Uber

Looking for a Left/Libertarian Alliance Against Trump? Maybe Rethink Reflexive '#DeleteUber' Reactions

Constantly looking for people to punish doesn't square with a commitment to liberty.

|

Uber
David Becker/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Everything went to hell over the weekend for the immigrants and refugees who had been legally approved to live and travel in the United States but were then caught up in President Donald Trump's terrible executive order banning them from returning back into the country.

I watched through social media the outraged reactions across the political spectrum from friends and analysts alike. The reasons for the opposition varied. Some (especially on the left) thought the order remarkably cruel. Others acknowledged the president's authority to generally regulate immigration rules but recognized this executive order as being poorly drafted and illegal. There was a reason that when I blogged about the stay on Trump's order I pointed to the argument by the American Civil Liberties Union that the order violated due process.

For much of Saturday it felt very much like a coming together of anybody who valued human liberty and the rule of law across the political spectrum. I found it so much more an important and positive development than the women's march because it was about something very concrete and fundamental to American values. I've gotten so used to the reflexive, condescending "This is not who we are" derision that President Barack Obama's administration used to try to shut down criticism. It was different to see people across the political spectrum in significant agreement (though, yes, there were some exceptions), even if not for the same reasons.

Then "#DeleteUber" happened, and I threw up my hands and yelled, "Goddammit!"

In New York City, taxi drivers organized a work stoppage to stop ferrying travelers to John F. Kennedy Airport for an hour in solidarity with those who were being detained there. I will admit that I was at first utterly mystified as to how refusing to transport people in New York for a while would help resolve any of this at all, but after reading their Facebook statement, I realized that it wasn't really a "strike" so much as taking an hour so that they could participate in the protests as well.

Uber continued ferrying travelers and—interestingly—announced that it was ending its price surge. While Uber catches a lot of flak for having price surges at peak hours from people who don't understand basic supply-and-demand economics, they caught flak this time for continuing service. They were perceived as trying to "break" this strike.

In addition, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has agreed to join Trump's economic advisory team (along with the likes of Elon Musk and Disney CEO Bob Iger). Despite a Facebook post from Kalanick declaring that Uber was going to do what it could to assist drivers who would be negatively affected by Trump's executive order, this apparently wasn't enough for some. A social media movement sprang up to encourage people to delete the Uber app from their phones and go with a rival like Lyft instead.

Under normal circumstances and with other companies, this would merit a shrug from libertarians (it might still). Uber has a right to operate, but it doesn't have a right to customers. People have the right to choose with whom to do business and to use public pressure to influence company decisions. In this case, I don't think either side has behaved unethically or illegally.

So why the frustration? First of all, we can't look at this protest in a vacuum. Uber is a company that is frequently targeted by protectionist taxi cartels and unions (and leftist supporters), and they're willing to use their power and influence to use government force to stop Uber's operations as much as they can. There is a bit of an obvious political trap going on here, and Uber kind of fell into it.

Second, the response is symptomatic of a deeply entrenched desire to use a communal form of punishment against those who are perceived as straying from established ideological positions. It's practically a reflexive response at this point to find somebody to attack. Why do headlines like "Can Taylor Swift call herself a feminist after skipping Women's March?" even exist (and there are other versions of this kind of story)? These kind of responses do not reflect a desire or a willingness to "live and let live." Even in an environment where the left is struggling to maintain influence, they're calling out allies for not showing up for marches or for employing poor people, minorities, and immigrants in a way that doesn't match the progressive playbook.

This reflexive desire to punish leaves me with a deep concern that even in the face of Trump, there is no stomach on the left to engage in introspection over its own authoritarian tendencies. And I'm going to remember pushes like "#DeleteUber" every time I see a call for libertarians to partner with liberals or the left to fight back Trump's worst policies. It's not because I don't agree—it's because I don't see a commitment to advancing freedom in response to Trump. I see a commitment to regaining control and authority. Thus, I don't see any "partnership" forming so much as two deeply ideologically different groups pushing for similar outcomes for different reasons. I don't want more power, except over my own life. I want more freedom.

When I (and others at Reason) bring up Obama and the left's role in expanding the power of the executive branch, this isn't merely some sort of "whataboutism" excuse for whatever awful thing Trump is doing or will be doing in the future. It is absolutely, utterly necessary to understand where this power came from in order to change it, and it's therefore utterly necessary for liberals and leftists or progressives to rethink their relationship with government authority.

Unhappy with Kalanick's and Musk's relationship with Trump? They're just doing what they've been doing all along regardless of the political party of the person in charge. Musk, at least, would have his hands all over a Hillary Clinton administration as well. Her proposed tech policy was full of cronyist opportunities for the "right" folks in the right industries, an extension of what was offered by the Obama administration. The expansion of the power of the government and its regulatory system has put businesses in a situation where not only is it extremely profitable to get cozy with the government; it's sometimes necessary to survive.

If liberals are not willing to consider that government authority itself is the problem and are insistent that the problem is Trump's particular brand of ego and narcissism, what does this partnership with libertarians even look like? If the only goal is regime change, what exactly is the role libertarians are meant to play in this push other than supplying additional numbers?

Allow me to pivot to something that seems completely unrelated, but I assure is not: The occasionally dismissive response to the critique of "political correctness culture" at colleges. In the wake of Trump's election, I've seen frustrated responses targeting libertarian outlets (including Reason) for continuing to hit at this subject even while Trump promises a horror show of civil liberties violations.

Besides this argument presenting a false choice (Reason certainly hasn't abandoned reporting on a whole host of other topics in favor of complaining about college kids today), it ignores the very real long-term potential authoritarian consequences of this college campus speech- and sex-policing. Reason has hit back frequently on the actual impact on people's lives—potentially costing students' their educations and threatening their livelihoods—when college administrators fail to respect the First and Fifth Amendment rights of their students.

But that's just a look at the consequences of what's happening right now. Less discussed is how these selfsame students—who are being taught to ignore concepts of free speech and due process if it results in outcomes they don't like—will eventually inherit the systems of government in a decade or so. What happens when a college student who internalizes that due process shouldn't apply to people accused of rape becomes a juror—or a judge? What happens when a student who doesn't believe "hate speech" counts as free speech becomes a member of Congress?

This is precisely why I mentioned up above that Trump's executive order against refugees and immigrants violated due process. Trump isn't just a "consequence" of political correctness activism—he is the cracked mirror reflection of it. Trump has no respect for free speech or due process or really any civil liberties at all.

So what I would recommend to anybody calling for an alliance between libertarians and the left (regardless of whichever side is making the call) is not look at Trump as some particularly remarkably bad outlier and anomaly (though he is certainly giving every sign he's going to be remarkably bad), but as an expression of the constantly present dangers of authority that cares only about the "right" outcomes and nothing about legal foundations and limits to power based on defenses of human liberty and civil rights.

There will obviously be places of intersection between libertarians and the left—places where we've been on the same team even before Trump, like criminal justice reform, immigration, and the scaling back of the drug war. But unless the left is willing to reconsider its relationship with authority and its desire to want to use power to punish its opponents (which occasionally includes libertarians, lest we forget), what are libertarians supposed to see as the endgame of all this? Long ago, I asked conservatives what happened to the power they were giving President George W. Bush after he left office. Later I asked the same to liberals about Obama. Now here we are, and now we know. How much government authority are you willing to eliminate to stop Trump? Think about it and get back to me.

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.

227 responses to “Looking for a Left/Libertarian Alliance Against Trump? Maybe Rethink Reflexive '#DeleteUber' Reactions

  1. Why wear the mask anymore Reason?

    You guys want to be leftists despite the fact that socialism and communism and fascism are all part of the progressive agenda. Just stop pretending you even give a shit about libertarian principles when you are ready to get in bed with fucking COMMUNISTS.

    Jesus this is just pathetic.

    1. I’m wondering if it is TDS or if they’re simply stuck in the 90s.

      Democrats haven’t been liberals for well over a decade. We do not agree with them on any issue. We may agree where some problems lie, such as criminal justice reform, but our solutions are going to be opposite. They’ll want better Top Men, or more Top Men to check the other shitty Top Men. They’ll never allow libertarian solutions. Our better bet is to convince the more liberal American conservatives of the quality of our ideas. They are at least sometimes willing to listen to logic.

      1. I think its a deep identification with the media and academic types that form their circle. Its subconscious, and is carried by the social issues on which they agree on ends, if not means.

        Their mental immune system is impaired when it comes to the outrage from those folks, even though they only agree on a handful of articulated policy goals, and virtually none of the means for achieving those goals.

        Geography and demography are destiny. Look at where Reason is, and who it spends its time with, and you’ll have answer on why they so easily present as TDSers.

        1. Having said that, this article is actually not an example of this particular Reason syndrome. This shows an awareness of the problem:

          Second, the response is symptomatic of a deeply entrenched desire to use a communal form of punishment against those who are perceived as straying from established ideological positions.

          And bravo to Shack for throwing his hands when the proggies did what proggies do.

        2. Yes, what we caricature here as the cocktail parties. In the 1970s there had been a deliberate effort by libertarian thought leaders & institutions to distance themselves from “conservatives”, to build libertarian brand appeal via distinctiveness. (Meanwhile starting ~30 yrs. ago the Rothbard-influenced, such as Lew Rockwell, undertook to distance themselves from the libertarians distancing themselves from “conservatives”!) That effort continued, but in the last decade or so it’s been superseded at Reason by this social-circle or culture effect. You go recruiting writers from such a culture, this is what you get. They’re no longer posturing as repelled by the “right” at least as much as by the “left”; rather, the people they have in those positions now really believe it.

          1. YEAH! We need more total FASCISTS like Ron Paul!

            “I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, … I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts”

            Pure. unadulterated fascism. In his own words.
            http://www.rawstory.com/2011/0…..riage-act/

            Since we abolished slavery, NO group has EVER been denied the defense of Constitutional rights. Not since those uppity niggers. Which is why Ron’s hate screed failed.

            When they lie openly through their teeth about the Constitution …. look out.

            1. Let’s see. None of the above comments contain the words “Ron Paul,” yet YOU bring him up. Yeah, you totally aren’t obsessed with Paul.

      2. You mean the 1990s? They haven’t been that since the 1960s or possibly the 1970s. “Liberals” have been quite illiberal (as opposed to merely not-really-liberal) in the USA for at least 35 yrs.

    2. While your bitching may be warranted in general, this Shackford article seems like the exact wrong place to put it.

      1. … and never mind. I glossed over it and didn’t realize that it was yet another commentary on Trump’s executive order. FFS

        1. Not totally. It gets better towards the end.

        2. It’s baffling to me that they think that trying to make nice with authoritarian leftists who pride themselves on smashing the individual for the benefit of the state.

          There is nothing more anti-libertarian than progressivism. Conservatives at their worst will throw some bible at you and call you sinful but even they don’t seem to want to use the state to make everyone go to church.

          If you cross the leftist agenda they will destroy you and your business, burn all that you care about to the ground and then wear your carcass as a suit to scare anyone who may defy them in the future.

          FUCK these people. They don’t give one shiny SHIT about Liberty.

          1. Here’s the thing. They also don’t give a shit about a libertarian agreeing with them from time to time on narrow points.

            Everything doesn’t always have to be about bashing your opponents.

          2. It’s baffling to me that they think that trying to make nice with authoritarian leftists who pride themselves on smashing the individual for the benefit of the state.

            God dammit, no one making that argument except the voices in your head. In fact he’s arguing just the opposite. Specifically he’s arguing that the progtard left is not interested in expanding liberty.

            Again, try actually reading the motherfucking article, because I really don’t see how anyone can read this and come away thinking “OMGZ, reason thinks that we should crawl into bed with the authoritarian proggie left.” Or at last, I don’t see how anyone with a functioning brain could think that.

            1. I don’t think the “they” Tman refers to includes the blogger whose piece we’re commenting here on.

          3. Conservatives at their worst will throw some bible at you and call you sinful but even they don’t seem to want to use the state to make everyone go to church.

            No, at their worst, they do want even that. But their worst is well outside the Overton window, and is a small sliver of their mass.

            1. Meaning that isn’t conservatives- which are close to half the US.

          4. but even they don’t seem to want to use the state to make everyone go to church.

            They don’t need church. They want state power to force their values on everyone, at gunpoint. Precisely like progressives, just a different police state. And FUCK THE FOUNDERS for saying otherwise.

          5. but even they don’t seem to want to use the state to make everyone go to church.

            They don’t need church. They want state power to force their values on everyone, at gunpoint. Precisely like progressives, just a different police state. And FUCK THE FOUNDERS for saying otherwise.

      2. Indeed. This is, as usual, a well written piece by Scott.

    3. Reason.com is becoming Huffington Post lite with articles like this tripe.

      1. You are clueless on only 45 years of libertarianism.
        What part of fiscally conservative and socially liberal confuses you so badly?
        Try the World’s Smallest Political Quiz to see where you really fit.

        https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

    4. Uhh, which article did you just read?

      1. The one in his imagination.

      2. He’s in an alternate dimension where this article WASN’T about how due to the Left’s authoritarian nature Libertarians allying themselves with them will always be a futile effort, even in the areas where they agree.

        1. Your confusion is terrifying. Are you so totally clueless of the authoritarian right?
          Or are you one of them?

    5. Just stop pretending you even give a shit about libertarian principles when you are ready to get in bed with fucking COMMUNISTS.

      An argument that’s not even being made. Try reading the fucking article. I know, know, REEDING IZ 4 FAGGITZ, but for fuck’s sake, you’ll look a lot less retard if you do.

      Nobody’s talking about “getting in bed” with communists, in fact the entire point of this post was to say that we DON’T want to get in bed with the progressive left because they’re just as authoritarian as Trump. Jesus titty-fucking Christ, what’s the opposite of TDS? TCSS (Trump Cock Sucking Syndrome)?

      I’m really getting fucking sick and tired of fuckweasels who shit all over the threads screaming about “TDS!… CUCKZ!… KOZMOZ!… FAGGITZ!!1!!!!!” everytime anyone says anything even remotely critical of their “daddy.” You do realize that it’s possible to believe that neither Trump nor the Progtard Left are friends of liberty, right? Or are you so fucking retarded that you can’t fathom why anyone would consider them both to be authoritarian shitweasels?

      1. I think this article just made me figure it out. The conservatives in the comment section don’t read the articles. Ever. At all. That’s why they can comment like this on an article pretty much stating that “the left is to authoritarian to form any meaningful alliance with” and decide it’s proof of Reason’s left-leaning bias.

        1. The conservatives in the comment section don’t read the articles. Ever. At all.

          They are precisely as wacky as the authoritarian left. For over 40 years libertarians have sought out and worked with NON-authoritarians both left and right, who are each a majority on their own side.

          Ten years ago, a Cato survey found that 59% of Americans would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Nolan libertarians. The number is obviously much larger today, with much greater tolerance on social issues.

          Authoritarian liberals and authoritarian conservatives are each less than 15% of the electorate. But like all zealots and fanatics, they each think all of America is dying to hear their delusions. Their hatred for each other shares all the traits of any intense bigotry.

          91% of those Nolan libertarians totally reject the libertarian brand, also per Cato. The math is simple.
          If Nolan libertarians match the averages, then 50,000-60,000 are in elected local office, actively engaged in their communities, with 250,000-500,000 active supporters..

          So if so-called libertarian values are increasing, who’s causing it? 55% of Americans actively engaged in their communities? Or 2% of Americans throwing hissy fits in online forums?

          Again on the math, the authoritarians, both left and right are about as useless as tits on a boar hog. No influence over nuthin’ which is why they scream so loudly for attention. Ignore them.

      2. So what I would recommend to anybody calling for an alliance between libertarians and the left (regardless of whichever side is making the call) is not look at Trump as some particularly remarkably bad outlier and anomaly (though he is certainly giving every sign he’s going to be remarkably bad), but as an expression of the constantly present dangers of authority that cares only about the “right” outcomes and nothing about legal foundations and limits to power based on defenses of human liberty and civil rights.

        I get that he is trying to convince leftists that Trump is a particularly bad version of statism and government authority overreached, but I don’t understand why I need to make an “alliance” with another form of fascism in order to fight against the current regime. That makes no sense.

        I did not vote for Trump and I’m not feeling the need to defend him but I also don’t have the same reflexive reaction that everything he’s proposed so far is somehow worse than Hitler. In fact much of what he’s proposed and the cabinet members he’s chosen are more defensive of liberty than anything the left did for the last 8 years.

        Why do YOU think I need to team up with the left?

        1. I don’t understand why I need to make an “alliance” with another form of fascism in order to fight against the current regime.

          Neither does Scott:

          If liberals are not willing to consider that government authority itself is the problem and are insistent that the problem is Trump’s particular brand of ego and narcissism, what does this partnership with libertarians even look like?

          Are you being dense on purpose?

          1. When Scott says “If liberals are not willing to consider that government authority itself is the problem”-

            If?

            The entire philosophy of progressivism is to crush individual liberty and use the state to make everyone’s outcome “equal”.

            There is no “alliance”. There is only the state. Why even consider an alliance against a group that actively thinks you are part of the problem?

        2. I don’t understand why I need to make an “alliance” with another form of fascism in order to fight against the current regime.

          *Sigh* NO ONE HERE, not Shackford, not me, is saying that you do. I really don’t see why this is so hard to figure out.

          Why do YOU think I need to team up with the left?

          I DON’T. And I have never said that we should.

          Because they’re both authoritarian and neither has any interest in expanding Liberty. Did I use small enough words? Jesus fucking Christ.

          1. Uh dude, The title of the article is “Looking for a Left/Libertarian Alliance Against Trump? Maybe Rethink Reflexive ‘#DeleteUber’ Reactions”

            It’s been my understanding that the title of the article is a quick summary of the points trying to be made/raised.

            If he’s not looking for an alliance than why is he begging the question?

            1. *facepalm*

              It’s also entirely possible, very likely actually, that the title was intended to be a rhetorical question aimed at anyone who might be thinking that a left/ libertarian alliance against trump is a possibility, and the article answers the question in the negative through use of the left’s pants shittingly idiotic #DeleteUber hissy fit over the weekend as an example of how the left is not interested in expanding individual liberty, so therefore any left/ libertarian alliance is not possible.

              Titles of blog posts aren’t always just a summary of the points made in the post. Now, if you want to quibble that whoever came up with that headline is a moron, then fine, I’d probably agree but the one thing I can’t agree with is your continued assertion that the post is proposing that we join up with the commies and fascists of the progie left because it clearly isn’t and I really don’t see how anyone who actually reads it could interpret it that way.

              1. Titles of blog posts aren’t always just a summary of the points made in the post.

                Ok that’s fair.

                Now, if you want to quibble that whoever came up with that headline is a moron, then fine, I’d probably agree

                The headline does actually summarize the article pretty well though. My takeaway is that Scott is trying to convince leftists that they need to be less leftist if they want to bring libertarians in to an alliance.

                one thing I can’t agree with is your continued assertion that the post is proposing that we join up with the commies and fascists of the proggie left

                He’s proposing what needs to change for their to be an alliance, which is fucking insane. While he’s doing this he’s making Trump out to be worse than he is by writing falsehoods about what he’s done (non-citizens and due process).

                Which part am I missing?

            2. I think your problem is who you think Scott is talking to. He doesn’t make it exactly clear, but the gist I got was, “Hey lefties, if you are looking for a Left/Libertarian Alliance…”. It’s him saying, “Before I would ever even start to consider this sort of thing, you need to change your authoritarian collective punishment ways.”

              You OTOH seem to be reading his message as “I’d really like an alliance, but there is this one problem…”

              1. He’s proposing what needs to change for their to be an alliance, which is fucking insane. While he’s doing this he’s making Trump out to be worse than he is by writing falsehoods about what he’s done (non-citizens and due process).

                Which part am I missing?

                What Overt said.

                1. So what I would recommend to anybody calling for an alliance between libertarians and the left (regardless of whichever side is making the call)

                  Well now I’m clear as mud.

        3. I don’t understand why I need to make an “alliance” with another form of fascism in order to fight against the current regime. That makes no sense.

          Nothing make sense to raging bigots.
          Do you support the fascism of Ron Paul?
          See?

      3. I’ve been in bed w communists. They hog the blankets, then wind up rolling onto the floor & under the bed.

        1. They hog the blankets

          And I’m sure that if you tried to take the blanket back they’d probably claim that you can’t have it because it’s theirs. Which would be ironic for someone who doesn’t believe in the concept of property rights.

    6. There’s definitely mask-slippage going on here, but it’s not among the Reason staff. Breitbart is that way —->

    7. I guess we haven’t learned anything from WW2. There is a time to turn on Trump, and that time is when his forces are spent on the destruction of the left. Otherwise, contain, resist, and redirect his attention to our enemies.

    8. Yeah, Hitler was a progressive.(smirk)
      I want MORE enemies like you!

    9. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  2. Then “#DeleteUber” happened, and I threw up my hands and yelled, “Goddammit!”

    Well, at least you got practice reading the comments here. I’m glad we could help!

    Less discussed is how these selfsame students?who are being taught to ignore concepts of free speech and due process if it results in outcomes they don’t like?will eventually inherit the systems of government in a decade or so. What happens when a college student who internalizes that due process shouldn’t apply to people accused of rape becomes a juror?or a judge? What happens when a student who doesn’t believe “hate speech” counts as free speech becomes a member of Congress?

    God fucking damn, yes. Thank you for pointing this out, Scott!

    1. That paragraph gave me such horrifying visions of our future. When it happens, Bernie 2.0 will be the one in office

  3. This is precisely why I mentioned up above that Trump’s executive order against refugees and immigrants violated due process.

    No it didn’t. The government doesn’t owe due process for every decision it makes. And no court, not even the most liberal ones, has ever held the government owes due process to non citizens regarding the admission into the country. At best you could say the application of the ban to green card holders without any due process might violate due process. But it certainly doesn’t apply to non LPRs. The government doesn’t owe anyone admission into the country except non citizens. You don’t have a due process claim for a visa denial.

    Words have meaning.

    1. Since the day we started accepting refugees we’ve picked and chosen the ones we want, based on whatever criteria we want, including religion.

      I can’t believe people make the argument that the US government cannot chose who enters our country, or that they need to follow due process in this instance.

    2. Thank you.

    3. You are not in the United States until you clear immigration. Even with a US passport, there is a certain amount of clenching your ass until you pass immigration. Non-citizens can be turned away for pretty much any reason the agent wants.

      1. Yes. The GS 9 CBP agent has absolute authority to turn someone away. And the State Department Officer who runs the VISA office has absolute authority to grant or deny a VISA application. The Secretary of State himself can’t overrule a decision by a consular official denying a VISA.

        Scott doesn’t know shit about this subject and doesn’t seem interested in learning.

        1. The Secretary of State himself can’t overrule a decision by a consular official denying a VISA.
          Scott doesn’t know shit about this subject and doesn’t seem interested in learning.

          (laughing at the goober AGAIN).
          How does that explain Trump’s dumbass attempt to block legal residents, which was jammed up his ass by six different judges, forcing a reversal? Do you have no shame at all?

          1. I did this shit for a living. I have forgotten more about it than you will ever know. Go away and let the adults talk for a while. You are a sad pathetic little man.

            1. “You are a sad pathetic little man.”

              That’s putting it mildly. His whole existence on this site is to be clickbait for his own site. I think he might be more pathetic than Cytotoxic.

      2. Even with a US passport, there is a certain amount of clenching your ass until you pass immigration

        But dumbfuck Trump TRIED to block legal residents — until six different judges, in six different cases, jammed it up his ass and forced a reversal.

        1. He did block legal residents. And he could. He could block US citizens. Google H1N1 sometime dipshit. American citizens from infected areas were blocked from coming. And that was Obama that did that.

    4. But this is why Trump messed up by including the green-card holders – legal residents who make short trips abroad are entitled to due process before being banned from this country, as articulated in Landon v. Placentia (sp?) in 1982. My initial impression is that the EO tried an end run around this, but it may be a moot point now that they’re trying to walk that part back and let at least most of the green card holders back in.

      As for someone who has never been admitted to the U.S. – then there’s no due process problem deciding who gets visas and who doesn’t, and I haven’t heard that *delays* getting a visa were a violation of due process.

      1. I would like to see a well-reasoned, detailed breakdown of just what powers the executive has here. Instead. I get emotional bullshit like this from Scott that anyone with half a brain can debunk. No one in the media seems to be interested in doing anything besides shitting down their own leg over Trump’s EO.

        I don’t know what authority Congress has or has not delegated to the president with regards to green card holders. Neither do the people whaling about and gnashing their teeth. Fuck, the governments own lawyers probably don’t even know at this point. Giuliani put this together. I’d think he had at least some leg to stand on legally in doing so.

        1. The executive has absolute discretion in two things, who gets into the country and who gets a VISA. Just because you have a green card doesn’t mean the government has to let you in the country. It just means it can’t kick you out of the country and take your green card without due process.

          Let me give you an example. DHS figured out a way to start cross matching figure prints of people who had been deported with people who had green cards. Come to find out a lot of people had been deported under one name only to come back under a different identity and get asylum or IPR status. For those inside the country, ICE had to go and serve them and take them to court to get their status revoked. For those outside of the US, they could just put them on a list and and the border agent could not let them in. No due process needed. That border agent can deny you entry for about any reason he likes if you are not a citizen and sometimes if you are.

          1. See, this is the kind of context that Reason could differentiate, and even distinguish, itself by providing.

            The problem with journalists generally is that they don’t really know that much about any particular issue. What they should know, is who does know. These used to be called “sources”. They don’t seem much in use any more.

            1. Twitter is the only source you need ask.

      2. Delays in getting visas might be called “overdue” process.

      3. And yet, we know that the President by EO intern natural born citizens. Detaining anyone at the border without due process seems well within the Executive’s power, even if blanket refusal of entry to LPRs is not.

    5. John denies being a fascist, but …. …

      The government doesn’t owe due process for every decision it makes

      Fuck the Constitution! It only applies when John allows it to! (snicker)

      At best you could say the application of the ban to green card holders without any due process might violate due process.

      Nobody has said more..
      MIGHT violate? (shudder)

      1. Did you get due process when it set the speed limit of the tax rates?

        Hihn, you are the dumbest human being on the planet. And since you are proud of it, I can’t even feel sorry for you.

  4. Constantly looking for people to punish doesn’t square with a commitment to liberty.

    Au contraire! Have you read Reason’s website lately?

    1. Is that the punishment?

      1. No, punishment is reading Breibart.

        Cruel and unusual punishment is reading Breibart comments.

        Salon qualifies as outright torture and is banned as punishment.

  5. Left/Libertarian alliance is never going to happen. Unless you sell out on half you believe in………wait. Oh I get it.

  6. This article really could have benefited from another 8-10 paragraphs.

    1. Are insane? Apparently it was already TL;DR for some.

      1. Your sarc meter is broken.

        1. Actually I was answering his sarcasm with a sarcastic reponse of my own.

          Now who’s sarc meter is broken?

  7. Good luck getting the left to buy in on reducing govt authority. Everything will be wonderful when the right people are back in charge is their mentality.

    1. They’re going crazy over the idea of the feds selling off some land. That’s not really what the bill does, it just encourages what had already been allowed to happen. But EVUL KORPORATONS might get it or something.
      Same with all the rogue agencies. They love the idea that those people are not elected, and actively want them to ignore their current boss’s administration. How are we supposed to do libertarian things with these people?

  8. Just want to throw this out there, in case you Reason writers are living in a bubble: Trump signed a new EO that requires 2 regulations to be cut for every new regulation created.

    I’ll read the article now.

    1. Having read more into that, I’ve decided this EO will either be rejected outright by the rest of the government. Or it will be ignored completely. Regulations are the lifeblood of bureaucracy and I doubt this will happen. Which of course would make me very sad, as I think it’s a good idea. But the theme of today has certainly been “no one has a long term strategy” and “if it came from Trump, it will be destroyed”.

      1. What repercussions would Trump be able to use if the EO wasn’t followed?

        I can see it being ignored if they can get away with it, but can they get away with it?

        1. If the last administration can get away with war (of which they were supposedly opposed to), I can only assume they would work extra hard to make this not a reality. And then you have environmentalists and consumer advocacy groups.

      2. Having read more into that, I’ve decided this EO will either be rejected outright by the rest of the government. Or it will be ignored completely.

        My understanding is the EO is telling the various agencies to identify two regulations to get rid of for every one new one. My prediction:

        The bureaucrats will get around this by rolling the two “deleted” regulations into the new one that’s being proposed. That way they can claim that the total number of regulations are being reduced while not actually decreasing their own power or scaling back their little bureaucratic fiefdoms in any meaningful way whatsoever. In the end, nothing will change.

        1. Most new regul’ns are amendments to existing ones anyway.

        2. Consider: Every time FDA licenses a new drug, food additive, etc., that’s a regul’n. It changes from the status quo of its being illegal to market the product, to a new condition of its being legal to market it. Every liberaliz’n of a rule is a new rule. Most regs can’t simply be abolished by an agency because the existence of the reg is mandated by legisl’n; the best they can do is to issue a new reg making it trivial to comply w the old one.

        3. Alternatively, since “Regulation” isn’t really a quantifiable artifact, they will just eliminate two lines in an existing regulation, for each giant book they produce.
          Old:

          The following materials shall require CDF-2SA Compliance:
          – Food
          – Guns
          – Building supplies
          – Automotive parts
          – Buggy whips
          – 300lb cans of SPAM

          New:

          The following products shall require FALSAM-239 compliance:
          – Goods
          – Services
          – Other

          “Well done, boys,” said Bob Bureaucrat, “that’s how you reign in government!”

          1. I hope that spelling was intentional for the reign-rein pun, rather than accidental, because it’s very clever if it was intended.

        4. So… if they do that, and the 90-day public review period of the 1+2 regulation tells them they’re full of shit and operating against the spirit of the EO, is that in any way actionable?

  9. When has a left/libertarian alliance ever benefited anyone on the libertarian side?

    1. I’d say pot, but the tax on it is above 20%

      1. I’d say with pot that we fought that battle, then won it, then the proggies came along and slapped some taxes on it and regulated the shit out of it.

        Gay marriage might be a better example.

        1. Because it’s libertarian to make shit up in the Constitution?

          1. It is neither libertarian nor anti-libertarian to make up shit in the constitution.

        2. I was following VT’s legalization effort. Several versions have a provision where if you want to grow for yourself at home, you need a permit. renewed annually.

        3. Same sex marriage might be a better example if you believe that’s a pro-liberty thing; I don’t.

      2. Pot (or drug legalization in general) is a good example of an issue where on the surface it seems like we’re in agreement with the left, but once you get into it, it quickly becomes clear that we’re really not.

        We want to end the drug war because it violates both the NAP and the concept of self ownership to tell otherwise peaceful people what they can and can’t put into their bodies. The progressives come along and see a new tax revenue stream. Nevermind that they’ll still need the drug war apparatus to make sure that no one is selling drugs without giving the state their cut – similar to the crackdown on selling loose cigarettes and cigarette smugling in states with high tobacco taxes. So in the end, the drug war will continue rolling right along while the leftist politicians pat themselves on the back for legalizing drugs while their pubsec cop and prison guard unions continue to shovel campaign donations their way, all the while no one in the media seems to notice that the same problems still exist, but “Hey! Look at this new tax revenue! Now we can buy even more MRAPS for small town SWAT teams!”

        Bottom line: they’re not interested in ending the WoD because of any kind of principled committment to increasing individual liberty. They just want the tax revenue while they pat themselves on the back, all the while the status quo just keeps rolling along, and their beloved state maintains control over everyone’s private lives.

        1. The progressives come along and see a new tax revenue stream.

          That’s not the main thing they see. They see primarily 2 overlapping opp’ties:

          (1) Get an interest group on their side.
          (2) Stir up the cultural pot, trying to upset it.

          it’s primarily “good-gov’t” moderates & politicians who focus on the new tax revenue stream.

    2. Ending the draft, arguably? Although that depends on which bucket you put Milton Friedman and others in.

      1. President Nixon ended the draft. Friedman was a member of the Republican Party

  10. Delete Uber, use Lyft (Particularly in North County San Diego).

    1. why? is it cheaper? orphan labor? self-driving cars?

      1. it is cheaper. They apparently pay their drivers more as well. They are attempting to get a large enough share of the market so they can start turning a profit.

        1. So, just to be clear, right now they are losing money?

          1. they’re a not-for-profit

          2. I heard it on the radio maybe a month before the election.
            I assume it hasn’t changed much.
            they are losing money.

            1. Well, I hope they find a way to make it up on volume. Chances are they either raise prices and drive away customers or lower prices and hope they keep enough drivers.

              1. It’s a hard split.

        2. hard road to profitability giving away $1M donations to anti-2A groups.

  11. There will obviously be places of intersection between libertarians and the left?places where we’ve been on the same team even before Trump, like criminal justice reform, immigration, and the scaling back of the drug war.

    When did the left ever do anything on those issues? Obama was in power 8 years, two of which the Democrats owned Congress and not a damn thing changed on the drug war. The only thing Obama did was get rid of the extra sentences for crack. Big fucking deal. It is not like the ones for cocaine were any picnic.And the Democrats had every chance to pass amnesty in 09 and 10 and didn’t do a damn thing.

    I get so tired of the bullshit line about how “liberals are good on drugs and criminal justice”. No they are not. They are no better than Republicans, who are also awful. I know you like the Progs Scott and they are your friends and you want to fit in with them. But stop lying to yourself. They don’t give a shit about liberty or any of the things you claim to care about. They really don’t.

    1. Well, liberals are pretty good on pot. But not for very liberty-centric reasons.

    2. The only thing Obama did was get rid of the extra sentences for crack. Big fucking deal. It is not like the ones for cocaine were any picnic.And the Democrats had every chance to pass amnesty in 09 and 10 and didn’t do a damn thing.

      Clinton and Biden had no problem taking credit for the lower crime rates that occurred within the printed word’s reach of the ’94 crime bill. Nevermind that the real reason the rates dropped was because drug war and mass incarceration which, if anything, the Crime Bill exacerbated.

    3. Of course the same can be said about the right on fiscal responsibility. Sure, they say that they want to reign in government spending, but Bush had 4 years of GOP control of the Executive and Legislative branch, and it got us nothing.

      Nevertheless, people still propose that the Right and Libertarians have common ground there. Why? Have we seen the right walk the walk?

      The fact is that both the left and the right espouse positions that overlap with libertarians. There is common ground there. If you are going to criticize their politicians for failing to live up to those positions, then libertarians really have no allies anywhere. (Which happens to be my depressing assessment.)

      1. There is no common ground with the left.

  12. Uber learned it’s not worth prostrating yourself to please a fickle mob.

    1. FedEx, too. I think the days of threatening established companies with social media mobs has run its course.

  13. Any leftist ideological coalition libertarians acquiesce to and join might initially subsume some of those libertarians’ lesser, more benign principles to construct a facade of unity, but the totalitarian impulse will always subjugate noncompliant individuals and blocs, or excommunicate them if conversion fails.

    There can be no alliance between authoritarianism and genuine republicans, or genuine libertarians. Never.

  14. American liberals are hardcore turn of last century-style progressives that just want to smoke pot. #Tribe

  15. This is getting tedious. Sure, let’s ally ourselves with leftist who believe in unlimited government by elitists. We’ll get lots of Muslims here to culturally enrich us with their death cult, and… um…

  16. Ok, now I’ve read the post. Well done, Scott.

  17. There will never be an alliance with progs because the only animating principle for the progs is power. Power, power, and more power. It’s all they understand and all they care about, which is why the “liberaltarian” nonsense promoted by people like Will Wilkinson became nothing more than a punchline. The left will never cede any power. No, generally the right won’t either, but there are at least a handful of individual Republicans like Rand and Massie and Amash who will hold principled stances against their own party. Good luck finding a prog who will do the same.

    1. How could libertarians ever form an alliance with a group of Marxists who refuse to endorse any kind of absolute right to engage in commerce? And not just that but base their entire philosophy around that idea.

      1. But opposing Marxist notions of commerce and value makes you a “reflexive right-winger” according to amsoc. The diversity of left-wing intellectual thought ain’t what it used to be.

      2. Interesting comparison of Sartre and Camus on the question of liberty, revolutionary violence, and Marxism. From which I will quote as good a reason as any why I support perfect liberty over perfect justice.

        The violence of communism sent Camus on a different trajectory. ‘Finally,’ he wrote in The Rebel, ‘I choose freedom. For even if justice is not realised, freedom maintains the power of protest against injustice and keeps communication open.’

  18. There is no common goal between libertarianism and progressivism because our core principles are mutually exclusive. Both want, for instance, less poverty, but libertarians believe that the only way to successfully achieve that is by removing regulatory barriers, increasing choice in education, basically creating an environment that is favorable to business of all sizes and the creation of new wealth. Progressives believe the only way to achieve it is by a government authority tweaking outcomes and adjusting regulations to achieve the perfect mix of economic inputs. There are very, very few common first steps to either solution.

    1. In both cases, the “goal” is the method. Liberty is the goal; happily, it tends to reduce poverty among other things, but even if it didn’t it’s still the point of the whole exercise. Conversely, for progressives, the proper care and grooming of society is the goal; good captains will steer the ship away from poverty, but if poverty is required for the greater good, then poverty we shall have.

      1. Well said, reminds me of Fr?d?ric Bastiat;
        “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

  19. “Then “#DeleteUber” happened, and I threw up my hands and yelled, “Goddammit!””

    Scott, must everyone adhere to your reflexive right-wing vision of libertarianism to be called a libertarian? I’m not swayed by libertarian arguments that lowering taxes on rich people will lead to the promised land, but I’m with you on enough issues like the Drug War, abortion, and military policy to call myself a libertarian. If people want to boycott Uber because the CEO is a Trumpian jackass, why should libertarians care? You are doing the same thing that libertarians here do in criticizing someone who decides to travel to Cuba… it’s my money. If I want to punish my political opponents by opening my wallet where I choose who are you to lecture me?

    1. When the government is doing the enforcing, it’s not a just a “boycott” any more. Why don’t you explain why consumers should be forced to pay more for shitty taxi service by force of law?

      1. You are barking up the wrong tree. I think it’s great that car riding services exist. They’ve certainly made San Francisco a more pleasant and livable place. Can I just use Lyft instead of Uber without being labeled a totalitarian because I deleted my Uber app because the CEO is a Trumpian jackass?

        1. Don’t worry, you’ll always be more of a liar than a totalitarian, regardless of whatever apps you use on your phone.

    2. I’ll be sure to tell my wife that we didn’t really need that extra $200 a month in my paycheck because rich people were getting more (even though the majority of the tax breaks went to poor and middle class people). Go fuck yourself.

  20. A hashtag isn’t fucking news. A few thousand cunts on Twitter threatening to delete their Uber app isn’t news. Taxi drivers in NYC or wherever striking over Trump’s immigration policies is fucking stupid, and the notion that there’s widespread support for it even stupider. People traveling into and around NYC don’t want to deal with a bunch of lazy unionized fucks striking instead of giving them overpriced rides somewhere.

    More to the point, Uber is a decentralized service. The individual drivers determine when they work. Uber simply tries to incentivize them.

    Reason is caught up with the rest of the media believing its own bullshit. Most Americans simply do not give a fuck about this. They are not shitting their pants over Trump’s executive order. It’s an embarrassment to see Reason, which claims to represent libertarianism, continue to act as if open borders are the be all end all of libertarianism. People who aren’t even fucking in this country are pretty low down on my priority list.

    Trump overreached with his order with green card holders, yet, sadly, probably has the authority to do it because Congress legislated it away.

    1. http://pjmedia.com/trending/20…..st-havens/

      Only 33% of the country oppose the EO. If reason thinks this is the hill to die on, they really have joined the media in believing their own bullshit.

      1. Where’s your papers, citizen? John, why do you spend so much time trolling on a libertarian website? There’s plenty of places on the internet for right-wingers to post on how icky libertarians are. Why don’t you go there?

        1. Yes we know you want to make Muslims your knew brownshirts. Sorry. America is too well armed to let you get by with it.

          Troll elsewhere idiot.

        2. Aren’t there Marxist places on the internet for you and your ilk?

    2. Reason is caught up with the rest of the media believing its own bullshit.

      I think the best thing Reason could do would be to never, ever refer to or base a story on a tweet or tweets. Ideally, they would prohibit their staff from having Twitter accounts at all.

  21. If liberals are not willing to consider that government authority itself is the problem and are insistent that the problem is Trump’s particular brand of ego and narcissism, what does this partnership with libertarians even look like? If the only goal is regime change, what exactly is the role libertarians are meant to play in this push other than supplying additional numbers?

    There’s no role for you, cupcake. You can come along for the anti-Trump ride, but as soon as he’s gone, you and the other Kochites will be first against the wall again.

    1. Progressives were just in power for 8 years and basically fucked over ever cosmo Reason writer who had even the slightest optimism over Obama. Besides Chapman who is just a straight up progressive. The notion that now they are allies is so fucking stupid it’s not even worth entertaining.

      Progressives fuck up everything they touch. Any alliance with them will just see libertarian ideas bastardized and the implementation will probably be worse than status quo.

  22. Oh, and Scott? FYI, libertarians aren’t just occasionally considered enemies by the left. They are almost ALWAYS enemies to the left, in some cases more so than Republicans/conservatives.

    1. Come on, sometimes libertarians are considered useful idiots.

      1. Now you’re making Scott feel bad.

    2. my left friends hate the LP. “Despise fundamentally”

      1. Honestly, after Barr, Weld and Stripping Fat Guy…

        1. fair. They still look at me with horror as I try to explain almost any libertarian position.

          1. That’s a pretty fundamental problem.

            If you can’t explain your positions without your intended audience looking at you in “horror”, then you really don’t have much hope in effecting change.

            Demanding that your audience change it’s attitudes is at best ineffective, and at worst counter-productive (no one likes hearing “if you were only smarter this would make sense!”)

            As such, you should probably find a way to explain your positions in a way that doesn’t inspire horror.

            If, on the other hand, your goal is simply to feel superior to your friends, then keep on trucking.

            1. I’ve found ways to describe and promote the libertarian position that don’t elicit looks of horror from my audience. At least with people who are willing to look at things in different ways.

              I think it does help and that it isn’t completely pointless to try to talk to political normals.

              1. Then may I suggest you advise DOOMco? They seem in need of your tact and grace.

                Assuming, of course, that persuading people is actually their goal.

                That said, may I suggest never ever referring someone to Reason.com or an article here? The comment section, and the blatant violent hostility to “libtards”, “progtards” and so-on, is very likely to do more damage then you can every undo with “we’re not all like that”.

            2. no one likes hearing “if you were only smarter this would make sense!”

              But isn’t that true?

              1. Not clicking link.

                And it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. If you’re trying to persuade someone, then swallow the damn pride and ego and use arguments that actually work, not arguments that close doors.

        2. I thought Weld was why libertarians hate the LP.

  23. places of intersection between libertarians and the left?places where we’ve been on the same team even before Trump, like criminal justice reform, immigration, and the scaling back of the drug war.

    Yet none of this happened when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. I think the thing that has DC insiders most upset about Trump isn’t anything he’s done. It’s that he’s making them all look bad by actually fulfilling his promises.

  24. “unless the left is willing to reconsider it’s relationship with authority”…..bwaaahaaaahaaaaahaaaahaaaaa. Are you fucking kidding me.

  25. The enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend. Sometime they’re just another enemy.

    1. The important thing about the “enemy of my enemy” strategy is accurately assessing which is most advantageous to turn into a friend. It would be a serious error to assume that progressives are the first enemy in that phrase.

  26. Looking for a Left/Libertarian Alliance…

    Just stop right there. The left are the enemy of all things libertarian. You do not form alliances with those hateful misguided vermin.

  27. I feel bad for you fella’s who don’t have Hikikomori dens and video games to turn to as the world turns and burns. If I didn’t lay off Reason and all news on the weekends, I’d be voting myself off Survivor Island, i.e., life.

    1. No kidding. Reason is what I do at work when it’s slow. I can’t even imagine doing this round the clock.

  28. OH, and let’s make another god damn thing clear. There is NOTHING libertarian about supporting the government using tax dollars to import ‘refugees’ from anywhere in the world, let alone the Middle East. That’s not even open borders. It’s the multiculturalism/diversity bullshit that the progressives endorse. Reason as a whole is apparently unwilling to even make any distinction between immigrants who may or may not end up on the dole and refugees who only (or damn near close to it) come here on the dole.

    1. Hey, that’s settled science!
      Amazing that the writers here are so incredibly determined to sweep that whole debate under the rug.

    2. Yes. I’m pretty open borders, but there is certainly no obligation to actively import people.

  29. For whatever reason, Uber became an enemy for a lot of progressives out there – I think they make too much money – and so any opportunity to shit on Uber will be exploited. They announce price surging to incentivize more drivers to enter an area where there was a shooting? Awful price-gouging. They stop price surging for people to get to an airport where a huge progressive rally is taking place? They are trying to break a strike (I guess; I still don’t understand the arguments here). Somehow, it also means they approve of Trump’s EO, not that they’re just trying to get people to the goddamn airport and make a few bucks.

    1. If Uber, a perfect hipster inner city thing can become an enemy of the Progs, any business can become their enemy.

      1. Uhhh…. What about non-Christian charities, like the Clinton Foundation?

        1. It closed once Hillary no longer had influence to sell.

    2. They have always hated Uber; this is merely another reason.

  30. every time I see a call for libertarians to partner with liberals …

    … I reflexively hiss and fluff my tail.

    … I remind people that leftist aren’t even remotely liberal.

    … a libertarian pours another drink.

    1. … a libertarian pours another drink.

      That was gonna happen no matter what. *poors drink*

    2. Hamsters can hiss & fluff their tails?

  31. Until today I had believed it would be possible to work with those people in narrowly-defined, single issue alliances. But I have been convinced by the excellent John Titor that their numbers are too numerous that they would overwhelm us, and once overwhelmed that the alliance would become just another intersectionality shitshow.

    1. We fight for liberty, not yet another compromise with the devil.

    2. And I imagine that’s gotta be extra shitty for gays, no? Or at least in some cases?

      1. The left in Europe and on college campuses openly aligns itself with radical Muslims. A lot of people on the hard left make no secret of the fact that they would like Muslims to assume enough importance in this country that they could replace Jews in the Progressive alliance.

        Look at the incredible amount of open antisemitism on the left today. Then remember that as recently as 20 years ago the left prided itself on being the force of good against the anti-Semitic right. How did that work out?

        Given those facts, anyone who thinks the left won’t throw the gays over the side like they are the Jews once it becomes convenient is kidding themselves.

        1. And also remember the way they reacted to Libertarians when we didn’t support Hillary Clinton or voted for a third candidate. People who have been my friends for years once they found out that I didn’t vote for Hillary said some very nasty things to me.

          They love us when we are useful idiots and expanding the state, but once that purpose has been fulfilled, we are thrown away.

    3. Fuck progs

    4. They cant work with us. We might defend uber, or buy food at Chick-Fil-A! We might not be proud feminists! What would they think if they found out they partnered with people who didn’t apologize for their white privilege?!

    5. It’s the weirdest thing. Reason convinced me that letting individuals with ideas and cultures antithetical to my own have some leeway means they’d assimilate and never co-opt my own principles for their own agenda. I’m sure there’s a comparison to be made here…

    6. The progs would cut our brake lines on a family vacation once we stopped being useful to them.

    7. Me too. Whenever I’ve had a discussion with my Progressive friends, while we may agree that the War On Drugs is terrible, where we start to heavily disagree is when I say that there needs to be a reduction of government power in order for the WOD to stop.

      I’ve literally had people get angry at me for saying that because to them any reduction of government power means that we will eventually descend into chaos. I wish I was being hyperbolic.

      1. Did you try the “taxes are theft” line?

        ’cause to anybody that understands what pays for municipal services, that’s a pretty extreme stand.

    8. Maybe it’s because I see activism and political involvement as a stupid waste of time, but it seems to me that all of this talk about alliances and such is empty, pointless nothing.

      No, of course we aren’t going to make any kind of significant alliance with the left, for all the reasons people mention here. But we will occasionally agree with them to some extent on some issues. And that’s good as far as it goes.

      And occasionally, someone does change their mind. I know I’m not the only person around here who started out more on the left wing side of things. Some lefty liberals do really want to be on the side of individual freedom and will come over to the dark side in time. But it’s hard to let go of the assumptions and conventional wisdom that is behind mainstream politics and views on the proper role of government. Having a bunch of libertarians declaring that all leftists/progressives are irredeemable monsters isn’t going to help with that.

  32. Starbucks decides to Prog harder. What will become of the Womyns Studies and Art History Majors?

    Starbucks pledges to hire 10,000 refugees over next 5 years

    http://kdvr.com/2017/01/29/sta…..-refugees/

    1. They go back to school so home depot might hire them in four years?

    2. Like anyone is gonna remember that shit in 5 years.

    3. They’re probably just hoping that at the next anti-Trump protest conniption fit that maybe the protestors will remember this and choose not to throw bricks through their store’s windows.

  33. Is Scott Shackford having a Kronstadt Moment?

    “The 1949 book The God That Failed contains Louis Fischer’s definition of “Kronstadt” as the moment in which communists or fellow travelers decide not just to leave the Communist Party but to oppose it as anti-communists. Editor Richard Crossman said in the book’s introduction: “The Kronstadt rebels called for Soviet power free from Bolshevik dominance” (p. x). After describing the actual Kronstadt rebellion, Fischer spent many pages applying the concept to subsequent former-communists?including himself: “What counts decisively is the ‘Kronstadt’. Until its advent, one might waver emotionally or doubt intellectually or even reject the cause altogether in one’s mind, and yet refuse to attack it. I had no ‘Kronstadt’ for many years.” (p. 204).”

  34. I have yet to see anyone on the left rethinking the notion of limits on Fedgov power or the Imperial Presidency. When I start to see that, I will begin to believe that maybe there is hope for some common ground. But at their core, progs are the opposite end of the spectrum from libertarians. They don’t want individual liberty, in fact, they’d prefer that power is aggregated at the highest levels, and would endorse ceding power to the UN or similar body for matters of war and the environment.

  35. Sigh. Yet more collectivization rhetoric. Libertarians (considered collectively) cannot work with Progressives (considered collectively) because some of them disagree with some other of them on some issues….

    How about this instead: Individuals will work with other individuals when they share common interests on issues that they regard as having higher priority than on the issues where they disagree?

    So some libertarians can work with some progressives when it comes to, say, criminal justice reform, and some libertarians can work with some conservatives when it comes to, say, reducing the regulatory state, and neither one of them should be considered a collective endorsement of one another’s entire ideology?

  36. I’d sooner align myself with a hybrid party of Satan’s minions and Michigan fans than I would progressives. They are the bane of libertarianism on every single issue. They believe in the supreme power of the state and the tyranny of the majority being used as a hammer to crush minority views the minute they reach 51% on any particular issue.

    Fuck those fuckers right in their stupid fucking asses.

  37. While Uber catches a lot of flak for having price surges at peak hours from people who don’t understand basic supply-and-demand economics, they caught flak this time for continuing service. They were perceived as trying to “break” this strike.

    So buses and trains also stopped running in solidarity?

  38. This reflexive desire to punish leaves me with a deep concern that even in the face of Trump, there is no stomach on the left to engage in introspection over its own authoritarian tendencies. And I’m going to remember pushes like “#DeleteUber” every time I see a call for libertarians to partner with liberals or the left to fight back Trump’s worst policies. It’s not because I don’t agree?it’s because I don’t see a commitment to advancing freedom in response to Trump. I see a commitment to regaining control and authority. Thus, I don’t see any “partnership” forming so much as two deeply ideologically different groups pushing for similar outcomes for different reasons. I don’t want more power, except over my own life. I want more freedom.

    This is good. Political change never happens in a vacuum. In the real world, we’re never getting a law that simply says “all drugs are now decriminalized, and all criminals convicted of drug crimes are immediately pardoned.” That’s why intentions matter. Intentions manifest themselves as “legalize and tax” and “bake me a cake, bigot!”

    1. This is precisely why I mentioned up above that Trump’s executive order against refugees and immigrants violated due process. Trump isn’t just a “consequence” of political correctness activism?he is the cracked mirror reflection of it. Trump has no respect for free speech or due process or really any civil liberties at all.

      *sigh*

      1. NISHIMURA EKIU v. UNITED STATES

        It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. Vat. Law Nat. lib. 2, ?? 94, 100; 1 Phillim. Int. Law, (3d Ed.) c. 10, ? 220. In the United States this power is vested in the national government, to which the constitution has committed the entire control of international relations, in peace as well as in war.

        An alien immigrant, prevented from landing by any such officer claiming authority to do so under an act of congress, and thereby restrained of his liberty, is doubtless entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to ascertain whether the restraint is lawful.

        [However…]

        It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by congress, are due process of law.

        1. Which, notably, does not apply to green card holders, who do primarily live here and are basically on the learner’s permit version of citizenship.

        2. Aww, how cute. You figured out how to cut and paste.

          When you figure out how to Shepardize, your appeals to legal authority might actually be worth reading.

  39. My first thought is “No, I’m not looking for a left/liberal alliance…for any reason.”

  40. like criminal justice reform, immigration, and the scaling back of the drug war.

    They want criminal justice reform but have no desire to abolish police unions or force them into the same justice system when the commit acts of abuse. Much of their concern is being sure whites get hammered as much as blacks.

    They want immigration specifically to swell the Democrat voter rolls paying no concern whatsoever to the welfare system that drives more of our immigrants here than most people realize. Just ask them if they’d trade voter ID for having more legal immigrants and see how they answer.

    They want the drug war waged on white people and their drugs (coke) as much as it’s been waged on blacks (crack), while being somewhat decent on MJ but silent on everything else.

    1. Or ask them if they’d support expanded legal immigration as long as the welfare system was abolished.

    2. silent on everything else

      The progs at every level seem all in on a new, take-no-prisoners, salt-the-earth war on narcotic analgesics.

  41. There’s nothing sadder than unrequited love.

  42. From a footnote on Conservative Review (and on Korematsu’s birthday):

    What better authority on this subject than Justice Robert Jackson, the famous Nuremberg prosecutor who was a champion of due process rights (he wrote the dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the Japanese internment case) and regarded as one of the greatest writers of his time? Here is what he had to say: “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.” Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 US 222-223 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

  43. From same Conservateive Review article:

    In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), which is still settled law, the court ruled that Congress has the same plenary power to deport aliens for any reason as it does to exclude them and that the statutory procedures and conditions for doing so are due process.[2] Congress has established the process for deportation of those already here. However, as long as a legal permanent resident leaves the country he has no affirmative right to re-enter.[3] Either way, they have absolutely no right to judicial review other than to ensure that statutes are properly followed.

  44. “Trump isn’t just a “consequence” of political correctness activism?he is the cracked mirror reflection of it. Trump has no respect for free speech or due process or really any civil liberties at all.”

    I love that line, I must remember it

  45. “These kind of responses do not reflect a desire or a willingness to “live and let live.””
    Neither do the Reason comment sections. I wonder if it’s a “liberal” trait, or just a human trait.

  46. The Reason writer: a libertarian frog who is forever dismayed at discovering that progressive scorpions have no problem at all in acting like scorpions.

  47. Being a Libertarian means you disagree with the libertards 50% of the time and the conservaturds 50% of the time. The fact of the matter is that the dems have moved so far left they lost the middle class workers especially excluding white males and females who don’t support their anti male (patriarchy) and abortion platforms. Not that the repubs are much better, but better they are and the fact remains while people portray PRESIDENT Trump as conservative, save for Rand Paul, he was the most moderate and middle of the pack to the point repubs didn’t like him. That is EXACTLY why he won. I withheld my Cato membership this year due to their anti-Trump antics while giving Hillary a pussy pass of no mention of her oligarchy. I can only wonder if reason will go the wayside also.

  48. I can only wonder if reason will go the wayside also.

    Reason crashed into the left-side ditch and I’m not helping them out of the ditch.

    *drinks Slurpee*

  49. Looking for a Left/Libertarian Alliance Against Trump?
    Nope.

  50. Fuck the progs, they are the problem, not the solution.

    1. Even Trump is basically their fault.

  51. Given that the terms of any ‘alliance’ with the Left is ‘We’re in charge, and you guys shut up and do as you’re told’, it would be pretty silly to try to form one.

  52. Excellent article. Very much how I feel right now. Thank you.

  53. No. I am not looking for a ‘left/libertarian’ alliance of any type.

    Because it’s not possible.

    The left REQUIRES communality.

    Libertarianism doesn’t. It DOES include cooperativism–a thing that can LOOK like communality but isn’t.

    See, underlying communality is the threat of official punishment from the leaders or the group or some authority for refusal to act in a communal fashion.

    Such a thing doesn’t underlie cooperativism. Oh, if you start something with some people and don’t finish there’s a good chance you’ll have annoyed some of those people, but there’s no official condemnation because there’s no official approval or demand for you to be part of the community.

    The distinction between these two states is all important. It highlights how things that look nearly identical are coming from very different places.

    Nothing the left wants or does comes from the same angle as libertarian actions or desires–however much they might appear the same. This must always be remembered.

    1. Nothing the left wants or does comes from the same angle as libertarian actions or desires–however much they might appear the same. This must always be remembered.

      EXACTLY! The left has nothing but contempt for libertarians or libertarian ideas. The only area where they have agreed in recent memory is marriage equality, but here, the left is only trying to increases its political power as it always does, and has nothing to do with free association of individuals, which the left abhors (see college campuses nowadays). Back in the Bush II admin, there was some common opposition between leftists and libertarians to the Iraq War, but for them, it was only because they did not like who was perpetrating the war.

  54. Reason is taking a page out of Steve Bannon’s playbook and writing wedge articles, bwahaha.

    “We should have open borders, obviously.”

  55. “I don’t see a commitment to advancing freedom in response to Trump. I see a commitment to regaining control and authority.”

    Sums it up nicely. This is why we can’t really partner in any way with either conservatives or progressives.

    Any coalition with either one on a particular issue will just have to be very short-term and very shallow.

  56. Why is reason hell bent on finding common cause with the left?

  57. Libertarian aligning with the left in America today? No way. And I’m no Trump apologist. The left in America today is as close to pure evil as anything that we have seen in some time. The hyperbole against Trump is crazed even on the stupid things he does. Why would a real libertarian EVER agree with the left. They tend towards authoritarianism and are led by elitist abusers that clearly despise the middle class and personal rights. For some time the right has been the guilty party that was on the path to crushing civil rights but the left has popped into the lead. Get it straight, the left is evil and the democrat party only exists to grow government, unions and to abuse the masses.

  58. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  59. For much of Saturday it felt very much like a coming together of anybody who valued human liberty and the rule of law across the political spectrum. I found it so much more an important and positive development than the women’s march because it was about something very concrete and fundamental to American values. I’ve gotten so used to the reflexive, condescending “This is not who we are” derision that President Barack Obama’s administration used to try to shut down criticism. It was different to see people across the political spectrum in significant agreement (though, yes, there were some exceptions), even if not for the same reasons.
    ????? ????
    ?????
    Then “#DeleteUber” happened, and I threw up my hands and yelled, “Goddammit!”
    In New York City, taxi drivers organized a work stoppage to stop ferrying travelers to John F. Kennedy Airport for an hour in solidarity with those who were being detained there. I will admit that I was at first utterly mystified as to how refusing to transport people in New York for a while would help resolve any of this at all, but after reading their Facebook statement, I realized that it wasn’t really a “strike” so much as taking an hour so that they could participate in the protests as well.

  60. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her check was $21762 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can find out more

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  61. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  62. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    ============================= http://www.cash-review.com

  63. “I threw up my hands” Thanks for the visual

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.