Webathon

What Do We Do for an Encore?: Support the Next 50 Years of Reason

Welcome to our 2018 Webathon! Please help us bring you news, politics, culture, and ideas from a principled libertarian POV.

|

Reason

I'm happy to announce the start of Reason's annual webathon, a week-long event during which we ask readers of this website to support our efforts as the planet's leading source of news, politics, culture, and ideas from a principled libertarian viewpoint. This year, we're looking to raise $200,000 through December 4. Your support is absolutely vital to our success. Go here now to see swag levels and to give.

We're published by a 501(c)3 nonprofit (more here), so your donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law. Some generous Reason donors have agreed to match the first $25,000 in gifts from people who have never given before; they will also match the first $25,000 from folks who are giving more this year than last year. So if you give early, your donation will have twice the impact.

Regular readers know that we just celebrated our 50th anniversary of fighting for "free minds and free markets," for a world in which individual liberty flourishes and the size, scope, and spending of government is limited. Reason was founded in 1968 as a mimeographed monthly magazine and has since evolved into a multimedia juggernaut that includes this website; a policy think tank that champions public pension reform, school choice, infrastructure innovation, and privatization; the pioneering online video service Reason TV; a thrice-weekly podcast; and more.

Over the years, Reason was among the first commentary magazines to push ideas, policies, and mind-sets that seemed crazy at the time but are now taken for granted: deregulating the airline industry and interstate trucking, legalizing pot and other "illicit" drugs, marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and school choice (especially for poor kids). During the financial crisis, we were virtually alone even among market-friendly outlets in denouncing TARP and the useless stimulus spending that started under George W. Bush and continued under Barack Obama. While most "think" magazines clutch their pearls at the mere thought of someone else using new technology, we launched our website in the early 1990s, published the very first mass-personalized edition of a consumer magazine in 2004, and with the help of Drew Carey embraced online video back in 2007. Reason staffers fan out across other publications, cable news channels, podcasts, radio shows, and social media, acting as your voice in national debates over economic, political, and cultural freedom. Always and everywhere, we're arguing in favor of perennial values such as individual rights and pluralism while also defending such innovations as the internet, the sharing economy, and cryptocurrencies.

Joanna Andreasson, Reason

The challenges in front of all of us are enormous. In the few short weeks since we celebrated our first half-century, President Donald Trump and his allies in Congress have spent more money we don't have on things we don't need, Tim Cook of Apple has announced the death of "free markets" and the "inevitable" regulation of the tech sector, and the Washington Post and New York Times have run hysterical "exposés" about how Russian trolls and pranksters have successfully subverted our elections. An apparently resurgent left is calling for "Medicare for All" and not even pretending to come out with a way to find $40 trillion in new spending ("You just pay for it").

Tell us in the comments what you think we should do for an encore in our second 50 years.

You can donate via basically any means that you want (including bitcoin, of course). Here's the swag list for contributions:

$50: a Reason bumper sticker

$100: that PLUS a Reason magazine subscription (includes print or digital; digital includes access to archives of 50 years of Reason magazine), PLUS invitations to Reason events in your area.

$250: all of the above PLUS a newly designed Reason T-Shirt

$500: all of the above PLUS books by Reason authors

$1,000: all of the above PLUS a private lunch in Washington, DC with a Reason editor and an invitation to Reason Weekend 2019 in Phoenix, Arizona.

$5,000 all of the above PLUS 1 ticket to Reason Weekend for first-time attendees.

$10,000 all of the above PLUS 2 tickets to Reason Weekend for first-time attendees.

Go here now to donate.

There's another option, too, especially if you're active on Facebook: You can create a fundraiser for Reason on your personal Facebook page. The best part of that is that Facebook is matching the first $7 million donated to charities via the site on "Giving Tuesday," so again, your dollars go farther. Search "create fundraiser" on Facebook and then click on the "Giving Tuesday" shortcut, and pick "Reason Magazine" as the nonprofit you're supporting. It's pretty straightforward, but this graphic below might also help out.

Reason

However and whatever you decide to give—whether $10, $1,000, or anything else—your contribution will make a huge difference not just to Reason but to the broader society. As Friedrich Hayek wrote:

We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a [libertarian] Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly [libertarian] radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty.

That's been our mission for the past 50 years and it remains our mission for the next 50 years.

NEXT: When the Nanny State Actually Tries To Nanny

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

  1. Not one penny.
    Worst mobile web site experience anywhere.
    Absurdist, pig-ignorant, pseudo-libertarian chest-puffing.
    The ceaseless, relentless, remorseless self promotion in lieu of meaningful content is the vomit icing on the shit cakes served up.

  2. Reason has become HuffPo, and who needs two HuffPo?

    1. Plus side: Volokh out from the Post paywall.

      Minus side: Rev. Dumbass stuck around.

  3. TWO HUNDERT FIFTY DOLLARS FOR A T-SHIRT??? If that’s what libertarian utopia looks like then count me out. (Unless said redesign exposes the midriff.)

    1. I was just watching the donators scroll above. Your name flashed by. Did you get the midriff model?

      1. I’ll let you know when it shows up. I’ll let all of Instagram know!

  4. So as most ideologically based journalism has their token conservative or liberal to help balance out the sway (or draw fire, take your pick), it might be good for Reason to adopted a similar strategy of inviting intelligent critiques of libertarianism, or even having a left-libertarian on staff as a commingling of ideas.

    Especially now, the bog standard libertarianism could use a period of self-reflection and address its critics in a more substantive way.

    1. While I agree with your sentiments, there is no such thing as a ‘Left” Libertarian. Leftists are collectivists that do not want national borders, oppose the 2nd Amendment and deny property rights. Leftists are the opposite of Libertarians.

      1. Actually, left-libertarians AKA “liberal-tarians” are the most important, most dedicated libertarians in the age of Drumpf. I should know. I’m one of them.

        And by the way, opposing any form of border control (for the US, at least) is the correct libertarian position. You need to read more Shikha Dalmia columns. Click on my username for one of her best.

        1. Ok, that started out weak, but the last two sentences brought it home. Not bad.

          1. “Too short, but a valiant effort. You’re no Blighter, though.”

        2. Again, the is NO such creature as a Left-Libertarian. You are a Marxist and are an enemy of liberty.

    2. They already are a left leaning mag, which basically one token libertarian – Stossel.

    3. Shikha is a self proclaimed “progressive libertarian”.

  5. Here’s an idea Nick …. start publishing Libertarian news, ideas and philosophy instead of recycled Leftist lies then I will consider sending you a million bucks.

    1. You didn’t get the memo? Only open borders, forcing Christian baker’s to bake, and blaming trump for shitty business decisions are libertarian issues now.

  6. Dear REASON:

    My heart would swell with satisfaction if I could donate money in support of a true libertarian publication.

    Still waiting.

    I come here for the comment section. Some vigorous debate at times. Occasionally I learn something, Rarely a “to be sure”. That is sufficient.

    1. I come here when I forget the stupidity and false intelligence of humans. Find a few Jeff, arthur, or Palin posts and I’m good to go.

    2. I think Mises.org might be trve kvlt libertarians, but I can’t stand them for different reasons.

      Such is life.

  7. During the financial crisis, we were virtually alone even among market-friendly outlets in denouncing TARP and the useless stimulus spending that started under George W. Bush and continued under Barack Obama.

    WHERE DID REASON STAND ON CASH FOR CLUNKERS??? You know, Welch would have peppered his article with so many links that people would have given up following them to verify his claims.

    1. The irony is tarp was considered actually successful by most economists since it was a loan that was actually repaid…

    2. I wasn’t on Reason then, but essentially every right wing outlet was doing this. In the few short years I’ve been coming here I’ve noticed a radical shift to the left and inexcusable ignorance of anything regarding the right

    3. Eh, I can see a good argument for TARP as a “oh, god, we might literally have a collapse of the credit system, and that would be EVEN WORSE” measure.

      The MegaStimulus Packages were unsupportable.

      Though … I don’t recall it being uniquely Reason saying that Giant Piles Of Cash were not good.

      (A search suggests Reason was consistently against C4C, though it’s not clear if there were any headline-level articles about it.)

  8. I’m sure all of those illegal invaders are going to support you in a quid pro quo, right? Maybe all of those PoS ‘free speech but not hate speech’ authoritarians? My money will find much better things to do.

  9. Fundraising goal of $200,000?
    Doesn’t buy much fruit sushi.

  10. I used to be a decent source of donations to Reason, but this will be the second year I skip.

    Like the Battle Star Galactica reboot, Reason has dedicated itself to being ripped from the headlines. Trump’s grandstanding and Dem bloviating dictate their articles, and it is becoming tiresome. Above all, it has driven the comment sections into the toilet. Sure, they get lots of clicks, but when those clicks are from total assholes who spend 200 messages trolling each other, it blows.

    Beyond that, Shikha has abandoned all principles to make some of the least libertarian arguments in favor of open borders, and going to hyperbolic lengths to compare restrictionists to the worst stuff.

    And Gillespie has, frankly, grown old and tired. His “Cooler than thou” persona where he makes fun of the GOP as old fuddy duddies with sticks up their ass stopped being funny around 5 years ago. Most GOP freshmen are younger than you Gillespie- get a new schtick.

    I stick around for the random Bailey articles, and some of the new writers show some promise. California housing problems? Interesting. Civil Asset Forfeiture? Ok. But the coverage of Kavenaugh was atrocious- and then they had the nerve to call out the ACLU for abandoning presumption of innocence.

    Anyway, the quality has slipped, but it will keep me coming around for awhile. But sorry, no donation this year.

    1. At this point, I’m nearly only reading Reason out of spite.

      And used to be a literal print subscriber, for several years, back in the early Welch years.

  11. Anyway, to answer the above question: “What do we do for an encore?”

    A good magician encore is watching a dude pull his head out of his ass.

  12. Tell us in the comments what you think we should do for an encore in our second 50 years.

    Open a sex robot brothel in DC, start a message board in the Reason website where prostitutes can post their services, send Matt, Nick, and Robbie on a secret mission to break into the prison where they are holding Ross Ulbricht and free him, and restart the AM and PM notes.

  13. I am truly sorry this terrible economy has left me unable to donate. But Putin’s Puppet has totally ruined the amazing economy he inherited from Obama, just as Paul Krugman predicted. When Democrats are back in charge of the entire government (not just the House) in a couple years and the economy improves, I’ll try to send a donation to Reason along with the SPLC and ACLU.

    1. That’s more like it. You just keep on keeping on. You’re paying your way. SPLC, nice touch.

    2. Is pay reason for having an in person OBL tour of college campuses.

  14. Stop fishing for recruits in the polluted waters of leftism. They can support you on some things, but once you post an article against high spending, high taxes or gun control, you lose them, no matter how much you swear you hate Donald Trump.

    1. Righties, or at least centrists – that’s the way to go. Everything’s shifting left now – there’s more danger from the bake-the-cake crowd than from social conservatives.

      1. In the current climate, righties will never trust libertarians so long as they recognize illegal humans as real people and not invading vermin.

        1. Again… You fail to realize that an intelligent person doesn’t discuss open borders in isolation because it’s a naive preposition. You will continue to prove your idiocy until you can debate two corellated ideas like open movement and general welfare together. They are tightly coupled. But you’re an ignorant sot who cant think past a single clause or do deeper inspection that 2 paragraphs into an article. Deep inspection on an idea or theory? Forget about it, too much work for jeff.

          1. You will continue to prove your idiocy until you can debate two corellated ideas like open movement and general welfare together.

            Okay, how about this:

            I favor free movement of free people.

            I oppose the welfare state, and if there is to be welfare, oppose it being given to non-citizens.

            Opposing immigration because some migrants *might* get welfare, is like opposing private ownership of guns because some gun owners *might* misuse those guns. They are non-sequiturs.

        2. Little Jeffy writes stupid shit si liar to OBL. Except Little Jeffy is serious.

        3. Funny, none of the “righties” I see talking about it think that way.

          But Hey You’d Know The True Soul Of The Right, Obviously.

        4. “Borders are wrong, m’kay? Muh anarchotopia!”

    2. So what would be an appeal for recruits, that wouldn’t be just “Republicans who smoke pot”?

      1. Balanced budgets, tackling the national debt, low taxes, cake freedom, red-meat articles about socialism, RINO-bashing, you know, like that.

        1. So basically, Breitbart without the Trump worship.

          1. You say some dumb shit at times… Well most of the time. Everything but the rino bashing are actual libertarian views you dumb sot.

            1. Jeffy is an eight year old in a twelves year old’s body.

            2. To be fair, libertarians don’t have to be fiscal-hawk Austrians.

              That’s more historical accident of origins via Mises and Hayek than a core principle universally shared by everyone who likes liberty and small[er] government.

              (Though I suppose if Rothbard could tolerate a state he’d demand it not run on debt?)

              Equally, though, of course, fiscal-hawk Austrianism is by far the majority libertarian position as far as can tell, and one I approve of.

            3. Everything but the rino bashing are actual libertarian views you dumb sot.

              Yes they are. But they are not the only libertarian views. Reason shouldn’t just become a less Trumpy version of Breitbart.

  15. Personally, I think Reason should not merely be anti-left, nor merely anti-right. There are already approximately 1 zillion tribal partisan websites which specialize in nothing more than pointing out how the other tribe is evil and/or stupid.

    Reason should go more in depth about how thew current duopoly is hopelessly broken. Both tribes think that they are on the side of Righness, and the other tribe is on the side of Wrongness. Well, they’re both right and both wrong – both tribes are on the side of Wrongness. Keep pointing out day after day that it is futile to put your hopes into either one of the tribes. They are both fundamentally based on the collectivist assumption that individuals cannot really be trusted with liberty.

    1. The left is wrong on pretty much everything. The right has their flaws but they haven’t gone full retard.

      1. Oh they’ve gone full retard. Going batshit insane crazy about immigration is quite a long ways down the path of going full retard.

        1. The largest percentage of lawful immigrants is insane? Fuck youre dumb. The us has a very open and expansive immigration program comparative to other natioms. Even canada has more immigration visas and has more educational restrictions than the US. But asking to stick with those policies is insane? This is why you’re fucking retarded. You can’t even begin to address the issues on us infrastructure with open immigration. Go investigate issues like the decline of trauma 1 centers in Arizona. The percentage of budget going to house illegal immigrants in jails for both state and federal prison. The costs to identity theft. The cost per student to educate non English speakers in our public schools, children of illegal immigrants. The increased use of emergency rooms. The pollution and destruction of the environment on illegal entry paths.

          You’re a fucking naive, ignorant, fool Jeff.

          1. With Little Jeffy it’s open borders or you’re a merciless tyrant. No middle ground at all.

            He’s a stupid kid. I can’t imagine him being much over twenty five. Unless he has brain damage.

            Jeffy, have you sustained some form of neurological trauma we should know about?

          2. Okay, now do gun violence.

            Why don’t you support “common sense gun control” in light of all the costs associated with gun violence? The suicides, higher murder rates, etc.? Huh? It’s because you view gun ownership as a fundamental right, part of the right of self-defense that no state may properly take away from any citizen. And I’D AGREE WITH YOU. Furthermore we both accept that on a practical level, exercise of this liberty will lead to social problems (like higher suicide rates), but these are the costs of living in a free society. Not everyone will exercise their liberty in a responsible manner and we are all stuck with the price of that. But taking away people’s fundamental liberties is a ‘cure’ worse than the disease and we both rightly reject that approach.

            1. Your problem is that you can’t apply the same reasoning to immigration.

              IF I were to accept your assumed premise that there is no inherent right to migration, then I would agree with most all of your critiques. If immigration is a *privilege*, then of course the privilege should only be bestowed to the most worthy candidates! But I reject your premise. Migration is not a mere privilege, because it is part of the right of free association. If free people wish to associate with each other, and no private property rights are implicated in such an association, then no state should properly interfere with that association, despite any lack of government-issued papers.

              So I am not being the shallow one here. You are the one who cannot see beyond the scope of your own premises.

              1. “IF I were to accept your assumed premise that there is no inherent right to migration, then I would agree with most all of your critiques.”
                i.e.
                “Invasion is a human right”

                Do a billion Chinese have the right to migrate to the US and vote for Emperor Xi as dictator for life?

                If not, why not?
                Why the right to migrate, but not the right to vote in the community they are now living in?

                1. Because voting is a *privilege* of citizenship. It is not a natural right.

                  If the citizen members of a community choose to grant all the privileges of the community to everyone living within it, not just citizens, then they are free to make that choice, but I think it would be a foolish thing to do.

                  So what is your plan? No immigration at all? After all, that same billion Chinese are currently free to immigrate here legally and then vote for Emperor Xi for Life. If you don’t want any immigration, how do you propose to enforce it?

                  1. “Because voting is a *privilege*”

                    Some people have the right to rule unenfranchised others.

                    It’s nice to have Lefties openly admit that they don’t believe in self government.

                    “Muh principles”

                    “So what is your plan? No immigration at all? After all, that same billion Chinese are currently free to immigrate here legally and then vote for Emperor Xi for Life. If you don’t want any immigration, how do you propose to enforce it?”

                    My plan is immigration that benefits Americans, enforced with guns, as government is always enforced.

                    1. My plan is immigration that benefits Americans, enforced with guns, as government is always enforced.

                      Who decides what that type of immigration is? Some panel of experts?

                      I think immigration that benefits Americans is immigration that respects the liberties of all people, immigrants and citizens alike. Open migration does benefit Americans because it protects their liberties.

                      Why do you think my view not a valid view of what benefits Americans?

                    2. “Who decides what that type of immigration is? Some panel of experts?”

                      There’s this thing called representative government. It’s not perfect but it’s the best we’ve got for collective decisions that protects the rights of people in our polity.

                      If foreigners aren’t allowed to vote, why can’t we vote not to have them here?

                      “I think immigration that benefits Americans is immigration that respects the liberties of all people”

                      We did not incorporate the federal government to protect the liberties of Guatemalans. If we did, we’d overthrow their corrupt government and impose one on them.

                      Since ruling unenfranchised people by force is just fine, and our government should be protecting the liberties of all peoples, why not invade and rule everywhere?

                    3. There’s this thing called representative government.

                      What representative government means, in practice, is ceding power to a panel of bureaucrats who reads economic data like tea leaves to decide if conditions are right to permit more immigration or not.

                      If foreigners aren’t allowed to vote, why can’t we vote not to have them here?

                      Because fundamental liberties shouldn’t be up to a vote by the mob? Because a just government protects the liberties of all people DESPITE the desire of the mob to want to infringe upon them? There is this thing called “tyranny of the majority”, perhaps you’ve heard of it. Do you recognize any limits whatsoever on the power of representative government to impose its will on people?

                      We did not incorporate the federal government to protect the liberties of Guatemalans.

                      We the people ceded authority to the state, and granted it the monopoly on the legal use of initiating force, only conditionally, as long as the state pursued its mission to protect the liberty of all people, because “All Men Are Created Equal”. Perhaps you’ve read that somewhere.

                      And here again, I am offering a vision of immigration that I sincerely believe “benefits Americans”, which is what you demanded. Yet you reject it as an illegitimate view. You DON’T want immigration that “benefits Americans” as that term may be broadly understood. What you really want is immigration that PRIVILEGES Americans AT THE EXPENSE OF non-Americans.

                    4. “We the people ceded authority to the state, and granted it the monopoly on the legal use of initiating force, only conditionally, as long as the state pursued its mission to protect the liberty of all people, because “All Men Are Created Equal”. ”

                      Who’s “we”, kemosabe?

                      Certainly not the Guatemalans. Yet you’re perfectly glib about Americans pointing guns at them and ruling them.

                      And you need to read up on the Declaration and the Constitution.

                      All men may be created equal, but no one ever said we they created governments for *all* men, only for themselves and their posterity, for their own Safety and Happiness, to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

                      Declaration of Independence
                      Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

                      Constitution Preamble
                      secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

                    5. “What you really want is immigration that PRIVILEGES Americans AT THE EXPENSE OF non-Americans.”

                      The usual commie play that if I don’t let you play in my treehouse I have robbed you.

                      A people instituted a government for themselves and their posterity, not for the whole universe. You get to come in our treehouse if we say so.

                      I have no right to sashay over to Japan and demand entry.

                      Why don’t you give it a try and see how it works out for you?

                    6. “Because fundamental liberties shouldn’t be up to a vote by the mob? ”

                      But they are, big boy. Welcome to the real world.

                      You can whine that the universe shouldn’t be the way it is, but your whining doesn’t change things.

                      That rights *are* open to vote by the mob is one of the reasons to be choosy on who you let into your polity.

                    7. “What you really want is immigration that PRIVILEGES Americans AT THE EXPENSE OF non-Americans.”

                      This is where you lose me. Is there a country that does more for the rest of the world?

                    8. why not invade and rule everywhere?

                      Because that would be initiating the use of force where it is unwarranted. It is enough that the government protect the liberties of all people within its jurisdiction. Why is that not sufficient?

                    9. Jurisdiction? What’s that?

                      You’re acting like a government actually has the right to control some dirt.

                      “Borders are bad, m’kay?!”

                      We have jurisdiction to control all the rights of our unenfranchised immigrants, but not that they can’t be here. Seems a rather arbitrary demarcation.

                    10. “If the citizen members of a community choose to grant all the privileges of the community to everyone living within it, not just citizens, then they are free to make that choice, but I think it would be a foolish thing to do.”

                      This is the country he wants to live in.

                      Import a politically unenfranchised underclass with no rights beyond the right to live here and have our guns pointed at them.

                      “Libertopia”

                    11. Import a politically unenfranchised underclass with no rights beyond the right to live here and have our guns pointed at them.

                      That’s a mighty tall strawman you’ve constructed.

                      First, NO ONE in this discussion is contemplating “importing” anyone. Immigrants are free people and are free to pursue their liberty as they see fit. If an immigrant wishes to come here, he ought to be free to do so. If an immigrant comes here, doesn’t like it, and leaves, that immigrant ought to be free to do so. If an immigrant doesn’t want to come here, that immigrant ought to be free to do so. I am not advocating that immigrants be deliberately encouraged or enticed to come here. Quite frankly it’s insulting to use that term to discuss immigration, because it treats immigrants as nothing more than a commodity, rather than the free people with the liberties that all free people have.

                      Second, I did NOT say “no rights beyond the right to live here”. Every individual has the panoply of all natural rights, not just the right to live here. And if the immigrant doesn’t like the arrangement the immigrant is free to leave. Just like any other arrangement.

                    12. ” Every individual has the panoply of all natural rights, not just the right to live here. ”

                      Do they in Guatemala? If not, why not?

                      Hint: Countries are people.

                    13. You are trying to have it both ways – complaining that immigrants without citizenship would be some sort of underclass, and at the same time complaining that immigrants shouldn’t be granted citizenship because then they will ‘vote for socialism’ or some such. If you don’t want any immigration at all, just say so. But if you want any immigration whatsoever, then the immigrants are either going to be the non-voting underclass that you seem to think they will be, or they will be voting citizens which is also something that you think will be bad for America. Which is it?

                    14. Some people have the right to rule unenfranchised others.

                      It’s nice to have Lefties openly admit that they don’t believe in self government.

                      Do you favor giving children the right to vote? Do you think immigrants should be granted instant citizenship at the border? No and no? So you too then are in favor of “some people hav[ing] the right to rule unenfranchised others”. Let’s just be clear about who exactly are the supposed “lefties who don’t believe in self-government”.

                    15. You want a *permanent* unenfranchised class in America. I don’t.

                      American citizens rule, and immigrants obey.

                      “muh liberty”

                    16. You want a *permanent* unenfranchised class in America. I don’t.

                      Oh, so you want to grant children the right to vote? How about felons behind bars?

                      American citizens rule, and immigrants obey.

                      Unless you are in favor of granting immigrants instant citizenship at the border, *you want the exact same thing*. Yes, American citizens set the rules (consistent with the NAP of course), and all people, citizens and non-citizens alike, subject to the jurisdiction of the government, are expected to obey the rules. What exactly is your problem with this arrangement? Do you want to grant immigrants instant citizenship at the border? I didn’t think you would. Not even I think that is a good idea.

                      And spare me your crocodile tears about the plight of poor immigrants. Under your preferred plan, poor potential immigrants who weren’t “best for America” (however that is subjectively defined) would be condemned to far worse conditions elsewhere with little if any hope of being permitted to come here to improve their lives. Your plan doesn’t make most immigrant lives better, your plan just pushes their problems out of sight.

                    17. “And spare me your crocodile tears about the plight of poor immigrants. ”

                      I’m not crying for them. I’m noting *your* crocodile tears over the disenfranchised underclass you want to rule over.

                      *I* don’t want them here as an unenfranchised class because it’s bad *for us*.

                      I’m perfectly clear that I’m doing this for ourselves and our posterity, and not them. And similarly, that ourselves and our posterity is who the government has the *obligation* to act in the interests of.

                    18. the disenfranchised underclass you want to rule over.

                      You mean, the very same disenfranchised underclass you want to rule over right now? Good grief. YOU WANT THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING! Do you want to grant immigrants instant citizenship at the border? No? Then your indignation rings hollow.

                      *I* don’t want them here as an unenfranchised class because it’s bad *for us*.

                      Oh bullshit. You don’t want them here, period, enfranchised or not. I don’t see you demanding that current immigrants be granted amnesty or the right to vote.

                      I’m perfectly clear that I’m doing this for ourselves and our posterity

                      No you aren’t. You haven’t once even acknowledged the liberty that you are taking away FROM CITIZENS with your jihad against immigrants. Where does the posterity of preserving the liberty OF CITIZENS come into play?

                    19. And by the way, you are quite dismissive of the liberty and agency of free people migrating if you think that they would be stuck as a “permanent” underclass here. If migrants don’t like the conditions here, they are free to leave.

                    20. Either you don’t let them vote, and they’re a permanent unenfranchised class, or you let them vote, and they vote according to *their* values, which by a casual glance at Guatemala, would make insecure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

                      As for criminals behind bars, you seem to be forgetting the behind bars part. If they’re behind bars, we’ve determined that we wanted to limit their rights. Break the rules. Your rights get limited.

                      Your ideal is to treat immigrants like felons?

                      “muh liberty”

                      And why should we be eager to have more people we treat as felons?

                    21. Either you don’t let them vote, and they’re a permanent unenfranchised class, or you let them vote, and they vote according to *their* values, which by a casual glance at Guatemala, would make insecure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

                      So finally you give up the pretense that you are in favor of any immigration at all. Either way it is a lose/lose proposition to you.

                      My idea is to treat immigrants as free individuals who have liberty to come and go as they please – NOT remain permanently stuck in any one place as an underclass – just as all individuals have the liberty to come and go.

                      Your plan is to treat immigrants as mortal threats to the Republic. That is just paranoid xenophobia. And your only defense is “mob rule”. They said the same thing about the Irish, Italians, Poles, etc., who immigrated here, and America didn’t turn into the 19th century version of a shithole country.

                      If America is so weak that it can be taken down by a few thousand illiterate Guatemalans, then it has much bigger problems than mere immigration.

                    22. “So finally you give up the pretense that you are in favor of any immigration at all. ”

                      There’s some advantage to the US in taking limited numbers from around the world to develop ties with and knowledge of other countries. That’s beyond particular rare skills that benefit us. The limited numbers and sampling throughout the world encourages assimilation to our values, instead of ethnic ghettos.

                      “My idea is to treat immigrants as free individuals who have liberty to come and go as they please ”

                      Post your address here so they know where they’ll be welcome.

                      “Your plan is to treat immigrants as mortal threats to the Republic.:

                      Damn right. The peace, prosperity, and freedom we enjoy in the US is a fucking miracle. It’s the historical exception. Ingrates like you think we just have magic dirt. The US is just a bunch of GPS coordinates, and if all Americans got raptured tomorrow and Latin America moved in, it would be just as free, secure, and prosperous with its new inhabitants.

                    23. “That is just paranoid xenophobia.”
                      i.e.
                      “When I run out of arguments, I’ll just call you a racist.”

                      Yeah, no evidence at all to think Central and Southern Americans aren’t conducive to increased liberty, security, and prosperity in the US. Except for the fact that all their countries have less liberty, security, and prosperity than the US. Apparently the facts of reality for a continent and a half are just “paranoid xenophobia”.

                      You know what they said *to* the Italians, Poles, Irish, Germans, Danes, etc.?
                      “No workey, no eatey.”
                      “Hyphenated Americans are traitors and should get the hell out of the country.”

                      Go look up Hyphenated Americans. There was *enormous* social pressure to assimilate. Jerkoffs like you would call it racist today.

                      You *say* you’re for liberty, but you seem to think it’s the result of magic dirt in America. It’s inevitable, no matter who comes to the country, and no matter what we do or don’t do.

                      Permanence is the illusion of every age.
                      Countries are the people who live in them.

                      Import Not Americans. Become Not America.

                    24. “If America is so weak that it can be taken down by a few thousand illiterate Guatemalans, then it has much bigger problems than mere immigration.”

                      Last estimate I heard was that there were 20+million illegals in the country, *on top* of even more “legal” immigration since 65.

                      We got those 20+million “a few thousand” at time.

                      Think 50+million people has any effect on a country?

  16. PART ONE:
    Last year I donated over $1000 to Reason. I will not be donating a single penny this year. This year has seen the worst decline in the quality of articles I have ever seen. I don’t think I’ve seen a single nod to the fact that there are Libertarians that aren’t for a complete open-border policy. Every time a Conservative is getting undeserved treatment, the first half of the article is throat clearing about how they are basically Nazis, but we have to support them because of Libertarian principle X. When the Left is being defended, almost no throat clearing has to happen. Then, there is the absolute garbage articles that are just Leftist dogma, like the POS “article” about Star Trek and Trump. To add insult to injury, Reason is often going out and buying rights to reprint this shit from other magazines. During the elections, we got almost zero coverage of Libertarians and Libertarian issues. What coverage we got was mostly how bad certain Conservative politicians were, and a bunch of “This (progressive) politician is wrong on a lot, but they are right on X”. The only truly libertarian slant that regularly gets published in this magazine is about Pot, and for crying out loud, do we really need article 6 Million and one about how pot really should be legal? Right now I get much higher quality and more libertarian articles from Quillette than here, and they aren’t even a libertarian organization.

    1. PART TWO:
      Reason has made it pretty clear that their staff is (generously) left-libertarian, headed to just leftist, and really doesn’t care about anyone else, but because I like to post a solution as well as a problem, here’s what I think Reason should do if they want to not dry up and become a failed enterprise:

      1) More debate pieces about actual libertarian positions on things
      2) Applying a diverse lens of possible libertarian ideals to popular political events.
      3) Cover Libertarians in elections, or at least libertarian positions
      4) Fire garbage writers like Shikha Dalmia who are just complete leftist shills that write unsupported, hyperbolic garbage constantly.
      5) Get a real editor, that actually makes sure that articles are generally libertarian slanted (occasional, non-libertarian articles are fine, but they should be fully fact sourced).
      6) Stop doing the obnoxious throat clearing when defending someone over a principle (or at least apply it evenly for god sakes).
      7) Stop assuming that those with different political beliefs are automatically evil (or at least do it evenly. Right now, Reason pretty much assumes every Conservative is closet Hitler, but every Progressive has the best of intentions, just misguided).

      1. Pretty much nailed it

    2. Yes, the Star Trek article was garbage.

      I also really disliked the Kat Timpf article. She gets harassed to the point of fearing for her safety and has to leave a private establishment, and Welch hand-waves it as “both sides.” That was BS.

      1. Similarly, they ran an article comparing the threats against Don Lemon with the threats against Tucker Carlson.

        One had a mob show up at his house and threaten his family. The other had someone call his office from a thousand miles away.

        “Both Sides!”

  17. I never got any books last year.

  18. I will donate $10,000, but here is my list of requirements:

    – Hire Williamson from National Review and Harsanyi from the Federalist.
    – Fire ENB, Shikha, and Suderman. They are not libertarians. I do not care that they are your friends.
    – Make Robby change a tire by himself (there are instructions and tools included with the car), and edit any false equivalency statements from all of his future articles.
    – Have someone punch Matt Welch is the face several times really hard.
    – Make Kmele Foster the grand poobah of the whole magazine, website, YouTube channel, etc.
    – Keep Stossel forever

    1. Can we get more articles on Catholicism by Stephanie Slade as well.

    2. Pretty much agree with all of these suggestions, except that I would say that Suderman occassionally produces good articles as does ENB (if she sticks to articles about prostitution or sex).

  19. I’m going to keep try shilling a little more as well.

    Andrew Heaton, beloved comedian here who Reason so tragically let go, has a new Podcast:

    Something’s off with Andrew Heaton

    So far it’s pretty good. He’s had good guests who have pretty good conversations about Libertarian topics, as well as just random shit. Check it out.

    1. Heaton really is great. I’ve taken in each of his episodes and laughed out loud a couple times, and find him to be a surprisingly good interviewer, even in his comic mode. I hope he lands some real sponsors soon and turns it into a license to print money.

    2. Heaton’s show is good. Thanks for the tip.

  20. Well, she’s not perfect, but she’s the only one I’ve got. I just made my donation, and according to the counter, I was donor #69.

    Sixty. Nine.

  21. I’ve donated the last few years and will not this year. There are many good comments here already that capture my reasons in part. Out of the years I’ve been reading, I was really impressed by the quality of articles in 2017. This year has also seen high-quality articles, but I’m skipping the donation because of the number, and sometimes significance, of the bad ones. My criticisms, in brief:

    1. Unbalanced application of the principle of charity. When critiquing the left or right, Reason should either extend this principle equally, inasmuch as possible, or not at all. Alternatively, if individual contributors can’t do that, find a mix of writers such that as a whole we get a variety. Things have drifted far enough left that I don’t think you folks see what has happened.

    (Continued below)

    1. (Continued from item 1 in my parent comment)

      Immigration is a good example for this issue. Probably the two most divided topics among libertarians, historically, are abortion and immigration, and the reasons for the divides are fairly well-known. I don’t specifically like the terminology “open-borders,” but I fall on the pro-migration side of most immigration questions. Reason continues to treat the restrictionist crowd as though they are all bad actors – usually in a milder way than the left does to the right, but it’s still very uncharitable. I’ve read/listened to Matt Welch say that he’s tired of repeating information debunking certain claims regarding immigrants’ strain on the welfare state, or involvement in crime, etc. To put it blunty: too fucking bad. Not everyone has read that information, and they are less likely to do so if you treat them as deplorables. I don’t think it can be overstated just how quickly you ruin the chance to persuade an interlocutor by impugning his motives.

      2. Reason’s coverage of Kavanaugh pre-allegations was very good. Reason’s coverage of Kavanaugh post-allegations, at least on Hit & Run, was downright indefensible. There were so many good opportunities to discuss, at length, legal and government institutions that libertarians find important. Instead, we got probably the most egregious example of Reason failing on my first item.

      1. I’ve read/listened to Matt Welch say that he’s tired of repeating information debunking certain claims regarding immigrants’ strain on the welfare state, or involvement in crime, etc. To put it blunty: too fucking bad. Not everyone has read that information, and they are less likely to do so if you treat them as deplorables.

        You know how it is fashionable in certain liberal quarters to keep repeating the ‘statistic’ that 1 in 4 college women are raped on campus? The statistic is false, it has been known to be false for some time now. Originally it could be forgiven that a person repeating this false statistic was simply ignorant of its falsity. But now? How many times do I have to be patient with someone repeating that long discredited statistic before starting to think that maybe people repeating that statistic aren’t actually interested in being correct, and are instead just pushing a false narrative? It’s the same with immigration in a lot of ways. Is every immigration restrictionist guilty of bad motives? No. But come on, some of the claims made about immigrants are so obviously false and have been known to be false for a while, that it gets harder and harder to assume good faith motives.

        1. That’s a false equivalency. That statistic is one that someone with a bear minimum of numeracy should question, which is why it was questioned and debunked a long time ago. The people that parrot it aren’t interested in the facts, they are only interested in the narrative.

          Statistics regarding crime are really complex. There are a lot of different components to measure and control for. The same is true for economic data and tax burdens. It isn’t a trivial task to estimate various figures and many of the results can be both plausible and contradictory. In the case of economics (in the US), there are broader economic arguments to be made that the net effects should be positvely signed and large. That still leaves different questions like what groups could suffer net negative effects. There is a lot more to it than a single fraudulent figure. You’ve done exactly the wrong thing Reason has been doing, equating the many people who want to examine those topics with people who will unquestioningly accept flatly impossible claims.

  22. “Please help us bring you news, politics, culture, and ideas from a principled libertarian POV.”

    Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

    Seriously, the reporting is half-assed, and I’m not seeing a lot of “principles” on display.

    (A quick sample of above critiques has my general agreement.

    I won’t subscribe to “squishy half-baked left-libertarian meme of the day”, and I don’t like most of the pet causes on display lately.

    Get serious and we can talk subscribing again.)

  23. “What Do We Do for an Encore?”

    Discredit libertarianism while you polish your postmodern street cred for your eventual positions at Salon and Vox.

  24. I’ve been reading Reason for several years, and commenting out of rage for a couple months. I will consider donating next year, but I want the following to be laid out:

    Is America a place libertarians consider a worthwhile investment?

    If Reason believes so, I would like to know why. Because I hardly ever see it in the writing. I see a lot about completely open borders, a lot about how white people hate brown people, and plenty of TDS. Thankfully, there’s time spent hating on socialism.

    If America is worth saving, and socialism is so bad, why pander to the progressive types who would gladly shred the constitution and tax and regulate us all to the high heavens? How is that making America better?

    To what extent should libertarians give open socialists a platform? To what length will we go to preserve individual liberty to people who would gladly throw us in re-education camps for believing in individual liberty?

    I want all of these questions answered

    1. “How is that making America better?”

      Making America better is not their political objective. Even less so making America better for *Americans*.

      Reason, like the rest of the Left, fundamentally doesn’t believe in self government: government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      They’re theocrats. Our rulers should Do Good, instead of representing us.

      In the case of the Open Borders, the actual consequences to Americans are even less relevant to them, because they’re all about deontological commitment to “Borders are bad, m’kay?” They simply don’t give a damn about the *consequences* of Open Borders to Americans. It’s all about avoiding feelings of guilt for enforcing them.

      1. I don’t believe it. They could live literally anywhere in the world, and where are they? Why talk about freedom here? Is it more safe to do so here? Pay better? Life better?

        1. They’re here because they’re not blind that it is better here.

          But they’re still motivated by guilt avoidance and moral preening.

    2. Update- Just donated. I do hope that entitles me to an answer or two

      Reason has inspired many of my favorite libertarians. Even if half the people drive me up a wall sometimes, this is still one of the best places to talk about freedom. Looking forward to arguing with the knuckleheads in the comment section into 2019.

  25. this post is very well.

  26. this post is very well.

  27. I only regularly began reading this site about two years ago. I donated the first year but as time goes on, I am seeing fewer and fewer articles worth reading and thinking about – not just because of the topics they choose to cover but because of what is clearly a non-libertarian slant to the articles. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t need, or even want, all the articles to glorify the libertarian position. But I do expect a lot more informed, reasoned positions then I am seeing…IMO there are only a handful of writers that are worth their salt on this site. Too many times I’m rolling my eyes halfway through an article because it is clearly simply an emotional outburst centered around virtue signalling. The recent spate of whataboutisms is beyond obnoxious as well. I realize both of these things are easy to do when our society hyper-reacts to everything, but if I want that nonsense I will turn to CNN, FOX and MSNBC.

    I hope the writing improves this upcoming year.

  28. `yes you can essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty

    consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you

    for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins

    has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic

    media tech tab for extra element thank you…
    http://www.geosalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.