Libertarian Party

Incumbent Libertarian Nevada Assemblyman John Moore Crushed; Only 7 Percent of Vote

Is the Libertarian label electoral poison, or is there another explanation?

|

One of the more on-the-surface disquieting state-level results for the Libertarian Party, in a year where their presidential ticket broke vote total and percentage records by leaps and bounds, was the unprecedentedly crushing defeat of the only actual state-level Libertarian incumbent up for re-election, Nevada Assemblyman John Moore. (Moore was elected in 2014 as a Republican with a bare 50 percent majority, and switched parties to Libertarian while in office in January.)

He got only 7 percent of the vote, behind winning Democrat Jason Frierson with 56 percent and Republican Norm Ross with 37 percent.

John Moore Facebook

As reported here last week, the L.P. itself, on both the state and local level, had pretty much washed its hands of John Moore over his voting for a Nevada stadium subsidy. The Libertarian National Committee was especially peeved because they had given Moore a very rare cash donation of $10,000 to help him keep his seat, money apparently ill-spent, and money they wanted back after his apostasy on the stadium vote.

Moore was not alone as an incumbent losing his Assembly seat in Nevada this year. As the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted:

Three former Assembly Democrats ousted in 2014 reclaimed their districts [as happened to Moore]…In contrast, seven Republican Assembly incumbents lost their races, overcome by a large statewide Democratic voter turnout and districts that had Democratic active voter advantages.

Still, incumbents, suffice it to say, usually do a lot better than 7 percent. Could it be that the Libertarian label is such electoral poison that it subtracted over 80 percent of Moore's support?

It's true he did barely squeak by in his 2014 victory, with a mere 40 vote difference between him and the Democrat incumbent Frierson who beat Moore this time.

Moore himself, and Nevada L.P. state chair Brett Pojunis, did not reply to requests for comment as to the meaning of Moore's defeat as a Libertarian as of posting time. But a conversation with other Nevada-based L.P. activists revealed some reasons why this happened to Moore that might not be entirely the fault of the L.P. label.

Nevada-based Libertarian activist and political operative Jason Weinman concludes given the curious circumstances of his 2014 victory that "Moore never had a chance of winning re-election as a Republican" but might have as a Libertarian, since his unique status as a sitting Libertarian legislator could have been a useful machine for "getting media coverage, could have been a substantial news story not just locally, but nationally," though that never panned out in a major way.

The best explanation for how Moore squeaked by in the first place in a traditionally Democratic District 8, in Weinman's read, was because in 2014 the Democrats ran for governor someone who lost to "none of the above" in the primary by 6 percentage points and they had little reason statewide to care about the election at all. (Since the Party needed to put a real human on the ballot, number two runner up Robert Goodman ran, and lost.)

Turnout in Nevada in 2014 was historically low, and Republican turnout beat Democratic by around 8 percent. Moore winning in 2014, Weinman says, "was a total fluke" and he never had a real chance in 2016, unless he could be a Libertarian and talk the Republicans into not running someone against him. At the last minute a Republican unwilling to honor any unspoken deal with Moore, Norm Ross, entered the race.

Although both the state and the national Party continued pushing and supporting Moore up until the illusion-shattering stadium vote, Weinman thinks that as soon as Moore was running against two major party opponents, an inability to break even 10 percent should have been obvious to anyone familiar with local Nevada politics, which lots of national supporters and funders may not have been.

Indeed, that ignominious defeat for Moore is how it turned out. So, the story isn't as simple as the Libertarian label instantly sapping over 80 percent of an incumbent's support.

In slightly better news for the L.P., Dennis Hof, famous for operating houses of prostitution in Nevada, got 39 percent in a two-way Assembly race running as a Libertarian against GOP incumbent James Oscarson.

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.

219 responses to “Incumbent Libertarian Nevada Assemblyman John Moore Crushed; Only 7 Percent of Vote

  1. Moore and Johnson were key tests of the “pragmatism” idea.

    I think this doesn’t so much rebut pragmatism as indicate that a party full of aspies can’t really tell what the voters want, so their attempts at pragmatism are hit or miss.

    1. My father asked me once if I wanted to attend the local atheists club.

      “A club for non-joiners? No thanks.” Plus the obligatory “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me. ”

      The Libertarian party isnt going anywhere. The only way we can move the needle towards freedom is from within a major party, and it aint gonna be the Dem party.

        1. My type, yes. The evangelical asshole type, not so much.

          1. I did end up going once to see if there were any interesting girls. It was exactly who I expected would be there. There are always a couple of those angry guys trying to get you to read some passage from a book they carry around by stabbing the pages with their fingers and demanding “Look at this! Look at this!”, the proggie types, and a couple of guys like me that were just there to look for women.

            I lasted less than an hour.

            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.Trends88.com

          2. You should consider converting to agnosticism.

            1. I don’t know about that.

              1. See, you’re a natural.

            2. I’d suggest Neo-Paganism, but you have to navigate idiotic Wiccans to the left and neo-Nazis to the right. Bear Odinson will have your back, though. Probably.

              1. Nope, instead Bear Odinson will challenge you to combat for the position of Jarl. If he wins he’ll take your women and gold and sail his longboat off into the sunset. The prick.

                1. Aw, I was hoping he was gonna have me on his next Viking raid. Look at all these coastal universities. Close to the sea, no walls, gun-free zones, full of women and pussy-ass men. And loaded with iPods, Samsung and other easily-portable, valuable loot. A bold leader, a drakkar and 40 ready men could make great wealth!

                  1. They make poor thralls. A man raised on kale is no man at all, and he lacks the grit to till the fields. But burning down their safe spaces does increase religious authority, so that’s nice.

              2. Not sure that I really want Bear “at my back”…

            3. you should convert to deism. Not that it’ll matter if you do anyway.

          3. Ah gotcha, however, I think you may be conflating belonging (to a group) with promoting (said group).

      1. Yeah, I’m a little disappointed that we still only have 3 libertarians in the GOP controlled Congress.

        1. It’s three more than we had a decade ago.

          1. Three? I only count one from Michigan in the House. Which is the same total the “libertarian Republicans” had in 1976.

      2. I’m not entirely sure it couldn’t be the Dem party under the right circumstances, but you’re probably right.

        I wouldn’t be particularly optimistic about a libertarian insurgency in the Democratic party, but then I’m not particularly optimistic about one in the Republican party either.

      3. I agree, Suthenboy. The key to a libertarian America is to take over the Republican party, and turn it into the small government, constitutionalist party it claims to be but never governs as.

        1. I agree also. Ron Paul has always been right about that.

      4. For now I’ll stick with trying to herd cats.

    2. You’re wrong.

      I’ll tell you what happened. It might blow your mind, so get ready for it:

      Democrats and Republicans vote straight-ticket without knowing a damned thing about any candidate.

      He was listed as (R) before, people voted for him. He is listed as (L) now, they voted for (R) as before. It’s not mystical. It has nothing to do with Johnson, pragmatism, libertarian purity, or any of the other horseshit you’d like it to be about.

      1. Yeah.

      2. It didn’t help that Johnson was minimally persuasive and his VP pick endorsed Hillary. The campaign was an embarrassment.

        I keep seeing those pictures of Gary holding up a flap from a cardboard box with ‘Vote for me’ scrawled on it with a magic marker, him standing around with his hands in his pockets, and then that time he tried to lick the woman reporter. I am much more forgiving of the Aleppo moment. I can see how that would happen, but it shouldn’t have.

        1. his VP pick endorsed Hillary

          Vouched for ? endorsed. He was just saying he didn’t think she was a liar or a criminal. Wrong, but far from an endorsement.

          The Aleppo thing was typical MSM hardballing people they don’t like (while prepping Hillary with the questions she’ll be asked beforehand). Trump just gave soft, vague answers to everything, and whiffed on essentially all foreign policy questions except the “bomb the shit out of ISIS” thing, which is pretty much the extent of the American public’s interest in foreign policy this campaign season. Still got elected, didn’t he? Johnson may have struck out on a few, but he hit homeruns on quite a few others, but who reports shit that doesn’t make him look goofy?

          Selective reporting can make anyone look like a kook. If someone looks solid and you don’t like them – oh, look over there, it’s a celebrity calling a press conference to endorse a duopoly candidate – then turn off the camera and wander away. Some of you are gung-ho for McAfee for some reason, despite the fact that he’s even more prone to doing and saying weird shit on camera.

          We really, really need to stop this divisive purity test shit. The LP ran the candidate that people voted for. He predictably lost, because anyone with (L) after their name loses. Nobody knows who we are. We don’t need to bloody each other over who to blame like the idiot proggies.

          1. GayJay was given every opportunity by the press not to look like a goofy, retarded stoner yet he failed every time. The bipartisan establishment wanted Johnson/Weld to stop the Trump Train.When it became painfully obvious he couldn’t they drafted Egg McMuffin as backup. GayJay failed at his One Job…electing Hitlery Kkklinton but he succeeded in damaging his secondary target, the liberty movement.

          2. So we’re the Charlie Brown of political parties?

          3. Some of you are gung-ho for McAfee for some reason, despite the fact that he’s even more prone to doing and saying weird shit on camera.

            Yes. Look at all this cah-raaaazzzy shit McAfee said.

            Clearly the man is an unstable lunatic.

          4. “We really, really need to stop this divisive purity test shit. ”
            No true libertarian would say that.

          5. But she is a liar and a criminal. So don’t give a crap about the difference between an endorsement and a vouchination.

        2. He should have picked Jesse Ventura as VP. That would have attracted a lot of attention and votes.

          1. Jesse would be a Libertarian Trump.

      3. I think it’s a combo. I think when Libertarians try to be Republicans they just make shitty Republicans, and there are already real Republicans to vote for. You’re better off being a Libertarian and owning that shit. Spend your time and political capital selling Libertarian ideas as practical solutions to real problems rather than trying to square the circle between the usual government bullshit and libertarianism.

        1. I think when Libertarians try to be Republicans they just make shitty Republicans, and there are already real Republicans to vote for.

          Maybe? But guys like Rand and Massie (and a few others) are all Rs and make arguably better Ls than Johnson did.

          That’s why I think it’s kinda silly to try to appeal to liberals with pot/ass-sex/immigration than stick with the constitutionalist/conservative crowd. You can probably do both! But don’t straight up insult the allies you may already have with stuff like gay wedding cakes.

          1. Pot/ ass sex/ Mexicans. It appears that you’re new here.

  2. Although both the state and the national Party continued pushing and supporting Moore up until the illusion-shattering stadium vote, Weinman thinks that as soon as Moore was running against two major party opponents…

    I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!

    1. Was the $10,000 given before or after it became a three man race? Once could have easily guessed it would be wasted if the race was three man, even if Moore was the incumbent.

  3. When someone asks which way I lean politically I tell them I’m a classical liberal. Most have no idea what I’m talking about.

    1. It means you’re a racist.

      1. No I’m not,I love fried chicken.

        1. +1 Brown Sugar.

    2. Explain it to them and see how long it takes for some of them to turn red in the face and spit on you.

      1. Why bother, they most likely won’t understand big words like freedom.

        1. Sure they do. Freedom is when you don’t have to worry about having to pay for anything because the government gives you everything. You don’t even have to make any decisions or find a job because the government does that for you too! At least, that’s what the socialists progressives told me.

      2. About as long as it takes for me to give them a broken jaw.

    3. I like to say the same thing. It has more dignity to it. “Libertarian” isn’t even a word. It sounds like a cult. I bet some people mistake it for Bramch Davidson.

      Unfortunately most people hear classical liberal as meaning liberal, or conservative, or you may as well be telling them you’re an ardent Guelph.

    4. Ted Lowi would know.

    1. Kind of ironic that Trump has puy more libertarians in policy positions in one week than the Libertarian Party has in the last 50 years.

      And Trump sure didn’t run as a pragmatist!

      1. Who are the other libertarians?

        1. My dad mentioned yesterday there’s a libertarian being considered by trump for SEC head. Something he read in the WSJ

          1. -1 fat-assed RINO from New Jersey. Please.

    2. This brings me great happiness. If you want to drain the swamp you couldn’t start in a better place the cutting the balls off of the EPA and flushing all of the greenie, rent seeking bastards down the drain.

      Global warming, my ass. It is a straight up con.

      1. And watching the reactions to it on CNN and MSNBC will beer and popcorn TV at it’s finest.

        1. I am giddy with anticipation. Really, the entertainment value of a Trump presidency will be like nothing seen in generations. It may also end up having good practical value both economically and for liberty in general.

          1. Imagine if he’s serious about school choice and appoints someone to Ed that truly tries to go in that direction Teacher’s union tears are yummy, like bacon.

            1. I am thinking the tax policies he espouses, drastically cutting regulation, school choice, Obumblecare gone…

              Oceans of money will pour back into the country. Unemployment will drop to near zero. Being rich gives people a lot of freedom.

              Dammit. You are right. I only have four rain barrels and they are already full. I think I will run into town tomorrow and pick up another half-dozen.

              1. And then there is this – “”The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states,” he wrote.

                And this – Voicing his support for the Second Amendment, Trump argued that the recent massacre in Paris would have “would have played out differently with the bullets flying in the other direction.

                And this – “”It’s too bad that some of the young people that were killed over the weekend didn’t have guns attached to their (hip), frankly, where bullets could have flown in the opposite direction,” Mr. Trump also told radio host Howie Carr last week.

                And this – Trump says there’s another way to fight crime – by empowering “law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves.”

              2. I guess that you don’t live in New Mexico. That rainwater belongs to the state.

    3. No, really, A denier, who might also be a libertarian? Too good to be true.

      I really want Trump to give Peter Thiel a key role. But that’s probably too much to hope for.

      1. Long time till January, though. I’m sure Reasonable Men around him will convince him to put a Proven, Reasonable Republican in the position instead.

        If not, that’s it. That right there is enough to make sure he’s not the worst president of all time.

        1. In one of the wikileaks emails there was a discussion between some yuckity yuck power brokers who explained that despite either parties rhetoric during campaign season, when that was over whomever was elected is expected to ‘default to policy’.

          1. *is elected*

            geez.

            1. Given the comment was written before Nov 9, “will be elected” would be proper.

              Still is. Electors haven’t met yet.:)

      2. I suspect Peter Thiel can have whatever he wants.

        1. How about an end to the war on drugs? That’s the first thing I would ask for if I could have anything I want.

          1. It would be on the list for me, maybe not #1.

            1. It’s because of the human rights violations and the people suffering from it who shouldn’t be that I would put it number one. End the war on drugs and we’re back on the road to freedom.

              1. The category “anything I want” is fairly broad.

                1. Does it include Selma Hayek anal?

                  1. Probably not for Pete Thiel, as hard as that might be for us straight guys, bisexuals, or gay wymynz to comprehend. 🙂

          2. Sadly I don’t see that happening. His law and order position is to arm more law-abiding citizens (very good) and get all of the criminals off of the street, including drug dealers (bad). Then there is the ‘stop and frisk’ bit (very bad). Toss in his comments about eminent domain and one can be justified in arguing that he has given people reason to worry, but the truth is that he is probably the most libertarian candidate we have had since Reagan.

            Reason really missed the boat on this.

            1. he is probably the most libertarian candidate we have had since Reagan

              I’m hoping since Coolidge. I temper my expectations knowing, that as a real estate developer, Trump will use the government to build something very classy, large, and expensive

            2. Tabula rasa until he actually enunciates his policies and cabinet choices. If he chooses Christie for anything, Ill never vote Republican for the rest of my life.

        2. A cock up his ass?

  4. To be fair Moore was running against the guy who makes him talk by shoving his hand up his ass.

      1. Adelson deserves a bullwhip in his anus. A spiked rusty one.

    1. Mapplethorpe . NTTAWWT. Except for homos and a bullwhip.

  5. First of all, literally every single person who earns any sort of paycheck for the party should be given their walking papers.

    Second, if you are going to compromise ideals, don’t compromise the ideals with which persuadable people agree. Stadiums, gun rights, right to bake a cake for whomever you like, those are mainstream positions. Rejecting them is stupid.

    What strikes me is that the LP has a whole lot of people who are more or less in favor of sexual liberty, pot and third parties. That nobody on the LP Facebook even seemed to bat an eye when Weld endorsed Hillary (I was alternately called a purist and a Demopublican… Which is it?) is astonishing. That move cost the party any chance at hitting 5%, and did more to shift votes to Trump than any other gaffe (in a campaign that comprised only gaffes).

    In short the Libertarian Party should try being somewhat Libertarian next time.

    1. “Second, if you are going to compromise ideals, don’t compromise the ideals with which persuadable people agree. Stadiums, gun rights, right to bake a cake for whomever you like, those are mainstream positions. Rejecting them is stupid.”

      That articulates what I’ve been trying to say for a while.

      That’s not “ideological purism” or whatever dismissive term the Johnsonites want to use.

      1. If I wanted to use the ideological purism scalpel on you, I’d dismiss you as not a libertarian at all because of your stance on abortion. You sound like a Republican. A libertarian would say that even if they don’t agree with the practice for personal religious reasons, that it’s wrong to point a gun at someone else and say they can’t do something to their own body. Gary Johnson’s a better libertarian than you on that position. How do ya like them apples?

        Even if I find your opinion on that one issue abhorrent and starkly anti-freedom, no matter the justifications you give in holding it, I usually find most of your other opinions to be in the same ballpark as other libertarians. It’s not about the perfect candidate. It’s about finding people who are pulling in the right direction in this tug-of-war. I’d cut the military much harder than Johnson would. I’d abolish the federal reserve. I’d wield the veto pen far more than he would and both houses of Congress would probably be up there with the rest of the American public plotting my public lynching. Gay wedding cakes isn’t the only thing going on in this fucking country. I disagree with him on forcing businesses to cater to customers they disagree with on religious grounds, but I still voted for him.

        I don’t agree with AnCaps on a lot of shit, as I’m a minarchist. They won’t vote for anyone, and I understand their reasons. At least I know who is and is not on my side. Do you?

        1. If someone truly views abortion as murder, the only true libertarian stance would be anti-abortion.

          I don’t think there’s true libertarian dogma there.

          1. Except that there are two people involved in an abortion, and one of them is already born and capable of making decisions for themselves. The other cannot survive without that person’s consent. The law is force. Force is a gun pointed at you. It is a promise of violence, up to and including death.

            There is no dogma, true, but if the NAP is a guiding principle and someone says they’re OK with violence in the name of the NAP, then they’re being self-contradictory and absurd. Do we err on the side of freedom or do we not? Someone else’s religious views are not more important than your liberty.

            1. “there are two people involved in an abortion”

              Are they both “persons” with constitutional rights?

              1. Yes, they are. Eddie, you and I may not agree on at what point that becomes true, but we agree it is true. I find rationalizations about why one of those people has more rights than the other absurd. Killing one of those people because they cant exist without the other’s consent is just straight-up murder and there is no greater violation of the NAP than that.

                Zero, under your rationalization any person under the care of another – child, patient, prisoner – can be murdered at will.

                1. Zero, under your rationalization any person under the care of another – child, patient, prisoner – can be murdered at will.

                  Not at all. They can be transfered to the care of another. Until the technology exists to be able to transfer a fetus elsewhere and have it survive, it is the prerogative of the pregnant person whether or not to keep it.

                  To say we will do violence to a woman, a conscious being, on behalf of a being which does not yet have consciousness is a violation of the NAP. That much is unquestionable. Whether or not destroying a fetus is murder is debatable. Most people do not define it as murder. We rely on the judgment of society to define what is and is not murder because we rely on the judgment of society in all matters of law. We may not always agree, but more often than not the law is the basis for peace in many matters.

                  To put my position simply enough, destruction of a fetus is not a violation of the NAP because violating the NAP requires the being to already be free. It is not free. Since its existence is wholly dependent on another being, it is that being. You can have your own organs removed surgically and it is morally equivalent to removal of a fetus. When it can be separated and survive independently, it becomes its own being and the NAP applies. You’re free to disagree, but I fully understand your position and won’t change mine despite having given it a great deal of thought.

            2. The other cannot survive without that person’s consent.

              Abortion past the point of viability should be replaced with Cesarean/induced labor?

            3. The other cannot survive without that person’s consent.

              Nor can a toddler.

              if the NAP is a guiding principle and someone says they’re OK with violence in the name of the NAP, then they’re being self-contradictory and absurd

              Let’s set aside abortion and look at indisputable murder. I don’t think there are very many libertarians (granted, “libertarian” runs all the way to anarchy for some) that would agree that murder shouldn’t be met with violence (imprisonment).

              If you believe in any government at all, it’s hard to see how protecting the consenting-governed from murder wouldn’t be a legitimate function of government.

              The NAP can be applied self-consistently to murder because threat of force is appropriate to avoid aggression.

              1. Nor can a toddler.

                Okay, can we not do this thing. It’s been a fantastic few days, and we may get the EPA, DoED, and Obamacare off our backs on the near horizon. Good things! Let’s not spoil it now.

                You’re too bright to overlook that a toddler can be detached from the tit and handed over to another human in time of pressing need. An unborn baby cannot (yet – hurry, science, and save us all from internet abortion threads). It’s… I mean, dude, it’s hanging right there, winking at you and playing the national anthem.

                1. a toddler can be detached from the tit and handed over to another human in time of pressing need. An unborn baby cannot

                  Sure! But the toddler still requires someone else’s consent to survive. It may be less inconvenient simply because the burden of supporting the toddler can be spread around. But it doesn’t change the fact that a dependent being still has rights. Independence is not a prerequisite to have rights, as in not to get murdered. Note that I’m not going down the where-do-you-draw-the-line road. Just simply taking issue with the original statement that pro-choice is the only true libertarian position.

                  It’s been a fantastic few days, and we may get the EPA, DoED, and Obamacare off our backs on the near horizon.

                  I sincerely hope your optimism is rewarded!

                  1. Sure! But the toddler still requires someone else’s consent to survive.

                    Consent, sure why not; but not control over the caregiver’s physical body.

                    Mother/child is a parasitic relationship until birth. That’s kind of the problem with the abortion debates, is that everyone involved is actually right. We’re being asked to decide between a person having the right to control their own body, and a third person’s right to parent which is now dependent upon how another person decides to control their own body, and a third person’s right to live. These are not choices that can be resolved with mere morals and good intentions. Whatever choice made will be anti-liberty for someone.

                    The right to nurture your offspring, the right to control your own body, the right to live… these are all intensely fundamental rights, and on this one issue they happen to occasionally come together into the ultimate conundrum. I suspect that it will be up to science to cut this Gordian knot in the long run.

                    Just simply taking issue with the original statement that pro-choice is the only true libertarian position.

                    No objections there. I’m another pro-life libertarian. So is Welch. It seems there may be a fair number of us.

                    1. and a third another person’s right to parent which is now dependent upon how another person decides to control their own body, and a third person’s right to live.

                      That’s how it was supposed to look.

            4. but if the NAP is a guiding principle and someone says they’re OK with violence in the name of the NAP, then they’re being self-contradictory and absurd.

              No, if they’re okay with aggression in the name of the NAP, then they’re being self-contradictory. Otherwise self-defense isn’t consistent with the NAP.

              Do we err on the side of freedom or do we not?

              How free is somebody who is murdered?

              Someone else’s religious views are not more important than your liberty

              The abortion debate isn’t about somebody else’s views versus your liberty. It’s about somebody else’s life versus your liberty, and to be more precise, somebody else’s life versus the natural consequences of you exercising your liberty.

              1. It’s about somebody else’s life versus your liberty

                The qualification of life alone isn’t enough, otherwise taking antiparasitic drugs to remove intestinal parasites would qualify.

                Being more precise, you mean human life. The definition of what makes a human human is completely open to interpretation. Much of philosophy and religion are built around our attempts to define that word. Most people do not believe a non-conscious cluster of cells to be a human. It then becomes a question of whether a “soul” exists and that it is the basis of a definition of a human, which is religion, and thus the question still boils down to the imposition of your religion upon another person by way of choosing a religious definition of “human life” over some other definition.

                1. The definition of what makes a human human is completely open to interpretation.

                  No… human is a member of the species homo sapiens. I think you mean that a “person” is completely open to interpretation.

                  The fact that an embryo is an individual human life is a biological fact. Whether or not it’s a “person” in a philosophical and ethical sense is what’s up for debate.

                  1. I know it seems pedantic, but the word human is quite important to the conversation. It really limits the ability to dehumanize the baby/fetus/embryo when the word human is inextricably linked to it. It frames the discussion around the question of when an individual human life is worthy of obtaining rights, which is a very different question from whether a woman can have a clump of cells removed from her body.

                    1. The fact that an embryo is an individual human life is a biological fact.

                      Not really, particularly the use of the word “individual.”

                      What is and is not a biological fact is also open to philosophical interpretation. What a fact is, is open to philosophical interpretation if things weren’t already confusing enough.

                      My arm consists of human cells, but my arm is not a human. If it is removed, then those cells die. Just consisting of human cells then is not the definition of a human. Cells that have different DNA from the host? Well, then cancer is a human, and removing a tumor is murder.

                      It always returns to the necessity of a “soul” or other philosophical construct with similar qualities to imbue a particular set of cells with a different quality than the others within a body.

                      You’re saying you’re being pedantic, but I disagree. (For me, the word “pedantic” is meaningless anyway, it only communicates that something is not important to the person using the word.). You’re not being pedantic enough.

                    2. My arm consists of human cells, but my arm is not a human.

                      This sounds like, if not the twin, then at least the kissing-cousin of Password saying toddlers are as dependent to live on another’s consent as an unborn baby.

                      Toddlers are not as parasitic as unborn babies. Arms are not genetically-unique biological organisms. We’re never going to get anywhere through false equivalencies.

                      You’re not being pedantic enough.

                      YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH.

                    3. My whole point is to get you to ask yourself what being human means. That word is incredibly slippery to define despite how deceptively simple it might seem. Many philosophers and religious thinkers have weighed in on it. Which definition you choose weighs heavily on the answer to the overriding question under consideration.

                    4. That’s quite interesting, actually. Sure, I’ll have a go.

                      Humans are animals. Homo sapiens sapiens. Order: Primate. Class: Mammalia. We developed intelligence* through neoteny. Possession of a frontal cortex, highly complex language ability and prehensile appendages with opposable thumbs gives us a superior biological advantage as yet not matched for long-term survivability within homo sapiens sapiens‘ known ranges.

                      The appendages and frontal cortex gave us microprocessors, trauma medicine and jet engines. The language gave us stories. Santa Claus, souls, karma, human kindness. We have no more soul by right of birth into the human race than a feral tomcat – just a lot more words to tell ourselves differently.

                      As a species, we are just bright enough to conceptualize things such as empathy, rule of law. We’re merely not quite bright enough to pull it off on anything more than a highly localized personal scale, as of yet.

                      Little is known of what humans can actually accomplish, because humans throughout their history have rarely lived under conditions where the full potential of their natural advantages has been given free rein.

                      That’s what I think a human is. Just one gal’s opinion. I’m sure there are nearly 7 billion others.

                      *Oh ho ho, let’s just go with intelligence for lack of a better word.

                2. To me it boils down to whether the thing being killed minds being killed. If not, OK. All value is subjective, and to lose what you don’t value (such as life) doesn’t hurt you.

                3. Zero Sum, one could just as easily argue that the idea that humans have rights beyond what other species have, or adults relative to toddlers, are “personal religious” beliefs.

                  Fundamentally, all jurisprudence reduces to debates about moral philosophy. To dismiss “personal religious (or secular philosophical)” beliefs is yo dismiss any basis for law whatsoever.

                  1. Except that it isn’t a dismissal. It’s acknowledgment that there are two fundamentally different bases of that moral question. If we agree that the imposition of one’s religion upon another through force of law is immoral (and the Constitution says that it is), then we must rely upon philosophical secular arguments to construct that basis of law.

                    As mentioned, that is super difficult because there are many potential answers to that question.

                    1. If we agree that the imposition of one’s religion upon another through force of law is immoral (and the Constitution says that it is), then we must rely upon philosophical secular arguments to construct that basis of law.

                      To play devil’s advocate, that’s a distinction without a difference. The only difference between secular (read: humanist) philosophy and religious philosophy is the premise on which your arguments are made. Unless you’re ready to argue that “because Jesus” is categorically different of a premise than “because evolution” or “because Golden Rule,” then there’s no reason to set aside “imposition of religion” as some specially toxic basis of law.

        2. If you follow my posts you know I said I’m *not* a libertarian.

          But of course there *are* prolife libertarians. Ron and Rand Paul, for example. They agree that all living human beings are persons with constitutional rights. Eg, the right to due process before being deprived of life.

          My argument about Johnson is that saying “pragmatism vs. purism!” in this context is silly because it is *not pragmatic* to piss on the First Amendment the way he did.

          1. I’m a pro-life libertarian.

            1. It’s been a nice surprise to see all the prolifers on H&R, and even the “moderates” who at least want to roll back *some* of the existing abortion regime.

              1. Liberty is about self-ownership. A person’s body is not the property of another t be disposed of at will. Neither is their mind or conscience.

                Of course there are lots of us here.

                1. Self-ownership also comes with responsibility. Not necessarily from a legislative mindset. But, libertarians tend to envision a society where nobody is responsible for your actions but you.

                2. Certainly. Not really as surprising as I had thought – the vehemence of the Reason staff and the “you just say that because Jeebus” crowd distracts me from the diversity amongst libertarians.

              2. Only good anti-abortion arguments I’ve ever seen have been on H&R. Comes from living in Canada, I guess?

                I was also deeply impressed with John’s argument of why you cannot legislate abortion without ultimately throwing women in prison. I really want to believe it was genuine, rather than just backing Trump saying the same thing.

                BTW, Eddie, I know you are a filthy schismatic, but are you familiar with Tchaikovsky’s sacral works? At least all sensible churches agree that St John Chrysostom was a cool guy…

                1. “BTW, Eddie, I know you are a filthy schismatic, but are you familiar with Tchaikovsky’s sacral works?”

                  Awesome, thank you.

                  I had only a nodding acquaintance, and now I’m playing your video.

                  1. “I was also deeply impressed with John’s argument of why you cannot legislate abortion without ultimately throwing women in prison.”

                    That would be my view, but the fact that the prolife movement, whose members engage in self-sacrificial work which entitle them to my respect, holds different view, makes me unwilling to press my preference on this matter.

                    Contra John, I see the prolife movement as courageous and even, sometimes, effective. Without them abortion would be a non-issue. Without them there would be no Hyde Amendment, no anti-Roe minority on the Supreme Court, no pregnancy centers, no silent witnesses outside clinics changing mothers’ minds about killing their children.

                    So I rule out evil as the motivation for their stance and I will assume it’s well-grounded in reality, like the prolife position itself.

                    1. And assuming they’re wrong, it simply means they’re not prolife enough – and that is a criticism I am not interested in hearing from pro-choicers.

                      My response would be “at least they’re more prolife than you are, which is a start, isn’t it?”

                2. Only good anti-abortion arguments I’ve ever seen have been on H&R. Comes from living in Canada, I guess?

                  Nah, the quality of arguments surrounding abortion (both for and against) in the US is generally poor. It’s because the issue is politicized, and as I said below, politic is where thought goes to die.

            2. Yup, me too. I see nothing ideologically inconsistent about it, either.

            3. I will say that my views have evolved in one area – I’ve come to appreciate that intelligence and sentience (criteria that I think make sense for defining when something becomes rights-bearing) exist on a much broader spectrum than I once believed. I think that as libertarians (or maybe just as moralists) we often look for bright, clear lines to delineate when some action or belief is justified or not. That simply doesn’t exist on a continuous spectrum.

              This actually makes me believe even more strongly that conception is the best criteria to use for defining personhood, since it is one of few clear lines. But I also understand why it seems silly to some people to assign rights to a small group of cells that don’t even have a central nervous system yet. I won’t demonize those people.

              It’s complicated. And frustrating that these types of difficult questions get almost no consideration. Politics is simply not the place to turn for any kind of deep thought.

              1. But I also understand why it seems silly to some people to assign rights to a small group of cells that don’t even have a central nervous system yet. I won’t demonize those people.

                This is part of the reason why I think a compromise at implantation would be a good one. It gives women a week (or so) to “correct” their “mistake” at a natural risk point for the pregnancy (something in the neighborhood of 60% of embryos don’t implant according to a quick google search), and it protects the baby as it starts to develop.

                As a sidenote, I’ve been getting emails every day from some app my wife uses to track her pregnancy. The emails detail what is going on with the baby and with my wife. I was really surprised at the early start to neural development for the baby. It wasn’t much after our first substantial suspicions that a rudimentary nervous system started to develop. If neural development were to be the “line in the sand,” women would have a couple weeks at most after knowing they were pregnant to abort.

                1. The messier part of the libertarian abortion debate has always been actual enforcement of a theoretical restriction or full on ban. I’m less interested in the actual back-and-forth of the debate and more what anti-abortion people want the state to actually do to prevent it. For example, a ‘dumb politicized argument against abortion’ I’ve heard is that it’s murder, but we wouldn’t dare to actually legally punish women for it (because no one wants to be that asshole). Even though it’s murder. But it’s apparently less murder than other murders. For some reason. Others just want to punish the doctors but not the actual patients. Because apparently it’s not murder if I hire an assassin to do my killing.

                  The positions come off as arbitrary and nonsensical, because if it’s murder, of course it should be treated as any other murder, contextualized by intent and pre-mediation. On top of that, given that a black market will naturally emerge, as it emerges for all restricted items and conduct, it will require pro-active policing to attempt to eliminate them (certainly not on the same scale as the War on Drugs however).

                  1. And I don’t think any libertarians are really arguing for any of that. But if you want to ensure that nowhere in a country of hundreds of millions of people abortions aren’t going on in some black market you’re going to have to take steps that are inherently anti-libertarian, i.e. actual penal punishment, surveillance and an expansion of police powers. So I’d like to hear more on how these bans would be actively enforced than anything else.

                    1. If I absolutely had to guess, I’d imagine that in many jurisdictions prosecuting abortion would be like prosecuting lynching in the Jim Crow south – illegal on paper, but the law would be fairly sporadically enforced, and there would be lost of grand juries shrugging their shoulders and saying the equivalent of “death by persons unknown.”

                      Investigating abortions in some circles would be like solving an honor killing – there would be a wall of silence from the perps’ family and friends.

                      So the issue of enforcing a prolife law would be the opposite of an aggressive investigation.

                      Which is why prolifers are working to change the culture as well as the law. Since these two changes are entertwined – getting a greater awareness of the humanity and personhood of the unborn will march hand in hand with greater legal protection – then perhaps by the time the anti-abortion laws get passed, the public will be enlightened enough to cooperate in the investigation of the crime.

                      As for police abusing their power to go after abortions – we’ve seen cops and prosecutors abuse their power to prosecute rapes that didn’t happen, or even murders that didn’t happen or were committed by other people. That doesn’t mean legalize murder and rape, it means stand fast by the safeguards the constitution has to protect the innocent suspect or defendant.

                      However, the greatest abuses seem to happen when the cops have a financial incentive, as in the drug war.

                    2. “if you want to ensure that nowhere in a country of hundreds of millions of people abortions aren’t going on in some black market”

                      There are lots of things which continue to exist despite laws against them. Rape, burglary, murder, slavery, etc. I doubt the law can put an end to abortion any more than it can put an end to burglary or murder.

                      We probably haven’t closed down all chop shops, either, but car theft and being an accessory thereto should still be illegal.

                    3. And that’s part of the problem. Sporadic, arbitrarily enforced law. Truly the rule of law we deserve.

                      Which is why prolifers are working to change the culture as well as the law. Since these two changes are entertwined – getting a greater awareness of the humanity and personhood of the unborn will march hand in hand with greater legal protection

                      And this falls into the War on Drug problem again. We’ve spend decades actively demonizing drugs, particularly since the Reagan era. And cocaine is still cheaper and easier to get than ever, and demand has not gone down.

                      the public will be enlightened enough to cooperate in the investigation of the crime.

                      A consistent problem in the American black community is that, despite support for the War on Drugs, they’re unwilling to actually cooperate with police. You assume that a culture shift will encourage people to ‘rat out’ the perpetrators. This can be difficult with murder now, and you assume that an abstract philosophical argument will make them naturally more cooperate? I doubt it.

                      Natural abortifacients are easy to get. Entire industries in the classical and middle ages were built around their production. There will be money in these markets if the medical procedure options are off the table. Again, this will require pro-active policing powers if you have any interest in actually stopping it.

                    4. All I can say to that is, what accounts for the existence of the prochoice movement?

                      Can’t they simply content themselves with circulating these untraceable abortifacients?

                      Why do they need to formally legalize abortion and abortion clinics, when these prolife laws are unenforceable anyway?

                    5. All I can say to that is, what accounts for the existence of the prochoice movement?

                      Abortion is tied up as the absolute defining position of the feminist movement, so it’s used as a way to stir up their base. It’s their gay wedding cakes, their test of purity.

                      Why do they need to formally legalize abortion and abortion clinics

                      Because it’s part of the prestige of feminism to hold up high their ‘sacred’ right as an example of their full control over their reproductive process. Also, they are correct in the fact that these open medical options are obviously safer than a black market operation or natural abortifacients. That doesn’t mean demand will go down anymore than demand for meth goes down because you cut it with something. Anti-abortion laws are enforceable in the context of ending legal clinics, but they’re ineffective at preventing the riskier black market options.

                    6. Can’t they simply content themselves with circulating these untraceable abortifacients?

                      This is easier to answer than you’re considering.

                      Because black-market drugs are inherently more dangerous to use. They have to be produced out in the open and companies are required to meet purity standards and can be sued for not meeting them.

                      Redneck home-cooked methamphetamine is far less pure than pharmaceutical grade.

                    7. we’ve seen cops and prosecutors abuse their power to prosecute rapes that didn’t happen, or even murders that didn’t happen or were committed by other people. That doesn’t mean legalize murder and rape, it means stand fast by the safeguards the constitution has to protect the innocent suspect or defendant

                      Except that unlike rape or murder, an abortion can be disguised as a natural process of the female body. Causing a miscarriage is not difficult, and would likely become the most common means of engaging in abortion after a complete ban. Legally, the means to stopping this would not be pretty.

                    8. Except that unlike rape or murder, an abortion can be disguised as a natural process of the female body.

                      At least for the murder part, there are many ways to make it look like a natural process, an unfortunate accident, or a suicide. I don’t understand why being able to cover up the crime somehow makes it less of a crime.

                    9. This can be difficult with murder now, and you assume that an abstract philosophical argument will make them naturally more cooperate? I doubt it.

                      You can’t force people to cooperate, no matter what the law is. That’s not an argument against passing the law, though. There are all sorts of horrible and illegal things that are hard to prosecute, but (besides the anarchists) I see nobody arguing that theft, battery, fraud, and murder should be legalized. Assuming that we accept the philosophical premise that abortion is a subset of murder, what makes it so different from these well-established crimes that it’s somehow unenforceable? We still prosecute ponzi schemes despite the extreme difficulty in detecting them.

                      Natural abortifacients are easy to get. Entire industries in the classical and middle ages were built around their production. There will be money in these markets if the medical procedure options are off the table. Again, this will require pro-active policing powers if you have any interest in actually stopping it.

                      It’s really fucking easy for me to mix some drano in a toddler’s formula and kill them. Do we have proactive policing powers for preventing me from doing that? Do we need them?

                      I don’t think it’s that far beyond the pale to say that we’re gonna investigate and enforce the anti-abortion laws in a similar manner as we do deaths of toddlers.

                    10. I’ll go further than the argument provided before that the only way to prevent abortion is locking up a woman who wants to have one. No, it is actually giving the state permission to kill a woman for doing so.

                      The logical conclusion of resistance to police use of force is always death. They simply cannot always take you alive if you’re resisting. If a woman chose to arm herself to prevent the police from imprisoning her over the choice to abort, she will almost certainly be killed.

                      Also consider this: anarchists are the most “pure” of libertarians by most definitions. A libertarian is a person who wants a minimal state, and nothing is more minimal than no state at all. Then, there would be no state to enforce whether abortion is or is not murder. Some anarchists would tell you that it is even morally indefensible to kill another person on behalf of someone else and that it is each person’s individual responsibility to defend themselves. I suppose from their position, then, that since a fetus cannot defend itself then it is indefensible to attempt to prevent abortion.

                      Any AnCaps around to weigh in?

                    11. Also, I’d like to say that this is the tamest philosophical discussion on the subject I’ve ever seen. Kudos to all of you for keeping it so. Maybe to some it’s going to be tedious and potentially triggering (lol) but they don’t have to read it.

                    12. I don’t understand why being able to cover up the crime somehow makes it less of a crime.

                      That’s not my point. My point is that, if you can cover up the crime in such a fashion, what steps do you have to take to ensure that crime hasn’t occurred?

                      There are all sorts of horrible and illegal things that are hard to prosecute

                      Certainly, the problem is that, in this case, a natural and common action of the female body can be construed as a criminal act. Statistically speaking, up to 20% of all pregnancies in the United States end in miscarriage.

                      I don’t think it’s that far beyond the pale to say that we’re gonna investigate and enforce the anti-abortion laws in a similar manner as we do deaths of toddlers.

                      If a woman had a miscarriage, what would necessitate an investigation into whether it was induced? In the case of a toddler’s death, the investigation would be a product of an autopsy or sufficient evidence of a crime. Would you be in favour of actively analyzing every miscarriage that occurs to ensure no deliberate harm was intended?

                      Furthermore, because I’m interested, what would be a suitable legal punishment for women and/or medical professionals who engage in the criminal act?

                      Again, I know I’m just being the asshole asking questions, but I’m legitimately interested in what legal standards people want and how they expect them to be enforced.

                    13. My point is that, if you can cover up the crime in such a fashion, what steps do you have to take to ensure that crime hasn’t occurred?

                      That’s not how it works though. In order to do any semblance of investigation, a cop would have to get a warrant, which requires probable cause. Going to a judge with a request for a search warrant based solely on the fact that a woman had a miscarriage is never going to meet the probable cause threshold (to the extent that the judge is granting warrants in good faith only).

                      In the case of a toddler’s death, the investigation would be a product of an autopsy or sufficient evidence of a crime.

                      Again, that’s not entirely how it works. Autopsies are only performed in ~10% of deaths in the US. Obviously, if a toddler dies under suspicious circumstances, there will be an autopsy and additional investigation. However, we’re talking about plausibly natural causes here.

                      (cont.)

                    14. Imagine, for the sake of me not having to think of a better example, that a toddler’s mother intentionally kills her toddler by crashing her car. Don’t think too hard about the specifics of the example, I’m simply looking for a situation where the death is likely explained as a natural or accidental death. Is there going to be an autopsy of the toddler? Maybe, but probably not. Even if there is an autopsy, it’s highly unlikely that any evidence of wrongdoing will be found, and there will be no criminal investigation. It will be written off as a tragedy, and the mother gets away with murder.

                      It would be the same with abortion. If the abortion were done in a way that it was undetectable by authorities, there would be no criminal investigation, and the mother would get away with murder.

                    15. Furthermore, because I’m interested, what would be a suitable legal punishment for women and/or medical professionals who engage in the criminal act?

                      I think that it would be a type of premeditated murder. Depending on the state, you’re looking at capital murder, which typically has a sentencing range of 25 years to death, give or take. I’m against the death penalty, so I’ll say 25-life would be reasonable.

                    16. It would be the same with abortion. If the abortion were done in a way that it was undetectable by authorities, there would be no criminal investigation, and the mother would get away with murder.

                      And this is basically my point in this argument. You can absolutely end legal clinics, but abortion will continue and in many cases can be extremely difficult to trace. Women will just use the classical means of aborting or black market surgical operations. And we will require further police action to eliminate those markets. Maybe even start classifying abortifacients like illegal substances. Ultimately I think state expansion and abuse of rights is a natural endgame consequence. To actually end abortion or drive its rates down significantly would require non-libertarian solutions. And I don’t think Eddie’s ‘cultural shift’ would result in a libertarian position.

                      I think that it would be a type of premeditated murder. Depending on the state, you’re looking at capital murder, which typically has a sentencing range of 25 years to death, give or take.

                      Fair enough, but oh man, that’s going to be fun to deal with in a democratic society. I can see the feminist propaganda now: sad, scared young women in orange jumpsuits in handcuffs being carried away to state prison…I’m pretty sure that’d trigger most people’s ‘defend the young women’ impulse pretty quickly. Not discussing the actual philosophical argument of it, but I don’t think you can sell it.

                    17. And we will require further police action to eliminate those markets. Maybe even start classifying abortifacients like illegal substances. Ultimately I think state expansion and abuse of rights is a natural endgame consequence. To actually end abortion or drive its rates down significantly would require non-libertarian solutions.

                      I think state expansion and abuse of rights is right alongside death and taxes as far as inevitability goes. I don’t think that you can smoosh together the original idea of making abortion illegal with a possible but not required WoD-like leviathan program. It would be just as wrong to violate people’s 4th amendment rights in zealous investigation of nursing home deaths as it would be in zealous investigation of abortions. That doesn’t mean that we should declare open season on the old fogies. By attaching a massive 4th amendment violation to the abortion discussion, it’s hard to delineate between the actual criminalization of abortion (which should be judge on its own) and your worst fears of the unconstitutional attempts to enforce it (which should be resisted, no matter the crime involved).

                    18. .I’m pretty sure that’d trigger most people’s ‘defend the young women’ impulse pretty quickly. Not discussing the actual philosophical argument of it, but I don’t think you can sell it.

                      You’re absolutely right. That’s where Eddie’s cultural shift comes in. I agree that there are a lot of SoCons who would probably agitate for unconstitutional enforcement of anti-abortion laws, but I think that by and large, pro-lifers just want it to be illegal. That will immediately and drastically reduce the occurrence of abortion, and we can work culturally and charitably to handle the rest.

                      At the end of the day, most women getting abortions aren’t doing so defiantly and proudly. They’re scared, nervous, and feel backed in a corner. I think that a cultural shift to helping those women find options other than abortion instead of stigmatizing them or demonizing them will be much more helpful than a full return of the stigma that existed in the past.

                    19. I see Eddie’s ‘cultural shift’ more likely to devolve into a moral crusade rather than a scenario that results in a libertarian or even constitutional response. “Won’t someone please think of the children?!?” is a powerful motivator for statist solutions, and I don’t think abortion bans would be any different than any other program that justifies its existence by that. I think that stigmatization will be a natural result, regardless of whether it’s an intended consequence.

                      The reason why I attach the rights violations to the entire premise is that we’re not arguing this in the context of a libertarian society. If the ‘anti-abortion moment’ comes before the ‘libertarian moment’ that is the likely end result.

                    20. The reason why I attach the rights violations to the entire premise is that we’re not arguing this in the context of a libertarian society. If the ‘anti-abortion moment’ comes before the ‘libertarian moment’ that is the likely end result.

                      It seems that it’s much like the gay marriage debate. One group saw a disconnect between gay marriage and the anti-discrimination laws, whereas another group saw the anti-discrimination crackdown as inevitable, resulting in the decision requiring a balancing of values. In the gay marriage context, the balance was between equality of provision of a benefit versus the expansion of unconstitutional anti-discrimination laws. In the abortion context, the balance is addressed by this question: Is protecting the lives of the unborn worth more than the likely risk that an unconstitutional abomination of an enforcement apparatus will come into existence?

                    21. This isn’t an unprecedented phenomenon. Before DNA sequencing, organized crime and gang related murders and other crimes were often extremely difficult to prosecute. The RICO statute was basically created in 1970 to make it possible to prosecute someone for a crime they didn’t commit, but someone part of the same ‘criminal enterprise’ committed.

                      CRASH was created in LA to police gang crimes there and committed some serious rights violations. In the end the there’s always some dilemma between limited government and effective law enforcement.

    2. Jesse Ventura or GTFO.

  6. And another one bites the dust.

    1. and another one’s gone and another one’s gone

    1. ‘golf clap’

  7. Trump supporter gets caught in protest; Trump protesters trash his car. Peacefully of course.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXBN8-ViwHM

    1. High school student beaten up for supporting Trump:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFEXeUMN-1Y

      Keep it up, morons. I must it’s nice to see them confirm the things I already knew about them.

      1. Gotta be careful with those right wing Naz-

        Wait…

      2. Why not keep it up?

        They will suffer no consequences and will intimidate people. Violence works, especially when the state apparatus looks kindly upon it.
        Fight back, and you will do damage to yourself and anyone who can be associated with you.

    2. Elementary school student beaten up for supporting Trump:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWI34lQONvE

      1. “I’m gonna hit you so hard both your momma and poppa gonna lose teeth”

        1. I thought it was supposed to be ‘I’m gonna hit you in the nuts so hard you’re grandchildren will feel it.”

          1. Bomb them back to the Stone Age, son.

  8. NBC predicts race war:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3S3Ly1qztw

    Good job calming things down, guys.

    Massive rural white vote? What a load of shit. Clinton got about 6 million fewer votes than Obama did 2012. Trump got about a million fewer votes than Romney did in 2012.

    1. It’s clearly Trump’s duty to step aside and put an end to all this division!

    2. OK, so ten months ago Obama’s administration deported that girl’s parents, so she supports Hillary?!?

    3. Race war? I don’t think they really want that. It’s not going to happen anyway because most people actually do not give a shit about race. Although the Democrats are obsessed by it and it’s going to destroy them in the end.

      1. I think they do want it, they just naively believe that the “right thinking” white people won’t be affected

        1. I didn’t say they don’t think they want it. I was saying they won’t like the results. Anyway, not going to happen, most people are not insane like the progtards, who by the way, hate scary guns.

  9. Mani-gal at wife’s salon:

    11YO kid is marched out of school at teachers ‘request’ to attend an ‘anti-Trump rally’; mom wasn’t informed until kid came home (she’s SE Asian, so she’s not gonna raise a ruckus).
    Aren’t teachers public employees? Aren’t public employees forbidden to engage in partisan politics?

    1. Yes, but public employees are allowed to engage in union work. Anti-Trump rally easily falls under that rubric.

      Kids are basically props you bring to show you are a teacher. It’s all in the social contract on page 98. Can’t show you my copy, but find yours and you’ll find it there.

    2. Regardless, shouldn’t the kids be in school, doing school work?

      1. Not in a government school. Yet another reason to privatize schooling/education.

        Private schools you attend in person. Home schooling. Parent-led teaching co-operatives. Distance learning – online schools, or online coursework from various sources. Handle socialization through sports clubs, groups like Boys & Girls clubs, for the religious, church youth groups. Support Maker Centers for hands-on tech experiences.

        De-school. Un-school. Anything but having the dadburned gubmint involved. If that destroys the culture of Friday night football, so be it.

        Written by the child and grandchild of public school teachers, who was, of course, sent to private school. (and our high school had a 23-0-1 unbeaten streak beginning the year before I matriculated )

        You know who’s smart enough to not eat their own cooking?

    3. My English teacher had us all write letters of encouragement to the First Lady (she had been called a bitch for not making cookies, that is SO RUDE). When my oldest was in fifth grade, the class was set the assignment to write a letter to the governor explaining why it was important to them as children that he sign a bill banning offshore dumping.

      Taking the children out of school goes a bit further than forced lobbying in writing, but I think the “Us? Brainwash? Never!” rule became more of a guideline quite some time ago. Ha. Kind of like how the purpose of the judiciary used to be to serve as a check and balance on the other branches of government, but we’ve grown and learned so much since those days.

      1. Hey, if your kids are still in school, why not ask teacher to have the class write letters of encouragement to Melania Trump? She’s the first immigrant First Lady in history, after all! Can’t be easy with all them nativists around…

        1. I think it was David Freidman who, in one of his books, spent the final chapter in explaining how he had to deal with the Gaia religionists where his kid(s) went to school.
          Been a while since I read it, but according to his report, he found it necessary to make it quite clear WHY such bullshit constituted a religion, and why, then, his kids should not be forced to write essays explaining that such-and-such religious view was “CORRECT!*.
          I’m guessing the teacher didn’t learn a damn thing.

  10. The thickest rope is squeezed quickest by the fingers of the faller. Fingers are also, by the way, the eyes of oxygen and running legs.
    This plateau of authentic capes seems to favor timidity in a vacuum of validity.
    Resisting the leathery corners where ghosts eat simple sandwiches spilling paper puppets is likely to yield corners turned into revealing long winds riveting thick openness and cracking sprinkling sounds flung from eternal runnings forgotten in the din stirrings and rainbow storms.
    Liberty of soul angels have no licenses tacked onto the rusty fenders of their revolutions.

    1. I really made a good faith effort to make sense of that Agile. I did.

      1. You’re not supposed to make ‘sense’ of Agile. His words are like Zen riddles. You’re supposed to mediate on their paradoxical nature and find the noble truth of them. Only then can you achieve true Enlightenment and live on after death as a Star-Child.

        Or you can just take these quaaludes.

        1. This plateau of authentic capes seems to favor timidity in a vacuum of validity.

          As a summation of the Libertarian party, it works pretty well.

          1. So, you’ve met Starchild,have you?

        2. Did someone say somethings about free quaaludes?

          1. A late friend of mine used to say, back in the 80s, I don’t need `ludes, I’m low on life.

    1. What made it more epic? I got this ad just before.

      Best thing Steven Segal did since Under Siege 2.

      1. Was that the one where he died in the first 20 minutes? If so I agree.

  11. Moore did the LP no favors by switching party affiliation. He’ll be best remembered as one of the three Nevada legislators who flew to Oregon in support of the Malheur takeover, all of whom lost their political bids. Moore also allied himself with and received campaign funding from Ira Hansen, an IAP stalwart turned Republican. (Although Ira is very popular in AD 32, social conservatism doesn’t f!y in Clark Co.) And then there’s the football stadium vote.

    Moore was an opportunist. He was no libertarian.

    1. Nevada needs a stadium like I need another DUI fine.

  12. I think one of the biggest lessons of this election especially is that people are desperate to be heard. The LP should do some introspection and ask actual people why the libertarian message isn’t gaining traction. And then craft a better message.

    1. Why bother, they just want Jeebus and free shit.

      /sarc

    2. “…why the libertarian message isn’t gaining traction.”

      People wake up, make coffee and turn on the news. They see a middle aged fat guy at the L convention doing a strip tease on stage. They see a guy named Vermin Supreme wearing a boot on his head. The message isnt getting traction because it isnt being heard. The people who are supposed to be spreading the message are dismissed out of hand for being nuts…because they are fucking nuts.

      I suppose you could argue that Reason is a better outlet for that message, but there has been piss-poor little of that lately. The commenters here are far more libertarian than the magazine staff with only a handful of exceptions.

    3. The LP should do some introspection and ask actual people why the libertarian message isn’t gaining traction.

      1) People are psychologically primed for a dualistic interpretation of any issue.
      2) People are not presented with the libertarian argument by the media
      3) People are not taught about liberty in public schools, except that the mean British people wanted to tax stamps and tea, and we fought a silly war over it.
      4) People are actively indoctrinated to avoid deep and critical thought by public schools, resulting in a hatred of learning and self-reflection
      5) People are inherently envious
      6) People don’t understand economics, not even a little
      7) People are first order thinkers, and don’t know how to think about second order consequences to an action or policy
      8) People cannot conceive of a spontaneously ordered system, so the debate becomes top-down ordered system v. anarchic chaos
      9) In the urban v. rural tension, urban won about a century ago
      10) People tend to become utilitarian as they grow older and see principled people as “uncompromising” or “immature.”

      That’s why libertarian ideas will never win out in this society. As for the LP, they’re really shitty at finding candidates that aren’t really weird and/or really unprincipled.

      1. “7) People are first order thinkers, and don’t know how to think about second order consequences to an action or policy

        “8) People cannot conceive of a spontaneously ordered system, so the debate becomes top-down ordered system v. anarchic chaos”

        Which might explain why Governor Johnson advocated violating the First Amendment rights of businesses, because he couldn’t follow the reasoning far enough to realize the second order consequences of being Against Discrimination. Nor, apparently, could he envision a self-correcting market where gay people would generally be able to find people to sell stuff to them in voluntary transactions.

        You’re not expecting libertarianism from LP candidates, why knock the poor benighted voters for not being libertarian?

        1. “You” in this case should be addressed to LP members generally, insofar as they were involved in the Johnson nomination.

          1. And let me add this:

            11) Some libertarians explain the LP’s lack of electoral success by writing up lists of how stupid the voters are

            1. 12) Some people confuse lists of cultural, biological and psychological influences as calling voters ‘stupid’.

              1. OK, my snark got the better of me.

              2. Chickenheads. All of them.

                1. If Trashy thinks…mean British people wanted to tax stamps…….

                  …he needs to bone up on his American history.

                  When stores were first made to charge sales tax on magazines and books, I used to crack, “Isn’t taxing reading matter one reason we had the Revolution?” I still think it violates the 1st and, by incorporation, the 14th amendments.

      2. 11) Amygdala hijacks are a thing.
        12) Modern narcissism leads individuals to believe that they are simply more enlightened and intellectual compared to the people of the past, and therefore we are capable of micromanaging the entirety of society to reflect the whims of our own individual interpretation. We can disregard any examples of the past as inconsequential by this logic (i.e. the Soviet Union wasn’t true communism!). Even when we find that we can’t create the outcome we want, we attempt to rationalize it and continue on with this solipsistic behaviour.

        1. 13) A majority of people think they can steal from others and get free shit, and it won’t end.

        2. Before going into these detailed lists of how people suck and so the LP will remain in the single digits, why not conduct an experiment: Nominate a Presidential candidate (and lower-level candidates too) who isn’t either a stark raving loon or a sketchy recycled Republican.

          Then expose the voters to these candidates and their arguments, and see if the LP’s vote totals increase.

          If not, then go back to talking about how the voters are so stupid.

          1. Up here our libertarian party leader is a fairly normal guy, volunteer firefighter and paramedic.

            The party got thirty thousand votes.

        3. How can we be solipsistic?

      3. Maybe all of that is correct, but I’d still like to see some effort made to actually hear people out.

        My armchair analysis is that people want to be a part of something larger than themselves in support of things they value. It’s a lot easier to make people like they are a part of something that is active rather than passive, hence an active government is appealing to people if it is in service of things they value.

        1. Maybe all of that is correct, but I’d still like to see some effort made to actually hear people out.

          I think you have a good idea, but it’ll be really hard to cut through the chaff. People are not very good at explaining why they vote the way they do. Most aren’t even self-consistent when asked the same question at 6 month intervals.

          When we studied this experiment in a poli sci class, I was floored by how people do politics. Specifically table 1 of that study, which shows that less than 15% of people actually think on ideological or near-ideological terms. Rather, over 40% of people work through the lens of identity politics, ~25% view politics through the lens of “bad things happened to me when X was in office, so I’ll vote for Y”, and ~25% have no policy-based reason for voting the way they do.

          I don’t think that too many people are capable of answering the question of why the LP doesn’t do it for them. They have no ideology to reflect on to answer that question.

        2. +1 Guillotine

  13. Fuck on-topic, here’s an analysis of why Trump is impossible in Canada.
    Spoiler: has nothing to do with what Canadians want or don’t want.

    1. We can’t become more democratic Pan, that’s insane! The true Canadian way has always been to have elites from Ontario and Quebec dictate what the voters really want. If the plebs actually get a say in anything there will be anarchy, chaos! (*whispers* they might not do what we want)

      And how dare you imply that we should become more like the filthy Americans! *spits*

      1. The true Canadian way has always had room for populist insurgencies from the west. You wanna rewrite Canadian history without Social Credit, NDP, Conservative Party or Reform.

        1. No, you moron, I’m making a joke about the perspective of Ottawa elites.

          1. “I’m making a joke about the perspective of Ottawa elites”

            I laughed. But then I know the true Canadian way.

  14. Since the Party needed to put a real human on the ballot, number two runner up Robert Goodman ran, and lost.

    But I came back in 2016 to get 850 votes for NY assembly, AD 80, while living in NJ.

  15. Good. Fuck him for that stadium business. I’m neither an LPer nor a Nevadan (and if I were an LPer I’d want a nice big tent), but fuck anyone who claims to be a libertarian and pulls something so beyond the pale.

  16. Those kickbacks aren’t going to kick themselves back.

  17. Is the Libertarian label electoral poison

    What a strange way of putting it. Obviously the vast majority of voters make their down-ballot choices by party, and very few people are partisan Libertarians.

    That doesn’t make the Libertarian label (or Green, or anything else) “poison”.

  18. The libertarians need to go to “blue” states with weak republican parties and take those over. Then build on that.

    For example: In NYS the Republican party has been in shambles since at least the year of Pataki administration. They can’t field a successful statewide candidate and they can only hold one chamber of the legislature by cutting deals with moderate democrats. The urban areas are solidly blue. The rural areas are “red.” And that’s not because of religious zealots. It’s because of 2nd Amendment and property rights. If libertarians would change parties and takeover the rank and file apparatus of the GOP committee in those areas they’d have a decent chance to affect the platform for the state.

    1. “The libertarians need to go to “blue” states with weak republican parties and take those over.”

      The Republicans have control over the presidency and both houses. You want ‘weak’ maybe you should try another party.

  19. Harry Reid’s turnout machine is to blame. Nevada belongs to that goon.

    I’ve always said that the Latino vote is a stumbling block for most libertarian goals. They’re as progressive as any SJW or feminazis.

    1. If your Libertarian goals depend on Latinos voting the way you want them to, as opposed to their natural communistic inclinations, maybe you should shop around for another ideology.

    2. As reason has reported, roughly the same percent of Hispanics identify as libertarian as non-Hispanics.

      Pew found that “about 11 percent of all Americans identified as libertarian (while also being able to identify with what the word means; if we include the ignorant, the figure jumps to 14 percent!). This included 11 percent of Hispanics, 12 percent of whites, and three percent of blacks.”

  20. Libertarianism need not win electoral victories to move ahead as a movement. It is hard to imagine the Libertarian Party having accomplished less since its founding, despite the publicity it has generated and the money if has spent. Just once libertarian organization, the Institute for Justice, has accomplished far more.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.