Dear Democratic Socialists Who Think You're Having a Moment: It's Me, a Libertarian, Who's Been Through This

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's impressive win might not mean all that much. But best of luck, comrades.


Screenshot via MSNBC

Until the Janus decision ended mandatory public sector union dues and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, Wednesday was looking like a pretty good day for the progressive left. One of their champions, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, defeated the fourth most powerful House Democrat in an upset primary victory—another clear sign that the energy and enthusiasm is with the Bernie Sanders wing of the party.

Democratic socialism, the ideology with which Ocasio-Cortez identifies, appears to be having a political moment. To which I say, as a libertarian who has been through the whole an-idea-whose-time-has-finally-come experience: good luck with that, comrades. The signs are easy to misread.

Yes, Ocasio-Cortez is aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America—she even has the red rose of socialism in her Twitter profile—and ran on a democratic socialist's platform: Medicare for all, free college tuition, a federal jobs guarantee. (She also wants to abolish ICE, but that's not really a socialist-specific idea: We libertarians want to abolish ICE, too, whereas Sanders, who can't quite bring himself to support the elimination of a government program, does not.)

"So-called socialist ideas might be more popular than you think," wrote Vox's Dylan Scott, in a wildly optimistic piece that hailed Ocasio-Cortez as "the future" of the Democratic Party. Splinter—the new go-to site for Gawker­­­-style uncompromising leftism—celebrated the fact that the Ocasio-Cortez could help normalize "the s word."

The most starstruck members of this ideological group probably envision their ideas making headway within the Democratic Party. Who could be against socialism, as defined by Ocasio-Cortez as "democratic participation in our economic dignity" and "the basic elements that are required for an economic and socially dignified life in the United States"? (MSNBC's Chris Hayes, to his credit, was mildly incredulous about the future Congresswoman's "agnostic" definition of the term.)

And yet it's easy to imagine, when things are going your way in the elections department, it's because you're right and people are waking up to that fact. Ocasio-Cortez's defeat of Rep Joe Crowley (D–N.Y.) is already being compared to upstart Dave Brat's defeat of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2011. I recall that many in the media saw Brat's victory as a sign that the Tea Party was winning—that the crony-corporatist, big-government-loving wing of the Republican Party was losing out to a libertarian insurgency. In the period of time between 2009 and 2015, a group of Republicans that appeared like they wanted to shrink government stole some power from the old guard, TIME magazine dubbed Sen. Rand Paul the most interesting man in national politics, and libertarianism was finally enjoying its political moment. Even The New York Times thought so.

We now know that this analysis was, at the very least, incomplete. While it's true that more and more people desire cultural freedom—specifically the kind of customization, choice, and control over their own lives that a libertarian worldview provides—political libertarianism had much less support than it seemed. Voters didn't send the Tea Party to Washington to constrain government, and they ended up caring far less about crony capitalism than they did about illegal immigration. As the libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Thomas Massie told The Washington Examiner, he thought people that backed Ron and Rand Paul were voting for libertarian ideas; once these same voters turned to Trump, he realized they were not. "I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race," said Massie. "And Donald Trump won best in class, as we had up until he came along."

Ocasio-Cortez doesn't appear crazy: she's an eloquent, if naïve and unspecific, defender of far-left ideas. But be cautious about attributing her success to the rising salience of democratic socialism. It could be a mere anti-incumbent insurgency, or it could be no insurgency at all, given that it's currently a one-off. During this time of heightened concern regarding the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant children, perhaps this majority minority district just really wanted to send a young woman of color to Congress instead of an aging white man. As FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver put it:

There's no doubt socialism—as defined in incredibly loose terms as a vast social welfare system—is gaining popularity among young Democrats. But libertarians have learned the hard way that it's all-too easy to draw unwarranted conclusions and misdiagnose the moment. Especially when The New York Times fawns over you.

NEXT: Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires, Everyone Flips Out: Reason Roundup

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “So-called socialist ideas might be more popular than you think,” wrote Vox’s Dylan Scott

    Of course. People do love the idea of getting free stuff – right up until that stuff needs to get paid for.

    1. Your average voter only cares about it being free for them. Take school debt as an example. People leaving school with tens of thousands of dollars in school debt are going to vote for anybody promising to eliminate their debt. It’s likely the single largest economic factor in their life, and it’s in their immediate economic best interest to vote for people promising to remove that burden.

      1. This will be a Democratic Party gimme too as Libertarians and Republicans will never agree to forgive that much debt.

      2. As for higher ed debt, any broad forgiveness program, and any future free college thing, turns out to be a wealth transfer from lower to at least middle income families (Progressive Policy Ironic Delusion # 672).

        1. Forgiving college debt is one of the most insidious ideas of our time: it’s only aim is to create a new banking crisis in hopes of triggering a recession [as a means to seize more power]. Progs are the meanest people on the planet, as this plan will for sure hurt their allegedly vaunted “working class”. What a bunch of assholes.

          1. I’d much rather prefer some sort of Guaranteed Income program that the student debtors could use to pay for their degrees from Boutique U, while everyone else that had smart about where to go to college (or not even to college at all) can reap the reward.

    2. Yes, the Obama supporter shocked to find out that he was the one paying for expanding healthcare coverage.

    3. She’s a semi attractive, uneducated bartender. She’s used to getting things for free. That’s her entire world view. She utilized her looks for a career. Of course she’s a socialist.

      1. And if incumbancy works the way it usually does, in fifty years she’s going to be as ugly, as stupid, and as batshit crazy as Maxine Waters.

        1. “This liberal will be all about socializ? …basically taking over, and the government running all of your companies” kind of batshit crazy.

        2. So, best to boff her now..? You just read Rico Soave’s mind!

      2. While I agree she is unintelligent, she is in fact well educated (by current definitions).
        She has degrees in Economics (?!) and International Relations from Boston University.
        However, with those degrees, she works a waitress and a bartender, and complains about paying off her (freely accepted) student debt. Oh yeah, and as a community organizer. No information easily available on how much that pays. But New York does love community organizers, no matter how much they lie.
        Does this say more about her intelligence, or about the value of BU degrees? Or both?

        1. She graduated in 2011. Terrible job market, still recovering from the Bush crash. She wanted to get to politics, breaking into the world of trust fund kids who can work for free with their rent paid by their parents. She recognizes that student debt is a hindrance for millions of young people out there.

          Her dad passed away in 2008 and she had to work extra jobs to help the family. Restaurant and bar work wasn’t her primary job. It was weekend work.She could have probably found a bank, made a lot of money, and drove a fancy car. But, that wasn’t what she wanted to do. And she had to sacrifice for her morals. And you mock her for that?

          I don’t see anywhere that she has complained personally about her loans. She sees them as a barrier to advancement for the working class.

          1. Two words: Ted Kennedy.

            1. If some dude’s last name is Kopechne, stay away from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s and stay away from Chappaquiddick.

          2. “She could have probably found a bank, made a lot of money, and drove a fancy car.”

            At her age, I don’t see her as more than a Personal Banker at this point. A cute bartender probably more in NY. Do you somehow see her as senior managment at 28?

            Not happening.

            She’s just another leftist who sees a shot at the easy life through public office. Just like Bernie.

            1. If she’d gone into it, she’d probably be a senior analyst at this point, making an easy six figures. She’s not dumb — she got second prize in the international Intel Engineering competition in High School. Not everything is about getting the highest paycheck.

              1. You’re arguing with a wing-nut conservative who thinks Warren Buffett is a socialist.

                1. And what are you?

                2. I’ve never opined about Buffet. And no, he is not a socialist, just a cronyist.

                  Are you sure you’re not confused by the voices in your head?

              2. An economics major who thinks socialism works is by definition dumb.

                1. An economics major who thinks socialism works is by definition dumb.

                  Now now Skippy, you can’t necessarily rule out ‘lying politician’ from that equation.

                  1. Hanlon razor?

                    1. Well, shit, I guess you can then…

                      Made me laugh though.

              3. Yeah, but for thousands of years, free people have realized it is all about earning some kind of paycheck. Only delusional communitarians have come up with the idea that paychecks don’t matter.

                1. Yeah, but for thousands of years, free people have realized it is all about earning some kind of paycheck.

                  Why not let the individual decide?

                  I would trade the millions of dollars I have ever made for a minimum wage job and all the premium pussy in the world.

                  1. Why not let the individual decide?

                    I’d agree if only communists would allow people a choice. Their ethos inevitably means a choice can’t be allowed since, oddly enough, most people like to keep the fruits of their labor. There’s also the eternal problem of ‘free riders’ in communism, and the usual solution is to kill them or enslave them since banishment isn’t always feasible.

                    Even communists like to keep their stuff, truth be told, but I wager you don’t know many people who have actually lived and worked on a commune.

                    1. According to their records they also love what the West provided. They actually built very little of their own stuff.

                2. Paychecks matter. But it is a factor among many. Some people only care about the final number. Some care about work conditions. Some care about what they contribute to the world. If only the paycheck mattered, we wouldn’t have priests.

                  1. A woman is a few month’s away from being a congressman at age 28 with power and influence beyond what the vast majority of people will ever achieve, and some of these dipshits think she made a bad career choice.

                    1. Bad for the people in her district. Bad for America. Good for her though, as her socialism won’t apply to her.

                  2. And I’m sure you’re here to tell us which will matter for the better of us all.

                3. Only delusional communitarians have come up with the idea that paychecks don’t matter.
                  Actually, they think that paychecks are all that matter. As in, “Businesses exist solely to provide living-wage paychecks to employees. What businesses produce is irrelevant, and profits are totally unnecessary.”
                  It’s the earning part they don’t understand.

              4. “If she’d gone into it, she’d probably be a senior analyst at this point, making an easy six figures. ”

                Doubtful. It’s a lot easier to spout socialist nonsense than to actually do a real finance job.

          3. Yet, you fail to see or acknowledge that the crash in 2008 was a result of the Democrats taking power in the 2006 election midterms. Exacerbated by Obama’s abject policy failures.
            Socialism only when history is changed.
            Socialism aka communism light, is responsible for the deaths of more than 100000000 people in the last 100 years

        2. and complains about paying off her (freely accepted) student debt.

          They’re not exactly “freely accepted” in a government-controlled economy. I hated college, but I got the necessary degrees to be hired for the job I wanted. Why? Because government regulation required I get those degrees and the monopolistic source of (government) funding required that I pay exorbitant prices for those degrees. She probably did the same. I know it’s all great in theory to say you can do every job out there without a college degree, but in the real world it’s not true. So telling college grads their massive debt is self-inflicted is not entirely correct.

          1. So telling college grads their massive debt is self-inflicted is not entirely correct.

            It is entirely correct. The point is pick a degree that will pay itself off quickly. Admittedly this is often not a consideration for anyone involved, but again if someone doesn’t do any research before taking out 20k-50k in debt…who’s fault is that?

            This also pretends that college is the only way to make money, and it absolutely is not. Tradesmen blow plenty of white-collar gigs out the window in terms of earnings. How many prospective college students are even aware of that?

            1. And lots of professional sales jobs do too, with zero college. My former neighbor, with only a high school education makes more than $100k per year currently selling used cars and RVs.

              1. Wait, is this another get-rich-quick spam post?

                1. That’s was my knee jerk too!

            2. “”The point is pick a degree that will pay itself off quickly. “‘

              Also school choice. They want to go to the best and sometimes most expensive school. They turn a blind eye to the debt they are incurring, or don’t care to pay attention. They are stacking up a debt without considering a plan to repay.

              It’s as self inflicting as getting a credit card and maxing it out with no thought about how to pay it down.

              1. It’s as self inflicting as getting a credit card and maxing it out with no thought about how to pay it down.

                That analogy only works if government said that you can only buy electronic items with credit cards — cash and bartering is not allowed. What do you think would happen to credit card fees and interest rates under such a system? Up or down?

            3. For some people, improving the world is more important than a paycheck.

              Funding college is an investment. Providing a tuition free education will, over time, provide more wealth for the nation. California, until about a decade ago (thanks, Ahnold!) had a top flight university system where you could get an education rivaling anywhere for very low cost. That’s why so many industries in the past half century have flourished here, especially computers and biotech.

              1. Oh bullshit. CA flourishes because of great coastal real estate. You could never get away with it in a landlocked state like Oklahoma.

                Also, it is not government’s job to pay for college. Nor is it government’s job to make ‘investments’. College was a lot cheaper before the democrats got government tentacles into it.

              2. And how is a degree in any of the following “improving the world”?

                Gender Studies
                Ethnic Studies
                Phrenology (Universally discredited, but more useful than the above three)

              3. Capitalism improved the world. This woman is intent on destroying civilization.

              4. So I point out that you’re stealing a rhetorical base by conflating college with being the only vehicle for wealth creation and you double down.

                Wow, so wise.

                If this were true, high school would provide a useful education that results in easy high paying employment since high school is already ‘free’ education of the very sort you suggest. Yet, it does not do that anymore even while it once did. Curious. (And yes, I know there are other factors such as technological improve. Odd those aren’t taught in high school at any useful level…)

                What you are effectively doing is devaluing a college degree. The end result of such a move will simply be to move the effective level of education for finding a job to a masters. This is already pretty much something that’s happened, so lets say it’ll move the baseline up to a Ph.D. to get a job doing anything other than Starbucks. Sounds like a great idea…to an idiot.

                1. I agree with nearly everything you’ve written in this post, but ask that you look at it again by first recognizing that the federal government has explicitly outlawed working in certain professions without the proper letters after your name.

                  YOU WILL GO TO JAIL.

                  It’s really that simple. Shit, in some places you can’t even be a BARBER without paying for barber school (and even then, only government-approved barber school is allowed).

                  And it’s actually worse than it seems on the surface. Even in industries where government has not made it imprisonable to work in that career, they alter the economic landscape to virtually assure that you cannot be successful in that area. Or they’ve made it so incredibly competitive through monopolistic funding strategies that it’s very, very difficult to be successful in that area. Corporations also have jumped on board, because now that training programs are subsidized for them, they very often rely on the government’s training system instead of their own. It’s a bad system. The socialists correctly recognize it’s a bad system, but their proposed solutions will only make it worse. Conservatives don’t seem to have any clue that it’s a bad system, which is sad because I think they could be our allies on this issue.

                  1. Right. Opposition to out of control regulation certainly precludes them as allies.

                    1. Could you name some mainstream conservatives that support deregulation of the medical industry, for example? I can’t think of any conservatives off the top of my head who, like libertarians, think that people should be free to hire other people to be their doctors or to prescribe drugs without the right degrees and licensure. I mean, maybe there are one or two, but to suggest that conservatives are anywhere near agreement with libertarians on this issue is complete nonsense.

                      For that matter, I’ll make it easier for you — is there anything in the republican party platform that suggests abolishing occupational licensing in ANY appreciable way??

                    2. What’s it like to go through life with tunnel vision? So your entire world view is the medical profession? Does Right to Work mean anything to you?

                      But let’s play in your tiny sandbox. Gottlieb’s FDA is certainly a step in the right direction. And the expansion of AHP coming from the top is as well.

                      I find the thought of someone with your critical thinking skills involved in medicine highly disturbing.

                    3. So your entire world view is the medical profession?

                      That’s what you took away from that? The words “for example” mean nothing? Do you want a different example? Is that really what’s holding you back from answering my question? (Gottlieb is an absolutely laughable suggestion)

                      I know your main goal here is to suggest that conservatives hold libertarian positions, but that is so incredibly naive that all the insults in the world are not going to convince other readers that you’re not completely full of shit.

                    4. As opposed to your complete lack of any evidence supporting your claims. Hey, why stop a winning strategy?

                    5. I can’t think of any conservatives off the top of my head who, like libertarians, think that people should be free to hire other people to be their doctors or to prescribe drugs without the right degrees and licensure.

                      As a registered Libertarian for many years, I have never met with or had any discussion with my fellow Libertarians the idea of getting any medicine from an unqualified physicians.
                      That’s pure insanity, how did you come up with that line of thought? We have problems when other tell us what and who we must choose to associate with both professionally and individually.

                  2. Restrictions on entry into professions is mostly state, not federal, law.

                  3. I wasn’t necessarily arguing with you this time JunkScience but rather Chandler. In fact, I absolutely agree that credentialism has run amok but that’s true of pretty much any industry. It doesn’t matter if it’s white collar, blue collar, college education required or a trade school gig and it’s not really the same thing being discussed here.

                    Nothing worthwhile is ever ‘free’, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

                2. So you think if we didn’t have as much education, we’d have more innovation? What?

                  Things are more complicated now. High school graduates never learned engineering.

                  It’s government’s choice to invest in education. Every dollar spent on college returns multiples of that. California has high income. Mississippi has low. Washington has high income. West Virginia has low. Investing in education is key to our future.

                  1. So you think if we didn’t have as much education, we’d have more innovation? What?

                    Ah, yes. The oldest misunderstanding in the socialists playbook. Since I’m against the state or fed doing a thing, why I must be against the thing!


                    The point is that high school is ‘free’ education and it prepares a person for no job prospects whatsoever after graduation. Right now there are college educated people who are in jobs that supposedly require a high school education. Make college ‘free’ and you’ll have people with masters degrees working in those ‘high school’ gigs.

                    Oh, wait, we have a ‘Democratic Socialist’ right here with two degree’s that was working as a bartender, a job that shouldn’t require more than a H.S. diploma and a state certificate.

                    Golly gee, you truly are a wonder.

                    If you ‘give away’ something to everyone that previously had worth, what happens to the worth of that thing genius?

                    1. She had one degree. Double major. Strike one.
                      Bartending was a second job. Strike two.
                      The myth of the underemployed college grad is half outdated from the recession and half bad research design.

                      Strike three, you’re out.

                    2. It’s not ‘under employment’ genius, it’s that there are literally useless college degree’s and most people don’t do a lick of research in their chosen field’s prospects before choosing.

                      If you make college ‘free’, guess what you’ve just increased the incentive for universities to offer more useless degrees, not fewer. This has been the trend the more you divorce the payment from the person receiving the degree.

                      You get bonus points for thinking that citing her double major or second job is some kind of argument against my point. It’s not. It reinforces it.

                    3. Fuck, ol Hapster here is trying to out Tony Tony. NEVER try to out Tony Tony.

                    4. a bartender, a job that shouldn’t require more than a skill for mixing and serving drinks and having people want to pay you for doing so.


                      The state shouldn’t be involved AT ALL in this.

                  2. Since every dollar spent on college returns multiples, there’s no student loan crisis and castroettte here will have no trouble paying hers back without any federal involvement.

            4. As has already been pointed out by someone else, not everybody’s primary goal is “making money”. Some people have other goals that may include serving society in some way. Cancer doctors come to mind. Try practicing that profession without a degree, let me know how that goes.

              1. Are you seriously claiming that oncologists are poorly paid? My neighbors Maserati would beg to differ.

                1. Please read the conversation again. I said that if you aspire to work in certain careers you need a particular degree. I said nothing about pay.

                  1. As has already been pointed out by someone else, not everybody’s primary goal is “making money”. Some people have other goals that may include serving society in some way. Cancer doctors come to mind.

                    Care to double down?

                    1. You understand that it’s possible to to aspire to become a cancer doctor because you want to help patients, and it’s not all about the money, right? Or maybe you don’t. I gave an example of someone whose primary goal might be to serve society or help people. To suggest that money is always every cancer doctor’s true motivation is pretty low. Or you’re just projecting.

                    2. So the answer was clearly yes. Well, let’s keep playing then.

                      You gave a primary example that is very well compensated as an altruist who isn’t in it for the money. Since you claim that doctor’s don’t consider pay as very significant, perhaps you can explain why there’s such a shortage of primary care docs. Or maybe you can explain why the top med students tend to become orthopods? Surely it’s only because they want to help people. There’s certainly no strong incentive for them to skew that way.

                      Now what were you saying about naivete?

                    3. In fact, if you want to use an example take a social worker. They made shit money, and (surprise!) the ‘altruists’ that decide to become social workers have one of the highest turnover rates of any industry I can think of offhand. I doubt higher wages would even change it that much, but it might.

                      ‘Altruism’ is not a common human trait even while plenty of people will claim to have it until the rubber meets the road, and some of the most altruistic people out there are religious. Go figure, since rarely is religion allowed to exist in a communist or socialist state.

                      If you expect mankind to be self-interested as a baseline, you will very rarely be wrong. Wishes won’t change it, and neither will mass executions. Both have been tried.

          2. So your entire world view consists of NIH and NSF grants. Newsflash, the world is much bigger than that and not yet a command economy like she wants.

            1. Between this one and your other post, this must be straw man day for you. Nobody said anything about NIH and NSF grants.

              Since you’re in such direct opposition to my stance that government (directly or indirectly) forces regulation on entire industries and that they ultimately end up requiring degrees, I can only assume that you are pro-regulation. I can’t imagine why you’d defend this role of government so strongly, otherwise.

              1. No, you claimed that we live in a government-controlled economy. It’s not my fault you have short term memory issues or did not learn how to communicate clearly during your college years.

                They’re not exactly “freely accepted” in a government-controlled economy.

                1. You need to be clearer. Are you suggesting we don’t live in a government-controlled economy? And what on earth does that have to do with something so specific as NIH and NSF? You’re not suggesting that NIH/NSF is the *only* area where government exerts control, are you?

                  I’m spending way more time than I should trying to decipher what the fuck you’re talking about.

                  1. It’s called a ‘mixed economy’ and you’re somehow conflating that with socialism or government control of the economy. It’s ok though, plenty of people get that wrong. It’s not a binary measurement.

                    1. I’m not conflating anything. That you fail to acknowledge (or don’t want to acknowledge?) government control of the economy means this is a conversation going nowhere. Especially in a thread about higher education, which is a perfect model of fascism (see the definition in the link I posted above). I’m not making this up. Libertarians have written extensively about it here, here, and here. The entire pricing structure is manipulated, the payment structure is subsidized, the consumer’s (the employer, not the student) operations are subsidized, and delivery is forcibly controlled through protectionism.

                    2. Tripling down, I see. Let me guess: anything other than total anarchy is government control of the economy, but at least those socialists recognize the problem!

                      You’re right, given your seriously warped view of the world means this conversation is going nowhere.

                    3. Look up ‘mixed economy’ and notice that the means of production aren’t outright controlled by the government.

                      I agree that regulation is a backdoor control over an economy by the state, but let us not pretend that this equals outright government control of the economy either.

                      I think that we’d probably agree on fewer regulations, but the odd’s of getting the state out of the economy completely is unlikely given it’s overwhelming popularity.

      3. She’s a semi attractive, uneducated bartender.

        That is not true, but JesseAz is a half-educated, stale-thinking bigot.

        1. You keep playing that “bigot” card, even though it’s been worn to transparency. Oh, and you forgot “disaffected”. Or did you reserve that label exclusively for me.

          You’re a walking, non-sentient cliche machine.

        2. So anyone who doesn’t think like you is “half-educated” and a “bigot”? Got it.

      4. I’m hoping this means there are naked selfies of her somewhere. Out there.

    4. As popular as Santa Claus. Children love him unconditionally, adults know the hard truth behind his magic.

      1. What hard truth? Don’t be talking shit about Santa.

        1. It’s darn cold at the North Pole, and the elves don’t have a union.

          1. And have you read Mrs. Claus’s #MeToo column? Shocking stuff, especially the Rudolph incident.

            1. So this whole time, sliding down the chimney was only an euphemism?

          2. Where do new elves come from, then?

    5. Agreed. However, many would also argue that well-connected big business gets lots of things for free from the government. And they would be right. Then, the hardcore leftists come in and say they are just trying to balance things out for the powerless and the dispossessed.

    6. The idea that this is a win for socialism and not an obvious shift in demographics among tribal voters is laughable. He held the district for 10 terms without noticing that he needed to speak a little spanish because it went from almost no hispanics to 50% hispanics.

    7. Even as someone who was suckered into a lot of debt, I’m not in favor if forgiving student loans. Well, actually, I do have one condition where I would be happy to embrace loan forgiveness: that the Constitution be amended to forever ban any central bank like the Federal Reserve, that the Feds be explicitly forbidden from offering or backing any sort of loan, student or otherwise, and that the Federal government be forbidden from passing any law that sets interest rates for loans.

      What good would it be to forgive student loan debt, if we leave the door open for another generation of students to be suckered into massive debt?

      Of course, progressives would balk at the proposal. Instead, they would insist on Education for All, under the two seriously flawed assumptions that college education guarantees success, and that college education is the only way to succeed.

  2. Eh, it comes and goes.

    I’m any given decade, you can find the usual suspects distancing themselves from socialism in one moment, and proudly explaining its awesomeness in another.

    1. You’re claiming every generation has idiots? The main problem this generation is that Bernie convinced the idiots that Sweden was socialism.

      1. I wonder what a Swed would think if someone call their country socialist.

        1. Most Europeans are in denial about what socialism is.

          The Swedish worked with the Nazis above and beyond what neutrality entails.

          1. +1 IKEA

      2. Sweden is socialist. Sweden has state owned and partly owned companies.

        The mistake was believing that Sweden and the USA could ever be compared with regard to a semi-working welfare state.

        The USA has more national debt than Sweden’s entire GDP. The Swedes are relatively homogeneous people, even with a flood of immigrants. The USA has no race whereas Swedes are pretty much a nordic race of people.

        1. Shut up you moron. Sweden is the 7th richest country in the world (GDP) and is not socialist.

          You must be a Bernie-Bro.

          1. so?cial?ism
            noun: socialism
            1) a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
            2) policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
            3) (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

            Great argument Butt. Very convincing that Sweden is not the socialist state that they are.

            Here are some Nationally owned companies in Sweden and that makes Sweden socialist.
            List of Swedish Government enterprises

            1. There are US-owned corporations. Does that make the US socialist? Perhaps you see degrees of socialism but won’t admit it.

              1. Nah, lc doesn’t see degrees of anything. Among lefties.

                1. Everything is black and white with him. And brown, but he just assumes it’s black and moves on.

              2. Well, the entire health care industry, and the health care industry are fully regulated by the federal government in the USA.
                Vast sections of the energy sector are regulated to a point that can be called controlled.
                The financial sector is more regulated than free.
                So what do you think? You gonna believe the definition of socialist, or you lying eyes?

                1. As you point out Longtobefree, America has socialist control of many of the means of production.

                  Healthcare is a big one.

              3. What US Government owned company?

                1. FDIC?
                  Fannie and Freddie?
                  US Postal Service?

                  1. Fun facts: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were created by Congress but are publicly traded companies and are NOT owned by the government. Congress does give subsidies like TARP which is almost as bad.

                    Amtrak is a partly owned government and public enterprise which regularly gets government subsidies.

                    FDIC was also created by Congress but the FDIC and its reserves are not funded by public funds; member banks’ insurance dues are the FDIC’s primary source of funding. Its a government agency by trade but corporation by name.

                    Not totally US government owned but they certainly make the USA socialist. ObamaCare alone makes the USA socialist.

                    1. Fun fact: The US government is, by far, the largest and controlling shareholder of FNMA and FRMC. It controls the board, and it receives all the dividends.

                      The FDIC is a corporation owned by the government. It charges compulsory premiums to banks, so it is effectively a tax. It is also backed by the full faith and credit of the US government — if the fund runs out, costs will be covered by the treasury.

                    2. FDIC does have a credit tab with the Treasury. An an agency of the government it was designed to makes sure that people’s money in banks was covered, up to the limits. Banks pay a tax for that. Customer pay for that cost. It does not have stock, nor answer to any owners, nor sell anything- so it does sound like an agency to me.

                      Amtrak is not wholly owned by the government.

                      So we have FDIC, an agency of the federal government. We have Amtrak a partly government owned company.

                      Any others? So we have the socialist USA with no wholly owned companies but partly owned Amtrak and various socialist bailouts like TARP and Truman’s seizure of the steel mills.

          2. ” Sweden is the 7th richest country in the world (GDP) ”

            That’s unusually stupid. It ranks between 22nd and 24th.


              1. 7th/26th tomato tomatoe

          3. PB, you are he dumbest piece of shit to post here. So don’t call LC stupid. he has a million times your brainpower.

            1. You’re just a fucking brain-rotted redneck, Shitlard.

              I will stump you like a bug in any debate.

              I always take the classic liberal position. You are just a conservative – like Hayek called “slow-witted”.

              1. Butt, you don’t even know what a classic liberal position is let alone want to hold that position.

                You are about the Nanny and Police State under socialism.

              2. ROFL. You are a stupid low IQ progtard. My four year old would stomp you in any debate. I laugh at your stupidity every time you post.

        2. Sweden is more capitalist in some ways than the US. As a country, they are very impressive: 10 million people and one of the richest countries in the world. Their businesses are extremely well run. Swedes are very efficient.

          1. Plus they have ABBA.

            1. They have a ton of great music.

          2. Because their TOP MEN are efficient. That does not change the fact that Sweden is socialist.

          3. So 44% tax/GDP ratio leads to efficiency!

            1. And decades of stagnation. Sweden fell far from where it ranked 60 years ago.

              1. Then how did they end up with high incomes? You’re making shit up. What’s the average growth rate there?

              2. Tip: Start here.

                1. Pro tip: here.

                  Between the 70s and the 90s Sweden fell from fourth richest nation in the world to 13th. (Following free-market reforms at that time, they climbed back up to 10th by 2010

                  1. I see how the author did that. Checking OECD numbers. Click these two links:

                    Notice something about them?
                    There were a lot fewer countries ranked. Other countries were added. Comparing apples to zebras.


                    1. Also, other measures are important.

                    2. Other measures are important, but what was that about comparing apples and oranges? What is the poverty line in Sweden? What is the poverty line in the US? But of course we like to play games and look at income distribution as opposed to PPP. Because when you look at absolute incomes by quintile the narrative falls apart.

                      But wait, there’s more!

                      The CA that you claim is the shining beacon on the hill has the highest poverty rate in the country.

                      Guess you earned that Rice-a-roni treat!

                    3. So by adding more countries which were developing, the OECD rank for Sweden still fell 9 places. And you think that helps your argument?

        3. The Heritage Foundation ranks the economies of Sweden and Denmark as “more free” (i.e. more friendly to capitalism) than that of the United States, and Norway and Finland are not far behind.

  3. Calling yourself a “Democratic Socialist” is as stupid as calling yourself a “Republican Fascist”. You only appeal to the fringe elements in your party.

    1. They use the term in order to pretend to bring clarity to the no true Scotsman fallacy that Cuba, Venezuela, etc aren’t the same.

      1. Yes. They point to Denmark and away from Venezuela. And Denmark is among the most capitalist countries in the world.

        1. Denmark has state owned and partly companies.

          Its a socialist country.

            1. IIRC, Demark has some of, if not the lowest corporate tax rate in the world.

              1. From Heritage: “the top corporate tax rate is 23.5”

            2. Having lax socialist policies relating to trade does not change the fact that you are a socialist country.

              Socialism is the government control of the means of production..

              The Swedish Government outright controls numerous companies and had partial interests in numerous other companies. They have a welfare state which controls the means of production for healthcare, jobs, and charity.

              1. What percentage of both countries economy are run by SOEs?

                1. Also, not sure what you mean by “socialist trade policies”, unless you’re employing your usual shtick of redefining terms to fit your narrative, but both links I posted cover a helluva lot more than trade policies, but whatever.

                2. All it takes is 1 SOE.

                  Combine that will massive taxation, massive regulations, and massive welfare state and you get a socialist state.

                  1. Only 1? I bring you the post office. I bring you the various government-owned utilities. I bring you google, where you can find your own damned examples and try to deny that the US is socialist by your definition.

                    1. The post office is mentioned in the US Constitution. Its not a government owned business.

                      Its a government agency run like a business.

                      ObamaCare is a better example of how the USA is socialist. Come on man!

                    2. Only 1? I bring you the post office. I bring you the various government-owned utilities. I bring you google, where you can find your own damned examples and try to deny that the US is socialist by your definition.

                      The thing here is that the U.S. is veering into socialism and has been for about 100 years. Just because the shit is rolling slowly downhill doesn’t mean it isn’t rolling downhill.

                      Then again, I don’t really agree with the notion that just one nationally owned ‘corporation’ is necessarily socialism either. It exists on spectrum, not a single point, and the post office is a reasonable example I’d say. That said, the post office predates the concept of socialism so…I dunno.

                    3. BYODB, the USPS is a government agency run like a business- very badly. Government agencies do not make a country a socialist.

                      Having a business where you hold yourself out to the business community as a business but government bureaucrats are making business decisions and covering losses is socialism. Socialists do this to try and overcome the flaws of socialism.

                      How do you get people to work without incentives that they want? Create a government owned business and push out competition that would otherwise steal away workers because they can offer incentives workers want.

                      The military industrial complex in the USA is an example of how capitalists do it. The government needs military stuff. A private company forms to provide that stuff. The government buys the stuff at inflated prices to prop up the company or continues to buy the stuff even when not immediately needed.

                    4. BYODB, the USPS is a government agency run like a business- very badly. Government agencies do not make a country a socialist.

                      This is splitting hairs. The fact is that the USPS is not significantly different from a post-office being run in a socialist state. You want to redefine it to make it not true, but that’s pretty weak rhetoric.

                      And, again, the USPS predates Marx and socialism so…

                    5. And let’s not forget that USPS is in fact supported by the Constitution. There IS a Post Offices Clause.

                  2. IOW, you’re not even going to click on the links I sent. Ok.

                    1. MWG, I clicked on your links. #1 was economy rankings. #2 was Fraser Institute for Economic Freedom. That still does not change that Denmark has state controlled means of production which makes it socialist.

                      You picked those citations even though they don’t make much sense.

                      Ireland is ranked at 5 and England at 6. USA is 11 along with Canada. Denmark is 15. Australia is 9 and New Zealand is 3.

                      You don’t see any flaws in those few rankings that I mentioned above?

          1. Average income tax in Denmark is 60%. Think of that. Whatever you produce, 6 cuts go to someone else and only 4 are yours to keep. Oh, and the sales tax rate is 25%, so you really only have 30% of what you make to buy stuff and pay other taxes.

            1. I believe Americans will never go for that. Even the one’s that call themselves socialist. They are only considering the benefit side and not the cost to them side.

            2. Income tax in Denmark is all over the place with high deductions.


              1. Yet they pay for their huge welfare state somehow.

                The Euro does grow on trees after all.

                1. I’ll throw it in again down hear.

                  USA owned companies.

                  Post Office – just because it is in the Constitution doesn’t make it any less socialist.
                  Fannie and Freddy

                  1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were put into receivership by the Bushpigs in 2008 too.

                    (that means taken over by the government for you LoveCons)

                  2. Sometimes a Great Notion, I cannot be everywhere at once. I answered you up at your other comment. Under Fun Facts:

              2. You could just admit that he’s right and you’re wrong.

                1. I’m referring to Buttplug. LC is correct.

                  1. Butt has a tough time when it gets questioned outside the narrative from Democrat HQ.

            3. Not a fuck a dead thread or anything, but this is just BS. The top marginal tax rate in Denmark is 60%, and it applies to any income over $55,000. People who keep assuming that marginal tax rates apply to your entire income instead of the income in the tax brackets are complete morons.

              Also, the average household income in Denmark is less than $30,000, so it appears that the tax applies to the professional upper-middle class and the very rich.

    2. Sadly, the lunatic fringe of the Demcrat party is fast becoming the lunatic warp and weft.

    3. When you call yourself a Democrat fascist you appeal to every Democrat.

    4. You only appeal to the fringe elements in your party.

      So she is going to appeal to 95% of registered Democrats. Sounds like she has a bright future.

      1. Luckily for American there are less and less Democrats each year as that party pushes American workers out.

        The teachers will stick with it since the socialists always need propagandists.

        1. Look, its John and LoveCons – two conservatives who shit out of the same ass-hole.

          1. Aw, poor Butt had his little socialism fantasy blown out of the water.

          2. So change your handle.

          3. Plug, it must be tough for you to be so wrong all the time.

            1. I’m wrong only to wingnut Trumptards.

              Conservatives are idiots. Anti-science Bible Beating Big Gov war-mongers.

              Progs are stupid too but in a harmless way.

              1. Unless your Japanese-American and Progressive FDR unconstitutionally puts you in internment camps and threatens the SCOTUS to pack the court if they strike down his unconstitutional social and internment programs.

        2. People may wish to bitch about this comment — but the progs have decided that whites and men are the problem.

          They shouldn’t be stunned when they fail to get much traction with, by far, the largest voting bloc in the country.

          1. Which is why they want open borders. It’s a path to push for citizenship among Latinos and increase their voting block. Of course, some on this board think that our neighbors to the south that come from socialistic shitholes will magically become Libertarians once they cross the border.

            1. The LINOs advocating open borders already account for only a few being non-Democrats. The flood of immigrants changing demographics almost has worked. Trump was probably the last president before the pendulum moved to never return to keep the Constitution around.

              In one breath, lefties and open border people call Americans racists and bigots and horrible people. In the same breath they demand that non-Americans want to come to a country that is racists, bigoted, and horrible.

              Why is that? Because they are lying.

            2. Playing devil’s advocate, but what if the immigrants coming here are not a random sample of their society, but a self selected group more open to individualism?

        3. The teachers will stick with it since the socialists always need propagandists.

          This remains to be seen after the public sector union ruling yesterday. That decision is going to reverberate throughout the Democrat party I think. The vehicle progressives consistently used to get their way is SCOTUS and they have lost it for the time being. Without the judiciary, progressivism grinds to a halt.

          Expect to see violence when this is realized more fully.

          1. Yep. My wife taught in public schools in Texas for many years, and most of her colleagues hated the government and taxes. Maybe not a logically consistent position, but…

            1. I live in Texas, and while I love the state intellectual consistency isn’t necessarily one of our strong suits.

    5. The fringe elements are the ones RUNNING your party, son.

    6. Why don’t you just cut to the chase and call yourself what you are: A communist piece of shit?

    7. Calling yourself a “Democratic Socialist” is as stupid as calling yourself a “Republican Fascist”. You only appeal to the fringe elements in your party.

      Hardly stupid if you’ve won your primary in a D+29 district. And Comrade Sanders came pretty close to beating Hillary in the primary.

      Socialism is a bad idea, but it might be a good political strategy for some.

  4. Two female DSA candidates are going to the PA state legislature next year. They beat two long-time incumbents.

    They’ll be in a chamber that has a huge Republican majority in charge, but still.

  5. between 2009 and 2015, a group of Republicans that appeared like they wanted to shrink government stole some power from the old guard,

    And how quickly they were squashed by the Trump Party.

    1. Or absorbed. You don’t even learn anything when you watch FOX news.

      1. Does Plug have a learning disability?

        1. Its far more serious than a learning disability.

  6. “as a libertarian who has been through the whole an-idea-whose-time-has-finally-come experience: good luck with that”

    Boy I’d like to be a fly on the wall when The Jacket reads this one… Robby’s in for it now.

    1. Nick: Modernity, Robby. God damn, modernity! We are witnessing the end of baby boomer politics and the coalescing of the “libertarian moment”

      Robby: I don’t know what that means. Your whole sentence tells me nothing other than the fact that you really like taglines

      1. Soave isn’t my favorite Reason contributor, but I still don’t want to see him get Krayewski’d.

      2. As a Gen Xer, I feel like this interaction adequately captures the dynamic of Boomers trying to understand Millennials through the lens of Boomers or understand themselves through the lens of Millennials or whatever.

        1. Boomer’s lens are so skewed too. I think its why they cannot fathom that other Americans are not socialists.

        2. Boomers trying to understand Millennials through the lens of Boomers or understand themselves through the lens of Millennials

          It’s the latter – Boomers trying to understand other people is not a thing.

    2. It’s been a while since Nick wrote a “libertarian moment” article. I wonder why?

      1. How long does a moment last? Maybe it’s over?

        1. I’d say after the crash-and-burn of the Libertarian party during an election where arguably they had the best shot that they’ve had in a long time (maybe the best shot ever?) it’s pretty good proof that libertarianism isn’t widely popular after all.

          Some parts of it might be, but taken as a set of principles it is not. Hell, I’m still not convinced that the things people agree with are actually even agreed to for the same reasons so that’s a pretty big problem for the brand.

  7. the red rose of socialism

    Which is actually a white rose that is covered with the blood of kulaks and hoarders and wrecker who needed to be taken care of.

    1. …and stolen out of some hard working gardener’s flower beds.

    2. watch out for the those thorns

      1. The thorns remind you that socialism always costs you blood. Always.

  8. There is no such thing as a “democratic socialist”.

    There is only one kind of socialism and it’s all slavery – pure and simple.

    1. Totalitarian socialism: your executioner is appointed for you

      Democratic socialism: you get to elect your executioner


        1. I AM SINISTAR

          1. I’m ambidextrous.

            1. I’m ambisinestrous.

          2. As long as you are not a sinistral. Those fuckers are scary.

        2. StayPuft Marshmellow Man

          1. Marshmellow

            Suddenly I think I may know what being roasted in the depths of a sloar feels like.

            1. I was going to rush and get graham crackers and chocolate and then I noticed it said “Marshmello”

      2. If you like your executioner you can keep your executioner!

    2. Yes, there is “democratic” socialism. It’s when people at least vote before taking all you stuff.

      1. Actually, the vote is just over which stuff to take first.

      2. Which, in short, means there is functionally no daylight between ‘democratic socialism’ and just plain-jane ‘democracy’.

  9. “Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t appear crazy.”

    Apart from the fact that she’s a socialist in the 21st Century

    1. ^ This.

      She appears pretty damn crazy to me.

      1. That means she’s probably an epic fuck though.

        1. But in the morning she’ll say she was raped.

          1. Or stab you.

            Anyone who has dated a Hispanic woman….ammirite guys?

    2. Apart from the fact that she’s a socialist in the 21st Century

      Also, New York. I know not everybody there is certifiably crazy but she aspires to represent the majority.

      1. Voter turnout was less than 12%. 88% of the voters couldn’t be bothered to turn out.
        She won by 4,000 votes. It’s a victory of mobilization over laziness.

        1. Again, she’s an ethnic Christine O’Donnell.

        2. Voter turnout was less than 12%. 88% of the voters couldn’t be bothered to turn out.
          She won by 4,000 votes. It’s a victory of mobilization over laziness.

          Exactly this. The incumbent skipped at least one debate and generally didn’t bother noticing that there was even a challenger in the primary. The fact she barely won isn’t a roaring approval of democratic socialism but rather the ambivalence of voters in an essentially one-party area.

          1. Maybe the GOP candidate can beat her.

            1. Perhaps. Depends on how many half-educated bigots reside in that district. Check the white purity and superstition levels, too.

              1. Aren’t you busy heading out to harass members of Team Trump? I hope so. Your just the kind of moron to lose his shit and overstep. Hopefully going after someone who is packing.

                that will be a fitting end to trash like you. Put down by your conservative betters.

    3. Crazy, or just completely ignorant of the last 100 years or so of world history? Not that it matters.

      1. I am going to bet on both, though as you point out, it really doesn’t matter.

  10. So-called socialist ideas might be more popular than you think…

    To those who’ve never cracked open a history or economics book.

    1. History is bunk.

    2. That’s an awful lot of people, Eugene.

    3. They had history books… Just it was the ones leftists introduced into the curriculum. The ones full of ignorance.

    4. Why do you think Europe is attacking the internet they way they are?

      To rewrite socialist history or erase it completely from people’s consciousness.

    5. “History” is written by the winners, who are traditionally oppressors (white men). Plus the very word history is patriarchal.

      Economics relies heavily on and understanding of mathematics, which is also, like the hard sciences, a construct of the white male patriarchy.

      You’d better get woke if you don’t want to end up against a wall with the other wreckers, hoarders, and kulaks.

      1. “Plus the very word history is patriarchal.”

        I larfed. Thanks.

        1. That’s an old one. Feminists call it herstory. Transies call it zeestory. I call it zoo story.

          1. I had no idea. I love y’all. I learn some stuff everyday.

  11. She also wants to abolish ICE, but that’s not really a socialist-specific idea: we libertarians want to abolish ICE, too

    And that’s exactly why I, as a libertarian, am celebrating her victory. It’s clear that the way forward for libertarians is to find common ground with progressives. As Ocasio-Cortez demonstrates, many young Democrats are moving toward the Koch / Reason position on immigration. We libertarians should return the favor by giving serious consideration to their ideas on issues like free college, or guaranteed jobs programs, or common sense gun safety legislation.


    1. We sense an official Woketarian nomination is in the offing

  12. Robby, you’re no libertarian, you’re a leftist libertine. There is a difference.

    1. Yes – Peanut Gallery Rule #1. You can only be libertarian if you vote and support the GOP.

      Robby probably never read that rule.

      1. Robby’s not a Libertarian, so he doesn’t support Libertarians or Republicans.

      2. No, but he, and most of the other Reason staff, constantly virtue signal the same dumb crap progressives do all the time, even when they are NOT the sole or de facto libertarian positions.

        That said, anybody who sees the Democrats as comparably bad to the Republicans in 2018 is drunk, stoned, retarded, or all of the above. You could make a case in 1970, or 1990, or even maybe 2005 or something that they both had pros and cons… But the pros from the left nowadays are LITERALLY limited to basically legalizing weed… There are no other even moderately important issues they’re sane or decent on.

        The GOP ain’t my perfect political party, but they’re orders of magnitude better than the Democrats in 2018.

        1. You can spot a non-Libertarian like Robby because they need to virtue signal to the left.

          Libertarians have to fight the nonsense of Lefties, Republicans, and anarchists.

        2. You obviously are full of shit then.

          The Democratic Party leadership (not progressives) has recently been more free trade (TPP), cut spending (the Budget Control Act of 2011), been more fiscally responsible (cut the trillion dollar deficits in half before Trump brought trillion dollar deficits back) and been more anti-war than the GOP (see the Iran anti-nuke deal).

          I am talking reality and not the strawman progressive in your head.

          1. 1) TPP was not free trade nor more free trade.
            2) Republican controlled Congress in 2011
            3) no Obama cuts to deficit
            4) Obama got us into new wars with Libya, Yemen, Syria, Congo, Niger, Chad, Somalia, Pakistan. LBJ and Obama are the only presidents to have continuous war through their presidency.

            Every time you talk, Butt, you use strawmen and lack of reality to babble.

            1. Also, I believe the Dems controlled both houses of Congress the last two years of the Bush admin when that trillion dollar deficit occurred.

              Not that I think either party is better at fiscal responsibility.

            2. You’re an idiot who only regurgitates Brat-fart Trump propaganda.

              TPP cut 18,000 tariffs on US made goods. It is the best FTA in US history. The rest of your shit is factually wrong too.

              Go back to Brat-fart you little Trump-Nazi.

              1. Cite it then Butthole.

                TPP didnt cut shit because it was never enacted as the Senate never ratified it.

              2. You’re talking about the 11 NON progressives left in the Democratic party… The ones that will probably all be run out before the mid terms.

                If you can’t see the writing on the wall you’re an idiot. They’ve been slowly shifting HARD left basically since Obama got in, and since he got out it’s gone full tilt.

                I don’t like Trump blowing up the deficit, but it was mostly from a tax cut, not new spending. There is a difference between having a deficit because of more spending or tax cuts. Practically everything else he has done has been comparable or better than you could expect even a moderate Dem to do.

                If the Dems keep going left, which they seem to be, it will be even less of a contest between them in another year or two. I’ll take Trump ANY day of the week over universal health care, tax increases, amnesty + opening up even more spots for unskilled immigration, etc etc etc.

                I’m a right-libertarian, so most of the biggest gripes with Trump left-libertarians have with him don’t bother me too much.

        3. But the pros from the left nowadays are LITERALLY limited to basically legalizing weed…

          Even this is a bit skewed. FDR officially criminalized MJ in the first place and the first decriminalization legislation under the Nixon Presidency has Oregon Governor McCall’s (R) signature a the bottom. It’s not like the drug war ended every time we elected a Democrat and really Carter is the only Democratic President (since FDR) you can point to and say “That guy was unquestionably pro-marijuana.”

        4. And Obama didn’t even do that.

          1. Exactly, CE. The Democrats had the majority in Congress to repeal the Controlled Substances Act and they didn’t.

            Because Democrats dont like to reign in government power, they like to make exceptions that you need to pay them for.

        5. The GOP ain’t my perfect political party, but they’re orders of magnitude better than the Democrats in 2018.

          If you like authoritarianism (drug war, voter suppression, immigration, abortion), intolerance (racism, Muslim ban, misogyny), and superstition (snowflake-coddling special privileges, abortion), you belong with the Republican Party.

          You can call yourself a libertarian rather than a conservative if it makes you feel better. Faux libertarians are still welcome among Republicans.

          1. If you like authoritarianism (drug war, voter suppression, immigration, abortion), intolerance (racism, Muslim ban, misogyny), and superstition (snowflake-coddling special privileges, abortion), you belong with the
            Democratic Party


      3. Yes – Peanut Gallery Rule #1. You can only be libertarian if you vote and support the GOP.

        Is that what you believe? Because it has nothing to do with what I said.

    2. Honestly, I kind of feel just a little bit sorry right now for Rico, Lizzie, Suderman, and all the rest of the frauds here.

      Can you imagine how hard it is for them to try and keep it together at the moment given the events of the last week or so? They’re all having nervous breakdowns right now, but they can’t make it TOO obvious.

      1. They all shifted to safe space pieces. Did you notice that?

        They refuse to outright admit that their positions have been rejected by the SCOTUS every time.

        They refuse to admit that the Constitution does not support most of their contentions.

        This is evidence that many of the staff are lefties hiding as Libertarians. I suspect because it was the only safe space for pro-drug and pro-gay lefties because the Democratic Party was against both.

      2. You never see Sudderman much anymore. I think maybe he had some kind of a breakdown.

        1. I assume Vox has welcomed him warmly. Or a new mass effect came out. Or maybe he’s with all the fellow kids fortnite’ing.

  13. perhaps this majority minority district just really wanted to send a young woman of color to Congress instead of an aging white man

    That Queens district is 25% white. The Archie Bunkers deserted in droves decades ago.

    1. Because they aren’t as dumb as Norman Lear wanted us to believe.

      1. Archie Bunker was an amazing man. So much horse sense with that guy!

        I should rewatch that show actually…

        1. How can you argue with this:
          “Any body that lives in a commune is a commune-ist.”

        2. I watch it all the time. It’s as poignant and relevant today as it was then. And fucking hilarious.

    2. Thank god changing demographics from mass immigration won’t have an effect on how people vote, our culture or form of government!

      Oh wait… They vote based on the color of the candidate… And almost always for only leftists of that color… Well shit.

      1. Most people vote based on identity politics – left and right. Think about the Bible-Beating freaks in the GOP who vote based on a dusty old myth and empty belief system.

        1. All but lefties vote based on being scared of the lefty socialists that are trying to murder you and your family if you dissent.

        2. Yes, I was just making this point with Senator Doug Jones the other day….

          Except that “belief systems” aren’t “identity politics”, I think you nailed this squarely. DAMN CHRISTIANS!

          1. Get all the discussions with Doug Jones in before November 2020. He’ll be voted out then.

          2. Even some Republicans don’t like child molestors.

            Hard to believe, I know. The party of Denyy Hastert and all.

            1. Nobody likes you as a child molester either.

              I am not an alabaman, so I did not vote for either one of those clowns.

              Doug Jones is a Democrat which supports murdering dissenters of socialism. Roy Moore was accused of messing with a girl, not his wife, 30 years ago, by the girl that has not pursued anything since the election.

              Roy Moore was also a RINO and religious nut, so many reason to note vote for him.

              Doug Jones won because almost 50% of Republicans that voted for Trump never went to the polls not because Doug Jones was anything but a shitbag socialist.

            2. Even some Republicans don’t like child molestors.

              Whereas Democrats and socialists just pretend that child molesters don’t exist in their ranks–the usual conflict between reality and ideology that leftists experience.

        3. An empty belief system that gave us the golden rule which is, to date, one of the best social rules ever devised by mankind.

          I think your definition of ’empty’ is a curious one.

        4. The Bible belt voted for a New Yorker, when they could have voted for a good southern gal from Arkansas. So Palin is wrong, again, about identify politics

        5. “Most people vote based on identity politics – left and right. Think about the Bible-Beating freaks in the GOP who vote based on a dusty old myth and empty belief system.”

          Thats funny coming from an amoral, sociopathic piece of shit like you. Who slavishly worships a cult of sociopathy that exalts Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Pol Pot, etc..

        6. Most people vote based on identity politics – left and right. Think about the Bible-Beating freaks

          Beating the Bible, like beating your meat, is an activity, not an identity.

          who vote based on a dusty old myth and empty belief system.

          It’s ironic that people who claim to believe in reason and science suffer so deeply from the delusion that reason and science is the most effective way of acting in the world.

          Christianity survived for two thousand years because it has benefits for its followers. No belief system, least of all those produced by atheistic philosophers has worked anywhere near as well yet.

        7. I agree that most people vote, at least in some cases, as a result of identity politics… But try explaining that to the staff of Reason! They refuse to accept what all statistics, and everybody’s lying eyes, show to clearly be true.

          This indisputable fact is one of the main reasons I’m against mass immigration, especially of unskilled people. They WILL vote for things native born people are not in favor of. If this neighborhood were still mostly white working class people, with the way things are politically nowadays, there probably would have been a conservative elected. Or at least a sane centrist Democrat. Instead we get a Socialist minority woman. This is what demographic change has in store for America, and I just with open borders people would accept the real world outcome of the policy they propose… But they refuse.

  14. Hmmm. I gotta say, in many respects, we DO seem to having a libertarian moment. Or a “libertarian-ish” moment. Or, perhaps, a “more libertarian moment than I had any right to dream about on November 7th, 2016.”

    Yep, I can easily point to a bunch of stuff not going our way, but see plenty that IS. We’re never going to bat 100, and batting .300 beats the hell out of batting .005, which is what was in store.

    1. The Democratic Party is imploding and Libertarians can step in and be the other party that challenges the Republicans.

      1. That would be nice! Personally I think the proper range of political discussion should be between what we would consider line towing conservatives nowadays, and purist libertarians. If that was the acceptable range of policy positions the world would be an amazing place.

        1. We have a lot of LINOs like Robby Soave, Nick Gillespie, Weld, and others who are trying to undermine this shift as they see their power of lefty propaganda dwindling.

          1. Damn LINOs!

            It’s almost like there’s no standardization or rules for who gets to call oneself a libertarian!

            Like, even individuals who love a document that begins “we the people” – and includes the 3/5ths rule – can call themselves libertarians!

            Sheer lunacy!

            1. There actually are fundamental standards for being Libertarian.

              Support the US Constitution. Free market. Maximum Liberty under Rule of Law. Small and limited government. Property rights. Maximum freedoms under the Constitution.

            2. Yup. The Constitution did allow slavery and then it didn’t.

              It also allows and protects freedom of speech, press, and assembly; right to keep and bear Arms, right to jury trial, right to non-excessive bail, Due Process, Equal Protection, and much much more.

              1. Yup. The Constitution did allow slavery and then it didn’t.

                A straight reading of the constitution and the BoR seems obvious at face value that slavery should have never been considered constitutional. It’s one of those things that reminds us that a piece of paper can’t, on it’s own, bring about the rule of law over the rule of men.

                1. I can see that argument but slavery was very real at the time of its drafting and a very real deal breaker around its ratification.

                  There literally would not be the United State of America that we know had there not been a slavery compromise. Some of the Founders tried to get the kicked can to rest after the year 1808 but it was not to be for almost 60 more years.

                  I think all the hardship has made the USA a better country and Americans stronger. If some king had just given us some land to start a free country, America might not be what it is.

                  If we can just keep lefties from trying to sow seeds of hatred and cut government, we might make it another 242 years.

            3. Madness! I usually don’t call myself a straight up libertarian when talking to people. I usually say I’m libertarian leaning, mostly libertarian, or some other couching statement in there.

              There is such a thing as a purist libertarian, and they’re mostly morons. A purist reading of things basically gives you anarcho-capitalism, which will never happen in the real world. I’m not that guy.

              But there ought to be SOME lines, or perhaps a score card, for anybody who can be considered even libertarian leaning. I think many of the “LINO” people mentioned are on the edge. They almost all tend to be left-libertarians too. They show the ability to compromise on major issues any old time if they’re things right-libertarians hold dear, but be 100% absolutist on all the stuff that mainstream lefties tend to like.

              They can call themselves what they like, but I prefer my own phrase I came up with for them which is “Leftists who kind of understand economics a little bit.” I think it covers most of the Reason staff pretty well.

      2. I don’t think they are imploding…I think they are going to rally around Bernie Sanders-flavored socialism, and I think they will unfortunately get a fair amount of mileage and energy from that. As the saying goes this will be “A damn close run thing”, and I am not at all certain of the outcome.

  15. She won because the party machine put its stamp of approval on a young Latina in a district full of young Latinx. It’s really that simple. It’s not like either party has any principles they were trying to follow or something.

    1. The “party machine” was all in for Crowley, the #4 Dem in power and future replacement of Pelosi.

      1. Less than 12% turned out to vote. Methinks too much is being made of this election. Fringe candidates do well when turnout is low as their smaller base of support are disproportionately fired up to actually show up on voting day. Crowley, #4 in charge, who hadn’t even seen a challenger in 10 years, probably felt safe phoning it in when he should have made more effort to get 4,000 more people to show up for him.

        Just as way too much is made about Bernie. He went 12-6 in caucus “states” (avg turnout 18,000) but was 11-29 in primary “states” (avg turnout 370,000). I know that adds up to more than 50 states but democrats count funny.

        1. ^ This

        2. True, but at a policy level, it feels like Bernie won. Free education for all, medicare for all, opposition to trade, and a whiff of slavery reparations are in the air. It feels like they are going hard left at the DNC level, and this will be the new tables stakes to be a D.

          Perhaps I am reading too much in to it.

          1. Good points. Crazy talk is being normalized

            1. They think talk is equal to action which is why they think saying something bad to them is the same a physical assault.

              It’s a delusional position that allows them to believe they are doing better than what they are.

        3. NYers still haven’t gotten used to the Congressional primary’s being in June when the rest of the primaries are still in Sept.

        4. I wonder what kind of rule the Democratic Party there will come up with to prevent this kind of thing happening again.

      2. The “party machine” was all in for Crowley

        OK. I still maintain that the voters weren’t choosing her for her politics.

  16. “…we libertarians want to abolish ICE, too….”

    NO. We Libertarians don’t. Forcing open borders is not a Libertarian principle at it violates the enumerate power of the US Government to regulate immigrants.

    1. Go back to you fucking Neo-Nazi.

      1. I am not a socialist, so how could I be a Nazi?

        You remember Butt, Nazis are socialists.

        1. Beat me to it by 4 seconds

          1. I am usually right there to bash Butt’s socialist ideals right into the ground with all the dead Polish at Katyn Forest.

        2. And when people criticize Nazis, it’s their economic arrangement we’re criticizing, right?

          1. Nazis also used fascism to control society which is what lefties do by violating international law.

            Commit genocide to squash dissent.

            1. Wait, so they were fascists or socialists?

              1. Different spellings for the ingredients.

              2. Nazis are Socialist and Fascists.

                Just like Italian Fascists were Socialists.

                Just like Progressives are Fascists and Socialists.

                Just like Democrats are Socialists.

          2. And when people criticize Nazis, it’s their economic arrangement we’re criticizing, right?

            LoveCons is fine with Aryan Supremacy and genocide. He just hates Nazis owned some industries.

            1. Who would really care about what racist aryan socialists wanted to do with their factories until they declared war on the USA.

      2. Never forget that Nazi’s were socialists.

        1. Bullshit. They were Aryan Supremacists.

          There is no Marxist in “giving to each according to their needs” in killing Jews/gypsies and non-Aryans.

          Wingnuts have been trying to distance themselves from their Nazi brethren for years yet every Neo-Nazi in the country is a Republican.

          1. Butt, they were aryan racist socialists who used German nationalism to try and rule the world.

            Russian Communists used nationalism to try and Commie-fy and conquer the World.

            “Wingnuts have been trying to distance themselves from their Nazi brethren for years….”

            You’re right on that. Lefties and their socialist brethren have been trying to distance themselves from the Nazis for years. Pretty much since 1941, when Hitler turned on Stalin and violated the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact.

            Remember when Nazi Germany and Communist USSR had a pact to seize Poland, Baltic States, Finland, Bessarabia, etc?

            1. ‘try to’ not ‘try and’

              1. Thanks grammar Nazi. 🙂

          2. NAZI is an acronym for National Socialist..

            Case closed.

            1. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party.
              Please give full credit.

              Never forget the workers.
              Forgetting the workers is where the US democrat party is going to fail. Most workers actually have a job and pay taxes.

            2. And the Republic of North Korea are Republicans.

              The Nazis hated the real socialists, the communists, you idiot. It was just a name.

              1. Nope.

                It was just two factions of leftists fighting each other – after one had double crossed the other.

                As I said – the case is closed.

                1. Yeah, the case is closed.

                  Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist,[1][2] and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.[3]

                  The term is often associated with Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views.[5] These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[6][7] nation, state[8] or ultraconservative traditional social institutions

                  And you lost. Nazis are far right authoritarians.

                  1. They were socialist.

                    It broke many hearts at the NYT when they had to choose between hitler and stalin, but in the end they went with the better killer.

                  2. Why Nazism is Socialism

                    “What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.”

                    “But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. “

              2. North Korea is a Republic. Their provinces vote for their government. That Communist Party government gives allegiance to the Kim family. They are even Democratic because the people vote.

                North Korea is not free and the elections are most assuredly not fair.

                Nazis hated socialism that did not fit with racial National Socialism. They also hated the Russian Commies for International Socialism and the fact that they were slavs. Nazis didnt really hate nordic socialism nor Italian Socialism nor Spanish socialism.

              3. Furthermore Butt, the Nazis teamed up with non-Nazis socialist in the Reichstag to form a government that got Hitler appointed Chancellor.

                The Nazis never held a clear majority in the Rechstag to force Hitler’s assent to Chancellor. The non-Nazis socialists helped the Nazis.

                **Helped the Nazis** and Hitler become Chancellor.

                The Hitler turned on all political rivals after he gained power. Hitler entered into a pact with socialists in Russia and turned on them too after the USSR got a benefit from **helping Hitler**

          3. There are wingnuts on both sides of the political spectrum, such as James T. Hodgkinson, who wounded five people at the Republican softball practice. An ardent Bernie Sanders fan. That was pretty much how the Nazi’s and Fascist dealt with those who had a different political view point. Let’s not forget the Democrats owned the slaves, plantations, founded the KKK and lead the Eugenic movement, which it still practice’s to this day through Planned Parenthood.

            If Jimmy Kimmel read the Nazi Party platform out loud at the Academy Awards he’d get a standing ovation. Here’s just few: Universal Health Care, Free Housing to the homeless. Confiscation of guns from the civilian population. Free college Education to all. The state will organize all curricula of all educational establishments. Create jobs for the jobless. Eliminate poverty and hunger. Naturalization of all trust. Profit sharing in all large industries. A generous increase in old-age pensions. Creation and maintenance of a sound middle class. Communalization of large stores. The expropriation of land without compensation to the owners, for the common purpose. The prohibition of all speculation in land.
            The state will provide maternity welfare centers. Prohibit all juvenile labor. etc…

      3. Believing in the concept of Nation-States does not a Nazi make dip shit… Nor does believing in rule of law.

        1. “”Nor does believing in rule of law.”‘

          I saw an article where she said she supports the impeachment of Trump because nobody is above the law. I wonder if she supports jail for those violating the law by illegal entry?

            1. A common thread these days is the law applies to people I don’t like.

              1. Sadly so. This has become HUGE on the left, but even a few on the right have gone down that road.

                The inconsistencies with the writers at Reason on that type of thing is pretty front and center. States rights for Mexicans and weed! Until some state wants to do something that isn’t proggie enough…

          1. Guarantee those fuckers never supported the impeachment of Clinton for lying under oath.

            Democrats are crooks, liars, and hypocrites.

            1. And I guarantee that the ones defending Trump never complained that the Starr investigation went on too long.

              1. The Starr investigation had a particular statutory basis. What’s the statutory basis for the Mueller appointment again?

              2. Should be more about trying to curb overzealous prosecutors regardless of the target?

                The partisan BS just allows for the continuation. Well if they did it to us, we can do it to them. That will never get us the reform we need. We can’t do anything about the past, but we can do something about the present.

                1. More and more is coming out about Manafort. He was deeply in debt to Putin connected Russians, and he volunteered and ran Trump’s campaign while trying to get whole with Deripaska.

                  You’d think Trump would be worried about his campaign being compromised like that. Unless he already knows what happened and is vulnerable to it.

                  Benghazi ran 3 years and had no indictments. Mueller’s been one year and has multiple guilty pleas.

                  Mueller is in the executive branch, reporting through the established DOJ structure. That’s how these things work.

                  1. Are there any non-Putin connected businesses in Russia? Inquiring minds want to know.

                    It’s a oligarchy, if not outright state control of everything. By this measure every President since Nixon has been a traitor by doing business with China.

                    Oh well. Maybe Mueller will one day get a guilty plea on something that doesn’t outright discredit them as a witness but the fact remains that we’re still a bit unclear on what crime specifically is being investigated. There appears to be no specific crime that he was appointed to investigate, which is odd. ‘Collusion’ is not a specific violation of a specific law and could be the widest net ever cast for a special council in American history.

    2. “”…we libertarians want to abolish ICE, too….”

      NO. We Libertarians don’t. Forcing open borders is not a Libertarian principle at it violates the enumerate power of the US Government to regulate immigrants.”

      I second that – Reform ICE, sure – abolish and open the borders? WTF!!!! What happened to the party of fiscal conservatism and keeping the government out of my fucking business, secular and sacred? What happened to the party that cared about the constitution and governments limited role in most things, but an important role in protecting this nation? Media and Democratic sensationalism notwithstanding, most people want secure borders – better immigration handling, sure, but secure fucking borders and some fucking logic and common sense in who we let into this country. Why are Libertarians hooking on to this losing idea? Are we trying to be Democrat-lite?

  17. “the rising salience of democratic socialism”

    Outside of the coastal leftist enclaves, this will be viewed as lunacy. It will be the last nail in the coffin of the DNC in much of the country. There aren’t many places where an anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-white candidate is going to get votes from people voting in their best interests.

    She’ll win because of the demographics of her district (yet another reason most people don’t want open borders), but the Democrats are going to lose seats in both Houses in November.

    1. Lefties still think Americans would support Bernie and his type of socialism.

      Bernie would have lost more states than Hillary did.

      1. ^ This. Though the constant repeating of Bernie’s wish list of free stuff does have a numbing effect by implying that it’s worthy of consideration.

        1. When it does get consideration, it ends at the how are we going to pay for it stage.

          The lower house of NYS voted for universal healthcare. It’s gone nowhere because the price tag is equal to the entire state’s budget.

        2. Some people think it’s going to be paid for by rich people, but in reality that’s not how it works.

          1. Not at all how it works.
            Those rich people are reclining in the sun of Florida.

            1. Let deficits pay for it.

              1. States are at least bound by the Constitutional limitation that they cannot print money.

                Otherwise almost every state would have a state debt in the trillions too.

            2. Rich people have far more resources to vote with their feet.

              1. That’s why there aren’t any rich people in New York and San Francisco, right?

                1. That’s why Connecticut is going broke and New Jersey is following. Rich Wall Street types moved to Connecticut when it was a tax haven from New York. Many of them own homes in Florida or South Carolina. Avoiding CT taxes only requires a trip to the Florida DMV.

                2. That’s why there aren’t any rich people in New York and San Francisco, right?

                  Well, that is why a lot of ‘rich people’ are leaving New York. San Franciscans I don’t think are fleeing at the same rate, but notably San Francisco isn’t a massive shit hole urban center like New York either. Perfect weather all year will have that effect. (Or, at least, ‘perfect’ from the standpoint of someone who lives in Texas.)

                3. The richest people in the USA dont live in San Francisco nor NY.
                  Richest people in each state

                  While CA and NY have an overwhelming number of rich people at ~22,900, those states cut into their wealth at higher rates than rich people in other states.
                  Number of wealthy residents per state

                  1. The richest person in NY (who may be familiar to Reason readers) is worth double the richest guy in Florida. 20% more than the richest person in Texas. And the richest guy in the Bay Area is worth half again as much as that.

                    And the top five cities on the other link are all in high tax areas. Is it that rich people move to high tax areas or that high tax areas create rich people?

                4. “”That’s why there aren’t any rich people in New York and San Francisco, right?””

                  It’s why rich people have been leaving NY.

                  1. Also, whether they leave or not does not change the truth of my point. Rich people have more resources and can vote with their feet in ways poor people cannot.

                  2. That just opens more room for others to make a lot of money. Rich people are replaceable.

                    If a rich person moves out of New York, they will lose efficiency. Big cities are more efficient for making money. Then, someone else will take over the market opening, and become rich. How many billionaires moved to Alabama?

                    1. Alabama sucks but a bunch moved to Georgia and Florida.

                    2. “”If a rich person moves out of New York, they will lose efficiency””

                      You say that as if rich people haven’t been leaving NY.

                    3. Biggest flaw with socialism: How to keep the people from fleeing socialism.

                    4. Most haven’t. Some retire. People have been retiring to Florida for generations.

                      More people get rich in NYC and SF than leave.

                    5. Many of you may be missing the fact that complex tax structures can shelter you from a LOT of bullshit. You can “live” in NYC 1 day under half the year, and not pay shit there for one. You could also live there year round, so owe taxes there, but not show shit all of taxable income in that jurisdiction. Like saaay have your corporate HQ in Texas, which has no income tax.

                      Etc etc etc. This is what the mega wealthy do. But yeah, NYC and SF being centers for certain industries, there is a lot of wealth floating around there. But much of it is sheltered, and many people eventually peace out too. The ones who really bear the brunt are the upper middle class, who have been bailing out of these places as they’ve got worse and worse. They can’t tax dodge for the most part, and the cost of living increases have killed them. So they’re leaving.

                      I’m leaving Seattle for this very reason. I could go to almost anywhere in the country that isn’t a trendy coastal city and buy a fucking huge mansion with what I make here, and it’s just generally a shithold now too. So I’m bailing. The best off people in the USA in terms of REAL standard of living, adjusted for taxes and cost of living, live in the midwest, south, and southwest. Look it up!

      2. Bernie would have won. American voters love free stuff.

    2. … the Democrats are going to lose seats in both Houses in November.

      Wrong. The Democrats will win a majority in the House of Representatives.


      1. I’d bet you money but I’ve heard how the lefties welsh here.

        1. That is “welch”, thank you.


  18. Just keep going farther and farther to the left my pretties… And keep going out of your way to insult white people and stir up racial resentment… It will be a GREAT strategy for you in midwest swing states…

    It’s still too early to tell, but these idiots might do a repeat of 2016 where they blow what should have been a slam dunk. If they keep saying/doing all this crazy shit they might just LOSE a ton of seats, instead of win like they probably should have. We’ll see…

    1. Pelosi’s slogan of ‘make America beautiful again’ didn’t go over well with some of the Team D faithful.
      How dare she imply that America was ever beautiful!

      1. God they’re nuts…

        The truth is most of the modern left really, REALLY does just hate everything about America. EVERYTHING. I can’t for the life of me understand why they don’t all just move. They basically want the USA to be Canada/Europe. So why don’t they just move there? I should add in that they also don’t really want there to be white people, because white people are all evil, but they can displace the population of Canada a lot easier than the USA sooo…

  19. So, what’s the counter-strategy? Introduce her supporters to a calculator with an emphasized MINUS key? See you in the bread line, folks.

  20. I’m not sure “comrade”, where you get your information. Some new version of Pravda? Vox, perhaps?

    Democratic socialism, the ideology with which Ocasio-Cortez identifies, appears to be having a political moment

    Indeed. A final moment. One that begins with a death-rattle and ends with this garbage ideology rotting on the midden of history, too vile for even the flies to touch.

    Libertarians, actual libertarians, the ones that pursue libertarian principles, HAVE been having quite a moment with a president that, while not libertarian himself, seems to DO things libertarians and libertarian leaning Republicans actually want with a fair bit of regularity.

    You and yours, on the other hand, side with folks like this commie piece of crap and therefore are NOT having that same moment.

    1. It is kind of amazing how much of a bubble Soave must live in. How can someone be that out of touch with reality? Is it a generational thing? Are millennials just this stupid and backwards?

      1. That is not a “bubble”, that’s HAIR.

    2. What are those things? Tax cuts that aren’t offset? Or is it putting children in concentration camps, where, one supposes, they can’t serve as a pesky reminder that total individualism is unworkable in a world with children?

      1. “”Or is it putting children in concentration camps,”‘

        Do you even know what a concentration camp is?

      2. Here are internment camps under FDR:
        US internment camps

        Here are concentration camps under Hitler:
        Nazi Concentration camps

        1. Interment is a far better name for it than concentration. You got feed, and some medical care, and your welfare was considered. Concentration camps lead towards slavery if you were lucky, death if not.

          We have gassed 0 children, starved 0 children, nor were any sent to slave on government projects.

          1. It’s the libertarian moment!

            1. Yup it is a Libertarian moment pointing out that FDR’s unconstitutional internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was better than National Socialists (Nazis) killing millions by gas, starvation, and disease.

        2. Frankly, it’s disrespectful to those who survived the horrors of the Nazi German death camps.

          1. I didn’t say death camps, did I?

            1. That’s what the concentration camps were. If you didn’t know that, perhaps you shouldn’t be throwing the term concentration camps around.

              1. Well we wouldn’t want anyone to exaggerate the threat of something for political gain.

                1. “”Well we wouldn’t want anyone to exaggerate the threat of something for political gain.””

                  “”Or is it putting children in concentration camps””

                  Then why would you.

            2. Nazi death camps were purposed to kill people.

              Nazi Concentration camps were purposed to work people to death. Some were only there for political containment but still many died from malnutrition and disease.

  21. Holy crow! With shriek and lovecons arguing about who is the real libertarian and why Robby isn’t, I’m surprised anyone else would even want to be associated with that movement.

    1. Holy crow! With shriek and $parkY adding nothing, I’m surprised anyone else would even want to be associated with that non-Libertarian movement.

      1. Listen, I think it’s hilarious that you believe you’re a libertarian.

        1. I was just going to say the same thing to you!


          1. Too bad I’ve said outright on multiple occasions that I’m not a libertarian. So sorry.

            1. $parkY loves to troll Reason, where actual Libertarians hang out and discuss Libertarian topics, to let Libertarians know that an anarchist does not think they are Libertarian.

              Then when he gets back into his anarchy cave, he yells out “I never said that I am a Libertarian”!

              It amusing though because he never tries to convince use of how great anarchy is. He tries to sabotage American Rule of Law and hopes it will implode into anarchy.

              If it weren’t for Classic Liberals who founded the USA and Libertarian-ish folks who kept the Constitution alive, people like $parkY would have been the first ones in the Gulags.

              1. where actual Libertarians hang out and discuss Libertarian topics

                There is not a single libertarian involved in this site, writers and commenters included. There are exactly zero libertarians here.

              2. It amusing though because he never tries to convince use of how great anarchy is.

                Because I’m not an anarchist. You’re the idiot stupid enough to believe that that’s all there is.

                He tries to sabotage American Rule of Law and hopes it will implode into anarchy.

                This could very well be the stupidest thing you’ve ever typed here.

                If it weren’t for Classic Liberals who founded the USA and Libertarian-ish folks who kept the Constitution alive,

                I’m glad you didn’t include yourself in that group. I’m also glad that you acknowledge that none of those people were libertarians.

                1. You can call yourself a Nanarchist all you want. You want zero government. Its anarchy.

                  You anarchists try and change your names like socialists do to hide the fact that you have little support in the USA.

                  1. You anarchists try and change your names like socialists do to hide the fact that you have little support in the USA.

                    Well I’m certainly glad you know me well enough to tell me what I actually believe.

                    1. You’re welcome.

        2. I know that I am a Libertarian and so do you.

          I think its hilarious, that me discussing Libertarianism is so threatening to you, since I have come aboard Reason.

          1. I know that I am a Libertarian and so do you

            You are about as libertarian as the potted plant in the cubicle across from me. Libertarian is not something a person is. You might have one or two libertarian ideals just like almost everyone else on Earth. You also have a number of utilitarian ideals, a number of authoritarian ideals, a number of pragmatic ideals, etc just like everyone else on Earth.

            1. You’re not a Libertarian. You have no idea what it is to be a Libertarian.

              You also dont read too well. My comments focus on the Constitution, Libertarianism, anecdotes, and humor. Libertarian ideals are easy to spot. They typically greatly differ from lefties, Republicans, and nanarchists.

              1. You’re not a Libertarian

                Correct, that’s what I said.

                You have no idea what it is to be a Libertarian.

                Nor do you which is why you’re also not a libertarian.

                My comments focus on the Constitution…

                Yes, you regularly rant about what the Constitution says.


                What you have decided it is anyway.


                Plenty of these.

                and humor

                Oh please.

                Libertarian ideals are easy to spot.

                Sure they are. I’m not sure why you think that means anything.

                1. My name is $parkY and I hang out here to undermine Libertarian comments.

                  I post long comments that back up what other people say about me.


    2. No one does already, hence 3% ceiling.

  22. Dear Marxist Communists

    Us Woketarians admire your paradisical gender neutral field latrines and compulsory cakebaking

    Dear National Socialists….

  23. Socialism is a pejorative that nevertheless describes the system this country had when it was at its most prosperous and upwardly mobile, and which could describe any country at the top rankings of happiness, healthiness, and stability. Libertarian describes no such place.

    1. The 1880s?
      The 1920s

      1. Look, the point is, socialism works so well that people abandoned it in order to be less prosperous. It’s a systemic problem.

    2. The USA Government has been socialist and ObamaCare is still socialism in action.

      Truman’s seizure of steel was socialist. Booosh and Obama with TARP was socialist.

      1. Isn’t Obamacare technically fascist? The stringent requirements on what insurance providers must do for whom and how and all that.

    3. Wow, That’s so funny, I almost spit out my coffee.

      1. Its the new socialist trick. Make America out to be 100% socialist and see that’s good, so every country should be socialist.

    4. The most successful country on earth, the USA, also happened to be the MOST libertarian on earth during its rise to power. We’re still the most libertarian on earth, and it is no surprise we are wealthier and more successful than the more socialist countries in Europe. But we’re less libertarian than we used to be, so our lead is not as great as it used to be.

      Mild forms of socialism can be strapped to the back of a capitalist/libertarian society without completely collapsing it. But it will slow economic growth and make it a poorer country than it would have been. If you go too hard core with the socialism it will completely destroy the country though.

      The question is: Is it worth being a poorer country for all, so that some of the biggest slackers in society have a cushier life?

      I don’t think it is. I think 80-90% of the population are objectively better off in a hardcore capitalist and libertarian system, so I say fuck the slackers that aren’t. They’ll get off their asses and support themselves if they have to, and then they will be better off too, they’ll just have to work for it like everybody else! Others might come to a different conclusion based on their so called moral values.

      That’s basically the long and the short of it.

  24. Good News, everybody! Bat-shit crazy Bernie Sanders style democratic socialists will not only put up resistance to those deadly dull, evil career politicians like Hillary, they’ll be far more interesting to watch, as they genuinely believe their own ideological bat-shit. And if they fail to take over or split the Democratic Party, at least the meltdown of the Democratic Socialist moment will be fun.

    Popcorn, anybody?

  25. This reads like so much sour grapes.

    Here’s another take on the Ocasio-Corte/Bernie/Trump phenomenon-

    They spoke to people’s specific concerns. They had policy prescriptions (no matter how wrong headed) to address those concerns. That’s it. I am bemused that the braintrust of libertarians can’t (or won’t) figure this out.

    While talk about the central bank or the evils of socialism makes for great mental masturbation, it does fuck-all to address people where they’re at. And instead of making some concessions to at least engage the other 95% who don’t have shrines to Rothbard in their homes, the libertarians get to stand and pshaw that a socialist is going to manage what nearly 50 years of browbeating couldn’t.

    Goodie for you.

    1. Bingo. Reason, I think, does a good job of addressing the ills of the country and the shit people care about. The commenters rip the Reason writers a new asshole every time they use terminology that might possibly appeal to non-libertarians, even when the fundamental message is still libertarian. Commenters accuse writers of virtue signaling when in fact the writers’ biggest crime is talking about relevant shit and acknowledging that there are problems in this country that aren’t always caused by government.

      1. Forcing people to bake cakes is 0% Libertarian. There is no wiggle room.

        If you advocate forcing people to bake cakes, you are not a Libertarian [period]

        Its like advocating freedom from powerful government means that you are 0% socialist.

        1. Forcing people to bake cakes is 0% Libertarian. There is no wiggle room.

          I agree.

          Harping on the subject is, unfortunately, very libertarian. Find a subject that people give two fucking shits about and they will start to think you’re not a crackpot that is out of touch.

          1. Its great to win.

            Its even better when your principles win out over people who push principals.

            It even better to out a bunch of LINOs that write for Reason as lefty hacks and have their asses handed to them.

            1. Have fun “winning” while they remain employed writing articles about libertarianism that thousands of people read and you remain a commentator buried in a comments section. Your view of libertarianism isn’t being disseminated. Theirs is.

      2. There are lots of pragmatic ways to talk about libertarianism, and they often do! But the bulk of the writers here very clearly have a left-libertarian perspective on things, and they do virtue signal Ad nauseam. They get called out for this, mostly because the majority of libertarian leaners are right-libertarians.

        I am a huge anti purist as far as libertarianism goes. If we ever want to become a more libertarian country, purity ain’t gonna do it. Practical incremental steps towards freedom will. The staff does good on some of these things some of the time, I’ll give them that. But often times they don’t, and they get into purity spiraling on mostly issues that appeal to the left.

        1. I guess “left-libertarian” is only in relation to what you compare it to. While Reason doesn’t quote chapter and verse from Mises, they are a pretty far cry from Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

          And even the notion of “forcing people to bake cakes” (as if that would ever happen), the entire scenario could be recast as community standards (which really isn’t that far off the mark as Colorado is essentially eastern California at this point) and those “laboratories of democracy” libertarians like to harp about when they are venturing awfully close to hypocrisy. I mean there are still dry counties, and few if any on the right seems too tore up about that, speaking of virtue signaling.

          Most of Corte’s platform is essentially welfare reform, which should be libertarian’s raison d’?tre, but instead of discussing the least destructive means towards that while still addresses people’s concerns, here we are with a soon to be elected socialist in a position of authority to advocate for and even greater expanse of government and the braintrust here are still parroting the same lines from a decade ago to the same effect.

          That’s not being principled. That’s being dumb.

  26. Whats the difference between a democrat socialist and a democrat? The democrat socialist at least admits he’s a socialist otherwise there is no difference.

    1. Exactly! Socialists try and hide in terms like Progressive- Liberal- Democrat.

      Democrat Socialists admit they are socialist and hope that your voting will have you forget they are taking almost everything you own.

    2. Most socialists will disagree with that. For example, they were pretty outspoken in opposition against Hillary Clinton.

  27. “Dear Democratic Socialists Who Think You’re Having a Moment: It’s Me, a Libertarian, Who’s Been Through This.”

    “Robby Soave”



  28. She didn’t win because she spouted socialist rhetoric.

    She won because her name is Ocasio-Cortez and not Crowley in a district that is 50% Hispanic and only 18% White.

    She could have run on a “mandatory anal sex in schools” platform and still won.

    1. She could have run on a “mandatory anal sex in schools” platform and still won.

      With the ringing endorsement of ‘Mexicans and ass-sex’ libertarians no doubt.

    2. Wasn’t Cortez a European invader and oppressor of indigenous peoples though?

      1. Hence the hyphen in the name. Its obliterates white guilt.

    3. Yup, purely because she isn’t white. Can the Reason staff please remind me of how peoples skin color and culture doesn’t effect their voting patterns or political beliefs again? I seem to keep noticing that it TOTALLY DOES, but that can’t possibly be true… If it were that means we’re intentionally importing millions of people who will vote against the interests of the majority of the native born people… That can’t be possible cuz libertarianism or something…

  29. “”Here’s another take on the Ocasio-Corte/Bernie/Trump phenomenon-“‘

    Ron Paul’s Revolution is going to sweep the county!!!

    That’s where that phenomenon is going to go.

    Everyone gets excited about the talk. Can Ocasio-Cortez actually DO anything? Probably not and she will get frustrated at how government actually works. The senior dems in Congress aren’t really going to care about what the junior congressperson has to say or wants to do.

    1. Look vic, this woman is a National Socialist Sensation. Can’t you see that?

      1. Staunch Party Democrats are going to have to fall in line behind her or find themselves on the wrong side of history.

      2. She is!

    2. You might recall how badly screwed Paul got at the GOP convention resembles how another certain someone got screwed by their party.

      Of course it remains to been seen if that momentum will translate into anything more than going off into the weeds like the tea party did.

      Can Ocasio-Cortez actually DO anything?

      Yeah. She can get elected. Just like a hated reality tv star can get elected.

      Meanwhile at the libertarian compound…

      1. I do recall. It’s part of my point.

  30. socialism, as defined by Ocasio-Cortez as “democratic participation in our economic dignity”

    Translation: voting themselves a share of your money

    1. Yes. Your money is nothing but my economic dignity. Now write me a check and give me my dignity back.

  31. According to Bloomberg, a cup of coffee in Venezuela now costs about a million bolivars. This isn’t the fault of Venezuelans of course, they’re all good, decent, hard-working people who worship Jesus Christ and Karl Marx, and all they wanted to do was send a message and stand up to those evil capitalists!

    According to the Rico Suaves and Matt Welches of the world, they’re all innocent victims, and therefore it’s incumbent upon us to give them all asylum. After all, they learn their lesson well and would never dream of supporting the same shitty-ass failed policies here that they do down there! As we can plainly see.

    1. Call me when she proposes linking the dollar to something.

      Hyperinflation cannot happen in a country with debts in its own free floating currency.

  32. I view many of these movements as people circling around libertarianism without knowing it. If you look only superficially at her platform (which many voters do), it gives the appearance of having elements of libertarianism in it including criminal justice reform, rights-based rhetoric, anti-restrictionism, a rejection of economic cronyism, and (some) drug legalization. Obviously drilling down deeper leads to a lot of bad implementations of these things, but we can’t assume that people who voted for her looked any closer than the list I just wrote.

    Bottom line: if we didn’t have the reputation for being a bunch of assholes focused on wedding cakes and being sticklers on other shit people don’t care about, and if we didn’t stick up for the republicans every time big business used the long dick of the law to screw the consumer, we could win over some of those people. The Gary Johnson campaign knew this and addressed it masterfully, which is probably why he stole as many votes from the american left as he did.

    1. Unfortunately the spokesmen for Libertarianism are lefty LINOs and so our brand is tarnished.

      1. Well the issue isn’t that your brand is tarnished. It’s that you haven’t realized that your brand is an elephant.

        1. No economoc cronyism in socialism. Nope. Oh, and demanding the US go 100% renewable by 2035 is a well recognized free market position.

        2. Unlike you, I can tell the difference between a Democrat, Republican, anarchist, and Libertarian.

          1. …said someone who’s taking the minority view on a libertarian-held position and calling others LINOs as a result.

            1. Which position?

              1. Immigration.

                1. I don’t really think being against open borders IS a minority opinion.

                  I think most libertarians would AT LEAST say that open borders is a horrible decision until freedom of association is fully restored, AND the welfare state is ended.

                  I personally would go at least one step further and say that people shouldn’t be able to vote even if those things were already done, because they would have bad political opinions and screw things up.

                  That said, I’m totally fine with just not letting in anybody who isn’t a highly skilled immigrant too. Even in the above scenario it would DESTROY wages for everybody not in the top 5-10%, which most people would not appreciate.

                  So most Ls want some semblance of sanity in immigration, AT LEAST up until the welfare state is gone. Many go farther than that. Very few are for open borders right this minute.

  33. they [Tea Party] ended up caring far less about crony capitalism than they did about illegal immigration.

    Hell – Reason and most commenters here don’t give a crap about cronyism. So this all just boils down to – immigration – which I don’t really give a crap about

  34. The bottom line here is that she won because the incumbent took his victory for granted, which I suspect is a problem among democrats a lot more generally than one might think since their bastions are cities where Republicans have zero chance of winning. The same goes in the reverse for Republicans out in non-urban area’s, but if you want to keep your seat maybe don’t ignore a primary challenge as if it’s not actually happening?

    This chica won’t be in office very long, I suspect. She’s too young and likely too stupid to survive a primary challenge herself going forward if the DNC decides they don’t care for her. I suspect the DNC isn’t too keen on open socialists considering what they did to Bernie. Not that Democrats don’t skew socialist these days, but this Democrat Socialist stuff only really flies in places where Democrats are too centrist for the people and that’s not a lot of places.

    1. Why do you assume she’s too stupid? There are plenty of stupid politicians who are very successful at their craft. You just have to know how to work a room.

      1. I assume she’s stupid because she thinks socialism is a good idea and supposedly she majored in economics.

        ‘Stupid’ isn’t what will sink her with the party though, obviously, it’s the fact that she’s not going to toe the party line and Democrat primaries are rigged against people like her specifically.

        1. But she won it anyway, right?

          1. She did, which isn’t a contradiction of anything I’ve said. Her opponent took his win for granted and relied on an ‘outspend’ strategy when he was up against a young Hispanic woman during the Trump era. He might as well have shot himself in the dick for how inept his reelection bid went.

    2. I suspect the DNC isn’t too keen on open socialists considering what they did to Bernie.

      They weren’t anti-Bernie, just pro-Hillary.

      1. They wanted a “visionary” socialist, Hope and Change prt II type of socialist. The malleable, well spoken, and uncommitted kind. Bernie is a crusty, Moskva-visiting, Ushanka wearing, actually lived (and booted from) a commune type of socialist.

  35. There was a 13% voter turnout for her election. Don’t read that as a movement. Read it as the incumbent complacent lifer thinking he didn’t even need to show up.

  36. Ok. I’m confused. Will someone please just lay out the Libertarian Party platform for me. I thought I was a libertarian for awhile there but now I’m starting to think I might be wrong. Trust me, it’s happened before. I’m old, so please explain it to me like I was a ten year old, (but not a golden retriever).

    1. According to the Reason commenters, this is Libertarianism.

      1. There was nothing there. Was that the point, or is it just a broken link?

        1. Happy Chandler is a totally disingenuous troll, and worse, an apparent Adam Sandler fan.

          1. Sorry for the bad link.
            Try that.

            Not an Adam Sandler fan. Try again.

    2. Ignore the open border part of the platform. Its not Libertarian as the LP clearly is okay with the Constitution and the Constitution enumerates the state power to regulate naturalization and immigration.
      Libertarian Party

      Free market, Maximum Liberty under Rule of Law, small and limited government, Maximum freedoms under the Constitution, etc.

      1. Libertarianism is “ok” with the constitution because on a number of issues it’s a step in the right direction. But make no mistake about it — the libertarians were in direct opposition with the federalists, who ultimately were the ones who forced the constitution on libertarians against their wills. We should not rejoice the constitution. Technically, it marked the single greatest expansion in government power in the nation’s history.

        There is a party that better suits you. It’s called the Constitution Party. Alan Keyes was once the presidential candidate of that party, who you remind me a lot of. Except he was black, and you’re just about the whitest person that’s ever lived.

        1. The Constitution did not cause the greatest expansion of government power. The People allowed that to happen by believing FDR could save them.

          The Constitution is the best legal foundation for a free nation that the human race has ever seen. The drafters even commented that the People must fight for its protected freedoms or lose them. They gave us the tool and we got it all rusty. The tool need to be cleaned with blood and used properly.

          Not sure how I am the whitest person that every lived when I have Cherokee blood. But whatever floats your low-on-facts rant.

          1. I’ll agree that the nation’s policies under FDR represented a pretty big expansion. You’re right about that. But bigger than the nearly complete collapse of anti-federalism? We’ll have to agree to disagree.

            The Constitution is the best legal foundation for a free nation that the human race has ever seen.

            You have a tendency of setting the bar pretty low. There have been freer societies that were so free they didn’t need to draft a big government document — a document, by the way, that was purposefully written to be vague enough to not really constrain as much as the anti-federalists thought needed to be constrained.

            How’s that constitution thing working out for you by the way? It was successful right? It prevented socialism, unfettered federal expansion, and trillions of dollars in taxation and spending I assume. I haven’t been following.

            1. Freedom isn’t free so yup having socialists, TOP MEN, anarchists, and other usurpers of the Constitution make it difficult to maintain and the USA has lost its way a bit.

              Trump answered the call and has done well rolling back the state. He’s only one person and there are plenty of traitors in the media that want the Constitution to die.

              America will be fine now that we can stem the hordes of illegals, give new Americans time to assimilate, get our economy rolling again, get trade restrictions lowered after Europe and China cave, shrink government, reduce the number of laws, and get federal and state spending under control.

              The usurpers have had decades to undermine the USA, it will take some time to right the ship.

              1. You have a really rosy view of stuff. Enjoy the largest government in the history of the planet, and keep your “small government” dreams alive!

                1. Well, since you think the size of government government is the largest in the history of the planet and over half of spending goes to welfare payments, then yes FDR with a good helping of LBJ would be the majority of the problem now, wouldn’t it?

                  Of course as a %GDP it’s a different story, but then you have a teeny problem in that virtually all of your other comparisons are worse (some small countries and city states do marginally better).

                  That’s a pretty tight corner you’re backing yourself into… How will our hero get out of this one?!

    3. It not you. You should be worried if you aren’t confused. The Libertarian Party does not necessarily equal Libertarianism. Does it really matter to you if you label yourself? Identify your core political beliefs. That’s what you are.

  37. Bernie took over for Kucinich, maybe she can take over for Bernie? I’m sure she’ll do a fine job of sheep-dogging for the DNC once she starts getting the backdoor cash.

  38. Trump IS the “libertarian moment” and if socialists ever come to power it will be the “right wing paramilitary moment”. Either is fine.

    1. As far as libertarian moments go, I am hoping for more.

  39. No, unfortunately, there’s a huge difference in situations.

    Socialism is our species’ default state of Follow-The-Alpha authoritarianism. Socialism sucks up all the idolatry, tribalism, anger, jealousy and violence inside us, and makes it sound nice. This is where we go when we don’t consciously try to rise above this brutish, thieving state.

    Libertarianism is pretty much the opposite of our animal nature, sadly. It takes thought and conscious suppression of what’s worst inside us to follow the Golden Rule and order a society on voluntary interaction.

    Libertarianism is for thinking people. Socialism is for idiots.
    We’re outnumbered, dang it.

    1. Spread the word and see more people use their brains. It will take time and effort.

      I have gotten numerous people thinking about how similar the Democrats and Republicans are ruining the USA.

    2. What’s weird is that most people have no problem with applying live-and-let-live to their daily interactions. It’s when you get to more abstract Others – the ones they know only through media or pop culture, the ones outside the Monkeysphere – that the urge for an iron fist (wrapped in a velvet glove, or otherwise) starts to manifest.

      1. Delusion allows one to underestimate far off rivals whereas you know pretty well how the people in your monkeysphere can dominate you.

    3. So close–so incredibly close.

      But wrong.

      Socialism is the embodiment of defectives jealousy at the default state of Follow-The-Successful. Socialism takes human nature and redefines it as a list if sins–idolatry, tribalism, anger, jealousy and violence–much like monotheistic religion. Socialism takes it’s message and coats it in an infantile definition of ‘fairness’–one that reverberates with all of us because it’s a stage we’ve all passed through..This is where we go when we don’t consciously try to rise above this babylike state of thoughtless, endless demand and need.

      Libertarianism is pretty much a method that tries to work in concert with human nature, with the patterns human actually express. It tries to use those impulses to help each individual grow and succeed. But it takes thought and conscious suppression of that infantile ‘I WANT it!’ voice to allow us to follow the Golden Rule and order a society on voluntary interaction. It attempts to help human society grow and mature as each human does

      Try that.

  40. the future Congresswoman

    Isnt’t that like counting one’s chickens before they hatched?

    1. I cannot remember the last time lefties have done that.

    2. its a pretty safe bet considering HRC got 80% of the vote in that district, and it hasn’t elected a Republican in 25 years.

      1. It was a pretty safe bet that it’s Hillary’s turn at being POTUS — until it wasn’t.

        Maybe she’ll be elected without a hitch — but I wish there were functioning prediction markets: when people’s monies are at stake, they try harder to be right in their predictions.

  41. Ha! The joke is on me since I live in the 14th.


    I haven’t voted since I’ve lived there, didn’t know which district I was in.

  42. ‘…Ocasio-Cortez could help normalize “the s word.”‘

    Social Security and Medicare have already done that. 99% of America’s “anti-socialists” are socialists.

  43. She is from the Bronx.

    Does anyone in the Bronx not come from multi generational welfare dependence?

    1. They just happen to be living in other parts of the US now. The Chicago/Detroit effect.

  44. “…we libertarians want to abolish ICE, too…”

    Oh, please. Is it arrogance or delusion? So hard to tell these days. The correct statement would be that some libertarians favor the abolition of ICE and borders, and so on. Or more properly, that many libertarians favor the abolition of ICE but the retention of a border and a formal immigration process.

    But it’s always refreshing to see how these type libertarians couple so cozily with the hard Left when their key issue–open borders–is championed. From the comments on this site and others over the years, you can safely lay money that many such libertarians would happily vote for this candidate on that basis alone. Many have said it regards Hillary Clinton. Screw the Supreme Court. Bring on the regulations, the entrenchment of Leftist ideology, yada, yada, as long as we get our open borders.

    1. Can you name a libertarian who has taken the “as long as we get our open borders” trajectory? I can’t think of any. I’d like to read more about it. Because my understanding was that the opposite was true — that some leftists cozy up with the libertarian side because of our stance on immigration. For example, some of those Bernie supporters who ended up voting for GJ. I’ve never heard of it being the other way around. Honestly, if the democrats have now adopted an open borders stance (and I don’t think they have), then they’re copying us. Sort of like how they’re copying us on mass incarceration, pot legalization, and all the other things that we have been yelling about for decades and they’re just starting to come around to.

      1. ‘Can you name a libertarian who has taken the “as long as we get our open borders” trajectory?’

        I spoke to the comments section on sites such as Reason. Comments along the lines of, I’m glad I voted for Hillary. Some libertarians are so energised by the immigration issue that it swamps all else and distorts their political action. The become useful idiots to a cause inimical to their own wider stance. Take a poll among open borders libs asking if it’s better to hold their noses and vote Dem in the next election to oust Trump and his immigration policies, or to vote Libertarian and allow Trump another four years. What kind of response would you get? Yeah, you know it.

        “…if the democrats have now adopted an open borders stance (and I don’t think they have)…”

        Of course they have. Their don’t-frighten-the-natives rhetoric notwithstanding, the whole policy platform, catch and release, sanctuary laws, etc. are open borders mechanisms by another name.

        “… then they’re copying us.”

        You make the same error as the writer of this article. Us? Who is us? I’m a minarchist. Courts, police, a military. But why would that demand an open borders policy? The open borders crowd have no subtlety in their perspective. If you oppose them, you’re a Trump disciple, subscribing to all the drug cartel, people smuggling excuses, yada, yada. It’s tiresome and it’s become nothing more than a way of silencing debate, which is another thing many so-called libs have in common with the Left.

    2. Why is ICE libertarian? It is an unaccountable police force, able to stop citizens and non-citizens alike. It is redundant to the CBP and CES that already exist. Why does it need to be separate?

      The only way it’s libertarian is because there seems to be a large overlap between self-professed libertarians and white nationalists. It’

      1. I didn’t say it was libertarian. I said, “Or more properly, that many libertarians favor the abolition of ICE but the retention of a border and a formal immigration process.”

        The writer should not presume to speak for all libertarians because he’s woefully misinformed.

  45. She will be a terrible congress-person. She will spend every moment yelling and screaming on her soapbox. She will not represent the people who elected her. She will represent an ideology. And unless she has a secret money stream she will be a one term member.

  46. “Democratic socialism”

    Now there is an oxymoron.

  47. As we’ve seen from Seattle, the elite members of the democrat party (the white male 1% who run tech, finance, Hollywood, etc) will not just allow the Bernie Sanders wing to use them as a piggy bank to fund their socialist policies.

    I understand the frustration of these young socialists. They’re poor people living big states where the ultra wealthy class pass them by everyday. Wall Street and tech businesses are right in front of their eyes. But their anger is misplaced.

  48. Comrades!!

    If your socialist is so groovy
    why would I be forced to be a socialist?

    I don’t want to be a socialist and you can’t force me to be one.

  49. Meh, it’s not because she’s a “socialist democrat”. It’s because she’s not a white guy of non-hispanic descent. Look at the district, most of it used to be the 7th district which who elected Nydia Vel?zquez until they redrew the lines in 2013.

    They shifted the lines around and now the 14th is essentially the same area the 7th used to be and is now 49.8% hispanic. Why they redistricted the guy here instead of the 64% white 12th, which is now mostly what the old 14th was, is a mystery unless someone wanted him out.

    Just goes to show that there’s more than one way to gerrymander.

    1. Belay my last. Old and foggy drinking dark and stormys. Redistricting was five years ago so clearly they elected him before.

  50. Reason is giving validity to this incorrect definition Democratic Socialism which conflats socialism with democracy as something practiced in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist. In fact the prime minister of Denmark in 2016 remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

    Scandinavia and Western Europe are all Social Democracy’s. Most have high levels of taxation to support their large social welfare programs.

    Venezuela can more accurately be described as Democratic Socialism. Chavez won his elections initially by convincing the poor and uneducated that he would redistribute the wealth, nationalize the oil company, put in place wage and price controls and give everyone “free stuff” and was voted into office through a democratic process. Now that democratic process is a sham. All can clearly see how that has worked out. Venezuelans are now equally poor except for the ruling class lead by the bus driver Maduro.

  51. “the basic elements that are required for an economic and socially dignified life in the United States”

    And what would that be? Funny how these “basic elements” weren’t so basic only a short time ago.

    1. Imagine in 1850 the States demanded a “living ration” of whale blubber, chickens, and wheat?

  52. Nor even going to read it. A good example why darkies shouldn’t be voting in America,

  53. I don’t know how to thank this private company who just grant me a loan, I never believe it was real till i got my loan credited into my account and i promise them i will tell the whole world their benevolent and kindness towards their company, they are still 100% ready to give more loan to serious and needy people, contact them via email for more info

  54. “She also wants to abolish ICE, but that’s not really a socialist-specific idea: we libertarians want to abolish ICE”


    1. Only an idiot would want to abolish ICE; unless/until the social welfare state is abolished or collapses, then ICE is not just necessary but mandatory.

  55. “Best of luck, comrades”?

    Hell, no. I wish the socialists an unremitting run of bad luck. You don’t wish commies or Nazis good luck. Their good luck is everybody else’s bad luck.

  56. There is no stopping the young, “we want everything for nothing” crowd.

  57. Dear Reason,
    There is far more government, NPO, and tax money that goes into people promising things with other peoples money than promising opportunity through individual effort. This is not a “moment”, this is what the media, think tanks, corporate ideology, and government wants you to want.

    PS: Can we just call “democratic socialists” Red Socialists now, and do away with the post-cold war veneer?

  58. “I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron and me in these primaries, they weren’t voting for libertarian ideas?they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race,” said Massie. “And Donald Trump won best in class, as we had up until he came along.”

    Disagree with Massie. Voters have felt helpless, and for many, Trump was a pragmatic decision. They wanted to burn it down, out of necessity, to shake up a stagnant system that doesn’t serve their interests as citizens.

    Of course, many who voted for Trump are authoritarians who think that government should dictate the lives of individuals, whether they admit it or not. The revel in the idea that government can be used to push their social and policy views on others.

    But that doesn’t explain everyone who voted for Trump.

  59. She might swing the district Republican .

    1. I live in her district. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

      But I guess I could vote republican with the 12 other guys as a protest vote.

  60. Not having ICE is how you get more socialists like her from Latin America, where people flee the failures of socialism, but still want to give it a chance in their new country.

  61. By a libertarian definition, almost all of Democrats are socialists. But most of the membership of the Democratic party was moderate/conservative up until even recently. Which is part of the reason Hillary was able to run the clock out on Sanders. The problem is, the elected members of the party and the activists within it are all very liberal. So, because of the failures of Bush part 2 and eight years of Obama, they’ve convinced themselves that what they really want -move left, and just keep going- is what America wants too.

    It’s easy to delude yourself too, when you take poll questions about who wants more free stuff, and view them without context. What they’ll find is that they will only shrink their own party, and will eventually have to have a Clinton type figure reintroduce them to triangulation if they’re to find their way back into power after they’ve finally gone off the cliff. Of course, so much depends on how awful the GOP is, because most people still delude themselves into thinking that it’s one or the other.

  62. Who could be against socialism, as defined by Ocasio-Cortez as “democratic participation in our economic dignity”

    Uh, that’s scary.

  63. Socialism will win because of all the brown people here, stupid. Libertarianism never had any real momentum.

  64. The Democratic Socialists of America is “a political and activist organization, not a party … .” What would be the equivalent libertarian political and activist organization, not a party?

  65. It could be a mere anti-incumbent insurgency, or it could be no insurgency at all, given that it’s currently a one-off.
    idnplay poker
    promo poker online

  66. that it’s all-too easy to draw unwarranted conclusions and misdiagnose the moment.

    bola deposit pulsa
    poker deposit pulsa

  67. ” What would be the equivalent libertarian political and activist organization, not a party?

    bocoran togel
    togel sgp online

  68. neil mate, ur pots very informative
    by bandar togel terpercaya

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.