Election 2016

Is This Where Libertarians Say Goodbye to Conservatives?

To right-wingers, Gary Johnson's embrace of "social liberalism" negates his pledge to "sign off on any reduction in the federal government."

|

Gary Johnson
Nick del Castillo, Flickr

Way back in the day (in the early years of the Cold War), libertarians and conservatives formed an unstable but decades-long coalition against actual, Soviet-style communism (in this, they were of course joined by most liberals as well) and many domestic increases in government power. This was, broadly speaking, "fusionism," and it allowed two political ideologies with very different beliefs and ideas to coexist not simply in the pages of National Review but also more broadly on the post-war right. As Ronald Reagan told Reason in a 1975 interview, "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

That interview, conducted shortly after Reagan had left his second term as governor of California and was gearing up to challenge Gerarld Ford for the 1976 GOP presidential nomination, highlights the tensions that continue between libertarians and conservatives. Even as Dutch explained, "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves," he stressed that "I cannot go along with the libertarian philosophy that says that all of the sin laws can be ruled out as simply trying to protect us from ourselves." In fact, from its earliest days, the libertarian-conservative alliance was wracked with all sorts of problems over religion, foreign policy, and lifestyle. Founded in 1968, Reason had from its earliest issues pushed for an end to the draft and the legalization of abortion, drugs, and sexual contact among consenting adults. The LP, launched in 1971, has always done the same.

Fast-forward many years—after the Reagan presidency, which saw a massive centralization of power in Washington and the launching of a national anti-porn action headed up be Attorney General Ed Meese; the end of the Cold War; the massive expansion of spending, debt, war, and surveillance under George W. Bush and a Republican Congress; and more—and the libertarian-conservative relationship is mostly in tatters.

But the final straw in the #NeverTrump era may be, according to a number of influential conservatives, that the Libertarian Party failed to appeal to social conservatives with the selection of its presidential ticket.

Instead of, say, choosing a well-spoken young candidate with absolutely no experience in elected office who is anti-abortion (Austin Petersen), the LP delegates chose instead the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-pot, pro-immigration Gary Johnson. Worse still, the LP went along when Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico who was also the party's 2012 nominee, insisted that his running mate be William Weld, another liberal, Republican, two-term governor (of Massachusetts). "Libertarians could appeal to social conservatives," reads the headline to a piece at The Federalist by David Harsanyi. "They just don't want to." When Govs. Gary Johnson and William Weld had the temerity to appear on MSNBC shortly after winning the party's backing, the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney divined the occult message being sent: "The message was clear: We don't need those backward Christian Right bozos as much we need as you MSNBCers." What does it mean, I wonder, that Johnson was grilled this weekend by the crew at Fox News Sunday?

And here's The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway, who recalled his interview of Johnson back in 2012, when the governor was on his way to bagging a record 1.2 million votes for the LP in the general election:

Johnson was pro-choice, which is a nonstarter for social conservatives.

This year, Johnson seems to be doubling down on alienating social conservatives at a time when, more than ever, they might be inclined to give the Libertarian party a shot. Johnson has quite inexplicably rejected the notion of religious liberty protections, arguing that Christians who object should be forced to bake cakes and the like for gay weddings.

(I should pause to note that Harsanyi, Carney, and Hemingway have all appeared in the print and web pages of Reason; if nothing else, this gives a sense of how fusionism has not fully disappeared, even in an age of proliferating media outlets through which we can more perfectly sort ourselves via ideology.)

Hemingway's scan of Johnson is perhaps the clearest indication that what conservatives are responding to is not Johnson and the LP per se but the crackup of their own Republican party. Given the choice of voting for Donald Trump, an objectively unacceptable candidate not simply to many conservatives but a majority of Americans; Hillary Clinton, another unacceptable candidate, though for reasons different than Trump; or Gary Johnson, who told Fox News this weekend that he would get rid of the Department of Education and many other parts of the federal government, conservatives still see themselves as homeless.

Especially if you are anti-abortion, which has always made Johnson "a nonstarter for social conservatives." That was true in 2012 and it's still true in 2016. The difference today is that if you are a #NeverTrump, #PleaseNotTrump, #ReallyNoNotTrumpUnlessIHaveTo, #FuckItIWillVoteForTrumpOverHillaryIJustWontTalkAboutIt conservative, you don't have a candidate for whom you can vote. Sure, Trump is very anti-abortion these days, even making the mistake of saying that if and when it is finally banned (something that Reagan and two Bushes did absolutely nothing to effect), women getting abortions will need to be punished (oddly, that logical position was attacked mostly by anti-abortion activists, who paternistically argue that any woman undergoing the procedure is "the second victim" of abortion).

So Gary Johnson was unacceptable to conservatives four years ago and now that conservatives are floundering between a rock (Trump) and Hillary (a hard place), Johnson is even more unacceptable, even though he is opposed to late-term abortions, public funding for abortions, and forcing insurance companies to cover any particular procedure. It's a good thing that Barry Goldwater isn't running in today's Republican Party. As a pro-abortion conservative, he wouldn't make it past a primary.

This is not to say that Johnson, who is pulling 16 percent in Utah against Trump and Clinton, is a perfect candidate for anyone, even many libertarians.

It's true that during an LP presidential debate on Fox Business's Stossel show, Johnson didn't just say he would force Christian bakers to make cakes for Sodomites, he grudgingly admitted when pressed that he would even force Jewish bakers to make "Nazi wedding cakes!" To be fair, it's not clear exactly what a Nazi wedding cake—I assume it's swastika-shaped and probably has a German-chocolate filling, but really who knows?—but Gott im Himmel, it sounds dreadful. In the Stossel debate, Johnson said that a business should be free to discriminate against "stink" (body odor) and lack of shoes and shirt but that it's a "black hole" when you allow vendors to refuse service based on religious beliefs. In effect, what he's arguing—I think—is that the same sort of antidiscrimination laws that cover race and gender should be extended to sexual orientation and gender identity. Under current law, goes this line of thinking, just as you can't refuse to do business with a black person or a woman out of religious conviction, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to a gay or trans person. In a recent column, the Examiner's Carney goes so far as to invoke the old "First they came for the communists…" poem, writing, "Today they come after the Humanae Vitae types, the pro-lifers, the Bible-thumpers, the Kosher types. Tomorrow they come after the other conscientious objectors." Yeah, not so much.

Having lost every single culture-war battle in the post-war era—racial integration, pornography, feminism, gay rights, raunchy music, you name it—today's conservatives have transformed the local bakery into Stalingrad, an embattled position that will not yield no matter what. Most importantly, they have not called for a thoroughgoing repeal of the Civil Rights-era legislation redefining private businesses such as hotels, theaters, and restaurants as "public accommodations" and thus subject to government interference, they are simply saying that gays, lesbian, and trans people should not be covered by those same laws. It's even more exquisitely nuanced than that, because most conservatives point out that the Christian or Muslim or whatever bakers (and the occasional photographer or pizza shop owner) in question willingly serve gay customers, they just don't want to "participate" in same-sex weddings by inscribing "Congrats, Adam & Steve" rather than "Congrats, Adam & Eve," on a cake. This is an unacceptable abridgement of religious liberty, they say, even when it involves a non-religious, profit-making enterprise such as a bakery. Not a bakery run by Little Sisters of the Poor, mind you.

In this particular instance, I'm quick to say that I am closer to the conservative outcome (which is held also by many libertarians) that businesses shouldn't be forced to serve customers they don't want to. Though I wouldn't limit the justification to some vague religious grounds (plenty of Christians have no problem with same-sex marriage, for instance) but to whatever a business owner believes. I say this even though I, like my colleague Ronald Bailey, who grew up in the segregated South, believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a proper and necessary law. During the days of racial segregation (an era that also kept women as a class from participating fully in commercial life), there were many state and local ordinances and customs that carried the force of law that made it impossible for blacks to get service anywhere. Thank god we changed that; we are a genuinely better country for accepting more and more types of people, communities, and individuals. 

In today's world, there are virtually no places that are not accommodating to all sorts of racial, ethnic, sexual, and other minorities. In the handful of cases of where bakers have been fined for not providing services, there is no doubt that another nearby business would have happily served them and there is something extremely disturbing about the state fining owners or sending them to counseling and therapy. I also think that in a world of Yelp and other reputational systems, it's easy enough to publicize not simply establishments that give bad service but refuse to serve certain types of people. The amount of redress available to everyone these days (such as conservatives vainly trying to force Target into changing its bathroom policies) is a great and wonderful thing (though even this can go wrong).

However, whether these are pure instances of "religious liberty" being undermined is not really clear to me, especially when conservatives refuse to engage in good-faith arguments about either the larger issue of antidiscrimination laws or the clear-cut violations of law by government actors in discriminating against gays and lesbians. Yes, it is surely wrong that bakers and photographers have been fined or even run out of business for not being pro-gay marriage, but what do you say about the state discriminating against individuals for decades? When Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her religious beliefs, she was hailed by the likes of Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz as a martyr for religious liberty and became perhaps the only public-sector worker ever cheered by right-wingers for doing nothing while drawing a taxpayer-funded paycheck. In fact, she was patently discriminating against individuals as an agent of the state, which is utterly unacceptable. Not only that, for a while, she didn't let anyone else in her office issue licenses, either. 

More recently, conservatives, such as The Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson, are attacking the libertarian-leaning Michigan congressman, Justin Amash, for his support of the Maloney amendment, which bars "'discrimination' on the basis of 'sexual orientation and gender identity' in the private employment policies of federal contractors." The proliferation of scare quotes in such a short sentence is one clue that Anderson's argument is more about emotions rather than rule of law. As Amash makes clear in one of his characteristically encyclopedic Facebook explanations of his votes, the vote he cast simply creates "consistency between the nondiscrimination policies that apply in federal employment and those that apply in employment by federal contractors. This consistency reflects the principle that an agent of the federal government—being paid with taxpayer funds—must follow the rules that apply to the government in interactions with third parties. The Maloney amendment affirms this important principle." Amash's full explanation of this issue and his vote is well worth reading—perhaps especially by the Johnson campaign, as it eloquently mounts a critique and embrace of antidiscrimination law and a defense of religious freedom at the same time.

To bring this back to conservatives, libertarians, and the 2016 election: For the past several decades, it has simply been unacceptable to Republicans and conservatives more broadly to be pro-choice. So, as Mark Hemingway notes, Johnson was already totally unacceptable to conservatives four years ago. Maybe he is now even more so because he also embraces gay marriage, trans identity, and a host of other social issues that drive conservatives nuts. But nothing has changed then, right? He was "a nonstarter" going back to his first term in office in New Mexico. 

Here is what is different between today and four years ago, though: The Johnson/Weld ticket is, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, an "honorable alternative" to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He is in favor of sharply reducing the size, scope, and spending of the federal government, and his basic vision of a more-limited government should appeal to conservatives who have nowhere else to turn this time around (David French, we hardly knew ye!). It is up to conservatives, of course, to figure out what their core beliefs are and what sorts of compromises they can make when it comes to distilling philosophy into partisan politics. But if in fact the rock upon which they build their future is being anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, and anti-trans, well good luck with that. The world will not be turning back to those positions any time soon. You can gussy up objections to any or all that in the name of religious liberty, or by speaking not for yourself but for a vanishing population of "social conservatives," or whatever, but you're no longer standing athwart history yelling Stop! You're straddling the corpse of the very movement that birthed Donald Trump. The billionaire developer didn't hijack the conservative movement, he's its last gasp. The same is true in politics as in Hollywood: You end up as the gargoyle version of yourself. At National Review, they scream that Trump's real sin is that he isn't anti-immigrant enough! At The Weekly Standard, that he isn't hawkish enough! And for those "social conservatives," he isn't anti-abortion enough. Maybe, maybe not, but who will conjure up in 2020 that will be any better and—more important—will appeal to the majorities of Americans who are pro-choice, anti-war, and totally fine with gay marriage?

For decades, libertarians who wanted to vote for a major party mostly voted Republican and mostly brushed aside many important considerations to be able to pull the lever for the likes of H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Some did them even did the same for Barack Obama in 2008. I can't imagine it was easy for those who chose to do it, but we all calculate "things indifferent" on our own moral abacuses. In 2016, it is Trump-hating conservatives and Bernie-loving progressives who will wrestle with such things. And whatever else you can say about Gary Johnson, you can at least admit he is well worth a long look.

NEXT: Bernie Sanders Wants Democratic Socialism to Remain Relevant, So He Won't Quit

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. If Libertarians want to appeal to the voters who are most likely to vote for them, they would nominate someone like Rand Paul — fiscally conservative, pro-privacy, pro-life, pro-borders and for a strong defense but against pointless wars. If they want to split the difference between Democrats and Republicans and actually have a chance to win an election, they would nominate someone like Gary Johnson — fiscally conservative, pro-privacy, pro-choice, pro-immigration and for a strong defense but against pointless wars.

    But the heart and soul of conservatism was never libertarianism. The heart and soul of conservatism is respect for authority and the established order. That’s why conservative judges side with the police state.

    1. And of course this is the point that Nick is really getting at. He is happy to see the right kicked to the curb. He obviously identifies more with the left (socially) and so he isn’t shedding a tear if the right leaves his party.

      The problem is this: Libertarianism will not make any inroads unless it builds an unprecedented coalition of people with wide ranging opinions on all sorts of social, moral and economic issues. The whole idea of “Hey man, that’s cool if its your thing, just don’t force it on me” has no meaning if everyone in the convention hall has the same views anyway. There is no need to prioritize freedom over public accommodation laws if everyone would apply those accomodation laws the same anyway.

      Libertarians COULD live through such a schism. True, abortion is largely black and white. However immigration and all these social issues could be dealt with by convincing people that the way to coexist is to get the government out of the picture. And this is where Nick is so infuriating. By harping on social issues, and not harping on the government whose force in all our associations makes these social issues so divisive, he and his ilk fail to highlight the overriding attractiveness of libertarianism. The message should be “Don’t like gays? Fine. That’s silly but as long as you don’t force me, you are welcome.” Instead it’s “Ewww, homophobe- GTFO!”

      1. He is happy to see the right kicked to the curb. He obviously identifies more with the left (socially) and so he isn’t shedding a tear if the right leaves his party.

        Because those progressives are sure to see the light any day now. Any day.

        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. True, abortion is largely black and white.

        Only for the anti-abortion types. You people could have had a compromise decades ago if you’d agreed to throw the “personhood begins at conception” types under the bus. But as noted elsewhere here, you don’t really want a compromise, you don’t want a victory; you want an issue you can keep using to get people to the polls.

        1. What do you mean, ‘You people’?

          There is no libertarian answer to the abortion question, other than the NAP. At the point you believe an egg/embryo/fetus/baby/teenager achieves personhood, their right to life overrides the mothers right not to be inconvenienced.

          1. No it does not, for the same reason that I am not entitled to your kidney of I need one to save my life.

            1. You forcing me to give you my kidney might just be considered an act of aggression and not necessary to save your life. Babies are there through no act of their own.

              Your argument is a fail.

              Less risk to the mother’s life, carrying to term is no where near as aggressive as having your brains sucked out.

              For the record, I’m 100% pro-choice up until 4.5 months (because I believe viability is personhood). If you can’t make up your mind by then, then fuck you, you made your choice.

              1. I wish all pro-choice people were as reasonable as many like you who comment here. I wish the writers of Reason were as reasonable. Nick seems hostile to any pro-life argument, which burns a lot of bridges the LP needs.

            2. Chipper, if you have conceded the argument of personhood, then logically according to the NAP the child’s life overrides your right to person since in the vaaaaast majority of cases, the mother’s own actions placed that person in a situation where it was dependent on her. You don’t get to put a person in a state of dependency on you and then decide you don’t want to follow through on the consequences of your actions.

              Rape is another story, but let’s not rehash the full blown abortion thread. Fact of the matter is, if you are pro-choice, the only option you’ve got is to deny that they are “persons”.

              1. Nope, disagree. Even granted personhood, the fetus’ right to life does not trump the mother’s right to her own body. Case closed. Self-ownership or GTFO.

                1. The mother implicitly signed a contract with the at-the-time nonexistent fetus to allow it to remain in her womb for the duration of the pregnancy. It’s normal to make contracts with nonexistent people and the unborn. In short, the government is right to force her to remain pregnant.

                  1. The mother implicitly signed a contract with the at-the-time nonexistent fetus to allow it to remain in her womb for the duration of the pregnancy.

                    That’s bullshit, and here’s why: once the child has been born, would you require the mother to donate a kidney to keep it alive if the child needed it? She is still responsible for the child being alive after it is born, after all.

                    If not, then you are saying that children have more rights in the womb than they do after they have become autonomous human beings, which is a ludicrous position to take.

                2. I think this issue is more complicated then that which is why its a problem for many libertarians. At the very least if you believe it is a person at say 6 months (which is a very reasonable position) you could argue that the mother is required to use the least intrusive means to remove the child from her body. It would be much like saying you can’t start beating a guest with a hammer because you feel its time for them to leave your home. Applying the same logic a woman can induce labor to “evict” the child but couldn’t kill the child because she found its presence had grown tiresome.

                3. So then you should have no problem with a mother killing her unborn baby even up to a minute before it is born. After all, it is her body.

                  Killing a 7 pound baby in the womb a few days before natural birth is quite a task and most would find such head-crushing and limb-severing rather reprehensible. Yet even though such a baby could live outside the womb, you still simplistically say the mother has an absolute right to aggress her babies because they are “her body”.

                  Why does a baby a minute after birth enjoy the benefits of the NAP, but a minute before not? It’s an arbitrary distinction.

                  Since most people do not support the logical conclusion of your views, it is hardly “case closed”.

                  1. So then you should have no problem with a mother killing her unborn baby even up to a minute before it is born.

                    BEEP BEEP BEEP WARNING WARNING, STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

                    A minute before the child is born it can viably survive on its own. Your argument is nonsense.

                    1. Actually, I was replying to this:
                      “Nope, disagree. Even granted personhood, the fetus’ right to life does not trump the mother’s right to her own body. Case closed. Self-ownership or GTFO”.

                      And obviously the case is not closed. Because you have now introduced a new argument:viability.

                      So my response is definitely not a straw man.

                      Does a mother’s right to her body trump unborn babies, even if they are persons? If so, that would necessarily imply she could abort up to the minute before birth. If that right is conditioned on the viability of the baby, then we cannot really speak about the mother’s “right to her own body”. Instead, the argument becomes defining viability.

                      Go ahead and change the goalposts if you want. I’ll try reading your mind to anticipate the new argument..

                4. You gonna present an argument or juat emote?

              2. A person is an individual. Since a fetus relies completely on the mother to survive it is not an individual therefore it is not a person The SC has also ruled a fetus is not a person.

                1. A fucking newborn is completely reliant on the mother to survive. By your logic, she has the right to abort all the way up until it can feed itself.

                  1. So in today’s world, that’s what – 29 years old?

                  2. A fucking newborn is completely reliant on the mother to survive.

                    No, it is not. That’s a ridiculous argument. Another person can take complete care of even a one-minute-old person. Stop spouting nonsense.

                    1. Why don’t you make a coherent argument rather that spouting ad hominems?

          2. The NAP implies that the fetus cannot force itself on the mother. If a fetus is granted a proprietary use of the womb it enslaves the women to it. The fact is a fetus survives solely on the goodwill of the mother.

            1. A baby relies on the mother’s good will just as much “fetus”. Why not extend evictions to babies just as the Romans and the Greeks did?

              1. Okay, this argument has already been made on other threads. We’re talking about biological necessity for survival rather than consumptive needs. When the fetus is inside the mother, it requires the mother for its nutritional fulfillment and development in a BIOLOGICAL way. Following birth, a baby does not require the mother to feed him. Any person can feed him.

              2. Okay, this argument has already been made on other threads. We’re talking about biological necessity for survival rather than consumptive needs. When the fetus is inside the mother, it requires the mother for its nutritional fulfillment and development in a BIOLOGICAL way. Following birth, a baby does not require the mother to feed him. Any person can feed him.

          3. Why the importance attached to personhood? Why not get down to the more fundamental matter of what’s OK & what’s not OK to kill, regardless of whether it’s a person, & why? For me the matter of whether an entity is a person is irrelevant to a more fundamental Q like this.

        2. Yeah I’ve never seen Pro-Life people attempt a compromise like a ban on 2nd trimester abortions.

          1. Seems like most pro-lifers see that as more of an incremental step toward a complete abortion ban than a compromise.

            1. Seems like most pro-lifers see that as more of an incremental step toward a complete abortion ban than a compromise.

              I’m sure some do. When Mothers Against Drunk Driving got started, it pulled in all sorts of people including people who wanted small measures and ones who effectively wanted to bring back Prohibition. As compromise measures were passed, most of the former left while the remainder kept pushing for asinine Neuvo Blue Laws…but they had no support. Compromise worked.

              Perhaps a little compromise on Abortion would take enough wind out of the sails of the Pro Life movement. Give them a ban on anything past 12 weeks. No? How about 20 weeks? Or is that the wrong kind of compromise?

              Regardless of what the Pro-Lifers believe in their hearts, either you are willing to compromise with them or not. My bet is that Tonio wants to give them nothing and say that is compromise because he’ll champion some other somewhat conservative cause (education reform, or freedom of association). Of course that isn’t actually, you know, a compromise since that is something he wants anyways. Right?

              1. 20 weeks would be in line with most of Europe, which the progressives love so much.

            2. Actually, it is the pro-choicers who treat it that way.

              On here, I have seen the comparison made to “reasonable” gun control laws.

              1. “On here, I have seen the comparison made to “reasonable” gun control laws.”

                Except what you fail to note is that we already do have many “reasonable” gun control laws. And when viewed in that context those new laws are hardly “reasonable.”

                The current line in the sand for the pro-abortion crowd is ‘no restriction on access to abortion.’

              2. Pro-choicers are hardly all pure and good.

                But there is definitely a significant part of the pro-life crowd who support any restriction on abortion at all, not because they want to compromise, but because they want anything that gets closer to their goal of a complete ban. And I really think that much of the absolutism among pro-choice people is a reaction to that.

            3. Even if it is ‘seen’ as an incremental step that does not logically preclude it from also being a valid compromise position.

              Unless you are more concerned about who wins and loses than anything else.

              1. Shouldn’t both sides give something up in a compromise? Adding abortion restrictions gives pro-legal-abortion people nothing they want (things were already closer to what they want) and moves closer to the goals of anti-abortion people.

                I am not at all concerned about who wins or loses.

                1. The issue with seeing things as a compromise in this instance is that there was never a compromise in the first place. Abortion was legalized by judicial fiat. That is probably a major part of the absolutism in the debate (that it didn’t come from the democratic process).

            4. So? It’s still a compromise. Of course, no one else has ever supported one thing as merely a step to something more. Doesn’t happen. Nope. (*sheesh*)

          2. Or alternatively, how about a little bit of compromise on your side? If someone offered Nick(or you) the willingness to get government out of foreign wars, deregulate the education system, cut welfare, decriminalize drugs and dismantle the police state- but in return wanted a ban on Abortion, would he( or you) compromise?

            If not, then why villainize people for refusing to compromise? How is such a demand for conservative compromise substantially different than Nicks suggestion that GJ brings enough stuff to the table that we should overlook (or compromise on) his horrid statements on Public Accommodation, etc?

            1. Because the former diminishes a part of the political landscape Nick detests, the latter doesn’t.

      3. So Libertarians are supposed to build a bridge between the “Hey man, that’s cool if its your thing, just don’t force it on me.” crowd, and the “Hey man, that’s not cool, you shouldn’t be allowed to do that” crowd.

        Got it.

        1. Only if you want to actually accomplish something as opposed to feeling self-righteous.

      4. The people being “kicked to the curb” are the Libertarians. Nick and the rest of them are legends in their own minds. They will continue to act triumphant while the GOP implodes, but the LP remains as important to two party system politics as a couple of dead gnats are. Trump voters are going to become homeless along with conservative voters when Trump loses and the GOP turns into an impotent token opposition party to the Democrat ruling class. But the voters who have any small but diminishing hope of defeating Democrats are the Trump voters and conservatives, not a tiny cult of Libertarians who care more about Burning man and pot than anything even a plurality of voters give a rat’s ass about.

      5. Well, he wouldn’t be Goth Fonzie without the supercilious douchebag pose.

    2. Conservatism doesn’t have a heart and soul. It is defined by opposition to the progressives attempting to re-engineer society.

      And we learned from polls on this very site that that social and fiscal conservatives exist in roughly equal numbers in the right wing. And yet people, as in this article, continue to equate social conservatives with all conservatives. Fact is there’s a reason Stossel is on Fox and the Pauls are in the Republican party. All the anectdotal examples of social conservatives trying to claim otherwise (and hence claim all the political backing solely for their agenda, conveniently) doesn’t change the facts.

    3. The heart and soul of libertarianism was always liberalism. Unfortunately, liberalism became thoroughly corrupted by progressivism. Conservatism is just fear of change and therefore silly as a philosophy.

    4. Rand doesnt want the LP nomination, so it is kinda hard to nominate him.

    5. Your post sounds extremely dated. The status quo has not been Conservative for a very long time, if it ever was. It is clearly Big Government thugs, Whores and Social Liberals. Current Conservatives are more Classical Liberals and morphing into Cultural Libertarians

      1. Conservatism comes in different flavors. You are no more correct than Chipper.

    6. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 8000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail…
      Go This Website.________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  2. “Libertarians could appeal to social conservatives,” reads the headline to a piece at The Federalist by David Harsanyi. “They just don’t want to.”

    It would appear that social conservatives aren’t all that concerned about limiting government, which would make them part of the problem.

    1. I had the same thought. With real problems like runaway spending, brutalities in law enforcement and corrections, military adventurism, and regulators colluding with industry to choke out competition, why would you want to waste breath appealing to people whose chief occupation seems to be panicking over who marries whom, who uses what bathroom, and what bakers have to draw on cakes?

      1. Oh yeah, and abortion. Let’s not forget the most important issue of all time for which all other priorities must be burned.

        1. Sadly, for many voters, especially female conservatives, abortion is the litmus test.

          1. I hope you don’t think that abortion isn’t a litmus test among libertarians and liberals as well.

          2. And with the same breath they scream away any chances for wide-spread and cheap availability of over-the-counter contraceptives – the one thing that would cut abortions to near zero.

            Fuck’em.

            1. Maybe it’s not about abortions after all. Maybe it’s more about punishing people for the sin of having sex for fun, huh?

            2. I think your confusing “availability of contraceptives” with “government paid for contraceptives”. or “Forcing companies to pay for contraceptives”. An easy mistake to make, many on the left do it all the time.

            3. You know, there is actually a reason why women need to go to the doctor every few months when they’re on birth control. It’s because it can make you stroke out and die, among other pretty f’ing terrible side effects.

              It’s a small risk, but it’s a risk of essentially keeling over dead. Of course, fact is they’ll get it anyway by shopping around and/or lying to their Doctor so regulation is a pointless endeavor. The wise would still take it under the advice of the Doctor, I’d hope, but if they don’t Darwin will eventually take care of it.

              It is odd to me that birth control is apparently such a huge deal to some people because of some imagined population crisis, when the entire planets population could fit comfortably in Texas, but whatever. That’s only one of many reasons people freak out about it.

        2. Right to life and individual liberty are just post it notes? Libertarians only concern is Pot, the rest is noise?
          Same simple minded drivel I hear from both sides.

          I cant stand Big Government thugs, period.
          All of those things have a level of importance (Right to life, pot liberty, and economic freedom) and I dont smoke pot. As far as religious freedom goes, it is part of the earth culture. You are gonna have to go to another planet to escape it and its dogma.

      2. With real problems like runaway spending, brutalities in law enforcement and corrections, military adventurism, and regulators colluding with industry to choke out competition, why would you want to waste breath appealing to people whose chief occupation seems to be panicking over who marries whom, who uses what bathroom, and what bakers have to draw on cakes?

        That could just as easily be referring to Tumblrinas like yourself, to whom Nick suggests it is perfectly appropriate and desirable to pander at the expense of freedom of association (religion doesn’t count, of course; get fucked 1A).

        1. Holy shit, calling Hugh a Tumblrina, that’s rich.

          1. I mean, just because his views are a living caricature of the prototypical SJW and, you know, he literally links to his tumblr in his handle…

            1. Clearly you’ve never bothered to click that link.

    2. Could you give examples of their ideas, wants and needs manifesting into Bigger Government?

    3. True, but how else would you try to put together a winning coalition? You’re going to have to assemble the votes from those who agree w you & those who disagree w you, even on many things. As in any negotiation, the question’s going to be what each of you are willing to give up for the time being.

  3. Since GJ is opposed to late-term abortions, he’s not fully pro-choice (certainly not like most Dems), although that probably doesn’t make much difference to pro-lifers.

    1. Functionally speaking, Gary Johnson is more “pro-life” than Santorum ever was. After all, Santorum voted to fund Planned Parenthood through Federal tax money, twice.

      And anyone with half a brain knows that “social conservatives” in power would never do anything meaningful about abortion, it would kill their only real “golden goose” that gets so many Christians to vote for them. If they solved the problem, the people really would leave the party in droves.

      1. If they solved the problem, the people really would leave the party in droves.

        ^ Absolutely this, for both sides.

        1. You could say the same about Obamacare, gay marriage, bathroom access… Given the opportunity, do you think the Republicans would actually repeal Obamacare? It’s another fundraiser that would dry up. Gay marriage and the bathroom issue are distractions from the infinitely more important problems like spending. Somebody said recently – might have been Stossel – that laws requiring bakeries to serve gay weddings are mostly a solution in search of a problem. The government are masters of this.

          1. I think Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would have repealed Obamacare. The others, not so much.

          2. This is all true, but it’s what divides leadership from grass roots. Whether it’s in union negotiations, politics, or wherever, the way to remain a leader is to never get the job done.

        2. Yep, I approve of your approval of ace’s point.

  4. In a recent column, the Examiner’s Carney goes so far as to invoke the old “First they came for the communists…” poem, writing, “Today they come after the Humanae Vitae types, the pro-lifers, the Bible-thumpers, the Kosher types. Tomorrow they come after the other conscientious objectors.” Yeah, not so much.

    And why not? If they enslave producers to sell to everyone regardless of belief, freedom of association, and sanity (see “Nazi wedding cake”), then why do you think they would arbitrarily stop there?

    (To those who cry “slippery slope fallacy”, you are right, it’s a fallacy that a slippery slope is deductively certain. Then again, I once even got my Philosophy professor to admit that it is inductively certain. In other words it still does always happen even though it doesn’t have to happen.)

  5. “you don’t have a candidate for whom you can vote.”

    So no mention of Darrell Castle, the Presidential nominee of the Constitution Party?

    1. Why would anyone mention him?

      1. Because Gillespie just misinformed conservative voters – “you don’t have a candidate for whom you can vote.”

        1. Does anyone else hear a steady, high-pitched noise?

        2. Ummm, how many state ballots is he on?

          1. Looks like about 16 at present count. But i’m sure that number will climb.

  6. Speaking of social issues Check out this New York Times article from 1988:

    “Justice Dept. Plans Anti-Racketeering Drive Against Pornographers

    “WASHINGTON, Jan. 11? In a move to close down several major distributors of pornography, the Justice Department plans to seek a series of racketeering indictments this year designed to seize tens of millions of dollars from the distribution and sale of sexually explicit material.

    The move is part of the department’s broad new campaign against obscenity.

    ‘”‘This will be a big year for obscenity prosecutions,” said William F. Weld, the head of the department’s criminal division. ”It will involve cases across the country.””

    1. “Officials said several of the obscenity indictments would be brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, or RICO. Mr. Weld said the cases would demonstrate the ”fruition” of the department’s efforts to apply the statute to obscenity cases.”

      It would be amusing to ask Weld when he saw the light of libertarianism and realized that he had been acting as an oppressor of the people and a violator of the First Amendment.

      From the article:

      “”This poses as substantial a threat to the rights of booksellers and video stores as any single initiative by the Federal Government,” said Barry Lynn, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. ”These cases lead to the suppression of material which we should presume – and, in our system of government, must be presumed – to be protected by the First Amendment.””

        1. Man Called Largest Porno Seller Indicted

          “WASHINGTON ? A man described by authorities as the largest distributor of pornography in the world has been charged by a federal grand jury in Las Vegas with racketeering and illegally shipping X-rated videotapes, the Justice Department announced Thursday.

          “Justice Department officials said the indictment of Reuben Sturman, 62, who keeps residences in Van Nuys and Cleveland, is the biggest development in a stepped-up, yearlong federal campaign to crack down on the trafficking of obscene materials….

          “”I have no doubt these materials qualify as obscene” under U.S. Supreme Court rulings banning distribution of obscene materials, said Asst. Atty. Gen. William F. Weld.”

          1. Fast forward to 1997

            “Reuben Sturman, the pornography king of the 1980s whose first Las Vegas obscenity trial in 1991 ended in a mistrial and who a year later pleaded guilty to the same charges, has died in federal prison. He was 73.

            “Sturman, whose pornography empire included the old Talk of the Town bookstore at the point where Eastern Avenue, Charleston Boulevard and Boulder Highway meet, died Monday night in a federal prison hospital in Lexington, Ky.

            “No further details about his death were released. He had been serving 10 years on a 1989 conviction in Cleveland for conspiring to obstruct the Internal Revenue Service and a 19-year sentence for a 1993 extortion conviction in Chicago.

            “Sturman received a four-year sentence for his 1992 Las Vegas conviction on charges of racketeering and shipment of obscene materials across state lines. His prison sentence was limited to time served in the tax case.”

            1. Is this a burn?

              “Stephen H. Jigger, a federal prosecutor who worked on the tax case against Sturman, said it was different from unsuccessful pornography prosecutions of Sturman because it wasn’t complicated by First Amendment obscenity and free speech issues.”

      1. When you switch jobs, don’t you switch to what the new boss tells you?

    2. And even years before that, he made his bones as a drug warrior prosecutor in Boston.

      And for those who think he was only going after the really hard drugs like crack and heroin, no siree bubbula:

      Weld did reportedly have a tendency to let other prosecutors tackle smaller drug cases. When actress Jodie Foster was caught at Logan Airport with a gram of cocaine in 1983, Weld referred the case to county prosecutors.

      But he won several big cases, including those of Frederic MacCaffrey, caught smuggling 87 tons of marijuana into Massachusetts; Timothy Minnig and Robert Frappier, for smuggling 250 tons of marijuana; Robert Sullivan, a player in a $10 million heroin operation; and Arnold Katz, who was charged with running a $40 million-a-day drug ring.

      1. Well, either he’s toning his anti-drug tendencies down or he’s have a change of heart over MJ… since he chooses to partner with a candidate who’s not only pro-legalization, but is the CEO of a cannabis company.

  7. Good. Fuck off, abortion obsessives.

    1. It seems to me that if one of the main purposes of government is not to define and punish murders, then there is precious little purpose for a government at all.

      1. You already have a party that gives you what you want. Two, if you count the theocrats in the “Constitution” Party as a viable party.

        1. (I’m an an-cap. There is no party for me, pretty much by definition.)

      2. Except that the rest of us, those outside the anti-abortion bubble, don’t see it as murder. We realize that you do; you refuse to acknowledge any pov outside your own. How’s that working out for you?

        1. Maybe some babies need killin’, Tonio.

          1. But it is the other side that doesn’t recognize any point of view not Tonio or the people who think anyone who is anti abortion is necessarily anti liberty.

            1. Insert “why not both?” gif…

          2. They may not need it, but they don’t mind it.

        2. Except that the rest of us, those outside the anti-abortion bubble, don’t see it as murder.

          Yes, that’s true. Then again, give me a logically consistent definition of “murder” that isn’t designed specifically to not define “unviable” humans inside the womb as persons, and I’ll consider it.

          you refuse to acknowledge any pov outside your own

          Oh, I recognize it. Then I do my best to show why it’s incorrect, if by Occam’s razor if by nothing else.

          1. No, it’s the definition of “person,” not the definition of murder that’s an issue. Always lies with you people. Always.

            1. No, it’s the definition of “person,” not the definition of murder that’s an issue.

              Your definition of “murder” is dependent on the definition of “person”. My definition of “murder” doesn’t.

              Your definition is the legal one, that which the Court adheres to.

            2. It’s not that either. It’s the question of whether a particular something minds dying.

              1. So I can kill anyone that the government can’t prove minded dying? That seems difficult to prove in court, especially if the victim is asleep.

          2. Abortion isn’t murder, its eviction. Its not my fault the tenant can’t survive outside the womb.

            Hows that?

            1. It’s tough to survive an eviction when a tube is shoved into your skull and your brains sucked out.

            2. Not that this should be an abortion thread, but it would probably be fine unless your “eviction” was the act of hacking the person to bits and throwing them in the garbage can. Which is, you know, what happens in an abortion.

              1. Which is pretty merciful compared with simple eviction, don’t you think?

                Wait – something tells me not.

                1. Yes, I know what happens during an abortion. But what’s interesting is none of you objected to my characterization of what’s going on. So I’m lead to believe that if a doctor removed the fetus, and just left it to die, you’d be okay with that?

                  1. I would have a problem with that, otherwise for the sake of consistency, I would support mothers evicting babies regardless of it is 1 day or 17 years old.

    2. Exactly. Some people are butt-hurt that Johnson won’t appeal to single-issue, social conservatives? Good!

      I welcome a decent amount of debate among libertarian types about the issue of abortion. I think that it is a valid issue where compromise is tough and both sides have valid arguments. But, I would have a hard time accepting a candidate that pandered to the right-wing pro-life crowd (or the left-wing pro-choice crowd).

      1. I am pretty sure most social conservatives are fine with that and hoping Johnson appeals to Democrats and takes votes away from Hillary.

        1. THIS occurred to me as well. GJ even bringing up abortion at all alienates any republicans that may have considered voting for him. Lifetime R’s that are protesting over Trump are – generally – *not* “principled conservatives” so much as they’re pearl-clutchy socons.

          1. There’s a lot of pro-choice republicans, somewhere around a quarter to a third of them, similar to the number of pro-life democrats. There’s similar crossover numbers on other social issues like immigration and gay marriage. The rush to appeal to the extremes in primaries is all about getting funding and back-room support from the base, the people with the most money and power in the party. It’s a purity test for that subgroup only, not for everyone in the party.

      2. Did Ron Paul pander too much to the pro-life crowd to be acceptable for you?

        1. He didn’t pander, that’s just what he thinks.

          But why is “pander” pejorative in a discussion of politics? That’s what elected officials are supposed to do. They’re not supposed to represent their own ideas, they’re supposed to represent those of the voters.

          1. Come to think of it, why is it pejorative in any context? I guess it got that way by way of denigrating sex biz. But that’s what all biz is supposed to do, pander.

            1. And denigrating got that way because we dislike the dark.

  8. Johnson needs to play hard to get. Say all the ‘fiscally responsible’ things that ‘true conservatives’ want to hear. And then when they approach him, say something pro-abortion. It will be great fun to watch as they grow more and more desperate. Don’t be surprised if the ‘true conservatives’ offer to promise new funding for abortion clinics. May take a month or two – be patient.

  9. I’m not sure the socons have as much to worry about this time around as they think. The decline in their influence has been steady, but not steady or quick enough to preclude a pendulum swing back in their direction. Having said that, GayJay and the Weldster are going to be pulling more votes from the GOP ticket than from Hillary. Dem voters have known for a while now that Hilldawg was going to be their man eventually and therefore have had time to make peace with it. That’s why the outright animosity to the LP.

    1. I’m more afraid of the LP getting Nadered than anything. If Trump loses there will be a thousand and one excuses so the yokels can save face, and blaming the LP is going to be right at the top, even if they remain at 1%.

      1. Changing demographics will be the lion’s share of that scapegoat. More Hispanic voters and growing urban populations can be blamed for the idea of the GOP never winning another national election. I’m already hearing it, as a matter of fact.

      2. No one gives a shit about the LP. If Trump loses the war will be between the conservatives and the Trump people. No one cares about the Libertarians. If the LP manages to be the difference, the assumption will be that it was because a bunch of Kristol type conservatives voted for it.

        1. If internet commenters are anything to go by, they are already starting to bitch about people saying they’ll vote for GJ. Don’t they know this is the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER?

      3. I would welcome a conservative hissy fit on the off chance it makes the leadership go “hey, maybe we should be more liberty-friendly” in the same way they decided to be more Latino-friendly.

        (Okay, bad example.)

        1. It won’t. The eGop doesn’t give a shit about libertarians. We are at best a squishy maybe and only on candidates the eGOP already disapprove of.

          If Trump loses, his base is going to howl at anything they can convince themselves made him lose so as to not face the idea they chose a loser. It’s their basic psychology.

          If Trump wins, his tard jihad dismantles the eGOP; if Trump loses the eGOP have to coddle his base to keep them engaged while the demographic clocks approaches midnight. They are finished either away.

          1. what does the e in eGOP stand for?

            1. Establishment is how I read it.

          2. Sorry, I’ve misplaced my phrase book. What exactly is the eGOP?

          3. If Trump loses, his base is going to howl at the eGOP more than anyone else.

  10. Jesus Christ I will bake Nazi cakes for everyone. Are you happy now? Can we move on please?

    Johnson/Weld 2016!

    1. They don’t want you to do it. They want to force other people to do it against their will.

      Control-freak gonna control-freak.

      (Alternate: Slaver gonna enslave.)

      1. Jesus Christ I will *secretly* bake Nazi cakes for any baker who doesn’t want to. In fact, I will *pay people* to buy my Nazi cakes. Are you happy now? Can we move on please?

        Johnson/Weld 2016!

        1. Actually, yes. I wouldn’t want to be you when the Nazis find out what you’ve been doing, however.

          1. I’m not worried – Weld will protect us from the Nazis.

            1. We’ll need him to – after he confiscates all of our guns and makes purchasing news ones illegal.

        2. That is a solution to the cake wars that I have been considering, subcontracting out the work you’d prefer not to do.. It would at least be interesting to see if some of the demand is based on sincere preference vs triumphalism.

    2. Oooh! Oooh! I call dibs on the mustache!

  11. paternistically

    I think this ought to be written as paternalistically.

  12. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ???????? http://Usatoday.nypost55.com

  13. The Johnson/Weld ticket is, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, an “honorable alternative” to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

    They describe the Johnson/Weld ticket like a Samurai might describe an “honorable alternative” while handing you a Tant?.

  14. The problem with trans identity as a protected class is that _I_ am forced to change my behavior to fit someone else wishes. I have never once referred to or even thought of Bruce Jenner by another name or even would use the pronoun she to refer to him. The fact that people are trying to enshrine forcing me to say and think what they demand that I say and think is quite frankly…. evil.

    Johnson is totally losing it with me on this issue. If libertarians believe in the Non-agression principle, then we need to make sure that everyone gets to say and think whatever they want to and not be forced to toe the party line. Forcing proper thought is a complete violation of the NAP.

    1. Nobody gives a shit what you call Caitlyn Jenner or anyone else.

      1. I am pretty sure Bill DiBlasio does Hugh. He wants to fine any business that uses the wrong pronoun.

        And Obama’s DOJ sure as hell cares. Why don’t you go lie somewhere else.

        1. And Bruce himself will be the first to turn you if you don’t comport to his delusion of grandeur.

          1. And Bruce himself will be the first to turn you if you don’t comport to his delusion of grandeur.

            Are you sure? He/she endorsed Ted Cruz, not Hillary or Bernie.

            1. Bruce did, until Cruz showed no interest in some sort of, “Trans-bassador.” So, yes, I am sure.

            2. He was — and I was happy that he hadn’t abandoned his principles just because he was entering a very liberal world.

              Then Cruz had nothing to say about her comments (and, frankly, why would he?), so she got spiteful and took it back.

              1. Then Cruz had nothing to say about her his comments (and, frankly, why would he?), so she he got spiteful and took it back.

                FTFY. I am not playing the SJW Pronoun Game; Bruce is still packing a Y-Chromosome. And that male sex is observable, testable, falsifiable, and repeatable in any qualified pathology lab on the face of the planet.

                1. Pfaugh, do *you* have a doctorate in Queer Studies, you anti-intellectual tractor-pulling hillbilly?

                  /sarc

                2. you are a doctor though…and I would like to point out edge cases…xxy, xyy, xxx, xxxx, xxxxx

                  Most fatal early on BUT they do exist.

                  1. Yes, Bandit, and glad to *see* you again…

                    Yes, they exist, and are:

                    1) specific, unique, discrete and deviate from XX == female, and XY == male

                    2) Any deviations from the statistical norm of XX or XY has be concretely defined and taxonomically documented as such.

                    3) None of those groups that can survive (aneuplodies such as Kleinfeltner’s Syndrome) are capable of claiming or being something they are not.

                    Let me put it this way:

                    If I have 1979 Pinto with matching VINs, and remove the exterior, then place on that frame the exterior of a 2005 Mecedes SL, do I have an authentic, factory original Mercedes?

                    The answer is, “No.”

                    If I advertise that car as a authentic Mercedes, and sell it to someone else, what have I committed? That’s right…. Fraud.

                    Neither XX’s and XY’s can change their genomes, nor change discrete, specific, identifiable deviations from the statistical norm.

                    1. Aside from stupid politics, how is life with the eastern european (in eastern europe no less)? Gotta love em. But damn…sometimes I feel…well, you know.

                      My daughter picked up a LOT from her mother.

                    2. Aside from stupid politics, how is life with the eastern european (in eastern europe no less)? Gotta love em. But damn…sometimes I feel…well, you know.

                      We’re alive, and making it. My son appears to have more of my personality (so far), but the girls, we’e not quite sure yet (but my opinion, they will be like their mother).

                      Yeah, that unspoken….well, you know. Yes. Yes I do. “DAMN!” sums it up nicely.

                      My daughter picked up a LOT from her mother.

                      Indeed, I suspect our girls will too. One things is very likely, all of our children will have strong personalities, and all *WILL* be polyglots.

                    3. And an androgen insensitive XY will develop externally much like a female. So much so that the condition is often not detected until well after the onset of puberty. Most will live their lives as females, yet all are still male.

                    4. And an androgen insensitive XY will develop externally much like a female. So much so that the condition is often not detected until well after the onset of puberty. Most will live their lives as females, yet all are still male.

                      Very good, Thomas, I was wondering when someone was going to describe Swyer Syndrome (which is a rare occurance, about 1 in 2 million births, if that – my is an OBGYN/Urologist, and she pegs the the number closer to 1 in 4 million, but since there are overlaps with individuals with Turner Syndrome and other manifestations of Gonadal Dysgenesis).

                      Now, since this type birth occurs *very* infrequently, and is primarily suspect when a girl fails to develop secondary sex characteristics and thrives, (More and more though, cord blood is being analysed at birth, and phenotyping being done even weeks and month before birth to determine possible deviations from the norm, aiding doctors in properly identifying Swyer children.)

                      Are Swyers genetically male? Yes. Do they come with factory original female anatomical sex organs? Primarily, yes. Because of this presentation, they are Swyer boys, but I have no problems with labelling a female, since with hormonal RX, Swyers can give birth. In fact, the only people who really need to know about this condition is:

                    5. For example:

                      If one of my children decides he or she is a bird, and pecks at the groud, peeps and squawks, jumps about flapping his or her arms, scratches at the ground, and “perches” on an armchair, does this mean that, as the parent, am I obligated to indulge the child’s delusion and build a nest in the living room, erect a giant cage, regurgitate in the child’s mouth, and eventually throw the child off the roof to test flight natural flight capability (this won’t end well)? Furthermore, should I impose and demand upon society (to the point of lawfare and imposition of delusional fraud) that society does the same with this demonstrably disprovable “ornitho-sapien”, just like a good little SJW?

                      Or do I do the responsible, rational parental action and dissuade the child of his or her delusion, imparting to the child, “You’re human, born a human, now act like a human?”

                      Anything less than the second path is demonstrable child abuse. Full. Stop.

                      Res ipsa loquitur

                    6. Not real familiar with Swyers, so wasn’t addressing that. In all cases of androgen insensitivity the patient will never be able to carry a child. The reason being that the tracts that would otherwise develop into the reproductive organs (uterus, etc.) are destroyed by a non-androgenic hormone (Mullerian Inhibiting Factor) released by the fetal testes.

                      External features will vary depending on the degree of androgen insensitivity, with Complete Androgen Insensitivity appearing externally as female, but usually with a shallow vaginal vault.

                    7. (cont)

                      1) The patient – the patient is, for intents and purposes, a girl. Medically, a genetic gonadal hermaphroditic boy. Again, this happens so rarely, it cannot be effective used to define a statistical norm.

                      Just because this happens naturally, does *NOT* make the Bruce Jenner fraudsters of the world “female”. He’s not, and NEVER will be.

                      2) The patient’s family (so’s they can prepare for the added costs of care); along with the primary care physician and insurance providers.

                      3) The future spouse of the patient, regardless of whether or not children are planned. In the interest of spousal disclosure, this type of intimate information should be disclosed.

                      4) Insofar as schools’ interests, none, with the strict exception of the school nurse. School admin really doesn’t rise to a “need to know basis” in this case.

                      Suffice to say, even though this condition demonstrably exists (and should only be relagated to this discrete, quantifiable DX & condition with a *specific* set of physiological/anatomical criteriae, AT BIRTH), does not in any way justify entertaining so-called “Gender Dysphoria” fraud.

                    8. ^^(cont) from 6.8.16 @ 1:55AM^^

          2. Bruce doesn’t give a shit whether you say him, her, or what the fuck.

            It’s the only reason I’ll use ‘her’ when referring to her.

            Though she’s not getting ‘Caitlyn’–it’s WAY too Cardashian

      2. That’s bullshit. Calling someone who sports a penis “he” is a crime against humanity according to a not-insignificant slice of the left.

        I’m a live and let live type. If you want to pretend you’re a woman, have at it. Anyone can name themselves whatever they want. What I won’t do is parrot things that are self-evidently false. If you have a penis, you’re not a woman. Objective facts DO exist, and pretending otherwise has the potential to lead us down some very dark roads. If government can force you to say that a human with a penis is a woman, is there any plausible limit to the lies they can make you assent to?

        1. Objective facts DO exist

          How do you know?

          1. He doesn’t. And neither do I. But, life is a lot easier when we assume they do. So, I will choose to believe my lying eyes and say your sex is whatever you genes say they are.

          2. If you’re going to play silly existentialist games, then there’s no point.

            1. I’m not playing games. You asserted that objective facts exist, I’m asking for the epistemic method by which you determine that something is objectively true.

              Unless the existence of objective facts has nothing to do with our perceptions and conceptions, and you just dropped that in there as a non sequitur, which is actually also a plausible reading. In that case I withdraw the question.

              1. Someone in a dress standing and peeing out their penis at a urinal is a dude. That is a fact regardless of the dress.

              2. In order to prove that objective facts exist, or falsify that same premise, you would have to assume that objective facts exist by which to judge the arguments. QED.

            2. Yet it’s unlibertarian to note that Hugh is, if not to a metaphysical certainty, at least objectively speaking a leftist.

          3. Cogito Ergo Sum

          4. How do you know?

            Give me a Chem 10 and Bruce’s fingerprints; 10 different, independent labs *AND* official travel records/fingerprint records to compare against, will confirm Bruce is still Bruce, regardless of any artificial exterior changes made. Those 10 labs will each give me the same result.

            1. Give me a Chem 10 and Bruce’s fingerprints; 10 different, independent labs *AND* official travel records/fingerprint records to compare against, will confirm Bruce is still Bruce, regardless of any artificial exterior changes made. Those 10 labs will each give me the same result

              Forget it, Groovus. Hugh has been filling in as the resident sneering pedantic cod philosopher since Nikki left.

              1. Will that result be Brandon Mayfield?

                No, since Bruce Jenner isn’t Brandon Mayfield, and never, ever will be.

                Also, Mr. Mayfield:

                A) Isn’t claiming to be something he demonstrably isn’t;

                B) Which is why I wanted blood tests, which Mr. Mayfield didn’t provide;.

                C) Any fingerprints provided by Bruce Jenner would have been controlled conditions in the past (official legal records and Olympic records), and I would get the latest prints under controlled conditions;

                Lifting prints from a plastic bag increases the likelihood of a false match (in this case, only *ONE* print; from Jenner is a record of more than one finger obtained under reliable conditions).

        2. It’s not always so clear cut. There’s something called Swyer syndrome, for example, that complicates even such assertions as your DNA solidly determining your sex.

          1. See HERE

      3. They are producing classes for public school to force trans pronouns. It is already going on

  15. When did the libertarians at reason ever say hello such that here is any reason to say goodbye? Four years ago there was a candidate who was socially conservative but also had about hundred times the limited government credibility than Gary Johnson. And reason spent the entire election pissing their pants over his alleged involvement with newsletters no one ever read or remembered.

    When reason walked away from Ron Paul, they made it clear that for them Libertarianism is always about social liberalism. Everything else is optional or certainly for sale at the right price.

    1. Is this where the Trumpkins-in-denial say goodbye to Reason?

    2. But in the case of Weld, Reason has belatedly realized that you can’t go after someone for stuff he did in the Eighties.

      /sarc

    3. but also had about hundred times the limited government credibility than Gary Johnson.

      That’s absolutely not true. At all. Johnson, while Governor vetoed a tremendous amount of laws and was elected in a blue state. Romney signed RomneyCare which is the very definition Big Government.

      Now before you think I’m turning this into a Romney pissing match, I’m not. But Johnson as an actual executive of a state had a tenure which kept a sharp eye on limited government.

      1. True. Johnson has walked the smaller-government walk.

      2. I was talking about Ron Paul. Romney has no small government creed. None.

      3. He did veto a shit-ton of bills, but the New Mexico budget also exploded under his tenure.

      4. “Johnson, while Governor vetoed a tremendous amount of laws.”

        Without any noting of what those legislative acts would have done, that is a vacuous argument.

        After all, it is conceivable that any number of those vetoes blocked legislation that would have rolled back government excess.

    4. To be fair, John, Paulbots and Paultards truly were an insufferable bunch. I’ll give Dr. Paul the 1st credit, he was sincere and honest in his campaign, *AND ACTUALLY WON STATES!* I’m not convinced Flaccid Johnson and Gelded Weld will win even one.

      And yes, that was *definitely* when the proto-SJW flavoured sentiment reared its head with the editorial staff, even at the expense of many economic and fiduciary issues, it certainly seemed.

  16. I’m someone who considers himself both a libertarian and a conservative. So, I guess I’d be one of those fusionists. I’ll almost certainly vote for Johnson. But, let’s try to look at it from the conservative side.

    Let’s say there were issues (like gun control or the safety net or, yes, religious liberty) where conservative wishes matched up perfectly with libertarian principle. And let’s say the one time where conservatives actually started to look at the libertarians, the libertarians decided to abandon those principles in the name of “pragmatism”. How would you look at it as anything other than a colossal “Fuck You!”?

    I mean, you can sneer all you want at the silly old fundies’ distaste for Mexicans, Pot and Ass Sex. But, if you’re going to claim to be a libertarian, it’s kind of hard to say that it’s right to say the government ought to be pointing a gun in somebody’s face and telling them they have to bake somebody a cake. That isn’t just a passing fancy. It’s kind of central to the libertarian argument.

    1. Dude! True libertarians abandon principles like freedom of association if it means getting invited to the fun parties! Duh! Everyone knows this!

      1. just how “fun” are these parties?

      2. Also if it means they get to criticize college students and universities, Mozilla employees, or the customers that stopped going to Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

    2. Libertarians haven’t spent 1/100th of the time and effort fighting against the infringements on religious liberty that has resulted from gay marriage as they did fighting for gay marriage. Libertarians hate social conservatives. That of course is their right. But it seems a bit rich for Nick to know act shocked that the feeling might be mutual.

      1. That is a very broad brush you are painting with, John Boy.

        1. Not all but many. Certainly the staff at reason. Contrast the shear number of stories devoted to gay marriage with the amount of coverage and effort spent on religious freedom. It is not even close. Hell, reason cares more about tranny rights than they do religious freedom.

          Again, that is their right but it seems a bit odd that they still expect SOCONs to like them.

      2. Libertarians haven’t spent 1/100th of the time and effort fighting against the infringements on religious liberty that has resulted from gay marriage as they did fighting for gay marriage.

        You mean libertarians like Ron Paul? Rand Paul? Ted Cruz (who you identified as, if he got the nomination, the most libertarian candidate in our lifetime)?

        I think the more likely interpretation is that some libertarians mistake cultural affinity for political principle.

        1. I will give you the Pauls. But they didn’t get the LP nomination. Johnson did. And I think Johnson is a lot closer to what I am talking about. Don’t you? And since he is the nominee, isn’t it fair to say he represents the majority of Libertarians?

          1. He represents a majority of libertarians in the LP. That said, neither Paul ran for the LP nomination. And bear in mind not all libertarians are members of the LP.

            1. Fair point. But you have to limit the term somehow. Since Nick is talking about Johnson and Weld, I think we can limit it to the LP.

              1. I don’t think that makes sense. Johnson and Weld are just one side of the equation. The other side is the conservatives Nick is complaining aren’t lining up behind them. And there, you’re probably talking about GOP libertarians.

                1. But that is the point: Nick isn’t “complaining” about conservatives lining up behind GJ. He is absolutely gloating about it.

                  His entire schtick has been to ignore how Liberals with the same social values want to institutionalize those values by force of government while pointing and laughing at conservatives and their wacky sky monster.

                  GJ happy to overlook religious Liberty? Weld no friend of gun rights? No Problem. Sometimes, you need a big tent, amiright? But, gasp, if you think it’s icky to dismember fetuses in the womb- well, he has no time for you.

                  1. +1 wacky sky monster

              2. We need more political labels to differentiate the different types of [insert -ism here].

            2. Most libertarians aren’t members of the Libertarian Party.

              1. And why would they be?

      3. Libertarians haven’t spent 1/100th of the time and effort fighting against the infringements on religious liberty that has resulted from gay marriage as they did fighting for gay marriage

        That’s at least in part because there is a basic difference of scale.

        Notwithstanding the constant butt-hurt among Christian so-cons, let’s call a spade a spade:

        The “religious liberty” being violated is your right to be an asshole to people who behave in a way that your religion condemns.

        Do you have a right to be an asshole toward people who behave in a way that your religion condemns? Yes.

        Am I passionate about fighting for that right of yours? Not so much, honestly – I confess that equalizing domestic rights between different domestic relationships that aren’t necessarily condoned by your religion seems a higher priority to me. But then, I’m not married per the approved dictates of your religion, so it makes more of an up-front practical difference to me.

        In short, we’re not actually having a big problem with religious liberty in this country.

        Would Jesus refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding? I do not believe He would.

        1. The “religious liberty” being violated is your right to be an asshole to people who behave in a way that your religion condemns.

          And the individual liberty being violated by gay marriage 30 years ago was considered their right to be a couple of perverts making a mockery out of marriage.

          So fucking what? What you seem to be saying is, people should be free, just so long as you like what they’re free to do. If that’s the case, then there’s really no point in liberty.

          1. And the individual liberty being violated by gay marriage 30 years ago was considered their right to be a couple of perverts making a mockery out of marriage

            While being denied the rights that everyone else enjoyed.

            people should be free, just so long as you like what they’re free to do.

            No – I’m saying just the opposite. I’m just saying that the right to be an asshole to gay people because your holy book says they aren’t following your god’s laws is not right at the top of my list of battles to be prioritized. Since my own personal rights are affected by the unwillingness to remove the Christian paradigm from our marriage laws, that one strikes me personally as more significant.

            Additionally, I put forth that the “right to be an asshole to someone” is not the same as some noble struggle for “religious liberty.” It’s not like anyone is trying to outlaw any aspect of Christianity. They’re just saying “stop imposing your religious laws on absolutely everyone else.”

            Do you have a right to be mad that Christians are no longer allowed to shove their religion down everyone else’s throats? Yes, certainly. But I don’t see asking Christians to behave the way Jesus would want them to as being some great tyranny outweighing granting privileged status to a group of people that follows one particular set of marriage laws and denying that status to everyone else.

            1. They’re just saying “stop imposing your religious laws on absolutely everyone else.”

              How is there not baking a cake “imposing their laws” on anybody? That assumes that the other person has an unconditional right to their service. Regardless of their consent. The proper term for such a thing is “slavery”.

              Their not serving somebody isn’t “imposing” a damned thing.

              1. How is there not baking a cake “imposing their laws” on anybody?

                I’m saying that the struggle for marriage equality for gays was a struggle against Christians imposing Christian law on non-Christians.

                The “struggle” for Christians to not have to bake cakes for gay weddings is not a comparable level of persecution, in my opinion.

                It’s not fair, and it should be changed, but as I say below, it is a problem with public accommodation laws generally speaking – it is not a special persecution reserved for Christians.

                1. I’m saying that the struggle for marriage equality for gays was a struggle against Christians imposing Christian law on non-Christians.

                  Zoom go the goalposts!

                  Also, secular marriage law in the United States bears very, very little resemblance to Christian law (which is actually just Jewish Deuteronomic law). If you really want to know just how different, put a quarter in Eddie some time. The state imposed very non-Christian no-fault divorce, child custody rules, asset distribution rules, and remarriage rules on Christians. Monogamy also isn’t a strict requirement of Christian marriage, although it is of the civil variety.

                  And of course, one injustice doesn’t justify another.

                  It’s not fair, and it should be changed, but as I say below, it is a problem with public accommodation laws generally speaking – it is not a special persecution reserved for Christians.

                  Still not correct. Federal law needs to be modified in order to include sexual orientation and gender identity. When it is so modified, the law will, of course, apply to everyone, but then you have a unique legal conflict between 2 protected classes (in addition to the 1st Amendment, religion is also specifically protected by the CRA of 1964).

        2. That is just the start. The government is getting around to going after churches who won’t do gay weddings and religious schools that won’t recognize gay spouses of students and so forth. So just because this has only involved a few cases doesn’t mean it is not a big deal. It is.

          And the reason for the lack of effort is that Libertarians as a group hate SOCONs guts. The amount of visceral hatred towards SOCONs you see on this board is pretty astounding sometime. And Libertarians being human have a harder time standing up for people they don’t like than they do for standing up for people they do.

          Religious freedom in this country is under serious threat. The prog own the institutions and they want religion either neutered and made to sing the prog party line or pushed completely out of the public square. They are not kidding around and they are not going to stop.

          I am not very optimistic anyone will stop them. The progs have done a fantastic job making the culture hostile to religion and once you get a group on the wrong side of the mass culture, it is pretty easy to go after them. That is how oppression works. You first make the target group unpopular and then the public will be okay with the government putting the screws to them.

          I hope that I am wrong, but I don’t see libertarians being much of an ally in that struggle. They certainly won’t as a group join the other side but I can’t see them caring very much or doing much to help.

          1. You don’t actually listen when other people talk, do you?

            1. Apparently you don’t listen to yourself. You are the one who said we are not having a big problem with religious liberty. I just explained why I disagree.

              1. While 100% missing the point that I was actually making.

                And I mean 100%.

            2. Lighten up, after all it’s not a comparative level of persecution.

        3. The “religious liberty” being violated is your right to be an asshole to people who behave in a way that your religion condemns.

          Why is not wanting to participate in a ceremony being an, “asshole”? I was under the distinct impression that *both* Freedom of Religion (the free exercise thereof) and Freedom of Association, both guaranteed by the First Amendment.

          Why is it so important to sue people into bankruptcy and quite take food out of their childrens’ mouths just for you to feel better and petulant people who simply could not be bothered to ask another baker/florist/photographer if they want to participate?

          Does liberty only move in one direction (at the point of a gun)? What happened to, “Live and let live”? Or this about vindictive punishment an, “Get-Evenism”?

          1. Why is it so important to sue people into bankruptcy and quite take food out of their childrens’ mouths just for you to feel better and petulant people who simply could not be bothered to ask another baker/florist/photographer if they want to participate?

            This is a straw man.

            You bake cakes for a living. Someone asks you to bake a cake for their wedding. You say “my religion condemns your behavior, therefore I will not pollute myself by making your cake.”

            You are being an asshole. I’m sorry, but using a religious rationalization for being an asshole may make you a righteous asshole, but it still makes you an asshole. Jesus sat down with sinners of all stripes and did not judge them. Are Christians purer than Jesus that they should cast the first stones?

            You have a right to be an asshole. In principle I would defend that right, but I feel like I have other fights to fight right now that seem more important to me.

            But to reiterate, IMHO framing this as a struggle for “religious liberty” and condemning reason as anti-liberty because of it is histrionic.

            1. Jesus sat down with sinners of all stripes and did not judge them.

              Yes. and No.

              He very clearly did judge them…or at least talked about the future judgement they would be facing. In very clear and not always very nice terms.

              1. He very clearly did judge them…or at least talked about the future judgement they would be facing. In very clear and not always very nice terms.

                Depends on how you read Revelation relative to the gospels.

                Either way, if you take the text at its word and don’t get into authorship issues, Jesus at the very least claims exclusive rights to judge. In no case is the first stone yours to throw (or even the second or third).

              2. Yep, otherwise he could not have said “go now and sin no more.

                Cause, that sure sounds kinda of all judge-y to my ears.

            2. So what is religious liberty if not the ability to act on your beliefs? If you don’t agree with gay marriage, you shouldn’t have to participate in a ceremony. It is that simple.

              You are doing nothing but reducing religious liberty down to just the thoughts in your head and nothing else. Bullshit. If you don’t have the freedom to act on your beliefs you are not free.

              This is an issue fundamental to religious freedom and anyone on the other side is anti freedom.

              1. If you don’t agree with gay marriage, you shouldn’t have to participate in a ceremony. It is that simple.

                If you won’t actually read my responses and respond to what I actually say, all I can say is:

                “yes – I heard you the first time. And the second. And the third.”

              2. So what is religious liberty if not the ability to act on your beliefs?

                Religious liberty is the freedom to believe anything you want. . . . You just aren’t allowed to act on it if it makes someone else uncomfortable…. or offends them in any way. In fact, it’s best if you just don’t mention it.

            3. This is a straw man.

              No, it’s not. These are real people and real cases.

              You bake cakes for a living. Someone asks you to bake a cake for their wedding. You say “my religion condemns your behavior, therefore I will not pollute myself by making your cake.”

              But that’s not what any of them said; they *all* said that they choose (you are pro-choice, no?) not participate in the ceremony. And made sincere recommendations for other businesses who wanted to. Unless you enjoy pointing a gun at them via lawfare.

              You are being an asshole. I’m sorry, but using a religious rationalization for being an asshole may make you a righteous asshole, but it still makes you an asshole.

              No, it makes them someone who wants to be left alone, which (l)ibertarianism champions, correct? (this is a yes or no, Socratic question).

              You have a right to be an asshole. In principle I would defend that right, but I feel like I have other fights to fight right now that seem more important to me.

              Ah, The First Amendment is not important? Or is Virtue-Signaling SJW style paramount? (Pick one, this isn’t a False Dilemma).

              But to reiterate, IMHO framing this as a struggle for “religious liberty” and condemning reason as anti-liberty because of it is histrionic.

              You’re not being sued out of your business and fighting for your livelihood by people who won’t leave you alone.

              1. Like John, you are not actually addressing what I am saying, but you are instead pushing things into “yes” or “no” dilemmas (yes, false ones) in order to make the issue look more black and white than it really is.

                I’ll try to say this in fewer syllables:

                The problem is public accommodation laws. This is not a special persecution set aside for Christians. This is the result of a bitter struggle for religious liberty and now the people who fought to deny that liberty are crying that they failed and now their religious liberty is being violated.

                Having been on the receiving end of religious persecution by Christians for decades, my sympathy level for this result is not high.

                That said, I reiterate: the gay wedding cake issues is a logical and necessary outcome of public accommodation laws. Religious persecution is not what is going on here.

                1. Having been on the receiving end of religious persecution by Christians for decades, my sympathy level for this result is not high.

                  Revenge, lawfare, and “Get-Evenism”. You *WILL* make people do what *YOU* want them to do at the point of a gun. Very Anti-Choice of you.

                  Black and White, Socratic Questioning matters for truth value.

                  The problem is public accommodation laws.

                  No, they aren’t. No one put a gun to your head to enter the place of business, and no one forced *ANYONE* to file suit.

                  Yes or No: (l)ibertarianism posits leaving people alone when they wish to be left alone, correct?

                  This is not a special persecution set aside for Christians.

                  Name me a case where Mohammedans are being sued for the same thing…

                  I will spell this out for you. Very. Slowly.

                  They. Don’t. Want. To. Participate. In. A. Religious. Ceremony.

                  Full. Stop.

                  1. OK – this is getting tedious, but I’ll try one more time.

                    Revenge, lawfare, and “Get-Evenism”. You *WILL* make people do what *YOU* want them to do at the point of a gun. Very Anti-Choice of you.

                    I realize you think you’ve caught me in some sort of libertarian heresy, but it’s because you’re making a point of sweeping away all nuance and making everything “either/or.” That’s not Socratic questioning – it’s an inquisitorial practice that is fundamentally anti-logic.

                    They. Don’t. Want. To. Participate. In. A. Religious. Ceremony.

                    I. Can. Hear. You.

                    Follow my plow:

                    This isn’t the only fucking issue facing humanity. A lot of people, yours truly included, have had their rights trampled by Christians for a long time. Getting equal rights is not the same thing as getting revenge.

                    Those equal rights moved a new class of transaction into the public accommodation sphere, bringing into play laws that libertarians have problems with.

                    Screaming “OMG RELIGIOUS PERSEUCIONT!1!! only distracts from the actual issue, which is public accommodation laws.

                    The main point being

                    Tossing GJ out over this level of ideological purism in the current political environment is just plain ol’ idiotic. Nothin’ more to it than that.

                    1. This isn’t about GayJay; he isn’t going to be President.

                      I am not trying to “trap you”, though you have shown a grave inconsistency; also, a Socratic Approach “is” binary: A statement is either true or false, and can be answered with a “yes” or a “no”. That’s Logic 101, yes?.

                      I do this every time I see a patient and DX disease processes. Begin with Socratic questions, then refine with Open-Ended queries. Certainly legitimate and sound for fact finding a formulating an argument (which is what a medical DX is).

                      This is, however, about Religious Liberty and Freedom of Association; it’s contained within the First Amendment, clear as day.

                      You *STILL* haven’t answered my fundamental question (which you simply will not answer, I gather that):

                      Why can’t you simply leave these people in peace? That’s it. That’s all I want to know.

                      I suppose we are at an impasse, then. I have to change my daughters and go to bed anyway.

                    2. Why can’t you simply leave these people in peace?

                      I have every desire to leave these people “in peace,” if they will do the same to me.

                      Here is what I am saying:

                      Gays being refused the same rights as other people in regards to marriage and public relationships is bona fide religiously-motivated persecution that affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

                      Christians being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings is a consequence of gays having recently acquired that right. The “forcing people to bake cakes” angle, contra John, was not the actual goal, but was an unavoidable side effect due to the existence of unjust public accommodation laws.

                      Those laws need to be fixed, but the fact that those laws exist is not a good reason to deny gay people equal rights.

                      A statement is either true or false, and can be answered with a “yes” or a “no”. That’s Logic 101, yes?.

                      Yes. And then there are more logic courses that come after that.

                    3. Gays being refused the same rights as other people in regards to marriage and public relationships is bona fide religiously-motivated persecution that affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

                      Agreed, especially in light of the crickets coming from the selfsame religious community in regards to the marriage of heterosexual atheists, or divorcees, or non-christians in general. All of those things would be, it would seem, similar moral violations of true Christian marriage, yet only the gays get legislated against.

                    4. All of those things would be, it would seem, similar moral violations of true Christian marriage, yet only the gays get legislated against.

                      When somebody orders a cake for a heterosexual wedding, they typically do not discuss the particulars of their personal lives with the baker, so the baker is usually unaware of their faith, their relationship history, etc. When somebody orders a cake for a homosexual wedding, the moral violation is contextually obvious in a way that other moral violations are not.

                      Also, telling somebody “Sorry, I don’t do gay weddings” is not “legislating against them”. Legislation is when a legislature passes a law.

                    5. Also, telling somebody “Sorry, I don’t do gay weddings” is not “legislating against them”. Legislation is when a legislature passes a law.

                      I was referring to gay marriage laws, DOMA and the like.

                    6. Christians being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings is a consequence of gays having recently acquired that right. The “forcing people to bake cakes” angle, contra John, was not the actual goal, but was an unavoidable side effect due to the existence of unjust public accommodation laws.

                      Nope. Current federal civil rights legislation does not include sexual orientation or gender identity. A majority of state civil rights statutes don’t either. GayJay supports expanding current civil rights legislation well beyond its current limitations to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and even political affiliation. Passing new rules forcing religious people to violate their convictions is not a direct consequence nor an unfortunate side effect of expanding civil marriage. It’s thuggery. And no amount of bargain basement sophistry makes your sad little revenge fantasies any more noble.

                      Those laws need to be fixed, but the fact that those laws exist is not a good reason to deny gay people equal rights.

                      Nobody suggested denying gay people equal access to the still-limited government privileges attending civil marriage, you mendacious cunt. Groovus asked you why not baking a cake for a ceremony with which they disagree made religious people assholes. Failing to pass sweeping new laws compelling speech and commerce from religious people does not deny anybody else their sacred zod-given right to marry 1, and only 1, person of the same sex.

                2. Having been on the receiving end of religious persecution by Christians for decades…

                  Awwww, did you have to see a ten commandments statue at the court house? Poor babby.

        4. The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

          Way to live up to the “fuck you, I got my pony” stereotype that John constructed here for the better part of 2 years leading up to Obergefell.

          1. Pat,

            Stereotypes don’t come from thin air.

        5. “…your right to be an asshole to people…”

          Laughably bigoted and arrogant.

          Bravo.

        6. He would bake the cake and letter “Go, and sin no more” on it.

        7. So, now exercising one’s religious liberty includes NOT actively doing something for or to someone. Just leaving them alone isn’t good enough.

        8. It’s a pimple on a pimple. # of persons who wanted to have a marriage to someone of the same sex legally recognized = minuscule. # of persons who wanted to not decorate their wedding cake = super-minuscule. Like maybe comparable to the # of persons who want to use the “wrong” toilet. Fewer than the people who want to keep ferrets or operate food trucks.

          The only practical use of issues that concern desires (not the needs) of a minuscule part of the popul’n is as an educational tool, showing how we think to anybody who cares about such thinking. Actually achieving the reforms doesn’t have the side benefits that, say, legalizing nonprescription narcotics would, even though few people want those either.

      4. Under non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation and/or gender identity, there have been what, a half-dozen lawsuits over the last decade? A photographer (Elane Photography), Two bakers (Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Masterpiece Cakes), a florist (Arlene something I think?) and a wedding venue (some place in upstate New York).

        Under marriage-bans hundreds of thousands of gay couples were denied the right to marry and enjoy the same obligations, rights and privileges as everyone else.

        From disparate impact alone, I’m not sure 1/100th the coverage is inappropriate.

        1. Oh for sure. I am sure the progs will never use that precedent to go after other people. Hey, it is just saying you can’t object to the gays. What harm could come from that?
          \
          I get it,. SOCONs suck and when bad things happen to them it is no big deal.

        2. Maybe the draconian results of the lawsuits is the reason for there being so few of them? If they shot those people, I bet there would be very few dissenters afterwards, you know? And you no doubt would be here to tell us how it was no big deal since it was only a few cases.

        3. Under non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation and/or gender identity, there have been what, a half-dozen lawsuits over the last decade?

          Which just goes to show you how pervasive a problem discrimination against gay couples is in modern society, and demonstrates the dire necessity of these laws.

        4. You forgot about, “Memories Pizza,” who were sued into bankruptcy, and even had their Go-Fund-Me page terminated.

          Again, what happend to, “Live and let live?” Why can’t a business simply cater to traditional marriages and others leave them be?

          Is this only a one way street? Or is this a case of, “If you ain’t celebratin’, you be hatin’! And you *will* be made care! Bitch!”

          I live in a former Soviet Bloc country, and no one here can be compelled to participate in a gathering with which they don’t want to be involved. (With the noted exception of Eastern UKR, occupied by Russian insurgents, and Crimea (Kreml), annexed by Russia).

          1. Sued into bankruptcy? The last story I heard about them was that some gay couple bought pizza from them and that was news for some reason.

            “Again, what happend to, “Live and let live?” Why can’t a business simply cater to traditional marriages and others leave them be?”
            To be clear, the “live and let live” that’s currently being suggested is that Christian bakers can refuse me service because their God hates fags, but I am not allowed to refuse them service because their God hates fags.

            Until that offer becomes a bit more equitable (either both can refuse service, or both are prohibited from refusing service) I’m not sure it’s unfair to refuse.

            1. To be clear, the “live and let live” that’s currently being suggested is that Christian bakers can refuse me service because their God hates fags, but I am not allowed to refuse them service because their God hates fags.

              And why can’t you simply go to another provider? But it’s not about the provider, is it? And they are not refusing service, they are choosing not to participate in the ceremony (which is religious, “religo-” root word meaning “rules”). Why are you specifically targeting people who did you no harm? It’s not about the service, it’s about revenge, lawfare, and Get-Evenism, correct? Or does the 1st Amendment (all of it) not matter?

              Until that offer becomes a bit more equitable (either both can refuse service, or both are prohibited from refusing service) I’m not sure it’s unfair to refuse.

              Really? There are documented cases of Islamo-Mohammedans doing this very thing; where is the lawfare on them? And you still haven’t answered my question: Why can’t you simply leave them alone?

              1. I was married by a government employee at the county recorder’s office. My parents were married by a judge in the 70s. But please, tell me more about how people at either were participating in a “religious” ceremony.

                That said, you’re really missing a big part of what I just said. I’m fine with getting rid of non-discrimination laws as the apply to private businesses. What I’m not fine with keeping non-discrimination laws that cover religion, but getting rid of non-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation/gender identity.

                But hey, if we want to scrap all of it, and let me be as much of an asshole to them as they want to be to me? That’s dandy too. But expecting gay people to walk the two-way street of “live and let live” alone? That’s not acceptable.

                1. “religio-” == rules. Full stop. This is no implication of deity or theism.

                  I am leaving this one last time. I have to change my children and sleep, it’s late and my wife is angry.

                  Why can’t you leave them alone? Just answer the damn question.

                  1. You’re seriously arguing the etymology of the word to argue that all weddings are religious? By that logic, I’m a “religious author” because all the software I write operates on a set of rules, which I expand.

                    As to your question, you clearly don’t find my answers satisfactory. But I have answered them. In fact, I’ve even given out an (in my humble opinion) entirely fair solution where I “leave them alone” and get “left alone” in return.

                    If you find that solution unacceptable, then you aren’t actually interested in “live and let live”. You’re just interested in “If you ain’t celebratin’, you be hatin’! And you *will* be made care! Bitch!”

                    1. Don’t worry, I still get to subsidize your “rights” which is what this was really about: gov’t goodies. It’s funny how you’re willing to compromise on expanding government instead of the only logically consistent solution of eliminating marriage benefits for everyone.

                    2. Actually, same story.

                      Expand access to legal marriage, or eliminate it all together. Either way would have worked. But the situation where lots of rights and responsibilities are tied to marriage, but it’s not equally accessible? That was an unacceptable status quo.

                      And while a very few people floated the idea of getting rid of legal marriage all-together, there was never any serious effort to do so.

        5. I’d like to open a baking shop and put up a sign saying “WE DO NOT CATER TO GAY WEDDINGS”. Of course, I wouldn’t mention that the shop did not cater to any weddings at all, but it would be a good laugh after activists blew the money on the lawsuits. On the other hand, with courts the way they are today, I’d probably still lose merely putting up a statement of fact.

    3. We’re in the same boat. Thanks for summing up what I wanted to say.

      But in the end, Johnson is 100x better than Clinton and Trump. And better than any presidential candidate I’ve ever voted for. He has my vote.

  17. I have never once referred to or even thought of Bruce Jenner by another name or even would use the pronoun she to refer to him.

    Virtue-signalling; not just for progs, anymore.

    1. Was it ever?

  18. I think the LP should be more interested in stealing votes from the Dem side. There are a ton of people out there who are socially liberal and economically fucking ignorant. A little more education of these types and the snowball effect of such education and there are a lot of votes to be had.

    Though, judging from the articles put out by Reason lately, I’m pretty sure Nick, who is really the most abortion obsessed person in the room, and the rest of the authors at Reason are more interested in ensuring nobody votes for Trump even if it means they vote for Clinton.

    There is a lot of social signaling about Trump, but honestly, he is not anywhere near as bad as Clinton on almost every single issue libertarians care about.

    1. There are a ton of people out there who are socially liberal and economically fucking ignorant. A little more education of these types and the snowball effect of such education and there are a lot of votes to be had.

      That kind of economic understanding requires both education and experience. Not easy to do when you’ve got an entire generation obsessed with “fairness”.

      1. The bigger problem is that those people are not socially liberal. They just think they are. One of the worst things reason does is to enable the prog idea that “socially liberal” means abortion, gays and such. It means a lot more than that. “Socially liberal” means leaving people the fuck alone. If you think it is the government’s job to tell people how to sort their garbage or save them from the evils of fatty foods and GUNZ, you are not socially liberal or liberal in any real way. I don’t care how wonderful you think sodomy and cross dressing are.

        1. Socially liberal != socially tolerant. People who describe themselves as socially liberal are more often than not as socially intolerant as the evul soconz.

          1. They are socially intolerant of anyone who does not knuckle under when they present their vision of the world.

    2. To me, it’s not even that Trump is or isn’t worse than Hillary. The ridiculous thing to me is this idea that Trump for some reason is singularly awful beyond the typical major party candidate. Why – because he is crude, devoid of principles, makes outlandish promises he has no intention of keeping, and says a lot of meaningless drivel? Other than the crudity, how is that any different than Hillary and Obama and Romney and McCain and Bush and Kerry and Gore and Billy Jeff and Dole etc etc etc etc?

    3. Though, judging from the articles put out by Reason lately, I’m pretty sure Nick, who is really the most abortion obsessed person in the room,

      I would have to assume you’re only counting rooms that don’t contain Eddie.

    4. I think Clinton’s worse on core libertarian issues, for sure; that said when you step away from the battleground issues Trump seems to be finding some seriously creative ways to grow government in ways that neither Republicans nor Democrats has done before (arbitrary tariffs on ultra-specific groups he doesn’t care for, religious tests at the border, etc).

      To me it mostly comes off as a battle between lawful evil and chaotic evil (although admittedly “lawful” would be a strange adjective to apply to Hillary).

    5. As if the LP exists to actually win elections…

    6. Yeah, Nick is making Reason hard to read/continue subscribing to. I think his time is past – his takes are weak and boring. He seems more like a left winger who wants party purity so he mouths the libertarian message and wears leather – kink signaling? Reason needs a reboot.

  19. True Libertarians support free speech, freedom of religion, assembly, press, gun rights, protection from unreasonable government intrusion, a fair and impartial judiciary and believe that freedom is the basis of security. Trumpkins-in-denial say, “Yes all those rights are important, but gun rights are the foundation from which all freedoms are derived.”

  20. If your main argument against the Libertarian Party is that they aren’t enough like the GOP, you are missing the point on purpose.

    1. WHYCOM AINT THESE HERE LIBRUTIN FAGGOTS REPUBLICN

    2. My complaint with the LP is that they seem to be willing to abandon libertarian principle if it means saying fuck you to conservatives.

      1. The gay cakes stuff effects literally dozens, so obviously you should vote for Trump instead.

        1. Sure, the precedent that the government can force people to act against their conscious is no big deal. It is just a few dozen nuts affected by the rule. Why should anyone care? I mean it is not like government doesn’t start restricting freedom by going after unpopular and small minorities first as a wedge to then later go after the rest of us.

          I am sure fucking those people won’t lead anywhere bad. They were assholes who kind of deserved it. And everyone knows that freedom only matters when it affects good people.

          Besides, GAYZ!!

          1. Sure, the precedent that the government can force people to act against their conscious is no big deal

            So – you think this is what sets that precedent, and not every single thing the government has ever done in the past?

            What makes gay wedding cake the defining precedent for totalitarianism and not, say, elective wars?

            1. I kinow. They suck and you hate them so it just doesn’t matter. And to me at least, I don’t care if it is example one million, it is still a big deal. But I don’t judge the importance of something based on how I like the person involved.

              1. But I don’t judge the importance of something based on how I like the person involved.

                Horseshit.

                1. You seem to be an expert in doing that SF. So if anyone could see that i have a blind spot it is you. If I fail, then that is my failing. We all have failings. At least I try not to do that. You and a lot of other people on here seem to take pride in being that way.

              2. Get the fuck out of here, you disingenuous twat. You give a shit about freedom of association because it’s a chance to pretend gay marriage is anti-freedom. It’s been your schtick for years now.

                1. Go fuck yourself. The truth hurts asshole. If you do t like me pointing out your hypocrisy. Tough shit. Life sucks when you are stupid.

          2. If we want to talk “precedent”, then gay wedding cakes didn’t set anything.

            That precedent was set decades ago. Which is why every single one of those cases has gone the same way.

            Also, it’s not a “few dozen nuts”. There are literally *hundreds* of non-discrimination lawsuits every year. The vast majority don’t involve gay people. So it’s only a “few dozen nuts” if you don’t consider the conscious of all those hundreds of other people to be worth consideration.

            In short… if this is your objection, you missed your train a long time ago. Now you’re just yelling at the people in the last car and blaming them for following the precedent set by the first one.

            1. You are treating people who have religious objections the same as people who have racist objections. It is a cute trick Libertarians can’t seem to get out of the habit of doing no matter how many times someone points out that it is a fallacy.

              Here is the thing, religious freedom is specifically protected under the 1st Amendment, being a racist is not. Now I know that sucks and the founders were real assholes for giving those damn fundies special protection. But it is what it is.

              So what is going on the gay cakes cases is different and much worse than what went on in the CRA. It represents the courts reading an enumerated right out of the constitution. That is a big deal. You don’t think it is because you hate religious people and are not honest enough to admit you don’t give a fuck when they are stomped on. I have more respect for the Progs than I do for people like you. At least the Progs are honest about their animus. .

              1. I have more respect for the Progs than I do for people like you. At least the Progs are honest about their animus.

                EscherEnigma makes absolutely no pretense of being anything less than a foaming at the mouth SJW. He/she is the honest prog you’re looking for.

              2. Much of those who get grouped as ‘cons’ these days are more accurately classical liberals – people whose first principles include a strong affinity for the principles of the Scottish Enlightenment, and a recognition of the Constitution as understood by those who ratified it.

                Gillespie knows this, but like a good little proggy knows that that sort of understanding of the Constitution is a major roadblock to their goals. He is glad to write these sorts out of the libertarian movement.

              3. “You are treating people who have religious objections the same as people who have racist objections.”
                No, I’m pointing out the history. People have tried the “because God” card to get out of non-discrimination laws since they were signed into law. The precedent that “because God” is not good enough *is* already set.

                And at no point in any of those precedent-setting cases did the government say “we’ve decided your religious objections aren’t sincere, and so we feel comfortable overruling them”. They said “we recognize your sincere religious objections, but the government has a legitimate interest in overruling them”.

                So no. LGBT inclusion in non-discrimination laws has set no new precedent. That already happened. And no amount of insults hurled my way will change that.

                1. Yes, the government has ruled you can’t have a religious objection to race. But, there was at least a basis for doing that. Specifically the 13th and 14th Amendments which were both passed for the specific purpose of ensuring the races got equal protection under the law. There is at least a colorable argument that those two Amendments modified the 1st Amendment at least with regard to racial objections.

                  There is no such argument for gays. The argument is society and judges like gays so fuck off. That is great from your prospective because you like gays and hate religious people. That however, doesn’t make it any less of a bad precedent. What else does the court plan to read out of the constitution in the name of current fashion? I don’t think you are going to like the answer very much.

                  1. The government has also ruled you can’t have religious objections? to sex, religion, national original, disability, veteran status, marriage status, pregnancy status…

                    You going to read all those into the 13th and 14th as well?
                    ________
                    ?Broadly speaking. There’s always the “ministerial” exception.

        2. And how many people do you think cross dressing in high school toilets effects? Or police brutality?

          And where do you want to draw the line? Should libertarians only get upset if over a hundred peoples’ rights are violated? Or, hey, less than 8% of the population has ever even had gay sex. And only a tiny minority of them are looking to tie the knot. Maybe libertarians ought to get with the conservative program on that.

          1. I don’t really give a shit about toilets either. And I’m certainly not going to vote based on who is more obsessed about them, pro or con.

            The people bashing Johnson the hardest here are the ones who were never going to vote for a libertarian in the first place. I’m mostly just sick of listening to their bullshit.

            1. I don’t really give a shit about toilets either.

              Do you give a shit about anything that doesn’t affect you personally? If you are fine with Johnson not caring about those issues, what issues would you not be fine with not caring about?

              It seems like you only get concerned about things when they start to affect you. That is of course your right, but how can you blame other people for doing the same and objecting to Johnson because he is wrong about the things that will effect them?

              1. Because fuck you, you unprincipled fuck. Don’t defend a piece of shit like Trump and then come here and lecture me on libertarian principles.

                1. I am not lecturing you on anything. I am asking you to explain your principles. If you can’t do that, and it seems you can’t, that is your problem not mine.

                  And yes, Fuck you that is why seems to be your way of thinking. That was kind of my point.

            2. As of right now, I’m voting for Johnson.

              I may vote for Trump if he can lay out a clear agenda that will further economic liberty (and if GJ has no chance). I’m not sure if I’ll ever hear it though for the constant explosions of pants-shitting.

            3. Actually, as I said, I am going to vote for Johnson anyway.

              That doesn’t change the fact that I think his position here isn’t both stupid and shitty.

          2. Libertarian activists probably could get a little more done by focusing on issues that affect more people. But, considering we seem to accomplish so little anyway (Really, in this world of billions, how much can anyone affect the macro about anything anyway?), we get bored with the major issues, & turn on to more & more minor ones affecting fewer persons, often in ways that are mere inconveniences to them. Sometimes we get more upset than the person directly affected! I wish Elaine would just come to a HyR blogger & tell them, stop crying, it was just a gig taking pictures, everyone has unpleasant jobs to do, I’m over it already, I’m more upset that my investments took a tumble last week.

        3. Forced Public Accommodation affects just dozens? Really?

          1. Gay wedding cakes affect dozens.

            Bill Dalasio raises a valid point that the number of people affected does not decide the issue, but your comment highlights the real thing:

            Forced Public Accommodation is the issue, and the gay wedding cake issue follows from how those laws are traditionally applied. Those laws should be addressed.

            There are certain people, however, for whom those laws only became problematic when the gay wedding cake issue came up.

            Sort of how having to pay for condoms is an unconscionable violation of Christian principle but having to pay for wars of conquest isn’t.

          2. On gay cakes? Maybe not even that.

            All the rest of the problems with public accommodation that have been going around for 50+ years is a much larger problem, but most people understood that looking like you were making a stand to keep from sharing a water fountain with a black person wasn’t the winning position to lead off with.

        4. The gay cakes stuff effects literally dozens

          “Gay Cakes” is a euphemism for handing certain groups license to sue the shit out of anyone for ‘failure to accommodate’, & the lawsuits are legion

          NY’s most recent ‘trans discrimination law‘ basically makes hurting people’s feelings the basis for a lawsuit. that, and much much more.

          “One of the ways one can violate the law is the improper use of a person’s preferred pronouns, including newly invented ones like “ze” and “hir,”

          other examples of violations:

          a. Maintaining grooming and appearance standards that apply differently to individuals who identify as men or women … For example, requiring… female bartenders wear makeup.
          b. Requiring employees of one gender to wear a uniform specific to that gender.
          c. Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewelry
          d. Permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.
          e. Requiring all men to wear ties in order to dine at a restaurant.

          i think your assessment is wee off the mark.

          1. Once again, as I have never waivered, I’m against all public accommodation laws. I just don’t think a few asshole Christian bakers is the end of the world. The “world” in that sense ended in 1964.

            Should they be forced or sued for not baking gay wedding cakes? No. Are they a reason to trash Gary Johnson and vote for Donald Trump? No fucking way.

            1. We all know there’s only one reason to vote for Trump – because he sends leftists into insane spasms of wetting their pants, crying, and setting things on fire. Not necessarily in that order.

              I don’t support the guy and I sure as hell don’t want him to be president, but I do appreciate the entertainment value he’s providing.

            2. Religious freedom is an enumerated right. Why do you and so many other people act like it isn’t and the courts and governments reading it out of the constitution just no big deal?

              And if the world ended in 1964, why should I give a fuck if gay couples can get marriage license? I seem to recall you and a lot of other people convinced that was the most important thing ever. Now, rights don’t matter because the world ended in 1964.

              1. Religious freedom is an enumerated right. Why do you and so many other people act like it isn’t and the courts and governments reading it out of the constitution just no big deal?

                Because this is not what’s going on. Your religion is losing its pride of place as the monopoly religion that gets to elbow out all the others.

                From your perspective your religious liberty is less than it was because your religion is not absolutely dominant anymore.

                For the rest of us the last 40 years have seen a tangible increase in religious liberty.

                1. Because this is not what’s going on. Your religion is losing its pride of place as the monopoly religion that gets to elbow out all the others.

                  You are an idiot. You just are. Is being gay a religion? The right for Christians to practice their religion in no way stops anyone else from practicing theirs.

                  Your point makes no sense and is thus impossible to respond to.

                  1. Is being gay a religion?

                    No, blockhead, our legal code until very recently forbade anything that was contrary to Christian law. Not being Christian is my right under the Constitution.

                    Is anything starting to click yet?

                2. Your religion is losing its pride of place as the monopoly religion that gets to elbow out all the others.

                  Yeah John, just think back on those dark days in the late 1970s when you could be prosecuted for blasphemy and it was against the law to wear a hijab (hey, I guess you and GayJay have something in common after all).

                  For the rest of us the last 40 years have seen a tangible increase in religious liberty.

                  Religious liberty isn’t a zero sum game you half wit. When one group loses some of theirs, it isn’t divvied up amongst the rest. Coercing Christians into baking cakes and performing services did not gain any liberty for anybody else.

            3. Are they a reason to trash Gary Johnson and vote for Donald Trump? No fucking way.

              ^ This.

              For this to be a deal-breaker is just insanity.

              1. I forgot that only Trump and Johnson will be on the ballot this year. I guess I’d better abandon a handful of important issues for a false binary then. Suck it up and vote for the lesser evil. Not voting for GayJay is a vote for Trump, after all. I can see how this is an entirely different argument from the one made by Team Red and Team Blue every election cycle.

          2. One of those businesses should get even by just saying, “OK, I’ll just do what you want.” “No, you weren’t supposed to do that, I was just suing you to get $!” “Too bad, you’re getting what you want, & I’m taking your $ for doing it, too! Plus tax.”

      2. What libertarian principles have they abandoned?

        1. In your world Hugh, none. Absolutely none. But that says everything about you and nothing about the subject at hand.

  21. tl;dr

    is there a libertarian moment in there somewhere? tell me there is.

    1. I think it just flushed down a “gender (sex) neutral” loo…

    2. Is there ever?

      I mean, I know that The Jacket loves to keep banging on the “LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!” drums, but looking at the current state of national politics in America, we don’t seem anywhere close to real, long-lasting libertarianism.

  22. Johnson, I’m not crazy about but I can live with. Weld fucking sucks, though, a standard issue Northeastern Democrat in Republican clothing. Nothing in his background suggests even a hint of a belief in limited government.

    1. “I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear that, honest,” Mr. Weld said Thursday.

      What more do you need to hear? This guy is great.

    2. Weld was a liberal Republican and not because of social issues. I can’t for the life of me understand how he ended up in the LP.

      1. Agree with John.

        If GayJay was aiming for an anti-Trump northeastern liberal former two-term Republican governor ?

        ?why not just go with Christie Todd Whitman?

      2. Political expediency, of course. His type of center-left DLC politics is out of favor with the Dems, and he never fit in with the national GOP. Why not pretend to be a Libertarian?

  23. “Libertarians could appeal to social conservatives,” reads the headline to a piece at The Federalist by David Harsanyi. “They just don’t want to.”

    I spit upon this argument. The Repubs wrecked their party so we’re supposed to turn over our party platform to the SoCons?

    This is idiocy. The problem is when people like Erick Erickson, Mary Matalin, Glenn Beck, et al. endorse a candidate like Austin Petersen *because* of the goddamn social issues. And I don’t have a problem with Petersen — he’s an effective voice for libertarianism — but he’s 35 and has ZERO experience in any major capacity. Yet the SoCons were ready to throw in with him because of abortion and the public accommodation issue (which I agree with them on, but still).

    1. Since the SOCONs are the ones who are most directly affected by the public accommodation issue, can you blame them for throwing in with the first guy who came along willing to take their side on it?

      Easy for you to dismiss it. You disagree with them. Sure you disagree with those laws but they are unlikely to ever affect you personally. If they were, you would likely be a bit more of a single issue voter about them.

      1. Easy for you to dismiss it. You disagree with them. Sure you disagree with those laws but they are unlikely to ever affect you personally. If they were, you would likely be a bit more of a single issue voter about them.

        My view on liberty is that if one truly supports and believes in it, you must do so when it involves people you don’t like/issues you don’t care about. It won’t affect me personally (accommodation laws) but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about it any less.

        But it’s not the all-or-nothing issue that some SoCons are pretending it is.

        Since the SOCONs are the ones who are most directly affected by the public accommodation issue, can you blame them for throwing in with the first guy who came along willing to take their side on it?

        Good point. I’ll eat my hat on that one.

        1. But it’s not the all-or-nothing issue that some SoCons are pretending it is.

          It most certainly is if you are the one looking down the barrel of the gun. You can be all philosophical and compromising because none of these issues directly affect you. If one of them did and you were facing the prospect of losing your business or your livelihood as a price of practicing your beliefs, you would be a hell of a lot less flexible about things. So don’t blame the people who are facing that for not being as enlightened as you are. You can afford to be enlightened. They can’t.

    2. Petersen is the future. Somebody give that guy a job where he can get some actual experience so we dont have to face this same arguement every 4 years.

  24. Gary Johnson’s positions re: federal gay cake police are antithetical to “small government”. Conservatives get a twofer here: they can oppose it on cultural grounds and small government grounds. It’s not a libertarian position, it’s not a conservative position, and it’s pretty substantially more statist than even the current left wing orthodoxy. Having federal agents going about ensuring that bakeries are adequately purged of religiosity would require an enforcement apparatus that anyone concerned with small government ought to oppose. It’s a similar argument to the one libertarians make when telling conservatives to stifle themselves on abortion: making it illegal would require a police report for every miscarriage right?

    Same goes for the new environmental regs and carbon taxes that GayJay supports. Abortion is the least of the problems that earnest “small government conservatives” might conceivably have with Gary Johnson.

    1. I don’t see how anyone could support carbon taxes and call themselves a libertarian. Does anyone care about economic rights anymore? We really do live in a world of pot, Mexicans and ass sex.

    2. “Having federal agents going about ensuring that bakeries are adequately purged of religiosity”
      Non-discrimination laws that include gay people are enforce the same way that non-discrimination laws have been enforced since the 60s. By people reporting discrimination when they encounter it.

      You can oppose non-discrimination laws all you want, but acting like including gay peoples is a huge game changer isn’t honest.

      “It’s a similar argument to the one libertarians make when telling conservatives to stifle themselves on abortion: making it illegal would require a police report for every miscarriage right?”
      Except that as we’ve seen in various states that have pushed various anti-abortion laws (dressed up in all sorts of colors), getting a miscarriage *can* get you questioned by police and thrown in prison in some places. Heck, we’ve had pregnant women who went to the hospital after a fall that were then arrested and imprisoned until birth on the *suspicion* that she was trying to force a miscarriage.

      The two aren’t comparable.

      1. Heck, we’ve had pregnant women who went to the hospital after a fall that were then arrested and imprisoned until birth on the *suspicion* that she was trying to force a miscarriage.

        Where? I would like to see a site for that. I don’t doubt you. I am just curious. And anyone who thinks we can have a meaningful ban on abortion that doesn’t involve that kind of thing, is kidding themselves.

        1. Purvi Patel is one “arrested for miscarriage” story. Lots of articles will ping off her name.
          Christine Taylor in Iowa is specifically teh “fell down the stairs, arrested for attempted fetal-homicide” one. You’ll need to throw in more search terms to find stories on her as apparently there’s an actress with the same name. This one doesn’t have the “jailed until birth” part, though she was arrested and served jail time before the case was thrown out (because she was in her second trimester instead of the third trimester, apparently)

          More generally, you can do a search on “miscarriage criminalized” and find lots of stories. Can’t find the specific one I was thinking of, so I may have mixed up two different stories (there are an unfortuante number of court-ordered cesareans, women charged for *not* getting cesareans, pregnant women in solitary confinement, and so-on)

      2. Non-discrimination laws that include gay people are enforce the same way that non-discrimination laws have been enforced since the 60s.

        Right. By having an enormous, intrusive bureaucracy, which is fundamentally incompatible with “small government”. That’s the point. Many libertarians grudgingly accept settled public accommodation law as a matter of practicality. Gary Johnson supports it at a philosophical level, so much so that he wants to expand it substantially, apparently to include political affiliation.

        1. Listening to what Johnson has said, I think its more of a settled law position that he badly articulates. Instead of say a pro-state position he badly articulates. He has said in broader conversations on the nazi cake question that to him its settled law that would require new “pro-discrimination” law to change, and since no one (not even Libertarians) are seriously adovacting such a thing, we must deal with the law as it stands until such time advocacy for that very law becomes publically tenable. In either case my biggest frustration is Gary is how poorly he articulates fundamental things.

          Petersen articulates them well, but very glossy.

          McAfee articulated them well too but in a old stoner sort of way as Kennedy pointed out.

          Gary needs to fly the NAP flag and really push the philosophy of liberty. NAP sells better than “socially liberal, fiscally conservative.” No. It’s don’t hurt people, don’t take thier stuff, don’t do anything in my name that I can’t do myself, and as a follow on to that, please don’t do anything a resonable person could find abhorrent.

      3. Except that as we’ve seen in various states that have pushed various anti-abortion laws (dressed up in all sorts of colors), getting a miscarriage *can* get you questioned by police and thrown in prison in some places. Heck, we’ve had pregnant women who went to the hospital after a fall that were then arrested and imprisoned until birth on the *suspicion* that she was trying to force a miscarriage.

        Well, not so much. It’s a shitty argument. Miscarriages, like most other unintentional deaths, rarely if ever result in criminal investigation, let alone criminal prosecution. Which was the case even prior to Roe v Wade when there were still outright abortion bans. But you’re actually proving my point, not refuting it. To the extent that you need an enforcement squad investigating reported violations of an abortion ban, such a ban is inconsistent with “small government” – it requires expanding the enforcement apparatus and violating people’s privacy. Piling new protected classes into public accommodation also requires expanding the enforcement apparatus and violating people’s privacy. They are exactly comparable. You can’t have a “small government” in which the feds police people’s personal business interactions anymore than you can have a small government in which the feds police people’s medical procedures.

  25. For decades, the Republican party and conservatives continued to support everything from literally imprisoning gay people on up, but *now* is where libertarians say goodbye to conservatives?

    1. And now you can work with your prog friends and get your revenge. Good luck with that.

    2. For decades, the Democrat party continued to support literally imprisoning gay people (and racism) too.

      What was your point?

      1. That Gillespie’s contrition isn’t convincing.

        As for Democrats, libertarians/Libertarians either never said “hello”, or said “goodbye” a long time ago.

  26. Liked most of this except a couple things:

    A) modern conservatives lumped in with segregationist democrats? I guess, but seems unfair since those people stayed democrat from my anecdotal experience

    2) repeating the standard Boomer line of “the CRA was necessary then, but not now” is ridiculous coming from a libertarian who should realize that govt power ratchets only one direction. Does reason support repeal? Honestly asking.

    D) “the world” has an opinion on things like trans rights? So conservatives aren’t members of the world? Crude collectivization says I.

    1. Re: 2
      It’s all ridiculous considering that the CRA, as signed into law in 1964, included national origin and religion, two categories that didn’t face nearly the same discrimination as blacks or women. So even by the “it was necessary then”, the bar for how bad the discrimination has to be before government action is warranted isn’t that high.

  27. Abortion issue is silly. SoCons are essentially demanding that liberals not abort and instead raise their little monsters so they can destroy this country. It’s utterly counter productive.

    1. Many object to government paying for them – not the choice.

      1. If we judge people (and movements) by their actions, then we should just anti-abortion activists by the TARP laws they’ve been pushing (and passing) in the last few years.

        There have been a few “defund Planned Parenthood” moments. Which ignores that Planned Parenthood is and has been very careful to keep the government money segregated from other income streams when it comes to paying for abortions.

        There have been many more (many MANY more) laws that seek to regulate abortion clinics out of existance regardless of their income streams, or to outright ban abortions after a certain point.

        So based on their actions, it seems fair to say that the main goal of anti-abortion activists is to make legal abortions as difficult as possible to get. A secondary objective might to be to make sure the government isn’t paying for them (a victory they’ve already won, though they don’t like to admit it).

        1. Planned Parenthood is and has been very careful to keep the government money segregated

          Money is fungible. this a bullshit cop-out. Like PPs claim that only 3% of the functions they perform are abortions. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 15% of people who walk thru their doors get an abortion. they also got a flyer on STDs (counseling), a pap smear, and a breast exam while they were there. Stat padding.

          outright ban abortions after a certain point.

          As I pointed out above, every libertarian should support this, because after a certain point, it is murder. The argument is in defining the point.

          1. Let’s say you’re right for the sake of argument.

            Based on their actions, most anti-abortion activists aren’t that concerned about the money. They really do want to ban all legal abortions.

  28. he would even force Jewish bakers to make “Nazi wedding cakes!” To be fair, it’s not clear exactly what a Nazi wedding cake?I assume it’s swastika-shaped and probably has a German-chocolate filling, but really who knows??but Gott im Himmel, it sounds dreadful.

    Are you kidding? It looks DELISH

    And who are you to judge!? When 2 Nazis love one another, its a special and magical thing, and you have no excuse for getting in the way of that, Mr. “I dress like a reject from The Wild One

    1. If we want to be fair, we should point out that the bakers aren’t objecting to the “Nazi wedding cake” looking like a Swastica, or having any certain message, or anything like that.

      They’re objecting to selling a wedding cake to Nazis at all.

      To be clear: in every single “gay wedding cake” story that’s hit the public airwaves so far, the bakery objected to baking *any* wedding cake. Not just ones that said “Adam and Steve”, not just ones with rainbow themes, or shaped like dildos, or anything like that. To *any* cake that would be a wedding cake for the gay couple.

      Which is part of why these cases keep losing. Because the never got as far as what the “message” of the cake would be (which is why the Tennesee T-Shirt printer was able to refuse the gay pride shirts, and the *other* Colorado Baker was able to refuse the specific message to be written on a bible-shaped cake), they refused at step 1 (“who are the customers”).

      1. You’re entirely wrong about this. there have been multiple cases where the speech was the issue, and the proprietor was perfectly willing to provide “message-less”-cakes.

      2. e.g. here’s one

        even the “famous” case (Masterpiece bakers) specifically notes = they weren’t “denying the customer”… they were refusing to make a certain kind of product which they didnt offer =

        of course the plaintiffs claim they were refused for “who they were”. and that’s what the media runs with. but it was not the bakers original policy to refuse to serve gays – it was their policy not to make cakes celebrating ‘gay weddings’.

        Another case was where a Tshirt company refused to print ‘gay pride’ shirts… and they won.

        The trial court judge drew a legal distinction between a company choosing not to print T-shirts because of the sexual orientation of a potential customer and choosing not to fulfill the T-shirt order because of the message the Christian owners would be hired to print on those shirts.

        1. Did you actually read my final paragraph? ’cause I was pointing out Azucar Bakery and Hands on Originals to point out the difference between refusing the message and refusing the customer.

          And the distinction you should have taken away is that they were willing to serve the customer, but balked at the specific message/image. In the cases of Masterpiece Cakes and Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakers refused to bake *any* wedding cake because the customer was gay.

          And hint: the whole “gay wedding cakes are totally different then wedding cakes” line? Isn’t persuassive in any court of law. If that sort of logic worked you would have seen lunch counters that said “oh, I only serve white lunches”.

      3. So just don’t tell them it’s for a gay couple. Problem solved easily.

    2. Great. I now have an image of two gay Nazis in full uniform fully involved in BDSM. Or was this what you were aiming for?

      1. Look up Titler videos.

  29. 1. There are three candidates on all 50 states’ ballots.

    2. Two of them are incompetent, proven to be capable of some astoundingly bad judgment, having nothing necessarily to do with their political positions on issues.

    3. A nation can survive four years of bad policy, but history teaches us that nations can be tragically reduced to ashes (figuratively, if not literally) if led by an incompetent at the top.

    Conclusion: My sense of reason and morality compels me that I can never cast my one puny little vote to an incompetent.

    I am an authentic conservative, fiscally and socially, originally a Carly supporter, then a Cruz supporter. But it’s America first, party somewhere after that… I will vote for the lone competent person of the three.

    As things stand now, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld will have my vote in November.

  30. No more obvious example can be found of protecting us from ourselves than the war on drugs. Reagan never had anything like a coherent ideology.

  31. I suppose my opinions are ultimately buttressed by the fact that I just don’t consider the socons to be all that dangerous. No matter how much they desire it, they’re not putting the genie back into the bottle on a variety of their pet issues.

    The progs, on the other hand, are an extremely dangerous existential threat to the goal of a free society.

    1. And while the Republican base holds multiple pet issues that cut against liberty, when you address any individual and move them beyond their one issue they generally assent to the notion that government is a threat to liberty and the best method for reducing that list is limited government.

      Proggs see government as the font of all that is good and noble. There is no freedom in progglandia, only select permissions called freedom.

      1. strike ‘list,’ replace with ‘threat’

    2. I agree. What worry about with socons is that they are so delusional about their ability to impose their views that they are unable to function even as allies on policies one might agree on. In fact, it is their intransigence and delusions that have torn the Republican party apart in the first place.

      1. Again, all true. None of which would be a problem if people who (ostensibly) shouldn’t support progressives didn’t support them.

        Yet, somehow they do.

        Go figure.

  32. So Gillespie is apparently trying to read Johnson’s mind on what he really meant when Johnson suggested that the government compelling speech was an acceptable authority (what Johnson said is a self-contradictory mess). That is what Johnson is suggesting with the “Nazi Cake” thing, a seller has no right to object to participating in a buyer’s speech, no matter what the buyer’s message is, under the theory that the seller’s refusal is imposing his moral beliefs on the buyer. Johnson’s position seems to be based on an animus against a person acting on their religious beliefs in public.

    1. Hey Johnson said Obama’s Amnesty EO was a valid exercise as well, so it’s not like he’s all that big on liberty and limited Presidential authority.

  33. So Gillespie is apparently trying to read Johnson’s mind on what he really meant when Johnson suggested that the government compelling speech was an acceptable authority (what Johnson said is a self-contradictory mess). That is what Johnson is suggesting with the “Nazi Cake” thing, a seller has no right to object to participating in a buyer’s speech, no matter what the buyer’s message is, under the theory that the seller’s refusal is imposing his moral beliefs on the buyer. Johnson’s position seems to be based on an animus against a person acting on their religious beliefs in public.

  34. The Libertarian Party has come a long way. Once a bastion of radical insurgancy, it’s now evolved into the last best hope for the beltway establishment. Who knew?

    1. Well, once we didn’t want to send the niggers, the spics and the Jews the ovens, I guess there just wasn’t any hope for us.

  35. There are many social conservatives in the Libertarian Party. They just don’t think it is the government’s role to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

  36. Gary Johnson on the debate stage

    “I’m for free trade, reduction of social security, and firmly against minimum wage increases”

    Who will be applauding that line? I’m guessing right leaning independents and conservatives who won’t vote for Trump. But 90% of the country will see him as a boilerplate right winger. He’ll appear SERIOUSLY out of touch at a time of rising “America first” and “economic justice” sentiment.

    How many people who googled Gary Johnson after the Trump nomination were new voters seeking alternative? I’m guessing half of them were right leaning independents and #NeverTrump conservatives who were already familiar with Johnson. They just wanted additional information about his campaign. And I’ll bet GJ’s 4% dem support is largely Reagan or blue dog dems.

    Polls show that Gary Johnson is getting 16 percent of the vote in Utah. That’s one of the most socially conservative state in the country. If staunch conservatives ever said “goodbye” to libertarianism, the movement would be even less relevant that it is now. Just ask yourself where Gary Johnson would be now if Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders were the nominees.

    1. That is a great point. No one ever seems to actually find the illusive liberaltarian outside the reason staff room.

      1. Have you ever been to a LP event? Its a fairly evenly split crowd between the lefties and the righties.

    2. Didn’t Johnson just walk back his Social Security statements to NPR? Saying it was totally salvageable?

  37. The biggest issue I’ve ever had with “conservatives” is the tendency toward legislating a very narrow view of their own version of morality. Of course, “liberals” tend to do the exact same thing, only slap a different vocabulary on it in an attempt to make it look prettier and more trendy.

    The government has zero business telling people how to live their lives. Keep your “morality” to yourself and just go the hell away already.

    1. Any political perspective is vulnerable to going overboard, and this to me is an example of where the libertarian approach does so.

      Reality is, politics is just like religion in that they both attempt to define what is right and what is wrong (morality), just for different sets of people. People gather together within the borders of a given religion founded on certain beliefs of faith, and then, people exist together geographically within the physical borders of a government. Prescribing right and wrong is just the nature of things.

      The libertarian concept of right and wrong operates under the assumption that people thrive most when they have as much freedom to make their own choices, and therefore, we ought to err on the side of allowing those freedoms. There’s a lot of merit in that from my social conservative point of view.

      1. (edit to the above.. should have written, “… an example of where the libertarian approach ***is vulnerable to doing so.”)

        ===

        Where it’s possible for the libertarian approach to go overboard is when one begins to so isolate behaviors as having no actual consequence to others… no ripple effects… ignoring the obvious understanding that sometimes behaviors in the micro happen with such frequency that there is effect on the macro… and thus, an effect culturally that retards our capacity as a society to function in a way that promotes optimal well-being.

        So, I take essentially the same approach to this as Johnson when someone like Judy Woodruff attempts to pin him down on when military action is appropriate… he said he thinks those decisions ought to involve Congress always, but pertinent here, that there ought to be a skeptic at the table–which he asserts he would always be… and similarly… I think there is a general rule that we always ought to be skeptical that a given societal decree (ie, law/regulation) is the best path.

        That ***doesn’t*** mean there is “zero interest” on government’s part. There are exceptions sometimes, just as there are exceptions sometimes that compel us to go to war. But indeed, I am persuaded that smaller government… and I would tweak that further to say, increased emphasis on localized, citizen-led government… is the right rule… overall, a smarter approach to how we decide right and wrong among us citizens of this nation.

  38. Lets wrap it up and run jojol

    http://www.Got-Anon.tk

  39. To add to XM’s point above, what does the LP offer the Democratic voter? Sure, Johnson is great on liberal social issues but so is every Democrat. And if the person agreed with Johnson on economic issues, the person would already be voting L or a Republican. So what is the point for the typical Democrat to vote Johnson?

    I am not seeing a lot. So if the Libertarians walk away from the conservatives, who replaces them?

      1. That is about the only thing I can think of. But, most Democrats hold it as a matter of fact that Republicans are the war mongers and they are the forces of peace. It would be awfully hard for them to walk away from the party for that reason.

  40. If I open a bakery called “Protestant Wedding Cakes” does that mean I can pick a choose the type of cakes I bake and to whom I do or don’t sell them without the federal government fining me?

    1. I would neither shop with your store or sue you. I’d leave you and your Protestant friends to amuse yourselves all you want. And I would defend your right to do so.

      1. So, you wouldn’t shop there just because he was Protestant? Why is that different from not selling to you for a similar reason?

  41. RE: Is This Where Libertarians Say Goodbye to Conservatives?
    To right-wingers, Gary Johnson’s embrace of “social liberalism” negates his pledge to “sign off on any reduction in the federal government.”

    I really don’t understand where the republicans get that conclusion.
    Oh wait.
    They’re just like the democrats.
    They’re both just plain stupid.

  42. I Leave my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    =========== http://www.careers-report.com

  43. Another AP lamentation? Seriously? If the man had simply grown up (and supported the fundamentals of the Libertarian party, which he does not), he might have had an actual shot at the nomination…but being mature and treating others with dignity and respect is simply beyond his ability. AP may have memorized a lot of good libertarian sound bites, but he’s nothing more than a Trump clone dressed as a younger man.

  44. 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.NetNote70.com

  45. People with concerns about religious liberty want two things. 1) To be able to police their institutions, including regarding employment, based upon the doctrines of their faith while maintaining tax-exempt status, even if they are federal contractors, and 2) For businesses to be exempt from providing products or services if they feel that they themselves are forced to engage in sin. On accommodations issues, I think most smart social conservatives would be reasonable and limit the exemption to small businesses.

    But when Amash says “while one person will complain that he is not eligible for a contract or grant on the basis of actions connected to his religious beliefs, another person will complain that it violates her religious beliefs that taxpayer funds go to contractors that discriminate or grantees that perform abortions,” does he believe the same logic applies to tax-exempt status? After all, one may argue that government providing tax-exempt status for a religious group that is “anti-gay” is forcing them to “subsidize” that religious institution….

    1. …Yes, the country has moved away from social conservatism, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t social conservatives, and their political power is generally concentrated the Deep South, which is not a libertarian place. It’s Republicans are often poor, in Mitt Romney’s “47%” and vulnerable to nativist appeals. Trump’s romp through the South on Super Tuesday was a product of nominal Republicans in the 47% who want to “build the wall,” leave entitlements as is and liked that Trump paid lip service to their social concerns.

      If a libertarian refuses to address religious conservatives’ social concerns, then one of two things will happen: 1) GOP voters (especially in the South) will reject them and double down on Trumpism, with the Democrats being an identity party for everybody else, or 2) poor social conservatives are going to abandon the GOP for the Democrats, especially if a Hillary-shaped Supreme Court nullifies the 2nd Amendment and the GOP refuses to fight for it back. The latter was true the last time the two major parties were identical on major social and cultural issues, as the Deep South was firmly part of Roosevelt’s electoral coalition. So if libertarians want the GOP to go their way, it’s important that an accommodation be found on religious liberty.

      1. You make some very good points. Sadly, they will not be headed. Nick and a lot of other people have decided that SOCONS and southerners are just too icky to be associated with.

    2. If religious organizations want the right to discriminate against others, they should start by lobbying for giving the same right to others.

      As for nonprofit status, it is hard to see why any tricks organization should get that; if anything, making that determination send to amount to an establishment of religion.

    3. “On accommodations issues, I think most smart social conservatives would be reasonable and limit the exemption to small businesses.”
      Why would you ever think that?

      This year we had how many attempts to pass “religious liberty” laws? Not a one limited the exemption to “small businesses”.

      And the lawsuits over the ACA? Hobby Lobby certainly isn’t a “small business”. And none of the groups alongside the Little Sisters are “small businesses”

      Regardless how you feel about any public accommodation law or the ACA, the social conservatives fighting them have done nothing to indicate they care about business size.

      Or am I to assume that none of the people involved in the laws or lawsuits were “smart” social conservatives?

      1. By accommodations issues I mean what was protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which said that if you provide a service you can not deny that service on the basis of race. In this respect, my contention is that someone whose products and services are available for the general public should be allowed to exempt themselves from providing that product or service if they feel they themselves are being forced to commit sin.

        That’s different from Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, since their position is that they shouldn’t have to provide certain products or services at all. Which is not just a religious liberty issue but a nanny-state, big government issue.

        On “smart” social conservatives, I don’t necessarily mean politicians. Generally, politicians by definition aren’t all that smart. I think some of the more intelligent commentators realize that advocating for blanket exemptions for all companies from potential 1964-era laws regarding sexual orientation is unwise. In my view, allowing them that exemption potentially allows market price distortions for homosexuals trying to acquire certain products and services in any given community.

        1. By the way, it is currently legal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for very small businesses to racially discriminate in employment. How people tolerate that but can’t tolerate an evangelical or Mormon wedding planner exempting themselves from planning gay weddings is beyond me.

          1. I don’t know, people can’t tolerate an evangelical or Mormon wedding planner exempting themselves from planning Mormon or evangelical weddings. That might be a good place to start.

  46. Political social conservatism is incompatible with libertarianism, so… got riddance. Maybe social conservatives should try to take over the Democratic party: there is little difference between them and progressives.

    1. I ask you the same question I asked above, what do Libertarians offer Democrats? It isn’t social issues because Democratic candidates support the same things. And it isn’t economic issues because if it was, the Democrats wouldn’t be the party they are.

      So what is it? And if it is nothing, who do you plan to attract to the party?

      1. ” there is little difference between them and progressives.”

        Not that there is little difference; when viewed from a libertarian perspective large swaths of both parties are progressives. Newt Gingrich being a prime example of a GOP Prog.

        Hell, the abolitionist movement was progressive, and it was the very foundation of the Republican Party.

        Calling for those forces to re-unite may be smugly rewarding, but were it to come to pass, it would prove a disaster for what is left of liberty in this country.

        (And no, I’m not a neo-segregationist or anything of the sort, so GFY to anyone thinking so. It’s just a matter of historical fact that the Christianity, and their progg allies confronted that poison fruit well before anyone else. But that doesn’t mean classical liberalism, or libertarianism ever agreed with the practice.)

  47. “Social conservatives” and “Progressives” are both would-be tyrants, the only difference being what it is they want to be tyrannical about. The “social conservatives” want to control your personal behaviour while the Progressives want to control your economic behaviour.

    Both groups should be stood up against the nearest wall and shot.

    No, “we don’t need those backward Christian Right bozos.” Nor do we need those backward closet-socialist Progressive Left bozos.

    1. Progressives want to control your economic behaviour.

      Progressives want to control *everything*.

      When you’re in the world, usually you’re near something that you or someone bought. Control!

      You’re naked in a desert. Don’t poop, because Gaia!

      You’re floating in deep spaces. What did you do? What did you say? Are you a racist? Hate speech! Hate crime!

      They allow no freedom. If they can detect your evil thoughts, they will punish you for them.

      You don’t even need to think. Just dare to be *born* the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong gender (and we all know what those are, don’t we?) then you will be punished!

      Progressives are theocratic totalitarians.

  48. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass, obscure weirdo third party retards…?

  49. The article hits a key point. The Civil Rights act was the proper response to Jim Crow, in that it eliminated grievous infringements of liberty. But, it did so by imposing its own infringements of liberty i.e. public accommodation theory.

    We’re at a point where we no longer need public accommodation laws to undo institutionalized discrimination. Market forces can easily handle such matters.

    As for Johnson? I’m not with him on public accommodation, but he’s a damn sight better on many, many issues than the two majors are. I won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. He’d move the wagon in the right direction, rather than letting it continue to barrel along in the wrong one. He’s getting my vote.

    1. Your vote is totally unimportant!

      Changing the ‘bottom’ philosophical beliefs could in a matter of decades or centuries result in a libertarian culture and body politic. We need to put the horse before the cart.

  50. After 67 years, I’ve come to the considerably pessimistic conclusion that for indefinite future, no Libertarian will be seriously considered for POTUS. There simply is no philosophic basis to make this a reality. The concept of ‘not using violence or the threat of violence to achieve personal, social or political goals’ is foreign to almost everyone I know. They may agree on the idea in general, unless it results in their favorite gimme being gored.

    Whether Clinton or Trump are elected really does not matter anymore. Both are liars and power hungry. The ‘Deep State’ is in charge now. Only a total economic collapse can fundamentally change anything; however, a totalitarian result is the likely result of that.

    All the discussions around the best candidates are great theater, but of no importance in the long run.It does provide some good ‘shits and giggles’, but remember, history is made bottom up, not top down. We get the leaders that have emerged.

    1. About as much chance as a small government Republican getting the GOP nomination.

  51. If it’s a “bad thing” to refuse to sell a product to someone because of their gender identity, then logically it’s equally bad to refuse to buy from someone for the same reason. These are merely two sides of a transaction.

  52. Say goodbye to ream red? One can only hope. But what would Reason then do? Probably leave the libertarian movement.

  53. To borrow from “A Funny thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” The Libertarian Party will never learn, it will be a political eunuch all it’s life.

  54. This article depicts all pro-lifers as being of one mind on abortion bans. While that may be true for conservative pro-lifers, it’s not necessarily true for libertarian pro-lifers. I’m a pro-life libertarian and I don’t believe that putting women in jail is the answer. And I believe Austin Peterson (whom I did not support – I liked McAfee) expressed a similar sentiment. It’s such an emotionally charged issue and, like drugs, gambling and prostitution, falls into the “prohibition on stuff they’ll do anyway” category. Now I was formerly a conservative who did fully supported a total ban on abortions but since embracing libertarianism I’ve come to believe that government prohibition is not the answer (just as it isn’t the answer to those other questions either). But, because I am pro-life, I think education IS the key for us to lessen the frequency of abortions. I think that as women learn more about the brutality of the procedures and the ‘humanness’ of the fetus, they will be less likely to have abortions (and voluntarily, not coercively). Now I don’t want the government educating people about this, that’s our job!

    1. Getting the government out of educating about this would be a good libertarian step. As would ending funding for any organization that provides or pays for abortions. And money is entirely fungible, so no arguments about “where the money goes.”

      After that some restrictions on second trimester or later abortions seem reasonable – medical advances making viability an ever earlier reality.

      And no, we do not have to punish the mother, but we certainly can punish everyone else involved.

      1. And when the pregnant woman orders pills online and take’s ’em herself?

  55. John said “The progs have done a fantastic job making the culture hostile to religion and once you get a group on the wrong side of the mass culture, it is pretty easy to go after them. That is how oppression works.”

    Maybe I’m mistaken, but didn’t a recent survey indicate that 83% of Americans are fairly religious (if self described as such)? How fucking hostile to religion is our mainstream culture if that is the case? Now us heathens around here, and your run of the mill progtard – yep, we don’t have much use personally or socially for religion.

    1. Heh…my friends use “Heathen” as a descriptor for their kind of religion.

    2. Heh…my friends use “Heathen” as a descriptor for their kind of religion.

  56. I see a lot of demonization of pro lifers, which is not necessarily valid. I consider myself a pro life libertarian who is willing to compromise on the issue. A think 20 weeks or something would be a good comprise based on the viability of the fetus.

    With all that said, abortion is a wedge issue and only a fool would allow it to guide their entire candidate choice. Conservatives are silly if they think we can have some big brother state regulating pregnancy from its inception l, as well. That would run exactly contrary to the small government principles that they claim to so dearly hold.

    1. Likewise, I consider myself pro-choice, but I would be also be willing to compromise based on viability.

  57. Is the problem the strange belief that many people think one size fits all, or should fit all, even though this is patently absurd?

    They reject it in the physical but accept it in beliefs which seems to have led, in the extreme, to the split in Islam giving us ISIL, for example.

    Discrimination is banned in all things including behavior, even though it’s mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and nowadays the sanctity of non-discrimination trumps religious freedom which IS protected in the now-abandoned Constitution. In the extreme, can I no longer discriminate against pears by choosing to eat an apple?

    Once you accept the obvious – that other people are different and it’s okay to be different – then you stop trying to force your beliefs on them and reject their attempts to force their beliefs on you. Control freaks freak out, but this gives peace…

    1. “nowadays”?

      People forget that when the CRA (1964) was pushed, people were actively saying that their Christian faith *demanded* segregation/Jim Crow/miscegenation laws.

      The first whole “religious objection” vs “non-discrimination in public accommodation” lawsuits were decades ago. People pretending it’s suddenly an issue now don’t know their history.

  58. Libertarians constantly whine that they’ve never achieved anything. That’s nonsense. Libertarianism has been the dominant ideology of the country since the 1960s. “Economically conservative, socially liberal” is the way a lot of people have explained their views, but it’s really just classical liberalism.

    Gillespie has always been a left wing libertarian, who doesn’t understand the difference between libertarianism and leftist statism on social issues. Johnson has now gone full statist on social issues, and Gillespie brushes it off. As for economics, libertarianism lost the plot with “globalization”. It’s one thing to advocate free markets within the United States. It’s something else to advocate unilateral disarmament in global trade and immigration, where the inevitable result is a siphoning off of US wealth to poorer countries with cheaper labor. No product made in the US can possibly compete on price with one made in China. So the US economy has been completely hollowed out, except for the financial sector, the entertainment industry, and the tech industry (although the latter is only nominally American, with its copious use of foreign manufacturing, outsourcing and use and abuse of lax immigration laws).

    Anyone not in those sectors is working a dead end job for a tiny paycheck that they use to buy cheap Chinese goods at Walmart. If they’re lucky. Otherwise they’re using a welfare check.

    For the forseeable future, Libertarianism is dead.

  59. 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

    1. Are condoms included?

      1. Yes, but they’re used.

  60. There are no perfect candidates. Conservatives have 3 choices – horrible, questionable, and somewhat acceptable. I know, picking between the last two is hard, and may be a strategic vote – vote for whichever one is ahead in your state.

  61. The truth is that the Libertarian party has always been its own worst enemy. By that I mean that it should have been “The Party Of Johnson” all along. In some ways he’s not libertarian enough, but he’s within the range of real world mass appeal. If the whole party was comprised of people like him with “moderate” libertarian views, with some variations in there (pro life/pro choice, slightly more/less interventionist (while still leaning well on the side of caution), do we draw the 2nd amendment “line” at machine guns or tanks etc), it might actually grow into a real party, with a real shot. If the “Legalize heroin or bust! End ALL forms of taxation tomorrow!” mentality prevails in the party it will remain impotent for eternity.

    The bottom line is that extremists rarely ever get anywhere. Was it the American Communist party that got all this stupid leftist shit “accomplished” in America? Hell no. It was the Democrats that slowly absorbed into their platform lesser, but more palatable, collectivist ideas. Then took it a step further a decade later. Rinse and repeat for decades and you have the shit show this country has turned into today. Libertarians need to do the same.

    I don’t know if the Republican brand can be salvaged after this mess (or honestly anything after Bush Jr. really), but SOME party needs to go “Libertarian-Lite” if we ever want to get anywhere.

    1. Did heroin just get made legal anywhere in the USA? NO. Marijuana did though, because that’s something that’s become palatable. If you want progress you take whatever little step in the right direction you can get. You can talk about principles on things, like saying (Insert Dumb Law Here) regulations in general are counterproductive, specifically campaigning to not add to them, and indeed trying to roll back especially bad bits… But not demanding they’re abolished entirely tomorrow either. You can be principled while still saying “This is bad entirely, but in order to make progress I’m willing to cut a deal to improve a bad system by 25% by making such and such changes, even though the whole thing should be scrapped. But I can’t get that through, so this is as good as it gets today.”

      How libertarian activists can’t see this absolutely blows my mind. It’s just so obvious that I can’t comprehend how anyone doesn’t get it. The people that were all hardcore anti Johnson at the convention are literally just trying to ensure their own irrelevance. It’s like they just want to maintain a “We’re so much smarter than everyone else, and we want to sulk over here alone in the corner about it” club or something rather than actually make anything better in the real world.

      1. Marijuana is a prime example of what progg libertarianism is all about – limited permission, along with heavy regulation and byzantine legal qualifications masquerading as freedom.

        If it were truly libertarian then tobacco would be riding shotgun to MJ at every turn. Yet the opposite is the case. Wherever MJ ‘freedom’ has grown the clampdown on tobacco has likewise grown apace.

        Or consider what is happening to vaping…

        1. This is the Gillespie version of libertarianism.

    2. On this same note, I’ve never understood how the RNC didn’t “get the memo” that the Evangelical vote has become a liability, and started downplaying all that shit the last few cycles themselves. If you wanna win, you have to play the game. Sometimes you have to pick your battles too based off of what is potentially winnable in a given moment. The RNC should have realized the gay rights thing (and most of the rest of their social agenda) is a losing battle, and chucked it. It’s not like those Evangelicals would have run out and started voting for Democrats that were also pro choice… They would have sighed and accepted it, BUT it would have potentially brought in a hell of a lot more middle of the road voters where being anti abortion made the RNC a definitive no go.

      Libertarians need to do the same thing. Pick winnable fights and shoot for middle of the road solutions if it’s an improvement on the current situation. The party needs 1000 Johnson’s running for office, even if that may not be what us “extremists” want in our heart of hearts. It will bring us more tangible results than beating our heads up against the wall wondering why everything always gets worse and why nobody “gets” our brilliant ideology.

      You don’t have to give up your principles, but you may have to accept only getting 20 yards down the field on the first play, vs running the full 100 yards for the touchdown right away.

      1. Trump hardly panders to religious conservatives, as such, at all. He claims to be pro-life but I don’t think even most committed religious conservatives who support him really believe it, nor anyone else. Trump has won over the socon-only portion of the GOP by appealing mainly to other interests and beliefs those people tend to have, revolving around their statist non-conservative views of the economy and on race, fear of the demographic change to white minority. I’m a free market conservative, squishy on immigration, non-white majority is a done deal IMO not an issue to be ‘solved’ and I’m socially traditionalist/pro-life. I find Trump unfit for office, and I don’t agree with the populist white nationalist trend in the GOP under Trump or otherwise, and that drift didn’t start with Trump. But GOP heavily emphasizing social issues like abortion is in definite decline with the arrival of Trump.

      2. Unfortunately, the Democrats/Progressives understand the “keep moving the chains” mantra far better than Republicans or Libertarians. Gun control, gay marriage, “universal healthcare”, etc (although, to be honest, with gay marriage, they got to about the 50, and then busted a huge play for the TD :D) – they did all of that iteratively over a period of decades.

  62. Johnson’s problem is that on a number of issues he sounds more like a SJW than a libertarian. Speaking of which, does anyone know what Johnson’s opinion is on the Obama Administration’s interpretation and use of Title IX?

  63. The new conservative channel on Roku: All Abortion All The Time!

    As much as I detest the tax-all regulate-all crush-the-human-spirit anti-market-retards on the SJW left, the nationalist war-eager social conservatives occupy a special little corner of disgust in my heart.

  64. Part ways with Republicans? Of course! And Democrats. Libertarianism is federalism. Neither republicans nor democrats resemble federalists in the least. We need to stop trying to drag voters kicking and screaming into the fold. It will change when it is time, certainly not this election cycle, and likely after I’m long gone.

  65. Johnson was on Special Report the other day. He was asked about his “use” of MJ. He said he hadn’t used for about 5 weeks and agreed not to use “going forward”. “As president I don’t think you want someone potentially answering that red phone….” What does this mean? Why would he say that?

  66. You spelled liberaltarian wrong.

    The Libertarians have left the conservatives a while ago. They have moved so far left that they have way more in common with democrats than republicans (and it has nothing to do with abortion, despite the obsessive number of times Gillespie tries in the article to make it the central issue).

    The GOP aren’t conservatives. Trump isn’t conservative. They are all the same squishy moderates that used to be in the Libertarian party. Congratulations. You took over the GOP and didn’t even realize it. The Libertarians, however are now filled with the moderate democrats that ran away from their party because it was going too far to the left.

    You may think that somehow your leaders are pure and incorruptible, but that’s only because libertarians have never had any power. That’s a luxury afforded to people who have never had the responsibility of paying the bills before. If you ever get into power, your leaders will do the same as the GOP ones. You’ll have to sift through them to find one worth the time.

    1. What talk radio bubble do you live in where that is true?

  67. Economics will rule here, with the cultural conservatives as well as the libertarians. I will vote libertarian down ticket on every local race I can, though most do not have libertarians running, But I am voting Trump for President because as bad as he is, Hillary is much much worse, and a vote for Johnson, although they are the best ticket, is equivalent to a vote for Clinton. I hate it, but that is the way it is.

    1. I’m kind of where you are. I’m a nationalist, so some of Trump’s apparent message (as far as I can tell :D) resonates with me, if his delivery does not. I’ve supported Libertarian candidates for several years, but I’m probably throwing my measly vote behind Trump in the Presidential election. I don’t have high hopes for him to win but, ironically, he was and is the best chance to stop Clinton.

      Antonin Scalia’s death could not have come at a worse time.

  68. Neither the democrats or the republicans actually allow differing view points within, they will placate but they will ignore. Just look at how the GOP treated both Cruz and Trump and how the Dems have treated Sanders. Based on that LP’s really need to make themselves stand apart if they ever want to get anywhere. And that feature is the individual rights not the collective rights that the right or left is trying to force upon everyone. Focus on that and people may start to listen.

  69. It’s often claimed that the GOP doesn’t actually do anything to ban abortion. That isn’t strictly true, the GOP at state level has made abortion significantly harder to obtain in some conservative states. But it is by and large true at national level.
    This is used by many libertarians to attack the GOP’s integrity, ‘they just want this issue to stay around to motivate socon voters’. But practically it’s just as much a reason for libertarians not to care much about the GOP’s abortion position: if indeed nothing ever comes of it, why worry about it? And while there’s some element of ‘dog chasing the car but woe if it ever catches up’, for the GOP and abortion, GOP presidents have in fact named USSC judges who might plausibly vote for overturn Roe, certainly not like Democratic appointees who never would, and that’s pretty much all they can do.
    OTOH issues like economic freedom affect everyone all the time and the GOP definitely behaves better than the Democrats, of course not close to ideally, but one’s personal ideal is a unrealistic bar to set.
    But actually politics is just as much about the gut as the brain. A lot of libertarian disdain for the GOP is IMO the same cultural/social sneering at ‘backward’ less than upper middle class traditionalist often more rural whites to whom typically more upscale/urban libertarians feel personally superior. That’s something the two kinds of ‘libs’, libertarians and liberals, often have in common, IME, not all of course.

  70. As a person who has supported both parties at times, I can tell you that there can be no productive relationship at this time. The Republican leadership right now is thoroughly Rino, and in thorough defiance of the base. The best way to describe the Republicans is a party on paper with no real voter support. Trump is a virtual independent, and a Republican only as a matter of labeling. The party base, and a large number of independents and Democrats will vote for him. And the several hundred or so Rino leaders and Rino traitors in Congress have postured themselves against Trump and the base. So no… this is the worst time in history for Libertarians to try and develop a relation ship with a party berift of support and currently directed by a confused rogue leadership. This can only be sorted out by the electorate, and it will be.

    1. As time goes on I’m more convinced that Trump was a concerted effort among elements within both the Democrat and Republican party to ward off any sort of true limited government Republican nominee. He would then lost to Hillary and the party would go on like nothing happened.

      But just like their hubris made them think they could never actually lay the economy low, they also thought that they were simply to big to fail against the likes of a Trump.

    2. RINO = Republican In Name Only. How can the Republican leadership not be Republican?

      1. The GOP leadership could be ‘RINO’s’ if there was a universally understood definition of what’s critical to being a ‘real Republican’ and they lacked it. The grassroots could be real Republicans, but the leaders not. It’s possible. But, I think the concept of ‘RINO’ has gone out the window, for reasonable people with the rise of Trump. Trump is just as much or more of a ‘RINO’ compared to what most people thought the GOP mainly stood for; free markets plus social conservatism, limited govt. It’s fair to criticize how the GOP leadership tried to carry those themes into action, but Trump’s themes are pretty completely different: don’t cut entitlements (which means much higher taxes eventually, that’s just arithmetic), further redistribute income via protectionism (which cannot create wealth, only benefit some kinds of jobs/skills v others, and very inefficiently at that), no interest in limiting govt and particularly executive power. Nobody can reasonably say Trump is what Republicanism was supposed to be all along. He’s more of a RINO than anyone. Yet ‘RINO’ tends to come from the mouths and keyboards of Trump supporters more than anyone else.

  71. “He would then lose to Hillary and the perpetual DC fusion party would go on like nothing happened.”

  72. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hours every day, for five da?ys weekly and I earn in this way an extra 12000 bucks each week…

    i work through this Website.. Go Here.._____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  73. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hours every day, for five da?ys weekly and I earn in this way an extra 12000 bucks each week…

    i work through this Website.. Go Here.._____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  74. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hours every day, for five da?ys weekly and I earn in this way an extra 12000 bucks each week…

    i work through this Website.. Go Here.._____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  75. Wow, a lot of noise here!
    I will take GJ with his warts over the others EVERY TIME!
    I used to sympathize with conservatives because they paid lip service to liberty, whereas progs are avowed statists. However, both are ardent statists and deserve a traitors fate.
    Let us continue to press for more libertarian/Austrian policy. Take whatever you can, whenever you can. Politics is compromise and it is impossible to avoid.
    We must continue to educate people about Austrian Econ, as it is our best hope win hearts and minds as the logic is beautiful and compelling.

  76. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ?????? http://Usatoday.nypost55.com

  77. The solution to ensuring that all those who support a smaller government can work together regardless of their stances on social issues is FEDERALISM. There is no good reason that social conservatives and libertarians cannot agree to send all power that is not explicitly given to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution back to the states. This would allow the citizens of a state like MA to continue to allow abortion, while the voters of a state like IN could could make it illegal. This principle of limited government at the national level can and should be applied to a wide range of issues from marriage to marijuana, and would allow the small government crowd composed of all stripes to win on a regular basis.

  78. 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.NetNote70.com

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

    ====== http://www.BuzzWage6.com

  80. Nick,

    I have respected your insights and your work for a long time. I admit that I’ve been a bit put off lately because Nick the Libertarian seems to have been overtaken by Nick the Progressive. I’m trying to way this new SJW side of you with the Libertarian I used to respect and I keep hoping that my perception of you, is just that, my perception and not a real change of direction on your part. Right now Nick, many of your articles especially those where you see fit to smack-talk conservatives continually assert special rights for classes of citizens, e.g. the transgender/bathroom debate. You paint it as an equal rights question which is misleading. It sounds liberty-ish on the surface but once we cut beneath your sheepskin we see a great deal of thoughtless SJW lobbying.

    1. Liberty is not necessarily about equal rights, in so much as the petition to equal rights has been coopted by SJWs to mean “my opinion matters more than yours and I want the government to force you to bend to my opinion”. Real American Liberty on a Constitutional framework embraces the equal right to say “No”, and to allow smaller government and market forces to rise of fall on those decisions. You keep missing this freaking forest for your SJW trees when it comes to the Sex and Gender Debates. The reason why the civil rights era succeeded is because it pointed out government laws that restricted liberty. Now you often champion government laws that force recognition of statuses absence liberty and call that Libertarianism. You’re a Maroon.

      The Libertarian convention was a joke. It became very hard to take myself seriously as a libertarian when that idiot got on stage and preceded to disrobe and Libertarians I respect refused to address the fact that he made our efforts a joke in the eyes of many of our countrymen. Visuals matter Nick. Visuals aren’t everything but they do matter. It isn’t just social conservatives who are pulling away from libertarianism, it is social libertarians like me and thinking libertarians in general who have also backed off and are taking a much harder look at our speakers, speakers like you Nick. We are wondering if our current leaders are really the right people to fill the seats on the bus.

      1. I am a pro-life libertarian Nick. A human life is a human life to me regardless of its stage of development. Yes, as an embryo that life is a long ways away from self-determination, but it remains human. It is of my kind. All the coding is present and the engine has started up. Everything that will make that human being what he or she will be is present and accounted for with nothing missing except time for development. So the taking of that human life as a matter of convenience is one that clashes very hard against the principle of non-aggression. To harm my own kind is something that I should be deeply reflective upon and always be skeptical considering what it means to take a life. Taking another human’s life isn’t supposed to be the kind of topic that we can white wash for the sake of the libertarian movement, because it betrays the very foundation from which all liberties and rights spring, the very first and most immutable right which is the right to live by virtue of existence. It’s like saying for the sake of the eggs, kill the chicken. If you can so casually dismiss the foundation from which all other liberties spring, which is existence (life) than you pull the floor out from under all of the other liberties we hold dear. If there is no life, there is no other liberties to protect because there is nothing there to receive those liberties. This is a sound Libertarian position to take.

        1. You keep coming across as inferring that abortion for expedience is acceptable because women have an immutable right to abort the unborn so long as the unborn remain within them. It’s that “expedience” you seem to embrace which I find a betrayal of the Libertarian value that we have liberty, but we also have a responsibility to face the consequences of the actions we take with that liberty. I struggle in cases of rape and while I haven’t made my peace with it, such an instance is not an expedient one so I don’t reject it. I certainly have no struggle in taking a life when both mother and child will die if it isn’t done, such as an ectopic pregnancy. You don’t draw the line though Nick. You embrace the faulty dogma that women’s rights equals abortion of other human life based on a subjective measurement of development. To stand by your faulty reasoning you must embrace expedience which means you deny both the foundational requirement of life in order for other liberties to exist and the requisite facing of consequences for the choices we make in the utilization of our liberty. It is your position as a pro-choice libertarian which in my eyes is the bastard child of the non-aggression doctrine. It is your position that makes no sense. By asserting that a woman has a right at any time in any way to have an abortion you advocate aggression permitted for expedience.

          1. The better question Nick is, Is there where Conservatives must say goodbye to Libertarians, or at least Libertarians who have jumped aboard the progressive SJW gravy train?

            Libertarianism may have started out as the soul of Constitutional Conservatism, but many of its early adherents have been pulling away from the roots and trending progressive while younger Constitutionalists like me continue to grow more libertarian. If you were Libertarian Nick, you aren’t anymore, at least I can’t recognize it in your writing anymore. Just complete the journey you are on, file in line with the progressive mantras you tout, and stop pretending to care for something you no longer embrace.

  81. All that discussion of the wedding cake business and no mention of Freedom of Contract?

    I really think Libertarians allowed themselves to be snookered with gay marriage. In practice, since there are no longer any anti-sodomy laws, and the few laws against adultery and fornication still on the books haven’t been enforced in decades, gay marriage will not make anyone more free, and will actually create more opportunities for the administrative state to interfere in people’s lives. Marriage isn’t about freedom anyway, if you’ve ever given it any thought.

  82. Gary Johnson would send armed men to force a Jew to bake cakes for Nazis.
    ‘Nuff said.

    1. Yes, because that’s a big problem with Jewish bakers in this country. Therefore, Trump.

  83. The better question is whether this is where Libertarians should say goodbye to the “Libertarian” party.

  84. My neighbor’s half-sister got paid $18590 last month. she been working on the internet and moved in a $397900 home. All she did was get blessed and apply the instructions uncovered on this website..

    browse this site…. Go Here._______________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  85. Let’s hope that when people see Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the ballot, they will have a Libertarian moment.
    http://www.cafepress.com/makeamericasaneagain

  86. I’ve alway thought the Libertarian party was a “live and let live” party, but their current stance on abortion strays from the straight and narrow; it’s more like “live and let die.”

    All the same, its no worse than the Democrats’ thinking, and who knows what?if anything?the Republican nominee really thinks on the subject. So I’m probably voting for Johnson.

    By the way, my route to this decision was formulated via the Vote Swap Initiative.

    1. 4″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site…

      ======> http://www.Today70.com

  87. RE: Is This Where Libertarians Say Goodbye to Conservatives?

    1. I apologize for the tardiness of this comment.

    2. I always thought conservatives would be fiscally responsible. But that has not been the case in the republican party, especially after Bush II.

    3. If the conservatives would get their head out of their butts regarding social issues, then they would do much better. But they won’t. Stuck on stupid evidently.

  88. http://mitchell-langbert.blogs…..lican.html

    …The split between conservatives and libertarians can be resolved through a new respect for federalism and decentralization because their differences are the same as those that divided Rhode Island and Massachusetts in 1636. The purpose of American federalism was to give localities the power to choose for themselves rather than have a dictatorial solution from Washington…

  89. 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

  90. 3″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.

    ……….. http://www.Maxcenter20.com

  91. 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

  92. 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

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

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

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

  94. I have never heard a rational explanation for why the government should stay out of my business and financial dealings while at the same time meddling in my very personal life style choices. What say Republicans?

    And vice versa. Democrats?

  95. 5″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Learn More From This Site..

    ========> http://www.Today70.com

  96. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  97. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  98. 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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.