat libertarian-ish, they were crushed in 2014 for opposing legalization of abortion, and going so-con on gay marriage. I seem to remember that they ended up with under 10% of the seatc in the assembly as a result.

        Not really libertarian exemplars, and tone deaf.

        Not a great role model, y’know?

        1. Fuck, 3 times today. Ima gonna go out with my new SW22 Victory tomorrow and do some major squirrelcide.

  31. Well since the subject has already been broached, I would say that D&D is extremely diverting, IF one has a good group with which to play.

    The original rules were basically a wargame where each player controlled one soldier instead of an army. The fantasy elements were for flavor; it could just as easily be reskinned from “fighter, cleric, thief, wizard” to “grunt, medic, spy, demolitions specialist”.

    The earliest rules were also focused on exploration and resource management rather than slaying monsters for glory. Think “The Oregon Trail”, but on paper and with a group of friends. And, of course, the dungeon master, which makes this game very free-form. Think “Grand Theft Auto”, but on paper, and with friends.

    For those interested, there is a series of Youtube videos by Matthew Colville, in which he makes a fighter using the rules of each edition of D&D (he has gotten as far as 2nd Edition). He also has started a series on how to be a dungeon master.

    I also recommend the “Acquisitions, Inc.” podcasts and videos.

    1. I was for years an avid gamer, but played D&D only once. I couldn’t go much for a competitive game that required a DM to make subjective calls. I did later play a RPG twice: Toon. Theoretically Toon was competitive, but it was mostly just for laughs, in which case the Animator’s role was completely tolerable.

      1. Depends on what you expect the DM to be, and what you expect a game to be.

        DMs have this problem all the time. The art of balancing difficulty with artfully-concealed fudging of dice rolls to keep the game fresh, interesting and entertaining is often difficult, and far too often, a DM/GM forgets the core principle of the game which is to maintain *balance* (within reason), and not ‘punish’ the players in his/her milieu.

        The subjectivity is what makes the game work. The alternative – total submission to the tyranny of the dice – makes for a very unsatisfying, and usually short game.

  32. So the LP seclects two openly statist career criminals politicians, one of whom says he would force jews to bake a cake for Nazis and another who signed gun control laws and I’m supposed to take the LP seriously?
    Try getting back to your actual principles first.

  33. Which Presidential Candidate said this:

    I would end the Federal Reserve’s control of the United States’ monetary system by repealing the Federal Reserve Act. Interest rates would no longer be tampered with, as lenders and borrowers would set their own rates.

    I would remind the banks that there would no longer be a Federal Reserve to lend to them in an emergency so if a bank gets in trouble, it’s on its own.

    Then I would let the American people know that they are now free to use whatever currency they want. The dollar would again be exchangeable for a fixed quantity of gold and the U.S. Treasury would now accept any major currency, including bitcoin, in payment of taxes.

    As a result, the country would return to a traditional and sensible money system so people could decide for themselves what kind of money they wanted to use. They could save it, spend it, or put any price they wanted on it if they wanted to lend it out.”

    1. That’s my man Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party.

      I’ll skip his campaign Web page, because the sky-daddy bleever stuff will send y’all running for the hills.

      Here’s his Huffington Post interview.

      1. …and if you want the Sky Daddy stuff, here it is.

        1. (I don’t actually know what Agenda 21 is, but I hope it’s not as bad as he says. Yet such hopes tend to be frustrated.)

      2. I wouldn’t normally consider voting for a Constitution Party candidate, since the party is wacko on Free Trade (they think it leads to socialism), but in this election cycle, neither of the two major parties has a candidate willing to defend Free Trade, so I can at least support someone willing to argue for a free market in money.

  34. MAKE LIBERTARIANISM GREAT AGAIN

    Introducing the classy, luxurious, exquisite presidential cabinet of the Donald J. Trump administration:

    Justice Department — Big Boy Christie
    Homeland Security — Rudy 9/11!!!! Giuliani
    State Department — John “Bomb Them!!!!” Bolton
    Energy Department — Sarah Palin
    Defense Department — Ann Coulter?

    Seriously, I swear I’m not trying to be an asshole, but all the stuff I’m reading in this thread from SIV, PapayaSF, John, mfckr, et al. about Trump being “the most libertarian” candidate and how maybe we should start supporting “libertarian nationalism” is just ridiculous.

    Yes, I’m open borders on immigration. No, I don’t wish to “import poor Third World people” into America so they can live off welfare, but does that mean we should give in to one form of big government just to stop another form of big government?

    And why do we give a shit about protecting the Welfare State from poor foreigners if the Dems and Repubs absolutely refuse to make necessary changes? Fuck ’em all. I’m not saying “crash the system on purpose,” but why the fuck should we care?

    If you’ve ever listened to enough Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, etc. they all invariably make the point that ? “Nobody ever said freedom was easy, nobody ever said that freedom was without risk?”

    [1/2]

    1. “Seriously, I swear I’m not trying to be an asshole, but all the stuff I’m reading in this thread from SIV, PapayaSF, John, mfckr, et al. about Trump being “the most libertarian” candidate and how maybe we should start supporting “libertarian nationalism” is just ridiculous.”

      All those people and several others are uneducated yokel retards who should have been kicked out of here an eon ago. See also ‘Hyperion’, ‘Red Rocks’, etc These people have cunts for brains.

      1. Dude. Cut that out.

        If yououweren’t lurking yesterday, I’m a newbie who’s been browsing here for a while, so I’m “aware” of some of the “battles” that have gone on.

        With that said, I understand people’s concerns about open borders (I have numerous conservative friends), but it all seems to boil down to the same thing:

        “We can’t let these people be free and move where they want because then that jeopardizes MY freedom. So close the borders.”

        I hear that all the time.

        1. Cut what out? Calling out idiot scum as idiot scum?

          The anti-immigrant folks need to be crushed out of politics. It needs to be destroyed utterly to the point where they lose hope. That is the silver lining of Clinton’s inevitable rise to the presidency: she will probably go amnesty and pro-immigrant. If the remnants of the GOP are smart and have any bargaining power they will offer her a blank cheque on immigration in exchange for repealing Obamacare.

          1. Cut what out? Calling out idiot scum as idiot scum?

            The anti-immigrant folks need to be crushed out of politics. It needs to be destroyed utterly to the point where they lose hope. That is the silver lining of Clinton’s inevitable rise to the presidency: she will probably go amnesty and pro-immigrant. If the remnants of the GOP are smart and have any bargaining power they will offer her a blank cheque on immigration in exchange for repealing Obamacare.

            Oops, just seeing this response.

            You could have made the same point with *less harsh* rhetoric. Although I, too, can’t stand the anti-immigrant jerks like Malkin, Coulter, Savage, etc., the posters here are at least warm to libertarianism. The people over at Fox News and on talk radio are not.

            1. If you’ve been around, you’d know Cytotoxic is not into “less harsh rhetoric.” He knows everything, thinks the vast increase in rapes by Muslims in Europe isn’t happening, and everyone who disagrees with him on anything is a moron. He knew Trump would never win the nomination, and he still thinks Hillary is inevitable.

              1. “He knew Trump would never win the nomination”

                Actually I suggested he would. But he’s never beating Clinton.

                “hinks the vast increase in rapes by Muslims in Europe isn’t happening”

                Because it probably isn’t. There is no Swedish rape epidemic. Have not seen any real stats anywhere else.

                1. My wife and I both live in Europe (and are both physicians); the rapes are real, and they are happening.

                  A study from actual Swedes, not questionable Canadians, who deny rapes happening in Europe, with the massive uptick happening at the same time as hundreds of thousands of “migrants” (80% of them fighting aged male). I suppose Duetchland is paying for all those signs suggesting Mohammedans should keep their hands and penises to themselves? I guess that napping and rape of British girls is a myth too.

                  Wherever these Mohammedans go, rape reports go up, markedly… Are you like Kennedy, who basically excused this for the “Greater Good” of Open-Borders? Is mass rape an acceptable norm in exchange for mass migration?

                  I want a “yes” or “no” on these last two questions.

    2. I think there’s a big difference between praising Trump’s libertarianism, even wrt Clinton’s (he is less of a neocon, which is not insubstantial, and is better in his Johnny-come-lately pronouncements on Obamacare and 2A–as opposed to the gun-grabbing single-payer advocate he was until recently; but he is undoubtedly more full-throated in his explicit, unabashed **promises** of future authoritarianism in all other respects, horrible as she is in those areas), and saying you are anti-immigration. I’m not myself, but disagreeing with me doesn’t mean you think Trump is a libertarian. It just means you think Ron Paul is.

      1. ” Trump’s libertarianism”

        No such thing.

        1. No, there isn’t. That is a nonfactive grammatical construction; it does not imply that he has any. Compare similarly: “At the debate, Trump mentioned his big penis.”

        2. Most libertarian Republican nominee since Goldwater. I’d say Reagan if he’d got the nom in ’76.

          1. BAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA *gasp* BAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

      2. I think there’s a big difference between praising Trump’s libertarianism, even wrt Clinton’s (he is less of a neocon, which is not insubstantial?

        Citation?

        I peg Donald as a mercantilist, which isn’t too far off from neoconservatism.

        His foreign policy comes down to: “Bomb the fuck out of them, go in there and claim the ‘spoils of war,’ and make people pay us in exchange for security.”

        Trump treats the military likes marauding rent-a-cops. He supported the Iraq War, the Libyan War, and said at one of the later GOP debates that he’d be open to sending tens of thousands of troops into the ME to fight ISIS.

        Trump being a noninterventionist — even in contrast to Clinton — is pure myth.

        1. Thank you. You provide smarter commentary than Doug Bandow of Forbes, whose tittering about Trump’s supposed ‘challenge to the foreign policy elite’ is embarrassing.

          1. David Horowitz (his picture is in the dictionary when you look up “Neocon”) says Trump’s foreign policy is indistinguishable from Ron Paul’s (that’s “Ron” not “Rand”). Trump is anti-UN, anti-NATO and wants to withdraw US forces from most of the world. He never supported the Iraq War. He briefly and reluctantly refrained from criticizing it on the Howard Stern Show on the very eve of the invasion but otherwise opposed it before and after.

            1. Right.

              Better anti-war Libertarians than any of the writers or posters at Reason have spoken very fondly of Trump’s FP vision.

            2. Cool story bro.

              “Trump is anti-UN, anti-NATO and wants to withdraw US forces from most of the world”

              Except when he wants to invade Syria for their oil.

        2. I peg Donald as a mercantilist, which isn’t too far off from neoconservatism.

          We were talking the other day about throwing around terms that don’t make any sense?

          “Neoconservatism” is a term used to describe a group of mostly-jewish intellectual-types who left the Democratic party over a split with the “new left” about how to prosecute the Cold War.

          The majority of Neoconservative theory is entirely about Foreign Relations – particularly in the US should use military force in the post-soviet world (*its basically Wilsonianism with a strong-unilateral bent), and has very little to say about trade other than it is “nice”, but takes a backseat to the moral imperative to secure America’s interests with force.

          What do you mean that “mercantilist, which isn’t too far off from neoconservatism”?

          1. I was wondering about that one myself. But the rest of it was informative, if true.

          2. Neocons like David Horowitz? Who is on record that he believes Trump shares the same foreign policy views as Ron Paul.

          3. We were talking the other day about throwing around terms that don’t make any sense?

            If we were, I apologize because I must have left the thread before I saw your last response.

            The majority of Neoconservative theory is entirely about Foreign Relations – particularly in the US should use military force in the post-soviet world (*its basically Wilsonianism with a strong-unilateral bent), and has very little to say about trade other than it is “nice”, but takes a backseat to the moral imperative to secure America’s interests with force.

            Honestly? I do get that vibe from Trump. Can anyone imagine President Trump looking the other way if Putin or some other authoritarian fuck tries to challenge him? That’s why Trump as POTUS worries me (he has incredibly thin skin and a YUGE ego), but Clinton is as bad if not worse.

            What do you mean that “mercantilist, which isn’t too far off from neoconservatism”?

            Mostly how they’re both always saying “BOMB THEM. MOAR BOMBS. NEVER ENOUGH BOMBS.”

            I mean, the mercantilists and the neoconservatives seem to agree that Obama is “weak” on fighting enemies, and he’s pretty much a bombaholic. Not to mention the “kill list” and bragging about how he’s good at killing people.

            But no, the mercantilists and neocons can never have enough BOMBS.

            1. We were talking the other day about throwing around terms that don’t make any sense?

              If we were, I apologize because I must have left the thread before I saw your last response.

              No, its all right here.

              mercantilists and neocons can never have enough BOMBS

              If that’s what you mean (whatever that means), then maybe you should just say that instead

              1. I have honestly never heard the word “mercantilist” used to suggest this in my entire life. Maybe because large mercantile powers needed big fleets to back up their policies back in the day or something? I don’t know.

                1. Note that my use of “mercantilist” is a little esoteric, so I apologize.

                  I mean “mercantilist” as a way of saying “Jacksonian,” but with a more modern connotation

              2. Thanks for the link.

                And yeah, you’re right.

                I guess *my* distinction is this:

                Mercantilists will say “Fuck these messy treaties and wars, and just bomb the shit out of people.”

                Neocons will say “We need these organizations like the UN and NATO, and nation-building is awesome but if it doesn’t go our way, we still have BOMBS.”

                For me, it seems like a primary difference of preference. People like Trump seem too lazy to deal with things like NATO anyway.

                1. Neocons will say “We need these organizations like the UN and NATO,

                  That statement isn’t just nonsensical, its the exact opposite of what Neocons actually think.

                  Neoconservatives think the US should withdraw from any multilateral security relationships like NATO, and abandon the UN as a farce which only empowers our enemies by giving them collective veto-power.

                  In the Neocon view the US should use its overwhelming military power unilaterally, and be unapologetic about doing so as a moral imperative. We are “good” and we can enforce our will. this means intimidating anyone who threatens the Pax Americana, or destroying them and replacing them with friendlier regimes if necessary.

                  “Nation-building” is just 1990s buzzword that means little/nothing – and to the degree it has any meaning it all, it was something Neocons also opposed.

                  (*the term originated to describe multilateral diplomatic/military intervention by the UN/NATO in places like in the Balkans…. where the UN “built” countries out of the remains of Yugoslavia)

                  It was also used to describe passive humanitarian attempts to re-engineer countries like Somalia into “functioning’ places, which eventually sucked in US military power.

                  Which was something else Neocons opposed strongly- because ‘so what if somalis starve’? Its not in the US’s interests.’

                  None of this really has anything to do with Trump, who has disparaged and disavowed all the Neocons.

                  1. e.g. re: Trump vis a vis ‘neocons

                    The rise of Donald Trump is threatening the power of neoconservatives, who find themselves at risk of being marginalized in the Republican Party.

                    Neoconservatism was at its height during the presidency of George W. Bush, helping shape the rationale for … Iraq.

                    But now the ideology is under attack, with Trump systematically rejecting each of its core principles.

                    Whereas neoconservatism advocates spreading American ideals through the use of military force, Trump made the case for nationalism and a smaller U.S. military footprint.

                    In what Trump calls an “America First” approach, he proposes rejecting alliances that don’t work, trade deals that don’t deliver, and military interventionism that costs too much.

                    He has said he would get along with Russian President Vladimir Putin and sit down with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un ? a throwback to the “realist” foreign policy of President Nixon.

                    As if to underscore that point, the presumptive GOP nominee met with Nixon’s Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, earlier this week, and delivered his first major foreign policy speech at an event last month hosted by the Center for National Interest, which Nixon founded.

                    Leading neoconservative figures like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have assailed Trump’s foreign policy views.

                  2. “Neoconservatives think the US should withdraw from any multilateral security relationships like NATO”

                    Wrong. Neocons love NATO.

        3. That is an excellent point; and I admit I hadn’t been paying attention. I did not know that he supported Iraq and Libya. I did notice that the debates in both parties tended to be more about Assad hawkery (Clinton, Fiorina, Christie, Rubio, Bush, Kasich) vs. ISIS-first hawkery (Sanders, Trump, Carson, Cruz, Paul) than hawkery vs. dovery per se; and, much as I loathe Assad and Russia myself, the former seemed like the more dangerous sort of hawkishness by far. (Not that Trump hasn’t found a way to make even his **isolationist** pronouncements sound world-endangering; he may be the first presidential candidate ever to run on a pro-nuclear proliferation platform.)

          1. I did not know that he supported Iraq and Libya

            According to this and this, Trumps record on Iraq amounts to ‘objecting to it mildly’ on multiple occasions, and suggesting on one or two others that “well whatever” he was i guess ok

            re: Libya, i think he said something to the tune that “Gaddhafi’s got to go”.

            I’m not sure how one adds those things up and suggests its supposed to be remotely comparable to someone person who both agitated for and then voted for the Iraq invasion…. and then was the Sec. State who was the architect for the US intervention in Libya.

            I personally think actions matter more when it comes to this sort of thing.

    3. Funny thing is Bolton would be the smartest most reliable person in that group by far. Which says a lot of that group.

    4. Did trump actually propose that cabinet himself, or is that just the work of your (or someone else’s) fevered imagination?

      1. It’s a joke, which you’d get if you weren’t super-defensive on this issue.

      2. Nope. My silly imagination.

        ‘Twas a joke.

  35. [2/2]

    Of course having open borders and the Welfare State is enormously problematic, but we should look at it as a double-edged libertarian sword. Something will have to give at some point: do the Dems realize we can’t keep doing endless welfare and become anti-immigrant? Do the Repubs love welfare to the extent that NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!! but deporting illegals? (According to Ann Coulter, anyway.)

    There are always going to be setbacks when you believe in principle, yet some of you are riding Gary’s Johnson because he “lacks principle” even though you’re doing the same thing with Trump and issues like immigration.

    Anyway, if all this bores you, just tell me to jump into a rusty woodchipper and I will take that as a signal to fuck off.

    But some of you guys need to go eat a bag of dicks just for considering Donald Trump as some sort of “libertarian alternative.”

    1. I’m not convinced that John Bolton *wouldn’t* be a good Sec. State.

      Otherwise? Bwahahahahah!

    2. “Of course having open borders and the Welfare State is enormously problematic”

      No it’s not. There is no correlation between immigration and welfarism.

      http://object.cato.org/sites/c…..2n1-11.pdf

      1. Total lie from open borders shill Cato Institute. Immigrants use far more welfare than natives:

        http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Im…..Households

        And illegal immigration costs ~$113 billion a year:

        http://www.fairus.org/DocServe…..013upd.pdf

        I want ambitious, entrepreneurial people with American values to immigrate here. But the perverse incentives of the welfare state are not the way to attract such people.

        1. Yawn. Cato already fisked CIS’s garbage ‘study’.

          http://www.cato.org/blog/cis-e…..elfare-use

          From the contents of your even stupider second link: “Educating the Children of Illegal Aliens”

          -hint: it’s the goddamn same as the cost of educating non-illegal immigrant children, and both will contribute tons in taxes.

          1. Lol, the opinions of a Cato blogger. Not a valid rebuttal.

            1. That’s not an opinion you dumbshit. That’s a refutation, not that a yokeltard should be expected to know the difference.

              1. It’s definitely opinion. Sorry bud.

                1. Sorry dumbshit, the article refutes CIS’s bad study. I’m guessing you didn’t read it because reading and math are for liberal fags.

                  1. Except it doesn’t. Get back to me when you have a real study to counter it with, not the hamfisted opinions of a Cato blog shill.

                    1. I take it you don’t know anything about statistics. This is from the CIS study:

                      Table 8 shows how the difference between immigrant and native welfare costs varies depending on the controls. The first row gives the baseline estimate with no controls other than an indicator for immigrant status. In the no-control scenario, immigrant households cost $1,803 more than native households, which is consistent with Table 2 above. The second row shows that the immigrant-native difference becomes larger ? up to $2,323 ? when we control for the presence of a worker in the household. The difference then becomes gradually smaller as controls are added for education and number of children. The fourth row shows that immigrant households with the same worker status, education, and number of children as native households cost just $309 more, which is a statistically insignificant difference. The fifth row shows that immigrants use fewer welfare dollars when they are compared to natives of the same race as well as worker status, education, and number of children.

                      This says welfare is not an immigration issue, but a class and race issue. It also says that immigrants use less welfare than citizens who are otherwise exactly the same as them. It’s not opinion to actually look at the numbers. Maybe you should read a study all the way through and understand it before you use it as evidence.

                    2. The claim was “immigrants use less welfare than natives”?this study debunks that claim.

                      Now kill yourself for being so pettily stupid.

                    3. What is wrong with you? Are you 13?

                      Even when arguing with hard-core border-control guys like PapayaSF he doesn’t sink to the childishness you do.

                      You got data, fine – but when people point out the flaws in the studies you site your rebuttal should center around why those flaws aren’t flaws, not simply repeating that CATO is an open-borders shill while ignoring that CIS is a closed-borders one and then closing with ‘kill yourself’ or ‘euthanize yourself’. That’s not a mic-drop closing, that’s a ‘WTF is wrong with this guy’ closing.

                    4. I get annoyed someone does a disingenuous driveby with needle-dicking re-contextualizations of evidence that deceptively deflect from the central premise.

                      The point of contention was singularly this: Either immigrants?regardless of their race/class?typically use more welfare than natives, or they don’t.

                      It’s a given that immigrants tend to be poorer, since they haven’t been here as long to accrue education/capital/etc. It’s a given that immigrants are predominantly non-white, considering their points of origin.

                      None of this should detract from the apparent reality that immigrants statistically use more welfare than natives.

                    5. “Either immigrants?regardless of their race/class?typically use more welfare than natives, or they don’t.”

                      They don’t. Case closed.

      2. No it’s not. There is no correlation between immigration and welfarism.

        Hmmm. I should read that.

        But mfckr says it’s wrong? I’ll still read it and take with a grain of salt.

        1. Read both – but keep in mind that CIS has its own axe to grind (as does CATO).

          1. Read Cato’s counter of CIS’s criticism.

    3. Appreciate the thought out post (boo @ lumping me in w/ John though).

      Closing the border is easier to deal with than the welfare state. Continuing to import masses of people who are culturally antithetical to liberty (http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjrHR2lWkAAhJF5.jpg) is only going to make the welfare state more omnipotent.

      The system will never collapse until we read MadMax-Venezuela levels of insanity. And even -that- won’t be enough.

      But if you’re okay with that kind of national suicide, then yeah blow the borders wide open.

      1. “Closing the border is easier to deal with than the welfare state.”

        They are both anethema to liberty, unlike the mythical freedom-hating immigrant.

        There is no correlation between immigration and welfarism. It’s easier to immigrate into Canada and Canada spends less as %GDP on welfare than America, as an example of one data point.

        1. Not a myth. Most contemporary immigrants want bigger govt and are drawn to the US welfare state. Statistics demonstrate this: http://www.pewresearch.org/dai…..overnment/

          I don’t want those immigrants, and they’re not healthy for any society.

          1. “I don’t want those immigrants, and they’re not healthy for any society.”

            Tough shit. ‘Society’ has no rights.

            “Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government”

            Ah so they are just like Americans.

            1. Tough shit. ‘Society’ has no rights.

              Individuals comprising it do. And they’ve the right to exclude others from it.

              Ah so they are just like Americans.

              The Pew results show the American public at large does not favor bigger govt.

              1. “they’ve the right to exclude others from it.”

                No they don’t.

                “The Pew results show the American public at large does not favor bigger govt.’

                BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I’ll see your ‘Pew’ poll and raise you ‘election results’. Stated preference vs revealed preference mofo

                1. Wasn’t wading into stated vs. revealed prefs.

                  You made a claim derived from the data a hand, I countered it using the same data. Either you didn’t read, or you’re retarded.

                    1. Arguing with Cytotoxic is pointless. He has one Cato study that he thinks is magical. No other information means anything to him.

                      Obama budgets $17,613 for every new illegal minor, more than Social Security retirees get

                      Immigration Will Bankrupt Norway

                    2. Not sure why Cytotoxic cares so much since apparently they live in Canada. US domestic policy hardly affects them.

                    3. It does affect me. Need somewhere to get decent healthcare.

                    4. Yes, what is my exequisite data and studies next to your MadeUpNumbers BullshitBlogger?

                  1. ” I countered it using the same data”

                    And then I counter-countered it. PWND

      2. Appreciate the thought out post (boo @ lumping me in w/ John though).

        Sorry. 🙁

        But if you’re okay with that kind of national suicide, then yeah blow the borders wide open.

        I just don’t know what else to say/do.

        The people of America need to fucking wake up. But all they want to do is use the government to bully each other.

        Also, I see it as almost impossible to “close the border.” There are hundreds if not thousands of tunnels underground, and couldn’t anyone just take a fucking boat around the Pacific and get in through the California coast? I don’t see how a Trump Wall helps that much.

        War on Drugs is also driving a lot of “illegal” crossings.

        1. Trump’s Wall gives them The Feelz. They want a strongman to live out their authoritarian fantasies of putting The Brown Man in his place.

          1. I see the Trump Wall as becoming another Bridge to Nowhere. Complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

            What I’d do:

            End stupid War on Drugs

            End minimum wage laws (you’d be surprised how many small businesses use “illegal” labor given high taxes and labor/environmental law costs)

            Encourage the illegal immigrants who are working and sending remittances to Mexico to bring those people over here (my conservative friends say I am batshit insane on this)

            Eliminate farm/agricultural subsidies (jobless farmers probably won’t come here as much)

            Simplify the fuck out of immigration law, the tax code, labor regulations, and so forth.

            1. 1. End the war on Drugs – end the violence in Northern Mexico.

              2. Get rid of the low-skill visa quotas – if you can work you can come on a visa, no more ‘lottery’, no more incentive to sneak across or overstay the visa you do get.

              3. Get rid of the assumption that if you’re here you *must* be on the path to citizenship.

              No need to build a wall, no need to ‘get tough’ on immigration – in fact, lightening the restrictions on who can come here legally removes most of the incentives to *stay* here once you do get here. America is expensive. A Mexican could come here and work 6 months and go back with enough money to take care of his family the rest of the year.

              1. But I’ll reiterate – until the tough on immigration people are willing to countenance internal passports, RFID ID checkers, produce-on-demand ID laws, they aren’t serious about the problem.

                1. Oh Christ, they’re totally willing to countenance any and every facet of a police state. They are serious-seriously insane. All your other points as well as Clint’s are good too.

  36. I see from this article and the earlier ‘Johnson wins the nomination’ article that the Team Red trogs have left behind any grip on reality. Trump has as much claim to being ‘pro-liberty’ or ‘anti-war’ as he does to being electable: none. Anyone arguing otherwise has a cunt for a brain.

    Johnson is a lousy choice for a whole of reasons. He’ll blow it should have been Peterson.

  37. Here’s a nice article from Tamny that debunks the myth that the US was prosperous in the ’50s because the rest of the world wasn’t. He also debunks the notion that America was freer in the ’70s.

    Going back to the 1970s, airfare was very expensive thanks to airline routes being planned Soviet Union style by the Civil Aeronautics Board. The top tax rate back then was 70 percent, and owning a landline phone was illegal. Long distance calls on those phones were prohibitively expensive, and ownership of a $3,995 mobile phone was years (Motorola rolled out the first one in 1983) away. Driving was also a nightmare then thanks to price controls on fuel that frequently led to Soviet-style lines.

    Owning gold was also illegal, and there was the draft.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo…..2f607f5253

    1. Nixon ended the draft and selective service. There was no registration until Jimmuh Carter and a Democrat Congress reintroduced it.

      The 1970s were unbelievably free and tolerant compared to any other period in our history.

      1. And Reagan, after campaigning against Selective Service, flipped as soon as he was elected. Not to mention his administration prosecuted non-registers. Fuck his corpse and Jimmy Carter too.

      2. “The 1970s were unbelievably free and tolerant compared to any other period in our history.”

        Lies. RTFA

  38. The end game IS to win — this year. The other parties have nominated the joke candidates this time. All it will take is for people to believe that Johnson has a chance. He’s already at 10 percent. Once he hits 15 to 20 percent, the credibility gap is gone and voters will reject the crazy and unprepared Trump and the criminal and overprepared Clinton.

    1. This is delusion. Look, Clinton is going to win, period. The only thing the LP can hope to achieve is serious attention-and that is absolutely a worthy goal. But they’re not going to win.

      1. Now, there’s a great rendition, I hope he can see those purple mountains again.

  39. Predictions:
    Among the Reason commenters who do vote, they will vote for candidates who do not win.
    Among the Reason commenters who do vote, they will in the minority of those who vote for or against propositions.
    I can state this with some confidence.

    1. “will in the minority”

      …will *be* in the minority…

  40. In case the po-po is asking, I’m more patriotic than all of you fucks.

    1. Do you have a bald-eagle-crying at the smoking twin-towers tattoo? hmm?

  41. Ooh, Epic Rap Battles of History did a Frederick Douglass v. Thomas Jefferson video.

    I sure hope it’s tasteful…

  42. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    http://www.realcash44.com

  43. I’m waiting for the Romney, Bloomberg and Koch support.

  44. Does that LP want a $15 minimum wage too?

    1. He should change his name to Van Johnson.

  45. up to I looked at the check of $4791 , I did not believe …that…my neighbour could actualie earning money in there spare time on their laptop. . there friend brother has been doing this for less than 7 months and resently cleard the morgage on their mini mansion and purchased a great Bugatti Veyron . you could look here ……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  46. up to I looked at the check of $4791 , I did not believe …that…my neighbour could actualie earning money in there spare time on their laptop. . there friend brother has been doing this for less than 7 months and resently cleard the morgage on their mini mansion and purchased a great Bugatti Veyron . you could look here ……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  47. As I was playing d&d this weekend I guess the shoe fits. Still maybe it’s because I live in California or the Bay Area but I just don’t get the feeling people are really becoming more libertarian. Some areas sure, legalization of X is more accepted. But big government social programs, I see no decline in the desire for those.

  48. RE: “There Ain’t No Party Like the Libertarian Party?and This Could Be the Year it Gets Hot”
    With Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as standard bearers, the LP is more serious and in touch with America than the Dems and the GOP.

    If our beloved Libertarian Party is to become relevant, this is the election year to do it.
    No more excuses.

  49. Democrats and Republicans may be imploding, but Libertarians never hit critical mass where that was an *option*.

    So yes, Libertarians are a “joke”. Not because of what they believe, that’s just back-drop. They’re a “joke” because they are ineffective at achieving their stated objectives. To the degree in which America is becoming more “libertarian”, it’s in spite of the Libertarian party, not because of it.

    All of that said, I’m probably still voting Gary Johnson come November. But I’m not the one trying to convince people that by losing, Libertarians are really winning.

  50. Nothing says “serious” like the one-ring circus in Orlando.

  51. THIS IS THE YEAR!! I mean why wouldn’t people take seriously a party where the overweight naked Chairman strips naked on stage!

    (Maybe Bernie Sanders supporters….)

  52. Gillespie…your world would be a Godless Libertarian world????

  53. Gillespie…your world would be a Godless Libertarian world????

  54. Having done some climbing in my youth , I appreciate Johnson’s visceral understanding of the mountainClimber’s algorithm :

    top ? put one foot in front of the other repeat

  55. Make 7500 bucks every month? Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website??

    ~~~~~~~~~ http://www.NetSelf70.com

  56. Make 7500 bucks every month? Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website??

    ~~~~~~~~~ http://www.NetSelf70.com

  57. You know, if that’s the best the critics can come up with, then maybe it’s past time for Nick to focus on the frivolities. Why not focus instead on the $2 trillion, 4000+ American lives, 250,000+ lives of Iraqi civilians, the rise of ISIS, the destabilization of the entire Middle East, exploding health care costs and tepid economic recovery the two “major” parties have brought us?
    Line them up side-by-side:
    Liberation: Vermin wears a boot on his head. Reps/Dems: Kill 4000+ Americans in Iraq/Afghanistan
    Libertarian: James Weeks does a strip tease. Reps/Dems: Blow $2 trillion in Iraq/Afghanistan

  58. The amount of unbridled hope from Nick is getting frankly nauseating.

  59. I guess election 2016 can be important more than elections which happens before. Donald Trump can be effective but Hillary Clinton can be a key for liberalism.

  60. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $98 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss…
    I work through this URL. Go here,,,
    This is what I do.————- http://www.earnmore9.com

  61. Make 7500 bucks every month? Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website??

    ~~~~~~~~~ http://www.NetSelf70.com

  62. My Best friend makes $96/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her paycheck was $12800 just working on the internet for a few hours. you have nothing to lose…
    Read more on this web site..
    Go to tech tab for work detail.——————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  63. My Best friend makes $96/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her paycheck was $12800 just working on the internet for a few hours. you have nothing to lose…
    Read more on this web site..
    Go to tech tab for work detail.——————– http://www.earnmore9.com

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

    Click This Link inYour Browser

    ========== http://www.path50.com

  65. 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.selfCash10.com

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

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

  67. 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.selfCash10.com

  68. 2″My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time.You can also do this.

    >>>>>>> https://www.Cashpay60.tk

  69. 2″My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I’ve just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time.You can also do this.

    >>>>>>> https://www.Cashpay60.tk

  70. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.