FreedomFest

"We'd even gone to see if I could legally adopt him so he didn't have to stress being an illegal alien": Humans of FreedomFest 5

Portraits from the world's largest annual gathering of libertarians

|

Editor's note: FreedomFest, held every July in Las Vegas, is the largest annual gathering of libertarians in the country. Today is the first day of the four-day long conference, which is being headlined in its 10th year by William Shatner, John Stossel, Greg Gutfeld, and others. Taking inspiration from the site Humans of New York, Reason is happy to offer Humans of FreedomFest, a series of portraits and brief interviews with various attendees. To read previous installments, go here.

Robert J. Schimenz

Sarah Rose Siskind, Reason

Are any political issues personal for you?

"I could get emotional over a lot of issues. Nick [Gillespie], about a month ago, was in Queens. And he was walking down the street. A guy pulls up and says 'Aren't you Nick Gillespie from Reason?' And he holds up his Reason magazine. And it's one of my former students. Who, when I first met him, was a 10th grader and an illegal alien. Great kid. Baseball player on my team. Editor of my school newspaper. We'd even gone to see if I could legally adopt him so he didn't have to stress being an illegal alien… he's probably one of the best Americans I know, this kid."

Nicole Sanders

Sarah Rose Siskind, Reason

"I went to college in Texas and I started a YAL [Young Americans for Liberty] chapter. And it got shut down. And so I worked with FIRE [Foundation for Individual Rights in Education], we sued, and won. It was kinda my entry into the liberty movement. It was the first time I was on campus as a YAL chapter, I was just recruiting, letting people know there's this libertarian group on campus. A student was offended because I was talking about guns on campus. So they went to the administration. And then they came to me with three armed police officers saying I was not allowed to talk to students without permission. If I wanted to talk about guns, I would need special permission."

Adam Trexler

Sarah Rose Siskind, Reason

Have you ever changed your mind on an issue?

"Oh sure. Well now I'm gonna upset you. Probably. When I lived in Britain, I was really scared of socialized medicine. But I found that the NHS [National Health System] was more efficient than our hybrid state-private system. So I think we either need a true private system or a true public system."

"Humans of FreedomFest" is a series. Read previous installments here.

NEXT: 'Ninth Circuit poised to resolve major free speech issue in secret proceeding'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Adam Trexler’s a man of few words.

    1. That photo says it all.

      1. Just needz a scowl and a toothbrush ‘stauch

      2. “We gonna smash?”

  2. And then they came to me with three armed police officers saying I was not allowed to talk to students without permission. If I wanted to talk about guns, I would need special permission.”

    and then they announced you’d also failed to file your 27/b-6

    1. We send people with guns to demonstrate to you our disapproval of guns.

      1. If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you are very pro-gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. – Stefan Molyneux

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv7ZXLU51Hs

        1. Spot on

        2. Let’s get Justine Damond’s opinion on this.

          1. That immigrant thug who unsuccessfully tried to ambush the police?

            1. I thought some people said the cop was an immigrant thug too? Does that make it immigrant-on-immigrant anti-immigration thuggery? It’s hard to keep all the word salad straight at this point.

        3. Yup. My stance is that if you’re going to disarm the citizens, then you also have to disarm the government.

  3. Evidently Mr. Trexler doesn’t have a lot to say.

    1. But he’s a good listener.

    2. Not that he’d care but in my book he doesn’t really need to. Maybe Ms. Siskind agrees?

  4. So Adam Trexler is just eye candy? He haint got no story?

    1. It’s a story yet to be written, Bruce. Into Sarah’s heart.

      1. He didn’t even give his name. Sarah just looked at his smile and knew.

        1. Been there, done that, literally bought the T-shirt.

  5. That guy Robert talks too much about brown people immigration and not enough about guns, Greg Gutfeld, and– gobdumnit– the dang kids at college these days. Where’d they get that geezer? Probably a DNC Deep State plant.

    1. Shouldn’t you be at the adult training center putting stickers on things and pretending it’s a job?

  6. So, you figure Sara Rose’s Vegas trip was paid for Reason? Her hotel, food, and per diem? And in exchange she has to right 300 words a day? I would like a job like that.

    1. *write*

      1. see. Sara’s a professional righter.

    2. *write*

    3. *write*

      1. Riiiight

  7. ? he’s probably one of the best Americans I know, this kid.

    Well, except for that thing about violating our immigration laws.

    1. In Mike M’s days, they called that moxie.

      1. Who?

    2. Well, except for that thing about violating our immigration laws.

      Yeah, and if I own a gun without begging the State for permission then I’m violating our gun laws. And if I broadcast profanity or nipples I’m violating our broadcast laws. Don’t get me started on the alcohol, tobacco, and drug laws…

      You might not have noticed, but a lot of things are illegal because FYTW, What’s legal and what’s moral often may as well be on different planets. A person, harming no one, walking around in public without Uncle Scam’s permission, is not in and of itself itself a violation of my liberties. If they’re committing actual crimes by doing actual harm, try them and punish them for that like anyone else. Until then I’ve got no beef with them just for living.

      Americans are already carrying cultures that are totally alien to me. I can’t think of anybody I know who doesn’t believe something I find absolutely horrifying. But somehow we manage. It’s not that hard if you live and let live.

      “I bet your house has walls, huh?” Pure genius, go bottle that. I own my house, or I’m paying whoever owns it to let me use it, or otherwise earning my keep, or sometimes I just have temporary permission to hang out until we both wake up and find our underwear… It’s complicated. The point is, I don’t own the country and shouldn’t act like it.

      If I did, there are some people I’d ask to find their underwear and the door in that order. Some didn’t come here.

      1. “The point is, I don’t own the country and shouldn’t act like it.”

        I live in SF. If you know anything about it, you’d know any damn tin-pot local ‘spokes-human’ can keep property owners from doing what they wish with their property.
        Why? Well, the people who rent dwellings in the hood and have lived there for 5 years or so have thusly become “stakeholders” and can claim to exercise control over the hood as if they owned it.
        Now I have never seen XZV’s argument proposed to support of open borders before, but if you don’t like the argument that “I ought to be able to sell s where I wish”, you now have a brand new one to chew upon.
        Or you can claim to be a Mission-district whiny ‘stakeholder’, if that’s you’re desire.

        1. * “I ought to be able to sell my skills where I wish”*

          Welsh, I presume you are the agent in control of the web site.
          I’d fire you.

      2. As I am not an anarchist, I believe there is a role for government and that government should have authority over certain limited, well-defined realms of power (per the much-ignored U.S. Constitution). We can disagree over exactly what those powers should be, but in my opinion border and immigration control is one of the powers I would want my government exercising.

        Like it or not, this country as currently constructed has shared public spaces and public welfare and education systems, so I have a vested interest in having the government control who comes into the country and makes use of those common systems.

        I think there’s also adequate evidence that people bring their personal and political cultures with them when they move to a new place, and numerous instances of the political culture of a nation changing when confronted by overwhelming immigration. You can’t keep a libertarian nation if you’re overwhelmed by collectivist newcomers who will use their numbers to vote for non-libertarian policies. Immigration needs to be limited to a level that can be assimilated, and there need to be periods with little or no immigration to allow immigrants to assimilate.

        1. Cloudbuster|7.23.17 @ 10:44AM|#
          “As I am not an anarchist, I believe there is a role for government and that government should have authority over certain limited, well-defined realms of power (per the much-ignored U.S. Constitution). We can disagree over exactly what those powers should be, but in my opinion border and immigration control is one of the powers I would want my government exercising.”
          I agree, assuming the control of those issues are proper; I’ve yet to see that.

          “Like it or not, this country as currently constructed has shared public spaces and public welfare and education systems, so I have a vested interest in having the government control who comes into the country and makes use of those common systems.”
          Yes, and there are plenty of studies (excuse the term) to show that illegals tend to increase prosperity rather than the alternative.

          1. “I think there’s also adequate evidence that people bring their personal and political cultures with them when they move to a new place, and numerous instances of the political culture of a nation changing when confronted by overwhelming immigration. You can’t keep a libertarian nation if you’re overwhelmed by collectivist newcomers who will use their numbers to vote for non-libertarian policies. Immigration needs to be limited to a level that can be assimilated, and there need to be periods with little or no immigration to allow immigrants to assimilate.
            You have just blown your cover:
            You wish to use the coercive power of the government to exclude those with whom you disagree.
            I also disagree with those who would do so, but the solution is to insure the government doesn’t honor such desires rather than exclude those who might well have individual desires rather than the groupings you presume.

            1. There’s no ‘cover’ blown–it’s the quintessential question–

              How do you try to have a libertarian country while you’re importing endless streams of anti-libertarians and giving them the power to turn your nascent libertarian country into the same kind of hellhole they just left?

              Hell–

              How do you try to have a representative, constitutional republic while you’re importing endless streams of people who are fundamentally opposed to that form of government and giving them the power to turn your representative, constitutional republic into the same kind of hellhole they just left?

              Libertarians have been arguing about this for decades.

              1. I endorse your reply.

            2. There is no power of government that is no coercive. If you are going to have a government, no matter how small — meaning you are not an anarchist — you have to decide in which areas you will allow government to use coercive power. I am completely open about the fact that I believe border control and immigration is one of those areas — I say as much in my previous post. No cover to blow.

              I also disagree with those who would do so, but the solution is to insure the government doesn’t honor such desires rather than exclude those who might well have individual desires rather than the groupings you presume.

              Please outline a governmental system that would achieve that in a direct or representative democracy. I am unaware of any political system that operates with the consent of the governed that is unable to be corrupted by a majority or sufficiently committed plurality, regardless of what the stated goals of the original system are.

          2. Yes, and there are plenty of studies (excuse the term) to show that illegals tend to increase prosperity rather than the alternative.

            Some of those same studies show that most of the increased prosperity goes to the immigrants, not the natives, so this may not be persuasive to an immigration opponent. You can have an overall increase in national prosperity that completely passes some groups by.

            But that’s not what my post is about. It’s whether citizens of a nation should be able to empower their central government to control the nation’s borders and immigration. The policies that the citizens then decide to have their government implement once the legitimacy of border and immigration control is established is a completely separate discussion.

            Back to the original post:
            1. Fact: We have laws about illegal immigration in this country.
            2. Fact: The kid violated them.
            3. Conclusion: He should suffer the consequences associated with breaking those laws.

            If I oppose drug laws (and I do), I don’t first demand that drug smugglers and dealers should receive no punishment without bothering to change the laws. First I argue against the laws, then, when the law is changed, I argue that people convicted of laws no longer in effect should be given amnesty.

    3. And he wasn’t an American. He needs to.vo back.

      1. “And he wasn’t an American”

        Whaooo!
        Di he not salute the flag?

    4. Well, except for that thing about violating our immigration laws.

      He was a kid. I doubt he had a lot of say in the matter.

      1. Conjecture. Lots and lots of people cross as unaccompanied kids, every year. A kid who shoplifts is still guilty of shoplifting. Anyway, if he hasn’t done anything to legally rectify the situation, he’s still in violation of the laws now, as an adult. Assuming he’s a DREAMer, his status would seemingly rest entirely on Presidential whim.

  8. Hey, Welsh? That donation you used to get? The squirrels ate it.
    Once more:

    “Next Minneapolis Police Chief Has Deep Community Roots”
    https://www.usnews. com/news/us/articles/2017-07-22/ minneapolis-chief-resigns-after -shooting-of-australian-woman

    Let’s hope the community is somewhere in Oz.

    1. Use an html hyperlink to post long urls.

      1. Not gonna bother.
        Learned to do so and forgot several times; if Reason can’t accept long links, they won’t get my contributions.

  9. Oh, NOW Mr. Trexler opens up for the cameras. So he’s a fan of socialized medicine? Pfft.

  10. I think I might be retarded because I don’t understand the anecdote in the first story.

  11. Disappointed by the commenters. No ‘would’s?

  12. “”I think there’s also adequate evidence that people bring their personal and political cultures with them when they move to a new place, ”

    In the alt-right, they call that reality. And it is more than adequate if u r willing to see. And goes to show the utter stupidity of magic dirt Meme in some libertarian circles.

    Take the culture of the child rapist of Rotherham. What kind of cruel sadist would label those raping sand-niggers English? When I think of England..oh no I isn’t Shakespeare, or the Magna Carta, or Pink Floyd, its child raping sand-niggers …cuz they r English because a rubber stamped piece of paper said so.

  13. “You can’t keep a libertarian nation if you’re overwhelmed by collectivist newcomers who will use their numbers to vote for non-libertarian policies. ”

    And almost everyone that writes for Reason is too fucking stupid, or disingenous, to acknowledge this.

    Hey what’s a little child raping when u have cocktail parties to attend? Gimee gimeeee gimme. And if u don’t gimeee, u r a rascist.

    REASON: The CNN of libertariansim.

  14. “Oh sure. Well now I’m gonna upset you. Probably. When I lived in Britain, I was really scared of socialized medicine. But I found that the NHS [National Health System] was more efficient than our hybrid state-private system. So I think we either need a true private system or a true public system.”

    We have a family friend who is an MD, here on the ‘we need you’ visa from Canada, who claims the CDN system is better.
    So much that he made it clear that you apply or sign up RIGHT NOW if you have so much as a scratch or you lose your place in line to all the others who sign up for the “free” care with a hurty on their arm…
    And so much that he admitted pulling strings to get him Mum into line far in advance of what hoi poloi might expect.
    And so pleased with the Canadian system that he just can’t find his way to the airport to return there.
    Perhaps Mr. Trexler might learn the difference between stated and revealed preferences.

  15. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.