Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz Defines Freedom As Its Opposite

The Texas senator tells Republicans freedom is just another word for blocking immigration, restricting trade, and banning gay marriage.

|

Fox News

Ted Cruz was booed at the Republican National Convention last night for failing to endorse his party's nominee. He should have been booed for philosophical incoherence.

"America is more than just a land mass between two oceans," the Texas senator declared. "America is an idea, a simple yet powerful idea: freedom matters….Our nation is exceptional because it was built on the five most powerful words in the English language: I want to be free."

What does freedom mean to Ted Cruz? It means "religious freedom, whether you are Christian or Jew, Muslim or atheist." It means "the right to keep and bear arms, and protect your family." It means "your freedom to choose your own doctor, without Obamacare." It means "free speech, not politically correct safe spaces."

So far, so good, assuming Cruz is defending freedom of contract in the context of health care and attacking government-enforced "safe spaces" (on the campuses of public universities, for instance). But according to Cruz, freedom also means "your freedom to choose your child's education, even if you aren't as rich as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama," which implies a right to subsidies forcibly extracted from your fellow citizens. While I agree that letting tax dollars follow students to the schools their parents choose is better than forcing their kids to attend government-run schools, that policy is not as straightforward an example of "freedom" as Cruz implies. The putative right to government-subsidized tuition, which asserts a claim on other people's resources, is qualitatively different from the right to practice one's religion or speak one's mind, which requires only that other people refrain from interfering.

Cruz's conflation of negative and positive freedom is only the beginning of his confusion. He cites his father's experience as a Cuban refugee to illustrate his concept of freedom yet claims freedom also means building a wall to keep other immigrants out, restricting trade for the sake of special interests, and banning marriage between people of the same sex. Cruz doesn't bother to explain why prohibiting peaceful, consensual, mutually beneficial exchanges, whether they involve goods or labor, should be counted as a victory for freedom. But he does take a stab at framing gay marriage bans in terms of freedom. "Freedom means recognizing that our Constitution allows states to choose policies that reflect local values," he says.

While there is a constitutional case to be made for leaving the definition of marriage to the states, federalism is by no means synonymous with freedom. Federalism can facilitate freedom, as illustrated by the ongoing collapse of marijuana prohibition. But federalism also can facilitate local tyranny, as illustrated by the criminalization of consensual adult sexual activities. Even if you do not think the 14th Amendment requires states to treat gay and straight couples equally under the law, you might still think states should do so in the interest of basic fairness, whether that means expanding the definition of marriage or getting out of the marriage-certifying business altogether. In any event, Cruz's take on this issue is puzzling. For him, the ability to marry the person you love is not freedom, but the ability to stop that marriage is.

Although Cruz could not bring himself to endorse the man he condemned as "utterly amoral," a "narcissist," and a "pathological liar" just two and a half months ago, there is considerable overlap between his vision and Donald Trump's. Cruz, always keen to restrict immigration and condemn political correctness, even seems to be moving toward Trump-style protectionism on trade. But Trump should not be blamed for Cruz's incoherence, which is endemic to modern American conservatism. Conservatives oppose "big government," love liberty, and support free markets—except when they don't. Those exceptions can be rationalized in terms of social order, patriotism, national security, traditional morality, or paternalistic beneficence—values that supposedly trump liberty in particular cases. But because Cruz refuses to acknowledge the various ways in which conservatism tramples on liberty, he ends up defining freedom as its opposite.

NEXT: Olympic Ruins

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. Booooo! Lyin’ Ted Booooooo!

    1. Is this the pettiness you pretended to condemn in the other thread? Or is it the spite?

      1. “I Ted Cruz affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States, I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is…”

        Cruz (as well as Jeb! and Kasich) is a liar of the “read my lips” level. It’s one thing to exaggerate in a campaign promise or attack ad. But to solemnly swear and sign an oath, then break it less than a year later? That officially makes you a liar and an oath-breaker.

        1. Yeah, well, if you sign an oath to do something despicable and wrong, and then a year later change your mind, I’m OK with that.

          If Cruz were to decide to endorse GayJay, even out of spite toward Trump, and urge those who voted for him to follow his lead — I’d take that as a win.

          1. Trump was already doing pretty well when Cruz signed that pledge. Not like something totally implausible happened. Do have the same attitude towards that pledge to defend and uphold the Constitution? I wold love to have somebody take that oath seriously too. Hillary, Trump, and Lyin’ Ted aren’t it.

            1. Trump did the same thing has his sycophants didn’t seem to mind that.

        2. What Ted Cruz did or didn’t do has no bearing on SIV being a disingenuous piece of shit.

        3. Maybe they had their fingers crossed when they swore to support the nominee.

          I don’t care. They are all liars. And doing what you promised to do isn’t necessarily good if what you promised to do isn’t good. If they don’t personally support Trump, then endorsing him would also be dishonest.

          1. And doing what you promised to do isn’t necessarily good if what you promised to do isn’t good. If they don’t personally support Trump, then endorsing him would also be dishonest.

            Yup. This is the reason I’m not especially impressed with the GOP candidates’ pledge. Generally, an oath is a pledge of fealty, obedience, or an admission against self-interest, etc. But none of that should apply to political endorsements/votes. An endorsement isn’t a duty or a service. Endorsements (and votes) should be matters of conscience, first and foremost.

            There are basically two outcomes of this pledge:

            1. The candidate supports the guy he would have regardless of the pledge. In this case the oath is essentially irrelevant.

            2. The candidate is forced to be dishonest, either by fulfilling the pledge, or by not doing so.

            Since the oath is at best irrelevant, and at worst implies in its execution the same moral wrong as in its renouncement, we can conclude that it has no moral force, and that one can ? and therefore should ? make the decision on a purely consequentialist basis.

            We can probably also conclude that such an oath is immoral in the first place.

        4. Trump made the promise, and then broke it, telling Anderson Cooper that he would not support the eventual nominee.

          So what’s the problem?

          1. The problem for Ted is that the guy who went around waving a Bible and telling everyone he was the Conservative Christian alternative – just broke the Ninth Commandment.

            That Lyin’ Ted nickname is going to stick forever now.

            1. You don’t understand the ninth commandment.

              1. Different translations – “Do not bear false witness” or “Don’t lie”. Pretty sure breaking an oath qualifies.

                1. It does not. There’s context that you absolutely don’t understand. Do some research and try again.

                  1. Start with Exodus 23

                    1. People around here don’t even bother reading the articles, you think they’re gonna bother reading something from The Bible? Pffft. FAG! /sarc

            2. A contract requires meeting of the minds and an exchange of value.

              If Trump withdrew his agreement, then Ted is absolved of any obligation to Trump.

              Why is that not obvious?

        5. I am constantly amazed by folks who expect the truth from looters who vow to rob and murder.

        6. If I was him, I wouldn’t be getting married anytime soon.

    2. And I thought they were booing the expansion of freedom, like Sullum.

      1. Strangers with Candy was so gleefully offensive. I think people need to show clips of his portrayal as a closeted-gay teacher/phenomenal asshole every time Stephen Colbert veers precariously close to SJW-ism.

  2. Cruz endorses an education policy that Reason has generally favored over the years.

    The notion that immigration is an unrestricted right is one that relatively few people subscribe to outside of libertarians.

    How is that the government must endorse your sexual relationship not a positive right (since it is not required to endorse all sexual relationships)?

    1. The notion that immigration is an unrestricted right is one that relatively few people subscribe to outside of libertarians.

      Liberty is not a suicide pact. I really don’t want to vote with 100million Pakistani immigrants on the proper mode of execution for adulterers and homosexuals.

      Anyone else notice that Reason has never actually made a case that Open Borders for the world’s hordes of Big Government voters will make Americans more free?

      I wonder why that is.

      1. 100million Pakistani immigrants

        Putting aside the fact that there’s not 100,000,000 Pakistanis clamoring to get into the US, and putting aside that Pakistani immigrants to the US have been incredibly successful and have embraced the American entrepreneurial spirit, the real result of having more Pakistanis here is to increase competition among minimarts, gas stations, and motels. We all win!

        1. Pakistanis typically go through the immigration process. They don’t just walk in.

        2. Pakistanis typically go through the immigration process. They don’t just walk in.

          1. And a wall on the Mexican border is not going to do much to stop them.

            If they’re coming here illegally, they are arriving by plane.

            1. Then we’re gonna build a dome to keep the planes out and make Pakistan pay for it!

      2. Liberty is not a suicide pact. I really don’t want to vote with 100million Pakistani immigrants on the proper mode of execution for adulterers and homosexuals.

        Or, to put it another way, if somebody who disagrees with you was born on the other side of an imaginary line, then men with guns should make every effort to prevent them from crossing that imaginary line. People who disagree with you and were born on this side of the line? They can stay.

        1. You nearly owe me a new, non-coffee spittled keyboard.

          Well played, sir.

        2. But, but it’s all about teams!

        3. Property lines are also imaginary, does that mean they cannot be defended by men with guns?

          1. When the government cedes all of its “property” to private owners? Sure.

            1. I am not sure how that is anything but a non-sequitor to my assertion that whether the lines are imaginary or not is a thoughtless point.

              1. It’s not a non-sequitor. Property rights are individual. National borders are collective. You’re basically ceding the entire argument that the 51% gets to tell the 49% what they can do with their property. If they can do it on immigration, why can’t they do it on taxes or regulation or anything else?

                1. The local private country club is collective as well. Want to try to squat there?

                  Get your head out of your wherever!

                  1. Private clubs are entered by voluntary contractual agreement. Being born in a country is not. There is no literal social contract that everyone agrees to when they become a citizen.
                    I didn’t agree that 51% of my fellow citizens could tell me who I can hire or rent to.

          2. Even without the property lines, the argument is absurd in the extreme. The ‘imaginary line’, in lots and lots of cases is hundreds of miles thick. If you wanted to be exceedingly equitable, just forcing people to immigrate in the first place inherently pushes disadvantages on them. In the day and age of instant global digital communication, you’re really being an oppressive shithead by not just get opinions from Venezuela and then converting that into policies for Americans to follow (whether they like it or not).

            Moreover, forgetting lines and property/ownership, from a more rational/procedural sense, if you had a board of directors in a company who disagreed about some given issue, the notion that suddenly including assembly line workers from another company will somehow make the company better, fairer, or more equitable is absurd on its face.

            I agree that there needs to be immigration reform. The number of people spouting straight up One-Worlder propaganda, under the guise or false premise of libertarianism like useful idiots, is astounding.

            1. Moreover, forgetting lines and property/ownership, from a more rational/procedural sense, if you had a board of directors in a company who disagreed about some given issue, the notion that suddenly including assembly line workers from another company will somehow make the company better, fairer, or more equitable is absurd on its face.

              Chicken and pig-style socialism. Last come, first serve. From according to ability, to according to need. etc. etc.

            2. It is absolutely not a false premise. I don’t see how a libertarian could not, in principle, be a “one-worlder”. Everyone is an individual with the same rights, no matter where they live. “Libertopia” does not consist of nation states with tightly controlled borders.
              Yes, that is unrealistic and idealistic, but that’s where libertarian principle takes you.

              1. I think where Libertopia takes you is that if certain immigrants are truly not acceptable to a community, then they will not be able to get jobs or rent housing. Remember that anti-discrimination laws don’t exist in Libertopia. People are free to found communities based on some white Christian contractual agreement, or to discriminate in who they sell and rent to and who they hire and serve. A radical Muslim isn’t going to get a job in Hitlerville. A baptist baker isn’t going to get many customers in Fagtown USA. In general, people whose political or religious views are not welcome are not going to be welcome.

        4. I think the larger point is that democracy based on lines on a map is doomed to failure; democracy requires an actual community, whether that community is united by culture, interests, or what have you. In developing a philosophy that wishes away all collectivization, the diehard libertarians are as ignorant about human nature as the socialists were, and their recommendations are just as broken because of it.

          1. Democracy without community is just cold war. The state of our politics today proves it.

        5. I’m entirely down with the “on the other side of an imaginary line(s)” rhetorical ploy.

          So long as it equally applies to taxation, voting, gubmint bennies, and pretty much everything else.

          Until then? It’s just bullshit.

        6. By that logic, why limit our elections to people who live here? Why not let Swedes vote from Sweden?

    2. “How is that the government must endorse your sexual relationship not a positive right…”

      I am not sure you are framing that accurately. People have a negative right of association, to form contracts with whomever they choose. It is one of the few legitimate functions of government to guard the integrity of contracts. They don’t have to endorse anything, just oversee that parties cant walk away from contracts unfulfilled.

      1. The state governments still has restrictions on certain types of relationships being endorsed. That homosrcual relationships are about the only ones they are constitutionally barred from rejecting strikes me as a positive right.

        1. “The state governments still has restrictions on certain types of relationships being endorsed.”

          I see your point but, It is a half assed attempt to prevent that violation of negative rights. It is only masquerading as a positive right.

        2. When states start banning heterosexual marriage we can worry about that.
          Polygamy should be legal as well.

          1. When states start banning heterosexual marriage we can worry about that.

            “Ban” meaning married heterosexuals will be imprisoned or ejected from the state or “ban” meaning they’ll just legally disregard any and all legal standings invoked by… er… traditional marriage contracts?

            1. More technically, if states only offer fringe benefits to gay couples.

          2. Ah, but polygamy *isn’t* legal and it has thus far been largely opposed by homosexuals.

        3. The same arguments that require states to recognize gay marriages would also apply to straight marriages.
          The problem is that the courts have made all two party marriages a positive right.

          1. There are certain relationships that do not legally qualify as marriages, such as a close degree of consaguinity.

          2. The courts haven’t mandated that marriage come with tax benefits (or other privileges), so no.

            They have only mandated that all married couples be treated alike.

        4. Please see Loving v. Virginia (1967) and the Wikipedia article on cohabitatin

          Once again, everything people complain about gay people doing (in this case, getting courts to overturn government limitations on relationships) are things straight folk have been doing for far longer and far more often.

    3. The notion that immigration is an unrestricted right is one that relatively few people subscribe to outside of libertarians.

      If that was an argument against anything, then there wouldn’t be any libertarians.

      I understand why not all libertarian inclined people support open immigration (though I disagree). But you have to admit that it is a compromise of principle. Maybe restricting immigration is necessary to maintain some level of freedom within a country. But it is a freedom restricting policy, both for immigrants and people who would like to employ, house or otherwise accommodate them.

      1. It is not an argument against the position, but against Sullum’s assertion that anyone disagreeing with the open borders premise is anti-freedom on their face.

    4. And I very much doubt that half of the population of Pakistan could or would want to immigrate to the US. This is like the scenarios that anti-capitalists like to bring up where some company controls all of the world’s drinking water or something. It’s an absurd scenario not worth considering because it will never happen.

      1. 1/2 the population of Mexico would.

      2. That’s how one debates a philosophical position – take an extreme case and see what the position is. Otherwise the position is not a principled one – it’s just based on pragmatism and the particular circumstances.

    5. The Go Pee sends flacks in here to quote the opposite of what is written in the Libertarian platform. This comes from letting saboteurs insert gooey intros instead of cutting to the chase: We support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. Q.E.D.
      Deleting everything before that would neuter this GO Pee tactic. Deleting every phrase containing “good faith” would remove a nuisance that attracts bigots eager to ban abortion and impose a death sentence for hemp.

  3. While I agree that letting tax dollars follow students to the schools their parents choose is better than forcing their kids to attend government-run schools, that policy is not as straightforward an example of “freedom” as Cruz implies.

    It’s quite straightforward once you take *compulsory education* laws into account. Should the government choose how your child is indoctrinated, or should you.

    Even more straightforward once you ask whether education as a service to children should be delivered by a centrally planned bureaucracy, or provisioned through free market competition.

    But I understand why these simple, obvious, and straightforward libertarian points were missed by Reason’s Progressitariat.

    1. yet claims freedom also means building a wall to keep other immigrants out,

      And you claim freedom means importing Big Government voters to point the Government Gun at my head more and more often.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      Sad that Reasonoids think ushering in the Big Government Progressive Slave State is the libertarian position. It wasn’t Milton Friedman’s or Charles Murray’s. Murray’s preferred immigration policy is enough to moisten Ann Coulter’s panties.

      Charles Murray on Immigration

      4. Immigration reform must begin first with enforcement of existing immigration law. If it takes a wall, so be it.
      5. And while I’m at it, I’ll mention that English should be the only language in which public school classes are taught

      But Milton Friedman was right: You can’t have both open immigration and a welfare state.

      I would get rid of reuniting-families provisions,
      get rid of the you’re-a-citizen-if-you’re-born-here rule,
      and make immigrants ineligible for all benefits and social services except public education for their children.
      Everybody who immigrates has to be on a citizenship track (no guest workers). And I would endorse a literacy requirement.

      But, to go back to basics: None of this works unless illegal immigration is effectively ended.

      1. Look, uncontrolled mass immigration from third-world shitholes is great for liberty, because all immigrants are an unalloyed asset. This is known.

        1. And they should be allowed to squat on the local private golf course because it’s not owned by an individual. No property rights for groups, just like no speech rights (overturn Citizens United).

          1. Anti-immigration people tend to get blinded by their own rage. If you believe that people should be allowed to move without hindrance onto any property that the property owner welcomes them to, how are you then advocating for people to be able to move onto property that property owners specifically do not want them on.

            If immigrants are allowed to camp on a local private golf course against the wishes of the course owner, that violates the rights of the course owner.

            If a local private golf course wants immigrants to come and work on their golf course, but those immigrants are prevented access to the course by the state, that also violates the rights of the course owner.

            1. ^This, FFS

            2. “Anti-immigration people tend to get blinded by their own rage. If you believe that people should be allowed to move without hindrance onto any property that the property owner welcomes them to, how are you then advocating for people to be able to move onto property that property owners specifically do not want them on.”

              Unless that property owner owns a strip of land that runs clear to his associate, his desire to have someone on his property also involves that person being on some property that doesn’t belong to him. So maybe, just maybe, those people should have a say too.

              1. I’m not sure I follow. Yes, there is “public property” that belongs to essentially nobody. You’re argument is that people born in places that are not the United States should be prevented access to workplaces where they could fulfill private, voluntary employment contracts on the premise that they would have to trod over this “public property”, that doesn’t belong to them? I suppose that would apply to everybody, really, regardless of how they are classified by the state.

                1. They also have a tendency to trespass on private property.

                2. “public property” that belongs to essentially nobody.”

                  Like the private golf course that belongs to members and is managed by a board, the public property belongs to the citizens, held and managed by the government. Rules are established by agreement among owners. That’s why immigration is a legitimate function.

                  1. Like the private golf course that belongs to members and is managed by a board, the public property belongs to the citizens,

                    Ok, great. So for the purposes of “ownership” I am, up here in MN, more of an owner of a sidewalk in El Paso, TX than is the person who lives across the fence in Mexico? I just don’t follow.

                    Rationalize it all you want, at the end of the day you’re still just using force to prevent individuals from entering into voluntary contracts.

            3. ” that violates the rights of the course owner”

              You mean his right to imaginary lines?

            4. Sarc meter on the blink?

        2. I don’t know why everyone seems to think that Cytotoxic is the exemplar of the libertarian position on immigration. I’m pretty sure he’s the only one here that has said anything like that. Maybe try to engage the arguments that actual non-idiots make.

        3. The reason the third world is that way stems in part from the DemoGOP exporting superstition-inspired prohibitionism and enforcement of the income tax from communist manifesto plank 2. When LBJ was elected by shots fired, half the world was STILL in the thrall of superstitious European fascists–the kind we shot at Valley Forge and Bunker Hill, only worse. Much improvement has occurred, and it is accelerating as libertarian ideas are translated into languages until now dominated by Newspeak.
          The US under looter parties has become an imperial power bent on keeping the natives barefoot and pregnant. Someday WE may be looking for somewhere to flee to…

      2. I support birth right citizenship because I don’t trust the government to implement any other system.

        And if you had effective immigration controls, you wouldn’t have to worry about it.

        That said, I would happily deport the illegal parents of a baby citizen. Baby can come back later.

    2. I think that is exactly the point Sullum is making. School choice is better than rigid public school system. But not an example of what “freedom means”. It’s a practical measure making things slightly less un-free.

      1. It is an imperfect solution but is a strange point to make that someone is anti-freedom to endorse a policy the magazine had generally endorsed itself. It is almost like Sullum is unhappy for not being a purer libertarian than Reason’s own editorial stance.

        1. I read it as a philosophical analysis of what Cruz said about freedom rather than a commentary on specific policies.

          1. And yet sullum is ok with spending money on illegal immigrant children. Please explain how he escapes his own incoherence.

          2. If Sullum were to apply that approach to Clinton’s rhetoric you might have a valid point. But this is not about holding people to reasonable standards.

      2. Getting to choose your school is an example of freedom.

        He did not endorse the more freedomer position of abolishing school taxes.

        But that doesn’t mean school choice isn’t an example of freedom.

        Might as well accuse every politician of opposing freedom unless they abolish taxation.

  4. Ok. Cruz isn’t an anarchist or minarchist. Did anyone really think otherwise?

    1. Ted is as irrational as any anarchist, and also a looter and believer in assassination. So… there’s a difference?

    2. But the perfect simply must be the enemy of the good.

  5. Bah! More of this nonsense. I still don’t trust Ted Cruz as far as I could throw him, despite outshining Rand this time in rejecting absurd, unprincipled, and self-debasing endorsement theater on behalf of a ridiculous and moribund political jobs cartel that most conservatives have absolutely no regard for anymore.
    .

    But this is getting a bit old on Reason’s part. Excellent point condemning the federalism-libertarianism conflation, but other than that yet another ridiculous rundown of Reason’s particular hobbyhorses. Immigration restrictions are “Big Government.” But “expanding the definition” of government-certified marriage most certainly is not, and is to be lumped blithely in with “getting out of the marriage certification business altogether.” And anyone who disagrees is no libertarian, but a vile, unprincipled hypocrite and a racist, homophobic bigot to boot. Why, William Weld would never conduct himself like that! …

    1. …This isn’t even to mention the bizarrely uncharitable attitude toward Cruz’s defense of government-funded school choice. It’s a recognized second-best solution that every libertarian braintrust pushes ad nauseum, including Reason second to none. But in the villainous Cruz’s mouth, it becomes a mark of imperfection and downright hypocrisy. (Ah, well. I give you credit for this, Reason: You didn’t mention abortion in your litany of failed litmus tests, and I am frankly shocked. It must have taken every ounce of restraint in your bodies.)
      .
      As it happens, I am pro-immigration, I do believe expanding marriage constitutes a legitimate second-best to abolishing it, and I will enthusiastically be voting Johnson-Weld. (And I do fucking hate that snake Ted Cruz, who has done so much to genuinely spit in the face of libertarian values that there’s little need to file a story consisting almost entirely of bullshit cultural-liberal litmus tests.)
      .
      But please, Reason. Give it a fucking rest already.

  6. What the fuck? Now libertarians at reason are arguing against school choice?? Because government funding policies might be affected. Again What. The. Fuck.

    1. Cruz’s only real sin is wanting to “ban” same-sex marriage. The other issues mentioned are just to fill out the article.

      1. If you don’t abandon your principles when it comes to forced accommodations for homosexuals, then you aren’t a true libertarian. Everyone knows this. True libertarians jettison their principles to get invited to parties. If you hold true to your principles then you’re not a true libertarian. Duh.

    2. Read that part again. He isn’t arguing against school choice at all. He explicitly says that he thinks school choice is better than the status quo, but points out that it is not an example of what a libertarian would consider freedom. But he is still arguing for it over centrally run public schools.

      1. So libertarians aren’t really pro-freedom then. Explains the social pragmatism and fiscal purity.

    3. He’s not arguing against school choice. He’s arguing that taxpayer funded vouchers aren’t really libertarian.
      A true libertarian solution would be privately funded schooling.

  7. He’s a punk ass bitch who signed a piece of paper saying he would do something regardless of the outcome. Then promptly bitched out and didn’t do it when he did not like the outcome.

    Bernie Sanders has more honor than this asshole.

    If this asshole runs again, then every one of his opponents should ask if he is going to wipe his ass with that pledge again.

    1. Trump won’t pull it off with or without Cruz’ endorsement. May as well keep his dignity, unlike Christie or Carson.

    2. He signed a pledge to support the eventual nominee. Trump hasn’t been officially crowned yet. So Cruz technically didn’t break his pledge.

      1. True, but the same can be said for Bernie. And I don’t think team blue had a pledge.

        Bottom line team blue despite their mendaciousness are still team players, and they are at least trying to win. Whereas parts of team red are acting like a bunch of whiny bitches.

        1. Well, yeah. Team blue understands that might makes right, and principles are for chumps. That’s why they will always triumph in the end. In the long run, evil always wins.

        2. Considering the presumptive nominee is the whiniest sniveling bitch of the lot of them, I don’t find that a particularly good case to make on behalf of team solidarity.

        3. Sounds pretty fucking libertarian to me…

      2. I guess he’d be less of a cocksucking political hack it he instantly jumped in bed with the jackass who floats National Enquirer stories as talking points. Apparently breaking his pledge and taking the hits to abide by his conscience makes him a “punk ass bitch.”

        You know who else would have instantly broken his pledge, and threatened to do so all along? Trump.

        1. You know who else would have instantly broken his pledge, and threatened to do so all along? Trump.

          Very true.

          1. Projection of facts not in evidence.

      3. Trump was nominated Tuesday night

        1. I thought there hadn’t been a vote yet.

          1. He’s already king, they just haven’t given him his crown of shit yet.

      4. And he didn’t say when he would support the nominee.

    3. And he will deftly deflect it with, “Sorry, but the Donald was too much to stomach, especially after personal attacks on my character, my father, and my wife. Yes, I will vote for he eventual Team Red Nominee, provided he isn’t named Trump and refrains from attacks and lies about my family. Is that good enough for you?”

      Does anybody think Ted would have not endorsed Paul, Rubio, Bush, or even Christie?

  8. The putative right to government-subsidized tuition, which asserts a claim on other people’s resources, is qualitatively different from the right to practice one’s religion or speak one’s mind, which requires only that other people refrain from interfering.

    Is there any aspect of public education that isn’t already a clustermess of public interference, from taking property taxes to mandating curricula to protecting terrible teachers? Education as a purely negative right would be terrific, but it’s not a choice on offer. Given how involved the school board gets in homeschooling, it’s not clear that practicing education as a purely negative right is even possible anymore.

    1. This. Zeus forbid that maybe, just maybe, we start ratcheting in the other direction. I guess instead of moving in the right direction. I guess Jacob would prefer that we not take any troops out of the Middle East unless we remove all troops from foreign bases at the same time. Perhaps a proposal to scale back Federal entitlement programs should be shut down since it doesn’t completely eliminate them. I can play this game all day.

  9. “your freedom to choose your child’s education, even if you aren’t as rich as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama,” which implies a right to subsidies forcibly extracted from your fellow citizens.

    I really like how you finish Cruz’s sentences for him and then attack him for the way he / you finished the sentence. Perhaps he was referring to home-schooling?

    The jab at Federalism as opposed to Judges legislating from the bench also reveals how Sullum’s concept of freedom and decent government diverges from mine.

  10. This was Ted Cruz’s only line about trade in his speech:

    “We deserve trade policies that put the interests of American farmers and manufacturing jobs over the global interests funding the lobbyists.”

    If you take this as meaning “we shouldn’t have trade policies that are manipulated by cronies”, then how can this be considered a bad thing? At least he didn’t go out and start denouncing NAFTA like the idiot Trump has done.

    1. It’s a bad thing because it’s trade policy manipulated by farmers and manufacturing workers. Any trade policy that affects them affects a lot more people than just them and “global interests” (whatever that means). And it’s a fair bet that a policy that positively impacts farmers and manufacturers will negatively impact consumers.

      1. “manipulated by farmers and manufacturing workers. ”

        How is putting their interests ahead of global interests being ‘manipulated’ by them.

        I put my dogs interests ahead of those of the raccoon that lives in our hollow tree. Is my dog manipulating me?

        That word, manipulate, does not mean what you seem to think.

    2. “If you take this as meaning “we shouldn’t have trade policies that are manipulated by cronies”””
      Why would you do that? He didn’t say a thing about not picking winners and losers in trade deals, he was just saying he wanted to change the priorities.

  11. I heard something on NPR this morning I never thought I’d hear. J Falwell Jr going full Trump apologist. He even got derogatory towards the Southern Baptist Convention because their president doesn’t trust Don Trumpalo.

    I spit my coffee when Falwell made the following statements:

    “He’s really humble”

    “You don’t get where he is in life by not telling the truth or being honest in business.”

    1. It’s time to circle the wagons and each share a bite of that big old shit sandwich.

      1. That sure is a tough titty Jerry, but I guess you’re gonna have to suck it.

      2. Wash it down with a gulp from the giant douche.

        1. Hmm, spicy.

      3. What? no giant douche chaser?

    2. Clearly, the Southern Baptist Convention is just a bunch of progressives, probably in league with the dire Clinton apologists here at (t)Reason magazine. /Cultural Justice Warrior

  12. “Freedom means recognizing that our Constitution allows states to choose policies that reflect local values”

    Don’t get him wrong: he also enjoys trampling the rights of minorities as a federal politician.

  13. No. True. Scotsman.

  14. I’m sorry, who’s the biggest enemy to liberty? Because my naive ass was under the impression that it is, and always will be, the federal government. Even if the fed promotes a liberty-minded policy, you’re still acknowledging it as something they have the right to make a judgment on — and that leaves the door wide open for a Big Slaver to reverse course. The less they have their grubby paws in the better. Indivudal state control is automatically friendlier to liberty, if not making love to it yet. We shouldn’t be trashing out of hand people who are behind that first step.

    1. To be fair, Jim Crow was the States…

  15. He may be the most hated Republican in Congress and perhaps even more dangerous than Trump himself. But the way he took on Trump at the cheeto’s own convention is commendable. Also, let’s not miss the less-than-amused look on the faces of Trump’s family. So.Much.Drama.

    1. So snarling dog looters rip and tear at each other for the chance to rip and tear at us? This is news?

  16. The new Trump Republicans only care about liberty if it involves guns, gay cake, or contraception.

    Trump doesn’t care about the freedom to buy what you want from whom you want (trade). He doesn’t care about the right to own property (eminent domain). And he doesn’t care about the right to hire who you want, or work for your chosen employer at an agreed wage (immigraiton, minimum wage).

    In other words, today’s Republican party no longer cares about economic liberty. At all.
    They aren’t capitalist. At all.
    They don’t believe in a free market. At all.

    To the extent they even care about free speech, it’s only to protect the social intolerance of bigots. They care about the right to be anti-gay, not the right to be gay. The right to be racist, not the right to protest racism.

    There is NOTHING LEFT people. Abandon ship.

  17. I am no fan of the Manitobian Candidate whose agenda is to impose a Christian Caliphate (Gilead) under the pretext of a terrorist attack. However first of all, Trump and Clinton are worse on this issue. Secondly and more importantly, you can’t be a hypocrite on freedom. If you espouse basic principles as fundamental, then even if your detailed proposals don’t follow from your premises, the logical inconsistencies can be worked out. The important point is re-iterating the basics. For example, I completely agree with him that it’s cool to let the states decide on marriage and pot. It doesn’t have to be a federal issue. It can’t be. If you think about it for a second the reason is obvious. It’s like saying, “The founding fathers were wrong for not supporting gay marriage.”

    1. I thought he was born in Alberta, not Manitoba.

      1. Manitoba alliterates with Manchurian

        1. A very awkward turn of phrase indeed.

  18. When Cruz dropped out of the race, I no longer need to care about him, though I still care enough to post sarcastic comments.

    Rand Paul 20/20 – he’s like Moe from the Three Stooges, except when Rand pokes you in the eye, your eye gets better!

  19. I left my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    Go to the web++++ http://www.Aspire-Jobs.com

  20. I have always enjoyed Jacob’s anti-nanny state stances.

    But this article just isn’t cricket. Full disclosure: I was a Cruz supporter at one time. Yes, his religious stuff is hard to take sometimes. I probably wouldn’t want him on my city zoning board necessarily.

    But to condemn him for supporting school choice? Which is close to a free-market solution to education as we will ever get?

    And “restricting trade for the sake of special interests”? He was the one publicly against ethanol subsidies. IN IOWA FFS! His statement about American farmers and manufacturing jobs over foreign interests is pretty much stale pablum. But, it doesn’t in any way necessarily mean what you imply? Maybe by lowering corporate income taxes, he thinks that would be the way to improve American manufacturing jobs. Not by restricting foreign imports, but by making it easier for American business to do business here.

    And FFS, would you people stop with the same-sex marriage? I am a sexual libertine. I think any number of consensual adults should be able to do with and to each other whatever the fuck they all agree to. But as long as marriage is regulated by the states, then SCOTUS decision was bullshit. The exact same arguments can be made for polygamy, adult brothers and sisters, etc. But since he was running for POTUS, he views the Constitution as limiting the Federal government.

    I lost a lot of respect for Ted as the campaign went on. But this whining is just ridiculous.

  21. The disconnect is probably that Ted – and the vast majority out there in Fly-over Country – define things a little bit differently than do the cloistered elites huddled along the coasts and in college/university settings.
    Perhaps the run-of-the-mill GOP have finally decided that the Libertarian Alternative (and message) is not conducive to fixing what they perceive as what is wrong with America – particularly when it comes to Open Borders, trade that is seemingly one-sided, and social issues that run against-the-grain of most social mores that they were brought up with?
    YMMV!

  22. ” always keen to restrict immigration”?

    Immigrants aren’t the problem, massive unrestricted illegal migration is the problem.

  23. Conservatives aren’t the only people that want “freedom from” some activity more than they want “freedom to”. They have a different list of activities they want freedom from than libertarians and other groups. Ironically, most libertarians and I consider “liberty” and “libertarian” synonymous with “freedom to”, but they too have their own list of freedom froms: government, taxes, regulation, prohibition, conscription, invasive surveillance, coercion, initiatory force, murder, theft, fraud, harm, borders, and many more. The key is how to optimize “freedom from” with “freedom to”. Physical barriers, such as buildings, insulation, filtration, fences, berms, distance, are one way to optimize both. Additionally, property owners should be able to set and enforce rules when physical barriers are insufficient.

  24. Yes, but in politics it’s all about the talk – not the walk.

  25. Why, oh why would you attack Cruz? This has been costing Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party a lot of Cruz supporters and they didn’t even say that much about him! You could get so many Cruz supporters if you would just say how great he is.

  26. “I want to be free” is not at all what the constitution says. more like we are all, by our nature, free. Isn’t he some sort of lawyer, having something to do with the constitution somehow? That seems like an awfully fundamental misunderstanding.

  27. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.