Ron Paul

Ron Paul: A Popular Libertarian Candidate in 2020 Is 'Very Possible'

The former 1988 Libertarian nominee and 2008 and 2012 Republican candidate for president says Trump is just a temporary setback for the libertarian moment.

|

Gage Skidmore/flickr

Distrust in America's foreign and monetary policies, unrelieved by the election of Donald Trump, is going to be a "big opening" for libertarians in 2020, former Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul told the Washington Examiner.

Trump was able to co-opt much of the messaging of an establishment that has maintained a bipartisan consensus on these issues without offering much of substance to voters committed to the values of freedom.

"The appearance of the libertarian movement has been set back partially because of Trump, but intellectually we've been doing well," Paul said. "We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible" in 2020.

Paul called the economic upturn this year "a bit of an illusion," and said U.S. monetary policy benefits those connected to government, creating the most pernicious form of "inequality."

"It's a bubble economy in many, many different ways and it's going to come unglued," said Paul, who has previously blamed the Federal Reserve for what he sees as a bitcoin bubble.

"We're on the verge of something like what happened in '89 when the Soviet system just collapsed," Paul told the Examiner. "I'm just hoping our system comes apart as gracefully."

The Examiner noted that Paul doesn't think the U.S. will break up the way that the Soviet Union did, but rather that the U.S. will have to deal with its unsustainable foreign policy and the Fed-driven monetary policy that helps fuel it.

"I think our stature in the world and our empire will end, and that's when, hopefully, the doors will be open and [people will] say, 'Hey, maybe these libertarians have some answers to this'," Paul told the Examiner. "If they only hear our message, I know they would choose liberty and sound money and freedom and peace over the mess we have today."

Paul's criticism of Trump's foreign policy is understandable. Trump was never the non-interventionist some (at times even Paul's son, Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul) made him out to be.

"I think the foreign policy is a total disaster," Paul told the Examiner."Trump's approach sounds good one day but the next day he's antagonizing everyone in the world and thinks we should start a war here and there."

Paul also said he'd be delighted if Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties, although he's not optimistic the replacement would be any better.

Read the rest of the interview at the Examiner.

NEXT: Congress Kicks Surveillance Debate into 2018

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. “We as libertarians have some work to do before [voters] are going to accept a true-blue libertarian, but I think moving in that direction and having a popular candidate is very possible” in 2020.

    IF HE’S POPULAR HE WON’T BE LIBERTARIAN.

    1. “I, and other women, won’t vote libertarian because the children.”

      Source: my wife who is perhaps the most libertarian woman I have ever met.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

      2. Seriously? What does she think the libertarians are going to do? Eat them?

        It is women – primarily single women – who will destroy America (unless something else destroys it first). Women are more risk-averse than men – and desperately want “safety nets” for themselves and their children. For married women, that “safety net” is usually their husband, which is why married women tend to lean more conservative. But for single women, it’s all forms of government programs – child care, “free” medical care, welfare, housing assistance, special tax deductions.

        Research done by John Lott makes a powerful case that US debt is fueled primarily by the female vote. He looked at every state that granted women the vote – beginning with Wyoming in (IIRC) 1870. Over the next 50 years, every state that allowed women to vote began to run deficits year-over-year within a few years. No state that didn’t have voting women had that problem. With the passage of the 19th Amendment, all 48 states and the Federal government began to run year-over-year deficits. Now the Federal government carries, and adds to, a $20 trillion dollar debt each year.

        When one considers that the “War on Poverty” alone has cost $15 Trillion, it’s not hard to see how the female penchant for government programs will ultimately KILL THE CHILDREN.

        1. Amazing! A female misogynist?
          Or a male Bambi?

          He looked at every state that granted women the vote

          That was all of them, sweetheart.

        2. Well, to be fair, us men on average are more likely to support pointless wars (inspite of the risk of getting drafted to boot). So theres that.

          Besides economic issues, us men are more homophobic and want to tell gay men what they can’t do in the bedroom, because it makes **us** uncomfortable. But on the flip side, women are (by a few pts) more likely to oppose legalizing weed, more likely to support the “V-chip” (thanks Tipper Gore) and were the ones who started the whole prohibition thing.

          So I guess its a wash.

    2. “I, and other women, won’t vote libertarian because the children.”

      Source: my wife who is perhaps the most libertarian woman I have ever met.

      1. Both of them?

        1. The Prophet allows up to four.

    3. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Libertarian moments are like those moments about forty five minutes after eating Chinese food when you have an uncontrollable urge to take an explosive shit, and after you purge your bowels it is over.

  3. “We’re on the verge of something like what happened in ’89 when the Soviet system just collapsed,” Paul told the Examiner.

    I suppose nothing would be more libertarian than the unmolested rise of the oligarchs.

  4. As a left-libertarian, my top 3 2020 presidential candidates are Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. Unless Russia hacks that election too, I’m confident any one of them will beat Drumpf, or whoever is in office once Mueller concludes his investigation.

      1. Don’t fall for this second-rate troll, Ed.

        1. I think he’s quite funny, actually.

    1. As a 2000 foot tall fuscia smurf, I think you have no idea what you are.

    2. Elizabeth Warren? I can hear the Brer Republicans going “Oh please don’t nominate a shrill Ivy League 70 year old white woman who talks down to common people, Trump will lose to a candidate like that for sure”

      1. No way Trump gets the GOP nom in 2020.

        1. There’s no way he doesn’t.

          By 2020 every GOP hack will owe him something.

        2. I’m not a Trump fan, but the only way he doesn’t get the GOP nomination in 2020 is if he chooses not to run. No incumbent president has actually lost his party’s nomination for a second term since 1884 (Arthur) and he hadn’t actually been elected president in the first place (he was Garfield’s VP and became president after Garfield’s death). Only one president that was elected to the office in the first instance has lost the nomination for a second term — Pierce in 1856 — and that was when there was no real primary system at all.

          1. Trump is the most admired man in America who will be eligible to run in 2020, per Gallup.

            1. Yeah, right. He also DID NOT shoot that guy to death in broad daylight, never grabbed a pussy, never lied about his campaign’s contacts with Russia …. and never wiped Alex Jones’ cum from his tonsils.

          2. I don’t think its likely that Trump will lose the primary nomination for no other reason than all the other GOP candidates will just split the vote among themselves with Trump getting the plurality. Although head-to-head, he probably would have lost to several opponents, if not the majority of them.

            Now, if the “never Trumpers” had a “deal” where the losers of their subprimaries would **all** agree to drop out except for one after Iowa (or Iowa + FL) and have him/her run against Trump head-to-head (and hope no non-never-Trumpers still remain), I can see a scenario where Trump loses the primary.

            But then the voters will all say that it was rigged anyway, and a huge chunk of them will sit out or write Trump in the General. So the establishment will find a way to keep “the deal” from happening.

        3. Someone needs to visit the Dilbert blog predictions page…

      2. And of course he betrayed the protectionists completely, so he’s not winning WI, MI, or PA again even if he does get the nom.

        1. The first thing to consider is that he has three more years to get stuff for the Trumpism voters passed. Year One, policy-wise was heavily about bringing the Republican Party begrudgingly back together. That Trump is already back to talking infrastructure suggests that he’s going to try that (aimed toward his base) in 2018, especially as a way to energize them before November.

          Given all the stories we’re seeing of companies giving bonuses and raising wages off the tax cut, it could be interesting to see how he pivots (lumbers I gracefully around?) to a pro-worker focus using more conventionally GOP tools in the new year.

          On 2020, if anything, I can see Trump being more likely than other incumbents to have a primary challenge, but I could also see him having one from either side. Yet, I likewise see him beating that challenge a la Carter (whether that leaves him weakened for November a la Carter is another question; I can’t vouch for the sanity of the Democrats or what actual quality of candidate they’ll seek to field in 2020).

          1. Can you describe ANYTHING that’s a bigger failure than infrastructure — for jobs and the economy — over the past 80 years?

            1. You, your parents failed

              1. Your parents raised a self-righteous aggressor/bully who celebrates murdering people he disagrees with — by feeding them into a woodchipper — from the barbatic scene in Fargo
                Makes you feel manly. And them ashamed.

      3. Have we not all learned there’s no predicting what voters will warm to?

        1. Have we not all learned there’s no predicting what voters will warm to which portions of the populace will actually bother to vote?

          Any candidate can win, the trick is convincing your rivals’ voters that they shouldn’t bother playing.

          1. I think we have learned that black voters will turn out in droves for black candidates, but not for old white women.

            1. A sassy black woman would be able to get all the voters to turn out.

              1. + Medea

            2. They turned out for a white dude in Alabama. But maybe they just didn’t want to be represented by a child diddler.

    3. “As a left-libertarian, my top 3 presidential candidates are people who are in no way libertarian.”

      1. THATSTHEJOKE.gif

    4. And then – assassination.

      Count on it.

      1. BambiB has issued a public threat to commit first-degree murder. I have emailed the proof to her victim.

        And then – assassination.
        Count on it

        If you threaten ME, I’ll track you down and kill you … in the most painful way possible. Guaranteed.
        You psycho-conservatives are a disgrace.

  5. Oh good, I was just wondering what an 80-year-old Republican who has never come close to winning a national election thought about the electoral future of my party.

    1. We already had one candidate who died and never would have made it to election time. Ron Paul has a perfect voting record on energy, but he still wants the Political State for force women at gunpoint to have babies they do not want. Ulysses S. Grant signed the Comstock law (in crash/Depression year 1873), and Republicans have made this Mohammedan-style sumptuary law the basis and foundation for their race-suicide nationalsocialist policies. Enough is enough!

      1. On abortion, we simply need to reach agreement on when life begins. Whatever that point is, abortion thereafter is murder. Some say conception. Others say birth. I’m inclined to say it’s the point of independent viability. In most cases, that’s around 20 weeks (IIRC). Mostly the issue is one for rabid argument not based on fact. It’s one of the major red herrings of politics.

        1. The biggest bullsbhit of all — mostly the Christian Taliban.– that the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable Right to Life. DUH

          NO unalienable right can EVER be denied or disparaged … for ANY reason.

          Thus they’re ALL equal — Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others!!
          And the Ninth Amendment forbids government to deny or favor EITHER right.

          This demolishes BOTH extremes … conception and point of delivery — each fascists trying to impose their personal value over fundamental rights. AMAZING what we can achieve with the most obvious moral principles..

    2. So which libertarian has gained more votes or raised more money in a national election than Ron Paul?

      1. Do you have anything relevant?

      2. Gary Johnson. 4,489,233 (3.27%)

        Ron Paul 431,750 (0.47%)

        Ron is way ahead as a cult leader.

        Any other questions?

  6. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has been a disaster for civil liberties

    How has he been a disaster for civil liberties?

    1. He has been exactly like every other AG considered for the position over the last 12 years.

      So, I guess it depends on what baseline you use.

      1. I really wish Sessions would follow up on the findings in his “Immigration Fact Book”, basically slam the border shut, prosecute criminal invaders with the heaviest possible hand and slow processing of H-1B visas to 100 per month with NO renewals.

        If he did just those things, he’d be better than any attorney general in memory.

        1. What about the goddamn niggers?
          /sarc

    2. I wouldn’t say disaster more roadblock as AG to date but Ron might have been speaking about Sessions political career as a whole in which case disaster would be appropriate.

      Patriot Act supporter, against any reform for surveillance state, pro mandatory mins, pro drug war, pro civil asset forfeiture …

    3. Jeff Sessions rolled back some restrictions on civil forfeiture put in place by Obama’s Presidency (possibly even by Eric Holder).

      Frankly, as much as I distrust the socialist Democrats, I was pleasantly surprised that they had done that, and somewhat disappointed to learn about it by hearing about it being rolled back.

      1. Reading this thread, it is stunning … STUNNING … how many wingers are so totally ignorant of Sessions history and values. REJECTED AS A FEDERAL JUDGE FOR BEING TOO RACIST.

        So perfect for the Donald.

  7. Unlike the dishonest fugazi scumbag libertarians here at Reason who put a dagger in his back and shamefully smeared him as a “racist” when he needed their support the most, I will always have the utmost respect for Ron Paul.

    But…. I don’t agree with him in this case. It’s still very early, but after just one year Trump has already been one of the most libertarian presidents in my lifetime (which granted, isn’t saying very much and he’s by no means perfect). He just gave about 90% of working, taxpaying Americans a wonderful Christmas present with a real and substantial tax cut that takes effect in five days, has done more to eliminate federal regulations that any president in decades, and his judicial picks like Gorsuch and Willett have been absolutely outstanding.

    1. But Twitter!

      1. Would you have excused Obama if he had behaved as crass and deranged?

        1. Trump is hardly unique in this regard, as explained in this enlightening article that you won’t read because of the source.

          The Bigmouth Tradition of American Leadership

          The point is that it is hard to ascertain to what degree flamboyance and excess, even the self-destructive sorts, are integral to genius. And to what degree in extremis do we need to make allowances and exemptions for the former to allow expression of the latter?

          The state of affairs obviously determines the degree to which a public is willing to take risks with the unconventional. The peacetime army of the late 1930s would have had no real place for a General George S. Patton.

          We, of course, live in lesser times (though, we can cringe at the idea what Sherman or Truman, or Churchill, might have tweeted had Twitter been at their late-night fingertips).

          1. There is no excuse for Trump’s public behavior. Call me a conservative.

            Swearing in private is not his sin. And he tweets insanities in preschool English despite apparently being a nondrinker.

            1. I prefer to judge everyone by their actions instead of their words. Sticks and stones buttercup, suck it up

              He tweets I’m preschool English so folks like you can understand

        2. Sure, if he had also cut taxes, eliminated federal regulations, and picked people like Gorsuch and Willett for the courts. With a record like that, I’d even be somewhat willing to overlook the fact that he was a Democrat!

          1. Gorsuch? The Christian Taliban?

    2. I was just waiting for the Paulites to come out of the woodwork and say “on second thought, I actually do prefer Trump over Ron Paul”, thereby conclusively proving that they were actually Team Red Republicans all along.

      1. If he had a 60% approval rating that would be one thing. But we have to sit and witness Reason be a home of the Trump holdouts? With the whole rest of the internet out there?

        And it’s not like he’s just any Republican. He’s a particularly awful human being by any objective standard. Which makes their support all the more tribal, I suppose. They’d never let Obama get away with even an hour of Trump’s lies and crassness.

        1. Funny, considering that you seem to be the type that would hammer on Republican gaffs until the cows come home (along with everyone else) but conveniently ignore and excuse Democrat gaffs.

          I personally don’t like Trump, and I’m still not sure if I could bring myself to vote for him a second time around, but one thing I can see, is that he’s been better at slashing government than either Republicans *or* Democrats have been in the last few decades.

          Had Obama actually vetoed ObamaCare rather than sign it into law, cut other regulations, cut taxes, cut spending, and so forth, I would have been willing to give him a lot more slack than I gave him. The problem I have with Obama, though, is that he does things (such as clamp down on our freedoms) that I disagree with…whereas you seem to be convinced that the only reasons people opposed Obama was because he was a Democrat, and (gasp!) had dark skin!

        2. Come to think of it, aren’t you the fellow who equates the Heritage Foundation Health Care plan with the ObamaCare plan because it has exactly one thing in common — a requirement to buy health insurance — and who seems to think that, because a conservative think tank thought something up, conservatives and libertarians automatically have to support it, and because it’s identical (except for everything else) to ObamaCare, those people are therefore hypocrites?

          If so, and I’m pretty sure it *is* so, it is YOU who expects everyone else to play Team Politics, while everyone else evaluates everything based on what they think…

        3. The libertarians here don’t support Trump.

        4. “Objective standard”? Are you shitting me? There hasn’t been an “objective” report on Trump from the lamestream media since before he got the nomination!

          As for Obozo – if you want to see his REAL accomplishments, suggest you check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsWzfhvvOgg. Here’s a sampling:

          The number of non-farm hours worked each year has not changed since Obozo was elected – despite the fact that there are 20 million more Americans.

          15 million more Americans on Food Stamps? (up 39%)
          1 in 20 American home owners lost their homes under Obozo.
          As of 2016, 95 MILLION Americans were ready, willing, able to work – but no jobs!

          80% of American adults have struggled with joblessness under Obozo. EIGHTY PERCENT!!!

          But at least Obozo was good for race relations, right?
          In 2009 66% of Americans thought race relations were good, 22% thought they were bad.
          After 7 years under Obozo? 32% good. 63% bad!?? Where’s the press on THAT?

          Outright criminality in smuggling 2000+ assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to bump up the number of “American” guns used in Mexican crime (to justify more gun control). Then he pulled a “Nixon”: Executive privilege to prevent Holder’s testimony. Did the press call for impeachment?

          No. The POS got a free pass.

          Trump’s immigration limits are BASED on Obozo’s findings. When Obozo said it, all was fine. Trump? Now the same policy is “racist”.

          1. “Objective standard”? Are you shitting me? There hasn’t been an “objective” report on Trump from the lamestream media since before he got the nomination!

            ANY dipwad who uses “lamestream”” is a RAGING bigot … a snowflake whining about being objective
            Typical Trumpster

            Links to a YouTube video by (another) raging bigot … AS A RELIABLE SOURCE!
            While pissing and moaning about “objective” OMG! They walk among us!!!

            Trump’s immigration limits are BASED on Obozo’s findings.

            Even TRUMP says your full of crap on that..

            Are you sime maniac troll .. paid bny George Soros — to ridicule Trump supporters?
            Then again, Trump said you’d stand by him shooting somebody to death, in broad daylight, with witnesses! We don’t know about the murder … but you ALREADY stand by him calling you a dumbass goober, devoid of any moral standards.

            That COULD also explain your totally shameful lies here.

            Give Alex a hug while you’re “pleasuring” him orally.

      2. Unlike Dipshit Dave Weigel and the rest of Welchie Boy’s merry gang of fraudsters, I really wanted Paul to become president.

        I have to say, you sound like you’re as dishonest as shameless as they are.

        1. A FUCKING FASCIST PRESIDENT … TO IMPOSE YOUR SHAMEFUL BIGOTRY BY FORCE?

          The Ron Paul who lies about the 10th Amendment?

          Tried to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA, which would have made gays the first entire group denied constitutional rights since slavery.

          Like Trump, denies THREE co-equal branches, checks and balances, balance of power, and says we are defenseless against constitutional abuse by state government. (THE prime enabler of the alt-right that dominates this commentariat)

          A totally shameful opponent of equal, unalienable and.or God-given rights — claims states have the power of bigotry, explicitly denied them by the 9th Amendment. And the 14th (marriage equality)

          YOU are a threat to my life and liberty ….. reaches for AK-47

    3. If you listen to the lamestream media, you probably believe Trump IS Satan… and Hitlery won the election.

      My biggest beef with Trump so far is that he hasn’t implemented his agenda fast enough. I really had hoped (but not expected) that he would enter office with executive orders ready to go, and a solid legislative agenda. I would have howled in delight if he’d dropped his right hand after taking the oath of office, picked up a pen and signed an executive order repealing ALL executive orders of the Obozo administration. It didn’t happen – but one can dream.

      1. If you listen to the lamestream media, you probably believe Trump IS Satan… and Hitlery won the election

        FAKE NEWS (lol)
        “lamestream” and “hitlery’ =- raging hatred (f*cking scary)

        Brainwashed by Fox, Breitbart and Infowars to deny REALITY
        Why did 10 million vote AGAINST Trump?
        Why is Trump TWICE as disliked as ANY President, in all but 3 mionths – SINCE EISENHOWER?
        Why did only 37% of Republicans support his nomination?
        Why did his LOSING vote include a RECORD NUMBER OF ANTI-OPPONENT VOTES? (voted against Hillary, NOT for him)
        Why did he win the Electoral Vote by fewer than 80,000 votes in 3 states COMBINED?
        How much influence would Russia have needed to swing so tiny a margin?
        Why does Trump deny collusion, when the issue is CONSPIRACY — which his son confessed to.
        And OBSTRUCTION, which HE confessed to?
        Why do voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a massive 10% or more … PER FOX AND GINGRICH.
        Also Fox and Gingrich. Newt Gingrich: My fellow Republicans, a Democratic wave election is coming unless we act right now | Fox News
        Why are Trump’s snowflakes as eager to be brainwashed as Berniebots … and so totally contemptuous of “incon-veeeeeen-yent facts?

        *** WHEN THEY OFFER YOU THE KOOL-AID … DO NOT DRINK IT!

  8. Any political movement built around a philosophical viewpoint is doomed to failure. People aren’t loyal to philosophies, they’re loyal to other people.

    1. Our single spoiler electoral vote forced the legalization of abortion. The LP has made ku-klux prohibitionists back away from tarbrushing and coercing queers, and is now putting in place a sort of second 21st Amendment to stop the Feds from shooting more kids and robbing more parents over plant leaves. That is WINNING! Looter parties are in the business of getting government paychecks and buying votes so their boys can have jobs libertarians don’t even want. Our spoiler votes make them choose between coercive laws and getting fired. This is simple fractions, 9th grade arithmetic. Integrity is the friend of freedom.

    2. Rush Limbaugh and every other right wing radio hack might disagree.

    3. Actually, they’re mostly loyal to themselves.

      More than half of the population has, as their most pressing political question, “What’s in it for me?”

      1. Actually, 60% would self-define as libertarian — fiscally conservative and socially liberal
        So your lies and screwups on this page now total 38.

  9. Contributions must be slow.

  10. I can’t wait for Hihn to talk about Ron Paul.

    1. BULLY!

      1. Arizona_Guy|12.27.17 @ 4:19PM|#
        BULLY!

        Not yet. But later in the thread.

        Aggression is the launching of an unprovoked attack. Cyber-bullying is against a person, not their ideas, positions or arguments. Do you have access to a dictionary?

        1. Aggression is the launching of an unprovoked attack. Cyber-bullying is against a person, not their ideas, positions or arguments. Do you have access to a dictionary?

          Hihn: you keep verbally aggressing against the commenters on Reason. You are a rude, uncouth bully. Don’t complain when people verbally hit back at you in self defense.

          1. (sneer) The aggression starts at the top of this thread … psycho dumbfuck.
            Then the one I responded to.
            Now one of the champion bullies, you.
            Get a life, Dude.

            (boldface in response to aggression and BLATANT bullshit by a cyber-bully)

            1. The aggression starts at the top of this thread

              No, the aggression started with you, years ago, disrupting discussion after discussion.

              1. Fucking liar. If I haven’t done it in years … then why your assault here? (sneer)
                (This FEELS like kicking a cripple. They are ALL that stupid!)

                (posted in self-defense of aggression by a cyber-stalking blowhard).

                1. Cyber stalking blowhard – that actually sums up your entire existence here on Reason

                  1. That was an unprovoked personal attack … as you whine about stalking. (snort)

                    If we were face-to-face. you’d try feeding me into a woodchipper — like the barbaric murder scene you celebrate in Fargo.

            2. “Cyber bullying” – if you can’t take it, sell your computer.

              1. “Cyber bullying” – if you can’t take it, sell your computer.

                And like most cyber-bullies, you want to censor him.

                Libertarians have always opposed aggressors like you.
                It’s like pasting “asshole” on aggressors and thugs Here’s your sign.

    2. Hihn is definitely gonna show up for this thread, probably sometime next year after the worms have finished picking over the bones, and he will shit all over the remains of the corpse. So let’s give him some material to gnaw on.

      1. Nah, he’ll be here in probably about 20 minutes, as soon as the early bird seating is over at Denny’s.

        1. Dead on.

          Death, taxes, and Hihn shitting all over a Ron Paul thread when it was just about to die.

          1. shitting all over a Ron Paul thread when it was just about to die.

            In two-and-a-half hours! Typically LAME.

      2. Hihn is definitely gonna show up for this thread, probably sometime next year after the worms have finished picking over the bones, and he will shit all over the remains of the corpse.

    3. The bullies are out in full force!

      The Ron Paul who lies about the 10th Amendment?
      Tried to forbid SCOTUS from even hearing any challenges to DOMA, which would have made gays the first entire group denied constitutional rights since slavery.
      Like Trump, denies THREE co-equal branches, checks and balances, balance of power, and says we are defenseless against constitutional abuse by state government. (THE prime enabler of the alt-right that dominates this commentariat)
      A totally shameful opponent of equal, unalienable and.or God-given rights — claims states have the power of bigotry, explicitly denied them by the 9th Amendment. And the 14th (marriage equality)

      What could possibly go wrong??

      1. So you wouldn’t vote for him?

        1. Of course I would. I’m a fascist too!

      2. Faggots can’t get married. When they do, they don’t get a “marriage” license. They get a “fudge-packing” license.

        What’s fundamentally wrong with government is that it accorded advantages based on marital status. The proper course of action would be to eliminate all differences based on marital status – not pretend that gay boys can get married.

        Marriage shouldn’t have any significance to government.

        1. And some thought THE KLAN was satanic?

          Faggots can’t get married. When they do, they don’t get a “marriage” license. They get a “fudge-packing” license.

  11. Just what we need… another mystical, superstitious, woman-bullying Bob Barr clone, endorsed by Alex Jones, whack job extraordinaire! Surely the Tea Party & Klan can come up with a better 5th-column infiltration vector to foist on us.

    1. I guess that’s an interesting question — if Ron Paul runs against Donald Trump, who does Jones endorse?

      1. Whichever one is the craziest at that moment!

      2. Crazy Alex Jones will take Trump over Ron Paul ten out of ten times.

        1. Only cuz Paul would never get more than 5-7% …. unless, like Trump. the opponent is as hated as he is.
          Trump got the highest “negative vote” ever. Than means the highest percentage who voted AGAINST the opponent, and not FOR him.

          I saw that again the other day and realized Trump would have likely lost to … Bernie!

          1. Ya never know, but if it had come down to Trump or that socialist scumbag Bernie I would have voted for Trump instead of Gary. I doubt I’m the only one.

            1. I’d vote for Gary Johnson a hundred times before I’d vote for Ron Paul. Gary’s goofy, but Ron is mean spirited and weird. HOWEVER, if the Dems keep up their current hysteria, I’m going with Trump. I keep asking myself just why, why, why did Gary say nice things about Hillary Clinton? Did he think potential Hillary voters were coming over to him? “Goofy” just doesn’t come close to describing Gary’s thinking!

              1. I keep asking myself just why, why, why did Gary say nice things about Hillary Clinton

                Seriously?

                Did he think potential Hillary voters were coming over to him?

                Umm, he was being setup, and showed that he is NOT another hater. The hatred is what voters despise the most. But he had no POLICY solutions – because the entire libertarian establishment has none. On anything. That’s what destroyed a race he could have won.
                My God, he was running against the TWO most despised candidates in history, and voters are still open to even radical change. He had nothing. Blame the tribe.

                “Goofy” just doesn’t come close to describing Gary’s thinking!

                It’s almost perfect for you. He made major advances, as a Republican governor in a Democratic state. What have you ever done? Did you want him to attack Hillary? That would make YOU a major threat to individual liberty. If anyone ever heard of you.

                .

                1. “Hater”? When did it become wrong to hate evil?

                  1. “Hater”? When did it become wrong to hate evil?

                    It’s your bigotry that’s wrong. Your contempt for fundamental liberties. Presumably because your parents never washed out your mouth with soap.
                    Or not often enough.
                    You did ask
                    .

            2. You’re not the only one … but a definite minority.

    2. Just what we need… another mystical, superstitious, woman-bullying Bob Barr clone, endorsed by Alex Jones, whack job extraordinaire! Surely the Tea Party & Klan can come up with a better 5th-column infiltration vector to foist on us.

      Alex Jones’s “libertarian” schtick has morphed to all Trump, all the time. It will continue to morph to keep his overpriced supplement / Infowars gear racket going.

  12. The foreign policy stuff is fair enough, but the Fed obsession is lizard people territory. Ron Paul will drop before he drops it, though, I suppose.

    I think libertarians should go all-in on criminal justice reform, purge the fucking Limbaugh bullshit, join functioning coalitions, and actually accomplish something in this world.

    1. I knew I could count on you to string a bunch of completely unrelated issues together and make them into some sort of sentence. Delicious. Thanks.

      1. I knew somebody would take the position of a wacky right-winger. You clearly have no clue what are “related issues” to libertarians … compared with Tony — a lefty! Everything he specified is a libertarian issue. And the Fed is indeed for lizard people. Milton Friedman had the ONLY fix for that — but he’s rejected for demolishing the Gold Standard with one simple question: “Do we want stable prices or a stable money supply”?

        We clearly can’t have both, unless the Law of Supply and Demand is repealed, and the gold standard FAILED to provide stable prices — instead steady deflation for over a century (except the monetary inflation during two wars, 1812 and Civil)

        The Fed SHOULD be a winner for us … stable prices forever … but NEVER the wacky stuff of Ron, the Rothbardians and other anti-gubmint goobers.

        1. Look at Hihn complaining about falling prices. Classic. Let me ask you this, Michael. Do you believe in the free market? If so, are there any economic goods that are exempt from the economic rules of the free market?

          1. Look at Hihn complaining about falling prices.

            look at Chipper, DEFENDING falling wages.

            OOPS!.

            If INflation forces wages up, then DEflation OBVIOUSLY forces them DOWN! Still confused?
            I’ll exaggerate to help make it clear to even you.

            You start a factory. Pay wages of 50 cents per hour.
            Five years later, THOSE FALLING PRICES YOU LOVE are profitable only at 47 cents per hour.
            You have three new competitors kicking your ass, wit cheaper products from the lower wages.
            What do you do?

            .P.S. While those wages were being forced down … this dude named Karl Marx was talking about “exploitation of the working class!!!” So your gold standard, and those FALL:ING WAGES YOU LOVE, helped get Marixism off the ground. What a guy!

            Instead of throwing another shit-fit at me, your quarrel is with Milton Friedman.
            And you’ve already lost

            Any more questions?

            1. You didn’t answer my question.

              1. You didn’t answer my question.

                I ridiculed it … and explained why. Economics 101 – first chapter.
                Anything else

                1. You STILL defend forcing worker wages down??????
                  Your argument is with Milton Friedman.

              2. Your expectations are way too high for Hihn. His parents had no expectations of him, and he didn’t disappoint them either.

                “Hi, I’m Micheal Hihn, and I suck the fun out of every room I walk into. I ramble ad infinitum about ‘people being mean to me’ and I can’t understand why. However, I keep coming back because I don’t have very good social skills”

        2. Mike Heinie, I knew I could count on you to spew a bunch of incoherent psychobabble all over the place. You definitely don’t disappoint. Yummy. Thanks for lesson in libratarianismisms. You’re so smart…

    2. Re: Tony,

      The foreign policy stuff is fair enough, but the Fed obsession is lizard people territory.

      Because money needs a central planner? Or what is the argument for the Fed, in your estimation? Leaving that aside, the Dems are not precisely Market-friendly, so the only coalitions possible between the L’s and the Dems is on, as you said it, criminal justice reform and perhaps immigration, and that last one only if the Dems stop playing Latin American immigrants for suckers.

      1. Because money needs a central planner?

        You FALSELY assume Ron Paul has the only solution … but he has the CRAZIEST.

        Ever hear of Milton Friedman? It’s explained here:
        https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7074007

        Any questions

        1. Me and my billions in bitcoin scoff at your fed and inferior fiat currency…

          1. (boldface is self-defense of multiple aggressions by a cyber-stalker)

            Me and my billions in bitcoin scoff at your fed and inferior fiat currency…

            My new stalker suffered a staggering 45% loss, from bitcoin’s crash last week. Poor thing. THEN, if he’d read the link, he wouldn’t have made a fool of himself. Again.

            Bullshit aside, both Friedman and I would abolish the Fed. SEE THE LINK.
            Friedman demolished the gold standard with a simple question, “Do we want stable prices or a stable money supply.” OBVIOUSLY prices, and we can’t have both, unless the Law of Supply and Demand is repealed. Economics 101.

            Gold FAILED to maintain stable prices for over a century. which instead saw constant DEflation. The Supply of Gold FAILED to keep up with the DEMAND for gold, which skyrocketed with the Industrial Revolution, and escalated as Industry advanced. The FAILURE of gold is PROVEN when silver had to be added, which STILL did not stem the ruinous DEflation.

            Worker wages had been forced downward for nearly a century, which SEEMED to support Marx’s claim for “the exploitation of the working class.”

            Mvgoo95 has NO alternative to constant DEflation .. thus supports FORCING wages downward.
            “Scoffs” at Nobel Laureate and libertarian, Milton Friedman — while supporting Marx,.

            Do we believe Friedman .. or Mcgoo95, who launched his aggression by attacking a link he FAILED to read?.(Or lied about)

            I’ll take Friedman. Leave him Marx.

            1. The funny thing is you whine about everybody bullying and being aggressive towards you when you say things like “you clearly have no clue what are “related issues” to libertarians … compared with Tony — a lefty! Everything he specified is a libertarian issue. And the Fed is indeed for lizard people.” I wasn’t even talking to you and you start the aggression from nowhere and make a completely non-sensical statement like this. How is Rush Limbaugh a libertarian issue? How is joining a coalition a libertarian issue? Why do you even show up here…..although, I must admit, I enjoy listening to you whine about how the libertarian party has no solutions and then you go ahead spout on about god-knows-what-but-its-not-a-policy. Go suck a turd, but please stick around. It’s almost enjoyable…

              1. My stalker is bullying again Did I trigger the snowflake’s Safe Zone? (lol)

                “you clearly have no clue what are “related issues” to libertarians … compared with Tony — a lefty! Everything he specified is a libertarian issue. And the Fed is indeed for lizard people.” I wasn’t even talking to you

                PAY ATTENTION!
                A supported argument is NOT bullying or aggression.

                Can you name ONE thing Tony mentioned which was NOT a libertarian issue orr viable campaign strategy? And he’s a lefty … and you think LIMBAUGH IS LIBERTARIAN!!

                How is Rush Limbaugh a libertarian issue?

                FUCKING LIAR
                This is what he really said
                https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7073936

                The foreign policy stuff is fair enough, but the Fed obsession is lizard people territory. Ron Paul will drop before he drops it, though, I suppose.

                I think libertarians should go all-in on criminal justice reform, purge the fucking Limbaugh bullshit, join functioning coalitions, and actually accomplish something in this world.

                YOU SAY LIMBAUGH IS A LIBERTARIAN!!

                How is joining a coalition a libertarian issue?

                It’s a campaign strategy, dipwad. KEEP PROVING ME RIGHT!

                (cont’d)

                1. Part 2
                  What *I* actually said

                  “related issues to liberrtarians ” was YOUR bullsjit attack … AND YOU SAY RUSH LIMBAUGH IS LIBERTARIAN. OMFG!

                  I knew somebody would take the position of a wacky right-winger. You clearly have no clue what are “related issues” to libertarians … compared with Tony — a lefty! Everything he specified is a libertarian issue. And the Fed is indeed for lizard people. Milton Friedman had the ONLY fix for that — but he’s rejected for demolishing the Gold Standard with one simple question: “Do we want stable prices or a stable money supply”?

                  We clearly can’t have both, unless the Law of Supply and Demand is repealed, and the gold standard FAILED to provide stable prices — instead steady deflation for over a century (except the monetary inflation during two wars, 1812 and Civil)

                  The Fed SHOULD be a winner for us … stable prices forever … but NEVER the wacky stuff of Ron, the Rothbardians and other anti-gubmint goobers.

                  But YOU say Limbaugh’s libertarian! (lol)

                  (My tone and boldface in defense from aggression AND LIES by a cyber-stalker
                  WHO SAYS RUSH LIMBAUGH IS LIBERTARIAN)

                  1. You have a strange way of making everyone’s day. I’m a libertarian, but at least I have social skills. Seriously Mike, why do you continue to come to Reason? Have other sites banned you because of your lack of social skills and/or general shitty attitude about everyone that isn’t Michael C Hihn?

                    1. I’m a libertarian

                      (sneer) Who doesn’t know the difference between aggression and self-defense.
                      While displaying an authoritarian mentality … as a stalker.

                      at least I have social skills.

                      (snort) As you stalk me down the page … launching multiple aggressions … all personal attacks … NONE dealing with any page topic … while you celebrate feeding people you disagree with into a woodchipper.

                      THOSE “social skills” are matched by Josef Stalin, Pol Pot. Adolph Hitler, Friedrich Goebbels and that murderous psycho you emulate in Fargo (the movie)

                      (My tone and boldface in defense of multiple aggressions by a cyber-stalker. And as ridicule)

                      P.S. I documented a lia … in the comment that “triggered” you, snowflake.

              2. Behold the whiney bullshitter, McGoo

                Very top of my comment. LOOK!

                (boldface is self-defense of multiple aggressions by a cyber-stalker)

                Now the psycho
                .

                The funny thing is you whine about everybody bullying and being aggressive towards you

                Yeah (pees pants laughing)

                When you say things like “you clearly have no clue what are “related issues” to libertarians … compared with Tony — a lefty!…

                ONE MORE TIME. Emphasis added.

                (boldface is self-defense of multiple aggressions by a cyber-stalker)

                ***DO***YOU***HEAR*** ME***NOW?

      2. The Fed: because it works better than the obsolete fairy tale you’re selling.

        The Democrats are extremely market friendly. Every normal civilized country in the world has a market-based economy (with some degree of a public sector). You won. Capitalism won. Yay! Now just set aside your culty market worship bullshit that forces you to believe and espouse ridiculous things, and we can start taking about the world in a way that treats it as something resembling reality.

        If you’re a small political minority you either join a coalition or start behaving rudely in public to get attention. Knock yourself out either way.

        1. The Fed: because it works better than the obsolete fairy tale you’re selling

          If you think those are the only alternatives, you’re as obsolete and useless as they are. They defend eternal deflation.
          You defend eternal inflation, Two sides of the same counterfeit coin (pun intended) ,

          The Democrats are extremely market friendly

          Not in a SINGLE area of the economy. The rank-and-file is, but not the ideologues. It’s the ideologues, both left and right, who drove America to the current edge of disaster – so we wind up with our own authoritarian head of state, because bullshit sells from the GOP goobers who abandoned the libertarian wing.

          We now have a ACTUAL silent majority — but it ain’t Trump’s 30%.
          To be fair, Bernie would have beat him. But that too is the problem.

          1. You would know about useless…

            1. MOAR aggression and bullying … from the guy who celebrates feeding people into a woodchipper … who somehow “trigger” him … proudly emulating the barbaric murder scene in Fargo (the movie)

              TRUE BELIEVERS are zealots and fanatics … who commit various atrocities … for “the cause.”
              A higher good — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party, a Movement or a God. The militant self-righteous. The haters.

  13. Problem is — the libertarian establishment (big and small ‘l’) has no credible policy solutions .. to anything .. at a time when voters are open to even radical change. All we see is wacky things like Medicare Vouchers and the “6.2% plan” of letting people keep half their FICA taxes … but it’s Congress’ job to figure out how to pay for it!!

    Jose Jimenez: “It’s not my yob to show HOW.”

    And while Ron babbles about “true blue libertarians” (DEFINITELY not him!), most Americans hold libertarian values, but Cato reports that 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label at all.

    Is it tribal to deny libertarian tribalism? Our brand is stone-cold dead. There’s no time to repair that, no interest in even trying, and the clock is ticking. NOT good.
    .

    1. I’m interested in what your reformed LP Platform would say. Damned Platform Committees tweak a word here or there but when was the last time anything radical was included?

      1. Yup. it is a Damned Platform Committee. Served on it maybe 10 times and saw total babbling bullshit.

        I spent THREE conventions trying to get an abortion plank — requiring an attempted live birth when “aborting” a viable fetus. No abortionist in the room. An entire medical staff specializing in births. Argument was — “Yes the woman does have the right to expel a fetus … at any time .. bit there can be NO separate right to kill a viable fetus. We’ve RECOGNIZED viability, but not DEFENDED the viable fefus.”

        Failed because the party then — and I THINK still — demands abortion up until the very end of the pregnancy, including partial birth. About as crazy as the other extreme, at conception.

        The Platform — like the entire movement these days — is a series of slogans and soundbites . NO policy solutions ,… NOTHING that would be a better approach than now. So why vote for one of us????

        “Git gummint out” is NOT a policy solution. Progressive aren’t stupid enough to run around saying, “I want bigger government.” Why should we (from the other side)?

        1. “Git gummint out” is NOT a policy solution.

          On this part I will agree with you. Just saying “cut government” isn’t enough.

          1. I agree. We need “burn everything down”, “sow the earth with salt”, and “dam up the Pontamac, make Washington DC to be a literal swamp again” to augment the slogan…

            1. Yes, it is indeed that fucking stupid.

              Goobers ignore that people want 95% or more of what government provides.
              And THEY have NO CLUE how to do it better and/or cheaper .. and no desire to try..

              Like repealing Medicaid. When we had a free market, Americans freely provided health care for the uninsured … regardless of income. THAT is what people want,and are willing to pay for ..and the only ones claiming they can do it are progressives or named Bernie. That’s why progressives are kicking our ass on EVERYTHING, in the court of public opinion.

              Will of the people? Consent of the governed?
              ..

              1. You make it sound like America had a free market in living memory. We haven’t had one (particularly in health care) for *decades*.

                Isn’t MedicAid (along with MediCare, Social Security, and a couple of other entitlement programs) among the welfare spending that’s threatening to destroy the Federal Government? Particularly because these programs combined guarantee that we’ll have a spending deficit, year after year?

                And aren’t these the same people who give us Veterans Administration health benefits? I’ve seen what our country provides for our veterans — the people who fight and are maimed and die for our country — and I fail to see how it would be a good idea to expand this program to cover all Americans.

                At what point are we going to admit that entitlement programs are merely Ponzi schemes, and that we’re far better off getting government out of the way, and letting the free market work?
                It doesn’t matter if the Will of the People (whatever *that* means) wants government control,
                if that government control in unsustainable. When the Will of the People crashes into Fundamental Laws of Economics, the Fundamental Laws of Economics will win every time.
                (And no, the Government didn’t step in because of free market failure. Government stepped in, and caused free market failure, and then claimed that they could fix it.)

                1. You make it sound like America had a free market in living memory.

                  That’s YOUR fuckup

                  We haven’t had one (particularly in health care) for *decades*.

                  That’s a reason for you to REJECT one now???

                  Isn’t MedicAid (along with MediCare, Social Security, and a couple of other entitlement programs) among the welfare spending that’s threatening to destroy the Federal Government?

                  Uhh, yes.

                  And aren’t these the same people who give us Veterans Administration health benefits?

                  THAT’S GOVERNMENT, NOT A FREE MARKET!!

                  and I fail to see how it would be a good idea to expand this program to cover all Americans

                  It would be fucking stupid. Has anyone proposed that?.

                  … getting government out of the way, and letting the free market work?

                  That’s MY plan. YOU say it’s crazy because we haven’t had a free market in decades

                  It doesn’t matter if the Will of the People (whatever *that* means) wants government control,M

                  You’ve just committed a MASSIVE fuckup
                  Buh-bye

              2. Oh, and I forgot to add: I *really* wish politicians would learn to teach the people how freedom works, and then explain why government fails us. Indeed, Republicans would have a better chance of repealing that ObamaCare abomination, if they but parade the victims of ObamaCare in front of the nation.

                But they don’t. It’s as if most Republicans are convinced that the only reason Government doesn’t work, is that they aren’t the ones in charge…

                1. Oh, and I forgot to add: I *really* wish politicians would learn to teach the people how freedom works, and then explain why government fails us.

                  How would you know?

                  Indeed, Republicans would have a better chance of repealing that ObamaCare abomination,

                  THAT IS YOUR FUCKUP.
                  Go back and read what I ACTUALLY said.

                  1. Ok, I just read what you actually said. You still give off Statist vibes.

                    In part, because you don’t offer valid Libertarian solutions that would fix the Libertarian platform.

                    In part, that’s because you give the impression that Libertarians don’t succeed because they don’t want to create the Government Programs that the Will of the People clamor for, and are even hostile to the idea that I think politicians should get off their duff and actually *teach* people about freedom.

                    1. Ok, I just read what you actually said. You still give off Statist vibes.

                      Have somebody explain it to you

                      In part, because you don’t offer valid Libertarian solutions that would fix the Libertarian platform.

                      I only gave one. It dealt DIRECTLY with the Platform Committee YOU mentioned … and I SUPPORTED your opinion

                      There’s virtually an entire platform at the web archive of my published political writing.
                      http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm
                      They were published in the early to mid-1990s. (lol)

                      In part, that’s because you give the impression that Libertarians don’t succeed because they don’t want to create the Government Programs that the Will of the People clamor for,

                      GOTTA GET ELECTED!!
                      If not will of the people … and consent of the governed … that’s a dictatorship!! DUH

                      and are even hostile to the idea that I think politicians should get off their duff and actually *teach* people about freedom.

                      You can’t win elections by writing and reading fucking term papers! You present a policy that will work better.

                      IF YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO DO ANYTHING BETTER THAN NOW … WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU CAPABLE OF TEACHING???

                      Now … tell us what you found “statist” in my abortion proposal. You have been called out

                      (My tone and boldface in defense of a totally mindless aggression)

        2. Yup. it is a Damned Platform Committee. Served on it maybe 10 times and saw total babbling bullshit.

          So you have your chance to advance libertarianism, you failed miserably, and now you just rant and rave at people on Reason.

          1. MOAR FROM THE AUTHORITARIAN STALKER (Mark22) OMFG

            Yup. it is a Damned Platform Committee. Served on it maybe 10 times and saw total babbling bullshit.

            So you have your chance to advance libertarianism, you failed miserably, and now you just rant and rave at people on Reason.

            In the part you SHAMEFULLY failed to cite, THEY were the non-libertarians and had all the votes.

            It’s your authoritarian mentality who SNEER at needing votes to achieve anything.
            PURITY is more important than a free society.

            Which is why this asshat is stalking em down the page … launching thuggish aggressions.
            Do a page search for his name. PATHETIC.

            (posted in self-defense of repeated unprovoked aggressions by a cyber-stalking blowhard.)

            WHY DO YOU OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?.

            WHAT KIND OF SUCK FUCK WOULD KILL BABIES TO PURSUE HIS PSYCHOPATHIC HATRED?

            1. All I’m gonna say, don’t take up Hihn on his offer of a boat ride. He thinks leaving you 100 miles out on the ocean isn’t murder.

              https://reason.com/blog/2017/03…..nt_6804634

              1. isn’t murder.

                What did he say it IS?
                NOT IN YOUR FUCKING LINK!

                I see “Same answer as last time.”

                So?

                1. Yes, and you also said “still no” to my question as to whether leaving someone 100 miles out on the ocean is murder.

                  You’re amoral and your concepts as to what murder is shouldn’t be trusted, per the link.

                  https://reason.com/blog/2017/03…..nt_6804634

                  1. MOAR AGGRESSION
                    EVADES THE QUESTION
                    SELF-REVEALS AS A LIAR
                    AND REPEATS THE SELF-REVEALED LIE!!!

                    isn’t murder.

                    What did he say it IS?
                    NOT IN YOUR FUCKING LINK!

                    CALLED OUT AS A LIAR
                    EVADES THE CHALLENGE
                    REPEATS THE LIE
                    ESCALATES THE AGGRESSION

                    Yes,

                    THAT’S NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION, I>PROVEN PSYCHO

                    *****PROVES HIMSELF A LIAR!**** OMG!

                    (my emphasis for the morally depraved)

                    you also said “still no” to my question as to whether leaving someone 100 miles out on the ocean is murder.

                    WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL REASON?

                    You’re amoral

                    YOU ARE A SELF-REVEALED LIAR

                    per the link.

                    CALLED OUT AS A LIAR.
                    EVADES THE CHALLENGE
                    REVEALS HIS OWN LIE
                    REPEATS THE LIE

                    ALL WHILE STALKING NE FOR NINE MONTHS

                    1. Me: I invite you on a boat trip, I say we should go out on the ocean and fish or something. You agree. I drive the boat out 100 miles into the ocean. I then say that I don’t have as much food and water as I thought and I don’t want to share; also, I only have the one fishing pole. So I dis-invite you and tell you to get off the boat or I’ll remove you from my property. You say you can’t possibly swim 100 miles and you’ll drown. I tell you that sucks and kick you off my boat.

                      Have I murdered you?

                      You: Still no.

                      Any questions as to Hihn’s moral failings?

                      https://reason.com/blog/2017/03…..nt_6804634

                      (Hihn, if you’d prefer not to be on my “list of obnoxious trolls who need to have the dumbest things they’ve said recorded for future use so they don’t argue for several weeks with me” list, then don’t be an obnoxious troll!)

                      God Bless!

                    2. “WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL REASON?”

                      You: Unalienable means absolute.

                      That’s literally what his answer was. Look it up. So, because “unalienable means absolute”, taking someone out 100 miles to sea and leaving them there isn’t murder.

                      Does everyone understand how amoral that is? Why would you ever listen to him about anything regarding morals or ethics?

            2. In the part you SHAMEFULLY failed to cite, THEY were the non-libertarians and had all the votes.

              You said you were part of the Libertarian Party Platform Committee. Obviously, you failed at persuading those people as much as you fail to persuade people here.

              WHY DO YOU OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?

              I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals. In fact, I simply don’t care about abortion as an issue at all.

              1. mark22
                I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals

                Your disregard for human life is so noted. But is you sneer at ALL policy proposals, saying libertarians should NOT be proposing policy solutions at all.
                https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7074600
                Since you expect a free society to spring from the ground like weeds, we can all ignore your views on policy solutions..

                Can you lighten up on all the aggression?

              2. Analyze a psycho (Mark22)

                WHY DO YOU OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?

                I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals.

                You’re an asshole either way.
                You blame me ME because the Platform Committee REFUSED to adopt a FAR MORE libertarian plank???

                But you’re not a thug.
                And you did not stalk me down the page with 13 unprovoked aggressions.

                Your disregard for human life is duly noted.

    2. Re: Michael Hindered,

      Problem is — the libertarian establishment (big and small ‘l’) has no credible policy solutions .. to anything

      Are you saying that “We won’t steal your stuff and we won’t pick up fights with other societies for no good reason” are not credible policy solutions?

      If so, then a truly frightening picture jumps into my mind on these “credible policy solutions” you would hold as acceptable.

      1. Re: Michael Hindered

        You don’t know what a “policy” is — credible or otherwise.

      2. Are you saying that “We won’t steal your stuff and we won’t pick up fights with other societies for no good reason” are not credible policy solutions?

        It would be. Unfortunately, most self-proclaimed libertarians don’t actually stand for this; you certainly don’t.

        1. ANOTHER SELF-RIGHTEOUS PURIST WHO DOESN’T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRINCIPLE AND A POLICY! AS HE STALKS ME DOWN THE PAGE MAKING AN EVER GREATER PUBLIC ASS OF HIMSELF

          WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?.
          https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7074582

          WHAT KIND OF SUCK FUCK WOULD KILL BABIES TO PURSUE HIS PSYCHOPATHIC HATRED?

          (Posted in self-defense of repeated unprovoked aggressions by a cyber-stalking blowhard. He punished me because HE humiliates HIMSELF. I just point and sneer.)

          Tribal savagery

          1. What kind of a human thinks it’s OK to take someone out on a boat and leave them 100 miles out on the ocean?

            https://reason.com/blog/2017/03…..nt_6804634

            Michael Hihn is your answer.

            But, regardless of your defense of murder:

            The Lord bless you
            and keep you;
            the Lord make his face shine on you
            and be gracious to you;
            the Lord turn his face toward you
            and give you peace.

            1. My stalker just posted a link to comments NINE months ago,
              NINE MONTHS OF STALKING is one sick fuck, EH?
              Actually more than a year,
              .

              1. I suppose it doesn’t matter what anyone says 9 months ago, right?

                No, I simply got sick of your nonsense and decided to record the dumbest things you’ve said so I can take a short cut to avoid debates that take weeks. It’s way easier to simply say, “Hey, don’t listen to Hihn, because he thinks it’s OK to take someone out on a boat and leave them 100 miles out on the ocean” and give them a link to it.

                It effectively shows anyone starting to believe your nonsense why they shouldn’t.

                Also, I have quite a few trolls throughout reason.com and mises.org that I do the same for. You should feel honored, Hihn, you’ve made it on my “obnoxious trolls that I need to record what they say” list. It helps the arguments go much faster.

                But, regardless of you lack of respect for any human life, the one right to not be aggressed against, and all your attempts to deflect from your horrific concepts of morality:

                The Lord bless you
                and keep you;
                the Lord make his face shine on you
                and be gracious to you;
                the Lord turn his face toward you
                and give you peace.

          2. WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?.

            I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals. I simply don’t discuss issues with you at all because I think you’re mad. I just wish you’d stop poisoning Reason threads with your ravings.

            1. WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?

              I neither oppose nor support any of your proposals

              Your disregard for human life is so noted

    3. Cato reports that 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label at all.

      Wrong. Cato once reported it, but that was over a decade ago. By pretending it’s in any way current you reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest and barely worth the effort it took to compose this sentence, much less actually debate.

      1. (laughing) It’s no doubt worse today. Because the anti-gubmint goobers are a much more visible faction.
        You assumption is precisely as plausible as mine, on the surface. But you’re the only one bullshitting about intellectual dishonesty.

        We KNOW the number of libertarians has increased sharply, on gay rights alone. Pay attention.
        Because the left always strongly supported equality, the increase had to be a sharp decrease in conservatives.
        Which make the Ron Paul and anti-gubmint factions even LESS liked (percentage-wise)
        Elementary math.

        You lose. Does that mean you’ll “get me to the chippa” — feed me into a woodchipper as you people are so proud of boasting? How does that barbaric murder scene in Fargo, that you love, increase acceptance of libertarianism??

    4. Problem is — the libertarian establishment (big and small ‘l’) has no credible policy solutions .. to anything

      I think that’s rather the point of libertarianism: it isn’t supposed to provide solutions, it isn’t supposed to make people happy, healthy, or wealthy; all it is supposed to do is increase liberty so that people can prosper or fail on their own.

      1. DO NOT MISS THIS! un …. freaking ….. believable!!!
        PROOF — UNDENIABLE — the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of libertarian purists (Here Mark22)

        Problem is — the libertarian establishment (big and small ‘l’) has no credible policy solutions .. to anything

        I think that’s rather the point of libertarianism: it isn’t supposed to provide solutions, it isn’t supposed to make people happy, healthy, or wealthy; all it is supposed to do is increase liberty …

        HAHAHAHAHA
        1) HOW to increase liberty? (mental blankout)
        2) Is happiness a “policy solution”: … or the OUTCOME of sound policies?

        Purists have NO FUCKING IDEA how to evolve a free society … and no interest in even trying … as they masturbate (each other) furiously in their Ivory Tower. “WE DON’T NEED NO STEENKEENG POLICIES … DON’T NEED TO WIN ELECTIONS … JUST PROMOTE LIBERTARIAN IDEAS (slogans)

        WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?.
        https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7074582
        WHAT KIND OF SUCK FUCK WOULD KILL BABIES TO PURSUE HIS PSYCHOPATHIC HATRED?

        (Posted in self-defense of repeated unprovoked aggressions by a cyber-stalking blowhard. He punished me because HE keeps humiliating HIMSELF in attacks. I just point and sneer.)

        Now he’s REALLY pissed!
        Tribal savagery?

  14. Ron Paul: A Popular Libertarian Candidate in 2020 Is ‘Very Possible’

    Popular, yes. Please!

    Not ‘Populist’. The ‘Populist’ candidates that have been inflicted on us so far range from an moldy old socialist to an economically incompetent p…y-grabber to a Southern pederast.

    1. Populists defend the people. That’s what they do. But in our tribal politics, we have no populists for Americans. Just populists for small minorities, which is necessarily authoritarian.

      At one time, libertarians, before the Paulista Cult, were very clear on a simple principle. There are only two purposes for government. To defend individual liberty, historically more recent. Or to impose one set of values by force, eternal.

      So it was simple. Does he or she favor imposing one set of values by force. That had to go, because it exposes the moral hypocrisy of Ron Paul and his ilk.

      If we fog that distinction, we get suckered by fascists, an American Taliban, the alt-right, white nationalists and the spiritual founder of them all, Ron Paul .

  15. Paul is right about the U.S.A. Because of irresponsible deficit spending the U.S. government will collapse relatively soon. Some states may secede even before a financial breakup occurs. It is just a matter of time. A financial catastrophe will stimulate secession by states that otherwise would not have seceded. Libertarians? I don’t think they have a prayer of taking power in the current structure. Democrats (who are really Fascists) and Republicans (who are really oligarchists) have the system sewed up tight.

    1. Democrats are a mundane center-left technocratic party as might be found slightly left- or right-of-center in every other civilized country on earth.

      The Republicans are, well I don’t even know what you call that shitshow anymore. Oligarchist yes, but also completely insane. Theocrazy? Klepto-mania? The 4th Reich: Electric Boogaloo?

      Let’s not allow the excesses of one affect our assessment of the other.

      1. Be fair, Tony. It’s that asshole Trump that destroyed the GOP …. but their base was already bat-shit crazy .
        More independents are rejecting the GOP than Dems, which leaves a growing percentage of alt-right, bigots and anti-gubmint goobers in the GOP base. Trump plays them like the fiddles the are. AS blowhard President … of the blowhards. The most disgraced President ever.

        Same as happened to the libertarian movement.

        1. A purity spiral is a sad thing to witness. It always seems to devolve into mere grunting in the end. And it doesn’t matter the place on the political spectrum. Look how stupid and ineffectual the Bernie fanboys are.

          1. “A purity spiral is a sad thing to witness”

            MeToo

          2. WOW! You just knocked this entire commentariat out of the park.
            You have NEVER commented on purists — who are identical on both the left and the right.
            On your side, it’s not just Bernies, Warren is also for the goobers,

            As a grass-roots activist for decades, I had to build coalitions every time. I was an atheist working to achieve shared values with Christian conservatives. As a libertarian I worked to achieve shared values with liberals. When we had meetings (smaller than rallies) there was always joking that they’d never be in the same room, otherwise..

            If you haven’t been there, you know NOTHING about either. The Christian Right has no affinity for the Christian Taliban, but nobody else defends their values. They support Separation because they KNOW how Christians persecuted each other (warring denominations). It was BAPTISTS who asked Jefferson about Separation, because THEY feared persecution in CT.

            Rank-and-file liberals have no brief for the New Deal asshats, merely want to be sure that nobody is left behind, and only the asshats CLAIM to be defending that core value

            If you wear VERY good glasses, you can see the common shared values between the Christian Right and the Majority Left. Humanity. Compassion. Stuff like that. America still breathes, deep inside.

            Left – Right = Zero

      2. Democrats are a mundane center-left technocratic party as might be found slightly left- or right-of-center in every other civilized country on earth.

        The Democrats are democratic socialists or further left by the standards of most civilized countries.

        The Republicans are, well I don’t even know what you call that shitshow anymore.

        For the most part, moderate Christian Democrats, as might be found in every other civilized country on earth.

        1. The Democrats are democratic socialists or further left by the standards of most civilized countries.

          For most of human history, authoritarians have sought power by … fomenting hysteria.

          For the most part, moderate Christian Democrats, as might be found in every other civilized country on earth.

          Behold the self-righteous! Theocracy is NOT moderate, which is why our Founders banned one.

          Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
          -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

          Throughout human history, the worst moral atrocitres have been committed by those manipulated to BELIEVE they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.
          -Mike Hihn (1994)

          The authoritarian right, precisely like the authoritarian left, both screech about abuses by the other side … to “justify” their own statsim. Like 5-year-old children, caught red-handed, “HE STARTED IT, MOMMY.” Whataboutism.

          Social Justice Warriors vs Religious/Political Justice Warriors, flip sides of the same authoritarian coin
          Each conducting a modern (un)Holy Inquisition.

  16. Lot of delusion from old Ron.

    Popular candidate? He must mean a candidate that has popular policies, and there could be no more popular policy among illegal immigrants (and large parts of the Democrat base) than the open borders mantra of many libertarians. Yet those types don’t seem to vote for libertarians, do they?

    I’m guessing when ICE raid illegal immigrant locales they don’t find stacks of well-thumbed Reasons, or witness the desperate burning and flushing of Libertarian Party pamphlets. There should be a lesson in that for Ron.

    1. Ron Paul ran a campaign ad in 2008 that featured attempted illegal immigration by swimming across a river. I don’t think he’s your enemy on this one.

  17. Why are these “Hope for Libertarian” stories always about the Presidency? For the love of country and effectiveness, focus on House and Senate races. Surely the Libertarian party can collude with Republicans on congressional races Republicans have little chance of winning, not run a Republican candidate and let a Libertarian unseat a Democrat (and vise versa)? We’re never gonna get a Libertarian president if we don’t at least have some positive examples of Libertarians in congress.

    1. Because the goobers don’t give a shit about governing, and have no policies to do so.The purpose of campaigns, they say, is to “spread libertarian ideas” — babble — and the Presidential race gets the most exposure.

      1. And it’s working.

        1. And it’s working.

          How many moons circle YOUR planet?

      2. Funny how your lobbing all the criticisms i and others have with you back at the party now. You’re just as guilty as the party, but you’re completely incapable of self reflection.

        And before you spout off about your dumbass charity healthcare example or your other ideas, realize they’re just that, ideas. Not solutions, solutions need to be applicable. Most of your ideas would require massive changes to multiple factions of govt and society, the proverbial all the ducks in a row. But you don’t even consider the mechanisms required to get all those ducks there, let alone aligned. And that’s why you fail so miserably, because you’re selling pipe dreams.

        1. And before you spout off about your dumbass charity healthcare example

          How many times will your reveal your TOTAL stupidity on that?

          Bend over. This will go in easier.
          Here’s how simple it is. For the SECOND TIME.

          1) Must be a transition because it will take time to rebuild the private charity infrastructure.
          2) AND the money mus transfer FROM government TO the private sector, in the timing and amounts as needed — which is now unknown. Self-controlled.

          Will you grasp it THIS time?
          1) Grant a 100% tax CREDIT for all donations to the appropriate charities, for uninsured healthcare.
          2) The money transfers EXACTLY as needed, until the job is done.

          I will NOT explain this again. Not to you.

      3. Because the goobers don’t give a shit about governing, and have no policies to do so.

        Sounds like a good libertarian to me.

        1. DO NOT MISS THIS
          ,….UN ….. FREAKING …. BELIEVABLE

          MARK22 — ADMITS I’VE BEEN RIGHT ABOUT HIM ALL ALONG ….. A USELESS PURITY FREAK … WITH NO DESIRE TO ACTUALLY LIVE IN A FREE SOCIETY

          Because the goobers don’t give a shit about governing, and have no policies to do so.

          Sounds like a good libertarian to me.

          “Good libertarians don’t give a shit about LIVING in a free society!”
          Some are anarchists … with an entitlement mentality … sucking the teat of liberty provided by others. GET THE FUCK OUT, LEECHES.

          (Giddy with laughter) I’ll be sending readers to this exact comment for years. Cuz the thug will keep punishing me for it. (And his other comments here showing his nervous breakdown)

          WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?.
          https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7074582

          WHAT KIND OF SUCK FUCK WOULD KILL BABIES TO PURSUE HIS PSYCHOPATHIC HATRED?

          (Posted in self-defense of repeated unprovoked aggressions by a cyber-stalking blowhard. He punished me because HE humiliates HIMSELF. I just point and sneer.)

          Tribal savagery

          1. Some are anarchists … with an entitlement mentality … sucking the teat of liberty provided by others. GET THE FUCK OUT, LEECHES.

            So you are saying that big government provides the “teat of liberty”? I guess we shouldn’t be surprised after you said that “Marx was right”.

            I’m with Thoreau: “That government is best which governs least”.

            1. Some are anarchists … with an entitlement mentality … sucking the teat of liberty provided by others. GET THE FUCK OUT, LEECHES
              .
              So you are saying that big government provides the “teat of liberty”?

              (laughing) NO. And shame on you, In your case it’s your statements that libertarians should not be pursuing policy solutions at all.
              https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7074600

              And that a “good libertarian” would not give a shit about ever governing.
              https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7074619

              I guess we shouldn’t be surprised after you said that “Marx was right”.

              He was right to describe “the exploitation of the working class” … for the century of workers wages being forced down by deflation of the gold standard. When gold FAILS at stable prices. Let them eat cake, Mark?

              I’m with Thoreau: “That government is best which governs least”.

              Yes, your ilk is big on slogans and buzzwords … while pissing on the notion of ELECTING that government — or governing it — or even proposing solutions to get there .. the “teat sucking” I’ve noted
              .
              Or just a whiner.

          2. WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?

            Mark22 doesn’t oppose any of your proposals because Mark22 doesn’t have an opinion on any of your proposals.

            1. Mark22 doesn’t oppose any of your proposals because Mark22 doesn’t have an opinion on any of your proposals.

              No opinion on defending human life?
              Or because you say libertarians should not be proposing policy solutions at all.
              Nor should we give a shit about ever governing. .

              Mark, no offense, but why are you sucking off our movement when you have zero interest in EVER achieving a free society? And shitting on anyone who TRIES?

              If you want to sit on your ass, fine. But to attack any attempts at even TRYING for liberty … you are defending the status quo … an enabler of the current level of government.
              (And kinda poor at strategy and tactics) .

              1. And why did you ALSO lie that I had said that big government provides the teat of liberty that you suck at?

    2. I keep arguing that the LP needs to go after all those uncontesting city council and state assembly seats, leaning into either the “fiscal conservative” or “social permissive” (to use Gary terms) side of the platform as needed depending on who they’re running against, aiming at younger voters and those bored by the lack of choice. Get an interesting local candidate (perhaps a well-known local entrepreneur) and take a few less-competitive seats. That way, you have established officials who can run for a mayorship, state senate seat or the like. Spend a generation being recognized by casuals as an actual third party (think of the Lib Dems in the UK, being useful and sometimes necessary coalition partners while gaining dominance in certain local spots) before trying to be serious about congress, governships, or ever the presidency.

      1. I’ve been doing that for decades — got dozens elected, got elected twice myself and won a local tax revolt.

        That’s not Gary’s term, it’s a mild rewrite of our definition since since 1968. The original said “socially liberal” but liberal is a death-word among today’s psycho haters. So is conservative, so he later changed that to “fiscally resposnible.” It helps that over 60% of all American would self-describe with those libertarians values (but hATE the label)

        Local office is how one establishes creds to move up. The best example for your story was when I ran the LP in WA, as the first (only?) PAID executive director. One of our members had been elected to a school board, in a major suburb of Seattle. He then moved up to the State House as a Republican, where he rose to be the third most-powerful politician in the state — chaired the Finance Committee. Then he retired and rejoined the LP.

        I had him write columns for our state newsletter. My favorite was his position on drug legalization, By TALKING with people,he learned that a lot of parents opposed. legalization for some version of don’t-want -the -kids-to-see it. So his position was that PUBLIC use would be a misdemeanor, like a traffic ticket! Also like public drunkenness in some jurisdictions. Our purists were livid with rage, but who cares what they think?

        1. So at one point in your life you actually convinced people to support you, to the point they voted for you for office? Getting on the town council is not the same as being chosen to police the trailer park.

          I’m calling bullshit, because you are one of the most ridiculous people I’ve come across online. You yell (your All-Caps are notorious), have very thin skin (“everyone is agressing me”), and overall make rambling and incoherent posts.

          Can you at least admit that everyone comes in here just to see what insanity you post? And I’ll make another assumption: this is the only attention you get from other human beings in a daily basis.

          1. Getting on the town council is not the same as being chosen to police the trailer park.

            Police aren’t elected, dumbfuck.
            And more than you’ve ever done! (Including the winning tax revolt!)

            As the trashmouth cocksucker stalks me down the page … launching 14 unprovoked assaults.
            Celebrating the notion of feeding people into a wood chipper, per the scene in Fargo … one of the most barbaric murder scenes ever filmed …. and babbling self-righteous ad hominems.

            POT KETTLE BLACK

            (My tone, language and boldface are self-defense from aggression … by a cyber-bully … stalking me down the page … hurling hatred and insults … while lecturing on civility! OMFG.

            It’s kinda like Adolph Hitler lecturing people on civility.

            The militant self-righteous.
            Snowflake.
            (sneer)

  18. Somebody put Ron back into his casket.

    1. *breaks out as a zombie*

      itshappening.gif

  19. Lemme gues. That candidate is your spawn Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)

    1. Fucking fascist made the biggest dumbfuck blunder EVER.
      Gets a standing ovation at Berkeley, talking non-intervention. THEN PISSED IT ALL AWAY, less than a week later.
      Calls for nationwide tent revivals, to fight the severe threat of … marriage equality.
      PROVED his dad’s “liberty coalition” is fucking crazy — thinking extreme social liberals can be a coalition with extreme social conservatives!

      Also like his dad, a disgrace to libertarianism. The KKK wasn’t libertarian either.

    2. Rand Paul must be kicking himself over running in 2016 rather than being able to run in 2020, knowing all the ophthalmologist dad jokes he could have made on the trail about “20/20″…

  20. The former 1988 Libertarian nominee and 2008 and 2012 Republican candidate for president says Trump is just a temporary setback for the libertarian moment.

    A setback for “the libertarian moment“? Is Ron Paul trying to be funny here or is he really that out of it?

    1. What Trump proved is that there is no libertarian moment now or in the near future. Trump’s only problem is that he is 90 years too late to catch the Progressive’s “we need a strong leader” train. Americans aren’t looking for freedom, they’re looking for a savior.

      1. And THAT is why we lose. Freedom is what a REAL Savior delivers. duh
        But that requires actual policy solutions … and we have NONE. No more than anti-gumminy slogans and soundbites. For anything. Ron Paul (and the anti-gubmint gobers) has essentially destroyed the entire libertarian establishment. A Cato survey found the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians.

        It’s over. Time to move on.
        How do we connect with, and mobilize, our majority?
        When our own establishment doesn’t give a damn.

      2. Trump’s only problem is that he is 90 years too late to catch the Progressive’s “we need a strong leader” train.

        Hillary ran as the “strong leader”, a progressive, and someone who would fix our problems through intelligent, strong leadership and lots of laws and regulations. What happened?

        Americans preferred an inarticulate, politically inexperienced, failed businessman because they wanted ACA repealed, wanted lower taxes, wanted less regulation, and wanted government out of their hair when it came to sex, sexual orientation, and race.

        The Progressive’s “we need a strong leader” train is run by the same people as it always has been: Democrats, progressives, and leftists. Republicans couldn’t produce a strong leader if they tried (and they tried).

        1. Americans preferred an inarticulate, politically inexperienced, failed businessman because they wanted ACA repealed, wanted lower taxes, wanted less regulation, and wanted government out of their hair when it cme to sex, sexual orientation, and race.

          Bullshit. He lost the popular vote. Won the electoral vote by fewer than 80,000 votes in 3 states COMBINED … got a record number of anti-opponent votes (Against Hillary, NOT for him). FACT: he’d have lost to ANYONE other than Hillary.

          Also wrong on:
          He is THE biggest racist, homophobe, bigot on the public stage.
          SHAMEFULLY lied about how started the violence in Charlotteville.
          FUCKED UP healthcare so badly, that Obamacare is NOW favorable to a majority of Americans, amd Trumpcare favored by less than 30%.
          He ALSO fucked every exchange premium in America … with the COWARDICE … of repealing the mandate … but KEEPING guaranteed issue.

          HOW FUCKING STUPID IS THAT? (SNORT)

          The PURPOSE of the mandate was to force young, healthy people into the exchanges … to minimize the HIGH RISKS/PREMIUMS OF PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO NEW CANCER PATIENTS … AT THE SAME PREMIUM AS RESPONSIBLE AMERICANS. Junior High math, Mark

          cont’d

          1. Part 2 of 3

            The “death spiral” in premiums was caused by NOT ENOUGH young healthy insured …. so Trumpcare will have MUCH FEWER!!! WTF?

            Who will now offset the losses on newly-insured cancer patients who REPUBLICANS now want to subsidize?

            Premiums will skyrocket. The cowards will blame Obamacare .. bullshit which can be demolished in two sentences … to any non-goober with 8th grade math skills.

            It will be ugly.
            BUT HATE HILLARY!!

            Time to learn Chinese?

        2. Hillary ran as the “strong leader”

          Not on this planet.

          What happened

          She won the popular vote!
          She lost the Electoral College by fewer than 80,000 votes on three states COMBINED!
          How much damage from Comey and Wikileaks did it take to cause such a teeny-tiny flip?

        3. Hilary couldn’t come across as strong because she’s not. She rode her husband’s coattails and barely defeated an underfunded nobody for her Senate seat in a state whose Republican party is a joke.

          Few people voted for Trump because they wanted less regulation. They wanted to end immigration, stop companies from moving overseas and get even with “those people”, “those people” being anyone they disliked.

          This was an election about punishing your enemies and had nothing to do with issues. Hilary’s loser supporters screamed in the streets because the whips and chains that they expected to use on Republicans were now in the hands of their enemies. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were now serving the Dark Lord.

          Trump ‘s inarticulate, unending, self contradictory Tweetstorms was a Rorschach test where people saw their worst fears and greatest hopes. As president he is most like the “Magic 8-Ball” that gives random answers to questions. The weird part is that his purely random actions have been better than either of his predecessors who were consistently bad. Sometimes, although for no apparent reason, Trump does the right thing – Gorsuch, most court appointments and de-regulation.

          Trump has proven that a random number generator can be a better president than a “pragmatic” politician.

          1. GORSUCH? The Christian Taliban????

  21. Ron Paul is still a member of the “The Fed Makes All Bad Things Happen” club. The Bit Coin Bubble? Really?

    Is there anything that is not caused by the Fed? Could Bernie Madoff swindle people without the Fed pumping up the economy? I suppose that Panam, TWA and Eastern Airlines all went bankrupt because of the Fed? Did the Fed make the Red Sox trade Babe Ruth? I’m sure that RP can prove that the Fed’s easy money policies drove Ruth’s salary so high that to cut costs the Red Sox sold their best pitcher.

    Business regulation does far more damage than the Fed could ever do. In addition, regulation is a force multiplier for the Fed by restricting capital movements that attempt to ameliorate the damage done when the Fed unleashes it currency schemes.

    The biggest problem with “Austrians” is their single minded and simple minded explanation that the Fed is the ultimate evil. Getting rid of a central bank is a good idea but unless the regulatory state is rolled back the end of the Fed won’t be nearly enough.

    1. Actually, the Austrians are bat-shit crazy on replacing the Fed. Like Ron, anti-gubmint goobers have a raging hatred for gummint, NO love of liberty,, so take TOTALLY stupid positions … as long as it’s not government. Liberty comes second to them.

      Friedman DEMOLISHED their gold standard insanity with a simple question, “Do we want stable prices or a stable money supply?” DUH. We can’t have both, unless the Law of Supply and Demand.disappears! Gold was a TOTAL FAILURE at stable prices, for over a century, since the early Industrial Revolution. The Supply of Gold could not match the skyrocketing Demand for gold .. so we had constant deflation — forcing worker wages down … which Marx called “the exploitation of the working class.” (He was RIGHT)

      Friedman’s solution, replace the Fed with a computer …. expand the Supply of money to match the Demand for money … over the LONG term (for stability). Result – stable prices. Supply and Demand in perpetual balance. Just that simple.

      Goobers have a shit fit, “THAT’S GOVERNMENT.” But their “solution” would just reverse the victims — from inflation to deflation. Inflation benefits borrowers (workers). Deflation benefits lenders (the wealthy). That ain’t liberty. And it PROVES Marx correct.

      Just as stupid as bitcoin. The same goobers who SAY they want gold-backed currency … also want no-backed currency! ANYTHING that’s not government. Dumbfucks have destroyed our movement.

      1. The Supply of Gold could not match the skyrocketing Demand for gold .. so we had constant deflation — forcing worker wages down … which Marx called “the exploitation of the working class.” (He was RIGHT)

        Hihn showing his true colors.

        1. Bend over, Mark22, jamming it up your ass AGAIN!!!

          The Supply of Gold could not match the skyrocketing Demand for gold .. so we had constant deflation — forcing worker wages down … which Marx called “the exploitation of the working class.” (He was RIGHT)

          Hihn showing his true colors.

          Learned it from Milton Friedman, dumbass Austrian … and here’s the PROOF (sneer)
          CPI data from 1800 … PROVING the constant FAILURE of the gold standard to maintain stable prices … constant deflation until almost 1920 (except wartime monetary expansion). http://www.yardeni.com/pub/hiscpi.pdf

          Pay attention, Law of Supply and Demand. DEflation can occur ONLY if Supply cannot expand as fast as Demand … PRECISELY AS I SAID, brainwashed Austrian. Gold could not keep with with exploding demand of the Industrial Revolution,

          WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL TO BAN AND FOREVER FORBID ALL ABORTIONS OF A VIABLE FETUS … AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A LIFE BIRTH?.
          https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7074582

          WHAT KIND OF SICK FUCK WOULD KILL BABIES TO PURSUE HIS PSYCHOPATHIC HATRED?

          (Posted in self-defense of repeated unprovoked aggressions by a cyber-stalking blowhard. He punished me because HE humiliates HIMSELF. I just point and sneer.)

          Now he”ll be REALLY pissed! His attack. Tribal savagery
          .

          1. PROVING the constant FAILURE of the gold standard to maintain stable prices … constant deflation until almost 1920

            Fractional reserve banking will cause fluctuations in price. “Deflation” is good. My Bitcoin is “deflating” (price deflating) and I’m very happy about that.

            https://mises.org/library/deflating-deflation-myth

            1. My Bitcoin is “deflating” (price deflating) and I’m very happy about that.

              If you REALLY owned Bitcoin, you MIGHT be MILDLY aware that its value CRASHED by 45% last week.
              (lol)

              1. If you REALLY owned Bitcoin, you MIGHT be MILDLY aware that its value CRASHED by 45% last week.

                I do own it, and 45% down from 2000% up is still price deflation (over the long run).

                That’s how math works.

          2. PROVING the constant FAILURE of the gold standard to maintain stable prices

            Of course a gold standard causes price fluctuations and deflation; I wasn’t contesting that.

            I was simply observing that you agreed with Marx and his analysis of the exploitation of the working class: your true colors.

            WHY DOES MARK22 OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL

            I don’t bother paying enough attention to your proposals to either oppose or support them.

            1. I was simply observing that you agreed with Marx and his analysis of the exploitation of the working class: your true colors.

              Same fucking lie. But worse.
              He was right that the working class was being exploited … because their wage had been driven down for nearly a century … but by the gold standard, not by capitalism per se

          1. You had said:

            Actually, the Austrians are bat-shit crazy on replacing the Fed…

            I responded with an article as to why it’d be a good idea. Another direct response:

            http://www.mises.org/blog/let‘s-ditch-fed-right-reasons

    2. The biggest problem with “Austrians” is their single minded and simple minded explanation that the Fed is the ultimate evil.

      I can’t tell: are you simply a liar with a political agenda or are you really that ignorant of what Austrian economics means?

      1. (snort)

        I can’t tell: are you simply a liar with a political agenda or are you really that ignorant of what Austrian economics means?

        YOUR ignorance of Austrian economics is PROVEN directly above. Again.

        Now … please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices …. NO inflation OR deflation, EVER … which the gold standard FAILED to do for over a century. Hint: Apply the Law of Supply and Demand, after learning what it is. Austrian.,.
        .

        1. Now … please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices

          You don’t want “stable prices”. You want deflation.

          which the gold standard FAILED to do for over a century.

          Fractional reserve banking will do that to you.

          1. which the gold standard FAILED to do for over a century.

            Fractional reserve banking will do that to you.

            Like I said.
            You obviously don’t know what that means.

            You don’t want “stable prices”. You want deflation.

            Why?

            1. Like I said.
              You obviously don’t know what that means.

              You can loan out money that was deposited and keep only a fraction of it within your system. So, if $100 were deposited and you needed to keep a 10% reserve, you could loan out $90. That would “create” a new $90 as there would be one person who could claim $100 and another who already had $90.

              Why?

              Because everyone likes having more purchasing power. (I’m referring to “price deflation”, not monetary deflation, BTW.)

              1. SEE THE AUSTRIAN FUCK UP!

                You obviously don’t know what that means.(fractional-reserve banking)

                you can loan out money that was deposited and keep only a fraction of it within your system. So, if $100 were deposited and you needed to keep a 10% reserve, you could loan out $90. That would “create” a new $90 as there would be one person who could claim $100 and another who already had $90

                THIS is how fucking stupid they are. … including elementary school arithmetic!

                So, if $100 were deposited and you needed to keep a 10% reserve, you could loan out $90.

                bwaaaa hahahahahahahahahaha haaaaaaaaaa
                IS …. 100 …… 10% ….. OF ….. 90???
                …. OR 111%>

                For a 10% reserve
                Same $100 deposit. THAT IS THE RESERVE!! WHAT LOANS WOULD BE AVAILABLE?
                ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!

                If reserves = $100
                and loans = $1,000

                100/1000 = TEN PERCENT!!!

                But the motherfucker will stalk me for ANOTHER year … as revenge for THIS … on HIS aggression

                (My tone and boldface in self-defense of over a year’s aggression by a cyber-stalker)

                1. After reading your response, I realize that you don’t understand math or words.

                  If $100 is deposited, 10% of that is $10. That means $90 can be loaned out.

                  To complicate things, out of that $90, if it’s deposited, $81 can be loaned out, and so on.

                  Hihn doesn’t understand fractional reserve banking (and/or words).

                  1. ace_m82
                    After reading your response, I realize that you don’t understand math or words.

                    Yes,
                    I lied. I NEEDED you to say that … so the trapdoor drop the gallows on you here.
                    https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7076680
                    (snort)

                    1. Your link proves you don’t understand economics, but your word comprehension is even worse.

                      Linking to your own error hardly helps your (hopeless) cause.

              2. EVASION

                Called out

                LIAR: You don’t want “stable prices”. You want deflation.
                CALLED OUT Why?

                Now the evasion.

                Why?

                Because everyone likes having more purchasing power. (I’m referring to “price deflation”, not monetary deflation, BTW.)

                WRONG DEFLATION
                FORCES WORKER WAGES DOWN (Let them eat cake)

                Why?

                1. WRONG DEFLATION

                  Right deflation (you were talking price deflation, not monetary deflation).

                  FORCES WORKER WAGES DOWN

                  Perhaps (in nominal terms), but with everyone getting more rich, it would give them more purchasing power, which would mean their wages would go up in real terms.

                  https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Deflation

                  1. you were talking price deflation

                    Fucking psycho liar

                    1. You: Now … please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices

                      Me: You don’t want “stable prices”. You want deflation.

                      You: WRONG DEFLATION

                      Me: you were talking price deflation

                      See? You were talking “stable prices”. Ergo, the deflation I responded with would be price deflation, not monetary.

                      But, by all means, call me a “liar” for understanding how words work. How’s that been working for you?

                      https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Deflation

                    2. how ignorant are an-caps? MOAR PROOF

                      See? You were talking “stable prices”. Ergo, the deflation I responded with would be price deflation, not monetary.

                      (pees pants laughing)
                      The words are Milton Friedman’s, a Nobel Laureate in economics.
                      “Do we want a stable money supply or stable prices?”

                      MONEY SUPPLY IS …. MONETARY (gasp)
                      HIS PRINCIPLES ARE CALLED … MONETARISM (smirk)
                      FOR THE FAMOUSLY STATED PURPOSE OF STABLE PRICES

                      But, by all means, call me a “liar” for understanding how words work.

                      I just proved it. And YOU added laughable ignorance!

                      PAY ATTENTION. I’LL DUMB IT DOWN

                      Falling prices can have EITHER monetary OR investment/productivity causes.
                      IS MISES.ORG IS TOO STUPID TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? Or just you?

                      Deflation causes falling prices that force wages down

                      Productivity Investment causes falling prices and
                      a) a higher standard of living from the same wages
                      b) a MUCH higher standard of living AND higher wages

                      Since the mid-1840s . Known as The Industrial Revolution to most high school grads … but apparently not to you.

                      ONLY UNEDUCATED AN-CAPS (and Ron Paul) WANT DEFLATION … FUCK THE WORKING CLASS – LET THEM EAT CAKE

                      (Boldface & tone defense from aggression — by a cyber-stalker who attacks even a Nobel Laureate ,… while PROVING his own ignorance of FUNDAMENTAL economics)

                    3. “Do we want a stable money supply or stable prices?”

                      Stable prices are worse than price deflation, as everyone who’s ever bought anything would know.

                      “Falling prices can have EITHER monetary OR investment/productivity causes.”

                      And? “Investment” in stupid governmental malinvestments are bad. “Production” of stupid governmental claptrap is also bad. Ergo, just because price deflation can be caused by changes in production/investment, that doesn’t mean that those changes are bad. GDP is worthless as it fails to take into account that value is relative, and it includes governmental spending as a plus!

                      “ONLY UNEDUCATED AN-CAPS (and Ron Paul) WANT DEFLATION”

                      Everyone wants price deflation of their own money, except the insane!

          2. (sneer) Tell us how to have your gold standard WITHOUT fractional reserve banking, Austrian genius. If banks can’t make loans, they can’t pay interest, so they don’t exist. Hmmm.

            WHAT? They couldn’t make loans?

            Deposits – $100
            Loan – $20

            Fractional reserve – 80% lower fraction as total loans increase.

            Austrian economics! (for the starry-eyed snowflakes)

            1. Tell us how to have your gold standard WITHOUT fractional reserve banking

              Well, I don’t care what “standard” people choose. Bitcoin, silver, gold, beads, lead – I don’t care.

              Now, if you wanted to have a gold standard without fractional reserves, it would simply mean that the bank couldn’t loan out any percent of the $100 deposited. Unless, that is, they required the deposit to stay deposited for a certain amount of time, then they could loan it out as long as they had it back before the depositor had the right to withdraw it.

              That would be the essence of 100% reserve banking.

              https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking

              1. Basically, the depositor accepts the risk that in return for a higher interest rate he may have to wait to withdraw his funds. Certificates of deposit do that now so it’s hardly a weird, untested idea.

                1. Here’s how fuckking stuopid he is.
                  It’s STILL fractional reserve banking (snort)
                  The CDs are like a shell game. Diversion.
                  The CDs MUST be a fraction of the assets. DUH.

                  For the “other” deposits … wait for it …
                  THEY EARN NO INTEREST, SO WHY IS THE MONEY THERE?

                  Suckering an “Austrian” is SO easy.!

                  1. “It’s STILL fractional reserve banking”

                    No, it’s not. Unless you consider 1/1 a “fraction”. (Technically correct is the best kind of correct, amiright?)

                    “The CDs MUST be a fraction of the assets.”

                    No, they don’t.

                    “THEY EARN NO INTEREST, SO WHY IS THE MONEY THERE?”

                    Security. during price deflation, there is no issue.

                    It’s all explained here, if you care to learn:

                    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking

                    1. Your bullshit and ignorance are finally revealed here … when I finally extract your ignorance of fundamental economics
                      https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7076680
                      On deflation — it’s you vs Milton Friedman. a Nobel Laureate in Economics (lol)

                    2. “Your bullshit and ignorance are finally revealed here … when I finally extract your ignorance of fundamental economics”

                      Your link only proves that you have no idea what words mean.

                      “On deflation — it’s you vs Milton Friedman. a Nobel Laureate in Economics”

                      Assuming that’s true (and it’s not), it’s an Appeal to Authority. Also, you know who has a Nobel in Economics? Krugman!

        2. Now … please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices

          There are several ways of maintaining stable prices, and monetary policy is indeed one of them. What you don’t seem to understand is that Austrians consider price stability harmful, which is why they oppose such monetary policy.

          This is what Austrian economists have to say about it:

          For economists of the Austrian school, the monetary policy objective of price stability is a recipe for bringing about disastrous results, namely recurrent economic crises, which in turn ultimately lead to a destruction of economic and political freedom. With price stability having become so widely favored, it is important to outline the Austrian School’s thinking in some more detail.

          1. Now … please describe the ONLY way to POSSIBLY maintain stable prices

            There are several ways of maintaining stable prices,

            There’s only one. The Law of Supply and Demand. The supply of money must expand or contract, in balance with the the demand for money. See, prices rise and fall, to keep supply and demand in balance. WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY STAY IN BALANCE? ta da!

            That has NEVER happened .. despite that wacky quote that brainwashed you.

            What you don’t seem to understand is that Austrians consider price stability harmful, which is why they oppose such monetary policy.

            What you don’t understand is how fucking stupid that is. Inflation has one class of victims. Deflation has another class. Who decides? More proof of your authoritarian mentality

            Plus …. (laughing) …. YOUR BULLSHIT ECONOMIST SAYS WE’VE ALREADY HAD PRICE STABILITY,
            Did you swallow that with NO examples? REALLY?

            Mark, the earth is ROUND.

          2. That’s a great point. Attempting to produce price stability necessitates an increase in the money supply when productivity increases. This simply shifts the benefits of increased productivity from the producer to a more favored political group. It’s an almost invisible form of wealth redistribution.

            1. You said that in public?

              THE HIGHER MONEY SUPPLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
              The “stable prices” are a factor in the entire economy.
              There are no “benefits.” Merely stable prices — for BOTH the workers and the producers — when they buy “stuff”. You do understand that producers spend money too, right?

              What does the worker get? And how?
              What does the producer lose? And how?

      2. He has no idea what Austrian Economics means:

        https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7074912

          1. So you agree that you have no idea what Austrian Economics means. Good.

            1. So you agree that you have no idea what Austrian Economics means. Good.

              Fucking liar — not even that topic

              And THAT is how you made a total public fool of yourself just above

              YOu ACTUALLY SAID 100 IS 10% OF 90 …. omfg

              https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7075247

              One more time. This is how banks create money,.. even under a gold standard
              $100 deposits … assume all the money in the world/
              $100 loans Now $200 money in the world.
              BUT WE HAD DEFLATION … WHICH MAKES HIS BRAIN EXPLODE!

              1. One more time. This is how banks create money,.. even under a gold standard $100 deposits … assume all the money in the world/ $100 loans Now $200 money in the world.

                Nope, sorry, loans don’t “create money”, they simply create liquidity.

                1. One more time. This is how banks create money,.. even under a gold standard
                  $100 deposits … assume all the money in the world/
                  $100 loans
                  Now $200 money in the world.

                  Nope, sorry, loans don’t “create money”, they simply create liquidity.

                  (snort) You quoted me proving you wrong!!

              2. Fucking liar — not even that topic

                Yes, that was the topic of what I said, and what you linked to.

                And THAT is how you made a total public fool of yourself just above

                No, you just don’t know how words work.

                BUT WE HAD DEFLATION

                You misunderstand that price deflation is different from monetary deflation.

                https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Inflation

                1. You misunderstand that price deflation is different from monetary deflation.

                  (laughing) I know HOW they’re different. You do not. Most of us learn about it in high school!

                  Pay attention. I’ll dumb it down as far as I can

                  Falling prices can be caused by EITHER monetary deflation OR productivity/investment. (You lose on that already). Here’s the difference — and HOW mises.org has suckered you (again)

                  Deflation causes falling prices that force wages down

                  Productivity Investment causes falling prices and
                  a) a higher standard of living from the same wages
                  b) a MUCH higher standard of living AND higher wages

                  Since the mid-1840s . We call it The Industrial Revolution.

                  ONLY UNEDUCATED AN-CAPS (and Ron Paul) WANT DEFLATION … FUCK THE WORKING CLASS – LET THEM EAT CAKE

                  Lengthier version (and ridicule)
                  https://reason.com/blog/2017/12…..nt_7076680

                  1. “I know HOW they’re different. You do not.”

                    Then how did I just give you their proper definitions with and a link to prove it?

                    “ONLY UNEDUCATED AN-CAPS (and Ron Paul) WANT DEFLATION”

                    So, you don’t want price deflation, you don’t want your dollar to go further? That’s sad. I like more purchasing power.

                    “FUCK THE WORKING CLASS”

                    So you’re saying you’re a class warrior now?

      3. No real Austrian economist seriously believes that a central bank is the ultimate cause of all economic problems. Rothbard’s work on the Great Depression makes it clear that recessions are normal but a central bank, in attempting to prevent a depression, exacerbates a bubble and turns a normal correction into a catastrophe. Rothbard understood why the Great Depression of 1920 never happened.

        Ron Paul, however, while claiming to be an “Austrian” assigns nearly all problems to the Fed. Compared to his constant Fed bashing how much energy did he spend on regulatory issues? As much as I like Ron Paul, (I was a Ron Paul delegate in 2012) he doesn’t appreciate the problems of regulation. Too many of RP’s supporters see the Fed as the Death Star and if you can blow up this planet destroyer then the Empire is defeated.

        The Fed is a terrible institution that causes untold grief for most people, but regulation makes it impossible to avoid the Fed’s policies and is therefore a worse threat. When people are free to move, the Fed can’t create another Great Depression.

        1. It SEEMS that Ron suffers on that from our eternal conflict of visions — pro-liberty vs anti-government. Ron is the latter, Wrong focus.

          The anti-gubmint libs focus ONLY on “repeal” things. It’s WHY they talk ONLY about pot and the Fed, or other anther repeals.. Git gubmint out of Medicaid ..tomorrow ,… and the entire charity infrastructure that was destroyed by Medicaid ,…. spontaneous generation! The capital? — pull it out of a hat.

          Expanding liberty always reduces or limits government.
          Shrinking government does not always expand liberty. It can even REDUCE liberty. Like repealing Medicaid, instead of transitioning the dollars from government to private, in a way that rebuilds the infrastructure to again provide the free market outcome — universal treatment for the uninsured, regardless of income. What people willingly and voluntarily paid for.

          I’m not Rothbardian, but …. BINGO. That part is also common well away from Austrian.

  22. If the press and media refused to take Gary Johnson and Bill Weld seriously or give them any attention, there’s no way in hell any other libertarian is going to get any attention.

    1. What if they had an actual platform of policy solutions, for every major issue of concern to voters, tailored to the entire top half of the Nolan Chart? (a majority of voters).

      The failure was the libertarian establishment, which has NO workable policy solutions .. for anything … as influenced by the anti-gubmint goobers. The election was a MASSIVE defeat for the crazy notion of “advancing libertarian ideas” — when voters are open for even radical change. And we had NOTHING. That’s not Johnson/Weld — THE most experienced candidates, BTW. It’s a failure of what Gillespie calls Libertarianism 3.0 — but he also says we’re in a libertarian moment — which looks more like the Eve of Destruction.

      Libertarian politics COULD fix what’s wrong with America … if there was such a thing.

      1. Be the example Michael, teach us all in the The Way. You’re so smart. You’re the only one who’s not a gubmint goober. You are the light and the way. Show us your magnificence…we’re all here for you. Oh wait, you have no real ideas other than replacing the health care system with charity. But it’s a great idea. Maybe you could run as the anti-gubmint goober candidate. Before you accuse me of stalking you, just know that I really enjoy the spew you spray everywhere. Love you=)

        1. ANOTHER screwup by my stalker, Mr McGoo!

          Be the example Michael, teach us all in the The Way. You’re so smart.

          That we need policies to get elected and govern? You find that radical? YOU SAID IT IN PUBLIC?

          Oh wait, you have no real ideas other than replacing the health care system with charity. But it’s a great idea.

          Bend over ? MORE jammed up your ass.
          Already a proven lie. Details:l

          ONE MORE TIME: http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm the web archive of my political writing ? WITH POLICIES
          OTHER healthcare reforms
          TOTAL Tax policy.
          “NEW NEW FEDERALISM” (the libertarian concept of competing governments).

          Consolidate at one level, all programs run from 2-3 levels of government ? SOMEBODY is accountable,. (Am I going too fast?)

          Initially, each state selects own mix of programs. Then Voters FORCE state and federal to COMPETE for power (each program) with COMPETITIVE BIDDING every 10 years or so

          The TAX PLAN provides the structure needed to make it work ? bouncing the revenues in either direction ? NO CONFUSING CHANGES in HOW we pay taxes (just lower).

          Or ? Taxpayer Democracy would have each taxpayer allocate WHERE their income tax dollars are spent — including tax cuts. As long as ANYONE allocates to tax cuts, we’d get them every year.

          NOW PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS

          (My tone and boldface in defense of multiple aggressions by a cyber-stalker)

          1. Oh wait, you have no real ideas other than replacing the health care system with charity

            SECOND FUCKUP

            Medicaid only, chump.
            Transition back to the private charities and charity hospitals that provided 100% treatment for the uninsured — regardless of income — before Medicaid which costs more and has a HIGHER uninsured rate than the private market (pre-Obamacare, because of too low provider payments. Post Obamacare not measurable, because it includes automatic enrollment for people most of which will have NO DOCTORS)

            Why would we need charity for what is now employee health insurance????

            1. Thanks for the correction and clarification Mikey, I’m going to spend the day reading your web archives so I can truly understand the depth of your genius. Thanks for correcting my wrong-thought and encouraging me to pull my head out of my ass. I can see so much better now. I also realize that the way you interact with people is only because you have to beat it into everyone’s head how wrong they are and how right you are, if only they would pay attention. I’m also flattered to be your stalker. I only wish I was important enough to have people stalking me for speaking truth. Maybe someday…

              1. . I also realize that the way you interact with people

                You’re a fucking bully whose been stalking me down the entire page … even when you just made a total fool of yourself.

                You get what you ask for, snowflake.

                1. Would you some cheese with your whine? I’d say you’re a much prettier snowflake than me =)

                  1. I’m not the whiner. I’m the one who jammed it up the other’s ass.
                    Deal with reality. Accept responsibility for the consequences of your own actions.
                    a/k/a ,…. Become an adult

  23. What’s with the cocaine-infused comment section today?

  24. With all due respect to Ron Paul, out of the +-25% of positions that I don’t agree with the libertarians on, removing the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold standard has got to be one of the more retarded ideas.

    I mean seriously, do we really want to go back to the 1700 and 1800 hundreds, with peaks and “panics” constantly happening every 20 years. The gold standard has been proven to be a disaster. Funny how Bitcoin got thrown in this article, as thats exactly what would happen to our dollar if it were on the gold standard. Someone on Wall Street had a bad day, setting off a chain reaction, and poof, the dollar is down 25% over the weekend. Then its worth up 10% the next month. No thanks.

    Although I guess now I can see why Bitcoin has become the darling of the hardcore die-hard libertarians. If you support the gold standard, supporting Bitcoin makes sense. The constant speculation is a feature, not a bug.

    1. I mean seriously, do we really want to go back to the 1700 and 1800 hundreds…

      Non Sequitur.

      The gold standard has been proven to be a disaster.

      How much inflation has there been since the 1930s (when the gold standard was all but abandoned)?

      Funny how Bitcoin got thrown in this article, as thats exactly what would happen to our dollar if it were on the gold standard.

      Fluctuations in Bitcoin are (mostly) due to asset inflation (the panic from too much inflation and too low an interest rate – thanks Fed) and because the pool is still too small to be very stable.

      Someone on Wall Street had a bad day, setting off a chain reaction, and poof, the dollar is down 25% over the weekend.

      http://www.52insk.com/2016/soros/

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

      Yeah, non-gold backed fiat currency is actually a bad thing!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.