Election 2016

Powerful: GOP Congressman Scott Rigell Video Endorsement of Libertarian Gary Johnson

"There's a different way....We can change things. We can change the system."

|

That's Scott Rigell, a Republican congressman from Virginia who broke party ranks to endorse Libertrian presidential nominee and former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson back in August. The mere fact of partisans such as Rigell splitting their votes is important, of course—it's a bold, even courageous example, and a necessary one for an era in which voter identification with the major parties is going down like the Titanic:

Gallup

.

But Rigell's specific argument in the video is also important. In less than two minutes, he stresses that nobody has to accept the two unacceptable major-party candidates or the awful platforms they are espousing (protectionism, statism, overseas interventions, increases in the size, scope, and spending of government). There's a different way says Rigell. "We don't just have two choices. We have a third choice, a better choice….We can change things. We can change the system."

Public Affairs

Among the many ways "we can change the system" is by evacuating the duopoly in politics the same way that we've evacuated false binaries and harshly limited choices in all other aspects of our lives. We no longer allow, for instance, our options in automobilies to be dictated by the Big Three automakers and we're better off for it. On more important levels, we no longer our cultural choices to be forced on us by the three or four TV networks or a handful of book publishers, record labels, and film studios. When it comes to our most lifestyle choices and identities, we no longer submit to dualistic categories such as black/white, male/female, gay/straight as the only way—or even a particularly meaningful way—to structure our world.

As Matt Welch and I argued in The Declaration of Independents, politics is a lagging indicator of where America is headed and always the last institution to change its ways. What we have been witnessing throughout 2016 is a damn-near perfect illustration of our thesis that the same sort of proliferation in choice and increasingly individualized options in our work, cultural, and social lives is coming to politics. Characters such as Scott Rigell are in the vanguard of that movement, if only because he dares to speak as a Republican what we all know to be true: The established parties can't even represent their own members any more. We need more, better choices in politics just as we needed them in cars and we'll get them sooner or later.

And it's important to note that the push for more and better choices isn't simply limited to the historically string response to Gary Johnson this time around. The Bernie Sanders insurgency suggests that many in the Democratic Party feel cheated by that party's current iteration, as does a continuing lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. That Trump won the GOP nomination is evidence of the same and so does relatively strong showing by late-to-the-race independent Evan McMullin and stronger-than-expected polling by Green Party nom Jill Stein. Something is happening here that is actually different than in the past, even though the winner of the 2016 election will be from a party founded before the U.S. Civil War.

Former political consultant (he worked with both parties) and current ABC News analyst Matthew Dowd is framing a similar scenario to the one in The Dec. of Ind.:

It is time we reject the messaging from the two major parties, and make choices in our own hearts that help bring the country together. If you don't feel good about either major party choice, then don't be shoved into choosing between what they describe as "the lesser of two evils."

Make an independent and innovative choice that may not win this year, but over time will be successful in reuniting us as a country. We need independents to take back our country and unite us. It is only a binary choice if we listen to the duopoly.

More on that here.

If the 20th century was in many, necessary ways a "binary century," the 21st is something altogether different but it won't be called into existence without the independent actions of individuals refusing to conform to pre-existing categories that stultify and squelch what we actually want out of life. We didn't stand for it in our personal lives, our economic lives, our cultural lives—and now we are refusing to take it in our political lives.

Advertisement

NEXT: Guitar Globalization

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. I’m sure I’m not the first to figure this out. But what Nick and most of the Reason staff are trying to do here is get Trump elected by getting libertarians to vote for Johnson. The polls have clearly shown that when Johnson is around 10%, Trump has a small lead over Clinton in the swing states. If Johnson can get to 12%, Trump will win. Same with all the over the top Trump bash articles and very little coverage of Hillary. That’s clearly intended to get more votes for Johnson or Trump. You guys are so clever, but you had to know we were going to figure it out.

    1. So much for the theory that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Kang and not Kodos.

      1. “Go ahead, throw your vote away!”

        1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http;//www.ImdbCash.TK

        2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http://www.ImdbCash.TK

        3. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http://www.ImdbCash.TK

        4. Now see what you’ve done, you’ve caused a triple spawn of internet whore SophieDaniels.

          1. What’s wrong with internet whores?

            1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $90 per hour.
              I work through this web site.. Go to tech tab start your work… http://www.Trends88.Com

            2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $90 per hour.
              I work through this web site.. Go to tech tab start your work… http://www.Trends88.Com

            3. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $90 per hour.
              I work through this web site.. Go to tech tab start your work… http://www.Trends88.Com

          2. I blame you, Hyperion.

            Because I’m a dick. But there it is.

      2. Like Kang and Kodos, Scott Rigell speaks Rigellian, which coincidentally sounds exactly like English. Nevertheless, most people will not understand what he is trying to say.

    2. I figured Nick writes everything does in service of shilling his books.

  2. OT (It’s Sunday): Recollections from a Hungarian who fled the aftermath of the Hungarian Revolution

    Both mother and son held their breath. Concealed in a hay wagon, the pair had been warned to sit close to the surface in case soldiers thrust swords into the bottom of the stack checking for fleeing residents.
    Today, the journey between Hungary’s capital of Budapest and the city of Linz in Austria is only a four-hour drive. But in 1956, it was along this treacherous route that Hungarian Janos Antal Peter fled as a doomed revolution was quashed at home.

    Back in Hungary, what started as a student march through the capital October 23 had become a fully-fledged uprising against Communist rule and Soviet suppression. Sunday marks the 60th anniversary of the start of the ill-fated revolution.

    1. Not sure of all of the details, but my dad who was a paratropper in the army, was on a plane headed there to support the revolution but the mission was cancelled at the last moment. Maybe I wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t been cancelled. Hell, maybe none of us would.

      1. My dad was the Marine lieutenant assigned to the first helicopter scheduled to land in Cuba during the missile crisis. That didn’t happen either or I may not have been here.

        1. Kind of freaky to think about.

    2. *pours a little out for Frank Wisner*

  3. Tepid. That is the word that comes to mind for me.

    Tepid candidate. Tepid campaign. Tepid endorsements. Tepid on libertarianism. Everything about Gary is just tepid.

    1. Look, the plan was quit weed and tag a milquetoast east coast RINO for running mate. It was the perfect plan, and It would have worked, but you damned wreckers and kulaks.

    2. Re: Suthenboy,

      Tepid. That is the word that comes to mind for me.

      “That’s what your wife told her therapist!”

      Ba-rum bum! Psh!

      1. No, she said “trepid.” “Suthenboy’s penis is quite trepid.”

    3. Gary is the lukewarm water between Trump’s fire and Hillary’s ice.
      I’ll take tepid over those other two

      1. Yep. Mediocre beats psychotic.

  4. Not quite so OT: CNN.com’s Travel section has advice on places to go to get away from the election

    The presidential campaign is in its final stretch, and regardless of your political leanings we all can agree that is good news.
    The bad news? The onslaught of campaign ads, partisan bombast and political rants by your Facebook “friends” are not likely to quiet before November 8.

    If Election Day feels so close, yet so far away, it’s time to escape — mentally, at the very least — to wide-open places where solitude is easily achieved.

    I think the part I bolded speaks for itself.

    1. I’m planning on a drunken stupor. So,I’ve got going for me. Who’s in?

      1. Am I in? You have some catching up to do.

  5. Man loses full magazine in strip club, claims he thought it was a sex toy

    Staff at Teasers, 218 Duval St., called police early Thursday morning after a dancer found the loaded magazine on the club’s floor and brought it to another employee who asked Putnam if it was his. Meanwhile, a bouncer spotted part of a handgun in Putnam’s pocket as the tourist sat near the service bar.

    “Putnam was not sure how the magazine ended up on the ground,” Officers Jesse Hammers wrote in his report.

    Putnam responded by saying he thought it was a sex toy and later told police he really didn’t know what it was at first. He was at Teasers with his girlfriend, the brother and another woman.

    1. Man loses full magazine in strip club

      Happens all the time. Nothing to be ashamed about.

      1. “The Forbidden Book Of Euphemisms”

  6. Given the IRS targeting for politics, churches targeted, and global warming witch hunts, combined with Hillary’s corruption I think we will likely see a more top down effort at voter fraud.

    Thus far it looks mostly like localized efforts to sway regions but I don’t think we’re far from tin pot dictatorship. I would suspect anyone running against Hillary for reelection will find themselves in a cage.

    1. “will find themselves in a cage”

      Or at the bottom of the Potomac. Or maybe just shot in the back in broad daylight.

  7. I was thinking the other day about how bad the country would need to be divided for a civil war. One thing that I started thinking was that there is no “resistance” to join.

    If there was a legitimate resistance with arms I think you would see many people join it. I think the Republic was always supposed to have that balancing by the states but they are mostly just lordships of the Federal power now.

    The only division necessary is a secession by one state. It’s more likely to divide the country 50-50 than 49-1 IMO.

    1. The benefits have to outweigh the cost which they don’t to most people.

  8. I want to see the unedited version of this video or I’m not buying it.

    1. Did James O’Keefe shoot this?

      1. All edited videos are lies. That’s the story some are going with. It’s a sort of cognitive dissonance break. This does not compute with my worldview, therefore it must be fake no matter how stupid the justification.

        In this case people see and hear things with their own ears and eyes, and they figure their own eyes and ears are not to be trusted.

  9. One of the interesting things from that graph is the percentage of people who self-identify as Democrat. It went from a high of around 37% in 2008, when Obama was elected, and has dropped down to 29% over the course of Obama’s presidency.

    I’m gonna be so bold as to suggest that this in part represents progressives chasing the white, blue collar, middle class out of the Democratic Party. People who have become politically aware since 2008 may have come to imagine that politics was always a game of setting one identity group against another with questions of who’s the racist, who’s the sexist, who hates immigrants, etc.

    But this isn’t the norm. If Hillary gets reelected, it’ll be because she abandoned all that. Even the Chinese Communist Party had to crack down on student activists eventually–and that wasn’t even in a democracy. The problem with social justice warriors is that they always run out of other people to hate.

  10. We have a Hihnfection and a Richman article.

    This weekend has something for everyone.

    1. Yeah, next I guess we all get scabies.

    2. A number of trolls typically show up Sundays to shit all over the threads.

      1. Yeah, Tulpa at this point would make it a trifecta.

          1. A bunch of non-Trump supporters just wanted to spend their Sunday complaining about Reason not supporting Trump in a nice echo chamber, then he had to go and do that.

            This is why we can’t have nice things.

      2. A number of trolls show up every day. We refer to them as ‘Reason writers’.

        1. They’ll go full on Hillary bashing after the election. They won’t have much choice as Donald the Hitler will be gone and the illegal, corrupt, liberty and economy killing stuff she’ll do will give them no choice.

          I’ll be around to ask them to tell us again how Trump could possibly be worse.

          1. There aren’t many ways in which he’d be worse, but even fewer ways in which he’d be better.

            1. Oh God, now we have scabies.

              1. Your lack of bedding hygiene is hardly my fault.

                1. That’s what all the blood sucking parasites say.

          2. And I will remind them every day how much they helped her win this election. Seriously, how can any journalist not go into full attack mode against any pol that says certain media outlets don’t have a right to exist and vows to crush them? Self professed libertarians essentially giving a pass to a political party that firebombs opponents offices and has high ranking members that make physical threats?

            A guy comes along who threatens to upset the corrupt, incompetent existing order they claim to despise and that is who they turn their guns on? I would say they are closet progs but I don’t think they are that far in the closet.

            1. And I will remind them every day how much they helped her win this election.

              LOL. You mean “not at all”?

              If you want to castigate the people who got Hillary elected, start with the people who got Trump nominated as her opposition. I’m guessing that will involve a mirror.

              1. Go back over the last six months worth of my comments and get back to me.

                1. And this is the part of the thread where everybody defending Trump claims not to be a Trump supporter….

            2. Now that I think about it I have been pointing out since 2007 what a piece of shit Obumbles is and that it was right in front of everyones nose all along. Fat lot of good that has done.

              If Hillary wins there will be endless cries of ‘we didn’t know!’ , ‘such disappointment’, etc etc.

            3. Seriously, how can any journalist not go into full attack mode against any pol that says certain media outlets don’t have a right to exist and vows to crush them?

              Because they think the snake won’t whip around and bite them, just the fake media (unaccredited media, bloggers, wrong political ideology, non-attenders of the cocktail parties).

          3. Something tells me (not necessarily at Reason, but probably everywhere else) the election won’t change much. The threat of Trump may no longer be imminent, but lefties will spin it into an ever looming, ominous and no less threatening presence against which they must be eternally vigilant. Trump may have ratcheted up the rhetoric (both of the media and of annoying facebook friends) but there will be no ratcheting down. Case in point: did progs stop complaining about Bush after the 2008 election?

            1. Sure, that’s nothing new, there’s always a right-wing boogeyman to blame for why big government isn’t working. Under Clinton, the president was powerless to save the world due to the interference of vast right-wing conspiracies. Under Bush, the president was now all-powerful to break the entire world economy with his seemingly contradictory combo of evil genius and first-grade intellect. Under Obama, the president was powerless to save the world due to the legacy of Bush. When it got to year 6 without Bush and that started sounding silly, then Evil Obstructionists were elevated to lead villain. The Specter of Racist HitlerTrump will no doubt seriously interfere with Clinton’s ability to save the world even if not a single Trump-minded individual actually holds office in 2017.

        2. I think it’s just Robby, ENB, and Dalmia.

          Two of them troll us on purpose. The other one couldn’t tell you the difference between a libertarian argument and a non-libertarian if his job depended on it.

          I say two of them troll us on purpose, what I mean is that they seem to write as if they’re against mainstream libertarians because they disagree with them.

          You can even be a libertarian feminist and write great stuff. You can even write stuff that we disagree with and it comes across as interesting and compelling. Cathy Young and Kerry Howley were both feminists, and I didn’t agree with them often. But I enjoyed reading their stuff.

          They didn’t treat us like the enemy.

          Hell, Christopher Hitchens was an unreformed Trotskyist. Most readers at Reason found his work interesting and compelling anyway. But the whole purpose of his pieces wasn’t to drop a turd in the libertarian punchbowl. I’m not sure Dalmia would consider herself libertarian if she weren’t attached to this publication. My sense is that ENB would not describe herself as libertarian if it weren’t for being attached to this publication.

          1. It’s more than just those three. After the Okeefe videos hit reason was silent until Gillespie had an article about how elections could never be rigged (trust your government is a libertarian position now).

            It’s one thing to ignore, another to play interference.

            1. I’ll take Matt’s response to that in the Fifth Column as honest and legitimate. They don’t want to pour through this stuff for hours and be wrong and they don’t want to take the time to go through the stuff.

              According to that Fifth Column broadcast, journalists who rely on O’Keefe for reliable information have reason to fear being duped. I’ve found statements like this, elsewhere:

              “But if O’Keefe’s previous efforts to infiltrate and expose his foes such as ACORN and NPR are to offer a hint, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. O’Keefe has previously spliced videos together to imply its subjects were saying things they were not.”

              http://time.com/4536212/james-…..democrats/

              I think that’s a legitimate explanation for why independently minded journalists might be reluctant to write on that topic.

              Why does ENB, then, write a story up about a porn star that does bukkake and gang bang videos accusing Trump of condoning sexual assault and behavior that’s degrading to women?

              My explanation is that ENB isn’t an independently minded journalist like Matt. She’s shilling.

              I don’t see how that reflects on Matt or Gillespie or Sullum or Doherty or Cathy Young or Bailey, Walker or . . .

              Blame ENB for what ENB writes on this blog. Reason staff have always disagreed with each other on various issues. I can think of three staff writers who supported the Iraq War even while Gillespie and others were against it. Free minds.

              1. O’Keefe might edit his videos to better fit the narrative he is pushing.

                Which means that he’s just a run of the mill journalist. Has everyone forgotten the way that “respectable” new organizations edited the 911 call made by Zimmerman to make him appear a racist, or how they edited video to obscure evidence of any injuries. Which was then picked up and rebroadcast by the full bore of the media, including reason,

                Were those respectable organizations, burned or embarrassed? Of course not, because they agreed with the narrative.

                1. “O’Keefe has previously spliced videos together to imply its subjects were saying things they were not.”

                  That accusation is going a little deeper than what you’re letting on.

                  Did you listen to the podcast?

                  You may disagree with Matt, but he wasn’t ignoring the subject because he loves Hillary.

                  He wasn’t even actively ignoring the subject. He talked about it in the podcast.

                  And he doesn’t love Hillary.

        3. What’s the difference between an ENB and a Kerry Howley?

          I doubt Howley considers herself libertarian anymore. Howley is an excellent writer, but Howley wasn’t out to stick it to libertarians.

          Some of them give off that Weigel vibe. Howley didn’t. We always suspected that Weigel despised us. Once he left, we found out that he thought we were rat-fuckers and we should set ourselves on fire, but we sensed that from the beginning.

          I suspect some writers come here thinking that honest people can’t really believe in freedom of association, that there might be libertarian arguments for keeping Syrian refugees out of the country, etc. They don’t believe that honest people want to get rid of welfare, privatize the schools, end social security, end Medicare and Medicaid, balance the budget, and eliminate the income tax. They can’t believe that people believe in free association for Christians, etc.

          And then they come here and see it, and their minds just can’t deal with it–so they come to see us as the enemy. They write as if we’re some minority within libertarianism that needs to be marginalized–so they can allow themselves to be libertarian. And as they come to realize that those positions are actually mainstream in libertairanism, they start to resent us–like for reals. And it shows.

          1. There aren’t many real libertarians pursuing a career in journalism.

          2. Most Reason writers seem to base every position on one issue: immigration. When it comes to immigration they are as unhinged as Cytotoxic. A person can be pro-immigration without being full on open borders fanatic. They don’t seem to see it that way. They would throw away every possible victory for liberty in every realm for that one issue. That is why they are going after Trump they way they are. He could walk on water and heal the sick and it would make no difference. Not being a full on open borders advocate makes him the devil. Clinton could turn the country into a giant prison and she would get a pass because refugees widows and orphans.

            I think they want her to win but she is such an awful authoritarian that they won’t admit it.

            1. I think they’re the same way with most identity issues.

              You could say the same thing about Christians and free association.

              I certainly wouldn’t throw Robby and ENB in the same boat with Doherty and Sullum.

              It’s not the same thing.

              1. You are right, there are some good ones but their ranks are thin. I just have bug up my ass lately because of the wildly one sided coverage of this election.

                1. I suspect ENB and Robby are given more free reign because they’re new to journalism and don’t cost much.

            2. The Reason writers, by and large, ignore the ridiculously large and ever-expanding welfare state when discussing immigration. I’d wager that most people that support Trump (and most libertarians that aren’t absolutely open-borders) would support an extremely open-borders policy if it was coupled with a total dismantling of the welfare system.

              They ignore it deliberately because they know it will cost them FB friends and party invites from their media brethren who see their immigration position as the only redeemable part of libertarianism.

              1. You are correct. I would be a lot more immigration friendly in the absence of the welfare state as would many. In fact I might even be considered an immigration fanatic given the very different kinds of people that would be drawn here.

                1. Yeah, the more people are forced to pay for each other, the more picky they are about who whom they’re paying for.

                  That’s why socialist countries are some of the hardest to immigrate to. Asylum seekers are a different class altogether, but try emigrating through normal channels.

            3. I suspect choice of emphasis and degrees of purism are primarily just a means to justify ‘Othering’ people one doesn’t want to put oneself in the same boat with. Making open borders or acceptance of refugees *the* issue justifies a contrived revulsion, which allows them to feel more like the people they would like to be associated with: hip, enlightened urban. Hence why, say, support for affirmative action or higher taxes or free college are taken to be “we can disagree but still be friends” type issues by someone who regards, say, immigration or abortion as “with us or against us” issues.

              And personally, I think immigration should be much looser than it is, and think Muslim immigrants in net are beneficial to the population of the US and trying to ban them from entering is thoroughly idiotic. I’d say anyone who seems willing to get a job and follow the law should be let in if not positively invited. So while I think anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment is pretty stupid, I think almost everyone is an idiot on at least 2 or 3 or 7 important issues. It’s unavoidable. And of minor concern. Except for me of course. I’m the one person who’s right about everything.

          3. What’s the difference between an ENB and a Kerry Howley?

            I have an answer to that, however its half based in chauvinistic objectification and therefore not cool.

            The other half you already said.

            1. Would would

            2. Kerry wrote so well, it would have been a shame if she’d devoted herself to broadcasting.

              But she was great on television.

              1. I think it has always been perfectly OK to have “non-libertarians” as writers/contributors to Reason. Anyone can provide useful policy analysis, and serve the editorial mandate of the publication. You don’t have to be some adherent to orthodoxy to fit in. It is a ‘big tent’, and perspectives from both liberals and conservatives can be valuable for certain issues/policies, etc.

                the thing with Robby/ENB is that they seem to actually reject the libertarian rationale behind positions they ostensibly take.

                e.g. Robby can’t seem to talk about Free Speech without justifying it on the basis of “eliminating undesirable views”… as though pluralism is the enemy, rather than a status-quo

                …and ENB seems to have inherent problems with the concept of Free Association that make the whole “pro-sex-work” but “anti-discrimination” positions run into awkward-contradictions.

                Basically, they don’t actually advance libertarian arguments for libertarian policy-positions. They come up with these prog-friendly rationales, as though the important thing is that we get people to agree on the headline-issue, and not the underlying reasons why.

                the futility of that sort of thing should be self-evident. e.g. Drug “Legalization” that simply expands the the ability of police to regulate people’s behavior is an example of the double-edged sword of “policy sans principle”

                1. I saw the link last night to the ENB full blown frontal assault of freedom of association. Pretty bad stuff.

                2. They come up with these prog-friendly rationales, as though the important thing is that we get people to agree on the headline-issue, and not the underlying reasons why.

                  If you’re demanding that everybody be convinced to subscribe to the NAP before we have any pro-liberty policies, you’re going to be waiting forever.

                  The socialists got their preferred policies enacted in the first half of this century without convincing hardly anyone in the US of the truth of socialism. Learn from your enemy’s victories.

                3. “the thing with Robby/ENB is that they seem to actually reject the libertarian rationale behind positions they ostensibly take.

                  It isn’t just rejection, it’s condescension, as if everyone who disagrees is a misogynist, etc.

                  One of Robby’s ostensibly pro-free speech posts was about a guy who supposedly wasn’t engaging in free speech–he was engaging in provocative speech, and that’s unacceptable!

                  I can’t tell you how many Robby articles I’ve read, where, in the end, you’re not sure whether you’re supposed to be against Title IX or against the school for not using Title IX to infringe on everyone’s rights equally. Meanwhile, like I said, hovering over all of it is condescension over presumed sexual predators, racists, and others who can’t see through and untie the murky gordian knots Robby’s tying.

                  Ditto with ENB. Somehow if you don’t take the word of a porn star that makes gang bang videos when the porn star says that Donald Trump is demeaning to women, it means you’re disgusting.

                  You know who I blame for all this?

                  Gillespie.

                  Gillespie, Cavanaugh, Welch, Sanchez, Sullum, Bailey, Walker, Howley, and others.

                  They made a site that has been so consistently awesome for so long, I genuinely care about it.

                  How dare they!

                  1. I can’t tell you how many Robby articles I’ve read, where, in the end, you’re not sure whether you’re supposed to be against Title IX or against the school for not using Title IX to infringe on everyone’s rights equally.

                    Yeah. You’d think after the 100s of articles he’s written (*to be fair; copy-pasted) about Title IX travesties, he’d get around to suggesting it should be repealed. Instead he writes what amounts to apologetics for its excesses, and nothing more than a pathetic appeal that the social-justice-jihadists try to consider kinder, gentler tactics.

                    even as criticism, its useless. what the mag needs is someone who can connect the dots and explain why the Feds should get the hell out of “Policing Equality” in higher education. You can’t move the Overton window until you plant a flag in the place no one else is willing to go.

                4. Yeah that’s pretty troubling.

                  I would say I’m pretty accommodating (pun intended) on the issue. Being a pragmatist, I think anti-discrimination laws would be justifiable if the results were unbearable: i.e., a starving black family can’t find anyone in the whole state who is willing to feed them. If hatred of a group of people were so ubiquitous that it made life in essentially impossible, the matter may be discussed, essentially as an emergency measure.

                  But in so far as such circumstances have ever existed, they don’t exist today. There is not ‘desperate times, desperate measures’ justification for such laws because a vanishingly small fraction of providers of a nonessential good does not want to serve a small fraction of the population a particular kind of good or service.

                  I’d like to know if ENB thinks Curves should be allowed to discriminate against men, incidentally. For some reason I suspect she thinks so.

  11. Thank god the LP chose the candidate with the charisma of a wet dish towel this time.

    1. No one even knows who he is anyway. It truly is a 2 party system. Every single person who has brought the election up to me (I never start that conversation), when I mention Johnson, they’re like ‘Who?’. I always say that if I were going to vote, it would be for Johnson, but then say I’m not voting this time. And I always say that Hillary is worse than Trump because what should be more important to me, Trump saying mean or stupid shit, or Hillary starting more wars and turning DC into more of a den of corruption than it already is. It’s amazing that they just zip right past that point and say something like ‘But did you hear what Trump said about women?’. And then there are the millennials who will say something like ‘But who doesn’t want free college?’. And then I ask ‘You didn’t learn your lesson with the ‘free health care? Do yo have that?’. That one gets deer in the headlights followed by confused smirk. The majority of the general public are just plain dumb and they are getting dumber by the day. That’s how we got where we are now. There’s no way back, there’s no libertarian moment, and there’s not one coming out of this mess.

      1. People know who he is this time around. He’s the guy who doesn’t know what Aleppo is and can’t name a foreign head of state, and exemplifies the unseriousness of those wacky libertarians.

        Great job watering down (and in some cases, contradicting) the philosophy so you could get some media coverage, LP! Now libertarianism’s rep is even worse than before.

        1. I’m sure my cat doesn’t know where Aleppo is either, but I’d rather she was president than fucking Hillary.

          1. Your cat is fucking Hillary? Poor cat.

  12. Rigell endorsed Johnson back in August, actually. Which was a safe decision considering he’s not running for reelection.

    1. Yeah, isn’t it funny how you have ‘former’ DEA agents saying that the drug war should be ended, you have ‘former’ military officers saying that our foreign policy in the middle east is a failure and should be abandoned. You have ‘former’ cops saying that we need police reform. But yet none of these assholes will say anything when they’re part of the problem.

  13. “Change the system.”

    That sentiment kind of rubs me the wrong way. Any system is going to be dysfunctional if you have crap people in positions of responsibility.

    1. In the famous words of one Barack Obama, ‘You can’t change Washington DC from the inside’.

    2. Also, when you have stupid voters as a majority, you’re pretty much fucked. So we’re quite well fucked.

      1. Stupid indeed. My father had a bumper sticker printed up. It took him three shops before he could find one that would print it:

        “Vote for Hillary because she is a woman
        just like you voted for Obama because he is a….”

        I am sure if he actually put it on his car it would be vandalized in less than one day.

        1. Obama does do a lot of nagging.

  14. I know nick has a compulsion to try and use whatever terms are du-jour with internet kiddies; but “Powerful” fell into joke-territory years ago. Last i checked it was most commonly used to mock cheap social-justice enthusiasm. a la, “Colin Keapernicks Socks #sopowerful”

    IOW, the way people read it is more often as a backhand-diss. Think “Like OMG Totally Awesome Fer Sure” in the 1980s.

    I think it was around the time that Joe Rogan’s podcast was renamed ‘Powerful JRE’ that it could no longer be used sincerely. He explains here

    1. “Powerful” has been used with that meaning for decades, by people who have large vocabularies, not by kiddies. What’s your beef?

      1. Sorry, not playing. Find someone else.

        1. Attack somebody for their choice of words, then take your ball and go home when challenged? Is that your way?

          1. Waaaaah!
            Pay attention to me!!!

            1. It’s wiser to run away than to get involved in something you’re not good enough to win.

              I don’t disagree with the strategy, but man is it sad.

              1. you act as though we haven’t been through your bullshit a million times before.

                get a life

    2. Wait, you mean that Nick might be out-of-touch with the youths of today? I’m sure they’re into Bob Dylan, 90s sitcoms and libertarian moments.

      1. I think his breakdancing-grampa routine is actually sort of endearing.

        1. I really wish someone could dig up his old Teen Machine advice columns that he ghost wrote for Alyssa Milano.

    3. See, what we need is a writer who who gives so few fucks that he still uses words like ‘thereabouts’ and ‘hitherto’ and ‘forthwith.’ Fuck millenials.

  15. It’s funny. Back in 2012 I was accused of being a Rockafeller Republican for arguing in favor of voting Romney against Obama as a lesser evil. I was accosted for wondering aloud why Reason writers tried to be “evenhanded” by nitpicking Romney’s few past unlibertarian policies and portraying them as equal to Obama’s rank statism as president.

    Yet now, when the GOP candidate is so unlibertarian as to make Romney look like Murray Rothbard, NOW you all decide it’s time to go for the lesser evil, even though this time there really isn’t much difference between the two major candidates. I don’t get it.

    Is it just that you’re losers in life, who only came to libertarianism because you like the idea of upsetting the apple cart and starting over? That’s the vibe I’m getting from some of these comments like Hyperion’s above about how we should support Trump because he’ll topple the status quo. Even if you believe he will, which I don’t, most ways of toppling the status quo will actually make things worse.

    1. Sounds like something Trump would grab on to.

    2. Interesting passage in a linked article:

      “That’s what motivated me to start asking to see the actual evidence about climate change. When I did so I could not find one piece of data ? as opposed to a model ? that shows either unprecedented change or change is that is anywhere close to causing real harm.”

      http://www.//fee.org/articles/against…..lar_widget

        1. I was too lazy to write the html.

  16. What makes this powerful? A former used car dealer backs Johnson?
    And he isn’t running in 2016?
    With such a powerful endorsement just cancel the election, Johnson already has it all locked thanks to this guy.

  17. If you didn’t know, now you know.

    9 lbs of USDA Choice short ribs from Costco coming out of the oven soon.

    1. I did short ribs on the pit last night, glazed them with muscadine/habenero sauce. I also did a pot of black beans in chicken stock, onion, garlic, and half a pound of neck bones.

      Christ that was good.

      1. I don’t normally think of short ribs as a BBQ cut, but there’s a place in the desert that hickory smokes them for 18 hours.

        As good as any BBQ I’ve ever had. http://babesbbqandbrewhouse.com/menu.php

        1. That was the first time I have done them on the pit. I was not disappointed.

        2. That’s airport pricing.

          1. It’s in a resort town. It gets a lot more expensive in that area.

            1. Large BBQ dinner: $6.42

              $10 even with tax+tea+tip

              70 y/o no website

              http://www.ncbbqsociety.com/tr…..large.html

    2. I only hope it’s grass-fed beef.

      1. You’re confusing me with some other asshole. A guy who uses steak sauce.

  18. A heartwarming tale of migrant undocumented labor being used for political purposes

    Unable to vote in the presidential election, a group of undocumented immigrants is knocking on doors in Northern Virginia in support of Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates, convinced that the outcome of the vote will determine whether they can secure a path to citizenship in the country they have known since childhood.

    The piece simply asserts that these people “don’t have a path to legal status” but that’s not actually true. Any of them could get a job which sponsors them, they can apply for visa at any time, etc. The idea that (quote) “”The only way to resolve this is through the election,” is ridiculous.

    Never mind that the people they seem to consider their saviours, aren’t

  19. Any of them could get a job which sponsors them, they can apply for visa at any time, etc.

    That would be hard, and/or cost money, you heartless monster.

    Hillary will wave her magic scepter and legitimate them.

  20. Something i used to think i knew a bit about

    Nastiest Sex-Action in Classic Literature

    My picks would have been:

    – Proust *(swann takes prostitutes face-down-ass-up and badmouths them while doing so = Powerful Pimpness)
    – DH Lawrence (*Connie discovers she prefers it in the butt)
    – Joyce (*Dubliners includes a story where an old man wacks off in front of young boys. It counts!)
    – Celine (*can’t remember specifics but i’m pretty sure he had a thing for toothless prostitutes in “journey to the end of the night”)
    – Petronius (*if you’re into the gay thing, Satyricon ranges from perfunctory handjobs to cross-generational gang-bangs)

    1. Pertronius has them all beat. I believe I recall some weird scene there an old man is having sex with a young girl while being propped up by a young boy or something.

      Those Romans could school even DH Lawrence.

  21. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  22. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  23. Nick: I appreciate the infomation in the article, but it isn’t addressing the most salient point: How will the video be used? Is Gov. Johnson or his Super-Pacs going to be airing this ad, with the Congressman’s endorsement in the upcoming days and weeks? If so, will it be aired nationally or locally? Do you think the ad will make a difference, or is it too little too late? Or, was this an ad previously aired. In other words, it’s nice to know there is an endorsement video from a member of congress, but it isn’t helpful unless we know it’s potential impact (or lack thereof). Thanks.

  24. Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

    see……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  25. Nick: I appreciate the infomation in the article, but it isn’t addressing the most salient point: How will the video be used? Is Gov. Johnson or his Super-Pacs going to be airing this ad, with the Congressman’s endorsement in the upcoming days and weeks? If so, will it be aired nationally or locally? Do you think the ad will make a difference, or is it too little too late? Or, was this an ad previously aired. In other words, it’s nice to know there is an endorsement video from a member of congress, but it isn’t helpful unless we know it’s potential impact (or lack thereof). Thanks.
    Kodi APK App

  26. my Aunty Kendall just got a nearly new cream Cadillac ATS Coupe just by some part-time working online with a lap-top
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  27. Well it isn’t that powerful; Rigell is retiring. Would be much more powerful if a Republican (or Democrat) endorsed Johnson that was still going to be in office.

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

    —————– http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  29. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  30. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.