Gary Johnson

Conservatives Are From Mars, Libertarians Are From…Woodstock?

There's no ceasefire in conservative Republican concern-trolling about Gary Johnson and William Weld's ideological apostasies.

|

Johnson-Weld campaign

Among the many odd twists and turns of Election 2016 is the non-stop concern trolling of libertarians by #NeverTrump conservatives and Republicans who really, really, really want to vote Libertarian this one time but just can't because Gary Johnson and William Weld are so…damn…awful…from a libertarian point of view.

Sure, Johnson has sworn to present a balanced budget upon entering the White House and he's for individual rights, the Second Amendment, school choice, an end to the prison-industrial complex, Wilsonian interventionism, and a lot of other things that conservatives and Republicans often say they want. But because he's pro-choice and believes that federal antidscrimination laws should cover sexual orientation at businesses open to the public, he's the worst. And Bill Weld—whose confirmation as ambassador to Mexico was skunked by Jesse Helms back in the day because Weld was for gay rights—is a know-nothing on Second Amendment issues. So screw him and all the hippies who trail behind him burning incense and peppermint, too. Really.

The latest variation on this theme is up at The Federalist, where Robert Tracinski moans that "Johnson and Weld are doing their best to drive [conservatives] away—and they're doing it by not even being good at being Libertarians." But then, what did conservatives expect? "Libertarians are basically flower children," explains Tracinski, so "none of this comes out of the blue, and it reflects a basic problem with the libertarian movement going back to the beginning."

When the Libertarian Party was first formed in 1971, [he writes], the free-market firebrand Ayn Rand dismissed them as "hippies of the right," and there was definitely something to that. While some libertarians saw themselves as taking inspiration from Rand's political ideas, there was also a large strain in the movement that saw itself as ideologically and culturally aligned with the Left, as an offshoot of the counterculture. Libertarianism wasn't about reasserting an American tradition of liberty and constitutionally limited government. It was about smashing the system, man.

Well, yes and no. Most libertarians are for smashing the system because it doesn't represent limited government or defend individual liberty. For decades after World War II, pre-Woodstock libertarians were barely tolerated by movement conservatives and establishment Republicans (the two categories became synonmous at some point during the 1980s). As Brian Doherty has noted, the conservative Russell Kirk refused to be listed on National Review's masthead for a time because libertarian-leaning Frank Meyer was involved. And while Ayn Rand may have hated "libertarians," she got little love from National Review, which published Whittaker Chambers' scathing (and stupid) review of Atlas Shrugged. "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To the gas chambers—go!'" wrote Chambers.

Over time—and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union—libertarians stopped apologizing for their distinct beliefs in what Reason has long summarized as "Free Minds and Free Markets." The libertarian movement grew in size and influence and, well, there seemed to be less and less in common with conservatives who were fixated on foreign policy adventurism abroad and culture-war issues at home (obscenity, "the homosexual agenda," the war on drugs, abortion rights, and the like). In the post-Cold War world, conservatives started turning against free trade and immigration as well, turning to instead toward "National Greatness" as articulated in the pages of The Weekly Standard and nativism as pronounced without pause during the 1990s and 2000s at National Review. During the Bush years, conservative Republicans exhorted George W. Bush to nation-build in the Middle East while torturing suspected terrorists wherever he found them. Surveil Americans? Of course: We were at war, don't you know? Didn't Bush and his Republican Congress expand domestic spending and regulation at a clip not seen since Lyndon Johnson kicked off the Great Society? Well, OK, maybe, but you could always bank on the right to defend Republicans on the grounds that whatever they did was less awful than whatever the Democrats would do.

Now in 2016, the Republican Party, the conservatives' own party, has an absolutely incompetent, inexperienced idiot as its presidential nominee. Sucks to be them. Recall that even when criticizing Donald Trump in the strongest terms possible, National Review attacked the billionaire crybaby for not being tough enough on immigration:

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

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

You got that? Conservatives attacked the guy who called Mexican immigrants drug-toting, disease-ridden rapists and promised to deport 11 million illegal immigrants for being soft on immigration.

But wait, wait: The real problem this election is that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld—each a former two-term Republican governor of a Democratic-majority state— are "not even being good at being Libertarians." How is that exactly? When it comes to immigration, Johnson and Weld are openly and unabashedly in favor of letting people move and work here legally. So that's bad from a conservative point of view. They also favor free trade, even as many Republicans such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich are now supporting "fair trade," a longstanding euphemism for protectionism. When it comes to all the culture-war issues that conservatives still cling to in hopes of eking out one more election win, Johnson and Weld are solldly libertarian. Marriage equality, pot legalization, you name it, they're cool with anything that's peaceful. When it comes to government spending, taxes, and regulation, the Libertarian ticket doesn't skip a beat. Johnson has again and again talked about the need to balance the budget by bringing expenditures down and shrinking the size and scope of government. What's not to like from a limited-government perspective?

But for The Federalist's Tracinski, none of that matters, even though he says there's room for disagreement between conservatives and libertarians:

[Republicans] may not agree with the Libertarians on everything, but they would be open to a ticket that can emphasize areas of agreement on a few core issues, while presenting themselves as the sane and normal alternative in this insane election year. You know how, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king? This is the year when just being minimally acceptable is enough to snap up millions of grateful voters. It could also be done without having to compromise actual pro-liberty principles, for example, by actually defending religious liberty and Second Amendment rights.

I think any good-faith reading of Johnson-Weld's positions should more than pass muster with conservatives and disaffected Republicans. In fact, they're the ones who refuse to compromise on anything. As I've noted before, abortion is an issue with which many and maybe most conservatives and Republicans begin and end all conversations. If you don't believe in passing legislation against all abortions, it's not even worth finding out your position on anything else. Tracinski manages to go a little further, but not much. Johnson's support for antidiscrimination laws against sexual orientation and Weld's uninformed ramblings on gun rights are enough to squash any possibility of anti-Trump conservatives or Republicans voting Libertarian.

Robwilson39 | Dreamstime.com

Here's Tracinski again, who can barely contain his utter contempt for libertarians even as he rends his garment that they are blowing the chance of a lifetime to win over conservatives:

Did you notice how, in the last election, Ron Paul kept billing his campaign as the "Ron Paul Revolution," with the "evol" flipped backward so it read "LOVE"?

This was pure hippie flower-child nostalgia.

That's why the Libertarians have been wasting so much effort in this election trying to appeal to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters by railing against social conservatives and the military-industrial complex and a whole bunch of other lefty bogey-men. They cling to the illusion that they can convert a bunch of utopian socialists to libertarianism, if only they make clear that they're opposed to religious nuts discriminating against gays, and that they don't like guns. That, and the part about being allowed to smoke pot.

Yes, Ron Paul was absolutely the second coming of Timothy Leary and his Audit-The-Fed posse were latter-day Merry Pranksters if not the Weather Underground 2.0! And for what it's worth, the creator of the Ron Paul sign in question, Ernest Hancock, isn't going to be confused with Donovan or Tiny Tim anytime soon.

More important, Gary Johnson hasn't been "wasting so much effort" only trying to flip burned Bernie Sanders supporters. He's been trying to peel votes from both the right and the left by consistently saying the same thing to both sides: Most Americans are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If you are too, then take a look at me and my program. Johnson is critical of the military-industrial complex but unlike Ron Paul, he can't be mistaken for an isolationist, either, unless you believe that every American intervention is equally valid. And regardless of whatever Weld has said about firearms, there's no way to categorize Johnson as anything but a super-strong advocate of gun rights. "There's just no evidence whatsoever to suggest that [gun control] makes us any safer," he said publicly in the immediate wake of the Orlando night club shooting. "In fact restricting guns makes things less safe, that's the camp that I'm in." What ultimately irks folks such as Tracinski is that libertarians and Libertarians actually don't agree with conservatives and Republicans on many issues. If you travel in libertarian circles, you get this all the time from right-wingers: You don't really believe the things you say! You just want to annoy conservatives! You're just trying to be cool! No, libertarianism is actually distinct from conventional conservatism in all sorts of ways that lead to genuine differences of opinion.

Then again, all of this is taking conservative concern trolling of Johnson and Weld way too seriously. After all, the last thing most contemporary conservatives and Republicans want is a strong, thriving libertarian movment and Libertarian Party, both of which are doing pretty well of late. As Gallup tracks American attitudes, libertarians now outnumber conservatives, liberals, and populists. The Libertarian Party, never the poster child for effectivness, has nowhere to go but up. How any of this shakes out in terms of electoral politics is anyone's guess, but libertarianism isn't leaking market share like MySpace circa 2008. It's conservativism and the GOP that are taking it on the chin for many reasons, including a disastrous run in power during the early years of the 21st century and a general inability to adapt to a world in which individuals are empowered like never before. And now conservative Republicans are stuck with a candidate who embarrasses them because he often takes conservative positions too seriously.

They've got a lot of explaining to do, both to themselves and to the outside world. And history, which conservatives famously want to stand athwart, yelling Stop, isn't the least bit interested in slowing down.

NEXT: Scott Shackford on AIDS History and 'Right to Try' Activism at the Launch of Freethink

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. Doable.

      But what an immature twat.

      1. I hope you’re talking about the Lady and not the kid.

        1. That’s OMWC’s fetish not mine.

          1. Riley . if you think Scott `s comment is really great… on friday I got a great new Lancia when I got my cheque for $6472 this past five weeks and just a little over 10 grand this past-munth . it’s definitly the best-job I have ever had . I actually started 3 months ago and almost straight away started bringing in over $75 per-hour . see here …………… freedoms.top

    2. I thought the Kardashians would be seated in the Club level.

      1. Not fat enough for a Kardashian.

    3. Why the hell is that kid at a baseball game? I would lash her owner for not keeping proper tabs on her. She doesn’t even look dirty. What kind of operation is he running? For shame.

    4. You can’t be serious. If you’re referring to the adult woman who grabbed the baseball, I’d believe it if you said that’s what Big-Gov’t leftists/progressives look like (tax the shit out of everybody to pay for generous transfer programs) or Military-Industrial-Complex war-hawk conservatives look like (tax the shit out of everybody to pay for endless wars), but LIBERTARIANS taking stuff from others?

    5. Yeah man, someone stole my balls too!!!!

      1. I think I saw the thief with them dangling from a large pink plastic bag under the rear of his pickup, headed west on I-80 the other day… I thought I’d go catch his ass and beat him up, but I didn’t have the balls!

  1. Sure, Johnson has sworn to present a balanced budget upon entering the White House and he’s for individual rights, the Second Amendment, school choice, an end to the prison-industrial complex, Wilsonian interventionism

    Nice pack o’ lies there Nick. Might be good for 1% in November if GayJay voters aren’t too stoned to show up.

    1. In what ways are Nick’s statements about Gay J “lies”?

      Show your work.

      1. Don’t try to confuse SIV with your talk of “evidence” and “argument”. The only thing he needs to know is that if Daddy loses it’s because the whole system is rigged against him.

        1. Except I was adamantly anti-Johnson in 2012 as well, yet I sure-as-shit never told anyone to vote for Romney.

    2. Nope, that was the truth. I’ll be voting. Also, I don’t smoke.

    3. Gotta love the Johnson Derangement Syndrome.

  2. Weld used to be a seventh-level politician but then he got hit by a wight and lost two levels and all the vibrancy from his complexion, turning him into the man you see today.

    1. Yeah he’s a fricken zombservative.

  3. This is pretty much a manifesto on why Reason is pissing so many libertarians off.

    has sworn to present a balanced budget upon entering the White House and he’s for individual rights*, the Second Amendment*, school choice, an end to the prison-industrial complex, Wilsonian interventionism*, and a lot of other things that conservatives and Republicans often say they want

    Except that he’s against the individual right to free association, he’s got a gun grabber VP, and he’s not nearly as much of a peacenik as some would try to make you believe.

    But because he’s pro-choice and believes that federal antidscrimination laws should cover sexual orientation at businesses open to the public, he’s the worst.

    No, he’s just a shitty LP candidate right at the time when a good LP candidate could get some traction. GJ has pretty much alienated everybody except the leftytarian “pot, ass sex, and Mexicans” contingent.

    When it comes to immigration, Johnson and Weld are openly and unabashedly in favor of letting people move and work here legally.

    Open borders isn’t a core libertarian principle since, y’know, it requires land to be owned by the government in order for it to work. Same with “marriage equality.” Stop pretending that your pragmatism is somehow principled… it’s not.

    1. Open borders isn’t a core libertarian principle since, y’know, it requires land to be owned by the government in order for it to work.

      Exactly. That’s why the libertarian position is actually “no borders.” As imaginary lines require agents of the state deputized to use deadly force upon peaceable people to exist.

      1. Look, anything that keeps you people out of my country is obviously right. And if it seems morally bad for some faggy reason, I can make up some principled reasons to justify it a posteriori, don’t you worry.

      2. How else do you keep the tax chattel from fleeing to other fields?

        1. The big worry is keeping the welfare pet from migrating to this barn, silo and granary.

      3. In fairness, core libertarian principles don’t work in an open borders world either, which is really the crux of the conversation and the source of a great deal of confusion. We think they’re stuck in here with us, but really we’re stuck in here with them.

        1. The problem isn’t that libertarianism doesn’t work in an open borders world, it’s that democracy doesnt. Without democracy, if a people wants to wield power over another people, it requires war. With open borders democracy, it just requires a change of address.

          1. If there was a right to property that wouldn’t matter so much.

      4. That’s why the libertarian position is actually “no borders.” As imaginary lines require agents of the state deputized to use deadly force upon peaceable people to exist.

        I think that trespassing isn’t exactly peaceable. Granted, with public land the analysis is much more complex, but unless you’re a Georgist, property rights still exist and that includes the right to exclude others from entering your land. What that means for immigration seems to be rather unclear. I’m not a closed borders guy, but I’m not seeing the case against immigration restrictions being a clean libertarian issue.

        1. As the resident Georgist, on property rights, they still exist, just for utilitarian reasons.

          1. George and Mises were pretty much on same page when it came to property.

      5. Exactly. That’s why the libertarian position is actually “no borders.”

        Only it’s not.

        It’s Property Lines, with any edges as privately held property that the property owners can defend with deadly force.

        ‘No Borders’ is leftist twaddle inserted into libertarianism that was designed to keep libertarianism from being viable.

        Leftists are big on ‘no borders’ type ideas because they think the state should not just own everything, but be everywhere.

    2. Where is the ‘good Libertarian candidate’ to replace Johnson? The field this cycle is weak all around.

    3. Careful there, according to Nicky your salient points amount to little more than..what did he call it, oh yeah that Daily Kos term, “concern trolling”. God, he rolls a term coined by progressives into a piece in defense of Johnson all while chilling dissent by labeling any disagreement as concern trolling and still thinks he’s Libertarian because he wants more pot and less prison.

      Nick, you’ve become a total Nark. If Libertarians are actually still interested in genuine reason, and freedom to think and decide for oneself free of coercion, how do you subscribe to liberty of thought while supporting State enforced protections for specialized classes of people? How do you subscribe to freedom of speech while implementing a progressive tool by calling dissenters “concern trolls”? And what Libertarian or true modern Constitutional Conservative would want Wilsonianism Answer: You don’t. You’ve become quite a dishonest Prick Nicky. If you are the continued face of Liberty, than I’m done with the Libertarian Party. God, I can’t believe I thought you were a reasonable guy. Of course I guess this just makes me a “concern troll” doesn’t it. Damn it!

      1. Dammit, meant to remove the bit on Wilsonianism. After a second read I got that Nick was saying he doesn’t want it.

    4. This is pretty much a manifesto on why Reason is pissing so many libertarians off.

      Well, the phony libertarians that dwell in the comments section anyways.

      But please, if Reason is so terrible, go someplace else. No one of consequence will miss the troll brigade.

  4. Johnson and Weld are solldly libertarian. Marriage equality, pot legalization, you name it, they’re cool with anything that’s peaceful.

    Except for prostitution, drugs other than marijuana, religious freedom, freedom of association, guns…

  5. “…The Libertarian Party, never the poster child for effectivness, has nowhere to go but up.”

    Up, up, up!

    Not with that sort of editing it won’t. Good spelling is the foundation of all great political parties.

    My take is simple. You need to gain access to power. A slow process of deprogramming has to begin not unlike how progressives poisoned minds by infiltrating academia, politics while convincing the media (and ultimately voters) theirs was the natural default line of how a civilization should be run.

    Frick and Frack are a good starting point I reckon warts and all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtzrijgcDMU

  6. OT: So what am I missing —- Black guy runs from black officer, then points gun at black officer and gets shot. Town riots. What the hell?

    1. In jeopardy style the question is

      “How do you start a race war?”

    2. Has the body cam footage been release yet? Been looking for it, but can’t find it.

    3. Bad people found an excuse to riot.

    4. Are you suggesting that people who riot patiently wait for facts before making an informed decision to riot?

    5. What you’re missing is that Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke made a minor name for himself during the Dallas and Baton Rouge cop shootings, by going on media outlets like CNN, and specifically not parroting the party line that the cops are inherently racist, bloodthirsty, and that BLM has a point. As Sheriff Clarke is himself African-American, this went over like a lead balloon. See, e.g., his interview with CNN’s Don Lemon.

      I see this as payback towards a Democrat Sheriff who dared to sing out of tune. Not that BLM caused the initial shooting, but I definitely see their instigation to riot after the shooting.

      Shootings by police of African-Americans happen every day, in every large municipality in this nation. Not all of them trigger riots. Why this one, in this particular city?

      Who is paying BLM to shuttle professional protesters around the country, feed them, transport them, pay their medical bills and bondsmen?

      1. Who is paying BLM to shuttle professional protesters around the country, feed them, transport them, pay their medical bills and bondsmen?

        George Soros and the Illuminati. Duh!

      2. Soros’ Open Society Foundation has funded BLM indirectly to the tune of $32 million.

        http://www.washingtontimes.com…..s-to-spur/

  7. Weld is fucking anti second amendment!!!

    I mean what the fuck?

    I know I side with Gary Johnson on a lot of things, but picking a second amendment squish as his running mate this time, and being a squish himself on religious liberties (and by extension free association), leaves me lukewarm about voting for him again.

    1. There’s always the Constitution Party.

      1. But their platform calls for a war on porn.

        I mean, it’s one thing to deviate from ideological purity on a side issue like religious freedom, or guns, or spending, but if you have an anti porn plank in your platform? That’s a deal breaker.

        Don’t let them take it away.

        1. You know that is much more than just anti-pornography. It’s anti-free-speech and wants to criminalize homosexuality.

          1. IIRC the platform “affirm[s] the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.”

            So I suppose the thing to do is not elect them as governors or legislators at the state level.

            1. Or don’t get caught traveling in the wrong parts of the country.

              1. At worst, that would restore the pre-2003 status quo, under which most states had already legalized sodomy in private between consenting adults.

                And if the Constitution Party platform were fully implemented, we’d have a functioning Fourth Amendment and jury nullification, a twofold shield against bad laws, even bad laws supported by the Constitution Party.

              2. Yeah, never enter a “dry” county. If you know what I mean, and I think you do.

          2. Castle doesn’t support the Constitution Party platform anymore than the other candidates support theirs.

        2. I am too pro-porn to support them.

    2. This is what he had to say about his earlier support for AW ban. Hard to say. Actions speak louder than words but people certainly are capable of changing their minds over time

      1. FFS, Weld was on Reason itself, saying that Merrick Garland and Stephen Breyer were the kinds of Justices he’d want to appoint to the Court if elected. Breyer, who never met a Gov’t argument he didn’t like, and Garland, who looks slightly to the left of Stephen Reinhardt when it comes to the Second Amendment.

        For crying out loud, if I want a shitty Democrat for President, I’d write in James Webb.

        1. James Webb is actually pro-gun and pro-Second Amendment. You’d have to write in Hillary Clinton herself.

      2. Google “Maura Healey” to see what Bill Weld’s “modest restrictions on certain types of firearms” have turned into, without a word of them having been changed — a complete ban on a major segment of the industry.

        Weld has a proven history of talking nice-nice to gun owners to get elected, then stabbing them in the back. Talk is cheap, and talk from a politician actually costs the listener. Who would be stupid enough to fall for this again?

    3. Johnson is the lukewarm water between Trump’s fire and Hillary’s ice

  8. I’d light her torch.

    This made for excellent reading. “You’re just trying to be cool” is also something that liberals like to dismissively say.

  9. Gary Johnson is more libertarian than Rand Paul, someone I’d say 90% of the people here would have voted for if he had gotten the nomination.

    1. That’s not true. Maybe if all you care about is abortion.

      Rand is a principled libertarian and he always has been. Just google Rand Paul college essays and you will find a half dozen letters to the editor of his college paper where he eloquently argues for libertarian solutions.

      Gary Johnson can’t even be bothered to understand the non-aggression principle, the simple axiom which libertarian philosophy is built on. He does not have much regard for individual liberty at all (remember when he called for banning the burqa?) He is a technocrat, not a libertarian.

      I know you want people to support GJ but to claim that he is more libertarian than Rand Paul is laughable.

    2. Not. Even Close.

      Rand Paul doesn’t praise the EPA try or support anti-discrimination laws or humanitarian wars or want to ban burqas and he certainly doesn’t want to restrict the First Amendment like Gary Johnson does. And Bill Weld is a dumpster fire.

      Comments like “Gary Johnson is more libertarian than Rand Paul” are only true if you define libertarianism the way ThinkProgress and Salon define libertarianism.

      1. Rand Paul doesn’t praise the EPA try or support anti-discrimination laws or humanitarian wars or want to ban burqas and he certainly doesn’t want to restrict the First Amendment like Gary Johnson does. And Bill Weld is a dumpster fire.

        Rand Paul supports anti-discrimination laws, just with an exception carved out for the religious. He’s fully in favor of the CRA as he’s said on multiple occasions.

        As for Johnson and the EPA, he said that the EPA can do some good when circumstances make it difficult for small players to sue bad actors. His official position is that the EPA regulates too much, which is essentially the same as Rand Paul’s. I don’t think Rand has advocated abolishing it.

        Johnson recanted his stupid burka position and I’d ask you to cite me your other concerns about him being anti-First Amendment.

        Bill Weld is not a libertarian, he’s on the ticket purely for the purpose of establishing more credibility and fundraising opportunities. He’s not the reason I’m supporting Johnson.

        1. The Civil Rights Act is an EXTREME exception which many libertarians support and even then Rand hedged on it. Gary Johnson supports anti-discrimination that no libertarian supports. https://reason.com/blog/2014/11…..anti-discr

          Gary Johnson says the free market bankrupted the coal industry. Rand Paul doesn’t talk like that. Every other form of energy is subsidized and the costs to comply with EPA regulation add 20-30% to the cost of bringing coal to market.

          Gary Johnson doesn’t support religious freedom which last I checked is part of the First Amendment. He thinks a wedding photographer has to photograph a gay wedding. Rand Paul, on the other hand, believes that people should not have to violate their religious beliefs. He strongly supported the Hobby Lobby case.

          1. Here’s one way of thinking about anti-discrimination laws.

            Some discrimination is harmless. Not all of it is tortious. For example, a business owner may legitimately choose only to serve people who can pay on demand. That’s a victimless and reasonable discrimination. But categorically refusing to serve a black man or a Jew or a gay man is NOT harmless. Therefore, it violates the NAP and the core ethic of libertarian philosophy.

            1. *No, I don’t agree with that*

              1. I was already winding up to call you a slaver.

                1. And she ran for the LP? Amazing how much garbage Ron Paul gets from some libertarians when people like Alicia exist within their own tent.

            2. But categorically refusing to serve a black man or a Jew or a gay man is NOT harmless.

              Then she and you can go make me a sandwich. And if you don’t, you’re violating my rights.

            3. Wow,

              So let me get this straight. The NAP requires that you sell your time and effort to anyone to do anything, if you will sell your time and effort to someone to do something?

              Really?
              Idiot.

        2. He’s fully in favor of the CRA as he’s said on multiple occasions.

          Ummm….except he took all kinds of media shit for saying precisely that he didn’t approve of the public accommodation rules.

  10. Not only did I vote for both Pauls, I voted for Michael Badnarik, a certified loon, because I thought voting for him was better than supporting the duopoly.

    And let’s say this much in Badnarik’s favor – he may have been “a few fries short of a happy meal,” but he didn’t insist on a gun-grabber (Weld) as a running mate, he didn’t support compulsory nazi cakes, and he didn’t insist on a running mate (Weld) who said this:

    “”I think we have a national emergency in the number of male black youth who are unemployed without prospects,”…

    “They’re four times as likely to be incarcerated if they have intersection with law enforcement as white people are. Their educational opportunities are not there. We have to get them in to education and just concentrate the power of the government, trying to make sure that there are jobs available for them. It’s a national emergency and when there’s a national emergency, the government has to respond. Libertarian or no libertarian.”

    Regular conservative voters, not necessarily “movement” people but people who would be open to freedom-friendly alternatives to the status quo, might well be alienated by all that big-spending, gun-grabbing, religious-freedom-denying stuff.

    And you can’t wave it off by talking about Bush and Iraq and so on.

    1. (the Politico link is provided for the Weld quote, not for the retarded headline)

    2. I remember Weld saying that about the educational opportunities for black youth. Did he ever clarify what that means? Is he talking about vouchers or just tossing more money at failing schools or even taking on the teacher’s union?

    3. “I think we have a national emergency in the number of male black youth who are unemployed without prospects…. It’s a national emergency and when there’s a national emergency, the government has to respond.

      But it’s a national emergency largely caused by government. We subsidize single-motherhood and then wonder why so many kids who grow up without fathers end up unemployed or in prison or dead.

      1. Yet somehow single motherhood is not tearing apart other ethnicities.

        Pretty much 2/3rds of the problems in black communities can be traced to the War on Drugs – the incentives to invade poor communities and harrass people there are amped up to an amazing degree. These people can’t afford to pay for a legal fight against city hall so its easy to trammel on civil rights to get at those yummy evaluation enhancing possession ‘with intent’ busts and that tasty asset forfeiture.

        Add in the ‘tough on crime’ stance that keeps piling penalty upon penalty for stuff that shouldn’t have been a crime in the first place and its pretty easy to see why blacks end up in jail and have a much greater difficulty finding even moderate success.

        The rest of the problem is the insistence that government provision of things like education are the absolute only ‘fair’ way. So even when it becomes obvious that the government education system is failing we get people demanding that these guys stay locked into the system because ‘its not fair’ if only a few lobsters get out of the pot.

        1. Yet somehow single motherhood is not tearing apart other ethnicities.

          Yes, it is.

          1. Um, that really doesn’t prove what you seem to be claiming it does, or anything at all really.

            1. But by comparing criminals of the same race, education, income, and mother’s education whose primary observable difference is family structure, social scientists have come as close as they can to making the causal case with the methodological tools available.

              http://www.theatlantic.com/sex…..me/265860/

              This would appear to say that it is independent of race and not just a “black” phenomenon. This article also points out that the “tough on crime” was in response to rising crime rates that correlated with rising single-parent households.

              Crux of the argument:: single-parent homes -> poverty -> crime. I would add poor education, as well. After all, public schools reliably fail to teach children to read and single-parent homes struggle to find the time resources to teach their children to read. Of course, you will have exceptions, like the well-established lawyer who decides to “go it alone” and can afford the basic care of a child without to much of a hassel, but it is worth pointing out that the majority of single-parent homes are created by poor choices in teens, young adults, and often reflect a cycle of poor decision making.

          2. Indeed, it is, and the problems being discussed statistically distribute themselves in a remarkably similar demographic fashion as well.

            Granted, coincidence does not equal causation, but there certainly seems to be some sort of relationship.

        2. Yet somehow single motherhood is not tearing apart other ethnicities.
          Pretty much 2/3rds of the problems in black communities can be traced to the War on Drugs …

          – the incentives to invade poor communities and harrass people there are amped up to an amazing degree
          These people can’t afford to pay for a legal fight against city hall
          that tasty asset forfeiture …

          Yet somehow single motherhood is not tearing apart other ethnicities.
          The rest of the problem is the insistence that government provision of things like education

          Holy shit. This comment set logic back a couple centuries.

    4. I vote for the LP platform even when they have an idiot in the top slot. When Reagan ran against the Vichy Democrats I voted for his defense planks, but I still voted libertarian down-ballot, despite infiltration by Vichy anarchists. Platforms are recipes for laws. Candidates are the window dummies parties put on display to make the platforms more attractive.

      1. Vichy . . . you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  11. Just what did Weld say negatively about the 2A? this must have been something going on while I was sleeping.

      1. Thank you.

        Now, while that’s some serious Stupid there, I notice he didn’t come out and call for any new regulations/prohibitions. And, his stupidity may just be curable with some education.

        Not saying that what he said is a positive, and it may very well be that he is more restrictionist.

        1. I took it to mean he was for more bans, but I could always be wrong, I suppose.

        2. Weld wants to ban gun ownership for people on the no-fly and terror-watch lists.

          1. Ah, yes, I’d forgotten about that. Reason covered it.

          2. Which Trump and Clinton also want to do.

            That’s a negative for a Libertarian candidate – but a wash in the overall picture of who’s worse and not a reason to reject him.

            1. Which Trump and Clinton also want to do.

              Don’t do that. Don’t.

              Because it doesn’t matter and I don’t care.

              1. It does matter. There’s *objectively* worse and there’s *comparatively* worse. And pretty much all the negatives in the Johnson/Weld campaign are also in the Trump/Clinton ones along with a whole slew more and neither Trump/Clinton have any corresponding positives.

                So we can bitch that Johnson/Weld are bad Libertarians, but they are pretty damn good *presidential candidates* – especially in this cycle.

                Someone’s going to be in the Oval Office – ‘None of the Above’ is not an option. So why not support the guy who’s likely to do the least damage instead of constantly bitching that he’s not ideologically pure enough to represent us? That can wait until after the election and serve as a base for finding a better candidate willing to stand.

                1. ^ This

        3. And, his stupidity may just be curable with some education

          The guys a hundred years old and would probably consider himself a successful politician.

          You’re not teaching him anything.

    1. I posted his response to those concerns in an earlier Reason article link above.

      1. Got it.

        I don’t like the “no-fly, no-buy” list stance. Sounds like he could use a refresher on Due Process.

    2. Weld… that’s the peroxide lobster next to Gary? Someday we need to again have libertarian candidates, not anarchists nor cross-dressing antichoice libpersonators.

    3. Screw what he said. Look what he DID.

      1. I put a link in there, but somehow it didn’t get posted:

        1. Aaargh! Why does the posting software decide that a URL is a “word that is too long (>50 chars)”???

          Let’s try this.

  12. Me thinks that if Johnson was pro-life, pro federalism on marriage and vigorously supported religious freedom, Nick and others would not be so “forgiving.”

    Weld is an abomination and Johnson is giving a big middle finger to a large contingent of right-libertarianism/conservatives and going after the Bernie Sanders vote. (Because when I think of liberty and freedom, I think of a fat socialist who vacationed in the USSR and complains about too many choices!!!!)

    Good luck with that!!!!

    1. Me thinks that if Johnson was pro-life, pro federalism on marriage and vigorously supported religious freedom, Nick and others would not be so “forgiving.”

      Considering Reason has pro-life staffers I’d say no on that first part, at least as long as he wasn’t going to create an anti-abortion police state like a lot of conservatives want.

      Federalism on gay marriage is bullshit that’s used to punt on the fundamental issue of whether or not the state can arbitrarily decide what contracts are valid.

      And religious freedom as a backdoor to get around anti-discrimination laws is fine but it does nothing for the libertarian principle that all people should be allowed to freely associate with whoever they want.

      1. Reason may have a couple pro-lifers on staff, but I’ll be damned if I can remember who the heck they are and Nick, Elizabeth et al are utterly pro-abortion. And as the 13th Amendment didn’t create an “anti-slavery police state,” I think libertarians can quite comfortably defend the right to life.

        The right to contract (which I support for gay marriage and just about anything else short of slavery) is quite different than the LGBQT net of regulation and Nick supports the boot of the state landing on those whom he wants to stop fighting the culture war and give in to him and his values.

        Religious freedom IS freedom of association and of free thought.) Some just find it “icky.”

        Worms turning and all…

        1. Slade’s the big pro-lifer on staff, and there may be a couple other freelance contributors (Napolitano comes to mind) that are pro-life. Generally, Reason’s staff leans pretty hard in the leftytarian/libertine direction.

        2. “And as the 13th Amendment didn’t create an “anti-slavery police state,” I think libertarians can quite comfortably defend the right to life.”

          And of course the anti-abortion laws before *Roe* didn’t create a police state either.

          So unless the Romanian communists are classified as conservatives, I don’t see where “a lot of conservative” were calling for a police state on abortion.

        3. Religious freedom IS freedom of association and of free thought.) Some just find it “icky.”

          It’s a kind of freedom of association but selectively applied to people with religious objections to doing something. It would not protect racists or sexists or others who have secular objections to a protected group.

          Also, there was this thing called Reconstruction where the military enforced the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to protect freedmen.

          1. “Also, there was this thing called Reconstruction where the military enforced the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to protect freedmen.”

            Is that an example of an “antislavery police state?”

            1. Yes, you live in it. There is a very small pro-slavery segment of the population that secretly keeps slaves in bondage.

              1. Well, it’s not entirely secret, it’s still there in the classifieds of alternative newspapers.

    2. See? Classical pro-life-after-death prohibitionist here to rally support for God’s Own Prohibitionists. These are the folks that make me really appreciate Gary.

  13. “Johnson has sworn to present a balanced budget upon entering the White House”

    OK, but Johnson may have a credibility problem when the guy he insisted on running with says there’s a “national emergency” and he wants to “concentrate the power of the government” to “make sure there are jobs” for at-rick black youth.

    Someone needs to ask him, “can you give us some idea what a balanced Johnson budget looks like, given that you or your handpicked running mate have already said the federal government needs to provide jobs, tighten gun control, and increase the number of suspect classifications under the discrimination laws?”

  14. I can only assume that, since it isn’t posting yet, a Hihn somewhere is writhing on the floor, grasping it’s chest upon reading this.

  15. If I vote, I’ll be voting for Johnson. Again. Is he my ideal candidate? No. Is he the best of the four likely to be on the ballot? Yes.

    1. Why not? Vote defensively and push for more and more liberty. I don’t get the arguments against that strategy. Though I do appreciate the “Whatever is shaky should be pushed over” approach.

      1. Yeah. I have no illusions about him winning but it has to start somewhere. Maybe after four more years or war, corporatism, and the boot on their necks a few more people might join in.

        1. Every vote for the LP platform means MY winning through better laws and lower taxes. Gary is the least unattractive of the inflatable platform dummies and better than the republican, the anarchist and the noob that all lost to him.

          1. Be careful with this philosophy. Its what is doing the Rs in. They kept voting for Bushes, McCains, and Romneys, so the powers that be decided to foist another Bush since they always voted for the Big-Gov guys anyway. Nevermind that we were voting for the platform and not the candidate. My bad.

            I’ve been reliably informed this election that party aparatchicks are private affairs and they don’t HAVE to choose candidates based on votes if they don’t want to. If Johnson gets the votes, they assume THIS is the Libertarian candidate “WHO CAN WIN!” Not the Libertarian candidate who can make a strong case for principled Libertarianism.

  16. Among the many odd twists and turns of Election 2016 is the non-stop concern trolling of libertarians by #NeverTrump conservatives and Republicans who really, really, really want to vote Libertarian this one time but just can’t because Gary Johnson and William Weld are so…damn…awful…from a libertarian point of view.

    Cat video.

  17. Far from Woodstock.

  18. I wouldn’t claim for a moment that Johnson could get the votes of the “concern trolls,” but what about those conservatives who have been increasingly alienated from the Republican Party, culminating in the Trump nomination?

    How to reach out to disaffected conservatives? On issue after issue Johnson thinks the answer is to flip them off and tell them to go fuck themselves.

    Then when the disaffected conservatives don’t flock to Johnson, then the Reason writers will triumphantly proclaim, “see? We *told* you those right-wing crazies weren’t enlightened enough to support libertarian policies!”

    1. Nick’s just severely butthurt that Tracinski made his point so well. See, only Nick is allowed to concern troll and project his caricatures. It’s not fair when others do it.

    2. I appreciate this comment. I can agree with Nick that Robert did do things wrong in his article that I cringed at when I read it earlier (I read both Federalist and Reason regularly), but then Nick goes too far in the other direction with crap like this: “And now conservative Republicans are stuck with a candidate who embarrasses them because he often takes conservative positions too seriously.” Seriously, only someone who has little understanding of conservative thought would say something so ignorant.

      As someone who is a strong Conservative and has voted Republican, this is a spit in the face. Ever since Trump took over the Republican Party, I’ve been trying to find some kind of alternative and came here months ago and have liked what I’ve read about Libertarianism and Johnson. Do I agree with everything about both? Of course, not, but I still think both are miles better than what the Republican and Democrats are offering.

      Which makes it all the more frustrating when I see bile reserved for conservatives from Johnson, the writers, and the comment sections. It’s all the more confusing because there’s a natural impulse for limiting government that both Conservatives and Libertarians share that I would think would make us more natural allies.

      Understand that I’m not asking Johnson or anyone to toe the line on every Conservative point, but it wouldn’t hurt to throw us a bone or two, instead of throwing so much effort into courting the Liberal/Sanders crowd.

  19. Select the Incorrect (the generic version of Spot the Not), LP ticket edition:

    1) “I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. . . Why shouldn’t somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead.”

    2) “The fact is, the invasion of Iraq ? under misrepresentations to the American people, has done more to inflame the terrorists than any action you can name”

    3) “The purpose of this common sense legislation is to remove deadly guns from our streets and to take weapons out of the hands of many teens who themselves are becoming deadly killers.”

    4) “I just want to let people know I have an open mind about how we might, how government might, interject itself in a lot of the problems we have.”

    5) “It’s not often you get a guy with [Obama’s] combination of qualities, chief among which I would say is the deep sense of calm he displays, and I think that’s a product of his equally deep intelligence.”

      1. That is correct! #2 is Nancy Pelosi.

        #1 is one of Johnson’s attempts at explaining why Christians should bake the cake
        #3 is Bill Weld’s comments while signing a gun control bill in Mass
        #4 is Johnson talking about gun control (specifically keeping guns from the mentally ill)
        #5 is Bill Weld’s endorsement of Barack Obama (in 2008?)

  20. Libertarianism wasn’t about reasserting an American tradition of liberty and constitutionally limited government. It was about smashing the system, man.

    Considering that it is, to a large degree, *the system, man* that has eroded the American tradition of liberty and constitutionally limited government . . . well, yes. Smash the fucking state.

    1. The -ism may be some vague thing, but the party is here to run candidates for office backing a platform within the framework provided by the same Constitution winners are sworn to uphold. Even when we don’t elect our candidate we win by forcing the looters to repeal bad laws we oppose. Yes we oppose the 16th Amendment, as the Dems did the 18th in 1932. But when was the last time you saw a candidate promise on teevee to protect the personal income tax from repeal?

    2. Which is, in fact, perhaps the best reason for a Libertarian to vote for Trump. Given four years, he’ll have jolted the wheels off just about every part of it.

  21. Re-run

    Spot the Not: Nicolas Maduro

    1. They inoculated Commander Chavez with that illness to get him out of the way, and create a situation of destruction for Venezuela and its independent revolution.

    2. Multiply ourselves, like Christ multiplied the penises.

    3. We are all a little bit hippy, a little bohemian. We take that from the culture we knew, from the ’70s and the ’80s.

    4. Fidel Castro represents the dignity of the South American continent against empires. He’s a living legend: an icon of independence and freedom across the continent.

    5. The United States are ruled by a financial, media-centered, military-industrial apparatus. Behind Obama’s grin, he orders bombings.

    6. Our enemies are all those in league with imperialism. Our enemies are all around us. We must always be on our guard.

    Since I can’t post them in the links these days, I am currently compiling the 300 or so Spot the Not quizzes I’ve made. I’ll post them on my blog thus providing a near endless source of entertainment.

    You’re welcome.

    1. Cut it out. Nicolas Maduro is a character you invented for your own obscene purposes. I assume, anyway. None of those quotes look believable. What manner of prank are you trying to pull here.

      1. [game show buzzer]

        He was giving a speech about how Christ multiplied the loaves and the fishes. The Spanish words for loaves and fishes is panes and pesces. He conflated the two and said penes, which does in fact mean penises in Spanish.

        1. …Okay, hold up. Was he confused about the meaning of those words? Because that seems unusual for a native speaker. Or was it a flub? In which case… well, dark days ahead should Trump get the nomination.

    2. Oh god, these all look real.

      3

    3. 6 is the not. That is a slightly altered form of what Tom Tuttle from Tacoma says after being brainwashed by communists in the movie Volunteers.

  22. Somebody explain to Nick that Ron Paul and his boy are Republicans who want men with guns to force women to reproduce against their will. Libertarians believe women have individual rights and self-ownershop, and we UNDERSTAND the first three words of the 14th Amendment.

    1. Is that what Libertarians believe? I asked Bill Weld and he said Libertarians are gun grabbing emiment domain supporters, who support the Patriot Act, affirmative action, the Iraq War, Obama, and green energy subsidies just like him.

      But hey, Ron Paul is pro-life. What a slaver. He doesn’t even wear a rainbow tie like Bill Weld.

      1. I’d put my money on Ron over Bill any day and everyday in a “Who promotes liberty more?” contest.

    2. Yep, it is certainly unbelievable that anyone might think a developing fetus might eventuate into a fully independent child. What sort of lunatic would advance a theory whereby the bulge in a woman’s ladyparts is indicative of an eventual toddler? They’re just nutters who think there’s any correlation between fertilized egg and infant. What a bunch of weirdos.

      You know, I have yet to hear a more honest pro-life/pro-abortion compromise than Walter Block made decades ago, and it was Walter Block that first introduced me to libertarian thinking. He doesn’t make a pretty defense of abortion: it’s about kicking out an unwanted squatter. But it’s annoying as fuck to hear the pro-life crowd try to excuse women from their calculation as unwilling participants in the murder of their child (in the vast majority of cases, it’s not a child, it’s a clump of cells), and the pro-abortion crowd excuse it as a woman’s choice (right up till the poor unwanted thing could be adopted out, except for having its spinal cord snipped). There’s a middle ground nobody wants to explore because it’s not politically popular.

      Except the big, dark secret is, it is politically popular. Not many people agree with no abortions ever, and not many people agree with abortions on birth, either. There is room for a politically neutral alternative whereby some fetuses are aborted and some brought to term. And it would probably be better than the current outcomes in raw numbers.

      1. Most things would be better than the status quo on abortion.

        That doesn’t mean the public is as enlightened as it ought to be, but current policies go beyond what the public, if properly consulted, would want.

        1. I might have a child but for Plan B. I think about that sometimes. Not seriously, mind you, because I am a practical man and I realize that, given the time where we were and the place I was, our child would not have been as advantaged as I would like. But timing is important, isn’t it? I have a friend who’s married to a Catholic girl, and they have a fourth on the way. They’ve done well for themselves. For them, timing is largely convenience: she’s a pharmacist, he’s stay at home, and the pregnancy is largely about planning for delivery and making do. But even the act of having a child precludes children from having been had. It’s not necessarily a defense of abortion, but it doesn’t count against it. So a guy like me who passes on one opportunity, it’s not so bad. I hope.

          What, Eddie, would you condemn me; having made that decision, what hell have I relegated myself to for eternity?

          1. Not being God, I really am not in a position to assign you a position in the afterlife.

            It sounds like you’ve given some thought to this issue, going beyond what a discussion on a snarky comment board may be able to do.

            If something you did bothers you, and you can probably guess where I’m going with this, why not talk to a good priest?

            King David killed Uriah and went on to write many of the Psalms. Saint Paul helped kill St. Stephen.

            What I believe is that despair is the only unforgivable sin.

            I normally don’t presume to get this personal, but I believe you brought it up.

            1. Now, not knowing much about Plan B or your situation, I don’t even know if you killed any child post-conception (and pre-conception there is no child), I’m simply saying that assuming the worst, I can’t see how you’d be a worse offender than the two saints I mentioned.

              1. But a personal conversation with a Godly priest would probably be more enlightening than some random guy on the Internet, which is kind of what I am.

            2. I have no faith in your lot, but I desperately hope you prevail. I know you all condemn me to hell. But the fact is, I hope you redeem us all.

              1. Seriously, I don’t think you’re being 100% fair…if you find the Catholic position at all intriguing as it bears on your personal situation, then you don’t need to rely on me to expound it, I’m quite sure there are Godly priests in your neck of the woods who wouldn’t mind talking to you and would be far better informed, and have better people skills, than me.

                Thank you for the good wishes, though, and God bless you…

                1. (re people skills, I’m a bit nervous that I’ll misstate something or express myself so inartfully as to do more harm than good)

                  1. I don’t want to seem like I’m giving you the brush-off, but I lack confidence in my people skills, it seems that you have some important questions, would you take seriously my suggestion that you speak with one of your local Catholic priests?

                    1. In all seriousness, I love chatting online, but I have to admit I may be in too deep…I don’t know your situation, but you’re brought up some fairly important questions which seem suited for a priest to talk to you about…

                    2. A chilling thought occurs to me…there may be some folks whose major exposure to the Catholic faith is reading my posts on H&R…*shudder*…maybe I need to clean up my act…

  23. Johnson is way too nice. I can’t see him vetoing a bill or firing a political appointee from a previous administration. Trump isn’t as Libertarian from an ideological perspective, but he’ll get things done. And he’s also not a foreign interventionist. And he’ll protect the gays and Jews from Muslim extremists. That’s why I’m voting Trump.

    1. When did “get things done” become a positive? And your ignorance of Johnsons veto history is asstounding.

  24. Nick,

    I think your analysis of conservative concern-trolling is for the most part spot on.

    But seriously, stop deluding yourself into thinking that libertarians are actually the biggest group in the country. If it was actually true, we’d be able to get a libertarian presidential candidate who could win more than 10% of the vote in a primary or break single digits in a general election (and while Johnson is poised to break it, thus far we haven’t even had a libertarian break 1.1% of the vote).

    1. we haven’t even had a libertarian break 1.1% of the vote

      Ed Clark remains the only Libertarian Party presidential candidate to break 1%.

  25. Eddie got pissed the other day when I called him a conern troll for doing this exact thing.

    1. And I believe I said I wouldn’t tell left-libertarians how to vote, given the limited nature of the choices, and given left-libertarian presuppositions, perhaps Johnson would be the least bad candidate.

      But don’t be surprised if conservatives have trouble seeing Johnson’s appeal when he really goes out of his way to antagonize them.

  26. Probably the worst of the bullshit and likes Nick is peddling in this piece is his deliberate, and ahistorical, conflation of the counterculture and the New Left. The leftists seized on young people’s pragmatic objections to the Vietnam War and conscription but they always hated hippies as much or more than any hardhat.

    1. Well, there was an awful lot of overlap. What you say was true for the hardest core political types, but the ’60s counterculture was certainly leftist in general. It was often a more easy-going, less-dogmatic leftism.

    2. “The leftists seized on young people’s pragmatic objections to the Vietnam War and conscription but they always hated hippies as much or more than any hardhat.”

      News to me; got any cites?

  27. Y’know, partisanship really isn’t a good look on libertarians — especially for these two sad saps. Can you not accept the reality that conservative are being their usual self-serving prickholes in manufacturing reasons other than their own for not voting for Johnson, and that they’re right? Fact of the matter is, Johnson and Weld are running less as libertarians and more as the “grownup”, “sane” ticket (whatever any of that means). So long as they aren’t going to be good advocates for liberty (and they sure as hell aren’t), libertarians are just making themselves look pathetic by defending the LP ticket in the same desperate way that, say, a Berniebro is defending Clinton on some ghastly corner of the progressive internet or a Cruz conservative would perhaps support Trump.

    Don’t put out for the big Johnson. Save yourselves for someone you really connect with emotionally, heh.

    1. “grownup”, “sane”

      Not words compatible with supporting mass Third World immigration into a broke welfare state, or with support for mass immigration of Muslims into the West.

      Politics really sucks this year. More than usual.

    1. Sometimes it’s hard to resist the thought that Western civilization is crumbling before our eyes. Sorry, dudes and dudettes and whatevers, but if “your pronoun” is not obvious to me, I am unlikely to use it. The language and the world are not going to reorganize themselves simply because you are confused about your sexuality.

  28. “I will put an end this, once and for all”

  29. “Marriage equality, pot legalization, you name it, they’re cool with anything that’s peaceful.”

    “But because he’s pro-choice and believes that federal antidscrimination laws should cover sexual orientation at businesses open to the public, he’s the worst. And Bill Weld?whose confirmation as ambassador to Mexico was skunked by Jesse Helms back in the day because Weld was for gay rights?is a know-nothing on Second Amendment issues.”

    They are cool with anything that’s peaceful except self-defense, freedom of association, freedom of conscience , freedom of religion especially where they cross the LGTQ thoughtcrime standards.

    1. Abortion is not peaceful. More absurdity coming from a Leftard posing as a Libertarian to confuse “useful idiots”.

      1. Abortion is not peaceful

        But it’s moral and legal to anyone who respects the constitution and our founding principle of equal, unalienable and/or God given rights.

        See,. all unalienable rights are precisely equal. which is what unalienable means! So the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. In high school you should have leaned about when rights conflict with each other because, of course no rights are absolute for maybe 400 years or so now, tracing back to Aristotle.

        from a Leftard posing as a Libertarian to confuse “useful idiots”.

        Libertarians have been socially liberal since 1969,

        1. And “social liberals” are now making political criminals.

          1. I’m sure libertarianism seems that way to you. Whatever it means.

            1. Social liberalism and libertarianism are not synonyms, but if the supposedly libertarians candidate embraces the the Left’s push to make dissent illegal, what is one to think?

              1. but if the supposedly libertarians candidate embraces the the Left’s push to make dissent illegal, what is one to think?

                If you actually believe that, then thinking is not your strong suit and why should anyone care?.

        2. in?al?ien?a?ble
          in??l??n?b(?)l/
          adjective
          unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

          It is precisely because their are two fundamental rights in conflict that you have libertarians who differ about abortion.

          and Aristotle died in 322 BC not 400 years ago.

          1. It is precisely because their are two fundamental rights in conflict that you have libertarians who differ about abortion.

            EVERYONE may have differing views on ANYTHING.

            What’s UN-libertarian is to impose EITHER preference by government force — as BOTH extremes on abortion do. Extreme pro-lifers deny the woman’s right to Liberty. Extreme pro-lifers deny the fetal child’s right to Life. They’re BOTH wrong, per the definition you cited, exactly as I said.

            no rights are absolute for maybe 400 years or so now, tracing back to Aristotle.

            and Aristotle died in 322 BC not 400 years ago.

            Do you know what “tracing” means?

            “No absolute rights” has been accepted for 400 years or so, IIRC, within Natural Law which traces to Aristotle, the notion that rights are innate to the nature of man, not granted by the state. That’s why Jefferson said “endowed by their Creator.” Ayn Rand traced Objectivism to Aristotle. It’s as at the core of our entire system of constitutional rights.

            When rights are in conflict ?” your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose” — then the tip of my nose is the boundary between conflicting rights. ONLY the judiciary is empowered to draw that line, and obliged to draw a line that best protects BOTH rights. Government MUST protect both rights equally, which is what ONLY the Court can define, per the 9th Amendment,

            Anything else?

        3. Please pay no attention to Hihn. This is how his brain works:

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/05/18/
          william-weld-taxation-is-theft#comment_6149425
          (copy/paste necessary, apparently)

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

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

          Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
          Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?

          Hihn: “No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.”

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

          So, yeah, trying to argue with someone who can’t even come up with internal logical consistency is probably a waste of time.

          1. ace-M82
            Please pay no attention to Hihn. This is how his brain works:

            Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
            Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and “defense”?

            Hihn: “No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian.”

            You STILL insist that if Gary Jihnson assassinates Obama tomorrow, this changes the definition of libertarian?

  30. It is cute when Nick pretends to be a Libertarian. He makes a couple of gestures toward shrinking government and then full throttle spending, open borders and culture war!

    Nothing says Liberty like coercing your fellows, right Nick?

    1. Open borders and the “culture war” have been staples of libetarianism from the start. Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Non-Aggression Principle?

      full throttle spending

      Where?

  31. So instead of lesser of two evils. Gillespie demands that we be satisfied voting for the least of three evils.

  32. Nick,

    You’re a left-libertarian. Fine. We get that.

    Here’s the thing. I’m probably voting for Johnson. But, the truth is he’s a flawed candidate. From a libertarian perspective. He’s weak on freedom of association. He’s indicated he’d back pretty damned statist Supreme Court Justices. He’s praised the EPA and picked an anti-Second Amendment VP candidate. Those aren’t things in dispute. They’re facts.

    Now, I understand. You ultimately don’t really mind those things. They don’t particularly bother you. Yeah, you may object to them in a broad philosophical way. But, you don’t really consider them a big deal. The thing is, they really do bother a lot of other libertarians. And they genuinely do bother a lot of libertarian-leaning conservatives who might really be pretty helpful in the LP being less selective in its appeal and possibly breaking the 1% mark in the election. And writing them off as just a bunch of “concern trolls” who need to shut the hell up and get with the program really only mirrors the kind of idiocy I see from Hillbots and Trumpelos.

    Congratulations, Nick! You’ve reduced the libertarian argument to mindless partisan hackery.

    1. You’re a left-libertarian. Fine. We get that.

      You seem unaware of what a left-libertarian is.
      Is that why you lie about their positions?
      Are you seriously saying gun rights are absolute, when no fundamental rights are absolute?

      They’re facts.

      Twisted.

    2. Bill,
      You have pretty well summed up my response to this article. While most people who fall under the libertarian rubric will agree in principal on most issues, we all have issues we find more viscerally motivating. Johnson’s flaws are on the issues more motivating to the right-leaning and he is stronger on the issues more motivating to the left leaning.

      I personally think his flaws are extreme enough that any vote I cast for him would be a ‘team’ vote, and I think Nick’s characterization of objections to Johnson as ‘concern trolling’ is indicative of a slide from left libertarianism into leftism that Reason is undergoing.

    3. Your comments pretty much mirror my own thoughts.

      Also, and maybe it’s just me, but when did marriage equality become a bedrock libertarian principle? Wasn’t the libertarian view to remove the state from marriage, allowing anyone to engage in whatever interpersonal contracts they choose, rather than codifying gay marriage specifically?

      1. The view of the Paulista Cult debunked

        but when did marriage equality become a bedrock libertarian principle?

        Equal rights traces to our founding. That applies to everyone or … they wouldn’t be equal!

        Wasn’t the libertarian view to remove the state from marriage, allowing anyone to engage in whatever interpersonal contracts they choose, rather than codifying gay marriage specifically?

        As long as the state IS involved, then the state’s sole function is to defend the rights of everyone

    4. Your comments pretty much mirror my own thoughts.

      Also, and maybe it’s just me, but when did marriage equality become a bedrock libertarian principle? Wasn’t the libertarian view to remove the state from marriage, allowing anyone to engage in whatever interpersonal contracts they choose, rather than codifying gay marriage specifically?

    5. But, the truth is he’s a flawed candidate

      Yes, and if the people complaining about Johnson were proposing a more libertarian alternative, it would be an interesting conversation.

      But 90% of them are arguing “Johnson isn’t libertarian enough, therefore we should vote for Trump!” which is complete BS.

      1. Some libertarians exist to bellow in online forums.
        Some of us exist to govern.
        It’s usually a conflict between pro-liberty and antii-gummint libertarians,

        Of the two, only ONE is moving us toward greater freedom. Which ones, the doers or the talkers?
        No, we won’t wake up some morning in a libertarian society that sprung from the ground, fully formed.
        As the adults in the room, we know that it’s a long journey, often inch-by-inch.

        Johnson’s attackers are almost always authoritarian. They don’t really expect a free society to erupt on its own. They know there’s a rigid limit on what can be achieved in the next four years, only a limited number of issues that can be addressed in this cycle, BUT …. of those issues ,… they MUST be THEIR passion issues, goddammit.

        They seek to impose THEIR preferences on everyone, not by force but by intimidation and personal attacks..
        And they know NOTHING about campaigns, elections or governing … so their authoritarianism is based on their ignorance. Listen closely. They’re actually PROUD of that ignorance!

        It should be obvious that the anti-gummint cult will never achieve a damn thing … mostly because they have no desire to. They are WAY too extreme for even Ayn Rand. What does THAT say?

  33. TLDR: Libertarians aren’t conservatives.

    1. it depends on what conservation is intended. If in the sense that Libertarians wish to conserve the liberties that U.S. citizens have enjoyed since our founding, than Libertarians are indeed conservatives.

      The definitions change from generation to generation. Dixiecrats used to be the conservatives because they wanted slavery to remain, than Jim Crow. Than Falwell’s evangelical swell largely took up the mantel between the 1970s and 90s. Now, in a largely progressive controlled government seemingly bent on encroaching more and more into citizen’s lives, libertarians desiring to keep their liberties intact are working to “conserve” them. The words “conserve”, “conservation”, and “conservative” aren’t dirty. They’re just misapplied all the time.

  34. Yes, I found out only this weekend that I’m a close simulacrum of a libertarian, but not quite a match. It’s because try as I might, I just can’t get a hard-on for free and unfettered immigration. Now, the essay I read boiled down to “libertarians must be ideologically pure” instead of a de facto defense of free immigration, but so be it.

    I’m not a terrorism scaremonger either; my objections are economic. I’ve lived in some southern, heavily immigrated places and I’ve seen what it can do. Perhaps if we did away with state welfare entirely, I would be fine with it, and maybe that’s the point this essayist was trying to make.

    1. Even Bernie has realized that a massive welfare state and open borders can’t coexist (but of course he chooses the welfare state)

    2. Consider this.
      We’ve had a NEGATIVE replacement birthrate since 2007. Without immigration, our population would have been declining for almost an entire decade. So, depending on your age , who’s gonna pay for your Social Security, or for your kids’?

      Some screech that Social Security is a communist plot. REPEAL IT. Fine, but none has a fucking clue how to do that. Listen closely. They don’t need “the consent of the people.” Like all authoritarians,

      You don’t oppose ALL immigration. Fine. Ignore those who then attack you as impure. Most of us can spot “holier than thou” Christians. But self -righteous fanatics arise and poison all mass movements, for all of human history.

      The “welfare state” argument is a con. Immigrants pay the same taxes as anyone else, and are LESS likely to be on welfare, even illegals.

      FACT The entire core middle class ($40k-100k) are moochers, but they suck off a middle-class gravy train subsidized by the rich. The rich pay over half their personal income taxes.

      There is no purity test for libertarians. The opposite is true. A Cato survey found the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians. You’ve seen why. When we launched this movement in the late 60s, one reason was our refusal to be forced into one of only two boxes. There are now three boxes, but the same authoritarian mentality bullies you to conform to their box, as they define it. Like McCarthyism in the 50s.

  35. I think Tracinski is correct when he says that being “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal” does not translate directly into be libertarian.

    Just one example: Same-sex marriage, while favored by many who consider themselves Libertarians, will not in any way increase individual liberty, nor decrease the size, scope, or power of government. Anyone who’s given any thought to what civil marriage is all about will realize that the institution’s purpose is to restrict individual sexual freedom for the purpose of reducing sexual competition within the community and thereby increase social cohesion and cooperation. Whether or not you think that’s a good end, the means cannot be described as ‘libertarian’ in any meaningful way. Extending that restriction(licensure) to gay relationships might be egalitarian, but it can’t be said to be libertarian. And that’s just the theory, in practice, same-sex marriage will provide additional excuses for government, particularly the central government, to expand its power and scope in civil society.

    I think Libertarians got snookered on the issue of gay marriage, and Johnson and Weld doubling down on it isn’t the way for Libertarianism to widen its appeal.

    1. Same-sex marriage, while favored by many who consider themselves Libertarians, will not in any way increase individual liberty,

      It will for homosexuals. Abolishing slavery did not increase individual liberty? Women’s Suffrage?

      in practice, same-sex marriage will provide additional excuses for government, particularly the central government, to expand its power and scope in civil society.

      As Jefferson said, governments are instituted to defend unalienable rights endowed by a Creator,. They’ve had that power from the very first second of our existance (under the current Constitution).

      I think Libertarians got snookered on the issue of gay marriage, and Johnson and Weld doubling down on it isn’t the way for Libertarianism to widen its appeal.

      The majority of Americans support marriage equality. 59% of Americans define themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

      How many others would defend government refusing to fulfill the very purpose of its existence?

      1. Marriage is not about individual liberty, as I pointed out above, the purpose of marriage is to restrict individual sexual freedom “for the common good”. Same-sex marriage merely extends that restriction/license requirement to gay relationships. Egalitarian? Yes Libertarian? No.

        1. Marriage is not about individual liberty,

          Your disgust with individual liberty has already been obvious. And you’re just repeating what Galt demolished.,

          the purpose of marriage is to restrict individual sexual freedom “for the common good”.

          Unless adultery is illegal, you’ve smashed a pie into your own face.
          Even the Old Testament has nothing THAT barbaric. It as blatantly false as claiming the sole purpose of sex is procreation!!.

  36. “Full throated support for every policy of the L candidate or GTFO.”

    This article would fit right in on Breitbart or (pick your Trump apologist site) in regards to Daddy.

  37. Look, seriously: I cast my first vote for President for Ron Paul. I helped found a college chapter of the LP. I’ve shaken hands with Andre Marrou and Harry Browne. I literally wore a hole in my shoes pounding the pavement for Jon Coon. Twice!

    And I do not recognize in Gary Johnson a Libertarian.

    When I was still active in the LP, (I dropped out in the late 90’s for a variety of reasons.) we were famous/notorious for being more pro-gun than the NRA, more in favor of free speech than the ACLU, opposing public accommodation laws on freedom of association basis… What happened to that Libertarian party?

    By contrast, open borders was never a core Libertarian principle, (Freedom of exit, of course.) and even though we generally favored it, we at least understood path dependence: Open the borders while still a welfare state, and you’d be flooded with people who wanted a welfare state, and never, ever find the public support to abolish it.

    Time was, when the US had as high a population of natural libertarians as any country. I guess our lords and masters didn’t like that, and set out to import a new population more open to statism. And I’m supposed to embrace that? Embrace the open borders that have made the US a less libertarian country?

    Sorry, no can do. And in picking Johnson/Weld for the ticket, you’ve even ruined the LP as a protest vote.

    1. And I do not recognize in Gary Johnson a Libertarian

      But you saw one in Paul, Marrou and Browne???

      What happened to that Libertarian party?

      With luck it’s dead, and anti-gummint types have are flushed down the toilet.

      being more pro-gun than the NRA, more in favor of free speech than the ACLU,

      See! Any student of liberty knows that no rights are absolute, because they can conflict with each other . And unalienable rights are all equal, by definition.

      Time was, when the US had as high a population of natural libertarians as any country.

      Actually more, Still do,

      And I’m supposed to embrace that?

      No offense, but who cares? A Cato survey found that 59% of Americans would self-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But 91% of those libertarians reject the libertarian label entirely. Who destroyed our brand?

      you’ve even ruined the LP as a protest vote.

      That’s NOT what the LP was created to be, and a totally useless function.

      40,000-50,000 libertarians are in local elected office. NONE ran as a protest vote. Most had something specific to advance, and got voters to agree. Others simply wanted to govern more wisely and got voters to agre.e,
      So WHO is advancing so-called “libertarian ideas?” 59% of activist Americans? Or less than 5% who only want to piss and moan, achieving … WHAT?

  38. RE: Conservatives Are From Mars, Libertarians Are From…Woodstock?
    There’s no ceasefire in conservative Republican concern-trolling about Gary Johnson and William Weld’s ideological apostasies.

    Conservatives are from Mars.
    Liberals are from you Uranus.
    Libertarians are from Earth, at least one of the last free parts of it anyway.

  39. I voted the libertarian line for president ever since Reagan but this year I will not! The libertarian candidates are NOT libertarian by any means. They don’t believe in free association. They want to open our borders without any regard to who the people are who are coming in. Johnson is running for president of the United States and not for president of the WORLD! If a policy doesn’t benefit this country or its citizens then it is his JOB not to implement it. Anyway, the people he is inviting are bound to vote for the types of candidates that will totally destroy any hopes of ever having a libertarian style government in this country. They tend to vote for democrats and candidates who favor the collective over the individual!

    1. They don’t believe in free association.

      Brainwashed much?

      They want to open our borders without any regard to who the people are who are coming in.

      Umm,they’re libertarian!

      If a policy doesn’t benefit this country or its citizens then it is his JOB not to implement it.

      This is not a democracy and never has been.

      Anyway, the people he is inviting are bound to vote for the types of candidates that will totally destroy any hopes of ever having a libertarian style government in this country.

      How would you know?

      They tend to vote for democrats and candidates who favor the collective over the individual!

      I already knew that you’re a hopelessly extreme social conservative. We don’t need you.

  40. Maybe, just maybe the REAL problem is government is not the answer to every/most problems. Even the libertarians support government intrusion into our daily lives,e.g. trans rights.
    Screw them and the libs and the neocons. I will believe, say and do what I want short of something sending me to prison.
    Hillary lyin eyes Clinton
    Donald your so vain Trump
    Gary feeling groovy Johnson
    That’s the best the US can do?
    No thanks to all of them.

    1. Even the libertarians support government intrusion into our daily lives,e.g. trans rights.

      Umm, how does that intrude into your daily life?

      I will believe, say and do what I want short of something sending me to prison.

      Which may be WHY you want government to impose your bigotry by force,.

      No thanks to all of them.

      You’d have been happier with the Third Reich. And since you represent MAYBE 3% of the voters … nobody needs you, nobody at all.

      Have a good life,

  41. There are two things in this whole comments section that I find absolutely amazing

    1) The belief that any novel and disagreeable position Gary Johnson has for any given person (such as open borders) would ever become law given the congress we have and will continue to have AND ignoring the fact that Gary Johnson WOULD be a significant roadblock to many disagreeable positions congress has, exactly the same way Trump and Hillary would not. And

    2) Our next president will either be Hillary, Trump or Johnson. Of those three choices, which many clearly consider all poor, which is the least poor? Hint: Trump and Hillary are god-awful.

  42. I’m a conservative ex-Republican since the convention. I actually went to the LP’s site and they had a little checkbox asking me to certify that I opposed the use of force for political or social goals. Thought about it, realized that I couldn’t accept that as a core doctrine, so I’m an independent.

    But I’m voting for Johnson, no question about it.

    Partly, I’m less concerned about the politics of a president than his ability. Romney, for instance, seemed like a competent executive, so does Johnson. And both of them are more interested in that aspect of the job than in being avatars of their ideology. Contrast Cruz’s answer to everything was to prove that he had checked more conservative boxes than anyone else.

    Being a competent executive is important because it means that I’m actually getting the person I’m voting for. Clinton is mostly run by her advisers, and Cheeto Jesus by whoever tells him he’s pretty. Johnson seems like he’s actually on his game.

    (Rest in reply to myself.)

    1. Bush was, contrary to media portrayal, very much in charge. While neoconservatives made the case to go into Iraq, he made the call and stuck to it despite withering criticism. At the same time, he made good calls like deciding not to inflame violence against Muslims, and he also went through with the surge, again in the face of withering criticism.

      It’s also not so important to me to vote for a President who matches my ideology because Congress writes laws, and as an ideologue, my long term agenda is best realized through Congress.

      In a president, I look at my short run agenda, which is mostly that leviathan cut the narrowest swath of destruction possible. Under Bush, the government grew too much, but at least he had a functioning tax policy. Even the fucking security theater and “don’t let the terrorists win” helped people psychologically get on with their lives after a serious trauma. Human dignity matters, and it matters in the short run. (Credit where it’s due, Clinton was better still in this regard.)

    2. That’s where Obama has failed. He’s set race relations back 10 years to the point where black people believe that cops want to kill them. And he’s failed to lead Congress, and the impasse has lead to a pitiful recovery and malaise and shattered dreams for millions of Americans. That the shutdowns stalled growth in government is a silver lining, but not much of one. And the ACA did try to address real problems but was horribly corrupted because Obama was too busy campaigning and let Congress run amok.

      And my serious disagreements with Johnson have less practical impact. Our abortion laws are so extreme that it’s impossible to make them worse short of legalizing infanticide. And while I was saddened to see Iraq fall after having fought there and it was evil of us to abandon them, what’s done is done. The power vacuum has filled so we’re not putting that genie back in the bottle.

      Regarding immigration, Johnson is at least principled. That’s rare in debate so dishonest that even though “I will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” is our century’s “I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn,” CJ is pretty much middle of the pack in terms of fuckery.

    3. Good points. I haven’t seen that in years, that the President runs the executive branch and referees Congress.
      Not sure I agree in general. But a referee sure makes sense for THIS election.

  43. If Ron Paul had shown up at Woodstock, he’d have been ridiculed and likely driven away.
    It was a revolt against all authority, including the statist authority that he worships,

  44. Molly . I can see what your saying… Samuel `s c0mment is unimaginable… last monday I got a great new Infiniti after bringing in $6142 this past month and-also, $10k lass month . without a question it is the most comfortable work I’ve had . I began this 5 months ago and straight away began to make over $81 p/h

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  45. I’m not a “NeverTrump conservative” or a Republican — in fact, I’m an LP office-holder — and this is the first year I won’t be voting LP at the top of the ticket.

    Bill Weld is way more than a “know-nothing” on Second Amendment issues — he’s an active antagonist. Do you recall that law that the Massachusetts AG “reinterpreted” just a few weeks ago to ban all ugly black rifles (and possibly some common SA handguns as well)? Well, Bill Weld didn’t just sign that law, he championed it. He ran for office as a friend of the gun owner, then turned on those who voted him in and stabbed them in the back, for no apparent reason other than to drum up support from the opposite side of the aisle (which he never got after all). I was personally affected by this action, although I loyally and futilely voted for his LP opponent in the election, and told him flat out that I would never cast a vote for him again.

    You’ve really got to be stupid to fall for the same trick twice. And the fact that Johnson wanted Weld so badly queers that deal for me, too.

    So why should I vote for this ticket? Please tell me — I’m dying to see a libertarian outlet fall back on the “lesser of three evils” argument.

    1. Bill Weld is way more than a “know-nothing” on Second Amendment issues — he’s an active antagonist

      You are seriously confused regarding the entire concept of unalienable rights.

      I’m dying to see a libertarian outlet fall back on the “lesser of three evils” argument.

      You can’t die soon enough for any real champions of liberty.
      You can be an officeholder, but nobody can seek the same thing?

  46. Christopher . if you, thought Maria `s postlng is astonishing… on thursday I got a gorgeous Honda NSX from having made $8819 this-past/5 weeks and-more than, $10 thousand this past munth . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I started this 8-months ago and pretty much immediately startad bringin home at least $78.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  47. Weld’s position on firearms is sooo anti-Libertarian (GOVERNMENT knows best) that his selection as running mate calls Gary Johnson’s JUDGMENT into serious question. Surely, Gary could have done better if he REALLY cared about Liberty. But Johndon didn’t so Trump will get my vote.

  48. ABC- Anyone But Clinton

    Sadly, Johnson is not the best anti-Hillary candidate so I am left with Trump 2016.

    This is about principle. The ABC principle.

  49. How about a counterpoint from actual conservatives?
    http://www.dailywire.com/news/…..on-bandler

  50. Reason has become a joke, if there was ever a time when it wasn’t. The Libertarians are just gutless liberals — liberals who are too embarrassed to own their big government leftism and need to couch their juvenile politics in
    some fairy-tale version party politics which feigns “reason”.

    How about “The Clownish Pot-Smokers Who Pretend to be Fiscally Responsible Party”?

    That work for you?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.