Donald Trump

Should Libertarians Vote for Trump? Nick Gillespie Debates Walter Block on Nov. 1

Live debate at New York City's Soho Forum, will be livestreamed as well.

|

Soho Forum

"Libertarians should vote for Donald Trump in the presidential election."

That's the resolution I'll be debating, Oxford Style, with Loyola (New Orleans) economist Walter Block this Tuesday, November 1, at New York's Soho Forum. The event is moderated by Gene Epstein of Barron's and will be preceded by the libertarian-comedy stylings of Dave Smith, host of the podcast Part of the Problem.

The event is free and open to the public, but RSVP's are a must (see info and details below). For those of you not in the New York area, it will also be livestreamed (details on that here).

I will be defending the negative proposition, which is to say that I'll argue that libertarians should not vote for Trump in the presidential election (do note that my employer, the 501[c]3 nonprofit Reason Foundation does not endorse specific candidates or pieces of legislation; all views expressed are mine and mine alone).

As the author of Defending the Undefendable, Block is well-qualified to argue that libertarians should indeed vote for a billionaire-ish real estate mogul who is never slow to use the power of the state to line his own pockets.

Here's the Soho Forum's writeup of the event (which if I'm not mistaken carries a suggestion that fisticuffs might ensue…)

November 1, 2016

Debate between Walter Block of Loyola University vs. Nick Gillespie of Reason

Resolution: "Libertarians should vote for Donald Trump in the presidential election."

What should Libertarians do this election? Vote for Gary Johnson? Not vote at all? Walter Block will argue that Libertarians should vote for Donald Trump, and Nick Gillespie will argue that they definitely should not.

Ron Paul

Walter Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at Loyola University and an Adjunct Scholar at the Mises Institute. Walter is the author of Defending the Undefendable, which has been translated into ten foreign languages. He has written 22 books, including The Privatization of Roads and Highways and Labor Economics from a Free Market Perspective: Employing the Unemployable. He has published almost 500 articles in scholarly refereed journals. As chief organizer of Libertarians for Trump, he has published the essay (June 4), "Hillary, Bernie, Donald, Gary: A Libertarian Perspective."

Nick Gillespie is editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason TV, the online platforms of Reason, the libertarian magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets." He's co-author, with his Reason colleague Matt Welch, of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America. The Daily Beast, where he now writes a column, named Nick one of "The Right's Top 25 Journalists," calling him "clear-headed, brainy…[and] among the foremost libertarians in America." A typically irreverent moment on the Bill Maher show prompted Mayor Fetterman of Braddock Pennsylvania to propose to Nick that they "take it outside."

RSVP to reserve tickets here.

Back in May, I wrote a piece that lays a simple case summed up by its headline: "Libertarians: Just Say No To Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump." Read it here.

NEXT: How Citizens United Protects a Mezcal Company's Right to Critcize Donald Trump

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. No

      1. “Who cares?”

        I’m open to the possibility that self-described libertarians can actually do whatever the fuck they want, and there’s no “one correct answer” which your membership in this theoretical tribe relies upon.

        1. So political affiliation is like gender now?

          1. I don’t know what that means since i’ve never been clear why “gender” matters particularly.

            For the sake of argument – I don’t think political affiliation is really all that strongly affiliating

            I think the statistics show that most people change what party they vote for at least once in their lives.

            (the number was something like “people on average vote for 1.5-1.7 parties during their lifetime” – suggesting that half or more of the population vote for 2 parties, the rest just for 1; I’ve voted for 3 so far! I’m expecting to make it 4 this time around. I believe in trying everything at the buffet)

            Yes, most still then stick with their ‘second choice’ for the remainder of their lives, but i’m not sure that says anything as significant as it might sound.

            The percentage of population whose “gender” changes during their lifetime would be more like…. 1%? in the low single digits at least. I’m not sure its a good comparison.

            Pew (*much cited by nick in Declaration) points out that the % of people who feel a strong sense of identification with political parties is historically low, and getting lower

            1. It was intended as a wry, humorous comment.

              1. It was intended as a wry, humorous comment.

                If you plan to stick with this “cryptic-meme-based snark”-thing, you might want to get used to people not necessarily immediately understanding wtf your point is.

                1. *sigh*

                  It seems that you, really, really want to have an argument today.

                  I could see you not reading the tone of comment correctly if we didn’t just have a humorous exchange about gender in last night’s thread.

                  I’m going to assume that you’re having a bad day and leave it at that.

                  1. *sigh*

                    It seems that you, really, really want to have an argument today

                    Not at all, i was just saying that i can’t make heads or tails of what you’re trying to say sometimes.

                    1. *i also don’t remember what the point was about gender last night, specifically. Its possible i didn’t understand what you were saying there *either*. (or ‘more than likely’)

                  2. Heroic Mulatto needs to code-switch more betterer.

                    1. I blame old people for not being able to keep up with our fast paced youthful lingos.

              2. Just don’t ask GILMORE how his head is.

                Me, I’ve never had any complaints.

            2. I’m voting for Johnson in WA. I will vote on election day and hand deliver my ballot to an official drop box, as I consider the postal service to be incompetent. If however, Trump is in striking range of denying Hildebeast WA’s electoral votes, I will vote for Trump.

              Any sane person with a Forrest Gump IQ on up should realize the top priority is depriving that evil bitch the presidency at all costs.

              1. I think there’s a slight contradiction between your first and last sentences. Even if Trump loses WA and Hillary wins the election, a vote for Trump there would reduce her “mandate” more than a vote for GJ.

                1. You put mandate in quotes, i assume, because its something mostly in people’s imaginations, right?

                  1. I have had talks with lefty friends where I say that I’m concerned that if Hillary wins, she will take it as a mandate for her platform, not necessarily as an ‘anyone but Trump’ vote.

                    The lefty friends say, no, everyone is voting for her because of her wonderful platform, and she will have a mandate and should start implementing it the day she’s sworn in.

                    So hello “Medicare for everyone”, leftists on the Supreme Court, free public college and forgiveness on student loans, and a national debt shooting to double the GDP.

                    1. The first thing I spring on them is her war mongering and ask them how they can condone that. The answer is always ‘But TRUMP!’. They think the Wikileaks stuff is just something that Republicans made up. Retards. This is why I avoid political conversations with some lefties these days. If I see an opening with anyone, I never waste it. But there’s no use beating your head on some walls, unless you just want a sore head.

                  2. Yes, her minions have been using that word to describe her supposed victory.

                2. Papaya, it is well known that Hillary does not go on any ‘man dates’.

  1. If there is a case why libertarians or anyone should vote for Trump it’s because the chance of Hillary getting us into an armed conflict with Russia is very real. We know that she’s going to triple down on getting us into more conflicts in the middle east, that 100% certainty. Ok, Trump said some mean stuff, he maybe grabbed a pussy. For some reason, and maybe it’s only me, I find that a little less scary than the prospect of nuclear war. Just whatever you do, do NOT vote for that insane blood thirsty war monger, Hillary. I’m not playing ‘lesser of 2 evils’ anymore, and I don’t particularly like the idea of GayJay embarrassing libertarians for the next 4 years. Put up a libertarian leaning Republican or a decent libertarian, or I’m staying home.

    1. Hillary Clinton has hit new lows in corruption as SOS. Can you imagine what those levels will be if she were president?

      1. Yes, I can imagine it, and it’s terrifying.

        1. As much as I despise Trump, the things that I know Hillary will do frightens me more.

          1. Me as well.

            The greatest threat to America and individual liberty is not Russia, China, ISIS or Trump but Hillary Clinton as president.

            She will be like Obama but worse with more unjust wars, more taxes, regulations and a continuation of the drug war.

            She’ll fix ObamaCare to make it much worse.

            And the war on the right to keep and bear arms will be unrelenting.

            1. Hillary will also try some form of amnesty to try to create a more statist electorate. I have a hard time understanding why more libertarians don’t grasp that.

          2. Exactly. It’s not like Trump is great. Maybe he might turn out ok, but we all KNOW Hillary is an evil monster who will do so much damage on so many levels, and maybe even stumble her way into a nuclear war.

            Trump ought to hastily produce a modern version of the LBJ campaign ad where the little girl gets nuked.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

            1. Trump is also going to be facing a hostile congress and media so we have no idea what he would actually be able to do anyways.

              1. Pretty much. He will have his hands full getting the border wall built, and pushing any budget that isn’t as ridiculous as Obama’s. I don’t see anything really bat shit crazy going anywhere.

    2. If there is a case why libertarians or anyone should vote for Trump it’s because the chance of Hillary getting us into an armed conflict with Russia is very real

      Not to bust your bubble, but Russia’s military capability is altogether roughly equal to that of one of the Southern members of NATO. like “Italy”

      They’re barely capable of mustering their one half-assed aircraft carrier to do an exercise spin between the baltic and med. I am predicting it is probably going to set itself on fire before this exercise is over. Or have a plane explode on takeoff. something like that.

      Which is why any direct conventional conflict between the 2 is never going to happen. And there won’t be any threats about nukes either. Nukes are mostly a tool for diplomats to talk about as “something to manage”.

      Russia is not really “scary” in any real way. China is concerning, but mainly for the economic impact any conflict would have.

      1. Italy has a stockpile of long range nukes?

        1. I could talk to you about “nukes” all day. My comment above sums up the issue = Nukes aren’t a practical concern in military terms. They’re mostly about diplomatic power.

          Besides the US Government has been paying to help secure russian nuclear arsenals since the early 1990s. 95% of which is non-functional, and 95% of the ‘maybe-functional-5%’ is itself running on 1980s technology which makes them effectively useless as a ‘intercontinental threat’ (unless they want to just lob dumb-nukes around in some kind of apocalyptic temper-tantrum)

          My point is that you might as well not even bother talking about Nukes when it comes to certain nuclear-powers.

          W/ India-Pakistan? or Iran-Saudi Arabia-Israel? It matters. With basically everyone else? it doesn’t.

          They serve as primarily an entry-card into the “Nuclear Club” which allows your diplomats to be given special consideration in the UN security council. Thats it. They’re just a tool for diplomacy, not “Weapons” that have any practical utility in a military conflict.

          1. Doesn’t ours run floppy disks or some shit?

            1. Indeed. That’s why there’s no peanut butter allowed in the war room.

            2. Doesn’t ours run floppy disks

              They’ve been upgraded to zip-drive recently

        2. and yes, I’m aware that they’ve upgraded some of the missiles.

          the point is that no one is ever going to use any of their nuclear weapons as anything other than bargaining chips.

          1. *aside from the batshit norks/pakis/iranians – but even in their case, they still mainly serve as something to wave around while begging to be taken more seriously

            1. Agreed that no one on either the Russian or US side is ever going to set out to use nukes against the other, but what are your thoughts on the chances of an exchange accidentally starting? E.g., assuming Perimeter exists, it’s activated (after something like was mentioned upthread, Peter the Great or the Kuznetsov blows up through shitty Russian maintenance), and gives a launch order after some specious fault in Russian systems’ automation and control?

              I guess what I’m trying to say is that your position is rational, but I don’t view the Russians or the relevant US diplomatic staff as either rational or competent. Given that Russia will run out of foreign reserves within the next 36 months or so (if the Financial Times’s estimate was correct) the price of oil/gas is still lower than Russia needs to maintain its kleptocracy, and this whole naval movement is an attempt by Putin to both “Russia stronk!”, “No Qatari gas pipeline to Europe!”: what is your opinion of Russia’s next move when this fails to either raise gas prices or keep Assad running his chunk of Syria?

              I just don’t like forward forces of nuclear powers rattling sabers at each other. I tend to think rational military commanders don’t either, which, as I’ve written before here, is one of the reasons I never bought the official how they killed UBL story.

              1. I asked an old friend who is an officer in the military (probably shouldn’t even say what branch, right, Preet?) if he feared a war with Russia. He answered, “No way! Those guys are fags.”

                I don’t think he meant they are gay, I think it was that other meaning of fag, someone you aren’t worried about besting you.

                1. Indeed, at the end of the day they are little more than bundles of sticks.

  2. I’m making over $12k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do… http://www.Trends88.Com

    1. Can you and a friend come over to my place for a 2 girl massage?

      1. I was thinking the same thing.

        1. Sounds like they are expensive if they make that much doing this work, unless they work 80+ hour weeks…

  3. Four reasons for libertarians to vote for Trump:

    1) Rule of law.

    Why is there so little respect for the rule of law in Venezuela and Russia? A lot of it has to do with strongmen having maintained their legitimacy with elections despite being contemptuous of the rule of law.

    Nothing undermines the rule of law like giving a corrupt politician the legitimacy of an election win, and if Hillary Clinton becomes President despite everyone knowing she accepted money from foreign governments, etc., the American people will lose a tremendous amount of respect for the rule of law very quickly.

    2) Second Amendment

    While Donald Trump won’t go out of his way to choose Supreme Court justices just because they’re hostile to our Second Amendment rights, Hillary Clinton will.

    3) Single Payer

    The ObamaCare exchanges will almost certainly collapse during the next President’s term. If Hillary is President, she won’t sign any reform of ObamaCare unless it includes a public option. Meanwhile, the public option puts us so firmly on the road to single payer, it would take a committed libertarian who didn’t care about leaving millions without health insurance to avoid it.

    If Donald Trump is President, he will sign ObamaCare reform that doesn’t include a public option.

    1. If Donald Trump is President, he willmay sign ObamaCare reform that doesn’t include a public option.

      He hasn’t signed it yet and many candidates promise to do one thing and then do another after elected. Reagan promised to get rid of Selective Service. He doubled down on it once in office and his administration prosecuted those failing to register.

      1. Just because Presidents sometimes break their promises doesn’t mean we should never vote for one candidate over the other because of where they say they stand on the issues might not turn out to be so.

        There is no reason to think that Donald Trump will veto or pocket veto ObamaCare reform that gets passed by Congress because it doesn’t have a public option. There is no reason to think Trump will actively seek to kill any reform that’s under consideration because it doesn’t include a public option either.

        Hilary Clinton is campaigning on the promise of a public option:

        “As president, Hillary will:

        Defend and expand the Affordable Care Act, which covers 20 million people. Hillary will stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark law?and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a “public option” possible. She will also support letting people over 55 years old buy into Medicare.”

        https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

        The exchanges are breaking down, they will be reformed, and Hillary is campaigning on and promising a public option.

        Because the future is uncertain is no reason not to plan for the future given the percentages.

        I don’t know for certain whether my business will burn down in the future, but paying a reasonable price for fire insurance makes sense anyway.

  4. 4) Better Protest Vote

    If you live in a deep blue state like California, voting for Gary Johnson isn’t a complete and total repudiation of Progressives, the Democratic Party in the state of California, social justice warriors, and everything they stand for.

    In California, we have a race for U.S. Senate with two Democrats on the ballot and no Republican–much less a libertarian. I repeat–you can only vote for one of two Democrats to send to the U.S. Senate.

    For people in California, Massachusetts, and other deep blue states, voting for Gary Johnson just doesn’t get your middle finger high enough in the air to where the progressives can see you flipping them off.

    Whatever else Trump is (and he’s a lot of bad things), he is also a total, complete repudiation of social justice warriors–and everything they stand for–especially in terms of limiting our choices to only those things of which they approve.

    1. We should just give CA back to Mexico. Then the wall becomes so long that the Trumputin will never get it done and the next president will abandon the idea.

      1. We should at least split California in half. Jefferson can stay.

        1. Damn straight. I would love to see Jefferson become a reality. (Yes, I know what the chances of that happening are.)

          1. Does the state of Jefferson have any beachfront or is it entirely inland?

      2. Or annex all of Mexico, & then the wall shortens to the Mex/Guat-Mex-Belize border. Or have Mexico do the annex’n, & then we already decided the Can border doesn’t need a fence.

        1. .I wouldn’t mind some cheap beach front property

          1. Exactly. I’m willing to open the border if it goes both ways. Once all the Mexicans are here, I’m going down there.

        2. One of the 2 high points of Totally Hidden Video was the new Canadian border bit.

      3. No, we should give all the democrats in CA to Mexico. Strip them of all property, belongings, assets, cash etc., and force march them across the southern border. See how the Mexi-fries like that shit for a change. Millions of useless, whiny, shrill demanding twats swarming over their border looking for free shit and telling them how to run THEIR country. Then build a wall to keep the progtards in Mexico.

        Once cleansed of all the filthy progtards, I would move to CA in a second. It would become a great place again.

        1. I am afraid that Commiefornia is quite beyond saving. It’s big, though, so you can live there and be mostly left alone. Just don’t go too far south.

          1. Again, the solution is to make the pros go south. Far, far, south. I’m even favorable to dumping the shitbags off in Antarctica. I’m sure they will be fine there.

    2. I would agree with tgise reasons and would add transparency due to medua scrutiny. Something you won’t get with Hillary especially given the lengths she has shown she would go to to keep secrets. I also thought Trump’s answer to the Allepo question, which was basically it’s over, Allepo is gone is in stark contrast to Hillary’s desire to double down on every bad decision.

      1. Add to the fact that there is no part of our lives that Hillary doesn’t seek to control. There is no problem too small for government interference, damn the constitution. Add her Citizens United litmus test for Supreme Court Justice’s ( I’ve never heard a President say they would have a litmus test before, the idea has always been repudiated) whixh show’s a complete lack of respect for the 1st.

        1. Let’s not forget how difficult it will be for Trump to get anything done in Congress that is not Status Quo. I am not voting for Trump, nor Hillary, but I certainly see good reasons to attempt to block Hillary. Hillary will win, and I will be voting for GOP candidates for Congress as gridlock is our best hope at this point

          1. I still think Trump wins, for a number of reasons. There are too many indications of a groundswell of support, especially among people who rarely if ever vote, and thus don’t get counted in polls. I know that rally sizes are not dispositive, but Trumps overfills stadiums, and Hillary can’t fill a high school gym.

            Also note that Hillary is now buying time in Wisconsin, one of her supposedly “safe” states. And Kaine just scheduled an event there. Their internal polling must be bad. And if WI is not safe for her, what does that tell you about OH, MI, IA, PA?

            1. “especially among people who rarely if ever vote”

              But will they vote this time? Southeastern Ohio has always been very anti-Obama and yet their voting turnouts are horrendous. Bitching about Obama and Hillary doesn’t mean shit if you don’t go to the polls. I think it will be closer than the polls indicate but I don’t think he’ll win. That said, the man has proved me wrong before. It’s certainly possible he will again.

              1. I have seen many reports of increased GOP turnout, both in the primaries and in early voting.

              2. Jacked up Obamacare rates are really hitting home for a lot of folks. Whether they ever vote or not. So yeah, I can see a lot of people voting Trump out of a combination of desperation and anger.

                1. I am one of the ones being reamed by Obamacare (premiums up 3x since 2013), but as I understand it only 5% of folks are in this boat with me. People with employer-provided healthcare aren’t feeling the brunt yet so I don’t know how many will vote based on that issue. I respect everyone’s right to vote their conscience or their pocketbook or whatever is most important to them. I’m voting for the 2-term governor who is genuinely honest and who most closely matches me on isidewith. If my vote were the deciding vote to break the tie between the other two in my state, I’d happily leave them tied and still vote for Gary.

                  1. Don’t kid yourself. Those of us with employer-sponsored plans have seen our rates double and our personal deductibles go from $2000-2500 per year to over $6200 this coming year. And yet, almost all of the wonderful “newly” covered Obamacare success-story people are all just new signups on Medicaid.

                    So thanks a lot Obama. Youve ruined everyone’s health insurance, and all you ended up doing was adding a bunch of people to the safety net public plan. You could have just done that and left the rest of us alone! But, no, you couldn’t resist screwing over “the wealthy “, aka people with jobs. Because eveyone who is productive needs to be subject to class envy, ridicule, and forced to pay their “fair share”, IOW 50% or more of your income, to make sure the indigent have plenty of free shit.

            2. In 2012 Romney also drew big crowds while Obama’s were lackluster and that led me to the same conclusion then.

              It’s hard to win an election against someone who wins 120% of the vote of registered voters in a precinct.

              1. I don’t think the rally-size disparity in 2012 was anywhere near as large.

              2. If that shit happens again, I predict unrest that will lead to the civil war I’ve been predicting for some time.

    3. I agree, and would add to #3: Trump has already proposed replacing Obamacare with HSAs, a very libertarian solution. (But did we read about that here…?) I would also add:

      5) Establishment chaos. A Trump victory is major disruption to both parties. It’s an opportunity for libertarians to make some gains. In fact, I’d say that a Trump victory is better for libertarians in the long run than whether GJ gets 1 or 2 or even 5 percent of the vote.

      As I have argued in the past, Trump is not an ideologue. He’s a businessman who wants to succeed. Well, we know that libertarian solutions can succeed, so let’s propose some specific ones (e.g. in health care) that he would be amenable to.

      1. 6) Immigration. Hillary will continue to flood the country with Latin American peasants and Muslims until Democrats never lose a national election.

        7) The lulz of a Trump win.

        1. You think Muslims are gonna vote for abortions?

          1. They tend to vote Democratic, so yes, they already do. And for more gay rights. The leftist alliance is filled with contradictions.

      2. I agree, and would add to #3: Trump has already proposed replacing Obamacare with HSAs, a very libertarian solution. (But did we read about that here…?)

        To be fair, Trump’s barely talked about it himself, and I suspect it’s because he can’t really explain how his policy plan would help. It’s too bad, because there actually some good proposals in there and any Republican wanting to fix the sewage dump that Obamacare has become should adopt them and start pimping them hard.

    4. I’m not quite sold yet, but I’m getting closer.

      For me, the goal is to win the long game, and that happens when we break the duopoly’s hold on politics in this country. I understand the argument that the better strategy is to change parties from within, but I just don’t see libertarianism ever progressing beyond a fringe movement within the Republican party. Diffusing the power of the two major parties benefits everyone.

      On the other hand, multiple small parties still have to form coalitions to accomplish anything, and the net result might very well look like what we’d see if libertarianism became the most popular wing of the Republican party. But, most importantly, I really do believe that this election is the most important election many of us have or will ever see. I think a Clinton presidency will result in a major war, and it will cement the corrupt political culture that dominates our government. We’ll never shake the Imperial Presidency after that.

      A Trump win, though… That will really and truly drain the swamp.

    5. Sure, I want to flip off the progressives, but I also want to flip off the conservatives. Why are you being a duopolist shill?

      1. You don’t think voting Trump flips off conservatives? Read the National Review or Rod Dreher or a host of others.

        1. Voting for TRUMP pisses off all the right people. Electing him will be even better.

        2. I know some very conservative people in Oklahoma who plan to “hold back their vomit” and vote for Trump. How does voting like conservatives piss off conservatives?

          1. Perhaps I should say: “the conservative establishment and their pundits.”

      2. What choice is there to flip off the conservatives? There’s no vote for a prez candidate this time that sends an unambiguously anti-conservative message, but a vote for Trump is as close as you can get to unambiguous for an anti-progressive message. And it’s the national popular vote that sends that message, rather than the electoral one, so it doesn’t matter where the vote is cast.

        1. To me, conservatives are people who are fiscally conservative like libertarians, but who also want to tell you what you can and cannot do, just like so called ‘liberals’. It’s just different things they want to use to oppress you, that’s all. People who refer to themselves as conservative or liberal are just flip sides of the same statist coin.

  5. Walter Block is a big part of why I’m a libertarian today. Defending the Undefendable was like pouring a bucket of ice water over my lukewarm progressive sympathies. Even after reading Economics in One Lesson I still hung on to the idea that maybe education and healthcare and welfare just aren’t compatible with markets, but Block laid out the case for liberty in all aspects of life, even the ugliest.

    1. Block had a good rookie outing, but his subsequent performance has been second-rate.

      1. I haven’t kept tabs on him, but that in no way surprises me.

  6. “(do note that my employer, the 501[c]3 nonprofit Reason Foundation does not endorse specific candidates or pieces of legislation; all views expressed are mine and mine alone).”

    Wouldn’t it be better to simply get rid of the unconstiuttional (Lyndon) Johnson Amendment, rather than rely on the benevolence of Lois Lerner clones in the IRS to arbitrarily enforce this censorship law?

  7. Trump is a winner. Libertarians are proven losers. Losers don’t get to vote Trump unless they’re committed to being winners. Are you ready to be winners?

    1. circular argument FTW!

    2. Yeah! Losers just been Fisted!

    3. What the Commenter-in-Chief just said.

    4. You too can be a Weiner!

  8. Trump’s made it harder since Walter formed Libertarians for Trump, but even so it’s still what libertarians should want, and sends the best message as a vote in any state. For reasons I stated over a decade ago (see the bottom of http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/political.html ), I think the LP is a bad thing, but even if I thought otherwise, a strong signal of popular support for Trump would be the best way forward for liberty, worldwide. It’s not so much about him or his policy ideas (which are vague to nonexistent?so what, it’s politics?but which I suspect to be much more libertarian than he lets on these days), it’s about a successful revolt vs. the elites?even the elites at HyR!

  9. Due to work I missed the big Clinton/FBI threads yesterday, but wanted to say: “BWAHAHAHAHA!!!”

    1. Huma will get thrown under the bus, then Hillary will pardon her and give her a job. Nothing to see here

  10. Should Libertarians Vote for Trump?

    Only if it keeps HC out of office. She is the most unqualified politician running this cycle.

    1. Unqualified doesn’t begin to cover it. This would be like giving a known pedophile a four year iron clad contract to run a big corporate pre-school, with full indemnification for any wrongdoing. Except with a military, and nukes.

    2. I don’t vote to keep certain people out of office, so no.

  11. A comment on SFGate (part 1):

    Let me put it into terms the layman can process:

    -The FBI was conducting investigations into disgraced NY congressman Anthony Weiner’s email history in regards to explicit emails to children in which he detailed rape fantasies and included photos of his genitals.

    -During their investigation on Anthony Weiner the FBI discovered emails from his then wife Huma Abedin who is Hillary Clinton’s #1 top aide, via their Yahoo mail account.

    -Huma Abedin has been revealed to have sent top secret government information to her Yahoo account which her husband at some point had access to. That in and of itself constitutes corruption because a clear conflict of interests is introduced.

    -Now we have both Hillary Clinton and her top aide sending out classified government intel through covert and unsecured resources. The creates a security breach and illustrates both collusion between Clinton and Abedin as well as outright deceit. All government employees, especially those in high positions of power are required to conduct state business through state approved resources so as to provide a measure of security and transparency.

    1. Maybe they are going to charge Huma and try and get her to roll over on Hillary.

      Huma is bound to know where some bones are buried after being attached at the shoulder to Herself for so long.

      They probably found some of the deleted emails that Clinton said were yoga related and now have proof that the deleted email weren’t all just yoga related as we all suspected.

      It saddens and frightens me to know that so many people are willing to put that woman in the Presidency in spite of what she has done. Go Team !!

      Not knowing what Foreign countries have on her is chilling to say the least.

      I have no doubt she would sell out this country in a heartbeat if she were faced with being exposed for criminal wrong doing while Sec. State. She will be bombing every other country in the middle east at the direction of whomever gave her money and turn our armed forces into a mercenary army.

      She got the money and will get more while we get the dead bodies and the bar tab.

      1. See my link below: if they find classified material in Huma’s accounts or devices, she violated the OF-109 disclosure form she signed in 2013 when she left the State department.

        1. Huma was already given immunity for something earlier in this investigation

          1. I don’t think immunity is all-encompassing.

          2. This breaks her immunity deal. She lied about this account. She’s fair game, to an honest FBI and DOJ, anyway.

      2. It is the duty of every American to stand up and resist her ascendence to the presidency if she appears to become elected.

    2. Huma Abedin has been revealed to have sent top secret government information to her Yahoo account which her husband at some point had access to. That in and of itself constitutes corruption because a clear conflict of interests is introduced.

      Huh?

      I can see how that might be ‘more evidence of willful mishandling of classified information’…. or other sorts of security violations….

      …but ‘conflict of interest’? “corruption”?

      What is the “Corruption”, and who is the “conflict of interest” between?

      1. Good questions.

    3. I wonder if Comey did it this way because he couldn’t live with how he was made to be the public face of “Fuck you, peasants” in not charging The Hag.

      Maybe he’s got some integrity. Apparently, Lynch told him not to do it, and he did it anyway.

      Maybe he’s got a spine. Maybe the thought of a vile, influence-peddling hag using the office to sell American influence to the highest bidder turns his stomach.

      Maybe the thought of scumbag extrordinaire Billy getting to sleaze around and do whatever he wants and get away with it made him fucking angry. Maybe James Comey is an actual man.

      Maybe chocolate-coated, diamond-encrusted flying porcine animals will emerge from my anus, as I am transported to Heaven on an elevator filled with raven-haired women sporting large breasts and a bottle of almond oil each. Maybe.

      1. Or maybe he got the call that his family arrived safe at an armored compound in jungles of Cambodia?

        1. No shit. I wonder if he’s legit scared. I would be. Does anybody doubt that Team Hag has at least several people who would cheerfully Frank Underwood Comey if ordered to do so?

  12. -Anthony Weiner having access to this email account is an egregious enough breach of security as it is, but this situation is made worse because Yahoo was recently hacked and over 500 million user accounts were compromised. Abedin was sending government data to her Yahoo account. Therefore national security has been compromised to an extent the FBI is only now trying to figure out.

    This event exposes not only corruption, but collusion. If that doesn’t constitute wrongdoing to you, you might be hopeless. They create a security breach and then tried to cover it up. The potential damage they’ve caused at this point is incalculable.

    1. Honestly though I would rather the media talk about her abhorrent views on Obamacare, Citizens United, and the 2nd Amendment then continuing to harp on the email issue that has never gotten any traction.

      1. I think it’s got some traction. “Not handling classified material well” pretty much destroys her “I’m experienced and competent” argument. Plus being the subject of an FBI investigation during an election is kind of a big thing.

        1. Yeah, but we’ve known this for over a year. At some point people get bored and tune out. If I were Trump, I would be talking about Obamacare and guns every day.

          1. Certainly Obamacare right now, with the huge rate hikes.

            1. I think both those issues could be huge for Trump which is why media isn’t talking about them.

              1. I think pretty much every gun owner, and everyone who got huge premium hikes, knows where the two candidates stand on those issues.

    2. I wonder what she was trading it for.

      Meanwhile, a libertarian friend’s son is apparently receiving disinform’n that the secret involved has to do w gov’t knowledge of alien spacemen.

      1. You know John Podesta’s dad?

      2. ^joke? Or new member of Michael Hihn’s Tinfoil Hat Club?

        1. I suppose it could be a joke that my friend’s son took seriously, but I think that by the time it got to him it was no longer intended as a joke, if it ever was. I think it’s a serious attempt at distracting disinformation.

          1. You know, as in, pay no att’n to the contents of the Hillary e-mails, that’s just something some nuts say is about spacemen to make it seem important. It was probably just vacation pix, Weiner’s weiner, whatever.

  13. You should vote your conscience.

    The election will not hinge on one single vote anyway. The fate of the Republic does not rest on your shoulders.

    However, the weight of your conscience DOES rest on your shoulders. You have to sleep with yourself every night. You don’t have to sleep with either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. (Let’s hope not anyway.)

    1. *stands to applaud*
      Yeah, what chemjeff said!

    2. Thank you chemjeff. Unless this enters into the debate then they are dichotomizing and missing the most important argument. There are some very powerful arguments for voting Trump, if they sway consciences then all the better. In the end believing in individual liberty means you have no argument for voting any way other than an individual’s conscience.

    3. ” You have to sleep with yourself every night. ”

      You calling us all gay?

      (NTTAWWT)

      1. Reminds of that episode of ‘Mary Shelley’s Frankenhole’ where Ron Howard goes back in time to the 70’s to molest his teenage self in an extreme act of perversion/narcissism.

  14. I remember reading Slaughterhouse-Five.

    There was a scene where the anti-hero is in a hospital bed, and he’s sharing a room with the general who ordered the bombing of Dresden. The general is going over his memoirs defending the bombing with all sorts of historically accurate facts and figures–regarding casualties, etc. It’s a rational argument.

    But the anti-hero had been on the ground as a POW during the bombing of Dresden, and the book then takes you into a completely fictitious account of what it was like on the ground after the bombing. The contrast is meant to show that the best reasons against the bombing can’t really be expressed through facts and figures.

    The best reasons to oppose that bombing were qualitative–they can’t show up on anybody’s spreadsheet. To accurately express the best reasons to oppose that atrocity, you might have to turn to fiction, like in Slaughterhouse-Five, or turn to art like with Picasso’s Guernica.

    In that spirit, I defy any libertarian voting in California to look at the following website:

    http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/e…..ements.htm

    You don’t have to read anything. Just look at it. Realize those are your “choices”.

    Facts and figures this, facts and figures that, look at that website!

    The longer you look at it, the more the best reason to vote for Trump will become clear and obvious to you.

    Is there a better way to use our vote to express our contempt?

    1. You don’t have to read anything. Just look at it. Realize those are your “choices”.

      What choice? You vote against Harris.

      1. I can’t decide whether to do that, or just skip the Senate election.

    2. I’m aware of the Senate race, but that’s due to Prop 14. Has Trump pledged to somehow eliminate Prop 14? I’m not following your logic.

      1. Top two is working out just as intended.

        1. Right? But I don’t see Trump fixing that.

          1. As Ken said: “Is there a better way to use our vote to express our contempt?”

            1. Sounds ineffective. Overturning Prop 14 would require another proposition. We could sneak it onto the midterm ballot, as Prop 14 was, but that’s done by way of petition, not vote. Makes more sense to me to vote for Johnson.

              1. Why bother? If the Dems are so dominant in a district that the top 2 candidates were both from their party, what would be the advantage to selecting just 1 of them to run vs. a Republican who was the voters’ 3rd, or lower, choice?

                1. The top two in the primary. We have two Dem candidates for Senate because Republicans didn’t show up in June. Hardly anyone votes in June!

                  1. Well, that’s their fault then, isn’t it? I could understand if they didn’t get the message the 1st time an election was run that way, but by now they should know. Why would that problem particularly afflict Republicans?

                    There are plenty of people here who desire some form of runoff voting to counteract the wasted vote problem. Is there any reason to believe the result would be systematically different using other forms of runoff voting rather than top-2 “live” (as opposed to virtual) runoffs?

                    1. It particularly afflicted Republicans because their primary was already over by that time. Trump had already won.

                    2. “Their” primary? They don’t have party primaries, they all run in a single “primary”, and then the “general” election runs off the top 2. They call it a primary because that’s when the party primaries used to be held, but it should just be seen as the 1st of 2 rounds of a nonpartisan general election. The only thing that makes it not completely nonpartisan is that the candidates are allowed to attach party labels.

                    3. No, their presidential primary. Presidential primaries are still completely partisan, just as they were before; Prop 14 didn’t change that. The Republican primary was effectively over, so, predictably, most Republicans stayed home.

    3. You vote for the one with the better Christmas cards.

  15. Trump is quite likely (in my eyes) to pull a win off in light of yesterday’s news. I’ve felt that way from the start of the general election despite much of the consensus on these boards and the first several statistical polls. From what I could see from talking to people on both sides, Trump had one strong advantage over Hillary: a good amount of people supporting Trump genuinely liked him as a candidate, while the vast majority of Hillary voters were holding their noses because they didn’t like Trump. That was never a good sign for her campaign despite her huge financial advantage. I’m now personally getting very close to voting for Trump after mostly considering a vote for Johnson because I genuinely think that the establishment on both sides are scared to death of him. That can only be a good thing for the political system IMO.

  16. I’m no Trump fan, but I thought Nick loved the effect of disruptors. That’s exactly the role Trump is playing in American politics. He will bust open the ossified system that Libertarians cannot even scratch the surface of, and expose opportunities for new ways and new people. Do you really think what we have been doing is ever gonna get us there? Really? You still wanna be an 80-year-old Libertarian hoping to see 10% of the vote some day? Disruptors always look ugly. The don’t play by the old rules. They’re uncouth, and scary. Practice what you preach, embrace the scary change.

    1. Yes, this is the point I was making above. Trump smashing the establishment and draining the swamp offers far more opportunity for libertarianism than a few points more or less for GJ.

    2. Agreed 100%. I’ve realized in the past couple of months that before you worry about growing a third party, you need to make the prominent rival ideologies more palatable to the progressive mainstream. At this point in time, the only effective way of doing that is to vote for someone that has been successful at disrupting the establishment on both sides even if their ideas on trade are not exactly your ideals and their approach is not the most refined or predictable.

    3. Your argument entails the belief that disruptors inherently lead to ‘virtuous,’ as opposed to ‘vicious’ results. Systems theory tells us that this is not always so.

      1. The results can be both virtuous and vicious at the same time. Trump is the definition of a “roll-of-the-dice” candidate, because I’m not sure whether the virtuous or the vicious side of his campaign and ideas will prevail over the long-term.

        1. I agree that we’re dealing with something that is nonlinear and dynamical. Which was the thrust of my comment to bagoh20.

      2. Of course, not always, but at least there’s a chance. With Hillary, there is zero chance.

        1. Yeah, Trump is playing Russian Roulette with half the chambers full, and he doesn’t actually want to kill you, so if you are shot, he might actually call the hospital and fix the problem.

          Hillary is Russian Rollett with all chambers full, and she’s made it quite explicit she wants you dead, and will keep pulling the trigger until that happens.

    4. I’ve been saying this for mos. It’s not about Trump, it’s about what Trump’s overthrowing, clearing the way for popular reform in succeeding years. Popular reform may not go the way we want all the time, but it doesn’t have the adverse feature of diffuse costs & concentrated benefits that’ve taken us so far down the road to ruin.

    5. You still wanna be an 80-year-old Libertarian hoping to see 10% of the vote some day?

      Way to light the Hihn signal there, buddy.

  17. Scott Adams tweet:

    Russian hackers are better than we thought. They stole Clinton’s emails from the NSA, put them on Huma’s laptop, and pinned it on Weiner.

    1. They pinned it on Weiner? Ouch!

      1. Pinned the (e)mail on the donkey?

  18. The FBI going through the new emails: “Penis, penis, penis, classified material, penis, yoga, penis….”

    1. Did you come up with that yourself, or is that a bite? its funny.

      1. I admit I saw a version of it somewhere on line yesterday, when I was too busy to post.

        1. I didn’t mean that as a dig on you, just saying…. it struck me as a joke that probably is going to be widely recycled.

          1. I knew that. I’m just too lazy to track down the original tweet or whatever it was.

    2. It’s occurred to me that Weiner may have volunteered some of this to save his own skin. In which case the headline should be “Weiner fingers Hillary”.

      1. Nah. the FBI seized his computer, phone, etc.

        The great thing is, there’s no “but Putin!” distraction this time.

  19. Probably doesn’t matter who we vote for… I used to think Trump was going to win because I thought Hillary and her team are too incompetent to steal the election. Now I think they can commit the dumbest most brazen voter fraud (dead people, fictional characters, etc.) and they’ll still get away with it.

    1. All my Progressive friends on Facebook are shitting themselves now. I’ve never seen so many people coming out of the woodwork to support Hillary. I think at this point anyone voting for Hillary Clinton is willfully ignorant, incredibly naive, or hopelessly immoral. I genuinely believe that it’s important to be able to disagree with a person’s political beliefs without considering those beliefs a reflection on their moral character, but in this case active support for Hillary Clinton in the wake of everything we now know about her is a deal-breaker for me.

  20. Weekend Derp Dump

    -Syrian refugee who now writes for HuffPo in Germany calls on Germany to legalize fake passports. He also wants all signs and food packages to be written in Arabic.
    link

    -Facebook allows advertisers to exclude racial groups in housing ads
    link

    1. You know who else wanted Germany to legalize his fake passport?

      1. Schwarzenegger sure looks different in that picture.

    2. But it’s not conquest…

  21. The only reason to vote for Trump is for the lulz. If he wins it would be at least 4 years of epic lulz.

  22. Slam dunk. Walter Block is a feeble intellectual adversary.

    1. Whereas Nick Gillespie, Ghostwriter for Alyssa Milano, is an intellectual titan.

      1. You don’t want to go too far down that road.

        1. Prior to joining Reason, Gillespie worked at a number of small trade magazines and other journalistic outlets. He worked for several years at Teen Machine magazine, where he interviewed celebrities and ghost-wrote an advice column for actress Alyssa Milano.

          Check his wikipedia, it’s totally a thing. And it’s hilarious.

          1. Ah. Well, I worked at several fast-food joints prior to sacking up and becoming an educated professional. Same shit, different day. Funny, though. Was Milano too busy, or enough of an it girl at the time that they just wanted her name and her (admittedly quite pretty) face attached to it?

          2. Gillespie got his start as a trap?

            I am flabbergasted.

    2. Hear it! hear it! anonymous weekend internet-comment troll knows that of which it speaks.

  23. OT:

    Coast Guard Helicopter rescues Iceland’s election

    Well, OK, technically not, but:

    The island has neither been accessible by boat nor airplane in recent days, due to weather, R?V reports. According to the law, the result of an election can’t be published until all polling stations have been closed, and if voters don’t have access to ballots, a polling station is not functional.

    Basically, they couldn’t get ballots to one isolated island, and if people there couldn’t vote, none of the other results could be released.

    There’s a reasonable chance the Pirate Party could win the elections, although coalition-building is going to be fun.

    1. Shouldn’t a bunch of pirates be able to reach a secluded island protected by a mystical fog?

    2. Was it due to one of those post-tropical cyclones the National Hurricane Center (US) loses interest in once they’ve lost their warm eyes?

  24. It’s an interesting debate if you’re looking at it from the Libertarian perspective.

    Assuming we actually take the candidates’ at their word, there are Libertarian points awarded to both of them on different issues.

    Trump wants to stop being the World Police. Clinton wants to at least keep arming people. Point Trump.

    Trump is going to lower taxes. Clinton is going to raise them. Point Trump.

    Clinton is going to raise the debt. But Trump is going to raise it even more. Point Clinton.

    Clinton thinks we should “look at” the recent AT&T merger, which in Clinton-speak means do nothing. Trump thinks it threatens democracy. Point Clinton.

    And the beat goes on. They both still sucka-da-cock

  25. The first three stories on NPR’s book news were:

    1) Politically-motivated FBI going after poor put-upon Hillary.
    2) We found the first case of voter fraud in decades. It’s a woman who wanted to vote for Trump twice.
    3) Those poor, put-upon people protecting State lands from the evil Bundys.

    1. Its like watching cats trying to cover shit on a tile floor.

      1. Wow that’s awesome. True story, at this exact moment I am dressed as a Cat Herder for Halloween festivities tonight.

    2. Should Libertarians Vote for Trump? Nick Gillespie Debates Walter Block on Nov. 1

      They should be hosting a debate about whether honest liberals should vote for Hillary.

      1. This!

    3. Clinton said that some media outlets ‘have no right to exist’ and vowed to crush them. I won’t say that NPR has no right to exist, but they certainly have no right to put their snout in the public trough.

  26. I did manage to pick off my wife as a +1 for Johnson, -1 for Clinton. Straight Machiavellian shit. I told her I would vote for Trump if she voted for Hillary. She hated the idea of me “cancelling” her vote, so we agreed to both vote for Johnson. You’re welcome.

    1. Yeah, but if she’s like most wives, it’ll end up costing you in the end.

      It’s like they’re constantly keeping a running tally.

      Sometimes the worst thing you can do is win an argument with a woman.

      1. Talking to women is way, way overrated. Most of them feel the same way about me, so it’s good.

        The best way to get a chick to stop talking to you is to refuse to flatter her. They go looking for fresh meat. I have a nice wife. I’m good.

        I realize not everybody works with mostly women. I can attest that it can be a shitty experience. Women do not value or understand leadership or technical competence the same way men do. On the other hand, if you act like a man and not a super-sensitive beta Millennial, you mostly get your way.

    2. But voting booths are private.

    3. “both vote for Johnson.”

      Sounds like a win/win.

      Or maybe I should say wink/wink.

  27. Looks like the #MAGA train is filling up with cosmos…
    Welcome aboard.

  28. Voting for minor party? Some Clinton backers want to swap votes with you

    teve Friday really wants Hillary Clinton to win the White House, so he hatched a scheme to vote for Jill Stein.

    Sound strange? You just haven’t heard about vote swapping yet.

    Friday, a technical service representative who lives in Fort Worth, didn’t feel like his single Clinton vote would do much to turn Texas blue, so he used a vote-trading app called #NeverTrump to find Robert Munch. Munch is a cannabis extractor living in Denver. Munch feels most connected to Stein, but he also doesn’t want to see Trump in the White House.

    The two decided by what Munch called “a gentleman’s agreement” to swap their votes. Friday would vote for the Green Party candidate in Texas and Munch would check the box next to Clinton’s name in Colorado.

    Although the agreement wouldn’t change the number of popular votes going for each candidate, it would be another vote for Clinton in a competitive state.

    1. I hope the doper lied and votes for Stein anyways. I can respect people who vote for Jill Stein.

      1. One of my liberal buddies is doing exactly that and I commended him for it. Any liberal with any actual principles abandoned Hillary, which is why it’s not a surprise so many are voting for her.

    2. Yet if you asked either of these people if they trusted “the Market” to solve anything, they’d both vehemently insist “NO WAY”

    3. And we know the person saying the will vote for Stein will actually do so because…? Voting booth selfie?

    4. They could do what legislators do – a person on one side agrees with a person on the other side to avoid voting altogether.

      Maybe they could pair off like they do in Congress:

      “In the United States Senate and House of Representatives, pairing is referred to as a live pair, which is an informal voluntary agreement between members, not specifically authorized or recognized by House or Senate rules. Live pairs are agreements which members make to nullify the effect of absences on the outcome of recorded votes. If a member expects to be absent for a vote, he or she may “pair off” with another member who will be present and who would vote on the other side of the question, but who agrees not to vote. The member in attendance states that he or she has a live pair, announces how each of the paired members would have voted, and then votes “present.” In this way, the other member can be absent without affecting the outcome of the vote. Because pairs are informal and unofficial arrangements, they are not counted in vote totals; however paired members’ positions do appear in the Congressional Record.”

      The advantage is that there’s a record of whether you voted or not, so you don’t have to rely on the honor system to see if the other guy kept his/her promise by not voting.

      1. Reminds me of this old Dilbert strip……

        http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-03-04

    5. So in theory a Trump supporter could register 100 times as a Stein supporter, and reduce Hillary’s vote total by 100.

      Texas is now a toss-up on RCP by the way.

  29. Has anyone heard from sarcasmic? Any news on how his ordeal is working out? I haven’t seen him since he was expecting his visit. My first thought: They looked on his computer, found his H&R posts and he now has the honor of being the first of us off to the camps for adults.

      1. A visit from CPS regarding his kid.

        1. ouch. I knew he had a recent breakup w. the wife, thats all.

        2. I hope he’s okay.

          He seems like a great guy who (IMHO) put up with a tremendous amount of shit from the female unit just for the benefit of his kid–and I don’t think you can do that and not be a great dad.

          I’m sure they’ll put him through more hell and make him jump through flaming hoops of horseshit, but I bet he gets his kid home soon.

          Skenazy reminds how easy it is for CPS to get involved, and taking the kids to his parents is probably the scariest thing that could have happened–but it’s gotta be in the kid’s best interests to get home quick once they’ve done that and figure things out.

          They may want to keep visiting him after he takes some classes or something, but the worst of it may be behind him.

          Maybe he’s got his kid back, and he’s so busy having fun with the kid that he doesn’t have time for us right now.

  30. Well don’t you know, it’s the most important election ever?

    I’ve been told this repeatedly these past couple of months by my Progressive friends. I then point out that they said the same thing five years ago with Romney and suddenly these 30 year olds are suffering from amnesia and forgot that they ever said that to me.

    I’m not a fan of both candidates, but I would trade anything to see Trump win simply because I want to see the meltdown on Facebook and MSNBC.

    1. “Well don’t you know, it’s the most important election ever?”

      Every decision made in the present is the most important one you can make.

      You are correct Ed. The meltdown will be like nothing we have seen before. Trump would make the proggies pine for Bush. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ones who were complaining about Trump’s suggestion that he might not accept the legitimacy of the election should Hillary win go off the rails and we end up with some kind of unrest.

      1. I had a couple of people say that women’s reproductive rights will be taken away and that Trump will put all the minorities in camps. I’ve always said that if Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio would have won the GOP nomination, we would get the same doom and gloom stories with slightly different variations.

        1. Most people think Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. It did not. At the time, about 30% of the country lived in states where it was already legal. All it did (with a few subsequent decisions) was make it illegal to make abortion illegal.

          If Roe is overturned, it goes back to the states. No doubt some would make it illegal, but then the pro-choice types can just pay for plane tickets and motel stays for anyone who wants one.

        2. I remember some dumb college kid in 2012 saying he voted for Obama because other progtards told him that Romney would take away women’s tampons.

    2. MSNBCs meltdown would be epic, and I would finally tune in to MSNBC.

  31. If everyone of us who comments here, and everyone whom we can influence, were to vote for Trump…it wouldn’t change the outcome of the election at all. So put down the turdburger and the shitsandwich and vote your conscience and not some delusional scenario where you think your vote will make a difference.

    1. We have far more influence on the people around us than you imagine.

      That’s why authoritarian dictators are obsessed with policing what people say to each other.

      Jesus took over the Roman empire starting with 12 guys, one of whom betrayed him. They accomplished that by word of mouth.

      P.S. This website says Reason.com is getting some 2 million visits per month, and they can’t all be Tulpa.

      http://www.trafficestimate.com/reason.com

      1. Most of that is Fist refreshing for the links.

          1. That’s not LOL. That’s not LOL at all.

    2. Also, maybe we should institute a breeding program–sort of like the Mormons.

      A majority of Americans are already fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and things like gay marriage and marijuana legalization happened in no small part due to our efforts. But even if we believed something something that were truly hard to sell, we could still fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck our way to the top of the demographic pile.

      1. And at least stop importing anti-libertarians.

        1. Must have moar scary boogeymen. The clowns just aren’t cutting it, we need stuff getting blown up.

          /government

          1. “The god of Diversity must be worshipped, no matter how much welfare, no matter how many terror attacks, no matter how much government surveillance it takes!”

      2. I got three, I’m trying my best. It’s getting harder to fuck, fuck, fuck with all the interruptions though.

      3. I’d love to see an experiment where socially liberal cosmo types agree to have large families for the sake of the Cause.

        1. Yeah, the Mormons have the edge on there, but the recipe is pretty clear.

          Step 1: Convince women that they can’t go to heaven unless their husband says they can.

          Step 2: When one wife starts complaining, don’t argue with her. Remind her that she can’t go to heaven without your okay, and then get another one.

          How we translate that into libertarian dogma, I don’t know. But it’s there if we need it.

          1. Catholics used to have large families without teaching that husbands had a veto over the wife’s chances at heaven.

            1. Yeah, but they had like an 1,850 year head start on the Mormons.

            2. So what you’re saying is we need a higher child mortality rate and more poverty…

          2. Plan A: Get the libertarian women to institute a eugenics program of carefully controlled crossbreeding in order to produce the perfect libertarian superbeing.

            Plan B is Axolotl tanks.

            Nothing can go wrong.

            1. So much easier to just implement a euthanasia program for the progtards.

        2. The only 2 demographics I see doing that these days are welfare recipients who get a bonus for each baby they can pop out and Jews. I swear the average Jewish couple around here in their 30s have an avg of 6 kids. The women must be pregnant non-stop.

          1. OK, how about married (man/woman) couples having lots of kids who are theirs?

      4. “A majority of Americans are already fiscally conservative and socially liberal”

        They claim to be, but the majority of them have a stronger desire to control what you’re doing than they care about those ideals.

        1. When you look at the panoply of things you do daily, weekly, or whenever, you see that the vast majority of them are things nobody else wants to control. It’s really just a few things that interest even the freakiest control freaks; it just looks like a lot because of your perspective. For example, nobody’s interested in controlling which of your clothes you select to wear on a given day, nor what tricks you teach your dog or cat. Even in the areas some (a very few) people are interested in controlling your choices, it’s usually only a small few of the possible choices that they’d want to proscribe. For instance, they don’t care which fruit juice you drink, only whether you drink liquor. The vast majority of decisions, if you asked them about them, they’d say to do whatever the fuck you want.

          1. The problem is, is that even one thing that they want to control about your behavior… and I’m of course referring to behavior that does not directly harm others, is that it all eventually leads to totalitarianism. Look what the drug war has done. It has accomplished every dictators’ dream. It’s an all in one package. Look at Duterte, he’s going to ‘legally’ kill an estimated 3 million people by using this one simple trick. Your utility company really hate this.

            1. That’s an extreme exaggeration. If liquor prohib’n didn’t lead to totalitarianism in the USA or the other countries that had it, why would drugs? So what about Duterte? He’s not the 1st murderous dictator in the region. You really think if it hadn’t been for drugs, he’d be a nice guy?

              1. Alcohol prohibition was enacted and repealed through an amendment to the constitution. And the repeal was largely because people saw the totalitarianism. The drug war has been totalitarian from the word go.

      5. “we could still fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck our way to the top of the demographic pile”

        Who better to show the way than the Donald!

        1. We’re fucking our way to freedom!

          1. Fucking our way to freedom, libertarians 2016! Join us @ libertarians.fuckyourwayfreedom.org!

        2. You know, a Trump presidency, while shutting off Mexican and islamic immigration, could greatly expand the immigration of hot European women. A subject Trump appears well versed in.

      6. Also, maybe we should institute a breeding program–sort of like the Mormons.

        I thought we already had this, and she’s called Banjos.

      7. There is limiting factor to that plan. It has to do with the scarcity of a certain type of human in libertarian circles.

          1. ….

            huh.

            Golf clap.

  32. Notre Dame has a football played named Equanimeous St. Brown.

  33. I think Libertarians should consider voting for Hillary. If you’re considering voting as a party thing, breaking the Dems into separate Liberal/Prog/Commie camps and the GOP into separate Establishment/Socon/Smaller Government camps is your best bet for making the LP relevant and a Trump win will serve to unite the Dems as an anti-Trump party and the GOP as a Just Win, Baby! party. A Hillary win will exacerbate the feeding frenzy at the pig trough and the leftists will start eating one another while the GOP is going to have to purge one portion or another of its Big Tent. A civil war in both parties would be good for the LP and you’re more likely to get that with Hillary than with Trump.

    If you’re a libertarian who just wants government to leave you alone, Johnson’s the one most likely to move things in that direction. Or you can do like me and just follow PJ’s advice to not vote, it just encourages the bastards. You ain’t getting left alone unless and until you’re dead so just go ahead and make plans to take a few of ’em with you when it gets to the point where you’d just as soon be dead as keep living like this.

    1. The amount of damage Hillary could do isn’t worth the chance. Really, maybe she gets nothing done except for damaging the already damaged image of our government. But maybe she’ll end the 2nd amendment, stack scotus with hard leftists, severely curtail the first amendment, tax the middle class out of existence, extend the war on drugs, and dump gasoline on the fire in the middle east. I mean she fully intends to do all of those things. How well do you like the chances of the GOP stopping her or even trying? They’ll make some noise about stopping her and then fold like lawn chairs. The neocon wing of the GOP love Hillary, she’s one of them.

  34. Shocker = Most Members of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Where Dakota Access Pipeline Runs Near? Don’t Give a Flying Fuck About It.

    The Standing Rock Sioux call this reservation home, and many are not on the frontlines of this months-long, and at times violent, protest. With no end in sight, what does it mean to them? And are they even united in their support?

    The answer to that last question: Not even close.

    The piece, in its attempt at fairness, quotes maybe a half-dozen locals who think the protesters are jerks and morons, but then throws in comments from a half-dozen protesters who are like, “BUT THE EARTH, MAN?!?”

    I continue to wonder why exactly there was no national sense of outrage and Hollywood-celebrity protests when the EPA dumped a few million gallons of poison into some indians water-supply.

    1. Yes they do care, you hateful hate monger! Stop lying! /progderp

    2. So, if they have a reservation, the tribe on the reservation has an organized government.

      The responsibilities of an Indian nation’s government include defending that nation’s interests. And I know you’ll roll your eyes at this, but if in fact the nation has had its land stolen to built a pipeline on sacred areas, then the responsibility for dealing with the situation would be with the government of the nation in question, and any allies it can muster.

      The article claims the chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux hasn’t taken a stand on the controversy.

      But in this NYT op-ed the chairman seems to side with the demonstrators (I can’t tell due to the paywall).

      1. OK, the chairman is with the protesters. He should be the point person on this, not a bunch of retarded hippie treehuggers.

        1. The job of the retarded hippie treehuggers is to tell the poor natives what they care about, because without that, they couldn’t possibly know.

          1. Real Injuns are out protesting Chief Wahoo and the ‘Skins.

      2. Funny how Indian tribes always decide that land is sacred after somebody wants to build something on it.

        1. Well, to be fair, if someone decided they were going to take my backyard for their own project and *maybe* toss me a couple bucks – that little slab of sand and concrete would become pretty fucking sacred to me too.

      3. And isn’t blocking construction on legally acquired land because it’s “sacred” a violation of the Establishment Clause?

        1. Is using Eminent Domain to seize land for a *non-public* purpose actually legal? And if it is, in opposition of a plain reading of the statute, doesn’t that mean that ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ are irrelevant where the government is concerned?

          Live by the sword, die by the sword.

      4. The job of an Indian Nation government is not to *defend* anything. Its to give a Single Point Of Contact for the BIA and to pass down and enforce whatever new regulation the BIA comes up with – and to spend whatever federal monies come to ‘the tribe’ for the ‘greater good’ of the tribe.

    3. Kinda like this one

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/or…..ccupation/

    4. My first thought when I heard about this protest…probably a bunch of college students that aren’t even from the state

  35. We need Vine*, and I hope these great men come through to save us.

    *TW: Uber-whiteness.

    1. Is the dancing guy’s face there photoshopped* on or something? It looks very unnatural. Or maybe that really is “dancing white-person face”, i don’t know

      (*or whatever the video version of that term is)

    2. What’s the difference between Uber-whiteness and Lyft-whiteness?

      1. Which one has the pink mustache?

  36. Remember that Obama got 120% of registered voters one PA precinct.

    1. Don’t use your racist math on me.

      1. I note that Weigel didn’t address the statistical improbability of zero Romney votes in many areas.

        1. I’m too lazy to look for a link but I recall some poli-sci stuff that there should almost never be a precinct that goes 100% for one candidate, no matter what. People make mistakes and spoil their ballot or vote for the wrong candidate. Voters do shit like try to cancel out someone else’s vote, put one over on the people who gave them a ride to the polls or passed out incentives to vote for a particular candidate. There’s always a few contrarians around too. 100% is de facto proof of a rigged precinct.

  37. You couldn’t find a more ridiculous suggestion. The fact that it’s even suggested here as a possibility tells you all you need to know. It’s said here that Rand Paul is “libertarianISH” only.

    “Hold your judgement for yourself lest you wind up on this road.”

  38. It’s getting to the point where I want Trump to win just to see the faces of liberals I know. They honestly believe him to be so bad, that he terrified Comey into restarting the investigation.

    1. The Putin as Julian Assange thing was ridiculous enough. Leftists now have basically zero credibility or reason to be taken seriously about anything. Not that they ever did.

    2. Shadenfreud is the best reason to vote for Trump.

    1. Inspirational. Why can’t people disagree with such decorum? I blame evil racist republicans

    2. `”stop being such pussies and have a go already”`

  39. Trump is a toxic buffoon.
    “Vote for the toxic buffoon. It’s important.”

    1. Wow. that was brilliant. Did you think that up all on your own?

      1. No, I stole culturally appropriated it, fair and square.

  40. I believe that Mickey Mouse is a historically libertarian-leaning cartoon character, and libertarians should vote for him over Trump/Clinton.

    The downside would be slightly longer copyright durations, but you can’t have everything.

    1. We really don’t know much about Mickey Mouse.

  41. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ——————>>> http://www.careerstoday100.com

  42. There is an argument that the best way forward for libertarian ideals might be for the GOP to see national-level success through a candidate with less religious credibility than Richard Dawkins and realize that adherence to religious societal standards is somewhat flagging.

    Additionally, the media was really big on the constitution while Bush43 was in office, which might repeat itself if another widely-despised GOP candidate found himself in the white house.

    That is to say IF you can bring yourself to vote for the schmuck, which I could not (voted absentee last week), it might be worth considering. For me, his views on trade, Tienanmen Square, and free speech instantly disqualify him from seeking my ballot, but against Clinton, the one Democrat in the world who doesn’t even have non-interventionism on her side and openly flouts FOIA, it’s a question worth asking. “Where does my vote do the most good? Supporting the non-religious GOP candidate (and for all of his posturing, nobody really believes that Trump is a religious right-er, including his religious-right supporters like “I don’t care if he starts performing free abortions in the Lincoln Bedroom” Coulter) or supporting a candidate who wants to second-guess and criminilaize your motives for refusing to enter in a contract but has LP after his name?

  43. IMHO Libertarians can vote for whoever they want, or choose not to vote in order to deny the state legitimacy. That’s what being a Libertarian is all about.
    I am voting for Trump for chaos, and revenge.

    No Quarter for the Social Democrat Statists !!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-UdrNes2bA

  44. Libertarian here, reluctantly voting Trump. Heck, even in this environment, I can’t get all whipped up about the Libertarian candidate. I’m with Ken Shultz about sending a message.

  45. I admit I’m a bit surprised at what appears to be a significant level of support of Trump from the commentators on this thread and other recent threads on a “libertarian” publication. I understand the attraction of an anti-establishment candidate and acknowledge he may be doing the GOP and the country as a whole a favor by causing some introspection within that party (or blowing it up) but the latter was accomplished through the primaries. Sure he’s floated some good suggestions on economic and foreign policy (like GJ and unlike HRC or JS) but even still he’s just not a very attractive anti-establishment candidate and mind you I don’t give a shit about pussy grabbing or the nice city of Belgium comments (or in GJ’s case “what’s a LEPO”) though I do care if he thinks he has the right to grab pussy (or land) without consent just because he’s the Donald. (to be continued)

  46. I’m not sure what arguments Nick will be making but I do give a shit about someone who: wants to build brick and mortar and high tariff walls around the country, has advocated firewalling off portions of the internet, appears to view trade as a win/lose propositions, has floated a return to NYC style of stop and risk, has through business practices flouted the 5th amendment and has advocated bombing the shit out of families of suspected terrorists. Those don’t seem that close to a libertarian viewpoint to me but what could be even more disturbing is the uncertainty of his mental state. We are discussing a guy who whines about being treated unfairly by the press , not winning an Emmy for a reality TV show and SNL’s/Alec Baldwin’s caricature of him. Sure that could be harmless but that also could be indicative of how he’d handle the pressures of the role of POTUS: would he lash out at his “tormentors” (inside or outside the country) and if so in what fashion or would he “man up” and move forward with his vision? (to be continued)

  47. Perhaps all this was an act to attract certain demographics and he’ll turn out to be someone who, upon taking office, projects optimism like Reagan (I voted Anderson) did when he took office. I just don’t see that in his makeup. I would not trust him with our freedoms and liberties any more than I’d trust them with Hillary..

    1. They want that wall to protect them from Mexican butt sex, A. Can’t you see how the Mexican rapists he alluded to last year are right now amassing just outside the gate, like Hannibal’s Gauls and Carthaginias?

      Whoever tell you that their support for El Trumpo is based on his prominent knowledge of market economics or because he’s particularly anti-war, is lying.

  48. Should Libertarians Vote for Trump? Nick Gillespie Debates Walter Block on Nov. 1

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  49. If our economy and national security means anything to Hillary or to Donald, they’d open dialog and layout their plans to balance the budget for starters. We’re $19 Trillion in debt. Our government and infrastructure is antiquated and grossly inefficient. Both H & D have big plans to expand gov with new programs we can’t possibly pay for.

    Hillary is a liar, stands for crony capitalism and war. Middle Eastern Tribes have been infighting since the 7th century, that’s 1,300 years! She doesn’t have the common sense to realize that our operations won’t change this and meddling has destabilized more than it’s helped. She has no regard for life!

    Trump is also a liar, and a con, a bigot, a fascist, a sexual predator, and now a whiner! He’s a loose cannon who incites violence, and threaten our security and freedoms. Trump focuses on Trump. He’s not a person, he’s a brand.

    Gary Johnson may not have names on the tip of his tongue but understands the real cost of unnecessary and ineffective military interventions is. He supports military supremacy but has a foreign policy based on defense. Johnson / Weld are experienced governors with practical experience in working across party lines as reelected Republican Governors in Democratic majority states to affect reforms without tax increases. What’s happened to honesty and integrity? I hope that one or more states vote’s are able to tilt the electorate for real change. Don’t vote for the lesser of two evils…Vote Johnson/Weld!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.